Lipoprotein-apheresis: Austrian consensus on indication and performance of treatment

Lipoprotein Apheresis: Utility, Outcomes, and Implementation in Clinical Practice: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Despite the availability of multiple classes of lipoprotein-lowering medications, some high-risk patients have persistent hypercholesterolemia and may require nonpharmacologic therapy. Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) is a valuable but underused adjunctive therapeutic option for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lipoprotein(a) lowering, particularly in children and adults with familial hypercholesterolemia. In addition to lipid lowering, LA reduces serum levels of proinflammatory and prothrombotic factors, reduces blood viscosity, increases microvascular myocardial perfusion, and may provide beneficial effects on endothelial function. Multiple observational studies demonstrate strong evidence for improved cardiovascular outcomes with LA; however, use in the United States is limited to a fraction of its Food and Drug Administration-approved indications. In addition, there are limited data regarding LA benefit for refractory focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. In this scientific statement, we review the history of LA, mechanisms of action, cardiovascular and renal outcomes data, indications, and options for treatment.

Cardiovascular events in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and hyperlipoproteinaemia (a): Indications for lipoprotein apheresis in Poland

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) is a safe method of reducing atherogenic lipoproteins and improving cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. We aimed to assess the reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] levels in patients undergoing regular LA therapy and to evaluate its influence on the incidence rate of adverse cardiac and vascular events (ACVE) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

METHODS

A longitudinal study in Poland evaluated the prospective and retrospective observational data of 23 patients with hyperlipoproteinaemia (a) [hyper-Lp(a)] and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), undergoing 1014 LA sessions between 2013 and 2020. Their pre- and post-apheresis LDL-C and Lp(a) levels were assessed to calculate the acute percent reductions. The time period used to evaluate annual rates of ACVE and MACE before and after initiation of LA was matched in each patient.

RESULTS

The pre-apheresis LDL-C and Lp(a) concentrations were 155 (107-228) (mg/dL) (median and interquartile range) and 0.56 (0.14-1.37) (g/L), respectively. LA therapy resulted in a reduction of LDL-C to 50 (30-73.5) (mg/dL) and of Lp(a) to 0.13 (0.05-0.34) (g/L), representing a percent reduction of 70.0% and 72.7% for LDL-C and Lp(a), respectively. We found a significant reduction in the annual rate of ACVE (0.365[0.0-0.585] vs (0.0[0.0-0.265]; P = .047) and MACE (0.365[0.0-0.585] vs 0.0[0.0-0.265]; P = .031).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of our study indicate that LA treatment in patients with hyperlipoproteinaemia (a) and FH on maximally tolerated lipid lowering therapies leads to a substantial reduction in LDL-C and Lp(a) concentrations and lowers CV event rates in Polish patients.

One year follow-up of patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on lipoprotein apheresis

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is a valuable measure to assess left ventricular systolic function. Lipid lowering therapy by statins has been shown to have an impact on LVEF already after a 6 months treatment. Higher doses of statins have been claimed to be more effective as compared to a conventional one and even a difference between lipophilic and hydrophilic compounds has been reported. The effect of regular lipoprotein-apheresis (LP-apheresis) on LVEF was previously poorly examined. Patients involved in a regular LP-apheresis program are supposed to undergo a number of follow-up investigations among them myocardial scintigraphy and LVEF, measured by radionuclide ventriculography.

METHODS

We examined 18 patients before initiation and after one year of ongoing LP-apheresis. 13 patients (11 males, 2 females, mean age 58.3 ± 5.3 years, groups A) were since more than a year on stable, unchanged statin treatment (atorvastatin 40 mg, simvastatin 40 mg, rosuvastatin 20 mg±ezetimibe), the other 5 patients (3 males, 2 females, mean age 57.1 ± 4.6 years, group B) were intolerant to statins being on micronized fenofibrate±resorption inhibitors (cholestyramine). All patients had a Lp(a) < 30 mg/dl. As part of the usual follow-up monitoring, LVEF was determined by means of radionuclide ventriculography after application of 550 MBq ^99m Tc-pertechnetate.

