Association of lipoprotein(a) level with short- and long-term outcomes after CABG: The role of lipoprotein apheresis

Advances in targeting LDL cholesterol: PCSK9 inhibitors and beyond

There is a direct relationship between the duration and level of exposure to low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels over one's lifespan and cardiovascular events. Early treatment to lower elevated LDL-C is crucial for better outcomes with multiple therapies currently available to reduce atherogenic lipoproteins. Statins remain the foundation of LDL-C lowering therapy as one of the most cost-effective drugs to reduce atherosclerotic events (ASCVD) and mortality. Nonetheless, LDL-driven goal attainment remains suboptimal globally, highlighting a considerable need for non-statin therapies to address residual risk related to statin intolerance, non-adherence, and inherited lipoprotein disorders. LDL-C lowering interventions beyond statins include ezetimibe, PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies, inclisiran and bempedoic acid with specific guideline recommendations as to when to consider each. For patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia requiring more advanced therapy, lomitapide and evinacumab are available, providing mechanisms that are not LDL receptor dependent. Lipoprotein apheresis remains an effective option for clinical familial hypercholesterolemia as well as elevated lipoprotein (a). There are investigational therapies being explored to add to our current armamentarium including CETP inhibitors, a third-generation PCSK9 inhibitor (small recombinant fusion protein oral PCSK9 inhibitor) and gene editing which aims to directly restore or disrupt genes of interest at the DNA level. This article is a brief review of the pharmacotherapy options beyond statins for lowering LDL-C and their impact on ASCVD risk reduction. Our primary aim is to guide physicians on the role these therapies play in achieving appropriate LDL-C goals, with an algorithm of when to consider each based on efficacy, safety and outcomes.

Burden of lipoprotein(a) for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A retrospective analysis from the United States

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an inherited, independent, and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). OBJECTIVE: To assess the burden of elevated Lp(a) for patients with ASCVD in a real-world setting in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study assessed US patients with available Lp(a) measurement and established ASCVD using Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart database (2007-2020). Index date was defined as the first diagnosis of an ASCVD event. Patient demographics, medications, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and occurrence of cardiovascular events were assessed for patients with elevated (≥150 nmol/L) vs normal (≥65 nmol/L) Lp(a) levels, within the first year of index date. HCRU was characterized by inpatient hospitalization, inpatient length of stay (LOS), outpatient visits, and emergency department (ED) visits. All comparative analyses of patients with elevated (≥150 nmol/L) vs normal (≥65 nmol/L) Lp(a) levels within the first year of index date were adjusted for age, sex, baseline statin use, and diabetes. RESULTS: 8,372 patients with ASCVD and Lp(a) measurement in nmol/L were included in this study. Patient demographics and baseline clinical characteristics were similar among those with normal and elevated Lp(a). However, the proportion of patients receiving statins and β-blockers at baseline were significantly higher in the elevated vs normal Lp(a) group (54.76% vs 42.91%, P < 0.0001, and 30.92% vs 27.32%, P = 0.0183, respectively). At 1 year of follow-up, the rates per 100 person-years for ASCVD-related inpatient hospitalizations, outpatient hospitalizations, and ED visits were higher among patients with elevated Lp(a) compared with normal Lp(a) (13.33 vs 9.46, 89.08 vs 85.10, and 2.89 vs 2.29, respectively). The mean LOS per ASCVD-related hospitalization was 7.21 days in the elevated and 6.26 days in the normal Lp(a) group (P = 0.3462). During the 1-year post-index follow-up period, 15% of patients in the elevated Lp(a) group required revascularization compared with 10% of patients in the normal Lp(a) group (P = 0.0002). The odds of composite myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and revascularization occurrence of events within the first year of index was significantly higher in the elevated Lp(a) group compared with the normal Lp(a) group (1.46; 95% CI = 1.20-1.77; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: HCRU within the first year of ASCVD diagnosis is substantial among patients with ASCVD and elevated Lp(a). Relatively higher rates of inpatient hospitalizations, increased LOS per hospitalization, and requirement of revascularization procedures within the first year of ASCVD index diagnosis were observed in patients with elevated Lp(a) compared with normal Lp(a) levels. Lp(a) testing in routine clinical practice could help in identification of high-risk patients with ASCVD and play an important role in the overall cardiovascular risk management, aiming to reduce the HCRU associated with ASCVD. DISCLOSURES: Ms Fonseca, Dr Laguna, Dr Itani, Dr Rachel Studer, and Dr Ferber are employees of Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Ms Byrne is an employee of Novartis AG, Dublin, Ireland. Dr Costa-Scharplatz is an employee of Novartis Sweden AB, Stockholm, Sweden. Dr Heo and Ms Dillon are employees of Genesis Research. Genesis Research was commissioned to conduct the study (data extraction and analysis) on behalf of Novartis Pharma AG.

