An evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of population genetic screening for familial hypercholesterolemia in US patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Familial hypercholesterolemia is an underdiagnosed genetic metabolic condition limiting the clearance of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and increasing lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease. Population genetic screening in unselected individuals could quickly identify cases of familial hypercholesterolemia and enable early prevention, but the economic impact of widespread screening on patients has not been studied. METHODS: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of population genetic screening for familial hypercholesterolemia in 20 and 35-year-old adults in the United States from the perspective of patients. We developed a decision tree Markov hybrid model to examine diagnoses, cardiovascular disease, cardiac events, quality of life, and costs under population genetic screening compared to family-based cascade testing. RESULTS: While population genetic screening increased diagnoses and reduced incidence of cardiovascular disease, population genetic screening was not cost-effective compared to cascade testing at current levels of willingness to pay. Lower genetic testing costs, combined screening with other genetic conditions, and support to maintain lipid-lowering therapy use over time could improve the cost-effectiveness of population genetic screening. CONCLUSIONS: Future research is needed to examine how cost-sharing strategies may affect the cost-effectiveness of screening to patients and how families and providers experience the clinical and economic outcomes of population screening.

Health economics of detection and treatment of children with familial hypercholesterolemia: to screen or not to screen is no longer the question.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) is one of the most common monogenic disorders and is safely treatable with lipid-lowering medication. However, most individuals with HeFH remain untreated and undetected, especially in paediatric populations where the potential for long-term therapeutic benefit is higher. Here, we review the recent literature on health economic outcomes for the detection and management of FH in children. RECENT FINDINGS: A targeted literature review identified eight studies evaluating detection and management strategies for paediatric FH populations in the last 25 years. Most studies conducted modelled cost-effectiveness analyses to understand the long-term impact of these strategies on health outcomes and the financial impact on the healthcare system. All studies reported that detection and management of HeFH in paediatric populations was cost-effective, regardless of the age of the children. However, cost-effectiveness varied depending on the method of case ascertainment - targeted screening was generally cheaper overall, but less effective, than whole-of-population screening, although both methods were generally cost-effective. SUMMARY: Detection and management of HeFH in paediatric populations is a cost-effective way to significantly lower the burden of disease later in life for these individuals. These strategies should be implemented across healthcare systems.

Assessment of ethnic inequalities in diagnostic coding of familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH): A cross-sectional database study in Lambeth, South London.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Differences in the perceived prevalence of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) by ethnicity are unclear. In this study, we aimed to assess the prevalence, determinants and management of diagnostically-coded FH in an ethnically diverse population in South London. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 40 practices in 332,357 adult patients in Lambeth was undertaken. Factors affecting a (clinically coded) diagnosis of FH were investigated by multi-level logistic regression adjusted for socio-demographic and lifestyle factors, co-morbidities, and medications. RESULTS: The age-adjusted FH % prevalence rate (OR, 95%CI) ranged from 0.10 to 1.11, 0.00-1.31. Lower rates of FH coding were associated with age (0.96, 0.96-0.97) and male gender (0.75, 0.65-0.87), p < 0.001. Compared to a White British reference group, a higher likelihood of coded FH was noted in Other Asians (1.33, 1.01-1.76), p = 0.05, with lower rates in Black Africans (0.50, 0.37-0.68), p < 0.001, Indians (0.55, 0.34-0.89) p = 0.02, and in Black Caribbeans (0.60, 0.44-0.81), p = 0.001. The overall prevalence using Simon Broome criteria was 0.1%; we were unable to provide ethnic specific estimates due to low numbers. Lower likelihoods of FH coding (OR, 95%CI) were seen in non-native English speakers (0.66, 0.53-0.81), most deprived income quintile (0.68, 0.52-0.88), smokers (0.68,0.55-0.85), hypertension (0.62, 0.52-0.74), chronic kidney disease (0.64, 0.41-0.99), obesity (0.80, 0.67-0.95), diabetes (0.31, 0.25-0.39) and CVD (0.47, 0.36-0.63). 20% of FH coded patients were not prescribed lipid-lowering medications, p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Inequalities in diagnostic coding of FH patients exist. Lower likelihoods of diagnosed FH were seen in Black African, Black Caribbean and Indian ethnic groups, in contrast to higher diagnoses in White and Other Asian ethnic groups. Hypercholesterolaemia requiring statin therapy was associated with FH diagnosis, however, the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors lowered the diagnosis rate for FH.

