Evolocumab in Pediatric Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: Evolocumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody directed against proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9, is widely used in adult patients to lower low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. Its effects in pediatric patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia are not known. METHODS: We conducted a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of evolocumab in pediatric patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Patients 10 to 17 years of age who had received stable lipid-lowering treatment for at least 4 weeks before screening and who had an LDL cholesterol level of 130 mg per deciliter (3.4 mmol per liter) or more and a triglyceride level of 400 mg per deciliter (4.5 mmol per liter) or less were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive monthly subcutaneous injections of evolocumab (420 mg) or placebo. The primary end point was the percent change in LDL cholesterol level from baseline to week 24; key secondary end points were the mean percent change in LDL cholesterol level from baseline to weeks 22 and 24 and the absolute change in LDL cholesterol level from baseline to week 24. RESULTS: A total of 157 patients underwent randomization and received evolocumab (104 patients) or placebo (53 patients). At week 24, the mean percent change from baseline in LDL cholesterol level was -44.5% in the evolocumab group and -6.2% in the placebo group, for a difference of -38.3 percentage points (P<0.001). The absolute change in the LDL cholesterol level was -77.5 mg per deciliter (-2.0 mmol per liter) in the evolocumab group and -9.0 mg per deciliter (-0.2 mmol per liter) in the placebo group, for a difference of -68.6 mg per deciliter (-1.8 mmol per liter) (P<0.001). Results for all secondary lipid variables were significantly better with evolocumab than with placebo. The incidence of adverse events that occurred during the treatment period was similar in the evolocumab and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving pediatric patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, evolocumab reduced the LDL cholesterol level and other lipid variables. (Funded by Amgen; HAUSER-RCT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02392559.).

Belgian data of ODYSSEY APPRISE: stringent LDL-c targets are in reach when using all available tools.

BACKGROUND: As lipid targets became more stringent in the latest ESC/EAS guidelines, many patients on statin monotherapy are left above their risk-based target, increasing the need for lipid-lowering therapies. The results of the ODYSSEY APPRISE study were recently published by Gaudet et al In this trial, alirocumab (a PCSK9 inhibitor) was investigated in high cardiovascular risk patients in a real-life setting. OBJECTIVE: We aim at analysing the characteristics, safety and efficacy of alirocumab in the Belgian population of the ODYSSEY APPRISE trial and, based on literature research, we aim to evaluate the importance and the need for the add-on, non-statin lipid-lowering therapy in clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: ODYSSEY APPRISE is a multicentric, prospective, single-arm, Phase 3b open-label trial. A total of 68 Belgian patients were enrolled, 63 patients had heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HeFH). Baseline mean LDL-c was 188.7 mg/dL (SD ± 51.8). At week 12, 65 patients had an evaluable efficacy end point with a mean LDL-c reduction of 59.9% from baseline. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 75.0%. The most frequent TEAE was back pain (10.3%), nasopharyngitis (10.3%) and injection site erythema (8.8%). Based on the literature, a majority of patients do not reach their risk-based lipid target despite statin therapy alone. CONCLUSION: In a real-life setting, alirocumab is both well-tolerated, safe and very effective in reducing LDL-c in this Belgian cohort. In clinical practice, more patients should be initiated on the add-on, non-statin lipid-lowering therapy in order to reach their risk-based lipid target.

Quantifying atherogenic lipoproteins for lipid-lowering strategies: consensus-based recommendations from EAS and EFLM.

The joint consensus panel of the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) recently addressed present and future challenges in the laboratory diagnostics of atherogenic lipoproteins. Total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), LDL cholesterol (LDLC), and calculated non-HDLC (=total - HDLC) constitute the primary lipid panel for estimating risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and can be measured in the nonfasting state. LDLC is the primary target of lipid-lowering therapies. For on-treatment follow-up, LDLC shall be measured or calculated by the same method to attenuate errors in treatment decisions due to marked between-method variations. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]-cholesterol is part of measured or calculated LDLC and should be estimated at least once in all patients at risk of ASCVD, especially in those whose LDLC declines poorly upon statin treatment. Residual risk of ASCVD even under optimal LDL-lowering treatment should be also assessed by non-HDLC or apolipoprotein B (apoB), especially in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (2-10 mmol/L). Non-HDLC includes the assessment of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol and shall be reported in all standard lipid panels. Additional apoB measurement can detect elevated LDL particle (LDLP) numbers often unidentified on the basis of LDLC alone. Reference intervals of lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins are reported for European men and women aged 20-100 years. However, laboratories shall flag abnormal lipid values with reference to therapeutic decision thresholds.

