Modell Stephen M, Smith Jennifer A, Kardia Sharon L R
Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Public Health Genomics. 2025;28(1):241-251. doi: 10.1159/000546850. Epub 2025 Jun 18.
In 2023, the FDA approved two gene therapies for sickle cell disease (SCD), one of which follows a standard gene therapy protocol and the other a gene editing (CRISPR/Cas9) approach. Other gene therapy protocols for conditions relating to public health continue to advance and are being discussed in academic and professional circles. This review examines the pace of public health-related gene therapy and gene editing development since the publication of a key British white paper dealing with the pace of fruition in this field.
Gene therapy developments related to public health fit into three overarching baskets: (1) gene therapy and editing for rare, single-gene disorders (e.g., homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and hereditary amyloidosis polyneuropathy); (2) gene therapy and editing for high prevalence conditions (e.g., SCD); and (3) genetic engineering and gene editing of mosquitoes transmitting tropical disease. While the protocols listed in this purposive inspection largely center around phase III (comparing treatments), with several in phase II (establishing efficacy) and phase I (assessing safety), costs of actual administration can span USD 2.1 to 3.1 million. By comparison, conventional SCD treatment runs between USD 22,500 and USD 200,000 per year for its most severe forms. Expert and public buy-in of gene editing of mosquitoes to reduce tropical disease and for human germline gene editing contain many caveats, with public health serving a useful monitoring and filtering role for how a technology might be deemed permissible.
Gene therapy has advanced beyond the stage where possible consequences serve as an automatic barrier to mainstream use, moving it closer to British white paper objectives. Ethical and feasible adoption by public health, taking into account population needs, will most likely happen through a combination Medicaid and Medicare, as opposed to the system governing newborn screening, under arrangements similar to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' coverage under evidence development program. Vector gene drives to alleviate tropical disease should remain privately financed, with this type of financing also being used for the vast majority of gene therapies entering the market. Though the criteria for germline applications continue to evolve, in the end such applications do not serve public health purposes. Academic public health has a monitoring role to play as relevant gene therapy and gene editing trials evolve; public health practice a referral and field monitoring role in the T3 (implementation) and T4 (population outcomes) translational research phases for the few applications that could justifiably receive public funding and public health support.
2023年,美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准了两种用于镰状细胞病(SCD)的基因疗法,其中一种遵循标准基因疗法方案,另一种采用基因编辑(CRISPR/Cas9)方法。其他与公共卫生相关疾病的基因疗法方案也在不断推进,并在学术和专业领域进行讨论。本综述考察了自一份关于该领域成果进展速度的重要英国白皮书发表以来,与公共卫生相关的基因疗法和基因编辑的发展速度。
与公共卫生相关的基因疗法发展可分为三大类:(1)针对罕见单基因疾病的基因疗法和编辑(例如纯合子家族性高胆固醇血症和遗传性淀粉样多神经病);(2)针对高发性疾病的基因疗法和编辑(例如镰状细胞病);(3)对传播热带疾病的蚊子进行基因工程和基因编辑。虽然本次有针对性的考察中列出的方案大多处于III期(比较治疗效果),有一些处于II期(确定疗效)和I期(评估安全性),但实际给药成本可能在210万至310万美元之间。相比之下,镰状细胞病最严重形式的传统治疗每年费用在22,500美元至200,000美元之间。专家和公众对通过蚊子基因编辑来减少热带疾病以及对人类生殖系基因编辑的接受存在诸多限制条件,公共卫生在判定一项技术是否被允许方面发挥着有益的监测和筛选作用。
基因疗法已经超越了可能产生的后果自动成为其主流应用障碍的阶段,使其更接近英国白皮书的目标。考虑到人群需求,公共卫生领域在道德和可行的情况下采用基因疗法,很可能会通过医疗保险和医疗补助相结合的方式实现,而不是通过新生儿筛查系统,类似于医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心根据证据开发计划提供的覆盖范围。减轻热带疾病的载体基因驱动应该保持私人融资,这种融资方式也用于绝大多数进入市场的基因疗法。虽然生殖系应用的标准在不断演变,但最终此类应用并非出于公共卫生目的。随着相关基因疗法和基因编辑试验的发展,学术公共卫生领域应发挥监测作用;对于少数有理由获得公共资金和公共卫生支持的应用,公共卫生实践在转化研究的T3(实施)和T4(人群结果)阶段应发挥转诊和现场监测作用。