logo
Gene Therapy For Inherited Disease In The Unborn Child

Gene Therapy For Inherited Disease In The Unborn Child

Forbes2 days ago

Until recently, even the most advanced gene therapies could only be given after a child was ... More born—often racing against time to prevent irreversible damage.
In the first part of this series, we explored how early genetic screening and gene therapy transform the lives of newborns and their families. Now, we're taking an even earlier step: treating inherited diseases in the womb before birth. Until recently, even the most advanced gene therapies could only be given after a child was born—often racing against time to prevent irreversible damage. But what if we could intervene even earlier?
That's the question now being answered, with some astonishing results. A recent study published in Science Translational Medicine showed that delivering a special kind of genetic therapy directly to the fetus could prevent the onset of spinal muscular atrophy in animal models. Treating the condition before birth may be possible to preserve healthy motor function and prevent the nerve damage that usually begins in the womb. This is the first time we see molecular therapies targeting the root cause of inherited disease before birth.
Another special investigational case, the first in humans, found that providing the mother with gene therapy while pregnant and continuing treatment after birth also prevented the devastating muscle weakness that usually comes with the disease. This is a true leap forward: instead of managing symptoms; we may soon be able to stop some inherited diseases before they ever begin.
The journey starts with advanced prenatal genetic screening. Genetic changes in the developing fetus can be found using a simple blood sample from the mother. When a risk is found, therapy is delivered directly to the fetus, often by injecting medicine into the amniotic fluid. In the case of spinal muscular atrophy, this approach in animal models led to healthier development and longer survival. These findings suggest that intervening before birth can prevent or significantly reduce the neurological damage that begins in the womb and progresses rapidly after birth.
While most of this research has been in animals, the first human steps have already begun. In February 2025, the University of California, San Francisco, reported the world's first attempt to treat a genetic disease in a human fetus using a medication called risdiplam. After learning that her unborn child was at risk, a mother began taking the medication late in pregnancy. The baby was born healthy and—now more than two years old—shows no signs of the disease, though some developmental challenges remain.
Another important step was taken in a clinical trial at UCSF, where doctors successfully treated a fetus with a different rare disease using enzyme replacement therapy, showing that the technology for delivering medicine to the unborn is already here.
Many inherited diseases cause the most significant harm before a baby is even born. By intervening early, we have the chance to save lives and give children the best possible start—preserving their ability to move, think, and grow. This isn't just a medical advance. It's a new way of thinking about what's possible for families facing genetic disease.
Of course, there are still challenges ahead. Many are working to ensure these therapies are safe, effective, and accessible to all who need them. Ethical questions about when and how to use these powerful tools will also need careful thought. The first human applications of gene therapy before birth are expected within the next decade, pending rigorous safety and ethical evaluations. This new era also brings new questions. If we correct a genetic error in a child before birth, will that change be passed on to future generations?
For now, most therapies target the body's somatic cells, not the germline, so the changes are not inherited. However, the line between somatic and germline interventions may blur as technology evolves, raising complex ethical considerations.
The first human trials of in-utero gene therapy are just beginning, and more research is needed. But the direction is clear: as technology advances, we are moving from treating inherited diseases after birth to preventing them at the start of life.
As I have often said, the future of medicine is being rewritten, one gene at a time. This latest breakthrough brings us one step closer to a world where prevention, rather than treatment, becomes the standard for genetic disease, where every child can live their healthiest life from the very start. As discussed in my book, the hope is that every child will soon have the chance to live their healthiest life from the beginning.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Walking Speed Test Predicts Heart Risk Pre–Kidney Transplant
Walking Speed Test Predicts Heart Risk Pre–Kidney Transplant

Medscape

timean hour ago

  • Medscape

Walking Speed Test Predicts Heart Risk Pre–Kidney Transplant

A simple test of walking speed before kidney transplant could predict the risk for mortality and cardiovascular events, enabling clinicians to quickly activate patients with good cardiovascular fitness and target further screening or prehabilitation to those who need it. METHODOLOGY: Researchers retrospectively studied 995 patients (median age, 56 years; 36% women) assessed for kidney transplant at the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust from June 2014 to August 2022 to determine whether a simple walking speed test could predict the likelihood of abnormal cardiac stress test results and posttransplant outcomes. Walking speed was assessed by timing patients as they walked 130 m along a hospital corridor — walking to the end, touching the wall at the end of the corridor, and returning to the start point — as fast as they could; participants were then stratified into four quartiles based on the walking speed from fastest (> 1.83 m/sec) to slowest (< 1.35 m/sec). Pretransplant cardiovascular testing included stress echocardiography or myocardial perfusion scanning, with cardiovascular events defined as non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction, ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular events. The mean follow-up duration was 54.2 months. TAKEAWAY: The mean time to complete the walking test was 86.9 seconds; 89 patients were unable to complete the test. Patients in the fastest walking quartile had significantly lower rates of cardiac events (1.62% vs 10.6%) and mortality (5.3% vs 27.9%) and a higher rate of activation for transplant (90.6% vs 55.3%) than those in the slowest walking quartile ( P < .001 for all). < .001 for all). Patients in the fastest walking quartile also had a lower rate of abnormal cardiac stress test results and a reduced need for coronary angiography, with none requiring coronary intervention prior to activation. Walking time was a significant predictor of cardiac events ( P = .048) with a high negative predictive value (86.2%) for stress test outcomes. IN PRACTICE: "Our study would suggest that a simple and low cost evaluation of walking speed may predict outcomes in patients being evaluated for kidney transplant and provide a good screening test to avoid significant cardiac work up in fitter patients, thus allowing greater scrutiny, with or without attempts to improve cardiovascular reserve, in patients with poorer exercise capacity," the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Pranav Satish of the Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London, England. It was published online on May 29, 2025, in Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation . LIMITATIONS: T he study's retrospective design and a single assessment of walking speed at the initial evaluation, rather than repeated measures, may have limited the interpretation of the findings. This study did not account for possible changes in walking speed before or after the assessment, which may have affected the reliability of the results. Although the 130-m timed corridor walk test provided a rapid assessment of the cardiorespiratory reserve, it is not internationally standardised. DISCLOSURES: This study received no financial support . The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Novel Survey Effectively Screens Binge Eating in Diabetes
Novel Survey Effectively Screens Binge Eating in Diabetes

