4.6 Article

Cardiovascular abnormalities in late-onset Pompe disease and response to enzyme replacement therapy

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 13, 期 7, 页码 625-631

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182142966

关键词

Pompe disease; cardiovascular; enzyme replacement

资金

  1. Genzyme Corporation
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [1K08HL103631-01]
  3. American Heart Association
  4. National Institute of Child Health and Development [1K23HD060040-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We evaluated the prevalence of cardiovascular abnormalities and the efficacy and safety of enzyme replacement therapy in patients with late-onset Pompe disease. Methods: Ninety patients were randomized 2:1 to enzyme replacement therapy or placebo in a double-blinded protocol. Electrocardiograms and echocardiograms were obtained at baseline and scheduled intervals during the 78-week study period. Baseline cardiovascular abnormalities, and efficacy and safety of enzyme replacement therapy were described. Three pediatric patients were excluded. Results: Eighty-seven patients were included. Median age was 44 years; 51% were men. At baseline, a short PR interval was present in 10%, 7% had decreased left ventricular systolic function, and 5% had elevated left ventricular mass on echocardiogram (all in mild range). There was no change in cardiovascular status associated with enzyme replacement therapy. No significant safety concerns related to enzyme replacement therapy were identified. Conclusions: Although some patients with late-onset Pompe disease had abnormalities on baseline electrocardiogram or echocardiogram, those classically seen in infantile Pompe disease, such as significant ventricular hypertrophy, were not noted. Cardiovascular parameters were not impacted by enzyme replacement therapy, and there were no cardiovascular safety concerns. The cardiovascular abnormalities identified may be related to Pompe disease or other comorbid conditions. Genet Med 2011:13(7):625-631.

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

4.6
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