Enzyme replacement therapy for Anderson-Fabry disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anderson-Fabry disease is an X-linked defect of glycosphingolipid metabolism. Progressive renal insufficiency is a major source of morbidity, additional complications result from cardio- and cerebro-vascular involvement. Survival is reduced among affected males and symptomatic female carriers. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of enzyme replacement therapy compared to other interventions, placebo or no interventions, for treating Anderson-Fabry disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched 'Clinical Trials' on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register (date of the most recent search: 07 April 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of agalsidase alfa or beta in participants diagnosed with Anderson-Fabry disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies comparing either agalsidase alfa or beta in 187 participants fulfilled the selection criteria.Both trials comparing agalsidase alfa to placebo reported on globotriaosylceramide concentration in plasma and tissue; aggregate results were non-significant. One study reported pain scores, there was a statistically significant improvement for participants receiving treatment at up to three months, mean difference -2.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.79 to -0.41); at up to five months, mean difference -1.90 (95% CI -3.65 to -0.15); and at up to six months, mean difference -2.00 (95% CI -3.66 to -0.34). There was a significant difference in pain-related quality of life at over five months and up to six months, mean difference -2.10 (95% CI -3.92 to -0.28) but not at other time-points. Neither study reported deaths.One of the three trials comparing agalsidase beta to placebo reported on globotriaosylceramide concentration in plasma and tissue and showed significant improvement: kidney, mean difference -1.70 (95% CI -2.09 to -1.31); heart, mean difference -0.90 (95% CI -1.18 to -0.62); and composite results (renal, cardiac, and cerebrovascular complications and death), mean difference -4.80 (95% CI -5.45 to -4.15). There was no significant difference between groups for death; no studies reported on pain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Five small, poor quality randomised controlled trials provide no robust evidence for use of either agalsidase alfa and beta to treat Anderson-Fabry disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".