4.6 Article

Successful reinstitution of agalsidase beta therapy in Fabry disease patients with previous IgE-antibody or skin-test reactivity to the recombinant enzyme

Journal

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages 353-358

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e318170f868

Keywords

Fabry disease; agalsidase beta; enzyme replacement therapy; lysosomal storage disease; X-linked disorder

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine if enzyme replacement therapy, involving intravenous infusions of recombinant human alpha-galactosidase A (agalsidase beta; Fabrazyme (R)), could be safely continued in patients with Fabry disease who had been withdrawn from a previous clinical trial as a precautionary, protocol-specified measure due to detection of serum IgE antibodies or skin-test reactivity to agalsidase beta. Methods: The rechallenge infusion protocol specified strict patient monitoring conditions and graded dosing and infusion-rate schemes that were adjusted according to each patient's tolerance to the infusion. Six males (age: 26-66 years) were enrolled. Results: During rechallenge, five patients received between 4 and 27 infusions; one patient voluntarily withdrew after one infusion because of recurrence of infusion-associated reactions. No anaphylactic reactions occurred. All adverse events, including four serious adverse events, were mild or moderate in intensity. Most treatment-related adverse events occurred during infusions (most commonly urticaria, vomiting, nausea, chills, pruritus, hypertension) and were resolved by infusion rate reductions and/or medication. After participation in the study, all patients, including the one who withdrew after one infusion, transitioned to commercial drug. Conclusions: Agalsidase beta therapy can be successfully reinstated in patients with Fabry disease who have developed IgE antibodies or skin test reactivity to the recombinant enzyme.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available