Alternative cascade-testing protocols for identifying and managing patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia: systematic reviews, qualitative study and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Cascade testing the relatives of people with familial hypercholesterolaemia is an efficient approach to identifying familial hypercholesterolaemia. The cascade-testing protocol starts with identifying an index patient with familial hypercholesterolaemia, followed by one of three approaches to contact other relatives: indirect approach, whereby index patients contact their relatives; direct approach, whereby the specialist contacts the relatives; or a combination of both direct and indirect approaches. However, it is unclear which protocol may be most effective. Objectives: The objectives were to determine the yield of cases from different cascade-testing protocols, treatment patterns, and short- and long-term outcomes for people with familial hypercholesterolaemia; to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative protocols for familial hypercholesterolaemia cascade testing; and to qualitatively assess the acceptability of different cascade-testing protocols to individuals and families with familial hypercholesterolaemia, and to health-care providers. Design and methods: This study comprised systematic reviews and analysis of three data sets: PASS (PASS Software, Rijswijk, the Netherlands) hospital familial hypercholesterolaemia databases, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)-Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) linked primary-secondary care data set, and a specialist familial hypercholesterolaemia register. Cost-effectiveness modelling, incorporating preceding analyses, was undertaken. Acceptability was examined in interviews with patients, relatives and health-care professionals. Result: Systematic review of protocols: based on data from 4 of the 24 studies, the combined approach led to a slightly higher yield of relatives tested [40%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 37% to 42%] than the direct (33%, 95% CI 28% to 39%) or indirect approaches alone (34%, 95% CI 30% to 37%). The PASS databases identified that those contacted directly were more likely to complete cascade testing (p < 0.01); the CPRD-HES data set indicated that 70% did not achieve target treatment levels, and demonstrated increased cardiovascular disease risk among these individuals, compared with controls (hazard ratio 9.14, 95% CI 8.55 to 9.76). The specialist familial hypercholesterolaemia register confirmed excessive cardiovascular morbidity (standardised morbidity ratio 7.17, 95% CI 6.79 to 7.56). Cost-effectiveness modelling found a net health gain from diagnosis of -0.27 to 2.51 quality-adjusted life-years at the willingness-to-pay threshold of £15,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The cost-effective protocols cascaded from genetically confirmed index cases by contacting first- and second-degree relatives simultaneously and directly. Interviews found a service-led direct-contact approach was more reliable, but combining direct and indirect approaches, guided by index patients and family relationships, may be more acceptable. Limitations: Systematic reviews were not used in the economic analysis, as relevant studies were lacking or of poor quality. As only a proportion of those with primary care-coded familial hypercholesterolaemia are likely to actually have familial hypercholesterolaemia, CPRD analyses are likely to underestimate the true effect. The cost-effectiveness analysis required assumptions related to the long-term cardiovascular disease risk, the effect of treatment on cholesterol and the generalisability of estimates from the data sets. Interview recruitment was limited to white English-speaking participants. Conclusions: Based on limited evidence, most cost-effective cascade-testing protocols, diagnosing most relatives, select index cases by genetic testing, with services directly contacting relatives, and contacting second-degree relatives even if first-degree relatives have not been tested. Combined approaches to contact relatives may be more suitable for some families. Future work: Establish a long-term familial hypercholesterolaemia cohort, measuring cholesterol levels, treatment and cardiovascular outcomes. Conduct a randomised study comparing different approaches to contact relatives. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018117445 and CRD42019125775. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Familial hypercholesterolaemia is an inherited condition that causes raised cholesterol levels from birth and increases risk of heart disease if left untreated. After someone in a family is found to have familial hypercholesterolaemia (called an index case), their close relatives need to be contacted and checked to see if they have familial hypercholesterolaemia, using genetic or cholesterol testing. This is called 'cascade testing'. We planned to find the most cost-effective and acceptable way to do this. The relatives could be contacted for testing by the index case (indirect approach), by a health-care professional (direct approach) or by a combination of both approaches. We found, based on looking at hospital records, that more relatives were tested if health-care professionals directly contacted relatives. In previous studies, slightly more relatives were tested for familial hypercholesterolaemia with a combination approach. Interviews with patients also suggested that the direct approach was the most effective, but the most acceptable and successful approach depends on family relationships: using one approach for some families and using both for other families. Furthermore, by looking at the health-care records of large numbers of patients, we confirmed that people with a recorded diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia in general practice records have a much higher risk of heart disease than the general population, and this was especially so for those with previous heart disease and/or raised cholesterols levels when diagnosed. However, one-quarter of new patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia recorded in their records were not treated within 2 years, with less than one-third reaching recommended cholesterol levels. We used what we had learned to help us estimate the most cost-effective way to do cascade testing. This showed that if the health service directly contact all relatives simultaneously for further assessment, rather than the current approach whereby close (first-degree) relatives are contacted first, this was cost-effective and good value for money.

