Individuals with familial hypercholesterolemia and cardiovascular events have higher circulating Lp(a) levels

Clinical practice recommendations on lipoprotein apheresis for children with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: An expert consensus statement from ERKNet and ESPN

Homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia is a life-threatening genetic condition, which causes extremely elevated LDL-C levels and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease very early in life. It is vital to start effective lipid-lowering treatment from diagnosis onwards. Even with dietary and current multimodal pharmaceutical lipid-lowering therapies, LDL-C treatment goals cannot be achieved in many children. Lipoprotein apheresis is an extracorporeal lipid-lowering treatment, which is used for decades, lowering serum LDL-C levels by more than 70% directly after the treatment. Data on the use of lipoprotein apheresis in children with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia mainly consists of case-reports and case-series, precluding strong evidence-based guidelines. We present a consensus statement on lipoprotein apheresis in children based on the current available evidence and opinions from experts in lipoprotein apheresis from over the world. It comprises practical statements regarding the indication, methods, treatment goals and follow-up of lipoprotein apheresis in children with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia and on the role of lipoprotein(a) and liver transplantation.

Lipoprotein(a) in Familial Hypercholesterolemia

Background

Low density lipoprotein (LDL) and Lipoprotein (Lp)(a) are proatherogenic apolipoprotein (apo) B-containing members of the non-high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL) family of particles. Elevated plasma levels of LDL cholesterol (C), non-HDL-C, and apo B are defining features of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH), but reports of elevated plasma Lp(a) concentration are inconsistent.

Methods

We performed retrospective chart reviews of 256 genetically characterized patients with hypercholesterolemia and 272 control subjects from the Lipid Genetics Clinic at University Hospital in London, Ontario. We evaluated pairwise correlations between plasma levels of Lp(a) and those of LDL-C, non-HDL-C and apo B.

Results

Mean Lp(a) levels were not different between individuals with hypercholesterolemia and control subjects. No correlations were found between Lp(a) and LDL-C or non-HDL-C levels in controls or patients with hypercholesterolemia; all r values < 0.079 and all P values > 0.193. Borderline weak correlations between Lp(a) and apo B were identified in patients r = 0.103; P = 0.112) and controls (r = 0.175; P = 0.005). Results were similar across genotypic subgroups.

Conclusions

Lp(a) levels are independent of LDL-C and non-HDL-C; in particular Lp(a) levels are not increased in patients with hypercholesterolemia and molecularly proven HeFH. Apo B was only weakly associated with Lp(a). Elevated Lp(a) does not cause FH in our clinic patients. Genetic variants causing HeFH that raise LDL-C do not affect Lp(a), confirming that these lipoproteins are metabolically distinct. Lp(a) cannot be predicted from LDL-C and must be determined separately to evaluate its amplifying effect on atherosclerotic risk in patients with hypercholesterolemia.

Clinical practice recommendations on lipoprotein apheresis for children with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia: an expert consensus statement from ERKNet and ESPN

Homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia is a life-threatening genetic condition, which causes extremely elevated LDL-C levels and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease very early in life. It is vital to start effective lipid-lowering treatment from diagnosis onwards. Even with dietary and current multimodal pharmaceutical lipid-lowering therapies, LDL-C treatment goals cannot be achieved in many children. Lipoprotein apheresis is an extracorporeal lipid-lowering treatment, which is well established since three decades, lowering serum LDL-C levels by more than 70% per session. Data on the use of lipoprotein apheresis in children with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia mainly consists of case-reports and case-series, precluding strong evidence-based guidelines. We present a consensus statement on lipoprotein apheresis in children based on the current available evidence and opinions from experts in lipoprotein apheresis from over the world. It comprises practical statements regarding the indication, methods, treatment targets and follow-up of lipoprotein apheresis in children with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia and on the role of lipoprotein(a) and liver transplantation.

Secondary Prevention and Extreme Cardiovascular Risk Evaluation (SEVERE-1), Focus on Prevalence and Associated Risk Factors: The Study Protocol

INTRODUCTION

Despite significant improvement in secondary CardioVascular (CV) preventive strategies, some acute and chronic coronary syndrome (ACS and CCS) patients will suffer recurrent events (also called "extreme CV risk"). Recently new biochemical markers, such as uric acid (UA), lipoprotein A [Lp(a)] and several markers of inflammation, have been described to be associated with CV events recurrence. The SEcondary preVention and Extreme cardiovascular Risk Evaluation (SEVERE-1) study will accurately characterize extreme CV risk patients enrolled in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs.

