Catching Them Early: Framework Parameters and Progress for Prenatal and Childhood Application of Advanced Therapies.

1. General Introduction

Advanced therapies are based on innovative uses or the genetic manipulation of cell and tissue materials, and as treatments for human disease, are often without alternatives or are superior to treatments with conventional drugs. Be it for advanced or conventional treatments, due to regulatory, ethical and commercial pressures, numbers of medical products generally lag behind for pediatric compared with adult applications. However, in particular for advanced therapies, the case can be made that this “age gap” in drug development offers more harm than protection for patients, and that earlier-in-life application, from adult to pediatric or even to prenatal, would have tremendous medical, supply and commercial benefits. In this review, we present the corresponding background and arguments for pediatric and more recently conceived advanced prenatal therapies, by first outlining the current status and challenges of advanced therapies in general, before presenting the conceptual and regulatory framework for early interventions, followed by details for informative preclinical and clinical studies. After discussions of technical and non-technical elements and developments that might facilitate the further and more widespread success of early interventions, the article closes with corresponding perspectives and conclusions.

2. Current Status and Challenges of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMPs) and Rationale for Early Interventions

2.1. Defining ATMPs

ATMPs are medicines that have begun to transform our ability to treat injury and disease. They are defined by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as comprising gene therapy medicinal products (GTMPs), somatic cell therapy medicinal products (CTMP), tissue-engineered products (TEPs) and combined ATMPs as a combination of any of the three product categories [ 1 ]. Specifically for the EU, the EMA provides up-to-date information and relevant guidelines covering their classification [ 2 ] and toward marketing authorization [ 3 , 4 ], albeit with a functionally limited search interface. Likewise, clinical trials and new medicines are centrally registered in EMA databases [ 5 , 6 ], but are limited to products and trials approved through the centralized EU procedure, which can be bypassed by application to one or several nation states [ 7 ]. Differing terminology and definitions cover ATMPs and their subcategories outside the EU [ 7 , 8 ], which hinders systematic global assessments, but has not stopped an avalanche of comprehensive recent reviews covering their global development, application, regulation, risks and prospects [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. For clarity, the present review will refer to advanced therapies in accordance with the most recent quarterly recommendations on the classification of ATMPs by the EMA [ 20 ]. Despite this European reference point, and although providing EU-specific references to regulatory procedures and public resources, we will cover findings and prospects for early interventions with a global perspective.

2.2. Current Key Areas of ATMP Application

In line with their wide-ranging definition, ATMPs may apply to a multitude of inherited and acquired diseases. However, although preclinical development for ATMPs has already touched on hundreds of conditions, only few major technologies and applications of ATMPs have progressed to the clinical trial stage or received marketing approval. Reasons for this can be found in inappropriate study designs (in terms of numbers, experimental groups, endpoints and comprehensiveness), limited transparency and comparability across studies, high cost and the slow political, regulatory and industry adoption of ATMPs [ 21 ]. Among a global pipeline of dozens of approved ATMPs and hundreds of ATMPs in development [ 22 , 23 ], the most advanced ATMPs with proven potential for early therapeutic intervention include receptor-engineered and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) cells, ex vivo genetically modified hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) and mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) [ 14 ]. Of these, CAR cells were initially conceived and developed over several generations of increasingly effective and durable CAR T cells [ 24 ], but are now also being developed as CAR natural killer (NK) cells [ 25 ] as powerful anti-cancer immunotherapeutic agents for autologous and allogeneic application, respectively [ 26 ]. HSPC-based ATMPs have enabled pioneering clinical autologous applications of gene therapies for both gene addition [ 16 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ] and gene editing [ 32 ], whereas MSCs have also seen widespread use for allogeneic application in different tissues and in the modulation of immune responses (e.g., for Obnitix ® and Alosifel ® ) [ 33 , 34 ]. Based on their diverse application and due to their exemplary level of development, as well as for prenatal and pediatric use, CAR cells, HSPCs and MSCs will thus serve as the main examples for ATMP progress and applications throughout this review. Importantly, many additional ATMPs may have great potential for early-in-life applications, but cannot be detailed here. For instance, the diverse category of TEPs, which are applied as autologous or allogeneic cell-based engineered tissues for the regeneration of skin, cartilage and bone, has great clinical significance [ 35 ]. However, its successful application in pediatric or prenatal settings is thus far limited to single case studies, safety assessments or small grafts; thus, systematic coverage of TEPs beyond selected landmark examples is outside the scope of this article.

2.3. Exemplary ATMP Successes

Among ATMPs under EU regulation, CAR-, HSPC- and MSC-based therapies may offer new prospects to improve the treatment of several conditions with unmet medical needs. For instance, CAR technology has been a trailblazer for processes and regulations governing personalized ATMPs and employs synthetic receptors to direct autologous immune cells to any cellular target without HLA restriction [ 36 ]. Current second-generation CAR T cells carry engineered receptors that encode the recognition domain for a tumor-specific epitope, bound via an optional scaffold domain to activation and costimulatory domains, which together facilitate target recognition, cytotoxicity and T cell expansion. The showcase application for CAR technology is autologous CAR T cells against the abundantly expressed and non-essential CD19 B cell marker which, after early success in clinical application to relapsed/refractory B cell malignancies [ 37 ], is the basis of currently approved CAR-based treatments (Tisagenlecleucel/Kymriah ® EMA/FDA, axicabtagene ciloleucel/Yescarta ® EMA/FDA, brexucabtagene autoleucel/Tecartus ® EMA/FDA, lisocabtagene maraleucel/Breyanzif ® EMA authorization pending/FDA) [ 24 ]. With ongoing attempts to target additional markers of malignancies and to even apply CAR technology to solid tumors, the most prevalent targets in addition to CD19 are the less abundantly expressed CD22 and CD20 for B cell malignancies [ 38 , 39 ] and the B cell maturation antigen (BCMA; by idecabtagene vicleucel/Abecma ® ) for multiple myeloma [ 40 ]. As additional developments for CAR T cells application, receptor components may be swapped in a modular fashion, site-specific delivery of CARs to the TRAC locus in T cells using clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) technology improves their potency and consistency of expression, and antigen escape by tumors may be reduced or the efficiency of therapy may be enhanced by the application of multiple CARs [ 41 , 42 ] or by bispecific CAR designs [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]. Finally, employing natural killer (NK) cells instead of T cells confers an improved safety profile by the avoidance of cytokine release syndrome and action on non-hematopoietic cells, and paves the way toward allogeneic (off-the-shelf) CAR cell applications because of the HLA-independent action of NK cells [ 46 ].

For HSPCs, autologous transplantation after genetic modification has emerged as the most popular and successful application of gene therapy as a viable option for a variety of monogenic disorders, possibly because of the long experience with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and the ability to manipulate those cells ex vivo with great efficiency [ 47 ]. For all these disorders, allogeneic HSCT remains the clinical standard for cure, but is limited by donor availability and associated severe immunologic complications (graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) and graft rejection) [ 48 ]. Genetically modified autologous HSPC products, mostly applied in the treatment of blood or immune system disorders, but also of several storage and metabolic disorders, represent an alternative and potentially safer one-off treatment option [ 49 , 50 ]. Despite continuous improvements in the manufacturing of modified cells (refined cell collection, isolation and culture protocols, better vector designs, safer tools based on gene/base editing), and an increasing number of products entering clinical trials for an expanding list of diseases, 30 years after the first ever gene therapy trial, only four HSPC-based GTMPs have been granted EU marketing approval: betibeglogene autotemcel (Zynteglo) for transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia (TDBT); Strimvelis for severe combined immunodeficiency due to adenosine deaminase deficiency (ADA-SCID); atidarsagene autotemcel (Libmeldy) for metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD); and elivaldogene autotemcel (Skysona) for cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy (CALD) [ 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ]. All of the above therapies are based on ex vivo viral-vector-mediated gene transfer in HSPCs and the autologous transplantation of modified cells into patients. For in vivo applications of GTMPs, onasemnogene abeparvovec-xioi (Zolgensma) for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), resamirigene bilparvovec (AT132) for X-linked myotubular myopathy (XLMTM) and voretigene neparvovec (Loxturna) for Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA), are EU-approved therapies based on the systemic or direct/topical delivery of viral vectors encoding functional copies of the respective disease-causing genes [ 55 , 56 , 57 ]. The above commercially available drugs are indicated either in pediatric-only or mixed pediatric/adult populations, because most of them concern early-onset severe or early-lethal inherited disorders.

Finally, MSCs have become the most clinically studied experimental cell therapy platform worldwide since their first evaluation in humans in 1995 [ 58 ]. Although initial insights into MSC properties and mechanisms of action were mainly gained from preclinical murine models and in vitro analyses of human MSCs, their application has already shown enormous potential in the moderation of immune and inflammatory reactions, bone diseases, cancer, and heart, liver or kidney failure, in part through paracrine and exosomal signaling. As exemplary fields of MSC application for immune and inflammatory reactions, acute GvHD (aGvHD) may lead to severe inflammatory reactions and the death of patients after allogeneic HSCT [ 59 ], and Crohn’s disease may lead to debilitating chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract [ 34 ]. Likewise, acute or chronic injury, such as of the lungs, may irreversibly damage tissue by inappropriate immune responses and/or aberrant repair processes, usually leading to fibrosis and subsequent decline in organ function. MSC attenuation of inflammation prevents further injury and promotes repair [ 60 , 61 , 62 ], with frequent achievement of full aGvHD remission [ 63 , 64 ], improved bacterial clearance, potential differentiation of MSCs to replace damaged cells, and in part the cytokine-mediated, anti-inflammatory and pro-regenerative action of MSCs [ 65 , 66 ], all vindicating their therapeutic use. Regarding bone diseases, MSC-based therapies act by paracrine- and exosome-mediated signaling, in osteogenesis imperfecta in particular through action of exosomal RNA cargo [ 67 , 68 ], and in bone tissue engineering, scaffolds combined with osteogenically differentiated MSCs provide a better bone regeneration microenvironment and better bone growth than engineered cell-free scaffolds [ 69 , 70 , 71 ]. For cancer treatment, MSCs may show microenvironment-dependent pro- or anti-tumorigenic properties when unmodified, but clearly assume therapeutic properties when used for the exosomal delivery of cytotoxic agents after drug loading or after genetic manipulation [ 72 , 73 ]. In the treatment of heart, liver or kidney failure, MSCs variably mediate the stimulation of endothelial cells [ 74 ], inhibit apoptosis, inflammation and hepatic stellate cell activation [ 75 , 76 ], and deliver trophic factors and cell components by paracrine or exosome signaling and even cell fusion [ 77 ], respectively, in order to achieve therapeutic action.

2.4. Challenges of ATMP Application

Despite such prominent successes and progress, there are inherent limitations for the widespread use of ATMPs. Many factors determining the cost of ATMP development are those in common with the development of other drugs and treatments, whereas some key cost factors are unique to ATMPs. As for conventional drugs, observations for ATMPs and their efficacy under optimized laboratory conditions do not always reflect the complex and multifactorial reality in the clinic. Moreover, the complex nature of ATMPs and the direct link of their production with live cells from donors and/or recipients suggests that ATMP development is characterized by key challenges not encountered, or of different qualities from those faced, in the development of small-molecule drugs. The great diversity of ATMPs and their applications means that defining universal challenges is difficult; however, several key challenges applying to development, ethical and regulatory issues, supply and manufacturing, and marketing across many different ATMPs are outlined in Figure 1 and detailed in the current section.

2.4.1. Scientific and Medical

On the scientific or medical side, donor-specific features, incompleteness of our understanding of specific mechanisms of interactions with host tissues, and elusiveness of robust pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic models for different clinical applications represent major challenges that need to be overcome for each individual disorder to achieve successful clinical translation [ 49 , 78 ]. Especially for in vivo applications, the specificity and efficiency of target cell manipulation are problematic, whereas for ex vivo application based on HSCs, treatment-related morbidity related to myeloablation is a concern. For all ATMPs, addressing prenatal or early-onset diseases in a timely fashion and dealing with immune rejection of treatment and with pre-existing co-morbidities are common challenges.

2.4.2. Ethics and Regulatory

The translation of ATMPs from R&D to clinical trials and then commercialization faces unique ethical and regulatory challenges not encountered at all or to the same degree for small-molecule drugs. Ethically, the inherent complexity of ATMPs and the lack of precedents for many clinical studies are sources of uncertainty, and thus concern, for the safety of participants, whereas ethical considerations for trial participants also routinely prompt trial designs without control groups for what are often invasive procedures. Where inadvertent germline manipulation may be a concern in several in vivo applications, in particular of GTMPs, rare but high-profile illegal human germline manipulation has raised fundamental ethical concerns and have led to a high level of vigilance and stringent regulatory requirements, particularly for GTMP applications [ 79 , 80 ]. Moreover, regulatory requirements for ATMPs are generally high, and are moreover mutable for a nascent industry. Accordingly, ongoing evolution of regulatory, legal, quality-control and infrastructural aspects for ATMPs brings about that framework requirements across different legislatures differ greatly [ 8 , 81 , 82 , 83 ]; thus, regulatory challenges are seen as a key difficulty by manufacturers [ 84 ].

2.4.3. Supply

In addition to regulatory issues, access to bio- and good manufacturing practice (GMP) materials are a key impediment for ATMP applications. For cell-based therapies, suitable cells are not available in sufficient numbers for corresponding treatments, be it for autologous applications to a single patient or for allogeneic therapies, where the manufacturing of off-the-shelf ATMPs may aim to serve many patients. For certain disorders, the availability of suitable adult stem cells for autologous application presents a challenge even for abundant cells, such as HSPCs or MSPs, in particular where the disorders or injuries to be treated affect the abundance and viability of those stem cells, as is the case, e.g., for HSPCs in Fanconi’s anemia [ 16 ], where this may be addressed by improved mobilization and collection [ 85 ]. For allogeneic therapies, and even where culture protocols can be established that maintain the desired properties of the cells in question, bottlenecks may be addressed by advanced and scalable culture methods, although high single-dose requirements, e.g., for MSCs of up to 10 9 cells, or the rarity of starting material may continue to pose challenges for ATMP manufacturing for the foreseeable future [ 48 ]. The shortfall thus calls for improved identification, isolation, expansion and modification protocols for autologous application, and for scalable expansion technologies for off-the-shelf ATMPs [ 48 ], as is being argued and explored, e.g., for both HSPCs and MSCs in their countless applications [ 16 , 49 , 86 , 87 ]. Similarly, the pricing and availability of GMP reagents pose a problem for the clinical development of ATMPs, in that even well-funded clinical trials are held up by limiting global production capacities for GMP-grade reagents. The supply of GMP-grade materials was a limiting factor even before the general pharmaceutical supply chain issues brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic [ 88 ].

For many of the challenges of ATMP application, incremental improvements are being made; however, some key problems, particularly the limiting supply of GMP-level therapeutics at population scale, will require a landmark shift in the underlying technologies or in the way they are applied. Even a moderate increase in contemporary GMP requirements by expanding adult application of ATMPs would hardly be sustainable with current technologies [ 89 ].

2.4.4. Manufacturing

Supply shortages are aggravated by a lack of standardization of manufacturing and quality control procedures, which still pervades the nascent field of ATMPs, affecting the cost and predictability of production. More specifically for GTMPs, the large size and negative charge of nucleic acids and their consequentially poor penetration of cell membranes calls for the temporary removal of membrane integrity or for dedicated carriers to allow effective delivery to cells and tissues. The development of non-lethal systems for cell penetration and of effective vectors for transfer across membranes has been a long journey from initial attempts at plasmid transfection over advanced non-viral and viral delivery methods to a great diversity of permanent, transient and highly transient delivery of transgenes, of genome editing tools, and of RNA, nuclear reprogramming and epigenome editing reagents today, as we will point out for key developments later.

ATMPs based on autologous cell material are as variable as the patient population, are inherently personalized products that can only benefit from economies of scale in some aspects, and the place and time of manufacture have to be adjusted according to the patients. The corresponding personalized application of ATMPs also contributes to difficulties in trial design and preclinical evaluation as key scientific challenges. However, even for universal products and allogeneic application, variability, sensitivity, quality control and subsequent shelf life are issues of concern for ATMPs far more than for standard pharmaceuticals. Finally, the accessibility of therapeutic tools as targets for the patient’s immune system, and off-target delivery to cells and tissues, where those tools might be unproductive or even toxic, both represent a health and safety risk to patients, but also elevate GMP reagent requirements as an important bottleneck for the industry (see below). Altogether, manufacturing, quality standards and starting materials are therefore seen as key technical challenges for ATMPs [ 84 ].

2.4.5. Market and Pricing

On the financial side, funding and reimbursement are key challenges for ATMPs [ 84 ]. Be it the long development time combined with fast technology turnover, or be it the high inherent cost of manufacturing ATMPs combined with the uncertainty of manufacturing scale and reimbursement policies, the challenges for commercial ATMP development are enormous [ 12 , 90 ]. Most conventional drugs rely on the chronic application and correspondingly long-term reimbursement of manufacturers for development cost; however, most ATMPs are applied and paid as one-off treatments. The novelty of many ATMPs also means that both physicians and patients often need to be made aware of their existence and benefits, and that their integration into clinical routine, including post-treatment follow-up, often still needs to be established. Finally, just as regulatory requirements differ across legislatures, so do reimbursement models and agreements for ATMPs, which, in turn, creates uncertainty and causes hesitancy or absence of investment for production and commercialization. Therefore, the step from proof of principle to market is particularly difficult for ATMPs, and even for safe and efficient products reaching marketing authorization, the inability of patients or health systems to pay for advanced therapies might ultimately lead to commercial failure and market withdrawal [ 91 ].

2.5. The Rationale for Early Intervention

A multitude of shortcomings thus bring about that ATMPs currently cannot unfold their full potential while promising a new era of effective cancer treatments, potentially curative treatments for inherited diseases, and off-the-shelf regenerative medicines, among others. It turns out, however, that some of the key impediments to wider and effective ATMP application, including high reagent requirements, ineffective systemic delivery, poor accessibility of target tissues and pre-existing immunity, can be addressed by early intervention, i.e., by application at the prenatal stage, in infancy, in early to late childhood or in adolescence.

Many of the aforementioned challenges are brought about or exacerbated by the restriction of treatment to adults, which, for pioneering treatments and especially clinical trials, is a matter of course, unless the disease in question causes death or irreparable damage in early life stages. The resulting tradeoff for therapy development is that the underlying bioethical guidelines protect the unborn or young life, while at the same time often hiding the true potential of ATMPs by application in adults, where early-onset diseases may already have caused irreparable direct or pleiotropic damage, where affected tissues or therapeutically relevant cells are hard to access or rare, or where requirements for cell material (such as TEPs or stem cells) and GMP reagents are orders of magnitude above what may be required to achieve similar benefits in utero or in pediatric patients. A further argument for the prenatal or pediatric application of ATMPs is the innate proclivity for healing in younger patients and the generally superior regenerative performance of TEPs or stem cells earlier in life. Late treatments are thus limited in their effectiveness due to pre-existing damage and reduced graft performance, exacerbating the universal challenges of target-specific in vivo delivery and stem cell retrieval, and inflating the cost (see Section 6 and Section 7 ), which thus effectively limits the accessibility of ATMPs to those in need. In utero and pediatric therapies effectively improve all of these critical treatment parameters and may be instrumental in giving more patients and diseases the benefit of advanced therapies. Prenatal treatment, as compared with any postnatal treatment, brings various advantages, including a less developed and thus more tolerant and even tolerogenic immune system [ 92 ], higher accessibility of target organs, and reduced target tissue size and cell numbers, with correspondingly lower reagent requirements [ 93 ]. However, at a stage where early and in utero ATMP interventions, in particular, are themselves still in their infancy, researchers and clinicians are faced with a dilemma: the earlier the intervention, the greater the potential benefits, but also the greater the potential risks and uncertainties of ATMP applications ( Figure 2 ).

3. Conceptual and Regulatory Framework for Early Interventions

Early interventions, although still universally under-researched compared with therapeutic applications in adults, may have an essential role to play in the enhancement of ATMP accessibility and effectiveness. Both pediatric and in utero treatments come with distinct drawbacks and benefits in their practical application, which are subject to resolution and enhancement by ongoing research and development efforts in the laboratory and clinic (see Section 4 and Section 5 ). Early interventions are correspondingly couched within a conceptual and regulatory framework that, in many aspects, differs quantitatively or even qualitatively from that applied for adult interventions. To avoid the erosion of ethical constraints for early intervention and to warrant benefits and prevent potential harm for patients, establishment, awareness and observance of that framework is essential.

3.1. Pediatric

In their pediatric application, ATMPs encounter the same routes of application and problems faced during adult application, but benefit from incremental efficacy, accessibility and cost benefits, and from decremental pre-existing infections and morbidities with lower age and body size, with additional pros and cons, as shown in Figure 2 . On the regulatory side, pediatric medicines in the EU have assumed a special role since 2007, when the EU Paediatric Regulation came into force [ 94 ], comprising Regulations (EC) No 1901/2006 and its amendment No 1902/2006 [ 95 , 96 ] and aiming to achieve better product information and more pediatric medicines and pediatric research [ 6 ]. As a result, in its ten-year report on the implementation of the Paediatric Regulation, the EMA reported an increase in many therapeutic areas in pediatric medicines, albeit with little development for exclusively pediatric diseases or for diseases with distinct pediatric presentation [ 97 ]. Likewise, there was an only moderate increase in pediatric research in 2017, from 9.3% pediatric as a proportion of all trials in 2006, to 12.4% in 2016 [ 97 , 98 ]. Both the Paediatric Regulation and the ten-year report acknowledge the dilemma that protecting children from clinical trials for ethical reasons, and as a group that requires legal and regulatory protection, has resulted in a scarcity of specifically pediatric medicines, which has led to the widespread off-label use of adult medicines for pediatric patients, with inherent risks and uncertainties concerning optimal dosage, suitable modes of administration and age-specific side-effects. In recognition of this shortfall of pediatric treatments, the Paediatric Regulation therefore offers incentives for pediatric medicine development to compensate for the cost disadvantage associated with the requirement to investigate age-stratified action for inherently smaller patient populations than would be encountered for adult treatments. These incentives include six-month extensions on the supplementary protection certificate of medicines, and 12 instead of 10 years of market exclusivity for orphan medicines for compliant companies, supported by an advantageous pediatric-use marketing authorization (PUMA) and a specific pediatric expert committee and free advice to the industry from the EMA. This is paired with comprehensive measures and resources for the dissemination of pediatric studies, including an EU network of pediatric investigators, an inventory of pediatric needs, a public database of pediatric studies and the obligation for companies to submit any pediatric data for approved medicines to the regulators for analysis. In line with this and further promoting the dissemination of pediatric trial results, clinical trials for pediatric interventions in the EU are covered in their entirety from phase I to IV in the EU Clinical Trials Register, in contrast to adult interventions, for which phase I trials are excluded [ 6 ].

