A questionnaire survey on the diagnosis and treatment of Fabry nephropathy in clinical practice

Article information

Kidney Res Clin Pract. 2023;42(5):628-638
Publication date (electronic) : 2023 June 15
doi : https://doi.org/10.23876/j.krcp.22.235
1Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Bucheon, Republic of Korea
2Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University Gwangmyeong Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Gwangmyeong, Republic of Korea
3Department of Internal Medicine, Ewha Womans University Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
4Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Cheonan Hospital, Cheonan, Republic of Korea
5Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
6Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Kore
7Department of Internal Medicine, Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
8Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
9Department of Internal Medicine, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
10Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, Republic of Korea
Correspondence: Su Hyun Kim Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University Gwangmyeong Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 110 Deokan-ro, Gwangmyeong 14353, Republic of Korea. E-mail: sh76so@cau.ac.kr
Received 2022 October 16; Revised 2023 January 27; Accepted 2023 February 6.

Abstract

Background

Fabry nephropathy is characterized by a deficiency of lysosomal alpha-galactosidase A, which results in proteinuria and kidney disease. The ineffectiveness of enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) for severe kidney failure highlights the need for early detection and meaningful markers. However, because the diagnosis and treatment of Fabry disease can vary according to the expertise of physicians, we evaluated the opinions of Korean specialists.

Methods

A questionnaire regarding the management of Fabry nephropathy was emailed to healthcare providers with the experience or ability to treat individuals with Fabry nephropathy.

Results

Of the 70 experts who responded to the survey, 43 were nephrologists, and 64.3% of the respondents reported having treated patients with Fabry disease. Pediatricians are treating primarily patients with classic types of the disease, while nephrologists and cardiologists are treating more patients with variant types. Only 40.7% of non-nephrologists agreed that a kidney biopsy was required at the time of diagnosis, compared with 81.4% of nephrologists. Thirty-eight of 70 respondents (54.3%) reported measuring globotriaosylsphingosine (lyso-Gb3) as a biomarker. The most common period to measure lyso-Gb3 was at the time of diagnosis, followed by after ERT, before ERT, and at screening. For the stage at which ERT should begin, microalbuminuria and proteinuria were chosen by 51.8% and 28.6% of respondents, respectively.

Conclusion

Nephrologists are more likely to treat variant Fabry disease rather than classic cases, and they agree that ERT should be initiated early in Fabry nephropathy, using lyso-Gb3 as a biomarker.

Graphical abstract

Introduction

Fabry nephropathy is caused by a deficiency in lysosomal alpha-galactosidase A (α-Gal A), which leads to an accumulation of globotriaosylceramide (Gb3) in kidney cells and the increase of its metabolites including globotriaosylsphingosine (lyso-Gb3) [1]. Kidney involvement manifests as proteinuria and decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) values, both of which are indicative of chronic kidney disease [2,3]. Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) ameliorates Gb3 deposition in kidneys [4,5]. However, ERT has been shown to be ineffective in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (as indicated by proteinuria and a low GFR), emphasizing the need for early detection of Fabry nephropathy [69]. A change in Gb3 deposition in a kidney biopsy is a useful indicator of Fabry nephropathy, but not of the efficacy of treatment [10,11]. Plasma lyso-Gb3, which has also been proposed as a diagnostic biomarker, has been shown to correlate with disease severity, enzyme replacement response, and phenotyping [12,13].

Fabry disease is classified as either a classical or variant phenotype (later-onset) [14,15]. Classical phenotypes present in childhood or adolescence with typical symptoms, including angiokeratomas, anhidrosis, tinnitus, hearing loss, corneal dystrophy, strokes, left ventricular hypertrophy, cardiac arrhythmias, abdominal discomfort, and diarrhea. In contrast, variant phenotypes have residual α-Gal A activity and are not associated with early manifestations of classic symptoms. Patients with the variant phenotype experience an essentially normal childhood and adolescence, typically only developing renal or cardiac disease in the third to seventh decades of life [15].

