Improving the global care of familial hypercholesterolaemia: Starting the ball rolling

Familial Hypercholesterolaemia in 2020: A Leading Tier 1 Genomic Application

Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is caused by a major genetic defect in the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) clearance pathway. Characterised by LDL-cholesterol elevation from birth, FH confers a significant risk for premature coronary artery disease (CAD) if overlooked and untreated. With risk exposure beginning at birth, early detection and intervention is crucial for the prevention of CAD. Lowering LDL-cholesterol with lifestyle and statin therapy can reduce the risk of CAD. However, most individuals with FH will not reach guideline recommended LDL-cholesterol targets. FH has an estimated prevalence of approximately 1:250 in the community. Multiple strategies are required for screening, diagnosing and treating FH. Recent publications on FH provide new data for developing models of care, including new therapies. This review provides an overview of FH and outlines some recent advances in the care of FH for the prevention of CAD in affected families. The future care of FH in Australia should be developed within the context of the National Health Genomics Policy Framework.

Effect of Lipoprotein(a) on the Diagnosis of Familial Hypercholesterolemia: Does It Make a Difference in the Clinic?

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic tools for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) rely on estimation of LDL cholesterol concentration. However, routine measurement or calculation of LDL cholesterol concentration using the Friedewald equation contains a cholesterol contribution from lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]. We investigated whether Lp(a) influences the phenotypic diagnosis of FH by commonly used clinical criteria.

METHODS

A cohort of 907 adult index patients attending a clinic were studied. The Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) and Simon Broome (SB) diagnostic criteria were estimated before and after adjusting LDL cholesterol concentration for the cholesterol content (30%) of Lp(a). Diagnostic reclassification rates and area under the ROC (AUROC) curves in predicting an FH mutation were also compared.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients defined by DLCN criteria (8.2%) and 207 patients defined by SB criteria (22.8%) were reclassified to “unlikely” FH after adjusting LDL cholesterol for Lp(a) cholesterol. The proportion of FH patients defined by DLCN (probable/definite) and SB (possible/definite) criteria decreased significantly in patients with increased Lp(a) (>0.5 g/L; n = 330) after Lp(a) cholesterol adjustment (P < 0.01). The overall reclassification rate was significantly higher in patients with Lp(a) concentration >1.0 g/L (P < 0.001). The AUROC curve for LDL cholesterol concentration ≥191 mg/dL (≥5.0 mmol/L), DLCN criteria, and SB criteria in predicting an FH mutation increased significantly after adjustment (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in AUROC curve before and after Lp(a) cholesterol adjustment at an LDL cholesterol concentration ≥251 mg/dL (≥6.5 mmol/L).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjusting LDL cholesterol concentration for Lp(a) cholesterol improves the diagnostic accuracy of DLCN and SB criteria, especially with Lp(a) >1.0 g/L and LDL cholesterol <251 mg/dL (<6.5 mmol/L). Lp(a) should be measured in all patients suspected of having FH.

Comparative aspects of the care of familial hypercholesterolemia in the "Ten Countries Study"

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of information on the health care of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the health care of FH in countries of the Asia-Pacific region and Southern Hemisphere.

METHODS

A series of questionnaires were completed by key opinion leaders from selected specialist centers in 12 countries concerning aspects of the care of FH, including screening, diagnosis, risk assessment, treatment, teaching/training, and research; the United Kingdom (UK) was used as the international benchmark.

RESULTS

The estimated percentage of patients diagnosed with the condition was low (overall <3%) in all countries, compared with ∼15% in the UK. Underdetection of FH was associated with government expenditure on health care (ϰ = 0.667, P < .05). Opportunistic and systematic screening methods, and the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network criteria were most commonly used to detect FH; genetic testing was infrequently used. Noninvasive imaging of coronary calcium and/or carotid plaques was underutilized in risk assessment. Patients with FH were generally not adequately treated, with <30% of patients achieving guideline recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets on conventional therapies. Treatment gaps included suboptimal availability and use of lipoprotein apheresis and proprotein convertase subtilsin-kexin type 9 inhibitors. A deficit of FH registries, training programs, and publications were identified in less economically developed countries. The demonstration of cost-effectiveness for cascade screening, genetic testing, and specialized treatments were significantly associated with the availability of subsidies from the health care system (ϰ = 0.571-0.800, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

We identified important gaps across the continuum of care for FH, particularly in less economically developed countries. Wider implementation of primary and pediatric care, telehealth services, patient support groups, education/training programs, research activities, and health technology assessments are needed to improve the care of patients with FH in these countries.