Medscape

timean hour ago

  • Medscape

Novel Survey Effectively Screens Binge Eating in Diabetes

A new diabetes-specific 10-item screening tool demonstrated excellent performance in detecting binge eating disorder in both patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and those with type 2 diabetes (T2D), showing strong associations with glycaemic control and mental health outcomes. METHODOLOGY: Although diabetes-specific screening for disordered eating behaviours is advised, the only available tool — the Diabetes Eating Problem Survey–Revised (DEPS-R) — is tailored for patients with T1D on rapid-acting insulin therapy, limiting its applicability across other diabetes types and treatment regimens. Researchers developed a 10-item non–insulin-specific version of the DEPS-R (DEPS-10) and evaluated its screening performance for binge eating disorder in 679 patients with T1D or T2D (mean age, 53.8 years) who had the disease for at least 1 year. The new survey assessed loss of control over eating, dietary and purging behaviours, and challenges in diabetes management. Researchers conducted a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to test the screening performance of the DEPS-10 and compared it with those of the original DEPS-R and the Problem Areas In Diabetes (PAID) scale. TAKEAWAY: The point prevalence of binge eating disorder was 3.5% in the whole cohort, 2.9% in patients with T1D, and 4.3% in those with T2D. The DEPS-10 showed excellent screening performance for binge eating disorder (area under the curve [AUC], 0.92; P < .001), matching that of the DEPS-R (AUC, 0.92; P < .001) and surpassing that of the PAID scale (AUC, 0.82; P < .001). < .001), matching that of the DEPS-R (AUC, 0.92; < .001) and surpassing that of the PAID scale (AUC, 0.82; < .001). The DEPS-10 showed optimal sensitivity (87.5%) and specificity (86.9%) for detecting binge eating disorder at a cutoff score of greater than or equal to 15; participants with this cutoff score had higher body mass index and A1c level along with a greater psychological burden than those with scores below it. The stepwise approach of first screening with the PAID scale and then applying the DEPS-10 boosted specificity to 94%, compared with 87% when using the DEPS-10 alone and 67% when using the PAID scale alone. IN PRACTICE: "A two-step approach using the PAID followed by the DEPS-10 can be a feasible and time-efficient procedure in routine care," the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Laura Yvonne Klinker, Diabetes Center Mergentheim in Bad Mergentheim, Germany. It was published online on May 29, 2025, in Diabetic Medicine . LIMITATIONS: Higher DEPS-10 scores in one fifth of the participants may have been affected by glucagon-like peptide 1 therapy. Additionally, the relatively low positive predictive value of the DEPS-10 could have been attributed to its broader scope in detecting various disordered eating behaviours beyond binge eating disorder. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by a grant from the German Center for Diabetes Research. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. References Credit Lead image: Anastasiia Torianyk/Dreamstime Medscape News UK © 2025 WebMD, LLC Cite this: Novel Survey Effectively Screens Binge Eating in Diabetes - Medscape - June 05, 2025.

How Hard Will Musk Fight Republicans' Budget Bill?
How Hard Will Musk Fight Republicans' Budget Bill?

New York Times

timean hour ago

  • New York Times

How Hard Will Musk Fight Republicans' Budget Bill?

Can Musk kill the budget bill? Elon Musk hasn't stopped criticizing the budget bill that he has called a 'disgusting abomination.' In fact, he appears to be just getting started. The debate in Washington now is how far Musk will go to try to defeat a bill that — by the assessment of Musk, several Republicans and now nonpartisan watchdogs — will vastly add to the federal debt. 'KILL THE BILL,' Musk posted on X on Wednesday, a message he urged followers to press with members of Congress. He has turned a majority of his feed into a stream of reposts of content criticizing the legislation and denouncing its effect on the nation's $36 trillion debt load. A string of assessments suggest that the bill will add to the debt. The most consequential, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, estimated that the House version of the plan would add $2.4 trillion over the next decade, given both the roughly $3.8 trillion tax cut at its core and additional spending. (Other estimates are even higher, including the Penn Wharton Budget Model's: $2.8 trillion.) A Republican counter: Attack the messenger. The Trump administration advanced hard-to-believe claims about C.B.O. staff members' partisanship, and arguments that its analysis ignores projected economic growth. That said, a previous nonpartisan analysis of the House bill found that the tax cuts would generate nearly no additional economic growth, and even conservatives found the budget office's analysis credible. 'When all the models are in unison,' Erica York, the vice president for federal tax policy at the Tax Foundation, told The Times, 'it really doesn't make sense to triple down on the strategy to blame the scorekeeper.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store