The Korean medical insurance system and the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency maintain a rare-disease registry. Patients with Fabry disease are eligible for reimbursement of medical expenses if their diagnosis is confirmed. Despite these systems, individuals with variant phenotypic Fabry disease are commonly misdiagnosed and unable to receive treatment for an extended period of time due to a lack of typical symptoms; such patients are typically less seriously affected, and disease presentations may be limited to a single organ [16]. Half of the patients with Fabry disease in a report from Argentina were diagnosed by nephrologists [17].

Some patients with variant types who met the criteria for indication, which includes kidney manifestation, were covered by medical insurance for ERT. However, lyso-Gb3 was not covered by insurance in Korea [18].

The pattern of Fabry nephropathy management in Fabry disease has not yet been surveyed in Korea. This study was designed to determine how Korean experts treat patients with Fabry nephropathy.

Methods

This study was approved by and received a waiver for the need for informed consent from the Institutional Review Board of the Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital (No. 2021-07-045-001).

A questionnaire to determine patterns in the diagnosis and treatment of Fabry nephropathy was distributed from 2021 to 2022. Questionnaires were emailed to and received by registered members of the Korean Society of Nephrology (KSN) and the Korean Society of Medical Genetics and Genomics (KSMG).

The questionnaire was divided into eight sections: 1) age group and sex of responder; 2) experience with Fabry disease, which includes yes/no questions in the past and present, and number and phenotype of patients; 3) timing of kidney biopsy (on diagnosis, before ERT, on a regular period, on time of proteinuria, or not necessary); 4) the need for a Fabry registry (yes vs. no); 5) check-up of lyso-Gb3 including the timing, interval, and needs for insurance coverage; 6) the interval and preferred tests for kidney function in Fabry disease; 7) the definition and tests of Fabry nephropathy; and 8) treatments other than ERT for Fabry nephropathy. Some detailed questions had multiple answers. The questionnaire is supplied in Supplementary Table 1 (available online).

Descriptive analytical statistics were used to summarize survey responses. The chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables between groups. All statistical analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics version 20.0 software program (IBM Corp.). A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

We sent emails to all 1,990 registered members of the KSN and KSMG, and 70 responded. The highest participation rate was among those in their 40s (55.7%), and 32 participants (45.7%) were male. The majority were nephrologists (61.4%), followed by pediatricians and cardiologists. Table 1 summarizes the baseline characteristics of the participants.

Baseline characteristics of survey participants

Experience treating Fabry disease patients

Sixty-four percent of the respondents had experience treating patients with Fabry disease (Table 1). The numbers of patients with Fabry disease treated by respondents were 1 (16.7%), 2–5 (8.8%), 5–10 (2.9%), and ≥10 (1.5%), in that order. The patients with Fabry disease had variant phenotypes (34.0%), followed by classic (30.2%), both (9.4%), and unknown (26.4%) phenotypes (Fig. 1A). In all, 37.1% of nephrologists and 37.5% of cardiologists saw more variant patients than did pediatricians (0%) (Fig. 1B).

Figure 1.

Comparing Fabry disease phenotypes by specialty of respondents.

(A) The phenotypes of Fabry disease in patients who responded to treatment. (B) A comparison of phenotypes according to specialty.

Kidney biopsy timing

The majority of respondents (46 of 70) indicated that a kidney biopsy should be performed when a diagnosis is made, while 12.9% replied that a biopsy was unnecessary (Table 2). Only 40.7% of non-nephrologists agreed that a kidney biopsy was required at the time of diagnosis, compared with 81.4% of nephrologists. Moreover, 22.2% of non-nephrologists considered a kidney biopsy unnecessary. Cardiologists (62.5%) were less likely than nephrologists (88.5%) and pediatricians (83.3%) to recommend a kidney biopsy (Fig. 2A). The majority of nephrologists and cardiologists would order a kidney biopsy prior to diagnosis, whereas pediatricians responded that a kidney biopsy should be performed prior to both diagnosis and treatment (Fig. 2B).

Comparative survey findings between nephrologists and non-nephrologists

Figure 2.

Comparative analysis of specialist consensus on kidney biopsy for Fabry disease diagnosis.

