Advances in Sickle Cell Disease Treatment: A Comparative Review of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Gene Therapy (Casgevy and Lyfgenia)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sickle cell disease (SCD), affecting approximately 2.1% of Bahrain's population, is a prevalent inherited disorder that necessitates effective treatments and long-term management. This review highlights two innovative gene therapies (Casgevy and Lyfgenia) and compares their efficacy and safety with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT)-the only curative option currently available for SCD. While HSCT offers a 90% success rate with suitable donors, its limitations include donor scarcity and toxicity. Gene therapies like Casgevy and Lyfgenia show promising efficacy in reducing SCD complications while bypassing such limitations. In the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Bahrain Oncology Center approved Casgevy in December 2023 and completed its first patient treatment in mid-February 2025, making Bahrain an early adopter. This milestone marks a crucial moment in the history of both SCD and gene therapies and thus warrants exploring the considerations revolving around their implementation. Although these therapies seem to offer hope for patients ineligible for HSCT, their long-term outcomes remain unassessed-further studies with extended follow-up are needed to confirm their safety and durability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".