Consensus recommendations for the treatment and management of patients with Fabry disease on migalastat: a modified Delphi study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Fabry disease is a progressive disorder caused by deficiency of the α-galactosidase A enzyme (α-Gal A), leading to multisystemic organ damage with heterogenous clinical presentation. The addition of the oral chaperone therapy migalastat to the available treatment options for Fabry disease is not yet universally reflected in all treatment guidelines. These consensus recommendations are intended to provide guidance for the treatment and monitoring of patients with Fabry disease receiving migalastat. Methods: A modified Delphi process was conducted to determine consensus on treatment decisions and monitoring of patients with Fabry disease receiving migalastat. The multidisciplinary panel comprised 14 expert physicians across nine specialties and two patients with Fabry disease. Two rounds of Delphi surveys were completed and recommendations on the use of biomarkers, multidisciplinary monitoring, and treatment decisions were generated based on statements that reached consensus. Results: The expert panel reached consensus agreement on 49 of 54 statements, including 16 that reached consensus in round 1. Statements that reached consensus agreement are summarized in recommendations for migalastat treatment and monitoring, including baseline and follow-up assessments and frequency. All patients with Fabry disease and an amenable mutation may initiate migalastat treatment if they have evidence of Fabry-related symptoms and/or organ involvement. Treatment decisions should include holistic assessment of the patient, considering clinical symptoms and organ involvement as well as patient-reported outcomes and patient preference. The reliability of α-Gal A and globotriaosylsphingosine as pharmacodynamic response biomarkers remains unclear. Conclusion: These recommendations build on previously published guidelines to highlight the importance of holistic, multidisciplinary monitoring for patients with Fabry disease receiving migalastat, in addition to shared decision-making regarding treatments and monitoring throughout the patient journey. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT.
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 | 0.222 | 0.234 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".