Search

Background: Disease‐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. Aims: Appraise the clinical quality of the Australian treatment access criteria. Methods: The 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. Results: The 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. Conclusions: Australian 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]