2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2021.02.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gaucher disease in the COVID-19 pandemic environment: The good, the bad and the unknown

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This variation arose from a difference in the number of active sites in each registry, but also a slight difference in response rates (43%, 31%, and 32% for HOS, FOS, and GOS, respectively). Reasons for the higher response rate of HOS active sites compared with FOS and GOS sites are not clear, but it is possible that reassuring reports in the literature regarding the risks and impact of COVID-19 in patients with Fabry disease and Gaucher disease, in addition to overlap of Investigators across registries, may have contributed to slightly lower response rates from the FOS and GOS sites [ 6 , 10 , 17 , [20] , [21] , [22] ]. Furthermore, information on the number of COVID-19 infections observed at the sites was not captured in this survey, and respondents were not asked to provide their location, so regional differences in experiences of the pandemic could not be accounted for.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This variation arose from a difference in the number of active sites in each registry, but also a slight difference in response rates (43%, 31%, and 32% for HOS, FOS, and GOS, respectively). Reasons for the higher response rate of HOS active sites compared with FOS and GOS sites are not clear, but it is possible that reassuring reports in the literature regarding the risks and impact of COVID-19 in patients with Fabry disease and Gaucher disease, in addition to overlap of Investigators across registries, may have contributed to slightly lower response rates from the FOS and GOS sites [ 6 , 10 , 17 , [20] , [21] , [22] ]. Furthermore, information on the number of COVID-19 infections observed at the sites was not captured in this survey, and respondents were not asked to provide their location, so regional differences in experiences of the pandemic could not be accounted for.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, it can be concluded that GD does not confer excess risk of severe COVID‐19 compared with the general population. Additionally, it is not likely that GD offers protection from SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and/or its complications as previously speculated 14 . Currently, when assessing the risk factors for patients with GD to develop severe COVID‐19 infection, clinicians should follow the same guidelines as for the general population.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, it is not likely that GD offers protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or its complications as previously speculated. 14 Currently, when assessing the risk factors for patients with GD to develop severe COVID-19 infection, clinicians should follow the same guidelines as for the general population. When a patient with GD develops COVID-19, it is important they communicate with their GD clinic, specifically for those on oral therapy due to potential risk of drug-drug interactions, 2 but also regarding enzyme-replacement therapy (ERT) treatment during confinement lockdown and general disease management.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some theoretical concerns about the use of hydroxychloroquine, one of the treatment agents recommended in treating COVID‐19 in the early period of the pandemic, should be acknowledged. It was hypothesised that hydroxychloroquine might cause deterioration in autophagy functions in GD patients 24 . In Turkey, particularly in the first year of the pandemic, hydroxychloroquine treatment was ordered in every COVID‐19‐positive case due to the domestic healthcare programme.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%