Lipoprotein (a) measurements for clinical application Marcovina, Santica M.; Albers, John J.
Journal of lipid research,
April 2016, 2016-Apr, 2016-04-00, 20160401, 2016-04-01, Letnik:
57, Številka:
4
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
The high degree of size heterogeneity of apo(a), the distinct protein component of lipoprotein (a) Lp(a), renders the development and selection of specific antibodies directed to apo(a) more ...difficult and poses significant challenges to the development of immunoassays to measure its concentration in plasma or serum samples. Apo(a) is extremely variable in size not only between but also within individuals because of the presence of two different, genetically determined apo(a) isoform sizes. Therefore, the antigenic determinants per particle available to interact with the antibodies will vary in the samples and the calibrators, thus contributing to apo(a) size-dependent inaccuracy of different methods. The lack of rigorous validation of the immunoassays and common means of expressing Lp(a) concentrations hinder the harmonization of results obtained by different studies and contribute to the lack of common cut points for identification of individuals at risk for coronary artery disease or for interventions aimed at reducing Lp(a) levels. The aim of our review is to present and critically evaluate the issues surrounding the measurements of Lp(a), their impact on the clinical interpretation of the data, and the obstacles we need to overcome to achieve the standardization of Lp(a) measurements.
High levels of lipoprotein(a) Lp(a), an apoB100-containing lipoprotein, are an independent and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases through mechanisms associated with ...increased atherogenesis, inflammation, and thrombosis. Lp(a) is predominantly a monogenic cardiovascular risk determinant, with ≈70% to ≥90% of interindividual heterogeneity in levels being genetically determined. The 2 major protein components of Lp(a) particles are apoB100 and apolipoprotein(a). Lp(a) remains a risk factor for cardiovascular disease development even in the setting of effective reduction of plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apoB100. Despite its demonstrated contribution to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease burden, we presently lack standardization and harmonization of assays, universal guidelines for diagnosing and providing risk assessment, and targeted treatments to lower Lp(a). There is a clinical need to understand the genetic and biological basis for variation in Lp(a) levels and its relationship to disease in different ancestry groups. This scientific statement capitalizes on the expertise of a diverse basic science and clinical workgroup to highlight the history, biology, pathophysiology, and emerging clinical evidence in the Lp(a) field. Herein, we address key knowledge gaps and future directions required to mitigate the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk attributable to elevated Lp(a) levels.
Lipoprotein(a) is a complex lipoprotein with unique characteristics distinguishing it from all the other apolipoprotein B-containing lipoprotein particles. Its lipid composition and the presence of a ...single molecule of apolipoprotein B per particle, render lipoprotein(a) similar to low-density lipoproteins. However, the presence of a unique, carbohydrate-rich protein termed apolipoprotein(a), linked by a covalent bond to apolipoprotein B imparts unique characteristics to lipoprotein(a) distinguishing it from all the other lipoproteins. Apolipoprotein(a) is highly polymorphic in size ranging in molecular weight from <300 KDa to >800 kDa. Both the size polymorphism and the concentration of lipoprotein(a) in plasma are genetically determined and unlike other lipoproteins, plasma concentration is minimally impacted by lifestyle modifications or lipid-lowering drugs. Many studies involving hundreds of thousands of individuals have provided strong evidence that elevated lipoprotein(a) is genetically determined and a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The concentration attained in adulthood is already present in children at around 5 years of age and therefore, those with elevated lipoprotein(a) are prematurely exposed to a high risk of cardiovascular disease. Despite the large number of guidelines and consensus statements on the management of lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease published in the last decade, lipoprotein(a) is still seldom measured in clinical settings. In this review, we provide an overview of the most important features that characterize lipoprotein(a), its role in cardiovascular disease, and the importance of adding the measurement of lipoprotein(a) for screening adults and youths to identify those at increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease due to their elevated plasma concentration of lipoprotein(a).