Comparison of agreement with diagnostic kidney biopsy (A) and the timing of kidney biopsy (B) in patients with Fabry disease according to respondent specialty.

Need for a Fabry registry

The majority of respondents (79.3% of other experts and 87.8% of nephrologists) said they would take part if KSN created a Fabry registry (Table 2). Two pediatricians and one cardiologist replied that they had no intention of signing up to a Fabry registry.

Assessment of lyso-Gb3

If lyso-Gb3 was covered by Korean health insurance, the majority of nephrologists (86.0%) would measure it after ERT, with smaller proportions choosing diagnosis, screening, and before ERT (Table 2). A majority of non-nephrologists did not agree that lyso-Gb3 should be measured at the time of diagnosis and for screening. Additionally, 60% of nephrologists expressed a preference to monitor lyso-Gb3 every 6 months. If lyso-Gb3 measurement was reimbursed by insurance in nephrology and cardiology, the likelihood that it would be used to determine the response to treatment increased compared with the current state, in which it is not covered (Fig. 3C).

Figure 3.

Comparative analysis of specialist agreement on lyso-Gb3 measurement in Fabry disease.

The comparison of agreement of measurement of lyso-Gb3 (A), timing according to responders’ specialty (B). (C) If lyso-Gb3 measurement is insured, diagnosis, before and after treatment lyso-Gb3 measurements were compared to the respondent’s area of expertise. Lyso-Gb3, globotriaosphingosine.

Interval and tests for kidney function in Fabry disease

Half of the responders, particularly nephrologists, selected 3 months as the appropriate follow-up interval (Table 2). In 80.0% and 75.7% of cases, proteinuria and estimated GFR (eGFR) by serum creatinine, respectively, were selected as the optimal kidney function tests. Cardiology and pediatric experts were associated with comparable rates at 3-month and 6-month intervals, respectively, and the follow-up interval for kidney function tests was greater than that indicated by nephrologists (Fig. 4A). Most nephrologists stated that proteinuria, eGFR, α-Gal A activity, cystatin C, and lyso-Gb3 levels should be measured, and kidney biopsies should be conducted to monitor kidney function, although members of other departments infrequently agreed (Fig. 4B).

Figure 4.

Kidney function monitoring by respondent specialty.

A comparison of monitoring frequency (A) and method (B) for kidney function according to respondent specialty.

α-Gal A, alpha-galactosidase A; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; lyso-Gb3, globotriaosphingosine.

Definition and tests of Fabry nephropathy

No consensus was seen in the survey results regarding a definition of Fabry nephropathy. When Fabry nephropathy was suspected, physicians measured α-Gal A activity (72.8%). This was followed by kidney biopsy, genetic testing, and measurements of lyso-Gb3 (Table 2).

Treatment of Fabry nephropathy

For additional treatment of ERT in Fabry nephropathy, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and/or angiotensin receptor blocker was considered by 82.8% of respondents. A low-protein diet and low sodium intake were considered by 55.7% and 24.3%, respectively (Table 2).

Among responders, the stages of microalbuminuria and proteinuria were identified as the starting point of ERT treatment in patients with variant Fabry nephropathy by 51.7% and 28.5%, respectively. A minority of nephrologists indicated that treatment should be performed if proteinuria was present or eGFR was less than 90 mL/min/1.73 m2. Pediatricians frequently indicated that treatment should be administered when microalbuminuria or proteinuria was once present (Fig. 5). Conversely, nephrologists and cardiologists revealed that the majority of responses were treated during albuminuria, but some indicated that early treatment is required even in the absence of albuminuria.

Figure 5.

A comparison of optimal enzyme replacement therapy timing for variant Fabry nephropathy according to respondent specialty.

eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate (mL/min/1.73 m2).

Discussion

In 1984, ophthalmologists reported the first case of Fabry disease in Korea. In 2019 and 2020, the number of newly registered patients according to the Korean Standard Classification of Disease (KCD) was 28 (8 male and 20 female) and 40 (16 male and 24 female), respectively [17]. Despite the fact that the Korean medical insurance and Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency had a system for controlling rare diseases, Fabry disease patients were underdiagnosed and untreated for an extended period [16,19,20]. Although Fabry disease has been diagnosed at an increasing rate in recent years, it is still extremely rare and difficult to access by experts [21]. In a French survey of 152 nephrologists, few doctors (22%) directly managed patients with Fabry disease and 18% had made a diagnosis on their own [21].

