Pick type A/B disease, is a rare lipid storage disorder leading to accumulation of sphingomyelin and its precursors primarily in macrophages. The disease has a broad phenotypic spectrum ranging from a fatal infantile form with severe neurological involvement (the infantile neurovisceral type) to a primarily visceral form with different degrees of pulmonary, liver, spleen and skeletal involvement (the chronic visceral type). With the upcoming possibility of treatment with enzyme replacement therapy, the need for biomarkers that predict or reflect disease progression has increased. Biomarkers should be validated for their use as surrogate markers of clinically relevant endpoints. In this review, clinically important endpoints as well as biochemical and imaging markers of ASMD are discussed and potential new biomarkers are identified. We suggest as the most promising biomarkers that may function as surrogate endpoints in the future: diffusion capacity measured by spirometry, spleen volume, platelet count, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, liver fibrosis measured with a fibroscan, lysosphingomyelin and walked distance in six minutes. Currently, no biomarkers have been validated. Several plasma markers of lipid-laden cells, fibrosis or inflammation are of high potential as biomarkers and deserve further study. Based upon current guidelines for biomarkers, recommendations for the validation process are provided.Acid Sphingomyelinase Deficiency (ASMD), also known as Niemann-Pick disease types A and B, is a rare lysosomal storage disorder (LSD) caused by mutations in the sphingomyelin phosphodiesterase 1 (SMPD1) gene, leading to strongly decreased activity of acid sphingomyelinase (ASM,. The enzyme ASM is mainly present in lysosomes and catalyzes hydrolysis of sphingomyelin (SM) to ceramide and phosphocholine [5,6] (see Fig. 1). In ASMD, SM and its precursor lipids accumulate in lysosomes, especially in macrophages. These lipid laden macrophages, Niemann-Pick cells, can be found in several tissues, mainly the spleen, liver and lungs [1],

No abstract

Acid sphingomyelinase deficiency (ASMD) is a lysosomal storage disease (LSD) in which sphingomyelin accumulates due to deficient acid sphingomyelinase. In the chronic visceral subtype, organ manifestations are generally limited to the spleen, liver, and lungs. We report a male patient with the chronic visceral subtype who developed proteinuria and renal insufficiency at the age of 49. In renal tissue, foam cells were observed in the glomeruli as well as sphingomyelin accumulation within podocytes, mesangial cells, endothelial cells, and tubular epithelial cells. Although macrophages are the primary storage cells in both ASMD and Gaucher disease, comparison to the histopathological findings in Gaucher and Fabry disease revealed a diffuse storage pattern in multiple renal cell types, closer resembling the pattern found in Fabry disease.

Introduction Several new treatment modalities are being developed for lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs), including gene therapy. As the currently available treatment options and their influence on disease progression differ greatly within the spectrum of LSDs, willingness to undergo gene therapy might vary among patients with LSDs and/or their representatives. The width of the LSD spectrum is illustrated by the differences between type 1 Gaucher disease, Fabry disease and Mucopolysaccharidosis type III (MPS III). For type 1 Gaucher and Fabry disease several therapies are available, resulting in a near normal or improved, but individually varying, prognosis. No treatment options are available for MPS III. Aim To identify factors influencing patients’ and/or their representatives’ decisions regarding undergoing gene therapy. Methods Focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients with type 1 Gaucher disease, Fabry disease and MPS III. Parents of MPS III patients were included as patients’ representatives. Results Nine Gaucher patients, 23 Fabry patients, two adult MPS III patients and five parents of MPS III patients participated in the study. The five main themes that arose were: outcome of gene therapy, risks and side effects, burden of gene therapy treatment, current situation and ethical aspects. Participants’ views ranged from hesitance to eagerness to undergo gene therapy, which seemed to be mostly related to disease severity and currently available treatment options. Severe disease, limited treatment options and limited effectiveness of current treatment augmented the willingness to choose gene therapy. Gaucher and Fabry patients deemed the burden of treatment important. Fabry and MPS III patients and parents considered outcome important, suggesting hope for improvement. When asked to rank the factors discussed in the focus group discussions, Gaucher patients ranked outcome low, which could indicate a more cautious attitude towards gene therapy. Conclusion This study underlines the importance of exploring patients’ needs and expectations before using limited resources in the development of therapies for patient groups of which a significant subset may not be willing to undergo that specific therapy.