AIM

 Our aims will be to describe the prevalence of extreme CV risk and its association with newly described biochemical CV risk factors.

AIM

Our aims will be to describe the prevalence of extreme CV risk and its association with newly described biochemical CV risk factors.

METHODS

We will prospectively enrol 730 ACS/CCS patients at the beginning of a CR program. Extreme CV risk will be retrospectively defined as the presence of a previous (within 2 years) CV events in the patients' clinical history. UA, Lp(a) and inflammatory markers (interleukin-6 and -18, tumor necrosis factor alpha, C-reactive protein, calprotectin and osteoprotegerin) will be assessed in ACS/CCS patients with extreme CV risk and compared with those without extreme CV risk but also with two control groups: 1180 hypertensives and 765 healthy subjects. The association between these biomarkers and extreme CV risk will be assessed with a multivariable model and two scoring systems will be created for an accurate identification of extreme CV risk patients. The first one will use only clinical variables while the second one will introduce the biochemical markers. Finally, by exome sequencing we will both evaluate polygenic risk score ability to predict recurrent events and perform mendellian randomization analysis on CV biomarkers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study proposal was granted by the European Union PNRR M6/C2 call. With this study we will give definitive data on extreme CV risk prevalence rising attention on this condition and leading cardiologist to do a better diagnosis and to carry out a more intensive treatment optimization that will finally leads to a reduction of future ACS recurrence. This will be even more important for cardiologists working in CR that is a very important place for CV risk definition and therapies refinement.

Lipoprotein(a)-60 Years Later-What Do We Know?

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) molecule includes two protein components: apolipoprotein(a) and apoB100. The molecule is the main transporter of oxidized phospholipids (OxPL) in plasma. The concentration of this strongly atherogenic lipoprotein is predominantly regulated by the LPA gene expression. Lp(a) is regarded as a risk factor for several cardiovascular diseases. Numerous epidemiological, clinical and in vitro studies showed a strong association between increased Lp(a) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), calcific aortic valve disease/aortic stenosis (CAVD/AS), stroke, heart failure or peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Although there are acknowledged contributions of Lp(a) to the mentioned diseases, clinicians struggle with many inconveniences such as a lack of well-established treatment lowering Lp(a), and common guidelines for diagnosing or assessing cardiovascular risk among both adult and pediatric patients. Lp(a) levels are different with regard to a particular race or ethnicity and might fluctuate during childhood. Furthermore, the lack of standardization of assays is an additional impediment. The review presents the recent knowledge on Lp(a) based on clinical and scientific research, but also highlights relevant aspects of future study directions that would approach more suitable and effective managing risk associated with increased Lp(a), as well as control the Lp(a) levels.

Lipoprotein(a): Cardiovascular Disease, Aortic Stenosis and New Therapeutic Option

Atherosclerosis is a chronic and progressive inflammatory process beginning early in life with late clinical manifestation. This slow pathological trend underlines the importance to early identify high-risk patients and to treat intensively risk factors to prevent the onset and/or the progression of atherosclerotic lesions. In addition to the common Cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, new markers able to increase the risk of CV disease have been identified. Among them, high levels of Lipoprotein(a)-Lp(a)-lead to very high risk of future CV diseases; this relationship has been well demonstrated in epidemiological, mendelian randomization and genome-wide association studies as well as in meta-analyses. Recently, new aspects have been identified, such as its association with aortic stenosis. Although till recent years it has been considered an unmodifiable risk factor, specific drugs have been developed with a strong efficacy in reducing the circulating levels of Lp(a) and their capacity to reduce subsequent CV events is under testing in ongoing trials. In this paper we will review all these aspects: from the synthesis, clearance and measurement of Lp(a), through the findings that examine its association with CV diseases and aortic stenosis to the new therapeutic options that will be available in the next years.