Quantifying Atherogenic Lipoproteins: Current and Future Challenges in the Era of Personalized Medicine and Very Low Concentrations of LDL Cholesterol. A Consensus Statement from EAS and EFLM.

BACKGROUND: The European Atherosclerosis Society-European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Consensus Panel aims to provide recommendations to optimize atherogenic lipoprotein quantification for cardiovascular risk management. CONTENT: We critically examined LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B (apoB), and LDL particle number assays based on key criteria for medical application of biomarkers. (a) Analytical performance: Discordant LDL cholesterol quantification occurs when LDL cholesterol is measured or calculated with different assays, especially in patients with hypertriglyceridemia >175 mg/dL (2 mmol/L) and low LDL cholesterol concentrations <70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L). Increased lipoprotein(a) should be excluded in patients not achieving LDL cholesterol goals with treatment. Non-HDL cholesterol includes the atherogenic risk component of remnant cholesterol and can be calculated in a standard nonfasting lipid panel without additional expense. ApoB more accurately reflects LDL particle number. (b) Clinical performance: LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apoB are comparable predictors of cardiovascular events in prospective population studies and clinical trials; however, discordance analysis of the markers improves risk prediction by adding remnant cholesterol (included in non-HDL cholesterol) and LDL particle number (with apoB) risk components to LDL cholesterol testing. (c) Clinical and cost-effectiveness: There is no consistent evidence yet that non-HDL cholesterol-, apoB-, or LDL particle-targeted treatment reduces the number of cardiovascular events and healthcare-related costs than treatment targeted to LDL cholesterol. SUMMARY: Follow-up of pre- and on-treatment (measured or calculated) LDL cholesterol concentration in a patient should ideally be performed with the same documented test method. Non-HDL cholesterol (or apoB) should be the secondary treatment target in patients with mild to moderate hypertriglyceridemia, in whom LDL cholesterol measurement or calculation is less accurate and often less predictive of cardiovascular risk. Laboratories should report non-HDL cholesterol in all standard lipid panels.

Anti-PCSK9 antibodies for hypercholesterolaemia: Overview of clinical data and implications for primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To put data from our recent systematic review of phase 3 studies of anti-proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) antibodies into the context of clinical practice. METHODS: Data from studies previously identified by a systematic review of phase 3 studies of alirocumab and evolocumab and additional references from non-systematic literature searches were used. We evaluated the hypothetical cardiovascular (CV) benefit in cases of typical patients in whom anti-PCSK9 antibodies may be recommended, using preliminary major CV event (CVE) rates from long-term clinical trials of anti-PCSK9 antibodies and from extrapolations derived from correlation between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction and CV benefit with other lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs). RESULTS: Rapid (within 1-2 weeks) and persistent (8-74 weeks) reductions in LDL-C levels were achieved with anti-PCSK9 antibodies. When combined with statins (± ezetimibe), high rates of LDL-C goal achievement were observed (41%-87% with alirocumab and 63%-100% with evolocumab). In long-term alirocumab and evolocumab studies, reductions in major CVEs of 48% and 53%, respectively, were observed. For every 38.7 mg/dL (1 mmol/L) reduction in LDL-C, a 22% reduction in relative CVE risk is predicted. Applying these assumptions to typical patients who have high-very high risk (15%-60% absolute 10-year CVE risk) and elevated LDL-C despite maximally tolerated statins, the 10-year number needed to treat with an anti-PCSK9 antibody to prevent one additional CVE varies from 4 to 26, depending on baseline LDL-C levels and residual absolute CVE risk. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-PCSK9 antibodies effectively lower LDL-C levels in a broad patient population. While awaiting comprehensive data from CV outcome trials, these agents should be considered in very high risk patients, such as those in secondary prevention and those with familial hypercholesterolaemia who are already receiving maximally tolerated LLTs, have not achieved their LDL-C goal and require substantial reductions in LDL-C.

Fasting is not routinely required for determination of a lipid profile: clinical and laboratory implications including flagging at desirable concentration cut-points-a joint consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society and European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine.

