Gene Therapy Landscape Shifts as Companies Navigate Challenges

The landscape of cell and gene therapies is undergoing a significant transformation as the industry grapples with regulatory hurdles and market challenges. Following the approval of the first gene therapy using CRISPR technology in the United States in 2023, former President Joe Biden expressed optimism about its potential to provide life-saving treatments for millions. However, by 2025, the sentiment has shifted towards a more cautious perspective.

Regulatory Challenges and Company Responses

This year, headlines have largely focused on Sarepta, a biotechnology company that faced scrutiny over its Duchenne muscular dystrophy treatment, Elevidys (delandistrogene moxeparvovec). Allegations linking the therapy to patient deaths sparked a regulatory storm, highlighting the complexities of overseeing pioneering treatments. Owen Smith, a partner at 4BIO Capital, commented on the challenges faced by both regulators and innovators in this evolving field. He noted, “You are doing a lot of learning in the public domain about a platform which clearly has huge potential.”

Despite an investigation ultimately clearing Sarepta’s therapy, the ongoing dialogue between the company and the FDA has raised concerns about regulatory stability within the sector. The recent departure of Vinay Prasad, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, further complicates the regulatory landscape.

Financial analysts have observed that shares of cell and gene therapy companies have fluctuated due to this instability. Analysts from William Blair predict continued volatility, factoring in regulatory uncertainties alongside the persistent issues of manufacturing and scalability in therapy development.

Market Shifts and Emerging Trends

Amid these challenges, some companies have opted to shift focus away from cell and gene therapy. For instance, Vor Bio has transitioned to the autoimmune sector, ceasing its advanced therapy pipeline and resulting in significant staff reductions. Conversely, bluebird bio, once a frontrunner after the approval of its sickle cell gene therapy Lyfgenia (lovo-cel) in December 2023, has struggled with profitability. High development costs and slower-than-expected market adoption have led to the company’s eventual closure in February 2025.

The CEO of logistics company Likarda, Stella Vnook, remarked on the initial excitement surrounding cell and gene therapies, noting that while significant scientific progress has been made, challenges related to reimbursement and logistics have forced many companies to pivot or consolidate their operations.

According to Matthew Durdy, CEO of the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult, the solution lies in developing more therapeutics to lower prices through market competition. He stated, “The profitability of the therapeutics for the industry is low because of the high cost of manufacturing.”

Investment in innovative technologies has slowed, impacting the entire biotech sector, including cell and gene therapies. Durdy highlighted a trend of reduced investment across various modalities, including cancer vaccines and rare disease treatments, which reflects broader market challenges.

Despite these setbacks, there are still signs of optimism within the sector. Medera, a US biotech company, had announced a $623 million deal with special purpose acquisition company Keen Vision in September 2024, although the anticipated public trading has not yet materialized. CEO Ronald Li confirmed that the company remains poised for a listing but is waiting for favorable market conditions.

Investors appear to be selective yet optimistic. Smith from 4BIO Capital noted a strategic shift towards gene therapy investments, suggesting that the current environment offers opportunities for those willing to navigate the complexities.

In conclusion, while the cell and gene therapy sector is experiencing a correction rather than a collapse, the road ahead remains fraught with challenges. Regulatory bodies are adapting, and advancements in manufacturing technologies are promising, even if they lag behind scientific innovations. As Owen Smith aptly stated, “I don’t think a bubble has burst, but I think it’s clearly deflated.” The coming years will be crucial in determining the future trajectory of this transformative field.