The risk of various types of cardiovascular diseases in mutation positive familial hypercholesterolemia; a review

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a common, inherited disease characterized by high levels of low-density lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) from birth. Any diseases associated with increased LDL-C levels including atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVDs) would be expected to be overrepresented among FH patients. There are several clinical scoring systems aiming to diagnose FH, however; most individuals who meet the clinical criteria for a FH diagnosis do not have a mutation causing FH. In this review, we aim to summarize the literature on the risk for the various forms of ASCVD in subjects with a proven FH-mutation (FH+). We searched for studies on FH+ and cardiovascular diseases and also included our and other groups published papers on FH + on a wide range of cardiovascular and other diseases of the heart and vessels. FH + patients are at a markedly increased risk of a broad range of ASCVD. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is the most common in absolute numbers, but also aortic valve stenosis is by far associated with the highest excess risk. Per thousand patients, we observed 3.6 incident AMI per year compared to 1.9 incident aortic valve stenosis, however, standardized incidence ratio (SIR) for incident AMI was 2.3 compared to 7.9 for incident aortic valve stenosis. Further, occurrence of ischemic stroke seems not to be associated with increased risk in FH+. Clinicians should be aware of the excess risk of almost all kind of ASCVD in FH+, and the neutral risk of stroke need to be studied further in FH + patients.

Synergistic effect of lipoprotein (a) and C-reactive protein on prognosis of familial hypercholesterolemia

•

Lp(a) levels among patients with pathogenic variant FH were significantly elevated.

•

Lp(a) and CRP levels were not associated with MACE by themselves.

•

Lp(a) level was significantly associated with MACE only when the CRP level was elevated.

Objective

The synergistic effect of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] and C-reactive protein (CRP) on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the relations between Lp(a) and CRP levels and MACE in patients with FH whose Lp(a) levels are elevated.

Methods

We retrospectively investigated associations between genotypes and phenotypes, including low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level and the occurrence of MACE among patients with FH (N = 786, male/female: 374/412). A Cox proportional hazard model was used to identify factors associated with MACE, adjusting for traditional risk factors. Patients with FH were divided into four groups, based on their Lp(a) and CRP levels, and assessed using Kaplan–Meier curves.

Results

The median follow-up was 12.6 years (interquartile range [IQR], 9.5–17.9 years). During follow-up, 129 MACE were observed. Median Lp(a) and CRP levels were 21.4 (10.9–38.3) mg/dL and 0.20 (0.11–0.29) mg/dL, respectively. Under these conditions, natural log-transformed Lp(a) and CRP were not associated with MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91–1.25; P = 0.220; and HR, 1.12; CI, 0.96–1.28; P = 0.190, respectively). However, in Group 4, Lp(a) and CRP were significantly associated with MACE (HR, 2.44; CI, 1.42–3.46; P = 1.8 × 10⁻⁷).

Conclusions

In patients with FH, Lp(a) was significantly associated with MACE only when the CRP level was elevated. Patients with FH whose Lp(a) and CRP levels are elevated should be treated aggressively.

Improving Familial Hypercholesterolemia Diagnosis Using an EMR-based Hybrid Diagnostic Model

CONTEXT

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) confers a greatly increased risk for premature cardiovascular disease, but remains very underdiagnosed and undertreated in primary care populations.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed whether using a hybrid model consisting of 2 existing FH diagnostic criteria coupled with electronic medical record (EMR) data would accurately identify patients with FH in a Midwest US metropolitan healthcare system.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, records-based, cross-sectional study using datasets from unique EMRs of living patients. Using Structured Query Language to identify components of 2 currently approved FH diagnostic criteria, we created a hybrid model to identify individuals with FH.

RESULTS

Of 264 264 records analyzed, between 794 and 1571 patients were identified as having FH based on the hybrid diagnostic model, with a prevalence of 1:300 to 1:160. These patients had a higher prevalence of premature coronary artery disease (CAD) (38-58%) than the general population (1.8%) and higher than those having a high CAD risk but no FH (10%). Although most patients were receiving lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs), only 50% were receiving guideline-recommended high-intensity LLT.

CONCLUSION

Using the hybrid model, we identified FH with a higher clinical and genetic detection rate than using standard diagnostic criteria individually. Statin and other LLT use were suboptimal and below guideline recommendations. Because FH underdiagnosis and undertreatment are due partially to the challenges of implementing existing diagnostic criteria in a primary care setting, this hybrid model potentially can improve FH diagnosis and subsequent early access to appropriate treatment.