This study examines the current level of awareness among Korean specialists regarding available treatment options for Fabry nephropathy. The majority of respondents were nephrologists, while pediatricians and cardiologists followed in second and third place, respectively. Nephrologists in Argentina diagnosed half of Fabry disease patients [22]. While nephrologists can also treat patients with classic diseases, they are more likely to treat variants of the disease [23]. Different opinions were held by nephrologists and non-nephrologists regarding the diagnosis and treatment of Fabry nephropathy. Because it is a progressive multisystem disease, the involvement of other vital organs (the heart and brain, in particular) must be determined by an appropriate specialist [24]. In addition, the clinical heterogeneity of Fabry disease necessitates an individualized approach to treatment that is based on the genotype, sex, family history, phenotype, and specific clinical symptom severity of each patient [3,6]. Confirming the opinions of experts about appropriate approaches to the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of Fabry nephropathy is therefore a useful activity.

The majority of nephrologists considered the time of diagnosis optimal for a kidney biopsy, whereas 22.2% of non-nephrologists indicated that a kidney biopsy was unnecessary. Although there was no consensus on a definition of Fabry nephropathy, most respondents chose α-Gal A activity, kidney biopsy, genetic studies, and lyso-Gb3 levels as diagnostic tools. A total of 24% of nephrologists did not agree with the need for a Fabry nephropathy registry. Most experts agreed with measuring lyso-Gb3 as a biomarker. Currently, measurements of lyso-Gb3 are not covered by insurance, so it is being requested by a specific company. If lyso-Gb3 is covered by Korean health insurance, most specialists reported that they would measure lyso-Gb3 after ERT treatment. However, most non-nephrologists agreed that measuring lyso-Gb3 after treatment would be appropriate but would perform such measurements at the time of diagnosis. New biomarkers such as lyso-Gb3 were impaired in patients with normal albuminuria levels [12,17,25] and were more closely correlated with the expression of Fabry nephropathy [18]. Unpublished data from a Korean study by Cho et al. found that lyso-Gb3 is a screening marker that can identify patients who are eligible for a Fabry gene analysis in patients with chronic kidney disease with unknown etiology. This suggests that coverage by insurance should be considered.

Half of the respondents (54.4%), particularly nephrologists, selected proteinuria and eGFR by serum creatinine to measure kidney function every 3 months. Although proteinuria and GFR are considered important markers of Fabry nephropathy, most kidney involvement occurs in a non-proteinuria state [2,3,26]. These findings suggest that the field of expertise of the treating physicians should be given greater attention. Nephrologists evaluate kidney involvement using a kidney biopsy earlier than do non-nephrologists [24,26]. In addition, they treat and monitor kidney involvement more proactively than do non-nephrologists. Consequently, for the treatment of Fabry disease, a discussion with a specialist in the relevant field will be of great benefit.

This is the first survey of Korean experts on Fabry disease and how they manage Fabry nephropathy. Unlike previous Korean patients with Fabry disease studied by a nationwide survey, most patients being treated by survey respondents had a variant form of the disease [16]. The specialty of the diagnosing physician influenced the phenotype of the disease in each patient. Nephrologists and cardiologists treat more patients with variant types, while pediatricians see those with the classic type (Fig. 1). Recent screening studies of Fabry disease in high-risk clinics (1995–2017) confirmed this pattern [23]. Two Korean patients with Fabry nephropathy reportedly progressed to kidney failure with renal replacement therapy in 1989. Recently, a cardiac variant was reported in Korea [27]. Because Korean experience with Fabry disease has been sporadic and intermittent until recently, clinicians are interested in sharing their experiences with the disease [28]. A recent unpooled systematic review found that different patient populations could require different disease-management and therapeutic goals depending on age, genotype, and disease severity and/or level of organ involvement [13]. Although National Health Insurance service benefits set by the KCD (during the 3 months after registration) was 38,903,000/person, the burden of cost remains a barrier for ERT in Fabry disease, particularly for female patients with classic Fabry disease or other patients with the variant type. Fewer reports of ERT in adult females were available compared with those in adult males due to the limitations of retrospective observational and case-series studies [13]. Clinicians, and nephrologists in particular, prefer to monitor kidney manifestations to determine the timing of ERT after diagnosis. Most respondents chose microalbuminuria as the appropriate stage to initiate ERT. An angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and/or angiotensin receptor blocker was considered a non-ERT treatment, followed by a low-protein diet and low sodium intake.

