Lipoprotein(a) Lp(a) has risen to the level of an accepted cardiovascular disease risk factor, but final proof of causality awaits a randomized trial of Lp(a) lowering. Inhibiting apolipoprotein(a) ...production in the hepatocyte with ribonucleic acid therapeutics has emerged as an elegant and effective solution to reduce plasma Lp(a) levels. Phase 2 clinical trials have shown that the antisense oligonucleotide pelacarsen reduced mean Lp(a) levels by 80%, allowing 98% of subjects to reach on-treatment levels of <125 nmol/l (∼50 mg/dl). The phase 3 Lp(a)HORIZON (Assessing the Impact of Lipoprotein(a) Lowering With TQJ230 on Major Cardiovascular Events in Patients With CVD) outcomes trial is currently enrolling approximately 7,680 patients with history of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and symptomatic peripheral arterial disease and controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol to pelacarsen versus placebo. The co-primary endpoints are major adverse cardiovascular events in subjects with Lp(a) >70 mg/dl and >90 mg/dl, in which either of the two being positive will lead to a successful trial. Additional ribonucleic acid-targeted therapies to lower Lp(a) are in preclinical and clinical development. The testing of the Lp(a) hypothesis will provide proof whether Lp(a)-mediated risk can be abolished by potent Lp(a) lowering.
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
Abstract
This 2022 European Atherosclerosis Society lipoprotein(a) Lp(a) consensus statement updates evidence for the role of Lp(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve ...stenosis, provides clinical guidance for testing and treating elevated Lp(a) levels, and considers its inclusion in global risk estimation. Epidemiologic and genetic studies involving hundreds of thousands of individuals strongly support a causal and continuous association between Lp(a) concentration and cardiovascular outcomes in different ethnicities; elevated Lp(a) is a risk factor even at very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. High Lp(a) is associated with both microcalcification and macrocalcification of the aortic valve. Current findings do not support Lp(a) as a risk factor for venous thrombotic events and impaired fibrinolysis. Very low Lp(a) levels may associate with increased risk of diabetes mellitus meriting further study. Lp(a) has pro-inflammatory and pro-atherosclerotic properties, which may partly relate to the oxidized phospholipids carried by Lp(a). This panel recommends testing Lp(a) concentration at least once in adults; cascade testing has potential value in familial hypercholesterolaemia, or with family or personal history of (very) high Lp(a) or premature ASCVD. Without specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies, early intensive risk factor management is recommended, targeted according to global cardiovascular risk and Lp(a) level. Lipoprotein apheresis is an option for very high Lp(a) with progressive cardiovascular disease despite optimal management of risk factors. In conclusion, this statement reinforces evidence for Lp(a) as a causal risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes. Trials of specific Lp(a)-lowering treatments are critical to confirm clinical benefit for cardiovascular disease and aortic valve stenosis.
In this randomized trial, statin-intolerant patients with, or at high risk for, CVD received bempedoic acid or placebo. Bempedoic acid reduced LDL cholesterol and the risk of cardiovascular events.
Background Statin intolerance limits many patients from achieving optimal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations. Current options for such patients include using a lower but ...tolerated dose of a statin and adding or switching to ezetimibe or other non-statin therapies. Methods ODYSSEY ALTERNATIVE ( NCT01709513 ) compared alirocumab with ezetimibe in patients at moderate to high cardiovascular risk with statin intolerance (unable to tolerate ≥2 statins, including one at the lowest approved starting dose) due to muscle symptoms. A placebo run-in and statin rechallenge arm were included in an attempt to confirm intolerance. Patients (n = 361) received single-blind subcutaneous (SC) and oral placebo for 4 weeks during placebo run-in. Patients reporting muscle-related symptoms during the run-in were to be withdrawn. Continuing patients were randomized (2:2:1) to double-blind alirocumab 75 mg SC every 2 weeks (Q2W; plus oral placebo), ezetimibe 10 mg/d (plus SC placebo Q2W), or atorvastatin 20 mg/d (rechallenge; plus SC placebo Q2W) for 24 weeks. Alirocumab dose was increased to 150 mg Q2W at week 12 depending on week 8 LDL-C values. Primary end point was percent change in LDL-C from baseline to week 24 (intent-to-treat) for alirocumab vs ezetimibe. Results Baseline mean (standard deviation) LDL-C was 191.3 (69.3) mg/dL (5.0 1.8 mmol/L). Alirocumab reduced mean (standard error) LDL-C by 45.0% (2.2%) vs 14.6% (2.2%) with ezetimibe (mean difference 30.4% 3.1%, P < .0001). Skeletal muscle-related events were less frequent with alirocumab vs atorvastatin (hazard ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.38–0.99, P = .042). Conclusions Alirocumab produced greater LDL-C reductions than ezetimibe in statin-intolerant patients, with fewer skeletal-muscle adverse events vs atorvastatin.