Lipoprotein(a) as Part of the Diagnosis of Clinical Familial Hypercholesterolemia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Individuals with familial hypercholesterolemia have very high risk of cardiovascular disease due to lifelong elevations in LDL cholesterol. Elevated lipoprotein(a) is a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases such as myocardial infarction and aortic valve stenosis. It has been proposed to include elevated lipoprotein(a) in the diagnosis of clinical familial hypercholesterolemia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Lipoprotein(a) is co-measured in LDL cholesterol, and up to one-quarter of all diagnoses of clinical familial hypercholesterolemia are due to high levels of lipoprotein(a). Further, individuals with both familial hypercholesterolemia and elevated lipoprotein(a) have an extremely high risk of myocardial infarction. We discuss the background for familial hypercholesterolemia and elevated lipoprotein(a) as risk factors for cardiovascular disease and the consequences of the fact that LDL cholesterol measurements/calculations include the cholesterol present in lipoprotein(a). Finally, we discuss the potential of including lipoprotein(a) as part of the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia and in consequence possible treatments.

The Clinical Importance of Differentiating Monogenic Familial Hypercholesterolemia from Polygenic Hypercholesterolemia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current review discusses the importance and significance of differentiating monogenic familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) from polygenic hypercholesterolemia for clinical purpose.

RECENT FINDINGS

Consistent scientific evidence have demonstrated that, compared to polygenic hypercholesterolemia, monogenic FH patients are at significantly higher risk for premature coronary heart disease (CHD). This is despite both disease entities having a comparable low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) level. Monogenic FH also has poorer therapeutic response compared to its polygenic counterpart. However, there are no current available clinical management guidelines that stratify hypercholesterolemia patients based on genotype. Monogenic FH patients are at higher risk for CHD with poorer therapeutic response. Thus, genotype testing should be performed when available. There is also an urgency to develop genotype-based clinical guideline that stratify patients on genotype and not only based on traditionally known cardiovascular risk factors.

Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations Correlate With LDL-C in Children With Type 1 and 2 Diabetes

Context

Elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease especially in patients with diabetes. Adult levels of Lp(a) are thought to be is expressed by the second year of life.

Objective

We hypothesized that Lp(a) would be influenced by low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), race, and HbA1C.

Methods

Retrospective electronic medical record review of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) (n = 607) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) (n = 93).

Results

Total of 700 subjects, ages 12-19 years with T1D (n = 607) and T2D (n = 93), 49% were male, mean age was 13.2 ± 3.08 years, and the median Lp(a) was 8.00 mg/dL, IQR 5.00-12.00. The Black subjects had an increased relative risk (RR) of higher Lp(a) compared with White subjects (RR 1.25, P < .0001). Among patients with T1D, Black people had an increased relative risk of higher Lp(a) than White people (RR 1.23, P = .0002). In T2D, Black subjects have 43% higher risk of having elevated Lp(a) than White subjects (RR 1.43, P = .268). In T1D, a 5 mg/dL increase in LDL-C results in 2% increase in Lp(a) (P < .0001). In T2D, a 5 mg/dL increase of LDL-C results in an increase of Lp(a) by 3%. LDL-C and BMI are independently associated with Lp(a) (RR = 1.02, P < .001; RR = 0.98, P < .001).

Conclusion

Our data suggest that Lp(a) is associated with LDL-C in children with diabetes. Lp(a) is differentially increased at higher concentrations of LDL-C. Black children with diabetes have a significant burden of Lp(a) concentrations compared with White children.

Lipoprotein(a) in hereditary hypercholesterolemia: Influence of the genetic cause, defective gene and type of mutation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentration in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (heFH) is not well established. Whether the genetic defect responsible for heFH plays a role in Lp(a) concentration is unknown. We aimed to compare Lp(a) in controls from a healthy population, in genetically diagnosed heFH and mutation-negative hypercholesterolemia subjects, and to assess the influence on Lp(a) of the genetic defect responsible for heFH.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study, performed in a lipid clinic in Spain. We studied adults with suspected heFH and a genetic study of FH genes (LDLR, APOB, APOE and PCSK9) and controls from de Aragon Workers' Health Study. HeFH patients from the Dyslipidemia Registry of the Spanish Atherosclerosis Society (SEA) were used as validation cohort.

