Highlights
Cardiomyopathy gene therapy is shifting from preclinical promise to early human translation, particularly through adeno-associated virus (AAV)-mediated gene replacement and emerging genome-editing platforms.
The most important translational bottleneck is not target discovery alone, but efficient and safe delivery to cardiomyocytes while minimizing liver sequestration, systemic toxicity, and immune barriers.
Base editing and prime editing may offer durable correction of pathogenic variants without double-stranded DNA breaks, but delivery constraints, off-target risk, and manufacturing complexity remain substantial.
Precision cardiology is increasingly feasible as genomic diagnosis, phenotype definition, and route-specific myocardial delivery begin to converge in first-in-human cardiomyopathy trials.
Proposed Section Structure
This review-oriented article is organized around the clinical problem, therapeutic platforms, target diseases, current human translation, key barriers, and the practical implications for cardiology. That structure fits the subject better than a classic single-trial format because the source article is a state-of-the-art review rather than a single intervention study.
Background and Unmet Clinical Need
Cardiomyopathy comprises a heterogeneous group of myocardial disorders that commonly present as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, dilated cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, and restrictive or infiltrative phenotypes. Across these syndromes, progressive ventricular dysfunction, arrhythmia, sudden cardiac death, and heart failure remain major causes of morbidity and mortality. Although disease-modifying pharmacology has improved outcomes in heart failure, current therapies do not directly correct the upstream molecular defect in most inherited cardiomyopathies.
The genetic architecture is often more complex than the traditional monogenic framework suggests. Some patients harbor highly penetrant pathogenic variants in sarcomeric, cytoskeletal, desmosomal, or nuclear envelope genes; others have oligogenic contributions or polygenic background risk that modifies penetrance and phenotype severity. This matters therapeutically. A true loss-of-function disorder may be amenable to gene replacement, whereas dominant-negative or toxic gain-of-function variants may require silencing, allele-specific editing, or direct sequence correction.
Agarwal’s review in Circulation: Heart Failure argues that the field has entered a pivotal phase. The scientific rationale is stronger than ever: genomic testing is increasingly routine, vector engineering has improved, and invasive coronary delivery methods are being refined. At the same time, the review is appropriately cautious. The failing human heart is a difficult organ to transduce efficiently, and therapeutic success will require solving a series of interlocking problems involving biodistribution, dose, immunity, toxicity, and manufacturability.
Therapeutic Platforms: Tools Now in Play
AAV-Mediated Gene Replacement
AAV remains the leading in vivo platform for cardiac gene transfer because of its relative safety profile, long-term episomal expression in nondividing tissue, and established manufacturing pathways. In cardiomyopathy, AAV-based strategies are best suited to diseases caused by insufficient functional protein expression, where adding a healthy copy of the gene can restore myocardial biology. The review highlights ongoing use of cardiotropic capsids, promoter optimization, and selective delivery routes to increase myocardial exposure.
However, standard systemic AAV delivery suffers from substantial liver uptake, which reduces effective cardiac dose and raises hepatotoxicity concerns. This is especially problematic when high vector loads are needed to reach enough cardiomyocytes for clinical benefit. The review therefore emphasizes approaches that either improve cardiotropism or physically bias delivery toward the heart.
Gene Silencing and RNA-Based Strategies
For dominant pathogenic variants, simply adding a normal gene may not be enough. In that setting, suppressing the mutant transcript, either nonselectively or in an allele-specific manner, may be necessary. Although Agarwal’s review focuses heavily on DNA-based therapies, the conceptual framework includes RNA interference and antisense approaches as complementary tools, especially when repeat dosing is desirable or permanent editing is not yet acceptable.
Genome Editing: Base Editing and Prime Editing
The review gives special attention to CRISPR-derived editing systems that avoid double-stranded breaks. Base editors enable single-nucleotide conversion, and prime editors can introduce more versatile small sequence changes. For cardiomyopathy, this is especially attractive because many pathogenic variants are single-base substitutions. Avoiding double-stranded breaks may reduce the risk of large deletions, chromosomal rearrangements, and error-prone repair, all of which are concerning in post-mitotic cardiac tissue.
Yet these technologies face a practical paradox: they are elegant molecular tools but difficult to deliver. Their coding sequences are large, often exceeding the cargo limits of a single AAV vector. The review therefore discusses split-intein dual-AAV systems, compact Cas variants, and nonviral nanoparticles as potential solutions. Each comes with tradeoffs in packaging efficiency, editing yield, biodistribution, and manufacturing scalability.