Low-Cost High-Throughput Genotyping for Diagnosing Familial Hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a common but underdiagnosed genetic disorder characterized by high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and premature cardiovascular disease. Current sequencing methods to diagnose FH are expensive and time-consuming. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of a low-cost, high-throughput genotyping array for diagnosing FH. METHODS: An Illumina Global Screening Array was customized to include probes for 636 variants, previously classified as FH-causing variants. First, its theoretical coverage was assessed in all FH variant carriers diagnosed through next-generation sequencing between 2016 and 2022 in the Netherlands (n=1772). Next, the performance of the array was validated in another sample of FH variant carriers previously identified in the Dutch FH cascade screening program (n=1268). RESULTS: The theoretical coverage of the array for FH-causing variants was 91.3%. Validation of the array was assessed in a sample of 1268 carriers of whom 1015 carried a variant in LDLR, 250 in APOB, and 3 in PCSK9. The overall sensitivity was 94.7% and increased to 98.2% after excluding participants with variants not included in the array design. Copy number variation analysis yielded a 89.4% sensitivity. In 18 carriers, the array identified a total of 19 additional FH-causing variants. Subsequent DNA analysis confirmed 5 of the additionally identified variants, yielding a false-positive result in 16 subjects (1.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The FH genotyping array is a promising tool for genetically diagnosing FH at low costs and has the potential to greatly increase accessibility to genetic testing for FH. Continuous customization of the array will further improve its performance.

Filling the gap: Genetic risk assessment in hypercholesterolemia using LDL-C and LPA genetic scores.

Routine genetic testing in hypercholesterolemia patients reveals a causative monogenic variant in less than 50% of affected individuals. Incomplete genetic characterization is partly due to polygenic factors influencing low-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C). Additionally, functional variants in the LPA gene affect lipoprotein(a)-associated cholesterol concentrations but are difficult to determine due to the complex structure of the LPA gene. In this study we examined whether complementing standard sequencing with the analysis of genetic scores associated with LDL-C and Lp(a) concentrations improves the diagnostic output in hypercholesterolemia patients. 1.020 individuals including 252 clinically diagnosed hypercholesterolemia patients from the FH Register Austria were analyzed by massive-parallel-sequencing of candidate genes combined with array genotyping, identifying nine novel variants in LDLR. For each individual, validated genetic scores associated with elevated LDL-C and Lp(a) were calculated based on imputed genotypes. Integrating these scores especially the score for Lp(a) increased the proportion of individuals with a clearly defined disease etiology to 68.8% compared to 46.6% in standard genetic testing. The study highlights the major role of Lp(a) in disease etiology in clinically diagnosed hypercholesterolemia patients, of which parts are misclassified. Screening for monogenic causes of hypercholesterolemia and genetic scores for LDL-C and Lp(a) permits more precise diagnosis, allowing individualized treatment.

