A shared acronym, not a shared story: why cell and gene therapies need different communications

Cell and gene therapies are often grouped under a single category, but they do not tell the same story. These products have key differences in their underlying science, patient treatment journeys, their evidence landscape, and how they fit into the healthcare system. Understanding the scientific, operational, and therapeutic differences between them is critical for Medical communicators to bring medical breakthroughs to life for every patient and stakeholder. Treating them as a single category risk flattening the nuance that determines whether a breakthrough is understood, trusted, and used appropriately.

The science Is different. The story should be, too.

Cell therapy uses living cells as the therapeutic agent. These therapies may be derived from a patient’s own cells (autologous), from a donor (allogeneic), or from cells that have been genetically engineered to perform a specific function, such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies. Depending on the approach, cells may be expanded, manipulated, or modified outside the body before being administered to the patient. Unlike conventional medicines, the cells themselves are the treatment.

Delivering these therapies to patients is complicated and involves multiple steps, from cell collection and development transportation to reinfusion. Many cell therapies must be delivered at specialist centers with the expertise and infrastructure needed to manage administration and monitor for potentially serious adverse events.

For medical communicators, the story of cell therapy extends beyond clinical efficacy. To be successful, we must address the practical realities of treatment delivery, including patient identification, referral pathways, development timelines, access to specialist care, and the operational infrastructure required to support a personalized therapy.

Gene therapy involves the modification, replacement, addition, or silencing of genetic material. These therapies can be delivered directly into the body (in vivo) or indirectly through cells that are removed, genetically modified outside the body (ex vivo), and then returned to the patient. This means that some therapies may combine elements of both gene and cell therapy, such as genetically modified cell therapies.

Many currently approved gene therapies use viral vectors to deliver genetic material into target cells. Adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors are the most clinically established platforms for in vivo gene delivery. AAV-based therapies generally remain outside the host genome rather than integrating into it, reducing the risk of unintended genomic changes and meaning that the genetic modification is not passed on to future generations.

Gene therapies are often positioned as one-time or potentially long-lasting interventions designed to address the underlying genetic cause of disease rather than simply managing symptoms. However, for some gene therapies, there are still open questions regarding the durability of treatment effect, long-term safety, immune responses, and how outcomes evolve over many years. While administration may be relatively straightforward in some settings—such as a single intravenous infusion—the long-term clinical and economic value proposition often depends on evidence that continues to accumulate after approval.

The story medical communicators are telling must go beyond the initial treatment effect to cover durability, long-term value, evidence generation, and the management of uncertainty in the future.

Why similar doesn’t mean the same

Despite their scientific and operational differences, cell and gene therapies share several defining characteristics. Both are designed to deliver potentially transformative outcomes, often targeting serious diseases with limited treatment options and relatively small, well-defined patient populations (e.g., rare diseases). They typically carry high upfront costs and require specialized care pathways involving expert treatment centers, multidisciplinary care teams, and extensive patient support.

As a result, both therapy types face scrutiny from payers, who must evaluate not only clinical benefit but also long-term value, durability of outcomes, and budget impact. However, while cell and gene therapies may overlap in their potential impact on patients and healthcare systems, that overlap should not be mistaken for interchangeable communication needs. Each modality presents distinct scientific, operational, and evidentiary challenges that require tailored communication strategies.

The distinction between cell and gene therapies is becoming increasingly important as both fields expand beyond their early applications in oncology and rare pediatric diseases. Today, developers are investigating these technologies across a growing range of therapeutic areas, including blood disorders, immunology, neurology, respiratory disease, and potentially cardiovascular disease.

As the science evolves, communicators must recognize the importance of nuanced communications strategies, despite some commonalities between these two therapy types. The patient and caregiver experience can vary significantly, requiring distinct narratives around treatment burden, benefits, and expectations. The evidence base also differs: cell therapies, particularly CAR-T therapies in oncology, benefit from a longer clinical precedent, whereas gene therapies are often supported by smaller clinical studies that necessitate thoughtful discussions around uncertainty, durability, and long-term risk.

Operational considerations also shape the narrative. Cell therapies are often defined by complex manufacturing processes, treatment coordination, and logistical requirements, while gene therapies present different challenges related to vector design, immunogenicity, long-term follow-up, and the potential need for future retreatment. As both modalities mature, effective communication will depend on understanding not only where they overlap, but also where their scientific, clinical, and operational realities diverge.

The nuance matters

What’s missing from most cell and gene therapy communications strategies? Nuance.

While both cell and gene therapies have the potential to transform patient outcomes, they differ in their science, treatment experience, evidence generation needs, and operational realities. These differences shape how stakeholders evaluate value, weigh risk, and make decisions about adoption and access. All of these components need to be reflected in the communications strategy.

As these therapies expand into new disease areas and patient populations, communications strategies must move beyond broad categorizations and reflect the specific needs of each therapy and target audience. At Avalere Health, we help clients translate scientific complexity into clear, stakeholder-relevant narratives that support understanding, access, and ultimately, the goal of reaching EVERY PATIENT POSSIBLE.