4.1 Article

The Prevalence and Clinical Features of Fabry Disease in Hemodialysis Patients: Russian Nationwide Fabry Dialysis Screening Program

Journal

NEPHRON
Volume 141, Issue 4, Pages 249-255

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000495886

Keywords

Fabry disease; Screening; Dialysis

Funding

  1. Shire
  2. Russian Academic Excellence Project 5-100

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: To evaluate the prevalence and clinical features of Fabry disease in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing chronic hemodialysis. Methods: alpha-Galactosidase A activity was measured in the dried blood spots by tandem mass spectrometry in 5,572 dialysis patients (63.7% males). Diagnosis of Fabry disease was confirmed by sequencing of the GLA gene and by evaluating the globotriaosylsphingosine level in the dried blood spots. Results: Fabry disease was diagnosed in 20 (0.36%) patients at the median age of 43 years (28; 58). There were 19 males and 1 female. The prevalence of Fabry disease in dialysis patients was 0.53% in males and 0.05% in females. However, it was higher in males aged 30-49 years. Seventeen different GLA mutations were identified; 5 of them were novel. The median age at the initiation of hemodialysis was similar between patients with missense and nonsense mutations. Sixteen patients (80.0%) presented with typical symptoms of Fabry disease from childhood (neuropathic pain in 16, angiokeratoma in 7 and hypohidrosis/anhidrosis in 16). All patients had left ventricular hypertrophy, and 8 patients (40%) had a history of ischemic stroke. Two patients died (recurrent stroke in one and sudden cardiac death in another patient). Conclusions: Screening in at-risk patients remains the feasible approach to diagnose Fabry disease in patients with ESRD and their family members, given a low awareness of Fabry disease among the Russian nephrologists. (C) 2019 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available