Gene Therapy For Inherited Disease In Infants
As newborn screening and rapid DNA sequencing become routine, we are poised to catch and treat ... More inherited diseases at their earliest stages. Today, we can intervene in the first days or weeks of life. Tomorrow, we will intervene before birth.
For the first time, we are witnessing therapies that can fundamentally alter the course of inherited disease lifelong. The most recent breakthrough describes treating inherited disease in infants. In a case in Nature Medicine, a premature baby with a devastating genetic epilepsy syndrome achieved a 60% reduction in life-threatening seizures following treatment with an experimental therapy.
This is the first installment in a two-part series describing the opportunities for correcting inherited defects before and immediately after birth. These therapies have provided a chance for those inherited diseases to be treated. Part 1 focuses on the treatment of a newborn. In contrast, Part 2 examines novel applications in the uterus as fetuses before they are born.
Today, doctors can spot many genetic changes long before they cause problems. Sometimes, this is done through a noninvasive blood test from the mother during pregnancy or from a tiny drop of blood taken from a newborn's heel. These samples are analyzed using powerful genetic sequencing tools to search for signs of hundreds of inherited diseases quickly and accurately.
With the help of artificial intelligence, doctors can screen for hundreds of conditions rapidly and accurately, making early detection more accessible than ever before. My new book explores how these breakthroughs are changing the lives of children and adults alike. For some families, this early detection is life-changing.
In a recent case, a newborn began having seizures just days after birth. Using rapid genome sequencing to look for changes in the baby's DNA, they searched for anything that might explain the symptoms. They found a mutation in a gene known to cause a rare form of severe epilepsy.
The ongoing electrical chaos caused by the mutation impairs brain development. The seizures can also cause delays or regressions in motor skills, language, and social interaction. Additionally, many suffer from sensory issues, losing the ability to track objects visually or respond to sounds. The discovery of the mutated gene allowed them to move quickly to the next step: targeted treatment.
More tools than ever before are available to address the root cause when a concerning genetic change is detected. In this case, they used an innovative therapy designed to "quiet" the faulty gene, aiming to reduce the baby's seizures. In the reported case, the preterm infant receiving the therapy saw seizure frequency plummet from 20–25 hourly events to just 5–7.
Current data showed that the therapy's effects waned after 4–6 weeks due to declining concentrations of the medicine, requiring repeat injections. The therapy proved safe over 20 months, and 19 treatments were performed, with no severe side effects observed. There is also strong clinical evidence of this treatment being effective in multiple animal models, though there are still challenges.
Finding optimal dosing intervals for preterm infants is particularly challenging, as their rapid growth can significantly affect drug metabolism. Furthermore, frequent dosing risks overwhelming infant systems, while longer intervals may allow seizures to reappear and jeopardize developmental progress. Early trials indicate that monthly infusions might help maintain therapeutic levels.
Safety is also a top priority as these therapies advance. While early trials have not reported organ toxicity or immune reactions, the long-term effects of chronic treatment with this therapy in developing brains remain uncertain. Prolonged exposure could disrupt key cognitive development processes. Still, the implications are profound.
This case is more than a single success—it signals a paradigm shift. As newborn screening and rapid DNA sequencing become routine, we are poised to catch and treat inherited diseases at their earliest stages. Today, we can intervene in the first days or weeks of life. Tomorrow, we will intervene before birth.
These kinds of breakthroughs are no longer a distant dream. Science and medical research are still pushing the cutting edge. Already, fetal surgeries have corrected structural defects in utero or the womb. The next leap is here: treating inherited disorders at the molecular level before a child is even born. The following story in this series will highlight the first successful use of gene therapy to treat spinal muscular atrophy before birth. The impact is profound for these children and their families. Early intervention can prevent irreversible damage, offering the potential for a normal childhood and a dramatically improved quality of life.
As costs fall and technology improves, all newborns could soon have their DNA sequenced, enabling targeted treatments at the earliest and most effective stage. Over time, this approach will expand access, reduce the burden of inherited disease, and reshape the future of human health care.
One profound question remains: If we correct a genetic error in a child, will that change be passed on to future generations? For now, most therapies target the body's somatic cells, not the germline—but as our tools improve, the possibility of heritable cures edges closer, raising hope and new ethical questions.