Pathophysiological, epidemiological, and genetic studies provide strong evidence that lipoprotein(a) Lp(a) is a causal mediator of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and calcific aortic valve disease ...(CAVD). Specific therapies to address Lp(a)-mediated CVD and CAVD are in clinical development. Due to knowledge gaps, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute organized a working group that identified challenges in fully understanding the role of Lp(a) in CVD/CAVD. These included the lack of research funding, inadequate experimental models, lack of globally standardized Lp(a) assays, and inadequate understanding of the mechanisms underlying current drug therapies on Lp(a) levels. Specific recommendations were provided to facilitate basic, mechanistic, preclinical, and clinical research on Lp(a); foster collaborative research and resource sharing; leverage expertise of different groups and centers with complementary skills; and use existing National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute resources. Concerted efforts to understand Lp(a) pathophysiology, together with diagnostic and therapeutic advances, are required to reduce Lp(a)-mediated risk of CVD and CAVD.
Display omitted
Summary Background Elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lpa) is a highly prevalent (around 20% of people) genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease and calcific aortic valve stenosis, but no approved ...specific therapy exists to substantially lower Lp(a) concentrations. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of two unique antisense oligonucleotides designed to lower Lp(a) concentrations. Methods We did two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. In a phase 2 trial (done in 13 study centres in Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, and the UK), we assessed the effect of IONIS-APO(a)Rx , an oligonucleotide targeting apolipoprotein(a). Participants with elevated Lp(a) concentrations (125–437 nmol/L in cohort A; ≥438 nmol/L in cohort B) were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio in cohort A and in a 4:1 ratio in cohort B) with an interactive response system to escalating-dose subcutaneous IONIS-APO(a)Rx (100 mg, 200 mg, and then 300 mg, once a week for 4 weeks each) or injections of saline placebo, once a week, for 12 weeks. Primary endpoints were mean percentage change in fasting plasma Lp(a) concentration at day 85 or 99 in the per-protocol population (participants who received more than six doses of study drug) and safety and tolerability in the safety population. In a phase 1/2a first-in-man trial, we assessed the effect of IONIS-APO(a)-LRx , a ligand-conjugated antisense oligonucleotide designed to be highly and selectively taken up by hepatocytes, at the BioPharma Services phase 1 unit (Toronto, ON, Canada). Healthy volunteers (Lpa ≥75 nmol/L) were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of 10–120 mg IONIS-APO(a)LRx subcutaneously in an ascending-dose design or placebo (in a 3:1 ratio; single-ascending-dose phase), or multiple doses of 10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg IONIS-APO(a)LRx subcutaneously in an ascending-dose design or placebo (in an 8:2 ratio) at day 1, 3, 5, 8, 15, and 22 (multiple-ascending-dose phase). Primary endpoints were mean percentage change in fasting plasma Lp(a) concentration, safety, and tolerability at day 30 in the single-ascending-dose phase and day 36 in the multiple-ascending-dose phase in participants who were randomised and received at least one dose of study drug. In both trials, the randomised allocation sequence was generated by Ionis Biometrics or external vendor with a permuted-block randomisation method. Participants, investigators, sponsor personnel, and clinical research organisation staff who analysed the data were all masked to the treatment assignments. Both trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , numbers NCT02160899 and NCT02414594. Findings From June 25, 2014, to Nov 18, 2015, we enrolled 64 participants to the phase 2 trial (51 in cohort A and 13 in cohort B). 35 were randomly assigned to IONIS-APO(a)Rx and 29 to placebo. At day 85/99, participants assigned to IONIS-APO(a)Rx had mean Lp(a) reductions of 66·8% (SD 20·6) in cohort A and 71·6% (13·0) in cohort B (both p<0·0001 vs pooled placebo). From April 15, 2015, to Jan 11, 2016, we enrolled 58 healthy volunteers to the phase 1/2a trial of IONIS-APO(a)-LRx . Of 28 participants in the single-ascending-dose phase, three were randomly assigned to 10 mg, three to 20 mg, three to 40 mg, six to 80 mg, six to 120 mg, and seven to placebo. Of 30 participants in the multiple-ascending-dose phase, eight were randomly assigned to 10 mg, eight to 20 mg, eight to 40 mg, and six to placebo. Significant dose-dependent reductions in mean Lp(a) concentrations were noted in all single-dose IONIS-APO(a)-LRx groups at day 30. In the multidose groups, IONIS-APO(a)-LRx resulted in mean reductions in Lp(a) of 66% (SD 21·8) in the 10 mg group, 80% (SD 13·7%) in the 20 mg group, and 92% (6·5) in the 40 mg group (p=0·0007 for all vs placebo) at day 36. Both antisense oligonucleotides were safe. There were two serious adverse events (myocardial infarctions) in the IONIS-APO(a)Rx phase 2 trial, one in the IONIS-APO(a)Rx and one in the placebo group, but neither were thought to be treatment related. 12% of injections with IONIS-APO(a)Rx were associated with injection-site reactions. IONIS-APO(a)-LRx was associated with no injection-site reactions. Interpretation IONIS-APO(a)-LRx is a novel, tolerable, potent therapy to reduce Lp(a) concentrations. IONIS-APO(a)-LRx might mitigate Lp(a)-mediated cardiovascular risk and is being developed for patients with elevated Lp(a) concentrations with existing cardiovascular disease or calcific aortic valve stenosis. Funding Ionis Pharmaceuticals.