3.2. In Utero

In utero therapy offers the possibility of disease treatment and prevention before birth and is considered most appropriate after at least 7 weeks of gestation, when the primordial germ cells are relatively protected from inadvertent germline modifications [ 99 , 100 ]. It can be achieved either transplacentally, by introducing the medication into the maternal circulation, or by direct injection into fetal tissues or circulation. Both approaches call for procedures and reagents that are distinct from those applied in pediatric and adult patients. For transplacental in utero application, the placenta represents a key challenge, as both a route and an obstacle to transfer. A short-lived but constantly developing organ, the placenta separates the maternal and fetal circulations and, at the same time, enables communication between both entities. During approximately nine months of pregnancy, it serves many functions to support fetal development, including the transport of nutrients and gases, immune defense, endocrine signaling for hormone and transmitter homeostasis, and as barrier to protect the fetus against toxins from the maternal circulation [ 101 ]. Importantly, and while conventional pharmaceuticals of high liposolubility and low molecular weight traverse the placenta relatively easily, the placenta presents a substantial mechanical and functional barrier and possibly a toxicity target for therapeutics based on genes, cells, or tissue engineering. Therefore, alternatives to transplacental routes of administration are being explored, such as intravenous injection, intra-amniotic administration, or targeted drug delivery approaches [ 102 ]. One of the best-researched means of prenatal ATMP administration is ultrasound-assisted injection in the fetal umbilical vein, which allows injected gene constructs or stem cells to bypass the lungs, via the ductus arteriosus and foramen ovale, and to directly enter the fetal systemic circulation. Such fetal injection even offers significant advantages over the early postnatal intravenous administration of ATMPs into a peripheral vein, which often leads to the trapping of cells or gene carriers in the pulmonary microcirculation [ 103 ] and reduced systemic exposure. However, direct injection poses the challenge of accessibility and visualization of target tissues and of a developmentally changing anatomy, and the risk of treatment-related injury to mother and child, so that special surgical skills and equipment are required for the procedure [ 104 , 105 , 106 ]. Together with the unique safety and ethical considerations inherent to the in utero manipulation of human life, these technical requirements currently represent a substantial roadblock for the widespread application of in utero therapies, with additional pros and cons, as shown in Figure 2 . On the regulatory side, EU documents currently refer to ATMPs in connection with in utero transfer mostly in the context of inadvertent germline transmission [ 107 ]. Importantly, however, the recent EC Guidelines on Good Clinical Practice specific to ATMPs explicitly acknowledge the possible necessity of in utero intervention in severe early-onset conditions or where only early treatment offers benefit, and in general terms recommend the adoption of additional safeguards appropriate for the product, disease and developmental stage [ 108 ]. Meanwhile in utero treatments are already applied using conventional drugs, such as for fetal arrhythmias by digoxin or sotalol [ 109 ] or for the prevention of fetal viral infection by antiretrovirals in HIV-positive women [ 110 ]. Based on growing experience for in utero non-ATMP treatments and from preclinical ATMP studies (see Section 4 ), it can therefore be hoped that the clinical translation of in utero ATMP applications is not too far in the future [ 93 ].

4. Preclinical Studies of Early Interventions in Animal Models Using ATMPs

4.1. Pediatric

The pharmacological profile of a new medicinal product is generally assessed in adults prior to testing in the pediatric patient population, and efficacy and safety data are extrapolated to children [ 111 ]. However, substantial differences in the disease pathology and pharmacological properties of many ATMPs often exist between adults and children, thus necessitating studies in juvenile animal models prior to pediatric application. Alas, dedicated pediatric studies in animal models are few and far between, also because the juvenile time window for mice (the most versatile and most widely used model organism) is fairly narrow, with mice reaching sexual maturity from as early as 23 days after birth for females and usually from 6 weeks for males [ 112 ]. As highlighted in a Special Issue assessing pigs as model animals [ 113 ], corresponding research therefore greatly benefits from alternative animal models with an extended juvenile period, such as dogs, pigs, sheep and non-human primates [ 105 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 ], which may moreover serve as a large animal model for in utero applications. Importantly, many murine studies of early-onset diseases, although stretching into adult application, are representative of early interventions and therefore also informative in the present context.

Outside our focus on CAR-, HSPC- and MSC-based ATMPs, early treatments in a cornucopia of rodent and large animal models have already been highly informative for a range of ATMPs, target tissues, diseases and juvenile stages, as may be exemplified here, with treatments based on adeno-associated-virus (AAV)-mediated in vivo gene addition. Recent examples include applications in 2–4-month-old sheep to treat Tay–Sachs disease [ 118 ] and in early postnatal and juvenile mice to treat CLN3 Batten disease [ 119 ], as two exemplary lysosomal storage disorder, as well as in 12-week-old dogs to treat X-linked retinitis pigmentosa [ 120 ], and in early postnatal mice, which mimic the human fetal inner ear, to treat congenital hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction in over a dozen studies [ 121 ].

For CAR cell applications, the predominance of CAR-T cells and their autologous application largely shifts analyses to toxicity-only assessments in pure animal models, or to more comprehensive functional assessments in murine xenograft models. For the latter, the age of human cell donors is usually not disclosed and recipient NSG mice are usually adult; thus, corresponding publications to date do not allow conclusions drawn from comparisons of the relative performance of early life and adult interventions. Importantly, the contemporary predominant application of CAR cells is cancer treatment by autologous CAR T cells, the performance and developmental age of which are bound up with the age and state of the affected patient. However, in particular for the nascent allogenic application of, e.g., CAR-NK cells, comparative analyses for performance of adult vs. juvenile cells in xenograft models would be extremely informative, because the emergence of standardized protocols and impressive efficacy data indicate for the latest CAR-treatment-based strategies [ 122 ]. For instance, the evaluation of second- and third-generation anti- CAIX CAR-T cells in NSG-SGM3 mice transplanted with CAIX-expressing clear-cell renal cell carcinoma skrc-59 cells achieved complete remission and tumor-free survival on day 72 after treatment for the best combination of CD4/CD8 CAR-T cell ratio and CAR-T receptor [ 123 ]. Evaluation of cord-blood-derived fourth-generation anti-CD19 CAR-NK cells engineered for enhanced cytokine signal transduction achieved the virtually complete suppression of tumor growth in Raji (Burkitt-lymphoma-cell)-transplanted NSG mice, allowing up to 341 days of tumor-free survival, against the death of all control animals in under 1 month [ 124 ]. Finally, in the first application of Vδ1 γδ CAR-T cells, targeting GPC-3 as a frequent and abundant marker of solid tumors slowed tumor growth after transplantation of HepG2 cells into NSG mice, down to below 10% of growth in controls, for a test period of over 30 days [ 125 ]. This was achieved in the absence of GvHD and toxicity symptoms, because γδ CAR-T, similarly CAR-NK cells, acts HLA-independently and could thus be used as off-the-shelf ATMP.

For HSPCs, murine xenograft models have been crucial for the development and clinical translation of autologous and allogeneic HSPC-based therapies, including gene therapy, since the late 1990s [ 126 ]. Immunocompromised mice, humanized mice and genetically engineered disease mouse models have been used to address key bottlenecks of ex vivo and in vivo application of HSPC-based ATPMs, including the maintenance of HSPC multilineage potential, efficient engraftment of cells and safety [ 127 ]. Neonatal and juvenile mouse models, in particular, have been extremely useful in the development of HSPC-based gene therapy for primary immunodeficiencies, where early intervention is a sine qua non. For this, the adenosine deaminase deficiency (ADA) -/- neonatal mouse model was used in preclinical studies to assess efficiency and safety of ADA-carrying lentiviral vectors by ex vivo transduction and the autologous transplantation of modified HSPCs, efforts that ultimately led to the EU marketing authorization of Strimvelis in 2016 [ 128 , 129 , 130 ]. HSPC-based ATMPs have also been tested in neonatal mouse models of further disorders, such as Wiskott–Aldrich syndrome, mucopolysaccharidoses and other storage disorders [ 131 , 132 , 133 ]. An exceptional achievement is the humanized transgenic thalassemia mouse models developed by the Ryan group which, in contrast, to knockout models, develop transfusion-dependent thalassemia major, and thus are the most faithful representation of the disease and of therapeutic efficiencies in vivo, from in utero to adult applications [ 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 ]. Larger animal models have also been applied in cases where mouse knockout models have failed to faithfully recapitulate the disease phenotype or where longer-term follow-up has been essential [ 139 ]. Among others, juvenile canine leukocyte adhesion deficiency and X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (X-SCID) dog models, as well as juvenile nonhuman primate X-SCID and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) models, have been crucial in advancing HSPC gene therapy based on both gene-transferring viral vectors and newer gene editing tools [ 114 , 117 ].

For MSCs, many preclinical trials have been completed and many more are currently ongoing to explore their safety and efficacy in a wide range of acute and chronic disease models, complemented by studies merely investigating the (non-ATMP) application of MSC-derived exosomes and extracellular vesicles. A fundamental limitation for purely murine models (as opposed to xenograft models) in ATMP research is the profound differences for key aspects of MSC biology in ATMP development between murine and human MSCs and the correspondingly poor representation of human therapy applications in studies based on mouse MSCs [ 140 ]. These differences concern cell expansion behavior, properties after immortalization or cryopreservation, and choices of paracrine signaling molecules [ 140 , 141 ]; moreover, conclusions across multiple studies are exacerbated by differences between alternative models for the same disease [ 142 ]. Therefore, with the swift elimination of human MSCs in immunocompetent mice, xenograft studies based on immunodeficient mice or studies in species for which MSCs or the relevant anatomy more closely reflect human biology [ 143 , 144 ] appear to be the most informative. Based on adolescent to young adult (6–8-week-old) mice, the latest findings for immune and inflammatory disorders include the identification of therapeutic antioxidant and pro-angiogenic action of placenta-derived human MSCs in a surgical model for Crohn’s-like enterocutaneous fistula [ 145 ]. Another recent study demonstrated enhanced colonic homing and the enhanced induction of macrophage IL-10 release, through transient CXCR2-receptor and semaphorin-7A expression on human MSCs, respectively, in an immunocompetent murine chemically induced inflammatory bowel disease model [ 146 ]. For recent MSC use in GvHD, culture-expanded, high-dose human umbilical-cord-blood-derived (UCB) MSCs were simultaneously transplanted with same-donor UCB HSPCs into NSG mice to effectively suppress GvHD and achieve 60 days of event-free survival [ 147 ]. As a particularly striking endorsement of MSCs as therapeutic agents for injury and inflammation, a recent systematic review on preclinical studies testing cell-based therapies in experimental neonatal lung injury, mainly applied in a hyperoxic rodent model of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), identified MSCs from among 15 distinct cell-derived therapies as the most effective cell-based therapy for key outcomes [ 148 ]. BPD in hyperoxia models has been studied for therapies based on MSCs [ 149 ]. When delivered intravenously, intraperitoneally or intratracheally, MSCs attenuated neonatal lung injury by decreasing lung inflammatory mediators, such as IL-6 and TNF-a, and reducing the expression of angiotensin II, angiotensin II type 1 receptor, and angiotensin-converting enzyme [ 149 ]. MSCs also improved alveolar structure and angiogenesis, inhibited lung fibrosis, and improved exercise capacity in animal models of BPD [ 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 ]. Similarly to BPD, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which represents a global medical concern with significant morbidity, might also be ameliorated by MSC-based therapies [ 154 ]. Experimental in vivo models of lung injury, including acute lung injury (ALI) and ARDS, demonstrated the therapeutic efficacy of MSCs [ 155 , 156 ] or their exosomes, vindicating the corresponding application of MSCs in clinical trials.

Finally, and across different cell and vector systems, several studies in animal models have addressed age comparisons for the efficiency of candidate ATMPs [ 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 ]. For instance, direct AAV-mediated delivery of the CLN2 gene for treatment of the lysosomal storage disorder, late infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis, showed clear efficiency advantages for pre-symptomatic compared with post-symptomatic application [ 160 ], and a clear survival advantage for younger recipients, with effectively doubled survival time from 2-day- to 3-week- and 7-week-old recipients [ 157 ]. For treatment of spinal muscular atrophy, intravenous injection of an SMN-encoding AAV in neonate (postnatal day 1) diseased mice rescued neuromuscular phenotype and life span, in contrast to treatment of 10-day-old mice, followed up by corresponding injection and motoneuron transduction in a neonate wildtype cynomolgus macaque [ 159 ]. For leukodystrophy Canavan disease, intravenous AAV injection to deliver the AspA gene on postnatal days 0, 6, 13 and 20 retained significant therapeutic action up to day 20, but for all parameters tested gave increasingly better restoration of normal performance with decreasing age at treatment [ 158 ]. Finally, young adult vs. aged rats were recently transplanted with bare and allogeneic-MSC-coated vascular grafts to demonstrate superior performance (e.g., for graft integration, blood flow, neotissue density, collagen fiber density and orientation) in young vs. aged recipients and for MSC-coated vs. bare grafts [ 162 ], which gives clear implications for MSC inclusion and, despite absence of juvenile animals in the study, once again for a general positive effect of application in younger recipients.

4.2. In Utero

Recent years have seen significant progress in the in utero application of different classes of ATMPs. Transfer of stem cells is rarely used, whereas in utero ATMP application by the AAV-mediated direct delivery of gene editing components or therapeutic transgenes is of particular prominence, although direct injection into fetal yolk sac vessels [ 163 , 164 ], ionizable lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) [ 165 ] and even in utero electroporation [ 166 ] have also been employed to achieve the delivery of cargoes such as mRNA, editors or gene addition components.

Exemplary studies for direct AAV-mediated delivery include early achievements of sustained reporter gene expression in the pulmonary epithelium after injection in the amniotic sac [ 167 ] and tolerance induction by the delivery of human factor IX in hemophilia B mice [ 168 ]. AAV was also used for the delivery of adenine base editors for efficient correction in the liver and heart and low-level correction in the brain in Idua (W392X) mutant (Hurler syndrome) mice [ 169 ] and that of a β-glucosylceramidase transgene by fetal intracranial injection in Gba knockout (Gaucher disease) mice [ 170 ] for lysosomal storage disorders. Similarly, CRISPR/Cas9- and cytosine base editors were delivered by intravenous in utero injection to establish proof of principle for in utero editing to modify proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 ( PCSK9 ) as a target for coronary heart disease and to correct 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (Hbd) as therapy for hereditary tyrosinemia type 1 [ 171 ]. AAV8-mediated delivery of human factor IX enabled the long-term correction of hemophilia in cynomolgus macaques [ 105 ], as did the AAV5- and AAV8-mediated delivery of human factors IV and X [ 172 ] in both studies, largely due to randomly integrated provirus in hepatocytes. Finally, AAV2-mediated delivery of MSRB3 by transuterine microinjection into the otic vesicle of MsrB3 knockout embryos has been used to address hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction, which has also been addressed, e.g., by plasmid-based delivery combined with electroporation in connexin 30 knockout embryos [ 121 ]. Non-AAV-based direct injection of therapeutic agents has additionally been applied using an adenoviral vector to deliver CRISPR/Cas components and inactivate a mutant Sftpc I73T gene for partial disease correction in a mouse model of monogenic lung disease [ 173 ]. Direct in vivo vector delivery was also performed by the intrahepatic fetal injection of HBB-encoding GLOBE lentiviral vector to achieve the correction of β-thalassemia in a humanized mouse model [ 137 ], for comparison with the intraperitoneal delivery of wild-type HSPCs with overall low correction efficiencies [ 174 ], and by the intra-amniotic injection of polymeric nanoparticles loaded with triplex-forming peptide nucleic acids and single-stranded donor DNA as gene editing components in HBB IVS2−654 thalassemic mice [ 175 ].

Concerning ATMP development based on in utero stem cell transplantation, ex vivo gene addition of human factor VIII to placenta-derived MSCs allowed the detection of postnatal transgene expression after in utero transplantation into wild-type mouse embryos, as proof of principle for a potential corresponding hemophilia A therapy [ 176 ]. For HSPCs, in utero application would be based on long-established in utero hematopoietic stem cell transplantation [ 177 ] which, due to immunological immaturity [ 92 ], can even be employed as conventional fully allogeneic HSCT [ 177 ], but in the absence of in utero conditioning regimens, only achieves the mixed chimerism of donor cells for allogeneic or autologous application [ 177 , 178 ]. In this context, amniotic-fluid-derived stem cells show superior performance as a potential substrate for future in utero therapies [ 179 , 180 ]

5. Clinical Studies of Early Interventions

5.1. Pediatric

A large number of pediatric clinical trials are in progress for ATMPs, and in some cases have already led to approved treatments ( Section 2 ). For TEPs, several studies and applications of tissue engineering for the treatment of skin and soft tissue damage provide notable landmarks with great potential for pediatric application [ 181 , 182 , 183 ], as was recently demonstrated in clinical studies, e.g., for epidermal autografts (JACE) [ 184 ] and composite skin allografts (Apligraf) [ 183 , 185 ]. In the context of genetic skin disorders, two pioneering pediatric studies in seven-year-old boys with junctional epidermolysis bullosa combining retroviral gene addition in autologous keratinocyte stem cells with tissue engineering demonstrated the complete functional regeneration of limited epidermal grafts [ 186 ] and permanent clonal reconstitution of the entire epidermis, respectively [ 187 ]. These studies at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia have provided the first concept and then mechanistic insights for wider clinical evaluations of genetically corrected autologous epidermal grafts to treat other genetic disorders, such as Netherton syndrome [ 188 ] and recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa [ 189 ]. Noteworthy outside our focus on CAR-, HSPC- and MSC-based therapies are also ATMPs with pediatric application developed under the EMA Priority Medicines (PRIME) scheme [ 190 ]. Corresponding pediatric treatments still under investigation and pending approval include rebisulfigene etisparvovec (ABO-102), an AAV9-based gene therapy drug for the in vivo treatment of mucopolysaccharidosis IIA-Sanfilippo syndrome, and beremagene geperpavec (KB103), an HSV-1 collagen-expressing vector for the topical treatment of dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, both of which are currently in clinical trials ( NCT04088734 , NCT04360265 , NCT02716246 and NCT03536143 , NCT04491604 , respectively). A third pediatric ATMP, AT-GTX-501, based on an AAV9 vector containing the human CLN6 gene to slow disease progression in variant late infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis 6, has recently been discontinued because it failed to stabilize disease progression in long-term follow-up ( NCT04273243 and NCT02725580 ) [ 191 ].

5.1.1. CAR Cells

For CAR cell application, CAR-T cell-based therapy is exceptionally advanced and too prolific to cover here in detail for all corresponding clinical trials, with marketing approval for several ATMPs for pediatric application (see also Section 2 ). Notable here is the EMA and FDA ACCELERATE collaboration for pediatric cancer patients [ 192 ] which, among other ATMPs, led to marketing approval as priority medicines under EMA’s PRIME scheme [ 190 ] for the CD19-targeting, CAR-T-based tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah ® , e.g., NCT02529813 and many others) for pediatric patients with relapsed or refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, whereas for other equivalent treatments, such as axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta ® , e.g., NCT02348216 and many others), data are still pending that would warrant treatment in pediatric patients. Overall, over 60 CAR-T trials for pediatric application are currently open, recruiting or ongoing (see www.clinicaltrials.gov , accessed 21 February 2022), with targets such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia (anti-CD19, anti-CD22, anti-CD19/22, anti-CD20/19), CNS tumors and sarcomas (anti-B7H3, anti-HER2, anti-EGFR806), Hodgkin lymphoma (anti-CD30), liver cancer (anti-GAP), neuroblastoma (anti-GD2), myeloid leukemia (anti-CD33, anti-CD123) and T cell lymphoblastic leukemia (anti-CD7).

5.1.2. HSPCs

For advanced HSPC-based therapies, promising preclinical data have led to dozens of products entering clinical trials during the last few years. Specifically, for early-lethal inherited disorders, clinical trials of related drugs exclusively involve children; otherwise, a mixed adult/pediatric or, more often, an adult-only cohort is used. The juvenile application of HSPC-based ATMPs in children, mostly as gene therapy of inherited disorders, comes with its unique challenges and opportunities [ 193 ]. Early application is paramount for many HSPC-based GTMPs, especially when the corresponding disease poses an immediate threat to life or causes early irreversible damage, but also because early drug administration is associated with better outcomes due to better health status, bone marrow (BM) condition and quality of stem cells [ 194 , 195 ]. This benefit of earlier intervention, highlighted in a plethora of preclinical studies in animal models (see Section 4 ), as well as in clinical studies of allogeneic HSCT [ 196 ], has only recently begun to show in gene therapy clinical studies, strongly advocating for improvements in prenatal screening and early diagnosis [ 197 ]. Moreover, early treatment reaches therapeutic effects at a lower price (lower body mass requiring lower drug dose), abolishes or reduces long-term medication requirements and prevents disease complications, together making an otherwise expensive and inaccessible treatment rather cost effective [ 198 , 199 , 200 ].

