The German CaRe high registry for familial hypercholesterolemia - Sex differences, treatment strategies, and target value attainment

Background and aims

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is among the most common genetic disorders in primary care. However, only 15% or less of patients are diagnosed, and few achieve the goals for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). In this analysis of the German Cascade Screening and Registry for High Cholesterol (CaRe High), we examined the status of lipid management, treatment strategies, and LDL-C goal attainment according to the ESC/EAS dyslipidemia guidelines.

Methods

We evaluated consolidated datasets from 1501 FH patients diagnosed clinically and seen either by lipid specialists or general practitioners and internists. We conducted a questionnaire survey of both the recruiting physicians and patients.

Results

Among the 1501 patients, 86% regularly received lipid-lowering drugs. LDL-C goals were achieved by 26% and 10% of patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) according to the 2016 and 2019 ESC/EAS dyslipidemia guidelines, respectively. High intensity lipid-lowering was administered more often in men than in women, in patients with ASCVD, at higher LDL-C and in patients with a genetic diagnosis of FH.

Conclusions

FH is under-treated in Germany compared to guideline recommendations. Male gender, genetic proof of FH, treatment by a specialist, and presence of ASCVD appear to be associated with increased treatment intensity. Achieving the LDL-C goals of the 2019 ESC/EAS dyslipidemia guidelines remains challenging if pre-treatment LDL-C is very high.

State of the Art: Lipoproteinapherese

Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) is usually a last resort in cardiovascular high-risk patients in the context of secondary prevention after lifestyle measures and maximal pharmacotherapy have failed to prevent the occurrence of new atherosclerotic cardiovascular events (ASCVDE) or to achieve the internationally accepted target values for LDL cholesterol (LDL-C). Patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (hoFH), in whom myocardial infarctions can occur even in children < 10 years of age without adequate therapy, often owe their survival to LA (used here in primary prevention). Severe hypercholesterolemia (HCH) can often be well controlled with modern potent lipid-lowering agents, including PCSK9 approaches, so that the need for LA has decreased here over the years. In contrast, the number of patients in whom elevation of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is relevant to atherogenesis is increasing in applications to the apheresis committees of the associations of panel physicians (KV). For this indication, LA is currently the only therapeutic procedure approved by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). LA significantly reduces the new occurrence of ASCVDE (comparison with the situation before the start of LA), especially in Lp(a) patients. There are convincing observational studies and a German LA Registry with now 10-year data, but there is no randomized controlled trial. This had been requested by the G-BA in 2008, and a corresponding concept was designed but not accepted by the ethics committee. In addition to the highly effective reduction of atherogenic lipoproteins, many discussed pleiotropic effects of LA itself, the medical rounds and motivating discussions also with the nursing staff, which take place within the weekly LA, certainly contribute to the success of the therapy (steady adjustment of all cardiovascular risk factors, lifestyle measures including smoking cessation, adherence of medication intake). This review article summarizes and discusses the study situation, clinical practical experience as well as the future of LA against the background of the currently rapid development of new pharmacotherapies.

The development of lipoprotein apheresis in Saxony in the last years

METHODS

Three hundred thirty-nine patients (230 men, 109 women) treated with lipoprotein apheresis in Saxony, Germany, in 2018 are described in terms of age, lipid pattern, risk factors, cardiovascular events, medication, and number of new admissions since 2014, and the data are compared with figures from 2010 to 2013.

RESULTS

Patients were treated by 45.5 physicians in 16 lipoprotein apheresis centers. With about 10 patients per 100 000 inhabitants, the number of patients treated with lipoprotein apheresis in Saxony is twice as high as in Germany as a whole. The median treatment time was 3 years. Almost all patients had hypertension; type 2 diabetes mellitus was seen significantly more often in patients with low Lipoprotein(a). Cardiovascular events occurred in almost all patients before initiation of lipoprotein apheresis, under apheresis therapy the cardiovascular events rate was very low in this high-risk group. For some cardiovascular regions even no events could be observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The importance of lipoprotein apheresis in Saxony had been increasing from 2010 to 2018.

Repeated lipoprotein apheresis and immune response: Effects on different immune cell populations

BACKGROUND

Atherosclerosis is considered a chronic inflammation of arterial vessels with the involvement of several immune cells causing severe cardiovascular diseases. Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) improves cardiovascular conditions of patients with severely disturbed lipid metabolism. In this context, little is known about the impact of LA on various immune cell populations, especially over time.

METHODS

Immune cells of 18 LA-naïve patients starting weekly LA treatment were analyzed before and after four apheresis cycles over the course of 24 weeks by flow cytometry.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

An acute lowering effect of LA on T cell and natural killer (NK) cell subpopulations expressing CD69 was observed. The non-classical and intermediate monocyte subsets as well as HLA-DR⁺ 6-sulfo LacNAc⁺ monocytes were significantly reduced during the apheresis procedure. We conclude that LA has the capacity to alter various immune cell subsets. However, LA has mainly short-term effects than long-term consequences on proportions of immune cells.