In vitro assessment of the pathogenicity of the LDLR c.2160delC variant in familial hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is an inherited disorder with markedly elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Although many mutations have been reported in FH, only a few have been identified as pathogenic mutations. This study aimed to confirm the pathogenicity of the LDL receptor (LDLR) c.2160delC variant in FH. METHODS: In this study, the proband and her family members were systematically investigated, and a pedigree map was drawn. High-throughput whole-exome sequencing was used to explore the variants in this family. Next, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), western blot (WB) assays, and flow cytometry were conducted to detect the effect of the LDLR c.2160delC variant on its expression. The LDL uptake capacity and cell localization of LDLR variants were analyzed by confocal microscopy. RESULTS: According to Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) diagnostic criteria, three FH patients were identified with the LDLR c.2160delC variant in this family. An in-silico analysis suggested that the deletion mutation at the 2160 site of LDLR causes a termination mutation. The results of qPCR and WB verified that the LDLR c.2160delC variant led to early termination of LDLR gene transcription. Furthermore, the LDLR c.2160delC variant caused LDLR to accumulate in the endoplasmic reticulum, preventing it from reaching the cell surface and internalizing LDL. CONCLUSIONS: The LDLR c.2160delC variant is a terminating mutation that plays a pathogenic role in FH.

Enhancing the Detection and Care of Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia in Primary Care: Cost-Effectiveness and Return on Investment.

BACKGROUND: Heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) is under-detected and undertreated. A general practitioner-led screening and care program for HeFH effectively identified and managed patients with HeFH. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness and the return on investment of an enhanced-care strategy for HeFH in primary care in Australia. METHODS: We developed a multistate Markov model to estimate the outcomes and costs of a general practitioner-led detection and management strategy for HeFH in primary care compared with the standard of care in Australia. The population comprised individuals aged 50 to 80 years, of which 44% had prior cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular risk, HeFH prevalence, treatment effects, and acute and chronic health care costs were derived from published sources. The study involved screening for HeFH using a validated data-extraction tool (TARB-Ex), followed by a consultation to improve care. The detection rate of HeFH was 16%, and 74% of the patients achieved target LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol). Quality-adjusted life years, health care costs, productivity losses, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and return on investment ratio were evaluated, outcomes discounted by 5% annually, adopting a health care and a societal perspective. RESULTS: Over the lifetime horizon, the model estimated a gain of 870 years of life lived and 1033 quality-adjusted life years when the general practitioner-led program was employed compared with standard of care. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AU$14 664/quality-adjusted life year gained from a health care perspective. From a societal perspective, this strategy, compared with standard of care was cost-saving, with a return on investment of AU$5.64 per dollar invested. CONCLUSIONS: An enhanced general practitioner-led model of care for HeFH is likely to be cost-effective.

How does cholesterol burden change the case for investing in familial hypercholesterolaemia? A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aimed to ascertain how the long-term benefits and costs of diagnosis and treatment of familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) vary by prognostic factors and 'cholesterol burden', which is the effect of long-term exposure to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. METHODS: A new cost-effectiveness model was developed from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS), informed by routine data from individuals with FH. The primary outcome was net health gain (i.e., health benefits net of the losses due to costs), expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at the £15,000/QALY threshold. Prognostic factors included pre-treatment LDL-C, age, gender, and CVD history. RESULTS: If cholesterol burden is considered, diagnosis resulted in positive net health gain (i.e., it is cost-effective) in all individuals with pre-treatment LDL-C ≥ 4 mmol/L, and in those with pre-treatment LDL-C ≥ 2 mmol/L aged ≥50 years or who have CVD history. If cholesterol burden is not considered, diagnosis resulted in lower net health gain, but still positive in children aged 10 years with pre-treatment LDL-C ≥ 6 mmol/L and adults aged 30 years with pre-treatment LDL-C ≥ 4 mmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis and treatment of most people with FH results in large net health gains, particularly in those with higher pre-treatment LDL-C. Economic evaluations of FH interventions should consider the sensitivity of the study conclusions to cholesterol burden, particularly where interventions target younger patients, and explicitly consider prognostic factors such as pre-treatment LDL-C, age, and CVD history.

Genetic Testing for Familial Hypercholesterolemia: Health Technology Assessment.