Diagnostic and treatment guidelines for Fabry disease emphasize a multidisciplinary approach to disease management due to multisystem involvement [14,29]. Our findings show that specialists in the field of nephrology have limited expertise with tests and medicines. In fact, a survey of nephrologists in France revealed that knowledge of kidney injury was poor (less than 50% chose the correct answers in a test) [21]. In addition, nephrologists may lack the experience of other specialties when it comes to phenotype or genetic testing; therefore, patients with Fabry disease should receive care from a multidisciplinary team comprising experienced professionals in neurology, cardiology, pediatrics, and genetics, in addition to nephrology.

This research had numerous limitations. First, selection and recall bias is possible in a voluntary survey questionnaire. Second, due to the limited number of specialists with experience in treating this disease, only a small number of respondents completed the survey. Third, responders may have been confused about phenotypic categories because classic and variant phenotypes were not defined in this survey. Fourth, pediatric nephrologists may be considered non-nephrologists due to the nature of their sub-specialty training. Finally, clinicians may diagnose or treat Fabry nephropathy based on the Korean medical insurance indications.

The majority of respondents to the survey were medical professionals who have treated or are currently treating a patient with Fabry disease. They agreed that it is important to initiate ERT early in Fabry nephropathy, particularly in patients with the variant type of the disease, and that lyso-Gb3 is a valuable biomarker, highlighting the importance of insurance coverage for lyso-Gb3 testing.

Notes

Conflicts of interest

All authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding

This research was supported by the Soonchunhyang University Research Fund.

Data sharing statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Authors’ contributions

Conceptualization, Data curation: SJC, SHK

Formal analysis: SJC, SHK, KHJ

Methodology: SJC, SHK, MSL, EC, EYL

Investigation: ESK, YJK

Software: MSL

Supervision: YJK

Validation: BHC, EHB, EYL

Funding acquisition: SJC

Writing–original draft: SJC, SHK

Writing–review & editing: MSL, SP, EC, SSH, ESK, BHC, KHJ, EHB, EYL

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary data are available at Kidney Research and Clinical Practice online (https://doi.org/10.23876/j.krcp.22.235).

