For years, CRISPR was discussed as a technology that might eventually transform medicine. That future has now begun.
The first CRISPR-based treatment, Casgevy, was authorized in the United Kingdom in 2023 and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration shortly afterward. It is used for sickle cell disease and transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia, two inherited blood disorders caused by abnormalities in hemoglobin.
The approval marked a major scientific milestone: researchers had moved CRISPR from laboratory experiments into a regulated therapy capable of producing substantial clinical benefits.
However, the first success does not mean that gene editing has become simple, risk-free, or universally accessible. Researchers must now determine how to deliver editors into more organs, detect unintended changes, confirm lifelong durability and make treatments available beyond a small number of highly specialized medical centers.
What is therapeutic gene editing?
Gene editing refers to a collection of technologies that can alter DNA or regulate how genes function. CRISPR systems generally use a guide RNA to locate a selected genetic sequence and an editing enzyme to modify that target.
The best-known system, CRISPR–Cas9, acts like programmable molecular scissors. Cas9 cuts both strands of DNA at a location determined by the guide RNA. The cell then repairs the break.
Scientists can use this process to:
- Disrupt a harmful gene
- Remove a regulatory DNA sequence
- Correct or replace a genetic sequence
- Add a functional gene
- Alter how strongly a gene is expressed
Newer technologies provide additional options. Base editing can change selected DNA letters without making a conventional double-strand break. Prime editing uses an engineered enzyme and specialized guide RNA to write small genetic changes into DNA. Epigenetic editing aims to turn genes up or down without permanently changing their underlying sequence.
Each approach has different advantages, risks and technical limitations. The appropriate technology depends on the disease, the type of mutation, and the cells that must be reached.
The first approved CRISPR treatment
Casgevy, also known as exagamglogene autotemcel, does not directly repair the mutation responsible for sickle cell disease. Instead, it edits a regulatory region associated with the BCL11A gene in a patient’s blood-forming stem cells.
BCL11A normally helps suppress fetal hemoglobin production after birth. By reducing its activity in developing red blood cells, Casgevy allows the body to produce more fetal hemoglobin. This form of hemoglobin can compensate for defective adult hemoglobin and reduce red-blood-cell sickling.
Treatment involves several major steps:
- Blood-forming stem cells are collected from the patient.
- The cells are transported to a specialized manufacturing facility.
- CRISPR–Cas9 is used to edit the cells outside the body.
- The edited cells are tested before release.
- The patient receives intensive chemotherapy to remove existing bone-marrow cells.
- The edited stem cells are infused back into the patient.
- The cells engraft in the bone marrow and produce new blood cells.
This is called ex-vivo editing because the genetic modification occurs outside the body.
In the evidence supporting the original FDA approval for sickle cell disease, 29 of 31 evaluable patients—93.5%—remained free from severe vaso-occlusive crises for at least 12 consecutive months. Casgevy was subsequently approved in the United States for transfusion-dependent beta-thalassemia, and, in 2026, its indications were expanded to include eligible children aged two years and older.
The results are clinically meaningful, but the procedure remains physically demanding. Patients must undergo stem-cell collection, chemotherapy, hospitalization and close monitoring. Many of the immediate risks are associated with the required conditioning chemotherapy rather than CRISPR itself.
Moving from ex-vivo to in-vivo editing
Ex-vivo editing is particularly suitable for blood and immune cells because those cells can be removed, modified, examined and returned to the patient. Most organs cannot be treated this way.
For heart, liver, muscle, lung, brain or retinal diseases, researchers may need to deliver the editing machinery directly into the body. This is known as in vivo gene editing.
Early clinical studies have demonstrated that in vivo CRISPR editing is possible. A liver-directed therapy targeting the TTR gene produced substantial reductions in circulating transthyretin protein in people with hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis. Another investigational therapy targeting KLKB1 reduced plasma kallikrein, a protein involved in hereditary angioedema attacks.