Summary Background Lipoprotein(a) (Lpa) is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and calcific aortic valve stenosis. No effective therapies to lower plasma Lp(a) concentrations exist. We have ...assessed the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of ISIS-APO(a)Rx , a second-generation antisense drug designed to reduce the synthesis of apolipoprotein(a) (apoa) in the liver. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 study at the PAREXEL Clinical Pharmacology Research Unit (Harrow, Middlesex, UK), we screened for healthy adults aged 18–65 years, with a body-mass index less than 32·0 kg/m2 , and Lp(a) concentration of 25 nmol/L (100 mg/L) or more. Via a randomisation technique, we randomly assigned participants to receive a single subcutaneous injection of ISIS-APO(a)Rx (50 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, or 400 mg) or placebo (3:1) in the single-dose part of the study or to receive six subcutaneous injections of ISIS-APO(a)Rx (100 mg, 200 mg, or 300 mg, for a total dose exposure of 600 mg, 1200 mg, or 1800 mg) or placebo (4:1) during a 4 week period in the multi-dose part of the study. Participants, investigators, and study staff were masked to the treatment assignment, except for the pharmacist who prepared the ISIS-APO(a)Rx or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in Lp(a) concentration at 30 days in the single-dose cohorts and at 36 days for the multi-dose cohorts. Safety and tolerability was assessed 1 week after last dose and included determination of the incidence, severity, and dose relation of adverse events and changes in laboratory variables, including lipid panel, routine haematology, blood chemistry, urinalysis, coagulation, and complement variables. Other assessments included vital signs, a physical examination, and 12-lead electrocardiograph. This trial is registered with European Clinical Trials Database, number 2012-004909-27. Findings Between Feb 27, 2013, and July 15, 2013, 47 (23%) of 206 screened volunteers were randomly assigned to receive ISIS-APO(a)Rx as a single-dose or multi-dose of ascending concentrations or placebo. In the single-dose study, we assigned three participants to receive 50 mg ISIS-APO(a)Rx , three participants to receive 100 mg ISIS-APO(a)Rx , three participants to receive 200 mg ISIS-APO(a)Rx , three participants to receive 400 mg ISIS-APO(a)Rx , and four participants to receive placebo. All 16 participants completed treatment and follow-up and were included in the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and safety analyses. For the multi-dose study, we assigned eight participants to receive six doses of 100 mg ISIS-APO(a)Rx , nine participants to receive six doses of 200 mg ISIS-APO(a)Rx , eight participants to receive six doses of 300 mg ISIS-APO(a)Rx , and six participants to receive six doses of placebo. Whereas single doses of ISIS-APO(a)Rx (50–400 mg) did not decrease Lp(a) concentrations at day 30, six doses of ISIS-APO(a)Rx (100–300 mg) resulted in dose-dependent, mean percentage decreases in plasma Lp(a) concentration of 39·6% from baseline in the 100 mg group (p=0·005), 59·0% in the 200 mg group (p=0·001), and 77·8% in the 300 mg group (p=0·001). Similar reductions were observed in the amount of oxidized phospholipids associated with apolipoprotein B-100 and apolipoprotein(a). Mild injection site reactions were the most common adverse events. Interpretation ISIS-APO(a)Rx results in potent, dose-dependent, selective reductions of plasma Lp(a). The safety and tolerability support continued clinical development of ISIS-APO(a)Rx as a potential therapeutic drug to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and calcific aortic valve stenosis in patients with elevated Lp(a) concentration. Funding Isis Pharmaceuticals.
Context:
Vitamin B12 deficiency may occur with metformin treatment, but few studies have assessed risk with long-term use.
Objective:
To assess the risk of B12 deficiency with metformin use in the ...Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP)/DPP Outcomes Study (DPPOS).
