Gene therapy in three classical hematological disorders – is social media making a difference?

Abstract Gentically driven classical hematological disorders have variable prevelance in the general population, sickle cell disease (SCD) being the most common at 30 per 100,000 people, hemophilia (hem) 12 per 100,000 people for hemophilia A, 4 per 100,000 people for hemophilia B, and thalassemia (thal) at 18 per 100,000 people, with regional and racial-ethnic variation across US. There has been a dramatic change in the therapeutic landscape for these diseases in the past decade. Several new drugs and biological therapies including gene therapies have been approved for each of these disorders. Clinicians utilize different information sources to assimilate this rapid influx of knowledge into their practice; in the era of social media, the readership is not limited to original publications. As research visibility influences clinical adoption and patient awareness, it is vital to understand the modalities of engagement of gene therapy studies by clinicians and patients. An altmetric score is a simple and effective way of understanding engagement with research across platforms. It. measures digital attention received by research output, allowing us to gauge the social impact of an article. We sought to compare the impact and scientific dissemination of publications of gene therapy trials in these 3 diseases by capturing the number of traditional citations and Altmetric assessment score. Methods: A PubMed search was conducted for gene therapy trials in SCD, Hem and Thal between 2015 to 2025 and citations were captured using metrics from Google Scholar. The Altmetric assessment score for each article was determined using www.altmetric.com which includes any mention by news outlets, blogs, Twitter (X), Facebook, and Mendeley reader counts. Descriptive statistics are reported for the number of citations as well as the Altmetric assessment score in each of the disease categories. Median and range were reported due to the skewed distribution of the data. Comparison across groups for significance was done using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: The number of qualifying studies for SCD (n=7) were lower than hem (n=21) and thal (n=12). Median PubMed citations were highest for SCD (147, range 4-436), followed by hem (26, range 0-828) and thal (42, range 0-801), though the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.4) Altmetric scores demonstrated differences that approached statistical significance with p=0.08: SCD had the highest median (422, range 4-770), driven by exceptional Twitter engagement, while hem and thal medians were 20 (range 0-2038) and 49 (range 0-825) respectively. Twitter/X was the leading social platforms for all diseases. Scholarly interest measured by Mendeley readers was also highest for SCD (median 195, range 11-542), with thal and hem medians at 50 (range 0-773) and 64 (range 8-646) respectively. Conclusion: We observed substantial variability in both academic and social media dissemination of practice-changing SCD, Hem and thal gene therapy studies, though not statistically significant likely due to the limited number of studies overall. Higher citation count and Altmetric score in SCD studies may reflect recent robust dissemination efforts by ASH and patient advocacy groups. Intentional promotion across academic and media platforms increases awareness, helping with early dissemination of updated information that could have significant impact on patient outcomes.