References

1. Colpart P, Félix S. Fabry nephropathy. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2017;141:1127–1131.
2. Eng CM, Fletcher J, Wilcox WR, et al. Fabry disease: baseline medical characteristics of a cohort of 1765 males and females in the Fabry Registry. J Inherit Metab Dis 2007;30:184–192.
3. Schiffmann R, Hughes DA, Linthorst GE, et al. Screening, diagnosis, and management of patients with Fabry disease: conclusions from a “Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes” (KDIGO) Controversies Conference. Kidney Int 2017;91:284–293.
4. Tøndel C, Bostad L, Larsen KK, et al. Agalsidase benefits renal histology in young patients with Fabry disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 2013;24:137–148.
5. Thurberg BL, Rennke H, Colvin RB, et al. Globotriaosylceramide accumulation in the Fabry kidney is cleared from multiple cell types after enzyme replacement therapy. Kidney Int 2002;62:1933–1946.
6. Biegstraaten M, Arngrímsson R, Barbey F, et al. Recommendations for initiation and cessation of enzyme replacement therapy in patients with Fabry disease: the European Fabry Working Group consensus document. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2015;10:36.
7. Warnock DG, Ortiz A, Mauer M, et al. Renal outcomes of agalsidase beta treatment for Fabry disease: role of proteinuria and timing of treatment initiation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012;27:1042–1049.
8. Warnock DG, Thomas CP, Vujkovac B, et al. Antiproteinuric therapy and Fabry nephropathy: factors associated with preserved kidney function during agalsidase-beta therapy. J Med Genet 2015;52:860–866.
9. West M, Nicholls K, Mehta A, et al. Agalsidase alfa and kidney dysfunction in Fabry disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009;20:1132–1139.
10. Warnock DG, Daina E, Remuzzi G, West M. Enzyme replacement therapy and Fabry nephropathy. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010;5:371–378.
11. Fogo AB, Bostad L, Svarstad E, et al. Scoring system for renal pathology in Fabry disease: report of the International Study Group of Fabry Nephropathy (ISGFN). Nephrol Dial Transplant 2010;25:2168–2177.
12. Nowak A, Mechtler TP, Hornemann T, et al. Genotype, phenotype and disease severity reflected by serum LysoGb3 levels in patients with Fabry disease. Mol Genet Metab 2018;123:148–153.
13. Elliott PM, Germain DP, Hilz MJ, Spada M, Wanner C, Falissard B. Why systematic literature reviews in Fabry disease should include all published evidence. Eur J Med Genet 2019;62:103702.
14. Ortiz A, Germain DP, Desnick RJ, et al. Fabry disease revisited: management and treatment recommendations for adult patients. Mol Genet Metab 2018;123:416–427.
15. Paim-Marques L, de Oliveira RJ, Appenzeller S. Multidisciplinary management of Fabry disease: current perspectives. J Multidiscip Healthc 2022;15:485–495.
16. Choi JH, Lee BH, Heo SH, et al. Clinical characteristics and mutation spectrum of GLA in Korean patients with Fabry disease by a nationwide survey: underdiagnosis of late-onset phenotype. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96e7387.
17. Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. 2022 Annual Report on the Rare Disease Patients in Korea Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency; 2021.
18. Jang H, Joo KW, Han SS. Monitoring globotriaosylsphingosine in a Korean male patient with Fabry disease. Kidney Res Clin Pract 2019;38:250–252.
19. Jung SE, Kim YC. Hypohidrosis: an early clue in the diagnosis of Fabry disease. Clin Exp Dermatol 2015;40:444–445.
20. Kim JH, Han DH, Park MY, et al. Fabry disease previously diagnosed as Henoch-Schonlein purpura. Korean J Intern Med 2015;30:925–927.
21. Muller C, Delion A, Hogan J, Bertocchio JP, ; Comité scientifique du Club des jeunes néphrologues. Fabry disease’s screening: results from the first French survey on nephrologists habits. Nephrol Ther 2019;15:226–232.
22. Jaurretche S, Antongiovanni N, Perretta F. Fabry nephropathy. Role of nephrologist and clinical variables associated with the diagnosis. Nefrologia (Engl Ed) 2019;39:294–300.
23. Doheny D, Srinivasan R, Pagant S, Chen B, Yasuda M, Desnick RJ. Fabry disease: prevalence of affected males and heterozygotes with pathogenic GLA mutations identified by screening renal, cardiac and stroke clinics, 1995-2017. J Med Genet 2018;55:261–268.
24. Shin JH, Kim SH. Pathologic findings of Fabry nephropathy: the pivotal role of kidney biopsy. Kidney Res Clin Pract 2021;40:508–511.
25. Kim IY, Lee HJ, Cheon CK. Fabry nephropathy before and after enzyme replacement therapy: important role of renal biopsy in patients with Fabry disease. Kidney Res Clin Pract 2021;40:611–619.
26. Yoon KT, Jang YH, Lee SH, et al. Two cases of fabry disease in women with proteinuria diagnosed by molecular analysis of the alpha-galactosidase A gene and kidney biopsy. Korean J Med 2015;89:571–575.
27. Kim WS, Kim HS, Shin J, et al. Prevalence of Fabry disease in Korean men with left ventricular hypertrophy. J Korean Med Sci 2019;34e63.
28. Kurschat CE. Fabry disease-what cardiologists can learn from the nephrologist: a narrative review. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 2021;11:672–682.
29. Laney DA, Bennett RL, Clarke V, et al. Fabry disease practice guidelines: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns 2013;22:555–564.