The German Lipoprotein Apheresis Registry-Summary of the ninth annual report

During 2012-2020, 89 German apheresis centers collected retrospective and prospective observational data of 2028 patients undergoing regular lipoprotein apheresis (LA) for the German Lipoprotein Apheresis Registry (GLAR). More than 47 500 LA sessions are documented in GLAR. In 2020, all patients treated with LA showed a high immediate median reduction rate of LDL-C (68.2%, n = 1055) and Lp(a) (72.4%, n = 994). Patient data were analyzed for the incidence rate of major coronary events (MACE) 1 and 2 years before the beginning of LA treatment (y-2 and y-1) and prospectively up to 7 years on LA (y + 1 to y + 7). During the first 2 years of LA (y + 1 and y + 2), a MACE reduction of 78% was observed. Current analysis of GLAR data shows very low incidence rates of cardiovascular events in patients with high LDL-C and/or high Lp(a) levels, progressive ASCVD, and maximally tolerated lipid lowering medication regular by LA results.

A familial hypercholesterolemia registry as the main tool for adequate management of the disease

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is the most common, but poorly diagnosed autosomal-dominant genetic disease which increases the cardio-vascular risk.

AIM

To evaluate the experience of FH registry conducted in Karelia Republic.

METHODS

FH registry in Karelia is existing from 2004, it includes 350 patients with heterozygous FH (110 with definite FH), the mean age is 48 ± 2.3 years. The genetic study was performed in 102 patients (29.1%).

RESULT

The creation of the registry has contributed to the active identification of FH, and now the estimated frequency of FH occurrence in Karelia may be 1:300, in patients with cardiovascular disease 1:10. We also analyzed genetic features of FH in our republic and found that the LDL-C level, above which the probability of LDL receptor mutation increases in Karelia, is 6.5 mmol/L. We analyzed risk factors of ischemic heart disease and the prognosis in FH.

CONCLUSION

The creation and maintenance of a registry is an effective way of organizing timely diagnosis and adequate treatment of FH patients.

Post COVID and Apheresis - Where are we Standing?

A continual increase in cases of Long/Post COVID constitutes a medical and socioeconomic challenge to health systems around the globe. While the true extent of this problem cannot yet be fully evaluated, recent data suggest that up to 20% of people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 suffer from clinically relevant symptoms of Long/Post COVID several weeks to months after the acute phase. The clinical presentation is highly variable with the main symptoms being chronic fatigue, dyspnea, and cognitive symptoms. Extracorporeal apheresis has been suggested to alleviate symptoms of Post/COVID. Thus, numerous patients are currently treated with apheresis. However, at present there is no data from randomized controlled trials available to confirm the efficacy. Therefore, physicians rely on the experience of practitioners and centers performing this treatment. Here, we summarize clinical experience on extracorporeal apheresis in patients with Post/COVID from centers across Germany.

COVID-19 and Therapeutic Apheresis

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, is an unprecedented challenge for the global community. The pathogenesis of COVID-19, its complications and long term sequelae (so called Long/Post-COVID) include, in addition to the direct virus-induced tissues injury, multiple secondary processes, such as autoimmune response, impairment of microcirculation, and hyperinflammation. Similar pathological processes, but in the settings of neurological, cardiovascular, rheumatological, nephrological, and dermatological diseases can be successfully treated by powerful methods of Therapeutic Apheresis (TA). We describe here the rationale and the initial attempts of TA treatment in severe cases of acute COVID-19. We next review the evidence for the role of autoimmunity, microcirculatory changes and inflammation in pathogenesis of Long/Post COVID and the rationale for targeting those pathogenic processes by different methods of TA. Finally, we discuss the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on patients, who undergo regular TA treatments due to their underlying chronic conditions, with the specific focus on the patients with inherited lipid diseases being treated at the Dresden University Apheresis Center.

COVID-19 and Lipid Disorders

An elevated cholesterol concentration has been suspected to increase the susceptibility for SARS-COV-2 infection. Cholesterol plays a central role in the mechanisms of the SARS-COV-2 infection. In contrast, higher HDL-cholesterol levels seem to be protective. During COVID-19 disease, LDL-cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol appear to be decreased. On the other hand, triglycerides (also in different lipoprotein fractions) were elevated. Lipoprotein(a) may increase during this disease and is most probably responsible for thromboembolic events. This lipoprotein can induce a progression of atherosclerotic lesion formation. The same is suspected for the SARS-COV-2 infection itself. COVID-19 patients are at increased risk of incident cardiovascular diseases, including cerebrovascular disorders, dysrhythmias, ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease, pericarditis, myocarditis, heart failure, and thromboembolic disorders. An ongoing lipid-lowering therapy, including lipoprotein apheresis, is recommended to be continued during the COVID-19 disease, though the impact of lipid-lowering drugs or the extracorporeal therapy on prognosis should be studied in further investigations.

Precision Medicine Approach for Cardiometabolic Risk Factors in Therapeutic Apheresis

Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) is currently the most powerful intervention possible to reach a maximal reduction of lipids in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and lipoprotein(a) hyperlipidemia. Although LA is an invasive method, it has few side effects and the best results in preventing further major cardiovascular events. It has been suggested that the highly significant reduction of cardiovascular complications in patients with severe lipid disorders achieved by LA is mediated not only by the potent reduction of lipid levels but also by the removal of other proinflammatory and proatherogenic factors. Here we performed a comprehensive proteomic analysis of patients on LA treatment using intra-individually a set of differently sized apheresis filters with the INUSpheresis system. This study revealed that proteomic analysis correlates well with routine clinical chemistry in these patients. The method is eminently suited to discover new biomarkers and risk factors for cardiovascular disease in these patients. Different filters achieve reduction and removal of proatherogenic proteins in different quantities. This includes not only apolipoproteins, C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, and plasminogen but also proteins like complement factor B (CFAB), protein AMBP, afamin, and the low affinity immunoglobulin gamma Fc region receptor III-A (FcγRIIIa) among others that have been described as atherosclerosis and metabolic vascular diseases promoting factors. We therefore conclude that future trials should be designed to develop an individualized therapy approach for patients on LA based on their metabolic and vascular risk profile. Furthermore, the power of such cascade filter treatment protocols may improve the prevention of cardiometabolic disease and its complications.