Apheresis: What Should a Clinician Know?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Apheresis is a treatment option for severe dyslipidemia which has been introduced approximately 40 years ago to clinical practice. This article reviews recent apheresis research progresses, including apheresis for elevated LDL-cholesterol and elevated lipoprotein(a).

RECENT FINDINGS

While the role of apheresis in treating more common forms of LDL-hypercholesterolemia has been reduced due to the development of new, very potent LDL-lowering drugs, it still plays an important role in treating patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and patients with severe lipoprotein(a) elevation. One apheresis session can decrease LDL-cholesterol, apoB, and lipoprotein(a) by approximately 65%, which results in a time averaged reduction of 30-50%. Although time-consuming, and expensive regular apheresis is very well tolerated and has been proven safe for decades. Apheresis remains a treatment option for severe dyslipidemia, especially in homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and elevated lipoprotein(a), if other forms of therapy fail to achieve targets.

Impact of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lipoprotein(a) on mid-term clinical outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting: A secondary analysis of the DACAB trial

Purpose

The objective was to evaluate the influence of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Methods

This is a secondary analysis of a 5-year follow-up of the DACAB trial (NCT02201771), in which 500 patients who underwent primary isolated CABG were randomized to three-antiplatelet therapy for 1 year after surgery. Of them, 459 patients were recruited in this secondary analysis. Baseline LDL-C and Lp(a) levels were collected, and repeated measurement of LDL-C levels during the follow-up were recorded. Cut-off values for LDL-C were set at 1.8 and 2.6 mmol/L; thus, the patients were stratified into LDL-C <1.8, 1.8-<2.6, and ≥2.6 mmol/L subgroups. Cut-off value for Lp(a) was 30 mg/dL; thus, the patients were divided into Lp(a) <30 and ≥30 mg/dL subgroups. The primary outcome was 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE-4), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeated revascularization. Median follow-up time was 5.2 (interquartile range, 4.2-6.1) years.

Results

During the follow-up, 129 (28.1%) patients achieved the attainment of LDL-C <1.8 mmol/L, 186 (40.5%) achieved LDL-C 1.8-<2.6 mmol/L, and 144 (31.4%) remained LDL-C ≥2.6 mmol/L. Compared with the postoperative LDL-C <1.8 mmol/L group, the risk of MACE-4 was significantly higher in the LDL-C 1.8-<2.6 mmol/L group [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1.92, 95% CI, 1.12-3.29; P = 0.019] and LDL-C ≥2.6 mmol/L group (aHR = 3.90, 95% CI, 2.29-6.64; P < 0.001). Baseline Lp(a) ≥30 mg/dL was identified in 131 (28.5%) patients and was associated with an increased risk of MACE-4 (aHR = 1.52, 95% CI, 1.06-2.18; P = 0.022).

Conclusions

For CABG patients, exposure to increased levels of postoperative LDL-C or baseline Lp(a) was associated with worse mid-term clinical outcomes. Our findings suggested the necessity of achieving LDL-C target and potential benefit of adding Lp(a) targeted lipid-lowering therapy in CABG population.

