New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

FDA Plans to Speed Path to Approval for Some Gene Therapies

The agency’s first target will be hemophilia

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The Food and Drug Administration will soon be alerting companies that certain gene therapies in development can qualify for less arduous review at the agency, Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said Tuesday.

Specifically, gene therapies for hemophilia, a rare disease in which blood doesn’t clot properly because it lacks certain proteins, could be evaluated based on whether therapy increases those proteins in the blood, regardless of whether the therapy actually causes the patient to bleed less.

Gottlieb said that hemophilia is the first disease the FDA will target with its new policy. An FDA spokesperson later said hemophilia was chosen because “it’s an area of a lot of development activity.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Gottlieb made these remarks at the annual board meeting of the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine. It was part of a broad speech about the promise of cell and gene therapies, which he said “will soon become the mainstay of how we treat a wide range of illness.” He said that the agency will release a “comprehensive policy framework” to guide companies on how to evaluate therapies for different sorts of diseases.

Gene therapies modify an individual’s genetic material in an attempt to treat a disease. They fall into a broader category of cell therapies encompassing many different treatments involving living cells.

One challenge, Gottlieb said, is that the traditional clinical trials companies need to complete before bringing a drug to the market may not be able to fully determine the “durability of response.” In other words, the effectiveness of the therapy might change after the trial is over, and initial signs that the drug works might not pan out upon further scrutiny. But because some of these treatments address patients with few other options, it may be worth the risk for them to undergo a treatment with indirect evidence of a benefit—protein levels in the case of hemophilia—even if there are some unknown future risks.

“These products are initially being aimed at devastating diseases, many of which are fatal and lack available therapy,” Gottlieb said. “In these settings, we’ve traditionally been willing to accept more uncertainty to facilitate timely access to promising therapies.”

A company may be required to perform more studies after the drug is on the market to make sure that the initial sign of success actually pans out, Gottlieb said. In the hemophilia example, he said, a company might have to demonstrate, after a product is on the market, that it actually does reduce bleeding.

This story has been updated with more detail on FDA’s choice of hemophilia as the first disease it will address with its new policy.

Republished with permission from STAT. This article originally appeared on May 22, 2018

STAT delivers fast, deep, and tough-minded journalism. We take you inside science labs and hospitals, biotech boardrooms, and political backrooms. We dissect crucial discoveries. We examine controversies and puncture hype. We hold individuals and institutions accountable. We introduce you to the power brokers and personalities who are driving a revolution in human health. These are the stories that matter to us all.

More by STAT

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe