Comparative Effectiveness of Gene Editing Techniques in DMD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis


Topic:

Other

Poster Number: V396

Author(s):

Mahmoud M. Elsayed, MD, MME Foundation, Ahmed Elsayed, BA, MME Foundation, Nahed Ali, BA, MME Foundation, Magdi Ali, BA, MME Foundation, Magdi Ali, BA, MME Foundation

Background
Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a severe genetic disorder caused by mutations in the DMD gene, leading to loss of dystrophin protein. Gene editing techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9, base editing, and prime editing offer promising therapeutic approaches. These techniques differ in efficiency, precision, and safety. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare their effectiveness in dystrophin restoration, functional outcomes, and safety.

Objectives
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of CRISPR-Cas9, base editing, and prime editing in restoring dystrophin expression, improving motor function, and minimizing off-target effects in DMD.

Methods
A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov identified relevant studies published up to 2024. Eligible studies included RCTs, non-randomized trials, and preclinical research. Data were extracted following PRISMA guidelines, with risk of bias assessed using appropriate tools. A random-effects model was applied for meta-analyses.

Results
Twenty-eight studies involving 1,975 participants and animal models were included. CRISPR-Cas9 showed the highest dystrophin restoration (32.8%, 95% CI: 25.6–40.1%, p < 0.001), followed by base editing (24.5%, 95% CI: 18.7–30.3%, p < 0.001) and prime editing (20.1%, 95% CI: 15.4–24.8%, p < 0.001). Functional improvements in grip strength were greatest with CRISPR-Cas9 (3.4 points, 95% CI: 2.7–4.1, p < 0.001), compared to base editing (2.6 points) and prime editing (2.1 points). However, CRISPR-Cas9 had the highest off-target effects (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.45–2.37, p < 0.001), while base editing (OR: 1.32) and prime editing (OR: 1.11) had better safety profiles. Conclusion CRISPR-Cas9 offers superior dystrophin restoration and functional improvement but with higher off-target risks. Base editing balances efficacy and safety, while prime editing provides precise editing with minimal off-target effects. These findings highlight the need for personalized approaches and further research to optimize safety and long-term outcomes in clinical settings.