Global perspective of familial hypercholesterolaemia: a cross-sectional study from the EAS Familial Hypercholesterolaemia Studies Collaboration (FHSC)

BACKGROUND

The European Atherosclerosis Society Familial Hypercholesterolaemia Studies Collaboration (FHSC) global registry provides a platform for the global surveillance of familial hypercholesterolaemia through harmonisation and pooling of multinational data. In this study, we aimed to characterise the adult population with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia and described how it is detected and managed globally.

METHODS

Using FHSC global registry data, we did a cross-sectional assessment of adults (aged 18 years or older) with a clinical or genetic diagnosis of probable or definite heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia at the time they were entered into the registries. Data were assessed overall and by WHO regions, sex, and index versus non-index cases.

FINDINGS

Of the 61 612 individuals in the registry, 42 167 adults (21 999 [53·6%] women) from 56 countries were included in the study. Of these, 31 798 (75·4%) were diagnosed with the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network criteria, and 35 490 (84·2%) were from the WHO region of Europe. Median age of participants at entry in the registry was 46·2 years (IQR 34·3-58·0); median age at diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia was 44·4 years (32·5-56·5), with 40·2% of participants younger than 40 years when diagnosed. Prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors increased progressively with age and varied by WHO region. Prevalence of coronary disease was 17·4% (2·1% for stroke and 5·2% for peripheral artery disease), increasing with concentrations of untreated LDL cholesterol, and was about two times lower in women than in men. Among patients receiving lipid-lowering medications, 16 803 (81·1%) were receiving statins and 3691 (21·2%) were on combination therapy, with greater use of more potent lipid-lowering medication in men than in women. Median LDL cholesterol was 5·43 mmol/L (IQR 4·32-6·72) among patients not taking lipid-lowering medications and 4·23 mmol/L (3·20-5·66) among those taking them. Among patients taking lipid-lowering medications, 2·7% had LDL cholesterol lower than 1·8 mmol/L; the use of combination therapy, particularly with three drugs and with proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors, was associated with a higher proportion and greater odds of having LDL cholesterol lower than 1·8 mmol/L. Compared with index cases, patients who were non-index cases were younger, with lower LDL cholesterol and lower prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular diseases (all p<0·001).

INTERPRETATION

Familial hypercholesterolaemia is diagnosed late. Guideline-recommended LDL cholesterol concentrations are infrequently achieved with single-drug therapy. Cardiovascular risk factors and presence of coronary disease were lower among non-index cases, who were diagnosed earlier. Earlier detection and greater use of combination therapies are required to reduce the global burden of familial hypercholesterolaemia.

FUNDING

Pfizer, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Sanofi-Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, and Regeneron.

Modern Approaches to Lower Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations and Consequences for Cardiovascular Diseases

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a low density lipoprotein particle that is associated with poor cardiovascular prognosis due to pro-atherogenic, pro-thrombotic, pro-inflammatory and pro-oxidative properties. Traditional lipid-lowering therapy does not provide a sufficient Lp(a) reduction. For PCSK9 inhibitors a small reduction of Lp(a) levels could be shown, which was associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events, independently of the effect on LDL cholesterol. Another option is inclisiran, for which no outcome data are available yet. Lipoprotein apheresis acutely and in the long run decreases Lp(a) levels and effectively improves cardiovascular prognosis in high-risk patients who cannot be satisfactorily treated with drugs. New drugs inhibiting the synthesis of apolipoprotein(a) (an antisense oligonucleotide (Pelacarsen) and two siRNA drugs) are studied. Unlike LDL-cholesterol, for Lp(a) no target value has been defined up to now. This overview presents data of modern capabilities of cardiovascular risk reduction by lowering Lp(a) level.

The State of the Problem of Achieving Extremely Low LDL Levels

Patients who have achieved very low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in clinical trials have the lowest cardio-vascular risk. The current clinical guidelines set such concentration for LDL-C as < 1.4 mmol/L. However, the question of minimum permissible target values of the lipids remains unresolved. A number of experimental and clinical studies showed some unfavorable consequences of low LDL-C levels, at the same time, the modern arsenal of lipid lowering drugs allows reducing LDL-C levels to extremely low values.

Why Some Patients Undergoing Lipoprotein Apheresis Therapy Develop New Cardiovascular Events?

Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) is an effective tool to reduce cardiovascular events (CVEs) in high-risk patients with elevations of low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) and/or Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)). All patients included into this retrospective analysis had experienced CVEs before the start of the LA therapy. We compared personal and lab data in two groups: CVEx/0 (n 60) with no new events during LA therapy, CVEx/1+ (n 48) with at least one new event. Patients of Group CVEx/1+ were about 5 years older when they had started the extracorporeal therapy, and they experienced more CVEs prior to that timepoint. There was a positive correlation between the number of CVEs before and during LA therapy. No differences were seen with respect to lipid concentrations, even after a correction of LDL-C concentrations for the LDL-C transported with Lp(a) particles. LA sessions effectively reduced both LDL-C and Lp(a). Lp(a) levels measured before LA sessions were lower than those measured initially. It appeared difficult to reach the target values for LDL-C published in the ESC/EAS Guideline in 2019, although all patients were maximally treated including drugs when tolerated. In conclusion, it will be important to initiate an LA therapy earlier, at least after a second CVE and at a younger age.