Design:
Secondary analysis from the DPP/DPPOS. Participants were assigned to the placebo group (PLA) (n = 1082) or the metformin group (MET) (n = 1073) for 3.2 years; subjects in the metformin group received open-label metformin for an additional 9 years.
Setting:
Twenty-seven study centers in the United States.
Patients:
DPP eligibility criteria were: elevated fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, and overweight/obesity. The analytic population comprised participants with available stored samples. B12 levels were assessed at 5 years (n = 857, n = 858) and 13 years (n = 756, n = 764) in PLA and MET, respectively.
Interventions:
Metformin 850 mg twice daily vs placebo (DPP), and open-label metformin in the metformin group (DPPOS).
Main Outcome Measures:
B12 deficiency, anemia, and peripheral neuropathy.
Results:
Low B12 (≤ 203 pg/mL) occurred more often in MET than PLA at 5 years (4.3 vs 2.3%; P = .02) but not at 13 years (7.4 vs 5.4%; P = .12). Combined low and borderline-low B12 (≤ 298 pg/mL) was more common in MET at 5 years (19.1 vs 9.5%; P < .01) and 13 years (20.3 vs 15.6%; P = .02). Years of metformin use were associated with increased risk of B12 deficiency (odds ratio, B12 deficiency/year metformin use, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.06–1.20). Anemia prevalence was higher in MET, but did not differ by B12 status. Neuropathy prevalence was higher in MET with low B12 levels.
Conclusions:
Long-term use of metformin in DPPOS was associated with biochemical B12 deficiency and anemia. Routine testing of vitamin B12 levels in metformin-treated patients should be considered.
Participants from DPP/DPPOS were assigned to placebo (n=1082) or metformin (n=1073) for 3.2 years, followed by metformin in the metformin group for 9 years. Metformin use was associated with increased risk of vitamin B12 deficiency.
IMPORTANCE: Changes in the prevalence of youth-onset diabetes have previously been observed. OBJECTIVE: To estimate changes in prevalence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in youths in the US from 2001 ...to 2017. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cross-sectional observational study, individuals younger than 20 years with physician-diagnosed diabetes were enumerated from 6 areas in the US (4 geographic areas, 1 health plan, and select American Indian reservations) for 2001, 2009, and 2017. EXPOSURES: Calendar year. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Estimated prevalence of physician-diagnosed type 1 and type 2 diabetes overall and by race and ethnicity, age, and sex. RESULTS: Among youths 19 years or younger, 4958 of 3.35 million had type 1 diabetes in 2001, 6672 of 3.46 million had type 1 diabetes in 2009, and 7759 of 3.61 million had type 1 diabetes in 2017; among those aged 10 to 19 years, 588 of 1.73 million had type 2 diabetes in 2001, 814 of 1.85 million had type 2 diabetes in 2009, and 1230 of 1.85 million had type 2 diabetes in 2017. The estimated type 1 diabetes prevalence per 1000 youths for those 19 years or younger increased significantly from 1.48 (95% CI, 1.44-1.52) in 2001 to 1.93 (95% CI, 1.88-1.98) in 2009 to 2.15 (95% CI, 2.10-2.20) in 2017, an absolute increase of 0.67 per 1000 youths (95%, CI, 0.64-0.70) and a 45.1% (95% CI, 40.0%-50.4%) relative increase over 16 years. The greatest absolute increases were observed among non-Hispanic White (0.93 per 1000 youths 95% CI, 0.88-0.98) and non-Hispanic Black (0.89 per 1000 youths 95% CI, 0.88-0.98) youths. The estimated type 2 diabetes prevalence per 1000 youths aged 10 to 19 years increased significantly from 0.34 (95% CI, 0.31-0.37) in 2001 to 0.46 (95% CI, 0.43-0.49) in 2009 to 0.67 (95% CI, 0.63-0.70) in 2017, an absolute increase of 0.32 per 1000 youths (95% CI, 0.30-0.35) and a 95.3% (95% CI, 77.0%-115.4%) relative increase over 16 years. The greatest absolute increases were observed among non-Hispanic Black (0.85 per 1000 youths 95% CI, 0.74-0.97) and Hispanic (0.57 per 1000 youths 95% CI, 0.51-0.64) youths. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In 6 areas of the US from 2001 to 2017, the estimated prevalence of diabetes among children and adolescents increased for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
PDF