Two out of the three EU-approved HSPC-based GTMPs, Strimvelis for ADA-SCID and atidarsagene autotemcel (Libmeldy) for MLD, are specifically indicated in young pediatric patients [ 201 , 202 ], whereas betibeglogene autotemcel (Zynteglo) for TDBT is indicated in children >12 years old and adult patients [ 197 ]. Lybmeldy in particular was given authorization for use only in children with late infantile or early juvenile MLD who are asymptomatic or have initial symptoms but can still walk independently and do not show mental deterioration, as the drug showed much less benefit in children with a more advanced disease stage [ 54 , 98 , 202 ]. As yet another advocate for early intervention, a recent gene therapy study for β-thalassemia, employing autologous HSPCs after lentiviral vector-mediated HBB gene addition in patients, including pediatric patients, allowed the direct comparison of pediatric and adult treatment with HSPCs and showed that a younger age is associated with better clinical outcomes ( NCT02453477 ). This was attributed to an impaired BM microenvironment (as the recipient tissue of modified stem cells) and HSPC repopulating capacity in older patients, due to both aging and an advanced disease pathology [ 194 , 203 ].

Due to the large number of clinical studies involving HSPCs as GTMPs, Table 1 , in addition to selected studies employing MSC, lists only studies involving products with pediatric application that are currently under the EMA PRIME scheme.

5.1.3. MSCs

The success of MSCs in preclinical models has, over the past 10 years, prompted investigation of their regenerative potential for stem-cell-based therapies in the treatment or prevention of GvHD and in different lung diseases of infants and children, such as BPD, pneumonia, ALI and ARDS [ 204 ].

GvHD . Typical for the pediatric development of new medicines, many products successfully applied in adult patients do not or only with delay find application in pediatric patients. For instance, whereas for Alosifel ® (aka Darvadstrocel) no data exist for patient groups from 0 to 17 years [ 205 ], Obnitix ® has been employed successfully in pediatric patients with steroid-refractory acute graft-vs-host disease (aGvHD) [ 33 ]. Despite this relative shortfall of pediatric development, a gratifyingly large selection of clinical studies has nevertheless already shown the benefit of allogeneic MSC treatments for aGvHD correction or prevention in pediatric patients or for the promotion of engraftment [ 63 , 206 , 207 , 208 , 209 , 210 , 211 ]. Of note, the source and nature of the MSCs applied affected the outcome, in that the co-infusion of MSCs effectively prevented aGvHD, but umbilical-cord-blood-derived MSCs additionally improved engraftment, in contrast to parental-derived MSCs [ 212 , 213 ].

BPD . BPD is a main complication of prematurity, resulting in significant morbidity, mortality and lifelong consequence of early impairment [ 214 ], emphasizing the potentially critical role of early intervention. An apparent reduction in the BPD of lung-resident stem/progenitor cells from the endothelial, mesenchymal and epithelial lineages [ 215 , 216 ] as possible cause for lung growth has suggested a potential therapeutic role of MSCs in preterm infants. This prompted a pioneering phase I dose-escalation trial based on treatment with umbilical-cord-blood-derived MSCs in nine preterm infants at high risk of BPD, which was well tolerated without any serious adverse effect ( NCT01297205 ) [ 217 ]. A subsequent two-year follow-up study confirmed the lack of any long-term side effect in the treated patients [ 218 ], which has now been extended up to 5 years of age ( NCT02023788 ) [ 219 ]. A similar phase I dose-escalation trial on the safety and feasibility of intratracheal MSCs in twelve preterm infants at high risk of BPD yielded comparable results ( NCT02381366 ) [ 220 ] as encouragement for further trials including controls and a greater sample size.

ARDS . ARDS is a life-threatening condition with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and other cardio-pulmonary features [ 221 ], with a range of possible environmental causes and underlying conditions [ 222 ] and the contribution of dysregulated inflammatory/immune responses, coagulation, and alveolar membrane permeability in its pathogenesis [ 223 ]. Pediatric mortality is high [ 154 ] and supportive care is inadequate, which renders ARDS an ideal target for evaluations of pediatric MSC treatment. Three adult-only trials (phases 1, 2A and 2B) have given encouraging results for an intravenous dose of 10 6 cells/kg ( NCT01775774 , NCT02097641 and NCT03818854 ) [ 224 , 225 , 226 ], with the need to improve MSC viability and to demonstrate safety and efficacy in pediatric patients.

5.2. In Utero

Due to uncertainties and bioethical concerns associated with nascent technologies of in utero ATMP application, few prenatal therapies are currently in clinical trials, and those that are aim squarely at preventing or ameliorating severe diseases with in utero onset, rather than reducing costs or increasing therapeutic efficiency in diseases otherwise suitable for postnatal ATMP application. In addition to animal studies for in utero ATMP application (see Section 4 ), non-ATMP in utero therapies such as curative intra-amniotic administration of ectodysplasin A protein for hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia [ 257 ] have paved the way for registration of the first in utero ATMP clinical trials.

For HSPC application, hydrops fetalis in alpha-thalassemia major represents a textbook case of the need for and unique potential of in utero therapeutic applications. With in utero blood transfusions as a powerful life-saving technology [ 258 ], in utero HSPC transplantation was a logical next step in a conventional HSCT trial with planned enrolment of 10 patients ( NCT02986698 ) [ 259 , 260 ], and possibly paving the way for pioneering in utero gene therapy applications in the clinic, based on autologous HSPCs.

Drawing on MSCs, the in utero transplantation of placental MSC is envisaged in a trial addressing myelomeningocele (aka spina bifida; NCT04652908 ) as supportive treatment for successful outcomes of in utero myelomeningocele surgery, with the planned enrolment of 35 patients for combined treatment and 20 patients as surgery-only controls [ 255 ]. Based on allogeneic fetal expanded MSCs, another study addresses osteogenesis imperfecta ( NCT03706482 ) with administration of three doses in utero in the treatment group vs. three doses starting at 4 months after birth for the control group [ 256 ].

6. Tools for Success of Early Interventions

In addition to benefits concerning therapeutic efficacy specifically for ATMPs, juvenile treatments in general cater for a large and growing market, as detailed elsewhere in this Special Issue [ 261 ], and as for any research and medical sector, growing application will lead to the creation of additional resources. In this respect, progress across all aspects of ATMP development will benefit from early interventions, but of particular importance here might be the recent developments for cell sources, vector development, and in particular, the burgeoning field of nanomedicine, as detailed subsequently.

6.1. Sources for Cell-Based Therapies

For CAR cells, T and NK cells as the substrate for the generation of CAR-T and CAR-NK cells, respectively, have a variety of abundant sources. For T cells, typically autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) are collected by leukapheresis before the isolation of T cells by CD3 selection [ 262 ]. T cells then require activation before transduction to create CAR-T cells, and activation is most reproducibly achieved with anti-CD3/anti-CD28 antibody-coated beads. Transduction is then typically performed by lentiviral or γ-retroviral vectors, with the preference of lentiviral vectors due to their safer integration profile [ 263 ] and effective transduction of quiescent cells [ 264 ]. For NK cells with their HLA-independent action, autologous but also allogeneic cell sources are suitable, including induced pluripotent stem cells, NK cell lines, umbilical cord blood or allogeneic PBMCs [ 265 ]. Depending on the cell source, such as PBMCs, irradiation of CAR-NK cells may not be necessary, whereas for other cell sources, such as the commonly used, cytotoxic and highly passaged NK92 cell line, irradiation is required to prevent malignancies [ 266 ]. Based on PBMCs, CD3-negative followed by CD56-positive selection is usually employed to isolate NK cells before activation and transduction. Importantly, off-the-shelf NK cell lines for specific malignancies are already available, such as CD38/BCMA-targeting FT576 line for multiple myeloma [ 267 ], and the CD19-targeting FT596 line for B cell malignancies [ 268 ].

In HSPC-based cellular therapies, BM, mobilized peripheral blood and umbilical cord blood are all popular sources of HSPCs, each with their own set of advantages and disadvantages, determined by differences in collection procedures, cellular content (cell types and numbers) and outcomes of transplantation [ 269 ]. The same tissues serve as HSPC sources for ATMP-related pediatric applications; however, children as donors or recipients of HSPCs face their own unique challenges [ 270 , 271 , 272 ]. For decades, BM has been the gold standard source of HSPCs in children; however, in recent years, an increasing number of centers has instead used mobilized peripheral blood as the primary source of HSPCs [ 273 ]. The procedure is less invasive than BM harvesting, and also characterized by the more rapid engraftment of HSPCs after transplantation [ 274 ]. For the collection of mobilized peripheral blood, mobilization agents such as G-CSF and plerixafor are administered to the patient to allow the rapid egress of HSPCs from BM into peripheral blood, from where they are then collected by a blood cell separator (apheresis machine) [ 275 ]. The procedure is more challenging in children, especially in those under 10 kg (higher risk of hypovolemic shock, hypocalcemia, hypervolemic cardiac overload and adverse events related to insertion of dialysis catheters), requiring more time and money than in adults [ 272 ]. There is, therefore, considerable scope for adjustment to pediatric needs, both for current procedure protocols and for existing adult-oriented technology, such as standard apheresis machines with their large extracorporeal volume in relation to the total blood volume of small children [ 276 ]. Even though higher HSPC yields are obtained during harvest in children compared with adults, the scarcity of stem cells with long-term repopulating potential (present among large numbers of committed progenitors or mature blood cells) in the available sources requires the enrichment and expansion of those cells in cultures to achieve therapeutic doses of products. Improvement and innovation in every step of source cell processing, from mobilization (newer mobilizing regimens to maximize HSPC harvest) to apheresis (to increase cell yields and minimize associated risks) and cell culture procedures (to retain stemness and long-term repopulating capacity of cells) are needed for the industrial translation of HSPC-based therapies [ 277 , 278 , 279 ].

MSCs are a heterogeneous subset of multipotent adult stem cells present in multiple tissues of different sources. Human MSCs can easily be isolated from the umbilical cord, BM, and adipose tissue, and when expanded in vitro can differentiate into different mesodermal cell linages with exceptional genomic stability and few ethical issues [ 280 ]. These characteristics have marked their importance in cell therapy, regenerative medicine and tissue repair. BM and adipose tissue are well characterized and documented sources of MSCs. When selecting adequate sources, clinicians should consider some practical limitations concerning the difficulty and invasiveness of the procurement process and various donor characteristics [ 281 ]. For BM-derived MSCs, harvesting these cells is a painful, invasive procedure, with a risk of viral exposure and with a potential reduction with donor age in the number, differentiation potential and maximal life span of BM-derived MSCs [ 282 ]. Instead, a large number of MSCs can be obtained from the adipose tissue through minimally invasive lipoaspiration methods [ 283 ], which maintain their potency with increasing donor age and possess a more robust immunomodulatory capability than BM-derived MSCs [ 284 ]. Finally, umbilical cord (UC)-derived MSCs exert faster self-renewal properties than BM-derived MSCs and can be obtained with a painless collection procedure from Wharton jelly, veins, arteries, the umbilical cord lining and the subamnion and perivascular regions [ 285 ].

Of note, for off-the-shelf application of any cell type, cell material needs to be expanded, which may be enhanced by new developments in advanced expansion technologies. This might also be necessary for autologous applications, where the underlying disease condition affects cell yield and function. A key step here is a transition from yield-limiting planar to multi-layer and target-cell-optimized microcarrier systems, where porous microcarriers may be of particular benefit for MSC expansion [ 48 ]. Alternatively, early ATMP application, with its ballpark drop in reagent requirements and cost, may effectively address the challenge of providing sufficient cell material instead.

Once collected and possibly expanded, cells of interest need to reach their application target, a process for which the selection of preclinical and clinical studies in Section 4 and Section 5 indicates a range of different successful cell delivery modalities for early interventions. Accordingly, intravenous injection readily allows CAR-T and -NK cells to find their engineered, receptor-specific targets, and allows HSPCs, MSCs and many other cell types to home to their tissue of origin. Alternatively, the intraosseous application of HSPCs has advantages for the speed of reconstitution [ 194 ], and targeting of cells to the CNS (where generally direct vector injection is preferred), the eye or the embryo with their corresponding transport barriers would usually altogether rely on topical delivery instead [ 286 , 287 , 288 ].

6.2. Traditional Viral and Non-Viral Vectors

The plethora of diverse ATMPs requires the use of different delivery vehicles and routes of administration of cells and genetic material for the achievement of optimal therapeutic effects in adults and children.

For the delivery of GTMPs, efficient transfer of genetic material or genome editing tools into target cells is a key step for success. For both ex vivo and in vivo applications, various viral and non-viral vectors have been developed as delivery vehicles, each one with their own advantages and disadvantages [ 289 , 290 ]. Improvements can be achieved by ongoing technical innovations, such as in the delivery of cells or genetic material to the tissues and cells of interest for in vivo application [ 291 , 292 , 293 , 294 , 295 , 296 , 297 ] or for ex vivo application in the isolation of suitable cells [ 16 , 298 , 299 , 300 ] or in more effective delivery into cells, and possibly nuclei, at improved efficiency and low toxicity [ 87 , 301 , 302 , 303 , 304 , 305 , 306 ]. Viral vectors (γ-retroviruses, lentiviruses, adenoviruses and adeno-associated viruses) were among the first exploited delivery platforms and are still highly prevalent due to their inherently high efficiency of gene transduction to eukaryotic cells (extensively reviewed in [ 106 ]). Here, AAVs in particular are almost universally exploited for in vivo application, whereas lentiviral vectors are usually the vectors of choice for permanent ex vivo HSPC modifications. Traditionally, ex vivo gene therapy has been applied to HSPCs, which is still associated with chemical myeloablation and corresponding treatment-related morbidities. Recent advances in antibody-mediated conditioning, such as through the targeting of CD117 cells, promise to improve the tolerability of HSPCs modified ex vivo and reduce treatment-related mortality [ 307 ]. Meanwhile, non-hematopoietic tissues are usually modified by in vivo strategies, which poses the problem of accessibility or homing to target tissues but has lower treatment-related morbidities. Lately, in vivo therapy is also being pursued for HSPCs as a safer, cheaper, and potentially more efficient therapeutic approach. Hemoglobinopathies, as the most common monogenic disorders, are once more paving the way as a test bed for new methodology, with the recent publication of several in vivo [ 293 , 308 , 309 , 310 ] and one in utero application of GTMPs [ 137 ]. Viral gene delivery is frequently associated with considerable immunogenicity and risks of genotoxicity, although many non-viral delivery methods have disadvantages of their own, including frequently lower transfer efficiency, and reduced specificity and duration of gene expression [ 311 ]. The fast-paced contemporary research field of non-viral vectors covers polymers, lipids, inorganic particles, engineered virus-like particles, hybrid systems of these vector types and naked nucleic acids for chemical or physical transfer [ 289 , 310 , 312 ]. For GTMPs, gene editing represents a special field of delivery application, because the persistence of editors would be detrimental and permanent changes in target cells can be introduced by highly transient action instead. The latter is most frequently achieved by electroporation ex vivo, whereas in vivo AAV-based delivery currently predominates [ 313 ], as a compromise between the desired efficiencies and the disadvantages of long persistence, low payload capacity and concerns over using high titers of viral vectors. Toward clinical application, there is, therefore, an increasing need for in vivo delivery technology with tissue specificity, flexible half-life, high payload capacity, reproducibility, GMP compliance and low immunogenicity. For traditional vectors, these properties are often difficult to achieve.

6.3. Nanomedicine

Nanomedicine has the potential to transform the delivery of therapeutic transgenes by providing highly versatile nanoparticle-based delivery platforms with improved safety profiles. Small particles in the nano-size range (at least one dimension < 100 nm [ 314 ]) can nowadays be engineered at large scales and with high precision to enable non-personalized as well as precision therapies [ 315 ]. Moreover, recent advances in nanoparticle designs to incorporate complex architectures, bio-response moieties and targeting agents allow for substantial control over their interactions with biological environments and help overcome biological barriers [ 315 ]. Therefore, nanoparticles can be tailored, among others, to protect the transgenes from degradation by nucleases, to reduce the stimulation of immune responses or to selectively target specific tissues or cell types to allow for maximum efficiency and minimal off-target effects. The genetic payload itself can be either entrapped into the nanoparticles or attached to the particle surface [ 316 , 317 ].

Side effects are of particular concern for early therapies in pregnancy, because the safety of the pregnant mother and the highly vulnerable developing fetus are at stake. In this context, the placenta, at the interface between maternal and fetal tissues, is critical for fetal development [ 318 ]. It governs active and passive gas, nutrient, hormone and waste transport, while blocking many larger molecules from passage to the fetus. Importantly, drug characteristics, such as acid/base properties, hydrophobicity or size, may affect selective passage and the potentially harmful accumulation of drugs in fetal, maternal or placental tissues. Nanoparticle-based delivery of therapeutics (e.g., chemical compounds, biologics and nucleic acids) may utilize such effects on placental translocation and interactions in order to facilitate the specific targeting of maternal, placental or fetal tissues for a highly targeted treatment and for the prevention of off-target effects [ 319 ]. For instance, the correction of maternal diseases will require a nanoparticle design that does not allow placental tissue accumulation or fetal translocation, whereas therapeutics for placental complications would rely on nanocarriers that preferentially locate to this particular organ. For fetal therapies, nanoparticles can be administered to the maternal circulation if particles with high placental transfer and specific targeting moieties for placental tissues can be identified. Alternatively, they can be injected directly into the amniotic fluid, umbilical vein or specific fetal tissues to bypass the placental barrier. However, even if the fetus is targeted directly, it will be important to ensure minimal fetal to maternal particle transfer. A recent study has proven the potential of in utero fetal gene editing by showing that the intra-amniotic administration of polymeric nanoparticles containing peptide nucleic acids (PNAs) and donor DNAs was able to correct a disease-causing mutation in the β-globin gene in a mouse model of human β-thalassemia [ 175 ]. In another study, PLGA nanoparticles were used for efficient delivery of the CRISPR-complex (Cas9 protein, single gRNA and a fluorescent probe) into erythroid cells in vitro to elevate fetal globin expression [ 320 ]. Interestingly, the initial burst release of the content was followed by a sustained release pattern, indicating that intelligent nanocarrier designs could be further exploited to control for the release of the payload according to the therapeutic needs, e.g., to achieve fast release for genetic editing versus slow or sustained release for epigenetic or RNA editing.

In the past decade, significant efforts have been made to understand nanoparticle transport across the placenta in dependence of their physico-chemical properties and to identify targeting signals to direct their localization to specific tissues (mostly the placenta) [ 175 ]. Particle size is a key factor to affect placental translocation with a negative correlation (higher transfer for smaller particles), but other particle properties, such as surface charge, material composition or surface ligands, have an impact as well. Due to this complexity, it is still difficult to predict the placental transfer of a nanoparticle, and most likely a combination of multiple particle characteristics will determine its transplacental transport behavior. In addition to passive targeting approaches by the modulation of physico-chemical particle properties (e.g., size, charge, hydrophilicity, shape and chemical composition), active targeting strategies can enable the delivery of the payload to specific cell types or tissues. Several research teams have screened for and identified peptides or antibodies to target placental tissue [ 321 , 322 ]. For instance, Li et al. [ 323 ] have conjugated peptides targeting chondroitin sulfate A (CSA; expressed at the membrane of placental trophoblasts) to the surface of nanoparticles to deliver siNRF2 and sisFlt-1 to the placenta, which improved maternal and fetal outcomes in a preeclampsia mouse model [ 323 ]. Although siRNAs are not considered as ATMPs [ 324 , 325 ], this study highlights the feasibility of nanocarriers for the targeted placental delivery of genetic material to improve placental functions. In fact, proper placental function is essential for successful pregnancy, and consequently, placental dysfunction is involved in the pathogenesis of many pregnancy complications (e.g., intrauterine growth restriction, preeclampsia, preterm birth). In addition, recent work from Singh et al. indicates that persistent DNA damage in the placenta affects embryonic health, which emphasizes the importance of genome integrity for placental health and embryonic development [ 326 ]. Therefore, in addition to maternal or fetal therapy, the placenta could be an interesting target for ATMPs to improve health outcomes in complicated pregnancies and to reduce adverse health effects later in life.

Research on nanoformulations of chemical compounds, biologics or nucleic acids for in utero or pediatric use is still in its infancy, but slowly gathering momentum. In general, the main classes of nanoparticles exploited in nanomedicine applications are polymer-based, lipid-based, inorganic or dendrimer nanoparticles [ 315 , 327 ]. Most prenatal nanotherapies employ non-ATMP cargo, such as conventional drugs, siRNA and proteins [ 327 , 328 ], but there is growing interest to apply nanocarriers for gene addition and gene editing in pregnancy. In fact, the first transplacental gene delivery using plasmid DNA:lipopolyamine complexes to achieve non-invasive fetal drug delivery was reported as early as 1995 [ 329 ]. More recent examples explored transferrin-targeted PEGylated immunoliposomes to deliver plasmid DNA to fetal brain [ 330 ] or internalizing the arginine–glycine–aspartic acid (iRGD)-coated diblock copolymer complexed to hIGF-1 plasmid DNA under the control of trophoblast-specific promoters (Cyp19a or PLAC1) to improve fetal growth restriction [ 331 ]. Although there are evidently tremendous opportunities for novel nanoparticle-based ATMPs, there are still some challenges ahead concerning the efficiency, stability and toxicity of nanocarriers [ 315 ]. These will need to be addressed comprehensively, such as by new intelligent nanoparticle designs, in order to achieve the full potential of nanoparticle-based delivery platforms and to establish safety for routine clinical application. In parallel, ongoing systematic assessments of patient safety, as well as of occupational and environmental risks along the life cycle of corresponding medicinal products and ATMPs, is required to share the information with all parties involved, including regulators, consultants, manufacturers, physicians and patients [ 332 , 333 ].

Systemic delivery via intravenous infusion is the most common approach for GTMP administration, although direct/local delivery of treatment into affected tissues (e.g., BM and the liver) is also used depending on clinical application [ 16 ]. Recently, the direct delivery to the fetal liver, lungs and intestines by the injection of mRNA-loaded LNPs into the fetal vitelline vein has been performed to achieve corresponding protein expression in the fetal liver [ 165 ]. For MSCs, both systemic delivery (intravenous/intraarterial infusions) or local/direct delivery (e.g., intramuscular and intratracheal injections) of cells have been tested in several preclinical and clinical studies [ 334 ]. In pediatric clinical trials of MSCs for aGvHD and bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intravenous and intratracheal routes are used, respectively [ 335 , 336 ], whereas for the limited in utero applications of MSCs for prenatal treatment of congenital diseases such as osteogenesis imperfecta and myelomeningocele, infusions via the umbilical vein or local/direct intraspinal infusions are administered [ 67 , 255 ].