Is There a Role for Environmental and Metabolic Factors Predisposing to Severe COVID-19?

The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic affects people around the world. However, there have been striking differences in the number of infected individuals and deaths in different countries. Particularly, within Central Europe in countries that are similar in ethnicity, age, and medical standards and have performed similar steps of containment, such differences in mortality rates remain inexplicable. We suggest to consider and explore environmental factors to explain these intriguing variations. Countries like Northern Italy, France, Spain, and UK have suffered from 5 times more deaths from the corona virus infection than neighboring countries like Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and Denmark related to the size of their respective populations. There is a striking correlation between the level of environmental pollutants including pesticides, dioxins, and air pollution such as NO₂ known to affect immune function and healthy metabolism with the rate of mortality in COVID-19 pandemic in these European countries. There is also a correlation with the use of chlorination of drinking water in these regions. In addition to the improvement of environmental protective programs, there are possibilities to lower the blood levels of these pollutants by therapeutic apheresis. Furthermore, therapeutic apheresis might be an effective method to improve metabolic inflammation, altered vascular perfusion, and neurodegeneration observed as long-term complications of COVID-19 disease.

Lipoprotein(a) - Marker for cardiovascular risk and target for lipoprotein apheresis

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) consists of an LDL particle whose apolipoprotein B (apoB) is covalently bound to apolipoprotein(a) (apo[a]). An increased Lp(a) concentration is a causal, independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and a predictor of incident or recurrent cardiovascular events. Although Lp(a) was first described as early as 1963, only the more recent results of epidemiological, molecular, and genetic studies have led to this unequivocal conclusion. More than 20% of Western populations have elevated Lp(a) values. Lp(a) concentrations should be always part of the lipid profile when ASCVD risk is assessed. However, presence of other risk factors, laboratory findings, medical history and family history must be considered to conclude on its clinical relevance in an individual patient. Early or progressive ASCVD or a familial predisposition are key findings which can be associated with elevated Lp(a). The cholesterol portion contained in Lp(a) is also included in the various methods of LDL-C measurement. To assess proximity to the cardiovascular risk related target value for LDL-C, appropriate correction should be applied when high Lp(a) values are obtained to estimate the LDL-C that can actually be treated by lipid lowering drugs. Initial study data show that antisense oligonucleotides, which selectively decrease apolipoprotein(a), are promising as future treatment options. Currently, lipoprotein apheresis, which has a reimbursement guideline in Germany, is the therapy of choice for patients with Lp(a)-associated progressive ASCVD, with the aim of sustained prevention of further cardiovascular events.

Actual situation of lipoprotein apheresis in patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels

An elevation of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an internationally recognized atherogenic risk factor, documented in epidemiological studies, in studies with Mendelian randomization and in genome-wide association studies (GWAS). At present, no drug is available to effectively reduce its concentration. In Germany, an elevation of Lp(a) associated with progressive cardiovascular diseases is officially recognized as an indication for a lipoprotein apheresis (LA). The number of patients who were treated with LA with this abnormality was steadily increasing in the years 2013-2016 - the official data are reported. In all new patients, who started to be treated at our LA center in 2017 (n = 20) the increased Lp(a) was a main indication for extracorporeal therapy, though some of them also showed clearly elevated LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations despite being treated with a maximal tolerated lipid-lowering drug therapy. A diabetes mellitus was seen in 5 patients. The higher was the Lp(a) level before the first LA session, the higher was the cardiovascular risk. Lp(a) concentrations measured before LA sessions were usually about 20% lower than those before the start of the LA therapy. Acutely, Lp(a) levels were reduced by about 70%. Following LA sessions the Lp(a) levels increased and in the majority reach pre-session concentrations after one week. Thus a weekly interval is best for the patients, but a few may need two sessions per week to stop the progress of atherosclerosis. The interval mean values were about 39% lower than previous levels. Several papers had been published showing a higher efficiency of LA therapy on the incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with high Lp(a) values when comparing with hypercholesterolemic patients with normal Lp(a) concentrations. Russian specific anti-Lp(a) columns positively affected coronary atherosclerosis. PCSK9 inhibitors reduce Lp(a) concentrations in many patients and in this way have a positive impact on cardiovascular outcomes. In the future, an antisense oligonucleotide against apolipoprotein(a) may be an alternative therapeutic option, provided a clear-cut reduction of cardiovascular events will be demonstrated.

Lipoprotein apheresis in Germany - Still more commonly indicated than implemented. How can patients in need access therapy?

BACKGROUND

Although lipid-lowering drugs, especially statins, and recently also PCSK9 inhibitors can reduce LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and decrease the risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) including coronary artery disease (CAD) events most efficiently, only 5-10% of high-risk cardiovascular patients reach the target values recommended by international guidelines. In patients who cannot be treated adequately by drugs it is possible to reduce increased LDL-C and/or lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) values by the use of lipoprotein apheresis (LA) with the potential to decrease severe CVD events in the range of 70%->80%. Even in Germany, a country with well-established reimbursement guidelines for LA, knowledge about this life-saving therapy is unsatisfactory in medical disciplines treating patients with CVD. Starting in 1996 our aim was to offer LA treatment following current guidelines for all patients in the entire region of our clinic as standard of care.