More recently, early trials have tested one-time editing approaches for high cholesterol. A 2026 phase 1 study of VERVE-102 used base editing to inactivate PCSK9 in the liver. Among 35 participants, reductions in LDL cholesterol were dose-dependent and appeared sustained during follow-up, which had reached at least one year in some participants.
These studies are promising, but phase 1 trials are designed primarily to investigate safety and dosing. Larger, controlled studies are needed to determine whether improvements in laboratory markers translate into fewer cardiovascular events or better long-term health outcomes.
Delivery may be the field’s greatest challenge
A gene editor cannot work unless it reaches the correct cells. The delivery system must protect the editing components in the bloodstream, enter the target tissue, cross the cell membrane, and release its cargo in the appropriate cellular compartment.
Current delivery methods include:
Lipid nanoparticles
Lipid nanoparticles can carry messenger RNA and guide RNA into cells. They have been especially effective at reaching the liver because the liver naturally takes up many particles circulating in the blood.
However, delivery to the brain, lungs, heart, skeletal muscle and other tissues is more difficult. Researchers are modifying lipid composition and surface molecules to improve tissue targeting.
Viral vectors
Engineered viruses, such as adeno-associated viruses, can efficiently deliver genetic material into selected tissues. Their limitations include cargo size, preexisting immunity and the possibility of long-lasting production of the editing enzyme.
Prolonged editor expression may increase the opportunity for unintended editing. Viral vectors may also be difficult to administer more than once if the immune system develops neutralizing antibodies against the vector.
Physical and localized delivery
Researchers are also testing direct injection, electroporation, engineered virus-like particles and tissue-specific delivery systems. Local administration may reduce systemic exposure but is practical only when the target tissue is accessible.
The goal is not simply maximum delivery. A successful system must reach enough of the correct cells while minimizing exposure elsewhere.
Off-target effects
CRISPR guide RNAs are designed to match a specific DNA sequence, but similar sequences may exist elsewhere in the genome. If the editor modifies one of these unintended sites, the result is called an off-target effect.
Potential consequences depend on where the change occurs. Many off-target edits may have no biological effect, while others could disrupt a tumor-suppressor gene, activate an oncogene or interfere with normal cell function.
Researchers use computational prediction, targeted sequencing and genome-wide laboratory methods to identify potential off-target sites. Candidate therapies are also tested in relevant human-cell types before clinical use.
Still, no method can prove with absolute certainty that every possible off-target edit has been excluded. Rare changes may be missed if they occur in only a small number of cells or in tissues that cannot be sampled easily.
The intended target can also produce unintended outcomes
Safety concerns are not limited to off-target editing. A CRISPR system may cut the correct location but produce an unexpected repair outcome.
Possible on-target consequences include the following:
- Large DNA deletions
- Insertions
- Chromosomal rearrangements
- Loss of genetic material
- Unexpected integration of external DNA
- Different editing outcomes in different cells
Base editors avoid conventional double-strand breaks, which may reduce some risks, but they can produce unintended nearby changes known as bystander edits. Some base editors may also affect RNA or DNA sequences outside the intended site.
Prime editing may offer greater precision for certain mutations, but it is technically complex and currently less efficient in many cell types.
The safest editor is therefore not necessarily the one with the newest name. Safety depends on the specific enzyme, guide RNA, target sequence, delivery system, dose and cell type.
Will the effects last?
Durability is one of gene editing’s greatest potential advantages—and one of its greatest uncertainties.
If a long-lived stem cell is edited successfully, the change may be passed to its descendant cells for many years. This is the principle behind Casgevy. Editing mature cells that regularly die and are replaced may provide a shorter benefit unless the tissue’s stem or progenitor cells are also reached.