RESULTS

Adjusted geometric means (95% confidence interval) of Lp(a) in controls (n = 1059), heFH (n = 500), and mutation-negative subjects (n = 860) were 14.9 mg/dL (13.6, 16.4), 21.9 mg/dL (18.1, 25.6) and 37.4 mg/dL (33.3, 42.1), p < 0.001 in all comparisons. Among heFH subjects, APOB-dependent FH showed the highest Lp(a), 36.5 mg/dL (22.0, 60.8), followed by LDLR-dependent FH, 21.7 mg/dL (17.9, 26.4). These differences were also observed in heFH from the SEA cohort. The number of plasminogen-like kringle IV type-2 repeats of LPA, the hypercholesterolemia polygenic score or LDLc concentration did not explain these differences. In LDLR-dependent FH, Lp(a) levels were not different depending on the affected protein domain.

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) is elevated in mutation-negative subjects and in heFH. The concentration of Lp(a) in heFH varies in relation to the responsible gene. Higher Lp(a) in heFH is not explained by their higher LDLc.

Lipoprotein(a) Where Do We Stand? From the Physiopathology to Innovative Terapy

A number of epidemiologic studies have demonstrated a strong association between increasing lipoprotein a [Lp(a)] and cardiovascular disease. This correlation was demonstrated independent of other known cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. Screening for Lp(a) in the general population is not recommended, although Lp(a) levels are predominantly genetically determined so a single assessment is needed to identify patients at risk. In 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines recommend Lp(a) measurement at least once a lifetime, fo subjects at very high and high CV risk and those with a family history of premature cardiovascular disease, to reclassify patients with borderline risk. As concerning medications, statins play a key role in lipid lowering therapy, but present poor efficacy on Lp(a) levels. Actually, treatment options for elevated serum levels of Lp(a) are very limited. Apheresis is the most effective and well tolerated treatment in patients with high levels of Lp(a). However, promising new therapies, in particular antisense oligonucleotides have showed to be able to significantly reduce Lp(a) in phase II RCT. This review provides an overview of the biology and epidemiology of Lp(a), with a view to future therapies.

Gender difference in lipoprotein(a) concentration as a predictor of coronary revascularization in patients with known coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Whether there is a gender difference in the impact of elevated plasma Lp(a) levels on recurrent coronary events remains unclear. We, therefore, evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels and the occurrence of major adverse coronary events in a large series of coronary patients (32% women).

METHODS

This single-center prospective cohort study investigated 3034 consecutive patients admitted to the Coronary Care Unit with a diagnosis of coronary ischemia. According to the inclusion criteria, 2374 patients completed the follow-up (mean of 2 years). The end-points were non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization and coronary deaths.

RESULTS

Elevated Lp(a) levels were significantly associated with rate of revascularization, but not with non-fatal MI and cardiac death. According to Lp(a) stratification (≤30 mg/dl, >30-50 mg/dl and ≥50 mg/dl), there was a significant rise of revascularization events in the whole sample of participants, with a trend in hazard ratio (HR) of 1.23 (95% CI 1.04-1.46) and a 6% rise for every 10 mg/dl increment in Lp(a) levels. This effect was mainly driven by women (HR 2.04, 95%CI 1.33-3.12) who showed a 14% incremental risk for every 10 mg/dl rise in Lp(a) levels.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with coronary artery disease, elevated plasma Lp(a) levels were found to be a potentially useful predictor of the need for coronary revascularizations, especially in women.

The interconnection between lipoprotein(a), lipoprotein(a) cholesterol and true LDL-cholesterol in the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] are present in 30-50% of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia. The contribution of Lp(a) towards risk stratification of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia has been recently recognized, with studies showing a significantly worse prognosis if Lp(a) is elevated. However, the role of elevated Lp(a) in diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia is less well defined or accepted.

RECENT FINDINGS

An important confounder in the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia is the significant contribution of the cholesterol content on Lp(a) (Lp(a)-C) in individuals with elevated Lp(a). Because Lp(a)-C is incorporated into all clinical LDL-C measurements, it can contribute significantly to the cholesterol threshold diagnostic criteria for familial hypercholesterolemia used in most clinical algorithms.

SUMMARY

In this review, we discuss the interrelationship of Lp(a), Lp(a)-C and correct LDL-C in the diagnosis and prognosis of familial hypercholesterolemia. Future studies of accurately measuring correct LDL-C or in using apoB-100 and Lp(a) criteria may overcome the limitations of using estimated LDL-C in the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia in individuals with concomitant elevation of Lp(a).