METHODS

Based on the experience of our large apheresis competence center overlooking now nearly 80,000 LA treatments in the last two decades, we depict the necessary structure for identification of patients, defining indication, referral, implementation and standardisation of therapy as well as for reimbursement. LA is unfamiliar for most patients and even for many practitioners and consultants. Therefore nephrologists performing more than 90% of LA in Germany have to form a network for referral and ongoing medical education, comprising all regional care-givers, general practitioners as well as the respective specialists and insurances or other cost bearing parties for offering a scientifically approved therapeutic regimen and comprehensive care. The German Lipid Association (Lipid-Liga) has implemented the certification of a lipidological competence center as an appropriate way to realize such a network structure.

RESULTS

Working as a lipidological and apheresis competence center in a region of 400,000 to 500,000 inhabitants, today we treat 160 patients in the chronic LA program. In spite of the availability of PCSK9 inhibitors since 2015, LA has remained as an indispensable therapeutic option for targeted lipid lowering treatment. An analysis of nearly 37,000 LA treatments in our own center documented a >80% reduction of cardiovascular events in patients treated by regular LA when comparing with the situation before the start of the LA therapy. We have implemented the concept of an apheresis competence center characterised by ongoing medical education with a focus on lipidological and cardiovascular aspects, interdisciplinary networking and referral.

CONCLUSIONS

Incidence and prevalence of LA patients in our region demonstrate that based on our ongoing patient-centered approach the access of patients in need to LA is substantially above the German average, thus contributing to an extraordinary reduction of cardiovascular events in the population we in particular feel responsible for.

Short- and long-term effects of lipoprotein apheresis on plasma hormones in patients with therapy-resistant dyslipidemia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) is a highly effective method to improve the clinical and metabolic situation in patients with therapy-resistant disorders of lipid metabolism. Cholesterol is the substrate for the synthesis of all steroid hormones. If repeated massive reduction of LDL-cholesterol may interfere with human adrenal steroidogenesis, and could become clinically relevant is unknown, so far. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine possible short- and long-term effects of LA on blood plasma levels of ACTH, cortisol, aldosterone, DHEAS, renin and testosterone.

METHODS

In total, 39 patients, treated with one of four LA techniques were studied: 1. Lipid Filtration (LF; n = 7), 2. Dextran Sulfate Adsorption (DSA; n = 7), 3. Membrane Filtration Optimised Novel Extracorporeal Treatment (MONET; n = 8), and 4. Direct Absorption of Lipoproteins (DALI; n = 15). Hormone levels were analyzed before and after five LA sessions with an interval of 20 weeks covering a total observation time of two years. In addition patients were comprehensively characterized by clinical and laboratory data.

RESULTS

Patients treated with LA revealed an acute reduction of steroid hormones and ACTH, independent of apheresis technology but no long-term insufficiency in steroidogenesis was observed. Plasma renin levels were stable in LF patients and were highly elevated in patients under DSA, MONET and DALI apheresis throughout the observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, these data suggest that although different LA techniques considerably differ in their acute effects on hormone levels during LA, they did not alter long-term hormone levels sustainably.

Cardiovascular risk factors in patients with premature cardiovascular events attending the University of Dresden Lipid Clinic

OBJECTIVES

Despite improved treatment, premature cardiovascular (CV) events remain a major health problem. Aim of this study was to evaluate the patterns of risk factors in patients with premature CV events.

METHODS

CV risk factors (CVRF) were evaluated in 130 patients with a history of CV events (myocardial infarction, stroke, limb ischemia, stent and bypass intervention in any vessel bed) under 50 years of age attending our lipid clinic. Patients were also stratified according to their Lp(a) concentrations: group 1: 0-45 nmol/l (<18 mg/dl); group 2: >45-120 nmol/l (>18-50 mg/dl); group 3: >120 nmol/l (>50 mg/dl).

RESULTS

The most common risk factors in our patients were male sex (75%), current (61%) and previous smoking (9%), arterial hypertension (70%), and a positive family history of early CV events (54%) and hyperlipidemia (69%). Only 27% had a BMI >30 kg/m² and 14% had diabetes mellitus. 69% of patients with premature CV disease (CVD) showed Lp(a) levels > 120 nmol/l (>50 mg/dl). Patients with the highest Lp(a) showed a tendency of more frequent positive family histories of hyperlipidemia. They had experienced their first CV event on average 3 years earlier than those with low Lp(a). CV events predominantly involved coronary arteries. 85% of patients experienced at least one coronary event.

CONCLUSION

In patients with premature CV disease male sex, smoking, hypertension, a positive family history and elevated Lp(a) are the most important CV risk factors. Lp(a) should be considered in the management of young patients with CV disease.