AIMS: To critically evaluate the clinical implications of the use of non-fasting rather than fasting lipid profiles and to provide guidance for the laboratory reporting of abnormal non-fasting or fasting lipid profiles. METHODS AND RESULTS: Extensive observational data, in which random non-fasting lipid profiles have been compared with those determined under fasting conditions, indicate that the maximal mean changes at 1-6 h after habitual meals are not clinically significant [+0.3 mmol/L (26 mg/dL) for triglycerides; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for total cholesterol; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for LDL cholesterol; +0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for calculated remnant cholesterol; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for calculated non-HDL cholesterol]; concentrations of HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein A1, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein(a) are not affected by fasting/non-fasting status. In addition, non-fasting and fasting concentrations vary similarly over time and are comparable in the prediction of cardiovascular disease. To improve patient compliance with lipid testing, we therefore recommend the routine use of non-fasting lipid profiles, while fasting sampling may be considered when non-fasting triglycerides >5 mmol/L (440 mg/dL). For non-fasting samples, laboratory reports should flag abnormal concentrations as triglycerides ≥2 mmol/L (175 mg/dL), total cholesterol ≥5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), LDL cholesterol ≥3 mmol/L (115 mg/dL), calculated remnant cholesterol ≥0.9 mmol/L (35 mg/dL), calculated non-HDL cholesterol ≥3.9 mmol/L (150 mg/dL), HDL cholesterol ≤1 mmol/L (40 mg/dL), apolipoprotein A1 ≤1.25 g/L (125 mg/dL), apolipoprotein B ≥1.0 g/L (100 mg/dL), and lipoprotein(a) ≥50 mg/dL (80th percentile); for fasting samples, abnormal concentrations correspond to triglycerides ≥1.7 mmol/L (150 mg/dL). Life-threatening concentrations require separate referral when triglycerides >10 mmol/L (880 mg/dL) for the risk of pancreatitis, LDL cholesterol >13 mmol/L (500 mg/dL) for homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, LDL cholesterol >5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL) for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, and lipoprotein(a) >150 mg/dL (99th percentile) for very high cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSION: We recommend that non-fasting blood samples be routinely used for the assessment of plasma lipid profiles. Laboratory reports should flag abnormal values on the basis of desirable concentration cut-points. Non-fasting and fasting measurements should be complementary but not mutually exclusive.

Fasting Is Not Routinely Required for Determination of a Lipid Profile: Clinical and Laboratory Implications Including Flagging at Desirable Concentration Cutpoints-A Joint Consensus Statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society and European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine.

AIMS: To critically evaluate the clinical implications of the use of non-fasting rather than fasting lipid profiles and to provide guidance for the laboratory reporting of abnormal non-fasting or fasting lipid profiles. METHODS AND RESULTS: Extensive observational data, in which random non-fasting lipid profiles have been compared with those determined under fasting conditions, indicate that the maximal mean changes at 1-6 h after habitual meals are not clinically significant [+0.3 mmol/L (26 mg/dL) for triglycerides; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for total cholesterol; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for LDL cholesterol; +0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for calculated remnant cholesterol; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for calculated non-HDL cholesterol]; concentrations of HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein A1, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein(a) are not affected by fasting/non-fasting status. In addition, non-fasting and fasting concentrations vary similarly over time and are comparable in the prediction of cardiovascular disease. To improve patient compliance with lipid testing, we therefore recommend the routine use of non-fasting lipid profiles, whereas fasting sampling may be considered when non-fasting triglycerides are >5 mmol/L (440 mg/dL). For non-fasting samples, laboratory reports should flag abnormal concentrations as triglycerides ≥2 mmol/L (175 mg/dL), total cholesterol ≥5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), LDL cholesterol ≥3 mmol/L (115 mg/dL), calculated remnant cholesterol ≥0.9 mmol/L (35 mg/dL), calculated non-HDL cholesterol ≥3.9 mmol/L (150 mg/dL), HDL cholesterol ≤1 mmol/L (40 mg/dL), apolipoprotein A1 ≤1.25 g/L (125 mg/dL), apolipoprotein B ≥1.0 g/L (100 mg/dL), and lipoprotein(a) ≥50 mg/dL (80th percentile); for fasting samples, abnormal concentrations correspond to triglycerides ≥1.7 mmol/L (150 mg/dL). Life-threatening concentrations require separate referral for the risk of pancreatitis when triglycerides are >10 mmol/L (880 mg/dL), for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia when LDL cholesterol is >13 mmol/L (500 mg/dL), for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia when LDL cholesterol is >5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), and for very high cardiovascular risk when lipoprotein(a) >150 mg/dL (99th percentile). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that non-fasting blood samples be routinely used for the assessment of plasma lipid profiles. Laboratory reports should flag abnormal values on the basis of desirable concentration cutpoints. Non-fasting and fasting measurements should be complementary but not mutually exclusive.

Systematic review of published Phase 3 data on anti-PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies in patients with hypercholesterolaemia.