7. Non-Technical Considerations for the Routine Application of Early ATMP Interventions

As technology, preclinical and clinical development has progressed to facilitate early interventions, a clear majority and a large proportion of the public express their approval of pediatric and of in utero applications of gene therapy to treat inherited diseases, respectively [ 337 ]. Beyond general attitudes, financial considerations clearly favor a shift from adult to early interventions for safe and efficacious treatments, whereas many ethical and regulatory impediments that remain for the still-developing ATMP sector (see Section 2 ) are further exacerbated, as detailed subsequently.

7.1. Financial Considerations

ATMPs are typically priced between USD 18,950 for tissue-engineered products and USD 1,206,751 for gene therapy, with the aforementioned prices excluding procurement, inventory and administration costs [ 338 ]. The high sales price of marketing-approved ATMPs can be attributed to a variety of factors, including cell sourcing (i.e., cell/tissue acquisition and expansion), GMP manufacturing (i.e., labor-, time- and cost-intensive GMP protocols and procedures, costly clinical-grade reagents and stringent quality control), distribution, and clinical application, including treatment and long-term follow-up [ 339 ]. The highly personalized nature of ATMPs, which restricts the scalability of manufacturing pipelines, and the small number of patients qualifying for these treatments, further add to the high prices of ATMPs. An examination of concrete cost factors specifically for ATMPs highlights the benefit of early interventions, in particular for the procurement of starting material and GMP manufacturing (including storage and distribution) and quality control ( Figure 3 ).

The extraordinary cost of ATMPs compared with small-molecule drugs is most readily accepted where ATMPs represent potentially curative treatments, allowing financial comparisons of one-off cures vs. lifelong palliative treatments. However, for many ATMPs, there are additional, less tangible financial benefits. Even for ATMPs with the uncertainty of truly curative outcomes, considerations of permanently reduced disease severity for ATMP applications, of potentially catastrophic financial and health consequences for chronic palliative treatments, and of hope for a curative ATMP outcome or for prolonged survival and potential access to improved future therapies, should enter pricing considerations, in particular for ultra-rare diseases [ 198 ]. All three aspects strongly favor early intervention.

For the specific case of GTMPs, a major cost is that of vector production for the delivery of genetic materials. Here, juvenile or prenatal application would allow a ballpark change in materials, and thus, cost, per patient, in addition to reducing requirements for what is frequently limiting cell material for ex vivo GTMPs. Assuming an average body weight of 70 kg [ 340 ], a neonatal weight of 3.5 kg [ 341 ] and approximately 3 × 10 5 cells for in utero therapeutic intervention [ 137 , 342 ], an assumed vector cost of USD 100,000 per adult patient [ 89 ] at, e.g., 5 × 10 8 lentiviral transduction units per kg [ 194 ], would be reduced to USD 5000 in neonates and to USD 85 for in utero treatment [ 137 , 194 , 342 ]. Before any markup of commercial products and treatment-associated cost, this change in pricing would greatly increase accessibility of treatment.

7.2. Ethical and Regulatory Considerations

From the ethical and regulatory standpoint, de novo pediatric developments or adaptations of adult treatments are impaired by the absence of a consensus for the establishment of pediatric safety specifications, as analyzed elsewhere in this Special Issue [ 343 ]. Consequently, even for conventional small-molecule drugs, pediatric applications lag far behind developments for adults [ 344 , 345 ], as is also apparent in the TEDDY European Paediatric Medicines Database [ 346 ]. For ATMPs compared with conventional drugs, clinical studies on early interventions are at an additional disadvantage, because such studies frequently include long in-patient treatment in an unfamiliar environment and because of the difficulty of achieving truly informed consent for what are often highly sophisticated, hard-to-explain studies with many inherent uncertainties, both known and unknown [ 347 ]. Ethical issues generally prevail in pediatric drug studies, but do so even more in ATMP, and specifically GTMP studies. In contrast to other ATMPs, such as CAR-T cells developed to treat aggressive and otherwise lethal cancer types, non-toxic stem cells such as MSCs and autologous, genetically modified HSPCs are often envisioned to treat a variety of debilitating but manageable (if conventional supportive therapy is offered) genetic disorders, which substantially lowers the acceptable risk for corresponding drugs and greatly delays their development process, as well as their evaluation in children [ 348 ]. Specifically for HSPC-based GTMPs, concerns about drug-mediated insertional mutagenesis and off-targeting still remain the major hurdles for the endorsement of new pediatric clinical trials of related drugs, whereas for those drugs that make it through clinical trials, the need for the long-term monitoring of recipients for many years after drug administration sets back their final pediatric application approval [ 349 , 350 , 351 ]. In addition to these considerations for the general acceptability of ATMPs for early treatments, other concerns are uniquely associated with pediatric and/or in utero applications.

7.2.1. Pediatric

The same considerations that drive the long-established gap between the number of adult- and pediatric-approved conventional treatments, such as for small-molecule drugs, also drive the gap between adult and pediatric ATMP applications. For palliative treatments, this creates a dilemma where, in extreme cases, the treating physician may face the choice of unauthorized off-label use of adult medicines to pediatric patients [ 98 ], or of leaving the pediatric patient without treatment altogether. For often curative ATMPs, this dilemma is exacerbated, where pediatric patients, as far as has been analyzed, exhibit higher stem cell yields and fewer irreversible disease-related morbidities [ 194 ], and would be spared years of palliative treatment and reduced quality of life by early application. On the other side of the argument, safety considerations surrounding experimental treatments for underage patients create a strong counterincentive to trial the participation or approval of pediatric studies. As for adult studies, inclusion criteria for pediatric patients therefore invariably stipulate that trial participants do not respond to standard treatments, although what constitutes a satisfactory response and acceptable quality of life under standard treatments is often open to interpretation. Particularly for slowly progressing diseases, an additional consideration is the ongoing development and prospect of novel and potentially curative treatments, from which younger patients might still benefit later.

7.2.2. In Utero

At present, there is no legal framework for routine in utero ATMP application, chiefly due to the costly and technically demanding nature of the correspondingly limited body of preclinical work, combined with concerns about potential germline transmission and safety to mother and child [ 352 ]. Moreover, frequent uncertainty over genotype–phenotype correlation and the actual severity of the disease in postnatal life (e.g., due to genetic modifiers) may not allow clear-cut decisions based on medical necessity, and the relative certainty of a severe in utero or postnatal phenotype is a key criterion for in utero gene therapy according to the consensus statement by the International Fetal Transplantation and Immunology Society [ 352 ]. Correspondingly, better-established postnatal treatments are always preferred where disease onset and severity allow, in particular where it is feared that limited studies in large animal models may not have revealed all risks associated with prenatal treatment.

These points may weigh on the mind of bioethics review boards or of the treating physician, but they will also determine attitudes of the affected couples, because for in utero treatment, the notion of parental protection and responsibility is even more acute than for pediatric application. A combined feeling of responsibility, uncertainty over phenotype predictions and over the effectiveness and safety of treatment, and the option of postnatal treatment will combine to create a reluctance by parents to take up in utero therapy, if there are alternatives. After all, the condition might be manageable, or a catastrophic outcome of in utero treatment may come to burden them with the responsibility of having taken a wrong decision. Therefore, the trailblazers for in utero treatments are, and will be, the severest and earliest forms of genetic disease, where the risk–benefit ratio will more readily justify experimental treatments. Here, additional studies in large animal models will be needed to standardize in utero ATMP technologies and to shore up data in support of in utero treatment, as bases for the approval and development of corresponding clinical in utero ATMP applications.

8. Perspectives and Conclusions

Recent diagnostic and prognostic advances allow the ever-earlier informed application of ATMP products. More efficient, more affordable therapy is possible by in utero or pediatric applications, with vastly reduced cell and vector requirements for selected ATMP applications. In addition to improving affordability, efficiency and use of GMP resources, early application is fundamental to the treatment of many as-yet untreatable diseases with pre- or perinatal onset. There is, thus, every incentive for ATMPs to narrow the gap for pediatric vs. adult medication, aided by ongoing developments. Be it a growing number of in utero and pediatric studies, prolific research into improved cell isolation and expansion sources and technology, or continuing development of delivery technologies and versatile nanoparticles as vectors, conditions are shifting in favor of ATMPs and for their early application in particular. Critical work remains to address ethical and safety concerns for young or unborn patients, especially where data from adult studies are absent. However, as successful studies accumulate and establishment of underlying technologies and their ethical, regulatory and marketing framework conditions allows further development to gain momentum, prenatal and pediatric application of ATMPs promises safe, efficient and competitive treatments for a growing number of diseases and patients.

Resource, cost, efficiency and suitability advantages, helped by existing regulatory incentives for pediatric and orphan drug development and by a change in attitudes towards advanced therapies, disproportionately favor pediatric and in utero development for ATMPs, which holds the promise of an increase in the proportion of pediatric and early interventions in particular, and correspondingly earlier and better treatments in general.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author Contributions

Resources, C.W.L., D.B. and M.K.; data curation, C.W.L. and L.K.; writing—original draft preparation, C.W.L., L.K., P.L.P., T.B.-T., S.L.G. and A.L.; writing—review and editing, C.W.L., L.K., P.L.P., T.B-T. and F.S.; visualization, C.W.L. and L.K.; supervision, C.W.L.; project administration, C.W.L.; funding acquisition, C.W.L., D.B. and M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 programme under Grant Agreement No. 777554. This work was co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund and the Republic of Cyprus through the Research and Innovation Foundation (Projects: EXCELLENCE/1216/0092, EXCELLENCE/0421/0086). The project “New infrastructure for diagnosis and treatment of patients” is funded by the Norway Grants 2014–2021.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not Applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not Applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not Applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

1. European Medicines Agency Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products: Overview|European Medicines Agency Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/advanced-therapy-medicinal-products-overview (accessed on 11 October 2021)

2. European Medicines Agency Advanced Therapy Classification|European Medicines Agency Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/marketing-authorisation/advanced-therapies/advanced-therapy-classification (accessed on 11 October 2021)

3. European Medicines Agency Guidelines Relevant for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products|European Medicines Agency Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/advanced-therapies/guidelines-relevant-advanced-therapy-medicinal-products (accessed on 11 October 2021)

4. European Medicines Agency Marketing-Authorisation Procedures for Advanced-Therapy Medicinal Products|European Medicines Agency Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/marketing-authorisation/advanced-therapies/marketing-authorisation-procedures-advanced-therapy-medicinal-products (accessed on 11 October 2021)

5. European Medicines Agency Niraparib|Medicines|European Medicines Agency Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines?search_api_views_fulltext=cancer+niraparib (accessed on 11 October 2021)

6. EC Medicines for Children|EC Public Health Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use/paediatric-medicines/ (accessed on 11 October 2021)

7. Halioua-Haubold C.L. Peyer J.G. Smith J.A. Arshad Z. Scholz M. Brindley D.A. Maclaren R.E. Regulatory considerations for gene therapy products in the US, EU, and Japan Yale J. Biol. Med. 2017 90 683 693 29259533 PMC5733859

8. Iglesias-Lopez C. Obach M. Vallano A. Agustí A. Comparison of regulatory pathways for the approval of advanced therapies in the European Union and the United States Cytotherapy 2021 23 261 274 10.1016/j.jcyt.2020.11.008 33483292

9. Eder C. Wild C. Technology forecast: Advanced therapies in late clinical research, EMA. approval or clinical application via hospital exemption J. Mark. Access Health Policy 2019 7 1600939 10.1080/20016689.2019.1600939 31069029 PMC6493298

10. Gatline A. Investor’s Business Daily® – Technology: Can CRISPR and These 3 Small Biotechs Cure 10,000 Diseases? Available online: https://www.investors.com/news/technology/crispr-gene-editing-biotech-companies/ (accessed on 17 May 2018)

11. López-Paniagua M. de la Mata A. Galindo S. Blázquez F. Calonge M. Nieto-Miguel T. Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products for the Eye: Definitions and Regulatory Framework Pharmaceutics 2021 13 347 10.3390/pharmaceutics13030347 33800934 PMC8000705

12. Ronco V. Dilecce M. Lanati E. Canonico P.L. Jommi C. Price and reimbursement of advanced therapeutic medicinal products in Europe: Are assessment and appraisal diverging from expert recommendations? J. Pharm. Policy Pract. 2021 14 30 10.1186/s40545-021-00311-0 33741076 PMC7980570

13. Mebarki M. Abadie C. Larghero J. Cras A. Human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem/stromal cells: A promising candidate for the development of advanced therapy medicinal products Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2021 12 152 10.1186/s13287-021-02222-y 33637125 PMC7907784

14. Ciccocioppo R. Comoli P. Astori G. del Bufalo F. Prapa M. Dominici M. Locatelli F. Developing cell therapies as drug products Br. J. Pharmacol. 2021 178 262 279 10.1111/bph.15305 33140850

15. Elverum K. Whitman M. Delivering cellular and gene therapies to patients: Solutions for realizing the potential of the next generation of medicine Gene Ther. 2020 27 537 544 10.1038/s41434-019-0074-7 31024072 PMC7744278

16. Koniali L. Lederer C.W. Kleanthous M. Therapy Development by Genome Editing of Hematopoietic Stem Cells Cells 2021 10 1492 10.3390/cells10061492 34198536 PMC8231983

17. Whomsley R. Palmi Reig V. Hidalgo-Simon A. Environmental risk assessment of advanced therapies containing genetically modified organisms in the EU Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2021 87 2450 2458 10.1111/bcp.14781 33600022

18. Lechanteur C. Briquet A. Bettonville V. Baudoux E. Beguin Y. Msc manufacturing for academic clinical trials: From a clinical-grade to a full gmp-compliant process Cells 2021 10 1320 10.3390/cells10061320 34073206 PMC8227789

19. Beattie S. Call for more effective regulation of clinical trials with advanced therapy medicinal products consisting of or containing genetically modified organisms in the European Union Hum. Gene Ther. 2021 32 997 1003 10.1089/HUM.2021.058 33843251

20. European Medicines Agency Scientific Recommendations on Classification of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products|EMA/140033/2021 Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/marketing-authorisation/advanced-therapies/advanced-therapy-classification/scientific-recommendations-classification-advanced-therapy-medicinal-products (accessed on 10 December 2021)

21. Attico E. Sceberras V. Pellegrini G. Approaches for Effective Clinical Application of Stem Cell Transplantation Curr. Transplant. Rep. 2018 5 244 250 10.1007/s40472-018-0202-0 30221121 PMC6132451

22. Quinn C. Young C. Thomas J. Trusheim M. Estimating the Clinical Pipeline of Cell and Gene Therapies and Their Potential Economic Impact on the US Healthcare System Value Health 2019 22 621 626 10.1016/j.jval.2019.03.014 31198178

23. Shukla V. Seoane-Vazquez E. Fawaz S. Brown L. Rodriguez-Monguio R. The Landscape of Cellular and Gene Therapy Products: Authorization, Discontinuations, and Cost Hum. Gene Ther. Clin. Dev. 2019 30 102 113 10.1089/humc.2018.201 30968714

24. Adami A. Maher J. An overview of CAR T-cell clinical trial activity to 2021 Immunother. Adv. 2021 1 ltab004 10.1093/immadv/ltab004 34056638 PMC8137996

25. Marofi F. Saleh M.M. Rahman H.S. Suksatan W. Al-Gazally M.E. Abdelbasset W.K. Thangavelu L. Yumashev A.V. Hassanzadeh A. Yazdanifar M. CAR-engineered NK cells; a promising therapeutic option for treatment of hematological malignancies Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2021 12 374 10.1186/s13287-021-02462-y 34215336 PMC8252313

26. Li Y.-R. Dunn Z.S. Zhou Y. Lee D. Yang L. Development of Stem Cell-Derived Immune Cells for Off-the-Shelf Cancer Immunotherapies Cells 2021 10 3497 10.3390/cells10123497 34944002 PMC8700013

27. Aiuti A. Cattaneo F. Galimberti S. Benninghoff U. Cassani B. Callegaro L. Scaramuzza S. Andolfi G. Mirolo M. Brigida I. Gene therapy for immunodeficiency due to adenosine deaminase deficiency N. Engl. J. Med. 2009 360 447 458 10.1056/NEJMoa0805817 19179314

28. Bank A. Dorazio R. Leboulch P. A phase I/II clinical trial of beta-globin gene therapy for beta-thalassemia Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2005 1054 308 316 10.1196/annals.1345.007 16339679

29. Cavazzana-Calvo M. Payen E. Negre O. Wang G. Hehir K. Fusil F. Down J. Denaro M. Brady T. Westerman K. Transfusion independence and HMGA2 activation after gene therapy of human beta-thalassaemia Nature 2010 467 318 322 10.1038/nature09328 20844535 PMC3355472

30. Ribeil J.-A. Hacein-Bey-Abina S. Payen E. Magnani A. Semeraro M. Magrin E. Caccavelli L. Neven B. Bourget P. El Nemer W. Gene Therapy in a Patient with Sickle Cell Disease N. Engl. J. Med. 2017 376 848 855 10.1056/NEJMoa1609677 28249145

31. Thompson A.A. Walters M.C. Kwiatkowski J. Rasko J.E.J. Ribeil J.-A.A. Hongeng S. Magrin E. Schiller G.J. Payen E. Semeraro M. Gene Therapy in Patients with Transfusion-Dependent β-Thalassemia N. Engl. J. Med. 2018 378 1479 1493 10.1056/NEJMoa1705342 29669226

32. CRISPRTX CRISPR Therapeutics Provides Business Update and Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2020 Financial Results Available online: http://ir.crisprtx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/crispr-therapeutics-provides-business-update-and-reports-4 (accessed on 1 June 2021)

33. Gruhn B. Brodt G. Ernst J. Extended Treatment with Mesenchymal Stromal Cells-Frankfurt am Main in a Pediatric Patient with Steroid-refractory Acute Gastrointestinal Graft-Versus-Host Disease: Case Report and Review of the Literature J. Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. 2021 43 e419 e425 10.1097/MPH.0000000000001758 32118816

34. Buscail E. Le Cosquer G. Gross F. Lebrin M. Bugarel L. Deraison C. Vergnolle N. Bournet B. Gilletta C. Buscail L. Adipose-derived stem cells in the treatment of perianal fistulas in Crohn’s disease: Rationale, clinical results and perspectives Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021 22 9967 10.3390/ijms22189967 34576129 PMC8470328

35. Cuende N. Rasko J.E.J. Koh M.B.C. Dominici M. Ikonomou L. Cell, tissue and gene products with marketing authorization in 2018 worldwide Cytotherapy 2018 20 1401 1413 10.1016/j.jcyt.2018.09.010 30366616

36. Globerson Levin A. Rivière I. Eshhar Z. Sadelain M. CAR T cells: Building on the CD19 paradigm Eur. J. Immunol. 2021 51 2151 2163 10.1002/eji.202049064 34196410 PMC9392049

37. Lee D.W. Kochenderfer J.N. Stetler-Stevenson M. Cui Y.K. Delbrook C. Feldman S.A. Fry T.J. Orentas R. Sabatino M. Shah N.N. T cells expressing CD19 chimeric antigen receptors for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in children and young adults: A phase 1 dose-escalation trial Lancet 2015 385 517 528 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61403-3 25319501 PMC7065359

38. Lichtenstein D.A. Schischlik F. Shao L. Steinberg S.M. Yates B. Wang H.W. Wang Y. Inglefield J. Dulau-Florea A. Ceppi F. Characterization of HLH-like manifestations as a CRS variant in patients receiving CD22 CAR T cells Blood 2021 138 2469 2484 10.1182/blood.2021011898 34525183 PMC8832442

39. Liu R. Cheng Q. Kang L. Wang E. Li Y. Zhang J. Xiao H. Zhang Y. Chu L. Chen X. CD19 or CD20 CAR T-cell Therapy Demonstrates Durable Antitumor Efficacy in Patients with CNS Lymphoma Hum. Gene Ther. 2022 33 318 329 10.1089/hum.2021.249 35152726

40. Shah N. Chari A. Scott E. Mezzi K. Usmani S.Z. B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) in multiple myeloma: Rationale for targeting and current therapeutic approaches Leukemia 2020 34 985 1005 10.1038/s41375-020-0734-z 32055000 PMC7214244

41. Xue Y.B. Lai X. Li R.L. Ge C.L. Zeng B.Z. Li Z. Fu Q.F. Zhao L.F. Dong S.W. Yang J.Y. CD19 and CD30 CAR T-Cell Immunotherapy for High-Risk Classical Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Front. Oncol. 2021 10 607362 10.3389/fonc.2020.607362 33604290 PMC7885818

42. Zhang H. Liu M. Xiao X. Lv H. Jiang Y. Li X. Yuan T. Zhao M. A combination of humanized anti-BCMA and murine anti-CD38 CAR-T cell therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma Leuk. Lymphoma 2022 1 10 10.1080/10428194.2022.2030476 35105265

43. Mohanty R. Chowdhury C.R. Arega S. Sen P. Ganguly P. Ganguly N. CAR T cell therapy: A new era for cancer treatment (Review) Oncol. Rep. 2019 42 2183 2195 10.3892/or.2019.7335 31578576

44. Tang Y. Yin H. Zhao X. Jin D. Liang Y. Xiong T. Li L. Tang W. Zhang J. Liu M. High efficacy and safety of CD38 and BCMA bispecific CAR-T in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2022 41 1 15 10.1186/s13046-021-02214-z 34980210 PMC8722124

45. Shah N.N. Johnson B.D. Schneider D. Zhu F. Szabo A. Keever-Taylor C.A. Krueger W. Worden A.A. Kadan M.J. Yim S. Bispecific anti-CD20, anti-CD19 CAR T cells for relapsed B cell malignancies: A phase 1 dose escalation and expansion trial Nat. Med. 2020 26 1569 1575 10.1038/s41591-020-1081-3 33020647