Lipoprotein apheresis is an optimal therapeutic option to reduce increased Lp(a) levels

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and is associated with the induction and sustaining of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD). Since 2008 Lp(a) along with progressive CVD has been approved as an indication for regular lipoprotein apheresis (LA) in Germany. The German Lipoprotein Apheresis Registry (GLAR) has been initiated to provide statistical evidence for the assessment of extracorporeal procedures to treat dyslipidemia for both LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) and Lp(a). The GLAR now allows prospective investigations over a 5-year period about annual incidence rates of cardiovascular events. Here Lp(a) patients (LDL-C < 100 mg/dl; Lp(a) > 60 mg/dl or >120 nmol/l) showed the same reduction of major coronary (83%) and non-coronary events (63%) as had been formerly shown in the Pro(a)LiFe study. However, Lp(a) is not only an apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) and LDL-C containing particle, which is covalently bound to a LDL-C core by a disulphide bridge. The composition of this particle, inter alia containing oxidized phospholipids, gives pro-atherosclerotic, pro-inflammatory, and pro-thrombotic properties, inducing atherosclerotic processes mainly in the arterial wall. However, recent investigations have shown that a reduction of inflammatory settings without LDL-C or Lp(a) reduction may reduce ASCVD events. Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) could not only reduce LDL-C and Lp(a) in parallel, but also different inflammatory and coagulation parameters. In summary lipoprotein apheresis is not only anti-atherosclerotic, but also anti-inflammatory and anti-thrombotic and therefore an ideal treatment option with respect to the shown reduction of major adverse coronary events (MACE) and major adverse non-coronary events (MANCE) by reducing Lp(a) levels.

Lipoprotein(a) and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an internationally accepted independent atherogenic risk factor. Details about its synthesis, many aspects of composition and clearance from the bloodstream are still unknown. LDL receptor (LDLR) (and probably other receptors) play a role in the elimination of Lp(a) particles. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors increase the number of available LDLRs and in this way very effectively reduce the LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations. As shown in controlled studies using PCSK9 inhibitors, Lp(a) levels are decreased by 20 to 30%, though in some patients no effect was observed. So far, it has not been clarified whether this decrease is associated with an effect on the incidence of cardiovascular events (CVEs). In two recently published well-performed secondary prevention studies (FOURIER with evolocumab, ODYSSEY OUTCOMES with alirocumab) baseline Lp(a) levels were shown to have an impact on CVEs independently of baseline LDL-C concentrations. The rather modest PCSK9 inhibitor-induced decrease of Lp(a) was associated with a reduction of CVEs in both studies, even after adjusting (ODYSSEY OUTCOMES) for demographic variables (age, sex, race, region), baseline Lp(a), baseline LDL-C, change in LDL-C, and clinical variables (time from acute coronary syndrome, body mass index, diabetes, smoking history). The largest decrease of CVEs was seen in patients with relatively low concentrations of both LDL-C and Lp(a) (FOURIER). These findings will probably have an influence on the use of PCSK9 inhibitors in patients with high Lp(a) concentrations.

Metabolic and Non-Metabolic Peripheral Neuropathy: Is there a Place for Therapeutic Apheresis?

As the rate of obesity and the incidence of diabetes mellitus have been increasing, diabetic neuropathy has become the most common cause of peripheral neuropathy in developed countries. In addition, a variety of pathogenetically heterogeneous disorders can lead to impairment of the peripheral nervous system including amyloidosis, vitamin deficiencies, uremia and lipid disorders, alcohol abuse, autoimmune and infectious diseases as well as exposure to environmental toxins. We have noted that a combination of these disorders may aggravate the manifestations of peripheral diabetic neuropathy, an effect, which is most pronounced when metabolic and non-metabolic pathologies lead to cumulative damage. Current treatment options are limited and generally have unsatisfactory results in most patients. Therapeutic apheresis (INUSpherese®) allows the removal of metabolic, inflammatory, immunologic and environmental contributors to the disease process and may be an effective treatment option. We reviewed the developments in therapeutic apheresis for metabolic and non-metabolic peripheral neuropathy, including the current literature as well as data from our university diabetes center.

Efficiency and problems of statin therapy in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is associated with a very high risk of cardiovascular complications and the need for an early aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. The achievement of lipid target levels is often an extremely difficult task in these patients.

AIMS

to analyze sex and age structure of ischemic heart disease (IHD) in patients with a definite, possible and probable FH. to assess the degree of achievement of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target levels in FH patients on statin therapy and complications that occur during therapy; to analyze the adherence of FH patients to statin therapy and reveal the factors which have an influence on it.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The analysis of IHD clinical characteristics was performed in 253 FH patients from Karelian register, mean age 52.5 years (confidence interval, CI 22.0; 78.0). Using Dutch Lipid Clinic Network Criteria (DLCN), we established the diagnosis of FH as "definite" if the total number of points was more than eight, "probable" - if the number of points was 6-8, "possible" if the number of points was 3-5. The diagnosis was considered to be excluded if the score was less than three. A definite FH was diagnosed in 96 patients. For the evaluation of target LDL-C levels achievement on statin therapy we analyzed data from 191 FH patients (75 males). For the evaluation of adherence to statin therapy Morisky-Green questionnaire was used in 93 definite FH patients.