As we stand at the frontier of precision neurology, cases like this illuminate a path forward. For families facing rare genetic epilepsies, this medicine offers more than seizure control. They provide a lifeline to cognitive and developmental gains previously deemed unattainable. While larger trials are needed, the era of disease-modifying therapies for pediatric brain disorders has unequivocally begun. Part 2 will delve into how correcting genetic errors before birth could rewrite the trajectory of inherited diseases.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
25 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Israel-Backed Gaza Aid Group Suspends Operations for Second Day
An Israel- and US-backed mechanism to distribute food in Gaza suspended operations for a second day following a series of deadly incidents near its sites that drew international criticism. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a Swiss-based nonprofit, launched in Gaza last week following a months-long Israeli blockade of the territory, and says it has handed out enough food staples for millions of meals. But the roll-out has been dogged by overcrowding and at least one incident in which Israeli forces, citing a security threat, fired toward Palestinians headed to a GHF aid center.
Medscape
28 minutes ago
- Medscape
Catching Resistance Early: Can New Breast Cancer Drug Help?
CHICAGO — Can spotting an emerging ESR1 mutation early and changing first-line drugs before progression improve outcomes in patients with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative advanced breast cancer? Interim findings from the SERENA-6 trial suggest that may be the case. Patients who switched from a first-line aromatase inhibitor to camizestrant, an investigational next-generation oral selective estrogen-receptor degrader, at the first signs of an emerging ESR1 mutation demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival compared with those who continued their initial regimen. Notably, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing allowed investigators to identify ESR1 mutations, which emerge at the time of disease progression in about 40% of patients on a first-line aromatase inhibitor and lead to treatment resistance. Camizestrant, which has shown activity in patients who develop ESR1 mutations, helped improve first-line outcomes and has 'potential to become a new treatment strategy,' according to co-principal investigator Nicholas Turner, MD, PhD, professor and honorary consultant in medical oncology at the Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital, London, England, who presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting. Results were simultaneously published in The New England Journal of Medicine . This trial also demonstrated 'the clinical utility of ctDNA monitoring to detect and treat emerging resistance in breast cancer,' said Turner. While praising the findings, others were not convinced that the SERENA-6 results warrant a change in practice yet. 'Based on first-line progression-free survival alone, this could represent a new regulatory approval path,' said invited discussant Angela DeMichele, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. But, DeMichele cautioned, 'I cannot recommend the SERENA-6 strategy at this time.' One key reason, DeMichele noted, is that it's too early to tell whether this strategy improves overall survival. If camizestrant is approved based on progression-free survival and quality of life, DeMichele wondered, is it worth going through the ctDNA testing process if the drug doesn't help patients live longer? Paolo Tarantino, MD, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School in Boston, echoed this sentiment in a tweet on X: 'Outstanding results, though not ready for clinical practice (yet),' adding that it will also be 'important to take into account financial, psychological, and systemic costs of the strategy.' Using ctDNA to Track Resistance In the study, 3256 patients who had received at least 6 months of treatment with aromatase inhibitors and CDK4/6 therapy (palbociclib, ribociclib, or abemaciclib) received ctDNA testing with Guardant360 CDx every 2-3 months at the time of routine staging exams. Overall, 315 patients who had an ESR1 mutation detected and had no radiologic evidence of disease progression were randomly assigned to either switch from the aromatase inhibitor to 75 mg of camizestrant daily (n = 157) or continue their aromatase inhibitor/CDK4/6 regimen (n = 158). (An additional 233 patients who had an ESR1 mutation detected were not included for a variety of reasons, including disease progression and consent withdrawal.) At the planned interim analysis, the median progression-free survival was 16.0 months in the camizestrant group and 9.2 months in the aromatase inhibitor group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.44; P < .00001). At 24 months, only 5.4% of patients who had continued their initial first-line treatment had not progressed compared with 30% of patients on camizestrant. The progression-free survival findings were consistent across clinically relevant patient subgroups. Patients who switched to camizestrant also showed improved time to deterioration in global health status and quality of life — a median of 23.0 months vs 6.4 months in the aromatase group (aHR, 0.53). At the time of the interim analysis, overall survival data were