AIMS: Two anti-proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) monoclonal antibodies, alirocumab and evolocumab, have been approved for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia in certain patients. We reviewed data from Phase 3 studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these antibodies. METHODS: We systematically reviewed Phase 3 English-language studies in patients with hypercholesterolaemia, published between 1 January 2005 and 20 October 2015. Congress proceedings from 16 November 2012 to 16 November 2015 were also reviewed. RESULTS: We identified 12 studies of alirocumab and nine of evolocumab, including over 10 000 patients overall. Most studies enrolled patients with hypercholesterolaemia and used anti-PCSK9 antibodies with statins. The ODYSSEY FH I, FH II and HIGH FH alirocumab studies and the RUTHERFORD-2 evolocumab study exclusively recruited patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia. Two evolocumab studies focused mainly on homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HoFH): TESLA Part B and TAUSSIG (a TESLA sub-study); only those data for HoFH are reported here. All comparator studies demonstrated a reduction in LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with the anti-PCSK9 antibodies. No head-to-head studies were conducted between alirocumab and evolocumab. Up to 87% of patients receiving alirocumab and up to 98% receiving evolocumab reached LDL-C goals. Both antibodies were effective and well tolerated across a broad population of patients and in specific subgroups, such as those with type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Using anti-PCSK9 antibodies as add-on therapy to other lipid-lowering treatments or as monotherapy for patients unable to tolerate statins may help patients with high cardiovascular risk to achieve their LDL-C goals.

Familial hypercholesterolaemia in children and adolescents: gaining decades of life by optimizing detection and treatment.

Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a common genetic cause of premature coronary heart disease (CHD). Globally, one baby is born with FH every minute. If diagnosed and treated early in childhood, individuals with FH can have normal life expectancy. This consensus paper aims to improve awareness of the need for early detection and management of FH children. Familial hypercholesterolaemia is diagnosed either on phenotypic criteria, i.e. an elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level plus a family history of elevated LDL-C, premature coronary artery disease and/or genetic diagnosis, or positive genetic testing. Childhood is the optimal period for discrimination between FH and non-FH using LDL-C screening. An LDL-C ≥5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), or an LDL-C ≥4 mmol/L (160 mg/dL) with family history of premature CHD and/or high baseline cholesterol in one parent, make the phenotypic diagnosis. If a parent has a genetic defect, the LDL-C cut-off for the child is ≥3.5 mmol/L (130 mg/dL). We recommend cascade screening of families using a combined phenotypic and genotypic strategy. In children, testing is recommended from age 5 years, or earlier if homozygous FH is suspected. A healthy lifestyle and statin treatment (from age 8 to 10 years) are the cornerstones of management of heterozygous FH. Target LDL-C is <3.5 mmol/L (130 mg/dL) if >10 years, or ideally 50% reduction from baseline if 8-10 years, especially with very high LDL-C, elevated lipoprotein(a), a family history of premature CHD or other cardiovascular risk factors, balanced against the long-term risk of treatment side effects. Identifying FH early and optimally lowering LDL-C over the lifespan reduces cumulative LDL-C burden and offers health and socioeconomic benefits. To drive policy change for timely detection and management, we call for further studies in the young. Increased awareness, early identification, and optimal treatment from childhood are critical to adding decades of healthy life for children and adolescents with FH.

Whole exome sequencing of familial hypercholesterolaemia patients negative for LDLR/APOB/PCSK9 mutations.

BACKGROUND: Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is an autosomal dominant disease of lipid metabolism, which leads to early coronary heart disease. Mutations in LDLR, APOB and PCSK9 can be detected in 80% of definite FH (DFH) patients. This study aimed to identify novel FH-causing genetic variants in patients with no detectable mutation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Exomes of 125 unrelated DFH patients were sequenced, as part of the UK10K project. First, analysis of known FH genes identified 23 LDLR and two APOB mutations, and patients with explained causes of FH were excluded from further analysis. Second, common and rare variants in genes associated with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analysis were examined. There was no clear rare variant association in LDL-C GWAS hits; however, there were 29 patients with a high LDL-C SNP score suggestive of polygenic hypercholesterolaemia. Finally, a gene-based burden test for an excess of rare (frequency <0.005) or novel variants in cases versus 1926 controls was performed, with variants with an unlikely functional effect (intronic, synonymous) filtered out. CONCLUSIONS: No major novel locus for FH was detected, with no gene having a functional variant in more than three patients; however, an excess of novel variants was found in 18 genes, of which the strongest candidates included CH25H and INSIG2 (p<4.3×10(-4) and p<3.7×10(-3), respectively). This suggests that the genetic cause of FH in these unexplained cases is likely to be very heterogeneous, which complicates the diagnostic and novel gene discovery process.