RESULTS

In the group with a definite FH the incidence of IHD in the age range from 39 to 60 years was higher in women than in men (50% and 39.4%, p > 0.05), in patients older than 60 years IHD was observed in 66.7% of women and 50% of men (p > 0.05). In general, in the group with a definite FH, the frequency of IHD was more than three times higher in the age group over 40 years compared with patients under 40 years. 57% of patients with a definite FH were adherent to lipid-lowering therapy, 16% had partial adherence and no adherence to therapy was documented in 27% of patients. The achievement of LDL-C target levels was 19.2%: 22.6% in definite FH group and 12.5% in possible FH. Smoking and gender were not associated with adherence to statin therapy. Associated factors with increased adherence to statin therapy were age (p = 0.000003), arterial hypertension (OR = 1.90 (1.02; to 3.55), p = 0.044), the history of IHD (OR = 2.99 (1.50; of 5.97) p = 0.002), myocardial infarction (OR = 5.26 (2.03; 13.60), p = 0.0006), myocardial revascularization (OR = 20.3 (2.64; 156.11), p = 0.004) and the fact of target LDL-cholesterol levels achievement (OR = 19.93 (7.03; 56.50), p < 0.0001). The main reason for the non-acceptance of statin therapy for FH patients was the fear of side effects in 87%. The main reasons for stopping current statin intake were myalgia in 12%, an increase in transaminases in 35%, skin rashes in 12%, and high cost in 6%. 29% of patients had made the decision to stop therapy themselves.

CONCLUSIONS

the frequency of IHD in FH patients was more than three times higher in the age group over 40 years and was higher in women. In clinical practice statin therapy in FH patients rarely reaches target lipid values, one of the reasons was low adherence to statin therapy.

Lipoprotein(a) apheresis in patients with peripheral arterial disease: rationale and clinical results

Patients with symptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) are at a very high risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Elevated lipoprotein(a) levels have been shown to be a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD) and stroke. More recently elevated lipoprotein(a) levels have also been demonstrated to be associated with prevalent and incident PAD, and even may be a stronger risk factor for PAD compared with CAD. Lipoprotein apheresis is currently the only efficient way to lower lipoprotein(a) levels. Lipoprotein(a) apheresis has been shown to reduce major coronary events in patients with CAD. There is increasing evidence that lipoprotein(a) apheresis also reduces the rate of major adverse limb events such as peripheral revascularizations and amputations in PAD patients, and improves symptoms of PAD such as pain on exertion. This review summarizes the current knowledge on the clinical role of lipoprotein(a) for PAD and the disease-specific effect of lipoprotein(a) apheresis, and suggests indications for screening for and treating of elevated lipoprotein(a) levels in patients with PAD.

Lipoprotein(a)-an interdisciplinary challenge

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an internationally recognized atherogenic risk factor which is inherited and not changed by nutrition or physical activity. At present, only proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors may modestly decrease its concentration (but not in all patients)-leading to a certain decrease in cardiovascular events (CVE) in controlled studies. However, at present an elevation of Lp(a) is not a generally accepted indication for their use. More effective is lipoprotein apheresis (LA) therapy with respect to both lowering Lp(a) levels and reduction of CVE. In the future, an antisense oligonucleotide against apolipoprotein(a) will probably be available. Atherosclerosis in patients with an elevation of Lp(a) may affect several vessel regions (carotids, aorta, coronaries, leg arteries). Thus, Lp(a) should be measured in high-risk patients. These patients are usually cared for by their family doctors and by other specialists who should closely cooperate. Lipidologists should decide whether costly therapies like PCSK9 inhibitors or LA should be started. The main aim of current therapy is to optimize all other risk factors (LDL cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, body weight, renal insufficiency). Patients should be regularly monitored (lab data, heart, arteries). This paper describes the duties of physicians of different specialties when caring for patients with high Lp(a) concentrations.

Treatment-related and health-related quality of life in lipoprotein apheresis patients

BACKGROUND

There is evidence for beneficial effects of lipoprotein apheresis (LA) in terms of reduction of cardiovascular events and interventions, but quality of life (QOL) in LA patients has only been explored in small samples.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, both LA- or treatment-related and health-related QOL (HRQOL) were assessed in 206 LA patients.

METHODS

Mental and physical HRQOL of the LA patients was assessed by means of the SF-12 as well as the EQ-5D. Physical complaints were assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-15 and LA- or treatment-related QOL by the Apheresis Quality of Life Form, developed for this study.

RESULTS

Comparison with general population norms showed that LA patients scored significantly lower on HRQOL and significantly higher on physical complaints. A higher perceived impact of the treatment proved to have a significant negative association with HRQOL and a positive one with physical complaints.

CONCLUSION

Previous studies reported higher levels of QOL in LA patients. This study showed that treatment-related QOL contributes to HRQOL and physical complaints in LA patients. While many patients do not experience LA as a real burden and report positive effects of the treatment, there is also an important group of patients for whom this is not the case. Although the impact on QOL of LA patients does most probably not outweigh the cardiovascular benefits of the treatment, it is important to screen treatment-related QOL in LA patients to optimize care in a personalized way. Future research is needed to compare QOL in LA with non-LA patients with similar medical conditions.

Intraindividual Comparison of the Impact of two Selective Apheresis Methods (DALI and HELP) on the Coagulation System

We performed an intraindividual comparison of the effect on the coagulation system of two selective apheresis procedures: Direct Adsorption of Lipoproteins (DALI) and Heparin-induced Lipoprotein Fibrinogen Precipitation (HELP). Six patients suffering from heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia have been treated with 2 sessions of each procedure. Anticoagulation was carried out according to usual recommendations. Blood samples were taken before, immediately after and on the second day after the sessions. We assessed global coagulation tests (prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time), fibrinogen, prothrombin fragment F 1 + 2 and a variety of factors (Factors II, V, VII, XIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIIa; von Willebrand Factor; collagen-binding activity, prekallikrein, high-molecular weight kininogen) and antagonists (antithrombin III, protein S activity, free protein S). In fact, all parameters measured have been influenced by the apheresis treatment. Fibrinogen is lowered more by HELP, which also has a more definite impact on factors belonging to the prothrombin complex (II, VII, X). In contrast, the major effects of the DALI system have been seen on the intrinsic pathway of the coagulation system (IX, XI, prekallikrein, high-molecular-weight kininogen). With both systems, no increases in activated Factor XII or in prothrombin fragment F1 + 2 have been observed. These data provide a solid basis for individual adaptations of anticoagulant doses.