Abstract Background and aims In previous phase III studies, the PCSK9 monoclonal antibody alirocumab was administered at doses of 75 or 150 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W). CHOICE I (NCT01926782) evaluated ...300 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) in patients on either maximally tolerated statin or no statin, both ± other lipid-lowering therapies. Methods CHOICE I included patients with hypercholesterolemia at moderate-to-very-high cardiovascular risk. Patients were randomized to alirocumab 300 mg Q4W, 75 mg Q2W (calibrator arm), or placebo for 48 weeks, with dose adjustment for either alirocumab arm to 150 mg Q2W at Week (W) 12 if at W8 LDL-C levels were >70/100 mg/dL (1.8/2.6 mmol/L) depending on cardiovascular risk or LDL-C reduction was <30% from baseline. Co-primary endpoints were percent LDL-C change from baseline to W24, and to time-averaged LDL-C over W21–24. Results Approximately two-thirds of randomized patients were receiving statins. At W12, 14.7% (no statin) and 19.3% (statin) of patients receiving alirocumab 300 mg Q4W required dose adjustment. At W24, significant LDL-C reductions from baseline were observed with alirocumab 300 mg Q4W: mean differences were −52.7% (no statin; placebo: –0.3%) and −58.8% (statin; placebo: –0.1%). Average LDL-C reductions from baseline to W21–24 were also significantly greater with alirocumab 300 mg Q4W vs. placebo in patients not receiving (−56.9% vs. –1.6%) and receiving statin (−65.8% vs. –0.8%). Treatment-emergent adverse event rates ranged from 61.1 to 75.0% (placebo) and 71.5 to 78.1% (alirocumab 300 mg Q4W). Conclusions Alirocumab 300 mg Q4W is a viable additional treatment option in patients requiring LDL-C-lowering.
Lipoprotein(a) Reduction in Persons with Cardiovascular Disease Tsimikas, Sotirios; Karwatowska-Prokopczuk, Ewa; Gouni-Berthold, Ioanna ...
New England journal of medicine/The New England journal of medicine,
01/2020, Letnik:
382, Številka:
3
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) in the plasma are a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and lowering levels can be achieved with antisense oligonucleotide targeting
LPA
messenger RNA, which ...encodes lipoprotein(a). This trial tested whether the same effect can be achieved in persons with established cardiovascular disease.
Familial hypercholesterolaemia is common in individuals who had a myocardial infarction at a young age. As many as one in 200 people could have heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, and up to ...one in 300 000 individuals could be homozygous. The phenotypes of heterozygous and homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia overlap considerably; the response to treatment is also heterogeneous. In this Review, we aim to define a phenotype for severe familial hypercholesterolaemia and identify people at highest risk for cardiovascular disease, based on the concentration of LDL cholesterol in blood and individuals' responsiveness to conventional lipid-lowering treatment. We assess the importance of molecular characterisation and define the role of other cardiovascular risk factors and advanced subclinical coronary atherosclerosis in risk stratification. Individuals with severe familial hypercholesterolaemia might benefit in particular from early and more aggressive cholesterol-lowering treatment (eg, with PCSK9 inhibitors). In addition to better tailored therapy, more precise characterisation of individuals with severe familial hypercholesterolaemia could improve resource use.
Purpose of Review
Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and hyperlipoproteinemia(a) are relatively common disorders, posing a significant health burden due to increased risk of atherosclerotic ...cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Development of electronic health record–based strategies with a linkage to the genetic test results has increased awareness, detection, and control of heritable lipid disorders. This review attempts to critically examine available data to provide a summary of the current evidence for lipoprotein apheresis in FH and elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)).
Review Findings
Availability and indications for lipoprotein apheresis vary across the globe. On average, greater than 60% of atherogenic apoB-containing lipoproteins are immediately reduced following a single procedure, translating in substantial reduction of incident ASCVD events, and preventing accelerated vascular aging. Simultaneous lipid-lowering therapy targeting low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and Lp(a) enhances the efficacy of lipoprotein apheresis. Lipoprotein apheresis alters the proteomics of the lipoprotein particles, including reduction in the concentration of the oxidized-LDL and Lp(a) particles, and proinflammatory apoE bound to HDL particles and remnant lipoproteins. Other effects attributed to lipoprotein apheresis include improvement in blood rheology, endothelial function, microvascular flow, myocardial perfusion, reduction in circulating inflammatory markers. Development of lipoprotein apheresis registries provides data on benefits, challenges, and barriers to inform pertinent healthcare policies.
Summary
Lipoprotein apheresis is a safe and effective procedure for lowering cholesterol in patients with combined and isolated FH and elevated Lp(a). It reduces the burden of ASCVD and improves long-term prognosis. A team approach is required by the patient, medical staff, and healthcare provider to initiate and maintain a lipoprotein apheresis program.
PDF