Background: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is an inherited disorder characterized by abnormally elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol serum levels from birth, which increases the risk of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Genetic testing is a type of a medical test that looks for changes in genes or chromosome structure to discover genetic differences, anomalies, or mutations that may prove pathological. It is regarded as the gold standard for screening and diagnosing FH. We conducted a health technology assessment on genetic testing for people with FH and their relatives (i.e., cascade screening). The assessment included an evaluation of clinical utility (the ability of a test to improve health outcomes), the diagnostic yield (ability of a test to identify people with FH), cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding genetic testing for FH, and patient preferences and values. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. For evaluation of clinical utility, we assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the ROBINS-I tool and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria.We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis with a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of using genetic testing both for confirming a FH clinical diagnosis and for cascade screening in relatives of genetically confirmed cases. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of cascade screening strategies with genetic testing, sequential testing, and lipid testing approaches. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding genetic testing in Ontario. Results: We included 11 studies in the clinical evidence review. Overall, our review found that genetic testing to diagnose FH improves several health outcomes (GRADE: Moderate) compared with clinical evaluation without a genetic test. We also found that genetic cascade screening leads to a high diagnostic yield of FH.According to our primary economic evaluation, genetic testing is a dominant strategy (more effective and less costly) compared with no genetic testing for individuals with a FH clinical diagnosis. It reduced the number of FH diagnoses, led to fewer cardiovascular events, and improved QALYs. For first-degree relatives of genetically confirmed cases, all cascade screening strategies (genetic testing, sequential testing, and lipid testing) were cost-effective when compared with no cascade screening in a pairwise fashion. The ICERs of cascade screening with genetic, sequential, and lipid testing compared with no cascade screening were $58,390, $50,220, and $45,754 per QALY gained, respectively. When comparing all screening strategies together, cascade screening with lipid testing was the most cost-effective strategy. At commonly used willingness-to-pay values of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY gained, the probability of lipid cascade screening being cost-effective was 53.5% and 71.5%, respectively.The annual budget impact of publicly funding genetic testing for individuals with a clinical FH diagnosis in Ontario ranged from a cost saving of $2 million in year 1 to $64 million in year 5, for a total of $141 million saved over the next 5 years, assuming the cost of genetic testing remains at $490 per person. If only testing-related costs were considered, the budget impact was estimated to be an additional cost of $7 million in year 1, increasing to $20 million in year 5, for a total cost of $64 million over the next 5 years. For relatives of genetically confirmed cases, publicly funding genetic cascade screening would lead to an additional cost of $5 million in year 1, increasing to $27 million in year 5, for a total cost of $73 million over the next 5 years. If only testing-related costs were considered, the budget impact was estimated to be an additional of $66 million. Conclusions: Genetic testing for FH has a higher clinical utility than clinical evaluation without a genetic test. It also results in a high diagnostic yield of FH through cascade screening. For individuals with a clinical diagnosis of FH, genetic testing would be a cost-saving and more effective diagnostic strategy. For relatives of index cases confirmed through genetic testing, genetic and lipid cascade screening are both cost-effective compared with no screening, but genetic cascade screening is less cost-effective than lipid cascade screening. We estimated that publicly funding genetic testing for individuals with a clinical diagnosis of FH in Ontario would save $141 million, and publicly funding genetic testing in a cascade screening program for relatives would cost an additional $73 million over the next five years.Most people with a positive genetic test perceived the screening, diagnosis, and treatment for FH more positively. The discovery of the condition can lead people to adhere to relevant treatments in an effort to control their cholesterol levels. People we spoke with felt that greater awareness and education would allow for more efficient uptake of cascade screening.

Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for familial hypercholesterolemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Population genomic screening for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) in unselected individuals can prevent premature cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of population-wide FH genomic screening versus no genomic screening. METHODS: We developed a decision tree plus 10-state Markov model evaluating the identification of patients with an FH variant, statin treatment status, LDL-C levels, MI, and stroke to compare the costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness of population-wide FH genomic screening. FH variant prevalence (0.4%) was estimated from the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative (MyCode). Genomic test costs were assumed to be $200. Age and sex-based estimates of MI, recurrent MI, stroke, and recurrent stroke were obtained from Framingham risk equations. Additional outcomes independently associated with FH variants were derived from a retrospective analysis of 26,025 participants screened for FH. Sensitivity and threshold analyses were conducted to evaluate model assumptions and uncertainty. RESULTS: FH screening was most effective at younger ages; screening unselected 20-year-olds lead to 111 QALYs gained per 100,000 individuals screened at an incremental cost of $20 M. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for 20-year-olds was $181,000 per QALY, and there was a 38% probability of cost-effectiveness at a $100,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. If genomic testing cost falls to $100, the ICER would be $91,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Population FH screening is not cost-effective at current willingness to pay thresholds. However, reducing test costs, testing at younger ages, or including FH within broader multiplex screening panels may improve clinical and economic value.

Familial hypercholesterolemia: A systematic review of modeling studies on screening interventions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: FH is still underdiagnosed. Cost-effectiveness results of preventive screening strategies vary. We aimed at systematically assessing the benefits, harms and cost effectiveness of screening for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and at providing an overview of the main characteristics and methodological approaches of applied decision-analytic models. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EconLit, CRD-databases and the CEA-registry for FH screening starting 2012. Earlier studies were included from a published systematic review. Results were reported in standardized semi-quantitative evidence tables. Costs were converted to current euros. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were recalculated according to economic guidelines. RESULTS: Out of our 211 retrieved studies, eight were included in the review in addition to six studies from an earlier review. Studies were conducted in Europe (UK, The Netherlands, Spain, Poland), USA and Australia evaluating cascade (CS), opportunistic (OS), universal screening (UniS), or combinations using genetic testing, clinical criteria or combinations. Studies evaluating only CS identified strategies with an ICER of up to 37,100 EUR/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) but some strategies were dominated depending on test combinations. UniS of newborns in combination with CS had an ICER≤15,000 EUR/QALY for sequential cholesterol-genetic screening. In other studies, UniS was dominated by OS/CS. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review demonstrates the values of FH screening and provides an overview of potentially relevant screening strategies to be tested using a decision-analytic model for the respective country or region. Future research is needed on the transferability of results to other countries and modeling spillover effects to newborns.

Population genomic screening of young adults for familial hypercholesterolaemia: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the impact and cost-effectiveness of offering population genomic screening to all young adults in Australia to detect heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH). METHODS AND RESULTS: We designed a decision analytic Markov model to compare the current standard of care for heterozygous FH diagnosis in Australia (opportunistic cholesterol screening and genetic cascade testing) with the alternate strategy of population genomic screening of adults aged 18-40 years to detect pathogenic variants in the LDLR/APOB/PCSK9 genes. We used a validated cost-adaptation method to adapt findings to eight high-income countries. The model captured coronary heart disease (CHD) morbidity/mortality over a lifetime horizon, from healthcare and societal perspectives. Risk of CHD, treatment effects, prevalence, and healthcare costs were estimated from published studies. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), discounted 5% annually. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of key input parameters on the robustness of the model. Over the lifetime of the population (4 167 768 men; 4 129 961 women), the model estimated a gain of 33 488years of life lived and 51 790 QALYs due to CHD prevention. Population genomic screening for FH would be cost-effective from a healthcare perspective if the per-test cost was ≤AU$250, yielding an ICER of

Assessment of practical applicability and clinical relevance of a commonly used LDL-C polygenic score in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels vary in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and can be explained by a single deleterious genetic variant or by the aggregate effect of multiple, common small-effect variants that can be captured in a polygenic score (PS). We set out to investigate the contribution of a previously published PS to the inter-individual LDL-C variation and coronary artery disease (CAD) risk in patients with a clinical FH phenotype. METHODS: First, in a cohort of 628 patients referred for genetic FH testing, we evaluated the distribution of a PS for LDL-C comprising 12 genetic variants. Next, we determined its association with coronary artery disease (CAD) risk using UK Biobank data. RESULTS: The mean PS was higher in 533 FH-variant-negative patients (FH/M-) compared with 95 FH-variant carriers (1.02 vs 0.94, p < 0.001). 39% of all patients had a PS equal to the top 20% from a population-based reference cohort and these patients were less likely to carry an FH variant (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10-0.48) compared with patients in the lowest 20%. In UK Biobank data, the PS explained 7.4% of variance in LDL-C levels and was associated with incident CAD. Addition of PS to a prediction model using age and sex and LDL-C did not increase the c-statistic for predicting CAD risk. CONCLUSIONS: This 12-variant PS was higher in FH/M- patients and associated with incident CAD in UK Biobank data. However, the PS did not improve predictive accuracy when added to the readily available characteristics age, sex and LDL-C, suggesting limited discriminative value for CAD.