RESULTS

The follow-up LVEF was checked at a mean of 48.7 weeks in group A and 51.2 weeks in group B. Except in 1 patient (LVEF 46.8% before vs. 45.2% after LP-apheresis initiation) in group A we noted a significant increase in LVEF in 12 patients of group A (92%) and in all patients of group B. Mean LVEF increased significantly in both groups (A: 42.7±8.1 → 46.5±7.5% (p < 0.001) and B: 41.9±8.4 → 46.5±6.3 %; p < 0.001). The relative rise was nearly identical (group A 9.6%, in group B 9.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that regular long-term LP-apheresis treatment apparently increases LVEF, independently on current statin treatment. This implies a role of lowering of atherogenic lipoproteins as underlying mechanism. A prospective study should clarify the relative extent of LVEF improvement induced by LP-apheresis.

Lipoprotein(a)-antisense therapy

Elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) contribute to the risk of early and severe cardiovascular disease (CVD) and Lp(a) is acknowledged as a risk factor to be included in risk assessment. The established lipid-modifying medical therapies do not lower Lp(a) except niacin but no data of endpoint trials are available. Of the new lipid-modifying drugs a few have some impact on Lp(a). Whether the Lp(a) lowering effect contributes to the reduction of CVD events would have to be shown in Lp(a) dedicated trials. None of the available agents is indicated to lower Lp(a). Lipoprotein apheresis lowers levels of Lp(a) significantly by >60% per treatment. Trial data and data of the German Lipoprotein Apheresis Registry show that regular apheresis reduces cardiovascular events. The Apo(a) antisense oligonucleotide is the only approach to specifically lower Lp(a). The IONIS-APO(a)_Rx phase 1 and 2 trials showed very substantial decreases of Lp(a) and good tolerability. The hepatospecific variant IONIS-APO(a)-L_Rx is 30 times more potent. The results of the IONIS-APO(a)-L_Rx phase 2 trial were presented recently. The highest dosages reduced Lp(a) by 72 and 80%; in about 81 and 98% Lp(a) levels <50 mg/dl were achieved. Tolerability and safety were confirmed, whereby injection site reactions were the most common side effects. This raises hope that the planned phase 3 trial will reproduce these findings and show a reduction of cardiovascular events.

Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice - Evidence-Based Approach from the Writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: The Eighth Special Issue

The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Journal of Clinical Apheresis (JCA) Special Issue Writing Committee is charged with reviewing, updating and categorizing indications for the evidence-based use of therapeutic apheresis (TA) in human disease. Since the 2007 JCA Special Issue (Fourth Edition), the committee has incorporated systematic review and evidence-based approaches in the grading and categorization of apheresis indications. This Eighth Edition of the JCA Special Issue continues to maintain this methodology and rigor in order to make recommendations on the use of apheresis in a wide variety of diseases/conditions. The JCA Eighth Edition, like its predecessor, continues to apply the category and grading system definitions in fact sheets. The general layout and concept of a fact sheet that was introduced in the Fourth Edition, has largely been maintained in this edition. Each fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of TA in a specific disease entity or medical condition. The Eighth Edition comprises 84 fact sheets for relevant diseases and medical conditions, with 157 graded and categorized indications and/or TA modalities. The Eighth Edition of the JCA Special Issue seeks to continue to serve as a key resource that guides the utilization of TA in the treatment of human disease.

Looking at Lp(a) and Related Cardiovascular Risk: from Scientific Evidence and Clinical Practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A considerable body of data from genetic and epidemiological studies strongly support a causal relationship between high lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels, and the development of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease. This relationship is continuous, unrelated to Lp(a) threshold, and independent of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, the mechanism(s) through which Lp(a) promotes atherosclerosis are not clarified yet. Suggested hypotheses include: an increased Lp(a)-associated cholesterol entrapment in the arterial intima followed by inflammatory cell recruitment, abnormal upload of proinflammatory oxidized phospholipids, impaired fibrinolysis by inhibition of plasminogen activation, and enhanced coagulation, through inhibition of the tissue factor pathway inhibitor. This review is aimed at summarizing the available evidence on the topic.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are two clinical forms, isolated hyperlipidemia(a) [HyperLp(a)] with acceptable LDL-C levels (< 70 mg/dL), and combined elevation of Lp(a) and LDL-C in plasma. To date, no drugs that selectively decrease Lp(a) are available. Some novel lipid-lowering drugs can lower Lp(a) levels, but to a limited extent, as their main effect is aimed at decreasing LDL-C levels. Significant Lp(a) lowering effects were obtained with nicotinic acid at high doses. However, adverse effects apart, nicotinic acid is no longer prescribed and available in Europe for clinical use, after European Agency of Medicines (EMA) ban. The only effective therapeutic option for now is Lipoprotein Apheresis (LA), albeit with some limitations. Lastly, it is to be acknowledged that the body of evidence confirming that reducing plasma isolated elevation of Lp(a) brings cardiovascular benefit is still insufficient. However, the growing bulk of clinical, genetic, mechanistic, and epidemiological available evidence strongly suggests that Lp(a) is likely to be the smoking gun.