46. Xie G. Dong H. Liang Y. Ham J.D. Rizwan R. Chen J. CAR-NK cells: A promising cellular immunotherapy for cancer EBioMedicine 2020 59 102975 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102975 32853984 PMC7452675

47. Tucci F. Scaramuzza S. Aiuti A. Mortellaro A. Update on Clinical Ex Vivo Hematopoietic Stem Cell Gene Therapy for Inherited Monogenic Diseases Mol. Ther. 2021 29 489 504 10.1016/j.ymthe.2020.11.020 33221437 PMC7854296

48. Simaria A.S. Hassan S. Varadaraju H. Rowley J. Warren K. Vanek P. Farid S.S. Allogeneic cell therapy bioprocess economics and optimization: Single-use cell expansion technologies Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2014 111 69 83 10.1002/bit.25008 23893544 PMC4065358

49. Papasavva P. Kleanthous M. Lederer C.W. Rare Opportunities: CRISPR/Cas-Based Therapy Development for Rare Genetic Diseases Mol. Diagn. Ther. 2019 23 201 222 10.1007/s40291-019-00392-3 30945166 PMC6469594

50. Papanikolaou E. Bosio A. The Promise and the Hope of Gene Therapy Front. Genome Ed. 2021 3 618346 10.3389/fgeed.2021.618346 34713249 PMC8525363

51. European Medicines Agency Zynteglo Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/zynteglo (accessed on 21 March 2022)

52. European Medicines Agency Skysona Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/skysona (accessed on 21 March 2022)

53. European Medicines Agency Strimvelis Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/strimvelis (accessed on 21 March 2022)

54. European Medicines Agency Libmeldy Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/libmeldy (accessed on 21 March 2022)

55. European Medicines Agency Luxturna Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/luxturna (accessed on 21 March 2022)

56. European Medicines Agency Zolgensma Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/zolgensma (accessed on 21 March 2022)

57. European Medicines Agency Resamirigene Bilparvovec Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/paediatric-investigation-plans/emea-002571-pip01-19 (accessed on 21 March 2022)

58. Lazarus H.M. Haynesworth S.E. Gerson S.L. Rosenthal N.S. Caplan A.I. Ex vivo expansion and subsequent infusion of human bone marrow-derived stromal progenitor cells (mesenchymal progenitor cells): Implications for therapeutic use Bone Marrow Transplant. 1995 16 557 564 8528172

59. Jacobsohn D.A. Vogelsang G.B. Acute graft versus host disease Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2007 2 35 10.1186/1750-1172-2-35 17784964 PMC2018687

60. Mac Sweeney R. McAuley D.F. Mesenchymal stem cell therapy in acute lung injury: Is it time for a clinical trial? Thorax 2012 67 475 476 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-201309 22504891

61. Aggarwal S. Pittenger M.F. Human mesenchymal stem cells modulate allogeneic immune cell responses Blood 2005 105 1815 1822 10.1182/blood-2004-04-1559 15494428

62. Maitra B. Szekely E. Gjini K. Laughlin M.J. Dennis J. Haynesworth S.E. Koç O.N. Human mesenchymal stem cells support unrelated donor hematopoietic stem cells and suppress T-cell activation Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004 33 597 604 10.1038/sj.bmt.1704400 14716336

63. Introna M. Lucchini G. Dander E. Galimberti S. Rovelli A. Balduzzi A. Longoni D. Pavan F. Masciocchi F. Algarotti A. Treatment of graft versus host disease with mesenchymal stromal cells: A phase I study on 40 adult and pediatric patients Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014 20 375 381 10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.11.033 24321746

64. Le Blanc K. Frassoni F. Ball L. Locatelli F. Roelofs H. Lewis I. Lanino E. Sundberg B. Bernardo M.E. Remberger M. Mesenchymal stem cells for treatment of steroid-resistant, severe, acute graft-versus-host disease: A phase II study Lancet 2008 371 1579 1586 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60690-X 18468541

65. McIntyre L.A. Moher D. Fergusson D.A. Sullivan K.J. Mei S.H.J. Lalu M. Marshall J. McLeod M. Griffin G. Grimshaw J. Efficacy of mesenchymal stromal cell therapy for acute lung injury in preclinical animal models: A systematic review PLoS ONE 2016 11 e0147170 10.1371/journal.pone.0147170 26821255 PMC4731557

66. Rojas M. Xu J. Woods C.R. Mora A.L. Spears W. Roman J. Brigham K.L. Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells in repair of the injured lung Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 2005 33 145 152 10.1165/rcmb.2004-0330OC 15891110 PMC2715309

67. Sagar R. David A. Gotherstrom C. BOOSTB4 (Boost Brittle Bones before Birth) trial protocol Prenat. Diagn. 2020 40 46

68. Otsuru S. Desbourdes L. Guess A.J. Hofmann T.J. Relation T. Kaito T. Dominici M. Iwamoto M. Horwitz E.M. Extracellular vesicles released from mesenchymal stromal cells stimulate bone growth in osteogenesis imperfecta Cytotherapy 2018 20 62 73 10.1016/j.jcyt.2017.09.012 29107738

69. Dong R. Bai Y. Dai J. Deng M. Zhao C. Tian Z. Zeng F. Liang W. Liu L. Dong S. Engineered scaffolds based on mesenchymal stem cells/preosteoclasts extracellular matrix promote bone regeneration J. Tissue Eng. 2020 11 1 13 10.1177/2041731420926918 32551034 PMC7278336

70. Kon E. Muraglia A. Corsi A. Bianco P. Marcacci M. Martin I. Boyde A. Ruspantini I. Chistolini P. Rocca M. Autologous bone marrow stromal cells loaded onto porous hydroxyapatite ceramic accelerate bone repair in critical-size defects of sheep long bones J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2000 49 328 337 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(20000305)49:3<328::AID-JBM5>3.0.CO;2-Q 10602065

71. Van Gaalen S.M. Dhert W.J.A. Van Den Muysenberg A. Oner F.C. Van Blitterswijk C. Verbout A.J. De Bruijn J.D. Bone Tissue Engineering for Spine Fusion: An Experimental Study on Ectopic and Orthotopic Implants in Rats Tissue Eng. 2004 10 231 239 10.1089/107632704322791871 15009948

72. Vicinanza C. Lombardi E. Da Ros F. Marangon M. Durante C. Mazzucato M. Agostini F. Modified mesenchymal stem cells in cancer therapy: A smart weapon requiring upgrades for wider clinical applications World J. Stem Cells 2022 14 54 75 10.4252/wjsc.v14.i1.54 35126828 PMC8788179

73. Harrell C.R. Volarevic A. Djonov V.G. Jovicic N. Volarevic V. Mesenchymal stem cell: A friend or foe in anti-tumor immunity Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021 22 12429 10.3390/ijms222212429 34830312 PMC8622564

74. Premer C. Blum A. Bellio M.A. Schulman I.H. Hurwitz B.E. Parker M. Dermarkarian C.R. DiFede D.L. Balkan W. Khan A. Allogeneic Mesenchymal Stem Cells Restore Endothelial Function in Heart Failure by Stimulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells EBioMedicine 2015 2 467 475 10.1016/j.ebiom.2015.03.020 26137590 PMC4485912

75. Liu M. He J. Zheng S. Zhang K. Ouyang Y. Zhang Y. Li C. Wu D. Human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells ameliorate acute liver failure by inhibiting apoptosis, inflammation and pyroptosis Ann. Transl. Med. 2021 9 1615 10.21037/atm-21-2885 34926659 PMC8640895

76. Liu Q. Lv C. Jiang Y. Luo K. Gao Y. Liu J. Zhang X. Mohammad Omar J. Jin S. From hair to liver: Emerging application of hair follicle mesenchymal stem cell transplantation reverses liver cirrhosis by blocking the TGF-β/Smad signaling pathway to inhibit pathological HSC activation PeerJ. 2022 10 e12872 10.7717/peerj.12872 35186473 PMC8855721

77. Huang Y. Yang L. Mesenchymal stem cells and extracellular vesicles in therapy against kidney diseases Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2021 12 219 10.1186/s13287-021-02289-7 33789750 PMC8011150

78. Mastrolia I. Foppiani E.M. Murgia A. Candini O. Samarelli A.V. Grisendi G. Veronesi E. Horwitz E.M. Dominici M. Challenges in Clinical Development of Mesenchymal Stromal/Stem Cells: Concise Review Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2019 8 1135 1148 10.1002/sctm.19-0044 31313507 PMC6811694

79. Sherkow J.S. Controlling CRISPR Through Law: Legal Regimes as Precautionary Principles Cris. J. 2019 2 299 303 10.1089/crispr.2019.0029 31599678

80. Daley G.Q. Lovell-Badge R. Steffann J. After the Storm—A Responsible Path for Genome Editing N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 380 897 899 10.1056/NEJMp1900504 30649993

81. Cockroft A. Wilson A. Comparability: What we can learn from the review of advanced therapy medicinal products Regen. Med. 2021 16 655 667 10.2217/rme-2021-0026 34278825

82. Coppens D.G.M. de Wilde S. Guchelaar H.J. De Bruin M.L. Leufkens H.G.M. Meij P. Hoekman J. A decade of marketing approval of gene and cell-based therapies in the United States, European Union and Japan: An evaluation of regulatory decision-making Cytotherapy 2018 20 769 778 10.1016/j.jcyt.2018.03.038 29730080

83. Gozzo L. Romano G.L. Romano F. Brancati S. Longo L. Vitale D.C. Drago F. Health Technology Assessment of Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products: Comparison Among 3 European Countries Front. Pharmacol. 2021 12 755052 10.3389/fphar.2021.755052 34690785 PMC8531540

84. Ten Ham R.M.T. Hoekman J. Hövels A.M. Broekmans A.W. Leufkens H.G.M. Klungel O.H. Challenges in Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product Development: A Survey among Companies in Europe Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 2018 11 121 130 10.1016/j.omtm.2018.10.003 30456217 PMC6234262

85. Adair J. Sevilla J. Heredia C. Becker P. Kiem H.-P. Bueren J. Lessons Learned from Two Decades of Clinical Trial Experience in Gene Therapy for Fanconi Anemia Curr. Gene Ther. 2017 16 338 348 10.2174/1566523217666170119113029 28103787

86. Jossen V. Muoio F. Panella S. Harder Y. Tallone T. Eibl R. An approach towards a gmp compliant in-vitro expansion of human adipose stem cells for autologous therapies Bioengineering 2020 7 77 10.3390/bioengineering7030077 PMC7552624 32698363

87. Agostini F. Vicinanza C. Biolo G. Spessotto P. Da Ros F. Lombardi E. Durante C. Mazzucato M. Nucleofection of Adipose Mesenchymal Stem/Stromal Cells: Improved Transfection Efficiency for GMP Grade Applications Cells 2021 10 3412 10.3390/cells10123412 34943920 PMC8700287

88. Ayati N. Saiyarsarai P. Nikfar S. Short and long term impacts of COVID-19 on the pharmaceutical sector DARU J. Pharm. Sci. 2020 28 799 805 10.1007/s40199-020-00358-5 32617864 PMC7332346

89. Plieth J. The $100,000 Problem Gene Therapy Companies Would Rather Not Mention|Evaluate Available online: https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/analysis/vantage-points/100000-problem-gene-therapy-companies-would-rather-not (accessed on 31 December 2021)

90. Gonçalves E. Advanced therapy medicinal products: Value judgement and ethical evaluation in health technology assessment Eur. J. Health Econ. 2020 21 311 320 10.1007/s10198-019-01147-x 31919703 PMC7188714

91. BioPharma Dive Available online: https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/bluebird-withdraw-zynteglo-germany-price/598689/ (accessed on 18 May 2021)

92. Rackaityte E. Halkias J. Mechanisms of Fetal T Cell Tolerance and Immune Regulation Front. Immunol. 2020 11 588 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00588 32328065 PMC7160249

93. Bose S.K. Menon P. Peranteau W.H. In Utero Gene Therapy: Progress and Challenges Trends Mol. Med. 2021 27 728 730 10.1016/j.molmed.2021.05.007 34176774 PMC8713252

94. European Medicines Agency Paediatric Regulation|European Medicines Agency Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/paediatric-medicines/paediatric-regulation (accessed on 11 October 2021)

95. EUR-Lex-32006R1901-EN-EUR-Lex Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32006R1901 (accessed on 24 February 2022)

96. EUR-Lex-32006R1902-EN-EUR-Lex Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32006R1902 (accessed on 24 February 2022)

97. European Commission State of Paediatric Medicines in the EU – 10 Years of the EU Paediatric Regulation COM(2017)626 European Commission Brussel, Belgium 2017

98. European Medicines Agency 10-Year Report to the European Commission – General Report on the Paediatric Regulation EMA/231225/2015 European Medicines Agency Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2017

99. Park P.J. Colletti E. Ozturk F. Wood J.A. Tellez J. Almeida-Porada G. Porada C.D. Factors determining the risk of inadvertent retroviral transduction of male germ cells after in utero gene transfer in sheep Hum. Gene Ther. 2009 20 201 215 10.1089/hum.2007.120 19301473 PMC2829302

100. Almeida-Porada G. Atala A. Porada C.D. In utero stem cell transplantation and gene therapy: Rationale, history, and recent advances toward clinical application Mol. Ther.-Methods Clin. Dev. 2016 3 16020 10.1038/mtm.2016.20 PMC4813605 27069953

101. Staud F. Karahoda R. Trophoblast: The central unit of fetal growth, protection and programming Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2018 105 35 40 10.1016/j.biocel.2018.09.016 30266525

102. Sharma A. Sah N. Kannan S. Kannan R.M. Targeted drug delivery for maternal and perinatal health: Challenges and opportunities Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2021 177 113950 10.1016/j.addr.2021.113950 34454979 PMC8544131

103. Schrepfer S. Deuse T. Reichenspurner H. Fischbein M.P. Robbins R.C. Pelletier M.P. Stem Cell Transplantation: The Lung Barrier Transplant. Proc. 2007 39 573 576 10.1016/j.transproceed.2006.12.019 17362785

104. Nijagal A. Le T. Wegorzewska M. MacKenzie T.C. A mouse model of in Utero transplantation J. Vis. Exp. 2010 e2303 10.3791/2303 PMC3182662 21307829

105. Mattar C.N.Z. Gil-Farina I. Rosales C. Johana N. Tan Y.Y.W. McIntosh J. Kaeppel C. Waddington S.N. Biswas A. Choolani M. In Utero Transfer of Adeno-Associated Viral Vectors Produces Long-Term Factor IX Levels in a Cynomolgus Macaque Model Mol. Ther. 2017 25 1843 1853 10.1016/j.ymthe.2017.04.003 28462816 PMC5542637

106. Palanki R. Peranteau W.H. Mitchell M.J. Delivery technologies for in utero gene therapy Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2021 169 51 62 10.1016/j.addr.2020.11.002 33181188 PMC7855052

107. European Medicines Agency EMEA/273974/2005-Note for Guidance on the Quality, Preclinical and Clinical Aspects of Gene Transfer Medicinal Products Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/ (accessed on 8 November 2018)

108. European Commission Guidelines on Good Clinical Practice specific to Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products C(2019)7140 European Commission Brussel, Belgium 2019

109. Jaeggi E.T. Carvalho J.S. De Groot E. Api O. Clur S.A.B. Rammeloo L. McCrindle B.W. Ryan G. Manlhiot C. Blom N.A. Comparison of transplacental treatment of fetal supraventricular tachyarrhythmias with digoxin, flecainide, and sotalol: Results of a nonrandomized multicenter study Circulation 2011 124 1747 1754 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.026120 21931080

110. Cerveny L. Murthi P. Staud F. HIV in pregnancy: Mother-to-child transmission, pharmacotherapy, and toxicity Biochim. Biophys. Acta-Mol. Basis Dis. 2021 1867 166206 10.1016/j.bbadis.2021.166206 34197912

111. Korth-Bradley J.M. The Path to Perfect Pediatric Posology—Drug Development in Pediatrics J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2018 58 S48 S57 10.1002/jcph.1081 30248197

112. Manual R. Ray L. Breeding Strategies for Maintaining Colonies of Laboratory Mice: A Jackson Laboratory Resource Manual The Jackson Laboratory Bar Harbor, ME, USA 2007 Volume 83 29

113. Ayuso M. Buyssens L. Stroe M. Valenzuela A. Allegaert K. Smits A. Annaert P. Mulder A. Carpentier S. Van Ginneken C. The neonatal and juvenile pig in pediatric drug discovery and development Pharmaceutics 2021 13 44 10.3390/pharmaceutics13010044 PMC7823749 33396805

114. Trobridge G.D. Kiem H.P. Large animal models of hematopoietic stem cell gene therapy Gene Ther. 2010 17 939 948 10.1038/gt.2010.47 20428209 PMC2914814

115. Story B.D. Miller M.E. Bradbury A.M. Million E.D. Duan D. Taghian T. Faissler D. Fernau D. Beecy S.J. Gray-Edwards H.L. Canine Models of Inherited Musculoskeletal and Neurodegenerative Diseases Front. Vet. Sci. 2020 7 80 10.3389/fvets.2020.00080 32219101 PMC7078110

116. Chen Y. Niu Y. Ji W. Genome editing in nonhuman primates: Approach to generating human disease models J. Intern. Med. 2016 280 246 251 10.1111/joim.12469 27114283

117. Sasaki E. Sakakibara Y. Kumita W. Ito R. Nozu R. Inoue T. Katano I. Okahara N. Okahara J. Shimizu Y. Generation of a Nonhuman Primate Model of Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Using Highly Efficient Genome Editing Cell Stem Cell 2016 19 127 138 10.1016/j.stem.2016.06.003 27374787

118. Gray-Edwards H.L. Randle A.N. Maitland S.A. Benatti H.R. Hubbard S.M. Canning P.F. Vogel M.B. Brunson B.L. Hwang M. Ellis L.E. Adeno-Associated Virus Gene Therapy in a Sheep Model of Tay-Sachs Disease Hum. Gene Ther. 2018 29 312 326 10.1089/hum.2017.163 28922945

119. Kleine Holthaus S.M. Aristorena M. Maswood R. Semenyuk O. Hoke J. Hare A. Smith A.J. Mole S.E. Ali R.R. Gene Therapy Targeting the Inner Retina Rescues the Retinal Phenotype in a Mouse Model of CLN3 Batten Disease Hum. Gene Ther. 2020 31 709 718 10.1089/hum.2020.038 32578444 PMC7404834

120. Song C. Dufour V.L. Cideciyan A.V. Ye G.J. Swider M. Newmark J.A. Timmers A.M. Robinson P.M. Knop D.R. Chulay J.D. Dose Range Finding Studies with Two RPGR Transgenes in a Canine Model of X-Linked Retinitis Pigmentosa Treated with Subretinal Gene Therapy Hum. Gene Ther. 2020 31 743 755 10.1089/hum.2019.337 32414297 PMC7404825

121. Hastings M.L. Brigande J.V. Fetal gene therapy and pharmacotherapy to treat congenital hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction Hear. Res. 2020 394 107931 10.1016/j.heares.2020.107931 32173115 PMC7906278

122. Fåne A. Myhre M.R. Inderberg E.M. Wälchli S. In vivo experimental mouse model to test CD19CAR T cells generated with different methods Methods Cell Biol. 2022 167 149 161 10.1016/BS.MCB.2021.11.001 35152992

123. Wang Y. Buck A. Grimaud M. Culhane A.C. Kodangattil S. Razimbaud C. Bonal D.M. De Nguyen Q. Zhu Z. Wei K. Anti-CAIX BBζ CAR4/8 T cells exhibit superior efficacy in a ccRCC mouse model Mol. Ther.-Oncolytics 2022 24 385 399 10.1016/j.omto.2021.12.019 35118195 PMC8792103

124. Daher M. Basar R. Gokdemir E. Baran N. Uprety N. Nunez Cortes A.K. Mendt M. Kerbauy L.N. Banerjee P.P. Shanley M. Targeting a cytokine checkpoint enhances the fitness of armored cord blood CAR-NK cells Blood 2021 137 624 636 10.1182/blood.2020007748 32902645 PMC7869185

125. Makkouk A. Yang X.C. Barca T. Lucas A. Turkoz M. Wong J.T.S. Nishimoto K.P. Brodey M.M. Tabrizizad M. Gundurao S.R.Y. Off-the-shelf Vδ 1 gamma delta T cells engineered with glypican-3 (GPC-3)-specific chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) and soluble IL-15 display robust antitumor efficacy against hepatocellular carcinoma J. Immunother. Cancer 2021 9 e003441 10.1136/jitc-2021-003441 34916256 PMC8679077

126. Goyama S. Wunderlich M. Mulloy J.C. Xenograft models for normal and malignant stem cells Blood 2015 125 2630 2640 10.1182/blood-2014-11-570218 25762176

127. Radtke S. Humbert O. Kiem H.P. Mouse models in hematopoietic stem cell gene therapy and genome editing Biochem. Pharmacol. 2020 174 113692 10.1016/j.bcp.2019.113692 31705854 PMC7050335

128. Mortellaro A. Hernandez R.J. Guerrini M.M. Carlucci F. Tabucchi A. Ponzoni M. Sanvito F. Doglioni C. Di Serio C. Biasco L. Ex vivo gene therapy with lentiviral vectors rescues adenosine deaminase (ADA)-deficient mice and corrects their immune and metabolic defects Blood 2006 108 2979 2988 10.1182/blood-2006-05-023507 16835374

129. Young H.W.J. Molina J.G. Dimina D. Zhong H. Jacobson M. Chan L.-N.L. Chan T.-S. Lee J.J. Blackburn M.R. A 3 Adenosine Receptor Signaling Contributes to Airway Inflammation and Mucus Production in Adenosine Deaminase-Deficient Mice J. Immunol. 2004 173 1380 1389 10.4049/jimmunol.173.2.1380 15240734

130. Blackburn M.R. Datta S.K. Kellems R.E. Adenosine deaminase-deficient mice generated using a two-stage genetic engineering strategy exhibit a combined immunodeficiency J. Biol. Chem. 1998 273 5093 5100 10.1074/jbc.273.9.5093 9478961