Hyperlipoproteinemia(a) and Severe Coronary Artery Lesion Types

Diffuse atherosclerosis and calcification of the coronary arteries (CA) create serious difficulties for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The aim of this study was to compare demographic indicators, lipids, and clinical results one year after CABG in patients with different phenotypes of coronary artery (CA) disease. In total, 390 patients hospitalized for elective CABG were included in a single-center prospective study. Demographic data, lipids (total, low-density lipoprotein and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides), and lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) concentrations were analyzed for all patients. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) included myocardial infarction, stroke, percutaneous coronary intervention, and death from cardiac causes within one year after surgery. No significant outcome differences were found between the groups with diffuse vs. segmental lesions, nor the groups with and without calcinosis for all studied parameters except for Lp(a). Median Lp(a) concentrations were higher in the group of patients with diffuse compared to segmental lesions (28 vs. 16 mg/dL, p = 0.023) and in the group with calcinosis compared to the group without it (35 vs. 19 mg/dL, p = 0.046). Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL was associated with the presence of diffuse lesions (OR = 2.18 (95% CI 1.34–3.54), p = 0.002), calcinosis (2.15 (1.15–4.02), p = 0.02), and its combination (4.30 (1.81–10.19), p = 0.0009), irrespective of other risk factors. The risk of MACE within one year after CABG was higher for patients with combined diffuse and calcified lesions vs. patients with a segmental lesion without calcinosis (relative risk = 2.38 (1.13–5.01), p = 0.02). Conclusion: Diffuse atherosclerosis and coronary calcinosis are associated with elevated Lp(a) levels, independent of other risk factors. The risk of MACE in the first year after surgery is significantly higher in patients with diffuse atherosclerosis and coronary calcinosis, which should be considered when prescribing postoperative treatment for such patients.

Increased cardiovascular risk associated with hyperlipoproteinemia (a) and the challenges of current and future therapeutic possibilities

Population, genetic, and clinical studies demonstrated a causative and continuous, from other plasma lipoproteins independent relationship between elevated plasma lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] concentration and the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), mainly those related to athe-rosclerotic CVD, and calcific aortic stenosis. Currently, a strong international consensus is still lacking regarding the single value which would be commonly used to define hyperlipoproteinemia (a). Its prevalence in the general population is estimated to be in the range of 10%–35% in accordance with the most commonly used threshold levels (>30 or >50 mg/dL). Since elevated Lp(a) can be of special importance in patients with some genetic disorders, as well as in individuals with otherwise controlled major risk factors, the identification and establishment of the proper therapeutic interventions that would lower Lp(a) levels and lead to CVD risk reduction could be very important. The majority of the classical lipid-lowering agents (statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates), as well as nutraceuticals (CoQ10 and garlic), appear to have no significant effect on its plasma levels, whereas for the drugs with the demonstrated Lp(a)-lowering effects (aspirin, niacin, and estrogens), their clinical efficacy in reducing cardiovascular (CV) events has not been unequivocally proven yet. Both Lp(a) apheresis and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors can reduce the plasma Lp(a) by approximately 20%–30% on average, in parallel with much larger reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (up to 70%), what puts us in a difficulty to conclude about the true contribution of lowered Lp(a) to the reduction of CV events. The most recent advancement in the field is the introduction of the novel apolipoprotein (a) [apo(a)] antisense oligonucleotide therapy targeting apo(a), which has already proven itself as being very effective in decreasing plasma Lp(a) (by even >90%), but should be further tested in clinical trials. The aim of this review was to present some of the most important accessible scientific data, as well as dilemmas related to the currently and potentially in the near future more widely available therapeutic options for the management of hyperlipoproteinemia (a).

Lipoprotein(a) Lowering-From Lipoprotein Apheresis to Antisense Oligonucleotide Approach

It is well-known that elevated lipoprotein(a)—Lp(a)—levels are associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular (CV) mortality and all-cause mortality, although a standard pharmacotherapeutic approach is still undefined for patients with high CV risk dependent on hyperlipoproteinemia(a). Combined with high Lp(a) levels, familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) leads to a greater CVD risk. In suspected FH patients, the proportion of cases explained by a rise of Lp(a) levels ranges between 5% and 20%. In the absence of a specific pharmacological approach able to lower Lp(a) to the extent required to achieve CV benefits, the most effective strategy today is lipoprotein apheresis (LA). Although limited, a clear effect on Lp(a) is exerted by PCSK9 antagonists, with apparently different mechanisms when given with statins (raised catabolism) or as monotherapy (reduced production). In the era of RNA-based therapies, a new dawn is represented by the use of antisense oligonucleotides APO(a)L_rx, able to reduce Lp(a) from 35% to over 80%, with generally modest injection site reactions. The improved knowledge of Lp(a) atherogenicity and possible prevention will be of benefit for patients with residual CV risk remaining after the most effective available lipid-lowering agents.

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.

Association Between Lipoprotein(a) and Risk Factors of Atherosclerosis in Russian Population (Data of Observational ESSE-RF study)

Experimental and clinical data indicate a significant contribution of lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) to the atherogenesis. However, the pathophysiological mechanisms of this relationship are not fully understood.