Lipoprotein(a)-apheresis in the light of new drug developments

Elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) contribute to the risk of early and severe cardiovascular disease (CVD). Recently <50 mg/dl was recommended as the desirable level for clinical use and decision making. All established medical therapies to lower cholesterol levels have no impact on lowering Lp(a) except niacin which is all too often poorly tolerated and not obtainable everywhere. Lipoprotein apheresis is an extracorporeal treatment to lower levels of Lp(a) significantly by > 60%. In some countries it is recommended in very high risk patients with early or progressive CVD. Retrospective data indicate that regular apheresis reduces cardiovascular events, which was substantiated by a recent prospective observational trial. Apheresis is very well tolerated with very few side effects, but it is expensive, time consuming, and offered by specialised centres only. To improve the overall treatment new drug therapies are required. Some of the recently approved lipid modifying drugs lower Lp(a) in addition to LDL-cholesterol: Mipomersen ∼ 25%, CETP-inhibitors ∼ 50%, PCSK9-inhibitors ∼ 30%. If the Lp(a) lowering effect contributes to the expected reduction of CVD events has to be shown in the future. The apo(a) antisense oligonucleotide is the only approach to specifically lower Lp(a). A phase 1 trial showed a decrease in a dose dependant manner (up to 88.8%) in healthy volunteers. Despite the lack of prospective randomised trials apheresis these days remains the standard of care in patients with elevated Lp(a) and severe CVD.

Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice-Evidence-Based Approach from the Writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: The Seventh Special Issue

The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Journal of Clinical Apheresis (JCA) Special Issue Writing Committee is charged with reviewing, updating, and categorizing indications for the evidence-based use of therapeutic apheresis in human disease. Since the 2007 JCA Special Issue (Fourth Edition), the Committee has incorporated systematic review and evidence-based approaches in the grading and categorization of apheresis indications. This Seventh Edition of the JCA Special Issue continues to maintain this methodology and rigor to make recommendations on the use of apheresis in a wide variety of diseases/conditions. The JCA Seventh Edition, like its predecessor, has consistently applied the category and grading system definitions in the fact sheets. The general layout and concept of a fact sheet that was used since the fourth edition has largely been maintained in this edition. Each fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of therapeutic apheresis in a specific disease entity. The Seventh Edition discusses 87 fact sheets (14 new fact sheets since the Sixth Edition) for therapeutic apheresis diseases and medical conditions, with 179 indications, which are separately graded and categorized within the listed fact sheets. Several diseases that are Category IV which have been described in detail in previous editions and do not have significant new evidence since the last publication are summarized in a separate table. The Seventh Edition of the JCA Special Issue serves as a key resource that guides the utilization of therapeutic apheresis in the treatment of human disease. J. Clin. Apheresis 31:149-162, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Hyperlipoproteinaemia(a) - apheresis and emerging therapies

A high level of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is recognized as an independent and additional cardiovascular risk factor contributing to the risk of early onset and progressive course of cardiovascular disease (CVD). All lipid lowering medications in use mainly lower low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-c) with no or limited effect on levels of Lp(a). Niacin, the only component lowering Lp(a), is firstly often poorly tolerated and secondly not available anymore in many countries. A level of <50 mg/dl was recommended recently as the cut off level for clinical use and decision making. Since lipoprotein apheresis (LA) lowers not only LDL-c but also Lp(a) significantly, its use is recommended in some countries in very high-risk patients with early or progressive CVD. Retrospective analyses show that regular LA improves the course of CVD. This is supported by a recent prospective observational trial and data of the German Lipoprotein Apheresis Registry. Despite many treatment options, all too often it is not possible to reduce LDL-c levels to target and to reduce Lp(a) levels sustainably at all. Therefore, new drug therapies are awaited. Some of the lipid modifying drugs in development lower Lp(a) to some extent in addition to LDL-c; the only specific approach is the apoprotein(a) antisense oligonucleotide. Currently LA is the standard of care as a last resort treatment in high-risk patients with elevated Lp(a) and severe CVD despite optimal control of all other cardiovascular risk factors.