Fabry‐specific treatment in Australia: time to align eligibility criteria with international best practices

Author:

Nicholls Kathleen12ORCID,Denaro Charles34ORCID,Tchan Michel56ORCID,Ellaway Carolyn67ORCID,Bratkovic Drago8ORCID,Campbell Sheridan9,Fookes Megan10,Thomas Mark11ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Nephrology Royal Melbourne Hospital Melbourne Victoria Australia

2. Department of Medicine The University of Melbourne Melbourne Victoria Australia

3. Department of Internal Medicine and Aged Care Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Brisbane Queensland Australia

4. Academy of Medicine University of Queensland Brisbane Queensland Australia

5. Department of Genetic Medicine Westmead Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia

6. Faculty of Medicine and Health University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia

7. Genetic Metabolic Disorders Service Sydney Children's Hospital Network Sydney New South Wales Australia

8. Department of Internal Medicine and Aged Care Women's and Children's Hospital North Adelaide South Australia Australia

9. Fabry Australia Echuca Victoria Australia

10. Fabry Australia Sydney New South Wales Australia

11. Department of Nephrology Royal Perth Hospital Perth Western Australia Australia

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundDisease‐specific therapy aims to improve symptoms, stabilise current disease and delay progression in patients with Fabry disease. In Australia, treatment access is subject to eligibility criteria initially established in 2004. Patients and their clinicians question why these criteria have remained unchanged despite significant progress in disease understanding.AimsAppraise the clinical quality of the Australian treatment access criteria.MethodsThe Fabry Australia Medical Advisory Committee (N = 6) used the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation Global Rating Scale (AGREE II GRS) to assess the clinical quality of the current treatment eligibility criteria. They reviewed the literature, developed 17 clinical statements to help guide reforms of the eligibility criteria and achieved consensus (achievement of ≥75% agreement in the range 5–7 on a 7‐point Likert scale) through anonymous voting. The findings were applied to develop proposals for revised classification and treatment initiation criteria.ResultsThe current treatment eligibility criteria underperformed on the AGREE II GRS. They are pragmatic but out‐of‐step with contemporary data. Consensus was achieved on all 17 proposed clinical statements. There was strong agreement to differentiate classical male Fabry patients to facilitate timelier access to Fabry‐specific treatment. There was also agreement on the value of adopting relevant organ involvement criteria in classical female patients and patients with non‐classical disease.ConclusionsAustralian access criteria are misaligned with current clinical evidence. The clinical statements and proposed classification and initiation criteria should prompt discussions to support more equitable access to treatment and better align Australian practice with contemporary evidence and international guidelines.

Funder

Amicus Therapeutics

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3