131. Walia J.S. Altaleb N. Bello A. Kruck C. LaFave M.C. Varshney G.K. Burgess S.M. Chowdhury B. Hurlbut D. Hemming R. Long-term correction of Sandhoff disease following intravenous delivery of rAAV9 to mouse neonates Mol. Ther. 2015 23 414 422 10.1038/mt.2014.240 25515709 PMC4351464

132. Massaro G. Geard A.F. Liu W. Coombe-tennant O. Waddington S.N. Baruteau J. Gissen P. Rahim A.A. Gene therapy for lysosomal storage disorders: Ongoing studies and clinical development Biomolecules 2021 11 611 10.3390/biom11040611 33924076 PMC8074255

133. Scaramuzza S. Biasco L. Ripamonti A. Castiello M.C. Loperfido M. Draghici E. Hernandez R.J. Benedicenti F. Radrizzani M. Salomoni M. Preclinical Safety and Efficacy of human CD34 + Cells transduced with lentiviral vector for the treatment of wiskott-aldrich syndrome Mol. Ther. 2013 21 175 184 10.1038/mt.2012.23 22371846 PMC3538318

134. Huo Y. McConnell S.C. Liu S. Zhang T. Yang R. Ren J. Ryan T.M. Humanized mouse models of Cooley’s anemia: Correct fetal-to-adult hemoglobin switching, disease onset, and disease pathology Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010 1202 45 51 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05547.x 20712771 PMC7791968

135. Huo Y. McConnell S.C. Liu S.R. Yang R. Zhang T.T. Sun C.W. Wu L.C. Ryan T.M. Humanized Mouse Model of Cooley’s Anemia J. Biol. Chem. 2009 284 4889 4896 10.1074/jbc.M805681200 19098001 PMC2643510

136. Ciavatta D.J. Ryan T.M. Farmer S.C. Townes T.M. Mouse model of human beta zero thalassemia: Targeted deletion of the mouse beta maj-and beta min-globin genes in embryonic stem cells Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1995 92 9259 9263 10.1073/pnas.92.20.9259 7568113 PMC40964

137. Shangaris P. Loukogeorgakis S.P. Subramaniam S. Flouri C. Jackson L.H. Wang W. Blundell M.P. Liu S. Eaton S. Bakhamis N. In Utero Gene Therapy (IUGT) Using GLOBE Lentiviral Vector Phenotypically Corrects the Heterozygous Humanised Mouse Model and Its Progress Can Be Monitored Using MRI Techniques Sci. Rep. 2019 9 11592 10.1038/s41598-019-48078-4 31406195 PMC6690943

138. Huo Y. McConnell S.C. Ryan T.M. Preclinical transfusion-dependent humanized mouse model of beta thalassemia major Blood 2009 113 4763 4770 10.1182/blood-2008-12-197012 19258591 PMC2680376

139. Casal M. Haskins M. Large animal models and gene therapy Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2006 14 266 272 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201535 16333317

140. Chinnadurai R. Ng S. Velu V. Galipeau J. Challenges in animal modelling of mesenchymal stromal cell therapy for inflammatory bowel disease World J. Gastroenterol. 2015 21 4779 4787 10.3748/wjg.v21.i16.4779 25944991 PMC4408450

141. Chinnadurai R. Garcia M.A. Sakurai Y. Lam W.A. Kirk A.D. Galipeau J. Copland I.B. Actin cytoskeletal disruption following cryopreservation alters the biodistribution of human mesenchymal stromal cells in vivo Stem Cell Rep. 2014 3 60 72 10.1016/j.stemcr.2014.05.003 PMC4110775 25068122

142. Lee H.K. Lim S.H. Chung I.S. Park Y. Park M.J. Kim J.Y. Kim Y.G. Hong J.T. Kim Y. Han S.-B. Preclinical Efficacy and Mechanisms of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Animal Models of Autoimmune Diseases Immune Netw. 2014 14 81 88 10.4110/in.2014.14.2.81 24851097 PMC4022782

143. Lu S. Zhu K. Guo Y. Wang E. Huang J. Evaluation of animal models of Crohn’s disease with anal fistula (Review) Exp. Ther. Med. 2021 22 974 10.3892/etm.2021.10406 34335916 PMC8290422

144. Harman R.M. Marx C. Van de Walle G.R. Translational Animal Models Provide Insight Into Mesenchymal Stromal Cell (MSC) Secretome Therapy Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021 9 654885 10.3389/fcell.2021.654885 33869217 PMC8044970

145. Hou H. Zhang L. Duan L. Liu Y. Han Z. Li Z. Cao X. Spatio-Temporal Metabolokinetics and Efficacy of Human Placenta-Derived Mesenchymal Stem/Stromal Cells on Mice with Refractory Crohn’s-like Enterocutaneous Fistula Stem Cell Rev. Rep. 2020 16 1292 1304 10.1007/s12015-020-10053-2 33011925

146. Li Q. Lian Y. Deng Y. Chen J. Wu T. Lai X. Zheng B. Qiu C. Peng Y. Li W. mRNA-engineered mesenchymal stromal cells expressing CXCR2 enhances cell migration and improves recovery in IBD Mol. Ther.-Nucleic Acids 2021 26 222 236 10.1016/j.omtn.2021.07.009 34513306 PMC8413681

147. Hansen M. Stahl L. Heider A. Hilger N. Sack U. Kirschner A. Cross M. Fricke S. Reduction of Graft-versus-Host-Disease in NOD.Cg-Prkdcscid Il2rgtm1Wjl/SzJ. (NSG) Mice by Cotransplantation of Syngeneic Human Umbilical Cord-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells: M Transplant. Cell. Ther. 2021 27 658.e1 658.e10 10.1016/j.jtct.2021.04.018 33964513

148. Augustine S. Cheng W. Avey M.T. Chan M.L. Lingappa S.M.C. Hutton B. Thébaud B. Are all stem cells equal? Systematic review, evidence map, and meta-analyses of preclinical stem cell-based therapies for bronchopulmonary dysplasia Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2020 9 158 168 10.1002/sctm.19-0193 31746123 PMC6988768

149. Ee M.T. Thébaud B. The Therapeutic Potential of Stem Cells for Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: “It’s About Time” or “Not so Fast”? Curr. Pediatr. Rev. 2018 14 227 238 10.2174/1573396314666180911100503 30205800 PMC6416190

150. Aslam M. Baveja R. Liang O.D. Fernandez-Gonzalez A. Lee C. Mitsialis S.A. Kourembanas S. Bone marrow stromal cells attenuate lung injury in a murine model of neonatal chronic lung disease Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2009 180 1122 1130 10.1164/rccm.200902-0242OC 19713447 PMC2784417

151. Tropea K.A. Leder E. Aslam M. Lau A.N. Raiser D.M. Lee J.H. Balasubramaniam V. Fredenburgh L.E. Mitsialis S.A. Kourembanas S. Bronchioalveolar stem cells increase after mesenchymal stromal cell treatment in a mouse model of bronchopulmonary dysplasia Am. J. Physiol.-Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 2012 302 829 837 10.1152/ajplung.00347.2011 PMC3362163 22328358

152. Hansmann G. Fernandez-Gonzalez A. Aslam M. Vitali S.H. Martin T. Alex Mitsialis S. Kourembanas S. Mesenchymal stem cell-mediated reversal of bronchopulmonary dysplasia and associated pulmonary hypertension Pulm. Circ. 2012 2 170 181 10.4103/2045-8932.97603 22837858 PMC3401871

153. Zhang H. Fang J. Su H. Yang M. Lai W. Mai Y. Wu Y. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells attenuate lung inflammation of hyperoxic newborn rats Pediatr. Transplant. 2012 16 589 598 10.1111/j.1399-3046.2012.01709.x 22738184

154. Khemani R.G. Smith L. Lopez-Fernandez Y.M. Kwok J. Morzov R. Klein M.J. Yehya N. Willson D. Kneyber M.C.J. Lillie J. Paediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome incidence and epidemiology (PARDIE): An international, observational study Lancet Respir. Med. 2019 7 115 128 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30344-8 30361119 PMC7045907

155. Behnke J. Kremer S. Shahzad T. Chao C.M. Böttcher-Friebertshäuser E. Morty R.E. Bellusci S. Ehrhardt H. MSC based therapies—new perspectives for the injured lung J. Clin. Med. 2020 9 682 10.3390/jcm9030682 PMC7141210 32138309

156. Chen J. Luo L. Tian R. Yu C. A review and update for registered clinical studies of stem cells for non-tumorous and non-hematological diseases Regen. Ther. 2021 18 355 362 10.1016/j.reth.2021.09.001 34584912 PMC8446785

157. Sondhi D. Peterson D.A. Edelstein A.M. del Fierro K. Hackett N.R. Crystal R.G. Survival advantage of neonatal CNS gene transfer for late infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis Exp. Neurol. 2008 213 18 27 10.1016/j.expneurol.2008.04.022 18639872 PMC2702175

158. Ahmed S.S. Li H. Cao C. Sikoglu E.M. Denninger A.R. Su Q. Eaton S. Liso Navarro A.A. Xie J. Szucs S. A single intravenous rAAV injection as late as P20 achieves efficacious and sustained CNS gene therapy in Canavan mice Mol. Ther. 2013 21 2136 2147 10.1038/mt.2013.138 23817205 PMC3863789

159. Foust K.D. Wang X. McGovern V.L. Braun L. Bevan A.K. Haidet A.M. Le T.T. Morales P.R. Rich M.M. Burghes A.H.M. Rescue of the spinal muscular atrophy phenotype in a mouse model by early postnatal delivery of SMN Nat. Biotechnol. 2010 28 271 274 10.1038/nbt.1610 20190738 PMC2889698

160. Cabrera-Salazar M.A. Roskelley E.M. Bu J. Hodges B.L. Yew N. Dodge J.C. Shihabuddin L.S. Sohar I. Sleat D.E. Scheule R.K. Timing of therapeutic intervention determines functional and survival outcomes in a mouse model of late infantile batten disease Mol. Ther. 2007 15 1782 1788 10.1038/sj.mt.6300249 17637720

161. Fu H. Cataldi M.P. Ware T.A. Zaraspe K. Meadows A.S. Murrey D.A. McCarty D.M. Functional correction of neurological and somatic disorders at later stages of disease in MPS IIIA mice by systemic scAAV9-hSGSH gene delivery Mol. Ther.-Methods Clin. Dev. 2016 3 16036 10.1038/mtm.2016.36 27331076 PMC4898406

162. Johnson R. Rafuse M. Selvakumar P.P. Tan W. Effects of recipient age, heparin release and allogeneic bone marrow-derived stromal cells on vascular graft remodeling Acta Biomater. 2021 125 172 182 10.1016/j.actbio.2021.02.028 33639311 PMC8189838

163. Themis M. Waddington S.N. Schmidt M. von Kalle C. Wang Y. Al-Allaf F. Gregory L.G. Nivsarkar M. Themis M. Holder M.V. Oncogenesis following delivery of a nonprimate lentiviral gene therapy vector to fetal and neonatal mice Mol. Ther. 2005 12 763 771 10.1016/j.ymthe.2005.07.358 16084128

164. Nowrouzi A. Cheung W.T. Li T. Zhang X. Arens A. Paruzynski A. Waddington S.N. Osejindu E. Reja S. von Kalle C. The fetal mouse is a sensitive genotoxicity model that exposes lentiviral-associated mutagenesis resulting in liver oncogenesis Mol. Ther. 2013 21 324 337 10.1038/mt.2012.224 23299800 PMC3594025

165. Riley R.S. Kashyap M.V. Billingsley M.M. White B. Alameh M.G. Bose S.K. Zoltick P.W. Li H. Zhang R. Cheng A.Y. Ionizable lipid nanoparticles for in utero mRNA delivery Sci. Adv. 2021 7 eaba1028 10.1126/sciadv.aba1028 33523869 PMC7806221

166. Borrell V. Yoshimura Y. Callaway E.M. Targeted gene delivery to telencephalic inhibitory neurons by directional in utero electroporation J. Neurosci. Methods 2005 143 151 158 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2004.09.027 15814147

167. Joyeux L. Danzer E. Limberis M.P. Zoltick P.W. Radu A. Flake A.W. Davey M.G. In utero lung gene transfer using adeno-associated viral and lentiviral vectors in mice Hum. Gene Ther. Methods 2014 25 197 205 10.1089/hgtb.2013.143 24660751 PMC4060818

168. Sabatino D.E. MacKenzie T.C. Peranteau W. Edmonson S. Campagnoli C. Liu Y.L. Flake A.W. High K.A. Persistent expression of hF.IX after tolerance induction by in utero or neonatal administration of AAV-1-F.IX in hemophilia B mice Mol. Ther. 2007 15 1677 1685 10.1038/sj.mt.6300219 17565352

169. Bose S.K. White B.M. Kashyap M.V. Dave A. De Bie F.R. Li H. Singh K. Menon P. Wang T. Teerdhala S. In utero adenine base editing corrects multi-organ pathology in a lethal lysosomal storage disease Nat. Commun. 2021 12 4291 10.1038/s41467-021-24443-8 34257302 PMC8277817

170. Massaro G. Mattar C.N.Z. Wong A.M.S. Sirka E. Buckley S.M.K. Herbert B.R. Karlsson S. Perocheau D.P. Burke D. Heales S. Fetal gene therapy for neurodegenerative disease of infants Nat. Med. 2018 24 1317 1323 10.1038/s41591-018-0106-7 30013199 PMC6130799

171. Rossidis A.C. Stratigis J.D. Chadwick A.C. Hartman H.A. Ahn N.J. Li H. Singh K. Coons B.E. Li L. Lv W. In utero CRISPR-mediated therapeutic editing of metabolic genes Nat. Med. 2018 24 1513 1518 10.1038/s41591-018-0184-6 30297903 PMC6249685

172. Chan J.K.Y.Y. Gil-Farina I. Johana N. Rosales C. Tan Y.W. Ceiler J. Mcintosh J. Ogden B. Waddington S.N. Schmidt M. Therapeutic expression of human clotting factors IX and × following adeno-associated viral vector-mediated intrauterine gene transfer in early-gestation fetal macaques FASEB J. 2019 33 3954 3967 10.1096/fj.201801391R 30517034 PMC6404563

173. Alapati D. Zacharias W.J. Hartman H.A. Rossidis A.C. Stratigis J.D. Ahn N.J. Coons B. Zhou S. Li H. Singh K. In utero gene editing for monogenic lung disease Sci. Transl. Med. 2019 11 eaav8375 10.1126/scitranslmed.aav8375 30996081 PMC6822403

174. Dighe N.M. Tan K.W. Tan L.G. Shaw S.S.W. Buckley S.M.K. Sandikin D. Johana N. Tan Y.W. Biswas A. Choolani M. A comparison of intrauterine hemopoietic cell transplantation and lentiviral gene transfer for the correction of severe β-thalassemia in a HbbTh3/+ murine model Exp. Hematol. 2018 62 45 55 10.1016/j.exphem.2018.03.006 29605545 PMC5965454

175. Ricciardi A.S. Bahal R. Farrelly J.S. Quijano E. Bianchi A.H. Luks V.L. Putman R. López-Giráldez F. Coşkun S. Song E. In utero nanoparticle delivery for site-specific genome editing Nat. Commun. 2018 9 2481 10.1038/s41467-018-04894-2 29946143 PMC6018676

176. Kumar P. Gao K. Wang C. Pivetti C. Lankford L. Farmer D. Wang A. In Utero Transplantation of Placenta-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for Potential Fetal Treatment of Hemophilia A Cell Transplant. 2018 27 130 139 10.1177/0963689717728937 29562772 PMC6434487

177. Hayashi S. Abdulmalik O. Peranteau W.H. Ashizuka S. Campagnoli C. Chen Q. Horiuchi K. Asakura T. Flake A.W. Mixed chimerism following in utero hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in murine models of hemoglobinopathy Exp. Hematol. 2003 31 176 184 10.1016/S0301-472X(02)01024-X 12591283

178. Meza N.W. Alonso-Ferrero M.E. Navarro S. Quintana-Bustamante O. Valeri A. Garcia-Gomez M. Bueren J.A. Bautista J.M. Segovia J.C. Rescue of pyruvate kinase deficiency in mice by gene therapy using the human isoenzyme Mol. Ther. 2009 17 2000 2009 10.1038/mt.2009.200 19755962 PMC2814388

179. Loukogeorgakis S.P. Shangaris P. Bertin E. Franzin C. Piccoli M. Pozzobon M. Subramaniam S. Tedeschi A. Kim A.G. Li H. In Utero Transplantation of Expanded Autologous Amniotic Fluid Stem Cells Results in Long-Term Hematopoietic Engraftment Stem Cells 2019 37 1176 1188 10.1002/stem.3039 31116895 PMC6773206

180. Shangaris P. Loukogeorgakis S.P. Blundell M.P. Petra E. Shaw S.W. Ramachandra D.L. Maghsoudlou P. Urbani L. Thrasher A.J. De Coppi P. Long-Term Hematopoietic Engraftment of Congenic Amniotic Fluid Stem Cells After in Utero Intraperitoneal Transplantation to Immune Competent Mice Stem Cells Dev. 2018 27 515 523 10.1089/scd.2017.0116 29482456 PMC5910037

181. Hayashi M. Muramatsu H. Nakano M. Ito H. Inoie M. Tomizuka Y. Inoue M. Yoshimoto S. Experience of using cultured epithelial autografts for the extensive burn wounds in eight patients Ann. Plast. Surg. 2014 73 25 29 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000200 24918735

182. Hoburg A. Löer I. Körsmeier K. Siebold R. Niemeyer P. Fickert S. Ruhnau K. Matrix-Associated Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Is an Effective Treatment at Midterm Follow-up in Adolescents and Young Adults Orthop. J. Sport. Med. 2019 7 1 7 10.1177/2325967119841077 PMC6484242 31041335

183. Schmidt C. Gintuit cell therapy approval signals shift at US regulator Nat. Biotechnol. 2012 30 479 10.1038/nbt0612-479 22678374

184. Takaya K. Kato T. Ishii T. Sakai S. Okabe K. Aramaki-Hattori N. Asou T. Kishi K. Clinical Analysis of Cultured Epidermal Autograft (JACE) Transplantation for Giant Congenital Melanocytic Nevus Plast. Reconstr. Surg.-Glob. Open 2021 9 e3380 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003380 33564596 PMC7862006

185. Eudy M. Eudy C.L. Roy S. Apligraf as an Alternative to Skin Grafting in the Pediatric Population Cureus 2021 13 e16226 10.7759/cureus.16226 34367826 PMC8343621

186. Mavilio F. Pellegrini G. Ferrari S. Di Nunzio F. Di Iorio E. Recchia A. Maruggi G. Ferrari G. Provasi E. Bonini C. Correction of junctional epidermolysis bullosa by transplantation of genetically modified epidermal stem cells Nat. Med. 2006 12 1397 1402 10.1038/nm1504 17115047

187. Hirsch T. Rothoeft T. Teig N. Bauer J.W. Pellegrini G. De Rosa L. Scaglione D. Reichelt J. Klausegger A. Kneisz D. Regeneration of the entire human epidermis using transgenic stem cells Nature 2017 551 327 332 10.1038/nature24487 29144448 PMC6283270

188. Di W.L. Lwin S.M. Petrova A. Bernadis C. Syed F. Farzaneh F. Moulding D. Martinez A.E. Sebire N.J. Rampling D. Generation and Clinical Application of Gene-Modified Autologous Epidermal Sheets in Netherton Syndrome: Lessons Learned from a Phase 1 Trial Hum. Gene Ther. 2019 30 1067 1078 10.1089/hum.2019.049 31288584

189. Siprashvili Z. Nguyen N.T. Gorell E.S. Loutit K. Khuu P. Furukawa L.K. Lorenz H.P. Leung T.H. Keene D.R. Rieger K.E. Safety and Wound Outcomes Following Genetically Corrected Autologous Epidermal Grafts in Patients with Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa JAMA 2016 316 1808 1817 10.1001/jama.2016.15588 27802546

190. European Medicines Agency PRIME: Priority Medicines|European Medicines Agency Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/prime-priority-medicines (accessed on 30 December 2021)

191. Inacio P. Amicus Discontinues Gene Therapy Program for CLN6 Batten Disease Available online: https://battendiseasenews.com/2022/01/21/amicus-discontinues-cln6-gene-therapy-program/ (accessed on 28 February 2022)

192. Pearson A.D.J. Rossig C. Lesa G. Diede S.J. Weiner S. Anderson J. Gray J. Geoerger B. Minard-Colin V. Marshall L.V. ACCELERATE and European Medicines Agency. Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development of checkpoint inhibitors for use in combination therapy in paediatric patients Eur. J. Cancer 2020 127 52 66 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.12.029 31986450

193. Buckland K.F. Bobby Gaspar H. Gene and cell therapy for children--new medicines, new challenges? Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2014 73 162 169 10.1016/j.addr.2014.02.010 24583376 PMC4074676

194. Marktel S. Scaramuzza S. Cicalese M.P. Giglio F. Galimberti S. Lidonnici M.R. Calbi V. Assanelli A. Bernardo M.E. Rossi C. Intrabone hematopoietic stem cell gene therapy for adult and pediatric patients affected by transfusion-dependent ß-thalassemia Nat. Med. 2019 25 234 241 10.1038/s41591-018-0301-6 30664781

195. DeWeerdt S. Prenatal gene therapy offers the earliest possible cure Nature 2018 564 S6 S8 10.1038/d41586-018-07643-z 30542187

196. Escolar M.L. Poe M.D. Provenzale J.M. Richards K.C. Allison J. Wood S. Wenger D.A. Pietryga D. Wall D. Champagne M. Transplantation of Umbilical-Cord Blood in Babies with Infantile Krabbe’s Disease N. Engl. J. Med. 2005 352 2069 2081 10.1056/NEJMoa042604 15901860

197. Gray S.J. Timing of Gene Therapy Interventions: The Earlier, the Better Mol. Ther. 2016 24 1017 1018 10.1038/mt.2016.20 27324445 PMC4923318