Effectiveness of cascade testing strategies in relatives for familial hypercholesterolemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cascade testing in relatives of index cases is the most cost-effective approach to identifying people with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH); however, it is currently unclear which strategy to contact relatives would be the most effective. A systematic review was performed to quantify the effectiveness of different strategies in cascade testing of FH. METHODS: Comprehensive searches of three electronic databases and grey literature sources were done (from inception to May 2020). Screening, data extraction and assessments of methodological quality were made independently by two reviewers. Meta-analyses of proportions were performed using random effects models. Effect measures are reported as percentages with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: 24 non-comparative studies were included, of which 11 used a direct, 8 used an indirect, and 5 used a combination of both direct and indirect cascade strategies. The median number of new relatives with FH per known index case was approximately 1. The combination strategy resulted in the largest yields of relatives tested for FH out of those contacted (40%, 95% CI 37%-42%, 1 study) and relatives responding to testing out of those contacted (54%, 1 study); however, the direct strategy had the largest yield of index cases participating in cascade testing out of those with FH confirmed (94%, 8 studies) compared to other strategies (p ≤ 0.01 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is limited; however, a combination strategy, which allows the index case to decide on method of contacting relatives, appears to lead to better yields compared to using the direct or indirect strategy.

Awareness, diagnosis and treatment of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) - Results of a US national survey.

BACKGROUND: HeFH is a common inherited disorder that leads to markedly elevated LDL-cholesterol from birth and premature cardiovascular disease. HeFH is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated. OBJECTIVE: To compare how well primary care physicians and cardiologists recognize and treat HeFH. METHODS: The National Lipid Association surveyed 500 primary care physicians and 500 cardiologists in the US who have patients with baseline LDL-cholesterol ≥ 190 mg/dL. The survey was conducted between August 29 and September 30, 2019. RESULTS: For a hypothetical case of HeFH, 57% of cardiologists versus 43% of primary care physicians made the correct diagnosis (P<0.001). Among respondents, 21% of cardiologists versus 29% of primary care physicians have never made a diagnosis of HeFH in a patient with an LDL-cholesterol ≥ 190 mg/dL (P<0.004). Only 7% of cardiologists versus 5% of primary care physicians would refer to a lipid specialist (P=0.05). For additional LDL-cholesterol lowering after statins, 58% of cardiologists versus 48% of primary care physicians would prescribe a PCSK9 inhibitor (P=0.004); however, 30% of cardiologists versus 53% of primary care physicians have never prescribed a PSCK9 inhibitor in an HeFH patient (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Although cardiologists compared to primary care physicians are somewhat more likely to recognize and treat HeFH patients according to guidelines, both physician specialties do not adequately recognize or treat HeFH. There is a need for more education and training in recognizing and treating HeFH, greater access to lipid specialists, and fewer barriers for PCSK9 inhibitor use.