immature, with 20 deaths in the camizestrant group and 19 in the aromatase inhibitor group (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.48-1.73). As for time to second progression, there were 38 events in the camizestrant group and 47 events in the aromatase group, but the findings were also immature. As for adverse events, 60% of patients in the camizestrant group had a grade 3 or higher event, 10% of which were deemed serious compared with 46% in the aromatase group, 12% of which were serious. Neutropenia (45% vs 34%, respectively) and anemia (5% in both groups) were the most common grade 3 or higher adverse events. Only 1% of patients on camizestrant discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Overall, Turner concluded that 'for people with HR-positive advanced breast cancer, the results of SERENA-6 show that camizestrant plus CDK4/6 inhibitor could be a new treatment option to use at the point of ESR1 mutation detection during treatment with first-line aromatase inhibitor plus CDK4/6 inhibitor — but before the cancer grows.' Despite the promising findings, DeMichele highlighted several key unanswered questions and challenges. Notably, will this strategy lead to longer overall survival and demonstrate clinical utility? Overall survival and time to second progression are currently not known, DeMichele said. The trial did not address whether first-line treatment gains would be lost if camizestrant was given in the second-line setting after anatomic progression. DeMichele also noted the high cost and potential anxiety associated with serial ctDNA testing. Overall, 'the full complement of financial, psychological, and systemic costs is needed to fully assess utility and feasibility for implementation,' she added. SERENA-6 was supported by AstraZeneca. Turner disclosed consulting or advisory roles with AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, Inivata Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Relay Therapeutics, Repare Therapeutics, and Roche. DeMichele disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Pfizer.
Forbes
29 minutes ago
- Forbes
FDA's New AI Tool Cuts Review Time From 3 Days To 6 Minutes
AI at the FDA getty The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced this week that it deployed a generative AI tool called ELSA (Evidence-based Learning System Assistant), across its organization. After a low-profile pilot that delivered measurable gains, the system is now in use by staff across the agency, several weeks ahead of its original schedule. Dr. Marty Makary, the FDA's commissioner, shared a major outcome. A review task that once took two or three days now takes six minutes. 'Today, we met our goal ahead of schedule and under budget,' said Makary. 'What took one scientific reviewer two to three days [before] The FDA has thousands of reviewers, analysts, and inspectors who deal with massive volumes of unstructured data such as clinical trial documents, safety reports, inspection records. Automating any meaningful portion of that stack creates outsized returns. ELSA helps FDA teams speed up several essential tasks. Staff are already using it to summarize adverse event data for safety assessments, compare drug labels, generate basic code for nonclinical database setup, and identify priority sites for inspections, among other tasks. This last item, using data to rank where inspectors should go, could have a real-world impact on how the FDA oversees the drug and food supply chain and impacts on how the FDA delivers its services. Importantly, however, the tool isn't making autonomous decisions without a human in the loop. The system prepares information so that experts can decide faster. It cuts through the routine, not the judgment. One of the biggest questions about AI systems in the public sector revolves around the use of data and third party AI systems. Makary addressed this directly by saying that 'All information stays within the agency. The AI models are not being trained on data submitted by the industry.' That's a sharp contrast to the AI approaches being taken in the private sector, where many large language models have faced criticism over training on proprietary or user-submitted content. In the enterprise world, this has created mounting demand for "air-gapped" AI solutions that keep data locked inside the company. That makes the FDA's model different from many corporate tools, which often rely on open or external data sources. The agency isn't building a public-facing product. It's building a controlled internal system, one that helps it do its job better. Federal departments have been slow to move past AI experimentation. The Department of Veterans Affairs has started testing predictive tools to manage appointments. The SEC has explored market surveillance AI for years. But few have pushed into full and widespread production. The federal government has thousands of employees processing huge volumes of information, most of it unstructured sitting in documents, files, and even paper. That means AI is being focused most on operational and process-oriented activities. It's shaping up to be a key piece of how agencies process data, make recommendations, and act. Makary put it simply that ELSA is just the beginning for AI adoption within the FDA. 'Today's rollout of ELSA will be the first of many initiatives to come,' he said. 'This is how we'll better serve the American people.'