Target Diseases and Why Mechanism Matters
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is often driven by sarcomeric variants, particularly in MYBPC3 and MYH7. From a gene-therapy standpoint, MYBPC3 is an attractive target because truncating variants often produce haploinsufficiency, making gene replacement conceptually feasible. In contrast, some missense variants in MYH7 may require allele-selective suppression or editing rather than simple augmentation.
Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Dilated cardiomyopathy is genetically diverse, involving TTN, LMNA, DSP, RBM20, FLNC, BAG3, and other genes. The heterogeneity complicates platform selection. Some disorders are better suited to replacement or rescue, while others may require precise mutation correction or broader disease-modifying strategies. The review underscores that “cardiomyopathy” is not one molecular disease, and therapeutic design must reflect the causal biology rather than the echocardiographic phenotype alone.
Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy
Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy, often linked to desmosomal genes such as PKP2, DSP, and DSG2, presents another compelling use case. These disorders feature electrical instability, fibrofatty myocardial remodeling, and progressive ventricular dysfunction. Efficient gene transfer to the affected myocardium could, in principle, address both structural and arrhythmic components if delivered early enough, although how much disease remains reversible at clinical presentation is still uncertain.
Translation to the Clinic: What Early Trials Are Showing
Because the source article is a review, it does not present a single randomized comparison. Instead, it synthesizes an emerging early-phase landscape. The main clinical signals so far are proof-of-concept rather than definitive efficacy: evidence of myocardial transgene expression, biomarker movement such as reductions in NT-proBNP, and growing operational knowledge about dosing and tropism in humans with heart failure.
That is an important distinction. The field should not overinterpret biomarker shifts as proof of long-term clinical benefit. Still, in first-in-human cardiovascular gene therapy, demonstration that a biologic payload can reach diseased human myocardium at therapeutically relevant levels is itself a major milestone. The review frames current trials as foundational experiments in safety, feasibility, and pharmacobiology.
Historical context is informative. Cardiac gene transfer has previously been explored in heart failure, including AAV1/SERCA2a in the CUPID program, but large studies did not establish clear clinical efficacy. Those experiences taught the field several lessons: vector dose alone is not enough, myocardial uptake is variable, neutralizing antibodies matter, and the route of administration may be as important as the payload. The current wave of cardiomyopathy-directed studies benefits from those lessons and from more refined genomic target selection.
Delivery: The Central Engineering Problem
Why the Heart Is Hard to Reach
Compared with the liver, the myocardium is a relatively inefficient target for systemic gene delivery. Circulating AAV particles are readily sequestered by the liver and reticuloendothelial system, reducing the fraction that reaches cardiomyocytes. In addition, diseased myocardium is structurally heterogeneous, with fibrosis, capillary changes, and altered extracellular matrix that may impede uniform distribution.
Route-Specific Strategies
The review highlights direct antegrade coronary infusion and retrograde coronary venous delivery as promising ways to improve first-pass myocardial exposure. These techniques may permit lower total systemic dose while increasing cardiac transduction. Their potential advantage is obvious in cardiomyopathy, where the therapeutic target is anatomically confined and an interventional cardiology framework already exists for catheter-based procedures.
Still, these methods are procedurally complex and may not distribute vector uniformly, particularly in remodeled ventricles with scar or microvascular dysfunction. Standardization of infusion pressure, dwell time, coronary territory coverage, and patient selection will be critical as trials mature.
Capsid Engineering and Nonviral Systems
Capsid engineering aims to create vectors with greater cardiotropism and reduced hepatic uptake. If successful, this could change the therapeutic index substantially by lowering the dose needed for a biologic effect. Nonviral nanoparticles offer another path, particularly for mRNA, ribonucleoproteins, or transient editor delivery, which could be advantageous when permanent nuclease exposure is undesirable. But nonviral systems must still prove they can achieve efficient, homogeneous delivery to a large, continuously beating organ.
Safety, Toxicity, and Immunology
No discussion of cardiac gene therapy is complete without careful attention to safety. High-dose systemic AAV has been associated in some settings with hepatotoxicity, thrombocytopenia, complement activation, and other serious adverse events. Pre-existing neutralizing antibodies may exclude some patients entirely, while T-cell responses to capsid or transgene can reduce durability and complicate redosing.
