Search

Background Oral migalastat has recently been approved for the treatment of Anderson-Fabry disease (FD) in patients aged ≥16 years with amenable mutations on the basis of two phase III trials, FACETS and ATTRACT. However, with the introduction of migalastat into clinical practice, it is important to correctly identify the patients who may gain the most benefits from this therapy. Due to the relatively recent availability of migalastat, its role in clinical practice still has to be included in guidelines or recommendations. On these bases, a multidisciplinary group of Italian Experts in the treatment of FD has run the GALA project, with the aim to collect the opinions of expert physicians and to propose some starting points for an experience-based use of migalastat. Results Overall, although studies and data from longer-term follow-up with migalastat are still emerging, available evidence is consistent in showing that this molecule does represent a suitable therapy for the treatment of FD, in patients aged ≥16 years and with amenable mutations. The use of migalastat as an oral option appears to be overall safe, and experience thus far indicates potential for improving quality of life, controlling GI symptoms, stabilizing renal function and reducing cardiac hypertrophy. Conclusion Migalastat can be considered either as a first-line therapy – given its efficacy, extensive tissue penetration, convenient oral regimen, and the current limited therapeutic options available – or in patients on enzyme-replacement therapy (ERT) who experience side effects, with poor compliance to chronic i.v. therapy, or with clinical evidence of progression of the disease.

Background Management of Anderson–Fabry disease (AFD) is contentious, particularly regarding enzyme replacement therapy (ERT). We report results of a Delphi consensus panel on AFD management. Methods A survey to gauge consensus among AFD experts was distributed online and responses were analysed. Statements on: 1) diagnosis; 2) when starting ERT; 3) management of ERT infusion and adverse reactions; and 4) follow-up/monitoring response to therapy and progression of disease were included. Responses without consensus were discussed with an enlarged panel and modified to reach consensus. Results 15 experts responded to the survey. After plenary discussion among the enlarged panel, consensus was reached on most statements. Key points were the use of a target organ biopsy to show Gb3 deposits in symptomatic women with negative molecular analysis, the need for ERT in symptomatic women and in all patients with persistent signs and symptoms ± organ damage. It was agreed to assess vital signs before ERT administration and use a 0.2 μL filter on infusion to reduce the risk of adverse reactions, that serum should be drawn prior to the first infusion for anti-agalsidase antibody analysis to have a baseline value if a subsequent adverse reaction appears, and that pre-medication is required in those with prior infusion reactions. Holter ECG monitoring, cardiac and brain MRI, renal parameters, and abdominal ultrasound were considered important for the assessment of disease progression and response at ERT. Conclusions This consensus supplies guidance to healthcare providers on best practice in the management of patients with AFD and indicates a need for more guidance.