Long term follow-up of genetically confirmed patients with familial hypercholesterolemia treated with first and second-generation statins and then with PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In Italy, the clinical and genetic characteristics of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) have been extensively assessed in various lipid clinics, although no studies on long-term cardiovascular outcomes in heterozygous patients (He-FH) have been conducted. This study evaluated the incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in He-FH before and after a long-term period of lipid-lowering treatments to ascertain the interference of other risk factors.

METHODS

A total of 294 genetically characterised He-FH subjects from 1989 to 2019 were retrospectively analysed. General characteristics, lipid profiles, ASCVD prevalence, and ultrasound carotid atherosclerosis assessment were evaluated. Primary end points were ASCVD outcomes and the percentage of patients reaching recommended LDL-C targets.

RESULTS

During follow-up, despite a significant improvement in plasma lipid profiles, the ESC/EAS 2016 and 2019 recommended LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) goals were attained in only a few patients treated with anti-PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies added to the maximum tolerated oral therapy with statins plus ezetimibe. Forty-seven subjects had an ASCVD event before starting lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). During follow-up (median 13 years) on LLT, 28 patients had a first ASCVD event and 16 had recurrent ASCVD. In basal conditions and during follow-up, higher LDL-C levels were associated with increased ASCVD risk (p < 0.001). Prevention of recurrent ASCVD events was recorded with a long-term reduction of LDL-C below 100 mg/dl with statins plus ezetimibe.

CONCLUSIONS

PCSK9 inhibition is the only therapeutic option to achieve LDL-C goals as recommended for He-FH and can prevent ASCVD events as reported in large clinical trials. Long-term treatment with statins and ezetimibe seems to be effective at preventing ASCVD recurrence when LDL-C is maintained below 130 and 100 mg/dL for primary and secondary prevention, respectively.

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.

Lipoprotein (a): An Update on a Marker of Residual Risk and Associated Clinical Manifestations

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a low-density, cholesterol-containing lipoprotein that differs from other low-density lipoproteins due to the presence of apolipoprotein(a) bound to its surface apolipoprotein B100. Multiple epidemiologic studies, including Mendelian Randomization studies, have demonstrated that increasing Lp(a) levels are associated with increased risk of heart disease, including atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and calcific aortic stenosis. The risk associated with elevations in Lp(a) appears to be independent of other lipid markers. While the current treatment options for elevated Lp(a) are limited, promising new therapies are under development, leading to renewed interest in Lp(a). This review provides an overview of the biology and epidemiology of Lp(a), available outcome studies, and insights into future therapies.

Virtual genetic diagnosis for familial hypercholesterolemia powered by machine learning

AIMS

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is the most common genetic disorder of lipid metabolism. The gold standard for FH diagnosis is genetic testing, available, however, only in selected university hospitals. Clinical scores - for example, the Dutch Lipid Score - are often employed as alternative, more accessible, albeit less accurate FH diagnostic tools. The aim of this study is to obtain a more reliable approach to FH diagnosis by a "virtual" genetic test using machine-learning approaches.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We used three machine-learning algorithms (a classification tree (CT), a gradient boosting machine (GBM), a neural network (NN)) to predict the presence of FH-causative genetic mutations in two independent FH cohorts: the FH Gothenburg cohort (split into training data (N = 174) and internal test (N = 74)) and the FH-CEGP Milan cohort (external test, N = 364). By evaluating their area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves, we found that the three machine-learning algorithms performed better (AUROC 0.79 (CT), 0.83 (GBM), and 0.83 (NN) on the Gothenburg cohort, and 0.70 (CT), 0.78 (GBM), and 0.76 (NN) on the Milan cohort) than the clinical Dutch Lipid Score (AUROC 0.68 and 0.64 on the Gothenburg and Milan cohorts, respectively) in predicting carriers of FH-causative mutations.

CONCLUSION

In the diagnosis of FH-causative genetic mutations, all three machine-learning approaches we have tested outperform the Dutch Lipid Score, which is the clinical standard. We expect these machine-learning algorithms to provide the tools to implement a virtual genetic test of FH. These tools might prove particularly important for lipid clinics without access to genetic testing.