198. Garrison L.P. Jackson T. Paul D. Kenston M. Value-based pricing for emerging gene therapies: The economic case for a higher cost-effectiveness threshold J. Manag. Care Spec. Pharm. 2019 25 793 799 10.18553/jmcp.2019.18378 30784347 PMC10397597

199. Conti R. Gruber J. Ollendorf D. Neumann P. Valuing Rare Pediatric Drugs: An Economics Perspective SSRN Electron. J. 2021 NBER Working Paper No. w27978 10.2139/ssrn.3718890

200. Bolous N.S. Chen Y. Wang H. Davidoff A.M. Devidas M. Jacobs T.W. Meagher M.M. Nathwani A.C. Neufeld E.J. Piras B.A. The cost-effectiveness of gene therapy for severe hemophilia B: A microsimulation study from the United States perspective Blood 2021 138 1677 1690 10.1182/blood.2021010864 33895800

201. Aiuti A. Roncarolo M.G. Naldini L. Gene therapy for ADA-SCID, the first marketing approval of an ex vivo gene therapy in Europe: Paving the road for the next generation of advanced therapy medicinal products EMBO Mol. Med. 2017 9 737 740 10.15252/emmm.201707573 28396566 PMC5452047

202. Fumagalli F. Calbi V. Natali Sora M.G. Sessa M. Baldoli C. Rancoita P.M.V. Ciotti F. Sarzana M. Fraschini M. Zambon A.A. Lentiviral haematopoietic stem-cell gene therapy for early-onset metachromatic leukodystrophy: Long-term results from a non-randomised, open-label, phase 1/2 trial and expanded access Lancet 2022 399 372 383 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02017-1 35065785 PMC8795071

203. Matteini F. Mulaw M.A. Florian M.C. Aging of the Hematopoietic Stem Cell Niche: New Tools to Answer an Old Question Front. Immunol. 2021 12 738204 10.3389/fimmu.2021.738204 34858399 PMC8631970

204. Garcia O. Carraro G. Navarro S. Bertoncello I. McQualter J. Driscoll B. Jesudason E. Warburton D. Cell-based therapies for lung disease Br. Med. Bull. 2012 101 147 161 10.1093/bmb/ldr051 22279079 PMC3695661

205. Alofisel|European Medicines Agency Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/alofisel (accessed on 30 December 2021)

206. Kuçi Z. Bönig H. Kreyenberg H. Bunos M. Jauch A. Janssen J.W.G. Škifić M. Michel K. Eising B. Lucchini G. Mesenchymal stromal cells from pooled mononuclear cells of multiple bone marrow donors as rescue therapy in pediatric severe steroid-refractory graft-versus-host disease: A multicenter survey Haematologica 2016 101 985 994 10.3324/haematol.2015.140368 27175026 PMC4967578

207. Kurtzberg J. Prockop S. Teira P. Bittencourt H. Lewis V. Chan K.W. Horn B. Yu L. Talano J.A. Nemecek E. Allogeneic human mesenchymal stem cell therapy (Remestemcel-L, Prochymal) as a rescue agent for severe refractory acute graft-versus-host disease in pediatric patients Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014 20 229 235 10.1016/j.bbmt.2013.11.001 24216185

208. Lucchini G. Introna M. Dander E. Rovelli A. Balduzzi A. Bonanomi S. Salvadè A. Capelli C. Belotti D. Gaipa G. Platelet-lysate-expanded mesenchymal stromal cells as a salvage therapy for severe resistant graft-versus-host disease in a pediatric population Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010 16 1293 1301 10.1016/j.bbmt.2010.03.017 20350611

209. Prasad V.K. Lucas K.G. Kleiner G.I. Talano J.A.M. Jacobsohn D. Broadwater G. Monroy R. Kurtzberg J. Efficacy and Safety of Ex Vivo Cultured Adult Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells (Prochymal TM ) in Pediatric Patients with Severe Refractory Acute Graft-Versus-Host Disease in a Compassionate Use Study Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011 17 534 541 10.1016/j.bbmt.2010.04.014 20457269

210. Zilberberg J. Friedman T.M. Korngold R. Szabolcs P. Visani G. Locatelli F. Kleiner G. Nishida T. Onizuka M. Inamoto Y. Treatment Of Steroid-Refractory Acute GVHD with Mesenchymal Stem Cells Improves Outcomes In Pediatric Patients; Results Of The Pediatric Subset In A Phase III Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010 16 S298 10.1016/j.bbmt.2009.12.425

211. MacMillan M.L. Blazar B.R. DeFor T.E. Wagner J.E. Transplantation of ex-vivo culture-expanded parental haploidentical mesenchymal stem cells to promote engraftment in pediatric recipients of unrelated donor umbilical cord blood: Results of a phase I-II clinical trial Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009 43 447 454 10.1038/bmt.2008.348 18955980

212. Lee S.H. Lee M.W. Yoo K.H. Kim D.S. Son M.H. Sung K.W. Cheuh H. Choi S.J. Oh W. Yang Y.S. Co-transplantation of third-party umbilical cord blood-derived MSCs promotes engraftment in children undergoing unrelated umbilical cord blood transplantation Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013 48 1040 1045 10.1038/bmt.2013.7 23396407

213. Bernardo M.E. Ball L.M. Cometa A.M. Roelofs H. Zecca M. Avanzini M.A. Bertaina A. Vinti L. Lankester A. MacCario R. Co-infusion of ex vivo-expanded, parental MSCs prevents life-threatening acute GVHD, but does not reduce the risk of graft failure in pediatric patients undergoing allogeneic umbilical cord blood transplantation Bone Marrow Transplant. 2011 46 200 207 10.1038/bmt.2010.87 20400983

214. Voynow J.A. “New” bronchopulmonary dysplasia and chronic lung disease Paediatr. Respir. Rev. 2017 24 17 18 10.1016/j.prrv.2017.06.006 28697967

215. Möbius M.A. Thébaud B. Cell Therapy for Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: Promises and Perils Paediatr. Respir. Rev. 2016 20 33 41 10.1016/j.prrv.2016.06.001 27425012

216. Fujinaga H. Baker C.D. Ryan S.L. Markham N.E. Seedorf G.J. Balasubramaniam V. Abman S.H. Hyperoxia disrupts vascular endothelial growth factor-nitric oxide signaling and decreases growth of endothelial colony-forming cells from preterm infants Am. J. Physiol.-Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 2009 297 1160 1169 10.1152/ajplung.00234.2009 PMC2793187 19734318

217. Chang Y.S. Ahn S.Y. Yoo H.S. Sung S.I. Choi S.J. Oh W.I. Park W.S. Mesenchymal Stem Cells for Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Clinical Trial J. Pediatr. 2014 164 966 972.e6 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.12.011 24508444

218. Ahn S.Y. Chang Y.S. Kim J.H. Sung S.I. Park W.S. Two-Year Follow-Up Outcomes of Premature Infants Enrolled in the Phase I Trial of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Transplantation for Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia J. Pediatr. 2017 185 49 54.e2 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.02.061 28341525

219. Medipost Co Ltd Long-Term Safety and Efficacy Follow-Up Study of PNEUMOSTEM® in Patients Who Completed PNEUMOSTEM® Phase-I Study Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02023788 (accessed on 8 December 2021)

220. Powell S.B. Silvestri J.M. Safety of Intratracheal Administration of Human Umbilical Cord Blood Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in Extremely Low Birth Weight Preterm Infants J. Pediatr. 2019 210 209 213.e2 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.02.029 30992220

221. Jouvet P. Thomas N.J. Willson D.F. Erickson S. Khemani R. Smith L. Zimmerman J. Dahmer M. Flori H. Quasney M. Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Consensus Recommendations from the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference Pediatr. Crit. Care Med. 2015 16 428 439 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000350 25647235 PMC5253180

222. Heidemann S.M. Nair A. Bulut Y. Sapru A. Pathophysiology and Management of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Children Pediatr. Clin. N. Am. 2017 64 1017 1037 10.1016/j.pcl.2017.06.004 28941533 PMC9683071

223. Thompson B.T. Chambers R.C. Liu K.D. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome N. Engl. J. Med. 2017 377 562 572 10.1056/NEJMra1608077 28792873

224. Wilson J.G. Liu K.D. Zhuo H. Caballero L. McMillan M. Fang X. Cosgrove K. Vojnik R. Calfee C.S. Lee J.W. Mesenchymal stem (stromal) cells for treatment of ARDS: A phase 1 clinical trial Lancet Respir. Med. 2015 3 24 32 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70291-7 25529339 PMC4297579

225. Weiss D.J. Cell-based therapies for acute respiratory distress syndrome Lancet Respir. Med. 2019 7 105 106 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30477-6 30473410

226. Matthay M.A. Calfee C.S. Zhuo H. Thompson B.T. Wilson J.G. Levitt J.E. Rogers A.J. Gotts J.E. Wiener-Kronish J.P. Bajwa E.K. Treatment with allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cells for moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (START study): A randomised phase 2a safety trial Lancet Respir. Med. 2019 7 154 162 10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30418-1 30455077 PMC7597675

227. Ahmed S. Flinn I.W. Mei M. Riedell P.A. Armand P. Grover N.S. Engert A. Lapteva N. Nadler P.I. Myo A. Safety and Efficacy Profile of Autologous CD30.CAR-T-Cell Therapy in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (CHARIOT Trial) Blood 2021 138 3847 3850 10.1182/blood-2021-146100

228. Tessa Therapeutics Phase 2 Study Evaluating Autologous CD30.CAR-T Cells in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma (CHARIOT) Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04268706 (accessed on 21 March 2022)

229. Nichols H. Eides R. Vertex and CRISPR Therapeutics Present New Data in 22 Patients with Greater than 3 Months Follow-Up Post-Treatment with Investigational CRISPR/Cas9 Gene-Editing Therapy, CTX001TM Available online: https://investors.vrtx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/vertex-and-crispr-therapeutics-present-new-data-22-patients (accessed on 21 March 2022)

230. CRISPRTX A Safety and Efficacy Study Evaluating CTX001 in Subjects with Severe Sickle Cell Disease Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03745287 (accessed on 21 March 2022)

231. Aiuiti, A and IRCCS San Raffaele Gene Therapy for Transfusion Dependent Beta-thalassemia (TIGET-BTHAL) Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02453477 (accessed on 27 February 2022)

232. Orchard Therapeutics Long-Term Follow-Up of Subjects Treated with OTL-300 for Transfusion-Dependent Beta-Thalassemia Study (TIGET-BTHAL) Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03275051 (accessed on 21 March 2022)

233. Kohn D.B. Booth C. Sevilla J. Rao G.R. Almarza E. Terrazas D. Nicoletti E. Fernandes A. Kuo C. de Oliveira S. A Phase 1/2 Study of Lentiviral-Mediated Ex-Vivo Gene Therapy for Pediatric Patients with Severe Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency-I (LAD-I): Interim Results Blood 2021 138 2932 10.1182/blood-2021-151898

234. Kohn D.B. Rao G.R. Almarza E. Terrazas D. Nicoletti E. Fernandes A. Kuo C. De Oliveira S.N. Moore T.B. Law K.M. A Phase 1/2 Study of Lentiviral-Mediated Ex-Vivo Gene Therapy for Pediatric Patients with Severe Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency-I (LAD-I): Results from Phase 1 Blood 2020 136 15 10.1182/blood-2020-142484

235. Rocket Pharmaceuticals Inc A Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of RP-L201 in Subjects with Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency-I Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03812263 (accessed on 21 March 2022)

236. Aiuiti, A and IRCCS San Raffaele Gene Therapy with Modified Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cells for the Treatment of Patients with Mucopolysaccharidosis Type I, Hurler Variant (TigetT10_MPSIH) Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03488394 (accessed on 21 March 2022)

237. Gentner B. Tucci F. Galimberti S. Fumagalli F. De Pellegrin M. Silvani P. Camesasca C. Pontesilli S. Darin S. Ciotti F. Hematopoietic Stem-and Progenitor-Cell Gene Therapy for Hurler Syndrome N. Engl. J. Med. 2021 385 1929 1940 10.1056/NEJMoa2106596 34788506

238. National Institutes of Health Clinical Center (CC) and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Lentiviral Gene Transfer for Treatment of Children Older than 2 Years of Age with X-Linked Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (LVXSCID-OC) Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01306019 (accessed on 21 March 2022)

239. De Ravin S.S. Anaya O’Brien S. Kwatemaa N. Theobald N. Liu S. Lee J. Kardava L. Liu T. Goldman F. Moir S. Enhanced Transduction Lentivector Gene Therapy for Treatment of Older Patients with X-Linked Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Blood 2019 134 (Suppl. 1) 608 10.1182/blood-2019-127439

240. Mamcarz E. Zhou S. Lockey T. Abdelsamed H. Cross S.J. Kang G. Ma Z. Condori J. Dowdy J. Triplett B. Lentiviral gene therapy combined with low-dose busulfan in infants with SCID-X1 N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 380 1525 1534 10.1056/NEJMoa1815408 30995372 PMC6636624

241. St. Jude Children′s Research Hospital Gene Transfer for X-Linked Severe Combined Immunodeficiency in Newly Diagnosed Infants (LVXSCID-ND) Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01512888 (accessed on 21 March 2022)

242. ExCellThera Inc US Phase I Study of ECT-001-CB in Patients with Sickle-Cell Disease Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04594031 (accessed on 21 March 2022)

243. ExCellThera Inc US Study of ECT-001-CB in Pediatric and Young Adult Patients with High-Risk Myeloid Malignancies Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04990323 (accessed on 21 March 2022)

244. Rocket Pharmaceuticals Inc A Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety of RP-L102 in Pediatric Subjects with Fanconi Anemia Subtype A Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03814408 (accessed on 21 March 2022)

245. Czechowicz A. Roncarolo M.G. Beard B.C. Law K. Nicoletti E. Río P. Bueren J.A. Schwartz J.D. Soni S. Changing the Natural History of Fanconi Anemia Complementation Group-A with Gene Therapy: Early Results of U.S. Phase I Study of Lentiviral-Mediated Ex-VivoFANCA Gene Insertion in Human Stem and Progenitor Cells Blood 2019 134 3350 10.1182/blood-2019-127352

246. Rocket Pharmaceuticals Inc Gene Therapy for Fanconi Anemia, Complementation Group A Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04248439 (accessed on 21 March 2022)

247. Rocket Pharmaceuticals Inc Lentiviral-Mediated Gene Therapy for Pediatric Patients with Fanconi Anemia Subtype A Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04069533 (accessed on 21 March 2022)

248. bluebird bio Longterm Follow-Up of Subjects with Hemoglobinopathies Treated with Ex Vivo Gene Therapy Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02633943 (accessed on 21 March 2022)

249. AlloVir Study of Viralym-M (ALVR105) for Multi-Virus Prevention in Patients Post-Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04693637 (accessed on 21 March 2022)

250. Dadwal S.S. Shuster M. Myers G.D. Boundy K. Warren M. Stoner E. Truong T. Hill J.A. Posoleucel (ALVR105), an Off-the-Shelf, Multivirus-Specific T-Cell Therapy, for the Prevention of Viral Infections Post-HCT: Results from an Open-Label Cohort of a Phase 2 Trial Blood 2021 138 1760 10.1182/blood-2021-152553

251. AlloVir Study to Evaluate Viralym-M (ALVR105) for the Treatment of Virus-Associated Hemorrhagic Cystitis (HC) Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04390113 (accessed on 21 March 2022)

252. Elbashir S.M. Martinez J. Patkaniowska A. Lendeckel W. Tuschl T. Functional anatomy of siRNAs for mediating efficient RNAi in Drosophila melanogaster embryo lysate EMBO J. 2001 20 6877 6888 10.1093/emboj/20.23.6877 11726523 PMC125328

253. Ahn S.Y. Chang Y.S. Lee M.H. Sung S.I. Lee B.S. Kim K.S. Kim A.R. Park W.S. Stem cells for bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants: A randomized controlled phase II trial Stem Cells Transl. Med. 2021 10 1129 1137 10.1002/sctm.20-0330 33876883 PMC8284779

254. Medipost Co Ltd Follow-Up Safety and Efficacy Evaluation on Subjects Who Completed PNEUMOSTEM® Phase-II Clinical Trial Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01897987 (accessed on 8 December 2021)

255. Lee Farmer D. University of California, Davis Cellular Therapy for In Utero Repair of Myelomeningocele—The CuRe Trial Available online: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04652908 (accessed on 11 December 2021)

256. Götherström, C and Karolinska Institutet Boost Brittle Bones before Birth (BOOSTB4) Available online: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03706482 (accessed on 11 December 2021)

257. Schneider H. Faschingbauer F. Schuepbach-Mallepell S. Körber I. Wohlfart S. Dick A. Wahlbuhl M. Kowalczyk-Quintas C. Vigolo M. Kirby N. Prenatal Correction of X-Linked Hypohidrotic Ectodermal Dysplasia N. Engl. J. Med. 2018 378 1604 1610 10.1056/NEJMoa1714322 29694819

258. Kreger E.M. Singer S.T. Witt R.G. Sweeters N. Lianoglou B. Lal A. Mackenzie T.C. Vichinsky E. Favorable outcomes after in utero transfusion in fetuses with alpha thalassemia major: A case series and review of the literature Prenat. Diagn. 2016 36 1242 1249 10.1002/pd.4966 27862048

259. Mackenzie T. University of California, San Francisco In Utero Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Alpha-Thalassemia Major (ATM) Available online: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02986698 (accessed on 11 December 2021)

260. MacKenzie T.C. Frascoli M. Sper R. Lianoglou B.R. Gonzalez Velez J. Dvorak C.C. Kharbanda S. Vichinsky E. In Utero Stem Cell Transplantation in Patients with Alpha Thalassemia Major: Interim Results of a Phase 1 Clinical Trial Blood 2020 136 (Suppl. 1) 1 10.1182/blood-2020-142698

261. Dimitri P. Pignataro V. Lupo M. Bonifazi D. Henke M. Musazzi U.M. Ernst F. Minghetti P. Redaelli D.F. Antimisiaris S.G. Medical device development for children and young people—reviewing the challenges and opportunities Pharmaceutics 2021 13 2178 10.3390/pharmaceutics13122178 34959459 PMC8706877

262. Fesnak A. O’Doherty U. Clinical development and manufacture of chimeric antigen receptor T cells and the role of leukapheresis Eur. Oncol. Haematol. 2017 13 28 34 10.17925/EOH.2017.13.01.28

263. Cattoglio C. Facchini G. Sartori D. Antonelli A. Miccio A. Cassani B. Schmidt M. Von Kalle C. Howe S. Thrasher A.J. Hot spots of retroviral integration in human CD34+ hematopoietic cells Blood 2007 110 1770 1778 10.1182/blood-2007-01-068759 17507662

264. Uchida N. Sutton R.E. Friera A.M. He D. Reitsma M.J. Chang W.C. Veres G. Scollay R. Weissman I.L. HIV, but not murine leukemia virus, vectors mediate high efficiency gene transfer into freshly isolated G0/G1 human hematopoietic stem cells Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998 95 11939 11944 10.1073/pnas.95.20.11939 9751769 PMC21744

265. Lu H. Zhao X. Li Z. Hu Y. Wang H. From CAR-T Cells to CAR-NK Cells: A Developing Immunotherapy Method for Hematological Malignancies Front. Oncol. 2021 11 720501 10.3389/fonc.2021.720501 34422667 PMC8377427

266. Tonn T. Becker S. Esser R. Schwabe D. Seifried E. Cellular immunotherapy of malignancies using the clonal natural killer cell line NK-92 J. Hematother. Stem Cell Res. 2001 10 535 544 10.1089/15258160152509145 11522236

267. Bjordahl R. Gaidarova S. Goodridge J.P. Mahmood S. Bonello G. Robinson M. Ruller C. Pribadi M. Lee T. Abujarour R. FT576: A Novel Multiplexed Engineered Off-the-Shelf Natural Killer Cell Immunotherapy for the Dual-Targeting of CD38 and Bcma for the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma Blood 2019 134 3214 10.1182/blood-2019-131373

268. Goodridge J.P. Mahmood S. Zhu H. Gaidarova S. Blum R. Bjordahl R. Cichocki F. Chu H. Bonello G. Lee T. FT596: Translation of First-of-Kind Multi-Antigen Targeted Off-the-Shelf CAR-NK Cell with Engineered Persistence for the Treatment of B Cell Malignancies Blood 2019 134 301 10.1182/blood-2019-129319

269. Haspel R. Miller K. Hematopoietic Stem Cells: Source Matters Curr. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2008 3 229 236 10.2174/157488808786734033 19075753

270. Styczynski J. Balduzzi A. Gil L. Labopin M. Hamladji R.M. Marktel S. Yesilipek M.A. Fagioli F. Ehlert K. Matulova M. Risk of complications during hematopoietic stem cell collection in pediatric sibling donors: A prospective European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Pediatric Diseases Working Party study Blood 2012 119 2935 2942 10.1182/blood-2011-04-349688 22160619

271. Drabko K. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT) in children in Poland: 2021 indications and practice Acta Haematol. Pol. 2021 52 234 236 10.5603/AHP.2021.0045

272. Ohara Y. Ohto H. Tasaki T. Sano H. Mochizuki K. Akaihata M. Kobayashi S. Waragai T. Ito M. Hosoya M. Comprehensive technical and patient-care optimization in the management of pediatric apheresis for peripheral blood stem cell harvesting Transfus. Apher. Sci. 2016 55 338 343 10.1016/j.transci.2016.09.014 27765663

273. Karakukcu M. Unal E. Stem cell mobilization and collection from pediatric patients and healthy children Transfus. Apher. Sci. 2015 53 17 22 10.1016/j.transci.2015.05.010 26116046

274. Lipton J.M. Peripheral blood as a stem cell source for hematopoietic cell transplantation in children: Is the effort in vein? Pediatr. Transplant. 2003 7 65 70 10.1034/j.1399-3046.7.s3.10.x 12603696

275. DiPersio J.F. Karpova D. Rettig M.P. Mobilized peripheral blood: An updated perspective F1000Research 2019 8 2125 10.12688/f1000research.21129.1 PMC6971844 32025285

