4.7 Article

Serum-Mediated Inhibition of Enzyme Replacement Therapy in Fabry Disease

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2014121226

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fabry disease (FD) is a progressive multisystemic disorder, treatable with recombinant enzyme replacement therapy (agalsidase). However, recent studies suggest an endogenous inhibition of agalsidase in patients with FD, as reported for other lysosomal storage diseases. To assess the clinical consequences of serum-mediated agalsidase inhibition in affected patients, we determined the agalsidase inhibition status of 168 patients (68 male) with FD and compared outcomes of inhibition-positive patients with those of inhibition-negative patients. The assessment included clinical events during time on agalsidase, determination of renal and cardiac function, and evaluation of FD-related symptoms. The frequency of serum-mediated agalsidase inhibition was 40% in agalsidase-treated males. Inhibition did not depend on the compound initially used (agalsidase-alpha or -beta). Agalsidase inhibition was associated with higher lyso-globotriaosylceramide levels and worse disease severity scores in patients. Compared with agalsidase inhibition-negative men, agalsidase inhibition-positive men showed greater left ventricular mass (P=0.02) and substantially lower renal function (difference in eGFR of about 30 ml/min per 1.73 m(2); P=0.04), which was confirmed by a longitudinal 5-year retrospective analysis. Additionally, affected patients presented more often with FD-typical symptoms, such as diarrhea, fatigue, and neuropathic pain, among others. Therefore, patients with poor clinical outcome on agalsidase should be tested for agalsidase inhibition. Future studies are warranted to determine if affected patients with FD benefit from acute reduction of anti-agalsidase antibodies or long-term immune modulation therapies to suppress agalsidase inhibition and to identify mechanisms that minimize antibody generation against agalsidase.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据