↓ Skip to main content

Recommendations for initiation and cessation of enzyme replacement therapy in patients with Fabry disease: the European Fabry Working Group consensus document

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
248 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
252 Mendeley
Title
Recommendations for initiation and cessation of enzyme replacement therapy in patients with Fabry disease: the European Fabry Working Group consensus document
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13023-015-0253-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marieke Biegstraaten, Reynir Arngrímsson, Frederic Barbey, Lut Boks, Franco Cecchi, Patrick B Deegan, Ulla Feldt-Rasmussen, Tarekegn Geberhiwot, Dominique P Germain, Chris Hendriksz, Derralynn A Hughes, Ilkka Kantola, Nesrin Karabul, Christine Lavery, Gabor E Linthorst, Atul Mehta, Erica van de Mheen, João P Oliveira, Rossella Parini, Uma Ramaswami, Michael Rudnicki, Andreas Serra, Claudia Sommer, Gere Sunder-Plassmann, Einar Svarstad, Annelies Sweeb, Wim Terryn, Anna Tylki-Szymanska, Camilla Tøndel, Bojan Vujkovac, Frank Weidemann, Frits A Wijburg, Peter Woolfson, Carla EM Hollak

Abstract

Fabry disease (FD) is a lysosomal storage disorder resulting in progressive nervous system, kidney and heart disease. Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) may halt or attenuate disease progression. Since administration is burdensome and expensive, appropriate use is mandatory. We aimed to define European consensus recommendations for the initiation and cessation of ERT in patients with FD. A Delphi procedure was conducted with an online survey (n = 28) and a meeting (n = 15). Patient organization representatives were present at the meeting to give their views. Recommendations were accepted with ≥75% agreement and no disagreement. For classically affected males, consensus was achieved that ERT is recommended as soon as there are early clinical signs of kidney, heart or brain involvement, but may be considered in patients of ≥16 years in the absence of clinical signs or symptoms of organ involvement. Classically affected females and males with non-classical FD should be treated as soon as there are early clinical signs of kidney, heart or brain involvement, while treatment may be considered in females with non-classical FD with early clinical signs that are considered to be due to FD. Consensus was achieved that treatment should not be withheld from patients with severe renal insufficiency (GFR < 45 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) and from those on dialysis or with cognitive decline, but carefully considered on an individual basis. Stopping ERT may be considered in patients with end stage FD or other co-morbidities, leading to a life expectancy of <1 year. In those with cognitive decline of any cause, or lack of response for 1 year when the sole indication for ERT is neuropathic pain, stopping ERT may be considered. Also, in patients with end stage renal disease, without an option for renal transplantation, in combination with advanced heart failure (NYHA class IV), cessation of ERT should be considered. ERT in patients who are non-compliant or fail to attend regularly at visits should be stopped. The recommendations can be used as a benchmark for initiation and cessation of ERT, although final decisions should be made on an individual basis. Future collaborative efforts are needed for optimization of these recommendations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 252 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 248 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 41 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 11%
Other 25 10%
Student > Master 21 8%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Other 49 19%
Unknown 70 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 97 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Other 31 12%
Unknown 83 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,424,537
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#311
of 2,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,081
of 267,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#6
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,898 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,975 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.