Article information Continued

Figure 1.

Comparing Fabry disease phenotypes by specialty of respondents.

(A) The phenotypes of Fabry disease in patients who responded to treatment. (B) A comparison of phenotypes according to specialty.

Figure 2.

Comparative analysis of specialist consensus on kidney biopsy for Fabry disease diagnosis.

Comparison of agreement with diagnostic kidney biopsy (A) and the timing of kidney biopsy (B) in patients with Fabry disease according to respondent specialty.

Figure 3.

Comparative analysis of specialist agreement on lyso-Gb3 measurement in Fabry disease.

The comparison of agreement of measurement of lyso-Gb3 (A), timing according to responders’ specialty (B). (C) If lyso-Gb3 measurement is insured, diagnosis, before and after treatment lyso-Gb3 measurements were compared to the respondent’s area of expertise. Lyso-Gb3, globotriaosphingosine.

Figure 4.

Kidney function monitoring by respondent specialty.

A comparison of monitoring frequency (A) and method (B) for kidney function according to respondent specialty.

α-Gal A, alpha-galactosidase A; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; lyso-Gb3, globotriaosphingosine.

Figure 5.

A comparison of optimal enzyme replacement therapy timing for variant Fabry nephropathy according to respondent specialty.

eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate (mL/min/1.73 m2).

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of survey participants

Characteristic Total Non-nephrologist Nephrologist p-value
No. of patients 70 27 43
Age (yr) 0.84
 30–39 16 (22.9) 7 (25.9) 9 (20.9)
 40–49 39 (55.7) 14 (51.9) 25 (58.1)
 50–59 11 (15.7) 5 (18.5) 6 (14.0)
 ≥60 4 (5.7) 1 (3.7) 3 (7.0)
Sex 32 (45.7) 10 (37.0) 22 (51.2) 0.36
Specialist
 Pediatrician 12 (44.4) -
 Cardiologist 11 (40.7) -
 Pathologist 2 (7.4) -
 Neurologist 1 (3.7) -
 Dermatologist 1 (3.7) -
Experience in treating patients with FD, yes 45 (64.3) 16 (59.3) 29 (67.4) 0.66
Current FD treatment experience, yes 20 (28.6) 7 (25.9) 13 (30.2) 0.91
Phenotypes of FD 0.55
 Classic 16 (30.2) 6 (33.3) 10 (28.6)
 Variant 18 (34.0) 5 (27.8) 13 (37.1)
 Both 5 (9.4) 3 (16.7) 2 (5.7)
 Unknown 14 (26.4) 4 (22.2) 10 (28.6)

Data are expressed as number only or number (%).

FD, Fabry disease.

Table 2.