Durability can be influenced by:
- The lifespan of the edited cell
- The percentage of cells successfully edited
- Whether edited cells maintain normal function
- Immune responses against edited cells
- Natural turnover of the target tissue
- Whether the disease gives unedited cells a survival advantage
Long-term follow-up is essential because delayed effects may not appear during a short clinical trial. Regulators may require patients who receive certain genome-editing treatments to be monitored for many years.
Permanence also changes the risk calculation. A conventional drug can often be stopped if side effects occur. A DNA edit may be difficult, or impossible, to reverse.
Epigenetic editing could eventually offer more adjustable or reversible control because it changes gene activity without altering the DNA sequence itself. However, most epigenetic-editing applications remain preclinical, and researchers must establish how stable and predictable they are.
From rare diseases to common conditions
The earliest gene-editing programs have appropriately focused on severe diseases with clear molecular causes and limited treatment options. These conditions may justify accepting risks that would be inappropriate for a mild or manageable disorder.
The next phase may include:
- Inherited blindness
- Primary immunodeficiencies
- Metabolic liver diseases
- Muscular disorders
- Cancer
- Autoimmune diseases
- Chronic viral infections
- Cardiovascular risk
Cancer treatment is a particularly active field. Researchers can edit immune cells to recognize tumors, resist immune suppression or improve their ability to persist in the body. Gene editing may also enable standardized donor-derived immune cells that can be manufactured for multiple patients instead of creating a separate product for each person.
Applying permanent editing to common conditions creates a different ethical and medical calculation. Editing a liver gene to lower cholesterol might reduce the need for lifelong medication, but effective and reversible cholesterol treatments already exist. A one-time edit would therefore need an exceptionally strong safety profile and evidence of meaningful clinical benefit.
Accessibility may determine the real impact
A therapy can be scientifically successful while remaining inaccessible to many of the people who need it.
Casgevy requires sophisticated laboratories, specialized transplant centers, chemotherapy, prolonged medical care and individualized manufacturing. Its multimillion-dollar price further complicates access. These challenges are especially significant because sickle cell disease has a high burden in regions where advanced transplant infrastructure may be limited.
Access is shaped by more than the listed price. It also depends on:
- Diagnostic services
- Eligibility testing
- Travel to specialized centers
- Manufacturing capacity
- Hospital and intensive-care resources
- Long-term follow-up
- Insurance or public reimbursement
- Lost income and caregiver needs
- Geographic availability
Researchers are working on less-intensive conditioning regimens and direct in vivo editing of blood-forming stem cells. If successful, these approaches could reduce the need for cell collection, individualized manufacturing and chemotherapy. However, delivering editors specifically to bone-marrow stem cells remains difficult.
Global equity should be considered during development rather than after approval. Therapies designed from the beginning for simpler manufacturing, stable storage and use in lower-resource healthcare systems are more likely to reach the populations with the greatest disease burden.
Somatic versus heritable editing
Most therapeutic gene editing currently focuses on somatic cells the nonreproductive cells of the body. Changes made to blood, liver or immune cells affect the treated person but are not expected to be inherited by their children.
Editing embryos, eggs, sperm or their precursor cells raises fundamentally different concerns because the resulting changes could be passed to future generations. Those individuals cannot consent, and unexpected effects could enter the human gene pool.
Scientific concerns include mosaicism, in which only some embryonic cells receive the intended edit, as well as off-target changes, unintended developmental effects and incomplete understanding of how genetic variants influence health.
Major scientific and public-health organizations have called for strong governance and international oversight of human genome editing. The World Health Organization recommends coordinated regulation, international research registries, public engagement and mechanisms for identifying illegal, unsafe or unethical work.
Treatment versus enhancement
Gene editing also raises questions about where treatment ends and enhancement begins.
Using CRISPR to treat a life-threatening blood disorder is ethically different from attempting to alter traits such as height, intelligence, athletic performance or appearance. Most complex traits are influenced by hundreds or thousands of genetic variants as well as environmental conditions, making simplistic “designer baby” scenarios scientifically unrealistic.
