4.5 Article

Phase I trial of intramuscular injection of a recombinant adeno-associated virus serotype 2 α1-antitrypsin (AAT) vector in AAT-deficient adults

期刊

HUMAN GENE THERAPY
卷 17, 期 12, 页码 1177-1186

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/hum.2006.17.1177

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR00082] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL4456, HL69877] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK58327] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A phase I trial of intramuscular injection of a recombinant adeno-associated virus serotype 2 (rAAV2) a,antitrypsin (AAT) vector was performed in 12 AAT-deficient adults, 10 of whom were male. All subjects were either homozygous for the most common AAT mutation (a missense mutation designated PI*Z) or compound heterozygous for PI*Z and another mutation known to cause disease. There were four dose cohorts, ranging from 2.1 x 10(12) vector genomes (VG) to 6.9 x 10(13) VG, with three subjects per cohort. Subjects were injected sequentially in a dose-escalating fashion with a minimum of 14 days between patients. Subjects who had been receiving AAT protein replacement discontinued that therapy 28 days before vector administration. There were no vector-related serious adverse events in any of the 12 participants. Vector DNA sequences were detected in the blood between 1 and 3 days after injection in nearly all patients receiving doses of 6.9 x 10(12) VG or higher. Anti-AAV2 capsid antibodies were present and rose after vector injection, but no other immune responses were detected. One subject who had not been receiving protein replacement exhibited low-level expression of wild-type M-AAT in the serum (82 nM), which was detectable 30 days after receiving an injection of 2.1 x 10(13) VG. Unfortunately, residual but declining M-AAT levels from the washout of the protein replacement elevated background levels sufficiently to obscure any possible vector expression in that range in most of the other individuals in the higher dose cohorts.

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

4.5
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