Comparative survey findings between nephrologists and non-nephrologists

Survey Total (n = 70) Non-nephrologist (n = 27) Nephrologist (n = 43) p-value
Timing of kidney biopsy 0.008
 At diagnosis 46 (65.7) 11 (40.7) 35 (81.4)
 On detection of proteinuria 2 (2.9) 2 (7.4) 0 (0)
 Repeat biopsy at regular intervals 1 (1.8) 1 (3.7) 0 (0)
 Before enzyme treatment 7 (10.0) 3 (11.1) 4 (9.3)
 Not needed 9 (12.9) 6 (22.2) 3 (7.0)
 No opinion 5 (7.1) 4 (14.8) 1 (2.3)
Willing to participate in Fabry registry enrollment with KSN 0.04
 Strongly agree 11 (16.4) 1 (4.0) 10 (23.8)
 Agree 42 (62.7) 15 (60.0) 27 (64.3)
 Neutral 11 (16.4) 6 (24.0) 5 (11.9)
 Disagree 2 (3) 2 (8.0) 0 (0)
 Strongly disagree 1 (1.5) 1 (4.0) 0 (0)
Agreement of measurement of lyso-Gb3 38 (54.3) 13 (48.1) 25 (58.1) 0.57
Timing of measurement of lyso-Gb3
 For screening 20 (28.6) 4 (14.8) 16 (37.2) 0.08
 For diagnosis 35 (50.0) 12 (44.4) 23 (53.5) 0.62
 Before treatment 20 (28.6) 7 (25.9) 13 (30.2) 0.91
 After treatment 27 (38.6) 7 (25.9) 20 (46.5) 0.14
 All of above 4 (5.7) 1 (3.7) 3 (7.0) 0.96
Timing of measurement of lyso-Gb3 (if covered by insurance)
 For screening 28 (40.0) 6 (22.2) 22 (51.2) 0.03
 For diagnosis 43 (61.4) 15 (55.6) 28 (65.1) 0.58
 Before treatment 25 (36.7) 5 (18.5) 20 (46.5) 0.03
 After treatment 48 (68.6) 11 (40.7) 37 (86.0) <0.001
 All of above
Lyso-Gb3 measurement interval (if covered by insurance)
 6 mo 31 (44.3) 5 (18.5) 26 (60.5) 0.001
 12 mo 10 (14.3) 4 (14.8) 6 (14.0) >0.99
Test interval to monitor kidney function 0.002
 1 mo 4 (5.7) 0 (0) 4 (9.3)
 3 mo 38 (54.3) 9 (33.3) 29 (67.4)
 6 mo 13 (18.6) 6 (22.2) 7 (16.3)
 12 mo 4 (5.7) 3 (11.1) 1 (2.3)
 Others 11 (15.7) 9 (33.3) 2 (4.7)
Tests to monitor kidney function (multiple choice)
 Proteinuria 56 (80.0) 15 (55.6) 41 (95.3) <0.001
 eGFR 53 (75.7) 11 (40.7) 42 (97.7) <0.001
 α-Gal A activity 16 (22.9) 4 (14.8) 12 (27.9) 0.25
 Cystatin C 24 (34.3) 5 (18.5) 19 (44.2) 0.05
 Lyso-Gb3 24 (34.3) 8 (29.6) 16 (37.2) 0.70
 Kidney biopsy 7 (10.0) 1 (3.7) 6 (14.0) 0.33
 eGFR and proteinuria 50 (71.4) 10 (37.0) 40 (93.0) <0.001
Test for diagnosis of Fabry nephropathy (multiple choice)
 α-Gal A activity 51 (72.9) 15 (55.6) 36 (83.7) 0.02
 Lyso-Gb3 35 (50.0) 12 (44.4) 23 (53.5) 0.62
 Kidney biopsy 42 (60.0) 12 (44.4) 30 (69.8) 0.06
 Gene test 40 (57.1) 11 (40.7) 29 (67.4) 0.051
Definition of Fabry nephropathy 0.47
GLA gene + albuminuria 19 (40.4) 5 (38.5) 14 (41.2)
GLA gene + eGFR <90 3 (6.4) 1 (7.7) 2 (5.9)
GLA gene + eGFR <90 + kidney biopsy 20 (42.6) 0 (0) 5 (14.7)
GLA gene + eGFR <90 + albuminuria + kidney biopsy 5 (42.6) 7 (53.8) 13 (38.2)
Additional therapy
 ARB/ACEi 58 (82.9) 15 (55.6) 43 (100) <0.001
 Low-protein diet 34 (48.6) 8 (29.6) 26 (60.5) 0.02
 Low-salt diet 16 (22.9) 5 (18.5) 11 (25.6) 0.70
When do you believe that ERT is required for a patient with variant Fabry nephropathy? 0.50
 eGFR <90 3 (5.4) 0 (0) 3 (7.3)
 Microalbuminuria 29 (51.8) 9 (60.0) 20 (48.8)
 No albuminuria (as soon as possible) 16 (28.6) 3 (20.0) 13 (31.7)
 Proteinuria 8 (14.3) 3 (20.0) 5 (12.2)

Data are expressed as number (%).

ACEi, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; α-Gal A, alpha-galactosidase A; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; ERT, enzyme replacement therapy; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate (mL/min/1.73 m2); KSN, Korean Society of Nephrology; lyso-Gb3, globotriaosphingosine.