However, the boundary is not always clear. Editing a gene to prevent severe disease may be widely accepted, while editing a risk-associated variant for a condition that may never develop raises more uncertainty.
Ethical evaluation should consider:
- Medical necessity
- Availability of safer alternatives
- Quality of evidence
- Informed consent
- Effects on future generations
- Disability perspectives
- Cultural and social consequences
- Risk of discrimination or coercion
- Equitable access
Communities affected by genetic conditions should participate in research and policy decisions. Scientists and clinicians should avoid describing every genetic difference as a defect that must be eliminated, particularly when doing so may reinforce stigma toward people living with disabilities.
The Bottom Line
CRISPR has crossed an important threshold: it is no longer only a research tool but the foundation of approved medicine. Casgevy demonstrates that editing a patient’s cells can produce major clinical benefits in serious inherited blood disorders.
The next chapter will be more complicated. Researchers must deliver editors safely to tissues beyond the liver and blood, detect rare unintended changes, establish durability and determine when permanent editing is justified over reversible treatment.
Scientific success will also be measured by accessibility. If transformative therapies remain available only to a small number of patients in wealthy healthcare systems, gene editing will not achieve its full medical potential.
CRISPR’s first approvals are therefore not the end of the story. They are evidence that therapeutic editing can work—and the beginning of a much larger discussion about where, how and for whom it should be used.
This article is intended for scientific education and does not replace individualized medical advice. Many gene-editing applications discussed remain investigational and are not approved for routine clinical use.
References
Gillmore, J. D., Gane, E., Taubel, J., Kao, J., Fontana, M., Maitland, M. L., Seitzer, J., O’Connell, D., Walsh, K. R., Wood, K., Phillips, J., Xu, Y., Amaral, A., Boyd, A. P., Cehelsky, J. E., McKee, M. D., Schiermeier, A., Harari, O., Murphy, A., . . . Lebwohl, D. (2021). CRISPR–Cas9 in vivo gene editing for transthyretin amyloidosis. The New England Journal of Medicine, 385(6), 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2107454
Laffin, L. J., Nicholls, S. J., Scott, R. S., Clifton, P. M., Baker, J., Sarraju, A., Singh, S., Wang, Q., Wolski, K., Xu, H., Nielsen, J., Patel, N., Duran, J. M., & Nissen, S. E. (2025). Phase 1 trial of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing targeting ANGPTL3. The New England Journal of Medicine, 393(21), 2119–2130. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2511778
Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. (2023, November 16). MHRA authorises world-first gene therapy that aims to cure sickle-cell disease and transfusion-dependent β-thalassemia. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-authorises-world-first-gene-therapy-that-aims-to-cure-sickle-cell-disease-and-transfusion-dependent-thalassemia
Redman, M., King, A., Watson, C., & King, D. (2016). What is CRISPR/Cas9?. Archives of disease in childhood. Education and practice edition, 101(4), 213–215. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2016-310459
Tremblay, F., Xiong, Q., Shah, S.S. et al. A potent epigenetic editor targeting human PCSK9 for durable reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Nat Med 31, 1329–1338 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03508-x
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Approves First Gene Therapies to Treat Patients With Sickle Cell Disease. 2023.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Casgevy: Regulatory and Product Information. Updated 2026.
Vafai, S. B., Täubel, J., Ashdown, T., Patel, R. S., Diamondali, S., Cegla, J., Soran, H., Bashir, B., Abitbol, A., Gaudet, D., Lauzière, A., Brunham, L. R., Newby, D. E., Nicholls, S. J., Scott, R. S., Kerr, J., Tardif, J. C., Lunken, C., Humphries, S. E., Karsten, V., … Kathiresan, S. (2026). In Vivo Base Editing of PCSK9 with VERVE-102 for Hypercholesterolemia. The New England journal of medicine, 395(7), 648–659. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2601283
World Health Organization. (2021). Human genome editing: Recommendations. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240030381