276. Luzzi J.R. Borba C.C. Miyaji S.C. Brito C.A. Navarro-Xavier R. Dinardo C.L. Reduced volume of red blood cell priming is safe for pediatric patients undergoing therapeutic plasma exchange Transfus. Apher. Sci. 2021 60 103005 10.1016/j.transci.2020.103005 33223472

277. Luo C. Wang L. Wu G. Huang X. Zhang Y. Ma Y. Xie M. Sun Y. Huang Y. Huang Z. Comparison of the efficacy of hematopoietic stem cell mobilization regimens: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of preclinical studies Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2021 12 310 10.1186/s13287-021-02379-6 34051862 PMC8164253

278. Tajer P. Pike-Overzet K. Arias S. Havenga M. Staal F. Ex Vivo Expansion of Hematopoietic Stem Cells for Therapeutic Purposes: Lessons from Development and the Niche Cells 2019 8 169 10.3390/cells8020169 PMC6407064 30781676

279. Baldwin K. Urbinati F. Romero Z. Campo-Fernandez B. Kaufman M.L. Cooper A.R. Masiuk K. Hollis R.P. Kohn D.B. Enrichment of human hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells facilitates transduction for stem cell gene therapy Stem Cells 2015 33 1532 1542 10.1002/stem.1957 25588820 PMC5074681

280. Jiang W. Xu J. Immune modulation by mesenchymal stem cells Cell Prolif. 2020 53 e12712 10.1111/cpr.12712 31730279 PMC6985662

281. Ullah I. Subbarao R.B. Rho G.J. Human mesenchymal stem cells-Current trends and future prospective Biosci. Rep. 2015 35 e00191 10.1042/BSR20150025 25797907 PMC4413017

282. Nehlin J.O. Jafari A. Tencerova M. Kassem M. Aging and lineage allocation changes of bone marrow skeletal (stromal)stem cells Bone 2019 123 265 273 10.1016/j.bone.2019.03.041 30946971

283. Seo Y. Shin T.H. Kim H.S. Current strategies to enhance adipose stem cell function: An update Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019 20 3827 10.3390/ijms20153827 31387282 PMC6696067

284. Kuca-Warnawin E. Skalska U. Janicka I. Musiałowicz U. Bonek K. Głuszko P. Szczęsny P. Olesińska M. Kontny E. The Phenotype and Secretory Activity of Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells (ASCs) of Patients with Rheumatic Diseases Cells 2019 8 1659 10.3390/cells8121659 31861245 PMC6952982

285. Ding D.C. Chang Y.H. Shyu W.C. Lin S.Z. Human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells: A new era for stem cell therapy Cell Transplant. 2015 24 339 347 10.3727/096368915X686841 25622293

286. Goldman S.A. Schanz S. Windrem M.S. Stem cell-based strategies for treating pediatric disorders of myelin Hum Mol. Genet 2008 17 R76 R83 10.1093/hmg/ddn052 18632701

287. Peng Y. Tang L. Zhou Y. Subretinal Injection: A Review on the Novel Route of Therapeutic Delivery for Vitreoretinal Diseases Ophthalmic Res. 2017 58 217 226 10.1159/000479157 28858866

288. Ramachandra D.L. Shaw S.S.W. Shangaris P. Loukogeorgakis S. Guillot P.V. De Coppi P. David A.L. In utero therapy for congenital disorders using amniotic fluid stem cells Front. Pharmacol. 2014 5 270 10.3389/fphar.2014.00270 25566071 PMC4271591

289. Biological K. Non Viral Vectors in Gene Therapy-An Overview J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2015 9 GE01 GE06 10.7860/JCDR/2015/10443.5394 PMC4347098 25738007

290. Boulaiz H. Marchal J.A. Prados J. Melguizo C. Aránega A. Non-viral and viral vectors for gene therapy Cell. Mol. Biol. 2005 51 3 22 16171561

291. Richter M. Stone D. Miao C. Humbert O. Kiem H.P. Papayannopoulou T. Lieber A. In Vivo Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transduction Hematol. Oncol. Clin. N. Am. 2017 31 771 785 10.1016/j.hoc.2017.06.001 PMC5659626 28895846

292. Murai N. Ohtaki H. Watanabe J. Xu Z. Sasaki S. Yagura K. Shioda S. Nagasaka S. Honda K. Izumizaki M. Intrapancreatic injection of human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem/stromal cells alleviates hyperglycemia and modulates the macrophage state in streptozotocin-induced type 1 diabetic mice PLoS ONE 2017 12 e0186637 10.1371/journal.pone.0186637 29073149 PMC5657972

293. Li C. Georgakopoulou A. Mishra A. Gil S. Hawkins R.D. Yannaki E. Lieber A. In vivo HSPC gene therapy with base editors allows for efficient reactivation of fetal γ-globin in β-YAC mice Blood Adv. 2021 5 1122 1135 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020003702 33620431 PMC7903237

294. Schaefer S. Lange S. Werner J. Machka C. Neumann K. Knuebel G. Vogel H. Lindner I. Glass Ä. Escobar H.M. Engraftment Effects after Intra-Bone Marrow versus Intravenous Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation in a Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Dog Leukocyte Antigen-Identical Canine Model Transplant. Cell. Ther. 2021 28 70.e1 70.e5 10.1016/j.jtct.2021.11.010 34838786

295. Greber U.F. Gomez-Gonzalez A. Adenovirus-a blueprint for gene delivery Curr. Opin. Virol. 2021 48 49 56 10.1016/j.coviro.2021.03.006 33892224

296. Chen W. Yao S. Wan J. Tian Y. Huang L. Wang S. Akter F. Wu Y. Yao Y. Zhang X. BBB-crossing adeno-associated virus vector: An excellent gene delivery tool for CNS disease treatment J. Control. Release 2021 333 129 138 10.1016/j.jconrel.2021.03.029 33775685

297. Jacobs L. De Smidt E. Geukens N. Declerck P. Hollevoet K. Electroporation outperforms in vivo-jetPEI for intratumoral DNA-based reporter gene transfer Sci. Rep. 2020 10 19532 10.1038/s41598-020-75206-2 33177564 PMC7659317

298. Kerstan A. Niebergall-Roth E. Esterlechner J. Schröder H.M. Gasser M. Waaga-Gasser A.M. Goebeler M. Rak K. Schrüfer P. Endres S. Ex vivo-expanded highly pure ABCB5+ mesenchymal stromal cells as Good Manufacturing Practice-compliant autologous advanced therapy medicinal product for clinical use: Process validation and first in-human data Cytotherapy 2021 23 165 175 10.1016/j.jcyt.2020.08.012 33011075 PMC8310651

299. Weiss R. Gerdes W. Berthold R. Sack U. Koehl U. Hauschildt S. Grahnert A. Comparison of Three CD3-Specific Separation Methods Leading to Labeled and Label-Free T Cells Cells 2021 10 2824 10.3390/cells10112824 34831046 PMC8616525

300. Han L. Zhou J. Li L. Zhou K. Zhao L. Zhu X. Yin Q. Li Y. You H. Zhang J. Culturing adequate CAR-T cells from less peripheral blood to treat B-cell malignancies Cancer Biol. Med. 2021 18 1066 1079 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2021.0040 PMC8610157 34390235

301. Patsali P. Turchiano G. Papasavva P. Romito M. Loucari C.C. Stephanou C. Christou S. Sitarou M. Mussolino C. Cornu T.I. Correction of IVS I-110(G>A) β-thalassemia by CRISPR/Cas-and TALEN-mediated disruption of aberrant regulatory elements in human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells Haematologica 2019 104 e497 e501 10.3324/haematol.2018.215178 31004018 PMC6821606

302. Stephanou C. Papasavva P. Zachariou M. Patsali P. Epitropou M. Ladas P. Al-Abdulla R. Christou S. Antoniou M.N. Lederer C.W. Suitability of small diagnostic peripheral-blood samples for cell-therapy studies Cytotherapy 2017 19 311 326 10.1016/j.jcyt.2016.11.007 28088294

303. Robbins G.M. Wang M. Pomeroy E.J. Moriarity B.S. Nonviral genome engineering of natural killer cells Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2021 12 350 10.1186/s13287-021-02406-6 34134774 PMC8207670

304. Kim J.Y. Choi J.H. Kim S.H. Park H. Lee D. Kim G.J. Efficacy of Gene Modification in Placenta-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Based on Nonviral Electroporation Int. J. Stem Cells 2021 14 112 118 10.15283/ijsc20117 33377456 PMC7904523

305. Holstein M. Mesa-Nuñez C. Miskey C. Almarza E. Poletti V. Schmeer M. Grueso E. Ordóñez Flores J.C. Kobelt D. Walther W. Efficient Non-viral Gene Delivery into Human Hematopoietic Stem Cells by Minicircle Sleeping Beauty Transposon Vectors Mol. Ther. 2018 26 1137 1153 10.1016/j.ymthe.2018.01.012 29503198 PMC6079369

306. Lattanzi A. Meneghini V. Pavani G. Amor F. Ramadier S. Felix T. Antoniani C. Masson C. Alibeu O. Lee C. Optimization of CRISPR/Cas9 Delivery to Human Hematopoietic Stem and Progenitor Cells for Therapeutic Genomic Rearrangements Mol. Ther. 2019 27 137 150 10.1016/j.ymthe.2018.10.008 30424953 PMC6318785

307. Russkamp N.F. Myburgh R. Kiefer J.D. Neri D. Manz M.G. Anti-CD117 immunotherapy to eliminate hematopoietic and leukemia stem cells Exp. Hematol. 2021 95 31 45 10.1016/j.exphem.2021.01.003 33484750

308. Mangeot P.E. Risson V. Fusil F. Marnef A. Laurent E. Blin J. Mournetas V. Massouridès E. Sohier T.J.M. Corbin A. Genome editing in primary cells and in vivo using viral-derived Nanoblades loaded with Cas9-sgRNA ribonucleoproteins Nat. Commun. 2019 10 45 10.1038/s41467-018-07845-z 30604748 PMC6318322

309. Li C. Psatha N. Wang H. Singh M. Samal H.B. Zhang W. Ehrhardt A. Izsvák Z. Papayannopoulou T. Lieber A. Integrating HDAd5/35++ Vectors as a New Platform for HSC Gene Therapy of Hemoglobinopathies Mol. Ther.-Methods Clin. Dev. 2018 9 142 152 10.1016/j.omtm.2018.02.004 29766024 PMC5948227

310. Banskota S. Raguram A. Suh S. Du S.W. Davis J.R. Choi E.H. Wang X. Nielsen S.C. Newby G.A. Randolph P.B. Engineered virus-like particles for efficient in vivo delivery of therapeutic proteins Cell 2022 185 250 265 10.1016/j.cell.2021.12.021 35021064 PMC8809250

311. Zu H. Gao D. Non-viral Vectors in Gene Therapy: Recent Development, Challenges, and Prospects AAPS J. 2021 23 78 10.1208/s12248-021-00608-7 34076797 PMC8171234

312. Mangeot P.E. Guiguettaz L. Sohier T.J.M. Ricci E.P. Delivery of the Cas9/sgRNA Ribonucleoprotein Complex in Immortalized and Primary Cells via Virus-like Particles (“Nanoblades”) J. Vis. Exp. 2021 169 e62245 10.3791/62245 33871447

313. He X. Urip B.A. Zhang Z. Ngan C.C. Feng B. Evolving AAV-delivered therapeutics towards ultimate cures J. Mol. Med. 2021 99 593 617 10.1007/s00109-020-02034-2 33594520 PMC7885987

314. Definition-Nanomaterials-Environment-European Commission Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/nanotech/faq/definition_en.htm (accessed on 13 January 2021)

315. Mitchell M.J. Billingsley M.M. Haley R.M. Wechsler M.E. Peppas N.A. Langer R. Engineering precision nanoparticles for drug delivery Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2021 20 101 124 10.1038/s41573-020-0090-8 33277608 PMC7717100

316. DeLong R.K. Reynolds C.M. Malcolm Y. Schaeffer A. Severs T. Wanekaya A. Functionalized gold nanoparticles for the binding, stabilization, and delivery of therapeutic DNA, RNA, and other biological macromolecules Nanotechnol. Sci. Appl. 2010 3 53 63 10.2147/NSA.S8984 24198471 PMC3781690

317. Rai R. Alwani S. Badea I. Polymeric nanoparticles in gene therapy: New avenues of design and optimization for delivery applications Polymers 2019 11 745 10.3390/polym11040745 PMC6523186 31027272

318. Tetro N. Moushaev S. Rubinchik-Stern M. Eyal S. The Placental Barrier: The Gate and the Fate in Drug Distribution Pharm. Res. 2018 35 71 10.1007/s11095-017-2286-0 29476301

319. Muoth C. Aengenheister L. Kucki M. Wick P. Buerki-Thurnherr T. Nanoparticle transport across the placental barrier: Pushing the field forward Nanomedicine 2016 11 941 957 10.2217/nnm-2015-0012 26979802

320. Cruz L.J. van Dijk T. Vepris O. Li T.M.W.Y. Schomann T. Baldazzi F. Kurita R. Nakamura Y. Grosveld F. Philipsen S. PLGA-Nanoparticles for Intracellular Delivery of the CRISPR-Complex to Elevate Fetal Globin Expression in Erythroid Cells Biomaterials 2021 268 120580 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2020.120580 33321292

321. King A. Ndifon C. Lui S. Widdows K. Kotamraju V.R. Agemy L. Teesalu T. Glazier J.D. Cellesi F. Tirelli N. Tumor-homing peptides as tools for targeted delivery of payloads to the placenta Sci. Adv. 2016 2 e1600349 10.1126/sciadv.1600349 27386551 PMC4928982

322. Kaitu’u-Lino T.J. Pattison S. Ye L. Tuohey L. Sluka P. MacDiarmid J. Brahmbhatt H. Johns T. Horne A.W. Brown J. Targeted nanoparticle delivery of doxorubicin into placental tissues to treat ectopic pregnancies Endocrinology 2013 154 911 919 10.1210/en.2012-1832 23288908

323. Li L. Li H. Xue J. Chen P. Zhou Q. Zhang C. Nanoparticle-Mediated Simultaneous Downregulation of Placental Nrf2 and sFlt1 Improves Maternal and Fetal Outcomes in a Preeclampsia Mouse Model ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2020 6 5866 5873 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.0c00826 33320575

324. EUR-Lex-32007R1394-EN-EUR-Lex Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32007R1394 (accessed on 13 January 2021)

325. Promising mRNA Tech Comes with Regulatory, CMC Headaches|RAPS Available online: https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2020/11/euro-convergence-regulatory-and-cmc-considerations (accessed on 13 January 2021)

326. Singh V.P. McKinney S. Gerton J.L. Persistent DNA Damage and Senescence in the Placenta Impacts Developmental Outcomes of Embryos Dev. Cell 2020 54 333 347.e7 10.1016/j.devcel.2020.05.025 32800293

327. Pritchard N. Kaitu’u-Lino T. Harris L. Tong S. Hannan N. Nanoparticles in pregnancy: The next frontier in reproductive therapeutics Hum. Reprod. Update 2020 27 280 304 10.1093/humupd/dmaa049 PMC9034208 33279994

328. Irvin-Choy N.S. Nelson K.M. Gleghorn J.P. Day E.S. Design of nanomaterials for applications in maternal/fetal medicine J. Mater. Chem. B 2020 8 6548 6561 10.1039/D0TB00612B 32452510 PMC7429305

329. Tsukamoto M. Ochiya T. Yoshida S. Sugimura T. Terada M. Gene transfer and expression in progeny after intravenous DNA injection into pregnant mice Nat. Genet. 1995 9 243 248 10.1038/ng0395-243 7773286

330. Cornford E.M. Hyman S. Cornford M.E. Chytrova G. Rhee J. Suzuki T. Yamagata T. Yamakawa K. Penichet M.L. Pardridge W.M. Non-invasive gene targeting to the fetal brain after intravenous administration and transplacental transfer of plasmid DNA using PEGylated immunoliposomes J. Drug Target. 2016 24 58 67 10.3109/1061186X.2015.1055569 26133964

331. Ellah N.A. Taylor L. Troja W. Owens K. Ayres N. Pauletti G. Jones H. Development of non-viral, trophoblast-specific gene delivery for placental therapy PLoS ONE 2015 10 e0140879 10.1371/journal.pone.0140879 26473479 PMC4608830

332. Giubilato E. Cazzagon V. Amorim M.J.B. Blosi M. Bouillard J. Bouwmeester H. Costa A.L. Fadeel B. Fernandes T.F. Fito C. Risk Management Framework for Nano-Biomaterials Used in Medical Devices and Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products Materials 2020 13 4532 10.3390/ma13204532 33066064 PMC7601697

333. BIOmaterial RIsk MAnagement|BIORIMA Project|H2020|CORDIS|European Commission Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/760928 (accessed on 13 January 2021)

334. Caplan H. Olson S.D. Kumar A. George M. Prabhakara K.S. Wenzel P. Bedi S. Toledano-Furman N.E. Triolo F. Kamhieh-Milz J. Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Therapeutic Delivery: Translational Challenges to Clinical Application Front. Immunol. 2019 10 1645 10.3389/fimmu.2019.01645 31417542 PMC6685059

335. Bonig H. Kuçi Z. Kuçi S. Bakhtiar S. Basu O. Bug G. Dennis M. Greil J. Barta A. Kállay K.M. Children and Adults with Refractory Acute Graft-versus-Host Disease Respond to Treatment with the Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Preparation “MSC-FFM”-Outcome Report of 92 Patients Cells 2019 8 1577 10.3390/cells8121577 PMC6952775 31817480

336. Namba F. Mesenchymal stem cells for the prevention of bronchopulmonary dysplasia Pediatr. Int. 2019 61 945 950 10.1111/ped.14001 31487104

337. Delhove J. Osenk I. Prichard I. Donnelley M. Public Acceptability of Gene Therapy and Gene Editing for Human Use: A Systematic Review Hum. Gene Ther. 2020 31 20 46 10.1089/hum.2019.197 31802714

338. Seoane-Vazquez E. Shukla V. Rodriguez-Monguio R. Innovation and competition in advanced therapy medicinal products EMBO Mol. Med. 2019 11 e9992 10.15252/emmm.201809992 30770338 PMC6404110

339. Lipsitz Y.Y. Milligan W.D. Fitzpatrick I. Stalmeijer E. Farid S.S. Tan K.Y. Smith D. Perry R. Carmen J. Chen A. A roadmap for cost-of-goods planning to guide economic production of cell therapy products Cytotherapy 2017 19 1383 1391 10.1016/j.jcyt.2017.06.009 28935190

340. Walpole S.C. Prieto-Merino D. Edwards P. Cleland J. Stevens G. Roberts I. The weight of nations: An estimation of adult human biomass BMC Public Health 2012 12 439 10.1186/1471-2458-12-439 22709383 PMC3408371

341. Janssen P.A. Thiessen P. Klein M.C. Whitfield M.F. Macnab Y.C. Cullis-Kuhl S.C. Standards for the measurement of birth weight, length and head circumference at term in neonates of European, Chinese and South Asian ancestry Open Med. 2007 1 e74 e88 20101298 PMC2802014

342. Shaw S.W.S.S. Blundell M.P. Pipino C. Shangaris P. Maghsoudlou P. Ramachandra D.L. Georgiades F. Boyd M. Thrasher A.J. Porada C.D. Sheep CD34+ amniotic fluid cells have hematopoietic potential and engraft after autologous in utero transplantation Stem Cells 2015 33 122 132 10.1002/stem.1839 25186828

343. Aurich B. Jacqz-Aigrain E. Drug safety in translational paediatric research: Practical points to consider for paediatric safety profiling and protocol development: A scoping review Pharmaceutics 2021 13 695 10.3390/pharmaceutics13050695 34064872 PMC8151265

344. Ceci A. Felisi M. Baiardi P. Bonifazi F. Catapano M. Giaquinto C. Nicolosi A. Sturkenboom M. Neubert A. Wong I. Medicines for children licensed by the European Medicines Agency. (EMEA): The balance after 10 years Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2006 62 947 952 10.1007/s00228-006-0193-0 17021892

345. Giannuzzi V. Conte R. Landi A. Ottomano S.A. Bonifazi D. Baiardi P. Bonifazi F. Ceci A. Orphan medicinal products in Europe and United States to cover needs of patients with rare diseases: An increased common effort is to be foreseen Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2017 12 64 10.1186/s13023-017-0617-1 28372595 PMC5376695

346. TEDDY – European Network of Excellence for Paediatric Clinical Research. European Paediatric Medicines Database (EPMD) Available online: https://www.teddynetwork.net/european-paediatric-medicines-database-epmd/ (accessed on 26 October 2021)

347. Pierce G.F. Uncertainty in an era of transformative therapy for haemophilia: Addressing the unknowns Haemophilia 2021 27 103 113 10.1111/hae.14023 32484283

348. Brooks S.P. Bubela T. Application of protection motivation theory to clinical trial enrolment for pediatric chronic conditions BMC Pediatr. 2020 20 123 10.1186/s12887-020-2014-5 32178652 PMC7075002

349. Bushman F.D. Retroviral Insertional Mutagenesis in Humans: Evidence for Four Genetic Mechanisms Promoting Expansion of Cell Clones Mol. Ther. 2020 28 352 356 10.1016/j.ymthe.2019.12.009 31951833 PMC7001082

350. Gene therapy needs a long-term approach Nat. Med. 2021 27 563 10.1038/s41591-021-01333-6 33859432

351. Blattner G. Cavazza A. Thrasher A.J. Turchiano G. Gene Editing and Genotoxicity: Targeting the Off-Targets Front. Genome Ed. 2020 2 613252 10.3389/fgeed.2020.613252 34713236 PMC8525370

352. Almeida-Porada G. Waddington S.N. Chan J.K.Y. Peranteau W.H. MacKenzie T. Porada C.D. In Utero Gene Therapy Consensus Statement from the IFeTIS Mol. Ther. 2019 27 705 707 10.1016/j.ymthe.2019.02.015 30837116 PMC6453510