Agarwal emphasizes the unsettled question of immunosuppression. There is no universally accepted regimen for cardiomyopathy gene therapy. The optimal approach likely depends on vector class, dose, route of administration, target tissue, and whether repeat dosing might be needed. This is not a minor implementation issue; it is a central determinant of risk-benefit balance, especially in patients with chronic heart failure who may already be medically fragile.
Genome editing introduces an additional safety layer. Even if double-stranded breaks are avoided, off-target edits, bystander edits, unintended RNA activity, and long-term consequences of permanent genomic modification must be rigorously assessed. In a disease where many patients can live years with current therapies, the safety threshold for irreversible interventions must remain high.
Key Interpretation for Clinicians
The major contribution of this review is not a declaration that gene therapy for cardiomyopathy is ready for routine practice. It is a clearer map of what will determine success. First, mechanism-based matching matters: replacement for haploinsufficiency, suppression for dominant-negative disease, editing for correctable point variants. Second, delivery may be the decisive rate-limiting step. Third, clinically meaningful development will require endpoints beyond transgene detection, including ventricular remodeling, arrhythmia burden, hospitalization, quality of life, and survival.
For practicing cardiologists, the review also reinforces the rising importance of genomic diagnosis. Precision therapy cannot be deployed without precise molecular classification. That makes genetic counseling, cascade testing, and multidisciplinary cardiomyopathy programs increasingly relevant to future treatment pathways, not merely to family screening.
Limitations and Unanswered Questions
As a narrative review, the article synthesizes a rapidly evolving field but does not provide pooled quantitative estimates of efficacy or toxicity. Much of the strongest evidence still comes from preclinical systems, and the translational gap between animal models and human failing hearts remains wide. Large-animal studies are more informative than rodent models for cardiac delivery, but even they cannot fully capture the complexity of human fibrosis, immune history, and comorbidity.
Several unanswered questions remain. What proportion of cardiomyocytes must be corrected to achieve clinical benefit in each cardiomyopathy subtype? At what stage of disease is intervention still reversible? Can focal or regional delivery help a diffuse myocardial disorder? Will edited cells enjoy a biologic advantage, or will ongoing remodeling dilute benefit? And perhaps most practically, can manufacturing and reimbursement frameworks support individualized or ultra-rare mutation-directed therapies?
Conclusion
Gene therapy for cardiomyopathy is no longer a speculative frontier. It is now an active translational discipline shaped by real first-in-human studies, increasingly sophisticated vector design, and rapid progress in precision genome engineering. The field’s promise is substantial: therapies that move upstream of symptom control to correct, replace, or silence the causal lesion itself.
But the path forward is technically demanding. Efficient myocardial delivery, avoidance of liver uptake, vector cargo limitations, immunologic management, and durable safety remain the core barriers. Agarwal’s review captures this moment well: cardiomyopathy gene therapy has reached an inflection point, not because the hard problems are solved, but because they are finally defined clearly enough to be tackled in a clinically disciplined way.
If those barriers can be overcome, the next era of heart failure therapeutics may become genuinely mechanism-directed, with treatment selected not only by left ventricular ejection fraction or phenotype, but by the exact genomic defect driving disease.
Funding and ClinicalTrials.gov
The source article is a review and does not report a single trial-specific funding statement or ClinicalTrials.gov registration number in the citation provided. Individual interventional studies discussed within the field should be reviewed separately for sponsor, registration, and protocol details.
References
1. Agarwal R. Gene Therapy for Cardiomyopathy: Tools, Targets, and Trials. Circulation. Heart failure. 2026-05-11:e013361. PMID: 42109120.
2. Greenberg B, Butler J, Felker GM, et al. Calcium upregulation by percutaneous administration of gene therapy in cardiac disease (CUPID 2): a randomised, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10024):1178-1186.
3. Ommen SR, Mital S, Burke MA, et al. 2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 2024;149:e1239-e1352.
4. Towbin JA, McKenna WJ, Abrams DJ, et al. 2019 HRS expert consensus statement on evaluation, risk stratification, and management of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy. Heart Rhythm. 2019;16(11):e301-e372.
5. Musunuru K, Chadwick AC, Mizoguchi T, et al. In vivo CRISPR base editing of PCSK9 durably lowers cholesterol in primates. Nature. 2021;593(7859):429-434.
6. Gillmore JD, Gane E, Taubel J, et al. CRISPR-Cas9 In Vivo Gene Editing for Transthyretin Amyloidosis. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(6):493-502.
