4.4 Article

B-cell depletion is protective against anti-AAV capsid immune response: a human subject case study

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1038/mtm.2014.33

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Health [NHLBI P01 HL59412-06]
  2. NHLBI Gene Therapy Resource Program GTRP - NHLBI
  3. [NICHD-K12HD055929-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gene therapy strategies for congenital myopathies may require repeat administration of adeno-associated viral (AAV) vectors due to aspects of the clinical application, such as: (i) administration of doses below therapeutic efficacy in patients enrolled in early phase clinical trials; (ii) progressive reduction of the therapeutic gene expression over time as a result of increasing muscle mass in patients treated at a young age; and (iii) a possibly faster depletion of pathogenic myofibers in this patient population. Immune response triggered by the first vector administration, and to subsequent doses, represents a major obstacle for successful gene transfer in young patients. Anti-capsid and anti-transgene product related humoral and cell-mediated responses have been previously observed in all preclinical models and human subjects who received gene therapy or enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) for congenital myopathies. Immune responses may result in reduced efficacy of the gene transfer over time and/or may preclude for the possibility of re-administration of the same vector. In this study, we evaluated the immune response of a Pompe patient dosed with an AAV1-GAA vector after receiving Rituximab and Sirolimus to modulate reactions against ERT. A key finding of this single subject case report is the observation that B-cell ablation with rituximab prior to AAV vector exposure results in non-responsiveness to both capsid and transgene, therefore allowing the possibility of repeat administration in the future. This observation is significant for future gene therapy studies and establishes a clinically relevant approach to blocking immune responses to AAV vectors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据