Lipoprotein apheresis influences monocyte subpopulations

BACKGROUND

Monocytes can be differentiated into subpopulations depending on their expression profile of CD14 and CD16. CD16-positive monocytes are associated with coronary artery disease. Up to now, no data exist about the effect of lipoprotein apheresis (LA) on the distribution of monocyte subpopulations.

METHODS

80 patients who underwent LA at the University Hospital Dresden were included in the study. 8 out of the 80 LA patients received LA for the first time at the time point of blood analysis. Six different methods of LA were used (H.E.L.P. n = 8; Liposorber D n = 10; LF n = 14; DALI n = 17; MONET n = 11; Therasorb^® LDL n = 12). Blood samples were taken immediately before and after LA and analyzed for CD14 and CD16 expression on monocytes. A total of 42 patients with cardiovascular risk factors but no indication for LA served as control group.

RESULTS

The composition of monocyte-population was analyzed in regard to the 3 subpopulations. After LA, an increase in classical monocytes (CD14⁺⁺CD16^-) (93.3% vs. 93.9%, p < 0.01) and a decrease in non-classical monocytes (CD14⁺CD16⁺) (1.5% vs 1.0%; p < 0.001) were observed. LA did not change the amount of intermediate monocytes (CD14⁺⁺CD16⁺) (5.3% vs. 5.1%). Two methods (MONET and Therasorb^® LDL) did not influence the distribution of monocyte subpopulations. Interestingly, patients with LDL-C above 2.5 mmol/l prior LA showed increased amounts of intermediate monocytes.

CONCLUSION

The distribution of monocyte populations is influenced by LA but depends on the distinct method of LA. Influences of LA were mainly observed in the content of classical and non-classical monocytes, whereas the intermediate monocyte population remained unaltered by LA.

H.E.L.P apheresis exerts long term effects on the capacity of circulating proangiogenic cells

BACKGROUND

Severe forms of mono- and polygenetic hypercholesterolemia as well as elevated Lipoprotein (a) (LP(a)) with progressing cardiovascular (CV) disease are indication for lipoprotein apheresis (LA) in Germany. Many studies investigated pleiotropic effects of LA that might contribute to beneficial effects in advanced atherosclerosis. The present study aimed at investigating the potential role of Proangiogenic Cells (PAC) in patients with new onset or chronic LA using the heparin induced extracorporeal LDL-precipitation (H.E.L.P.) apheresis system.

METHODS

Patients (n = 10) new to LA and HELP treatment were investigated immediately before, shortly after, 24 h later and 4 weeks following LA. Peripheral blood was used to count PAC in circulation via flow cytometry. In a second step, blood cells from patients were cultured in endothelial selective medium and further evaluated for adhesion in fibronectin coated chamber slides and migratory capacity (stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1) induced migration).

RESULTS

Cells expressing typical EPC markers were rarely detected in blood samples. No differences occurred over time in CD34⁺; CD34⁺ CD133⁺ CD45^-; CD34⁺/KDR⁺ and CXCR4⁺/CD14⁺ positive PAC. We found no differences in cell adhesion at the different time points, while significantly more cells migrated into the SDF-1 medium following four weeks of continuing apheresis therapy.

CONCLUSION

Using well established systems, this study was not able to demonstrate relevant acute effects of LA on PAC in patients new to LA. The increased migratory capacity of PAC might be an indicator of chronic beneficial pleiotropic effects in patients undergoing H.E.L.P. apheresis.

Low rate of infectious complications following immunoadsorption therapy without regular substitution of intravenous immunoglobulins

INTRODUCTION

Immunoadsorption (IA) is increasingly used instead of plasma exchange due to lower risk of side effects and a higher selectivity. As a consequence of the reduction of immunoglobulins (Ig), the rate of infectious complications might increase in those patients. We therefore aimed to investigate the infection rate following IA without intravenous IG (IVIG) substitution in our apheresis center, where patients do not receive IVIG on a regular basis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the IA treatments performed between 2010 and 2015 without IVIG substitution and collected data on patient age, diagnosis, number of IA treatments, serum levels of Ig, total protein, albumin, C-reactive protein (CRP) and infectious complications that occurred within 2 months after the IA treatment cycle.

RESULTS

A total number of 52 patients (27 females) received at least 5 IA sessions using the following adsorbers: TheraSorb™-Ig (n = 3), TheraSorb™-Ig flex (n = 44), TheraSorb™ Ig pro (n = 1) and TheraSorb™-IgE (n = 5). The median number of treatment sessions was 8.8 [range 5-16], the median IgG reduction was 82 [11-99] %. Serum albumin was decreased by 8%. The median CRP levels remained normal until the end of therapy and within 2 months after that (3.10 and 4.30 mg/L respectively). Only 4 patients had infections (7.7%). Three of them received additional immunosuppressive therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunoadsorption leads to a significant reduction of IgG. CRP as inflammatory marker is not affected. Even without substitution of IVIG the complication rate directly linked with IA is low and questionable.