Evidence Hub

Retinal Viral Gene Therapy: Impact of Route of Administration on Serious Adverse Events-A Systematic Review

Berger A, Johnson CD, Marmorstein AD, Scruggs BA

Clinical & experimental ophthalmology, 2025

31 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

Background: To explore the prevalence of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with retinal viral gene therapy and to examine trends influencing SAE occurrences in human gene therapy surgeries and pre-clinical animal trials.

Methods: Literature review was performed to identify peer-reviewed human and animal studies relevant to viral gene therapy, subretinal injections, and intravitreal injections. For clinical trials and post-approval LUXTURNA studies, only those that examined SAEs were included.

Results: Of included clinical trial studies (n = 31), SAEs were recorded in 51 out of 438 eyes (11.6%) that received subretinal injections and in 11 out of 348 eyes (3.2%) that received intravitreal injections. There were fewer intravitreal-related SAEs and less vision loss compared to subretinal gene therapy. Inflammation was the predominant SAE following intravitreal injections, whereas unexplained vision loss was the most common for subretinal injections. Clinical trials utilising subretinal injections met primary or secondary efficacy endpoints more than intravitreal trials. Eighteen studies (429 eyes) of post-approval LUXTURNA were reviewed, and SAEs were reported in 24.7% of eyes, retinal degeneration being most common (20.7%). For 58 animal studies, SAEs were recorded in 17.3% of eyes that received subretinal injections and 8.7% of eyes that received intravitreal injections.

Conclusions: Subretinal injections show higher efficacy than intravitreal injections but are…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 31 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free