Aim. To investigate the distribution of Lp(a) in the population of the regions participating in the Study “Epidemiology of Cardiovascular Diseases in the Regions of the Russian Federation” (ESSE-RF) and to evaluate its associations with cardiovascular risk factors.

Material and methods. Representative samples of the male and female population of 7 regions of the Russian Federation, aged from 25 to 64 years, enrolled in the multi-center cross-sectional epidemiological study were analyzed. A total of 10332 people were examined, of whom 3732 were men (36.0%) and 6600 were women (64.0%), the average age was equal in both sexes.

Results. The mean value of Lp(a) reached 22.4 mg/dl (standard deviation 21.3 mg/dl) and significantly differed from the median (11.1 mg/dl; interquartile range from 3.9 to 20.2 mg/dl), forming the right-skewed distribution in both male and female population. Lp(a) levels were statistically significantly correlated with the level of low-density lipoproteins cholesterol (LDL-C), ароВ/аpoAI and total cholesterol. Notably, the odds ratios were growing by quintiles, and increased along with increasing lipid values (p<0.0001). Lp(a) levels were also positively associated with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and negatively correlated with blood concentration of glucose and triglycerides (TG). There were no associations with body mass index, waist circumference and smoking status.

Conclusion. According to the ESSE-RF data, there are significant positive associations of Lp(a) with the LDL-C level, the ароВ/аpoAI ratio, total cholesterol, and hs-CRP. Negative associations are established with glucose and TG levels. The future studies should be planned with the notion of the Lp(a)’s right-skewed distribution type. 

Therapeutic management of hyperlipoproteinemia (a)

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) has consistently been the leading cause of death worldwide. Several clinical and epidemiological studies have demonstrated that an elevated plasma concentration of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a causative and independent major risk factor for the development of CVD, as well as calcific aortic valve stenosis. Thus, the therapeutic management of hyperlipoproteinemia (a) has received much attention, as significant reductions in Lp(a) levels may, potentially, favorably affect cardiovascular risk. Aspirin, niacin, estrogens, and statins, which act on different molecular pathways, may be prescribed to patients with mild or modest elevations of Lp(a) levels. Other therapeutic interventions, such as proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, Lp(a) apheresis, and the novel antisense oligonucleotides APO(a)-Rx and APO(a)-LRx, which are being evaluated in ongoing clinical trials, have provided some promising results and can potentially be used in severe cases of hyperlipoproteinemia (a). This review aims to present and discuss the current clinical and scientific data pertaining to the therapeutic options for the management of hyperlipoproteinemia (a).

Pragmatic Analysis of Dyslipidemia Involvement in Coronary Artery Disease: A Narrative Review

Background

Dyslipidemia is the main factor involved in the occurrence and progression of coronary artery disease.

Objective

The research strategy is aimed at analyzing new data on the pathophysiology of dyslipidemia involvement in coronary artery disease, the modalities of atherogenic risk estimation and therapeutic advances.

Methods

Scientific articles published in PubMed from January 2017 to February 2018 were searched using the terms “dyslipidemia” and “ischemic heart disease”.

Results

PCSK9 contributes to the increase in serum levels of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol and lipoprotein (a). The inflammation is involved in the progression of hyperlipidemia and atherosclerosis. Hypercholesterolemia changes the global cardiac gene expression profile and is thus involved in the increase of oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and apoptosis initiated by inflammation. Coronary artery calcifications may estimate the risk of coronary events. The cardio-ankle vascular index evaluates the arterial stiffness and correlates with subclinical coronary atherosclerosis. The carotid plaque score is superior to carotid intima-media thickness for risk stratification in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and both can independently predict coronary artery disease. The lipoprotein (a) and familial hypercholesterolemia have a synergistic role in predicting the risk of early onset and severity of coronary atherosclerosis. A decrease in atherosclerotic coronary plaque progression can be achieved in patients with plasma LDL-cholesterol levels below 70 mg/dL. A highly durable RNA interference therapeutic inhibitor of PCSK9 synthesis could be a future solution.

Conclusion

The prophylaxis and treatment of coronary artery disease in a dyslipidemic patient should be based on a careful assessment of cardio-vascular risk factors and individual metabolic particularities, so it may be personalized.