Assessment of microvascular function and pharmacological regulation in genetically confirmed familial hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a genetic lipid disorder leading to accelerated atherosclerosis, premature cardiovascular disease and death. Microvascular endothelial dysfunction is one of the earliest vascular pathology manifestations and may precede symptomatic atherosclerosis. METHODS: In this paper, microvascular endothelial function was assessed in FH patients and healthy controls using flow mediated skin fluorescence (FMSF), based on measurements of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide fluorescence intensity during brachial artery occlusion (ischemic response, IR) and immediately after occlusion (hyperemic response, HR). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol (TC) were used to assess its relation with microvascular parameters evaluated in vivo. RESULTS: LDL-C levels were significantly correlated to both HRmax (r = -0.548, p = 0.001) and HRindex (r = -0.514, p = 0.003). Similarly, there was a significant inverse correlation of TC levels and both HRmax (r = -0.538, p = 0.002) and HRindex (r = -0.512, p = 0.003). All FMSF parameters were found lower in FH patients compared to age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Hyperemic response (HRmax) was significantly higher in FH patients examined on statins compared to those without any lipid-lowering treatment (19.9 ± 3.1 vs. 16.4 ± 4.2 respectively, p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that, in patients with FH, microvascular endothelial-dependent hyperemic response is impaired and inversely correlated to plasma cholesterol levels. Microvascular function was found better in FH patients receiving statins.

Perceptions and Barriers on the Use of Proprotein Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9 Inhibitors in Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia (From a Survey of Primary Care Physicians and Cardiologists).

Heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) results in significant elevations in LDL-C and premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Current guidelines recommend add-on proprotein subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor (PCSK9i) therapy for additional LDL-C lowering beyond statins. Data are sparse, however, regarding treatment patterns and barriers relating to PCSK9i in HeFH patients. We examined physician attitudes, use, and barriers for treatment in patients with HeFH. We surveyed 1,000 physicians (500 primary care providers [PCPs] and 500 cardiologists in the US regarding their preferred treatments, experience and barriers associated with using PCSK9is. Cardiologists compared to PCPs were more likely to rank a PCSK9i as most important for an HeFH patient needing additional LDL-C lowering (68.6% vs. 64.8%; p <0.05), as well as prescribing and having a patient on a PCSK9i. PCPs vs. cardiologists were less likely (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval] = 0.46 [0.34-0.63]), private vs. academic practice more likely (OR = 1.53 [1.02-2.28]), and those who would prescribe a PCSK9i in an HeFH patient with (OR = 3.86 [2.57-5.78]) or without (OR = 1.96 [1.40-2.72]) ASCVD needing additional LDL-C reduction beyond a statin were more likely to actually prescribe a PCSK9i. Those practicing in an urban vs. rural setting were less likely (OR = 0.56 [0.34-0.93]), and those indicating they would prescribe a PCKS9i in an HeFH patient with (OR = 2.80 [1.74-4.49]) or without (OR = 1.43 [1.02-2.02]) ASCVD needing additional LDL-C lowering beyond a statin were more likely to face difficulty prescribing a PCSK9i (all p <0.05 to p <0.01). Greater physician education and assistance among both cardiologists and PCPs are needed to address the gaps in understanding and treatment regarding PCSK9is.

Feasibility and cost of FH cascade screening in Belgium (BEL-CASCADE) including a novel rapid rule-out strategy.

BACKGROUND: Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is underdiagnosed in most countries. We report our first experience from a national pilot project of cascade screening in relatives of FH patients. METHODOLOGY: Participating specialists recruited consecutive index patients (IP) with Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) score ≥6. After informed consent, the relatives were visited by the nurses to collect relevant clinical data and perform blood sampling for lipid profile measurement. FH diagnosis in the relatives was based on the DLCN and/or MEDPED FH (Make-Early-Diagnosis-to-Prevent-Early-Deaths-in-FH) criteria. RESULTS: In a period of 18 months, a total of 127 IP (90 with definite FH and 37 with probable FH) were enrolled in 15 centres. Out of the 270 relatives visited by the nurses, 105 were suspected of having FH: 31 with DCLN score >8, 33 with DLCN score 5-8 and 41 with MEDPED FH criteria. In a post-hoc analysis, another set of MEDPED FH criteria established in the Netherlands and adapted to Belgium allowed to detect FH in 51 additional relatives. CONCLUSION: In a country with no national FH screening program, our pilot project demonstrated that implementing a simple phenotypical FH cascade screening strategy using the collaboration of motivated specialists and two nurses, allowed to diagnose FH in 127 index patients and an additional 105 of their relatives over the two-year period. Newly developed MEDPED FH cut-offs, easily applicable by a nurse with a single blood sample, might further improve the sensitivity of detecting FH within families.