ABSTRACT
The gene and cell therapy field saw its first approved treatments in Europe in 2012 and the United States in 2017 and is projected to be at least a $10B USD industry by 2025. Despite this success, a massive gap exists between the companies, clinics, and researchers developing these therapeutic approaches, and their availability to the patients who need them. The unacceptable reality is a geographic exclusion of low-and middle-income countries (LMIC) in gene therapy development and ultimately the provision of gene therapies to patients in LMIC. This is particularly relevant for gene therapies to treat human immunodeficiency virus infection and hemoglobinopathies, global health crises impacting tens of millions of people primarily located in LMIC. Bridging this divide will require research, clinical and regulatory infrastructural development, capacity-building, training, an approval pathway and community adoption for success and sustainable affordability. In 2020, the Global Gene Therapy Initiative was formed to tackle the barriers to LMIC inclusion in gene therapy development. This working group includes diverse stakeholders from all sectors and has set a goal of introducing two gene therapy Phase I clinical trials in two LMIC, Uganda and India, by 2024. Here we report on progress to date for this initiative.
Subject(s)
Developing Countries , HIV Infections , Humans , United StatesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: HIV cure research involving cell and gene therapy has intensified in recent years. There is a growing need to identify ethical standards and safeguards to ensure cell and gene therapy (CGT) HIV cure research remains valued and acceptable to as many stakeholders as possible as it advances on a global scale. METHODS: To elicit preliminary ethical and practical considerations to guide CGT HIV cure research, we implemented a qualitative, in-depth interview study with three key stakeholder groups in the United States: (1) biomedical HIV cure researchers, (2) bioethicists, and (3) community stakeholders. Interviews permitted evaluation of informants' perspectives on how CGT HIV cure research should ethically occur, and were transcribed verbatim. We applied conventional content analysis focused on inductive reasoning to analyze the rich qualitative data and derive key ethical and practical considerations related to CGT towards an HIV cure. RESULTS: We interviewed 13 biomedical researchers, 5 community members, and 1 bioethicist. Informants generated considerations related to: perceived benefits of CGT towards an HIV cure, perceived risks, considerations necessary to ensure an acceptable benefit/risk balance, CGT strategies considered unacceptable, additional ethical considerations, and considerations for first-in-human CGT HIV cure trials. Informants also proposed important safeguards to developing CGT approaches towards an HIV cure, such as the importance of mitigating off-target effects, mitigating risks associated with long-term duration of CGT interventions, and mitigating risks of immune overreactions. CONCLUSION: Our study identified preliminary considerations for CGT-based HIV cure across three key stakeholder groups. Respondents identified an ideal cure strategy as one which would durably control HIV infection, protect the individual from re-acquisition, and eliminate transmission to others. Known and unknown risks should be anticipated and perceived as learning opportunities to preserve and honor the altruism of participants. Preclinical studies should support these considerations and be transparently reviewed by regulatory experts and peers prior to first-in-human studies. To protect the public trust in CGT HIV cure research, ethical and practical considerations should be periodically revisited and updated as the science continues to evolve. Additional ethics studies are required to expand stakeholder participation to include traditionally marginalized groups and clinical care providers.