Treat-to-Target or High-Intensity Statin in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In patients with coronary artery disease, some guidelines recommend initial statin treatment with high-intensity statins to achieve at least a 50% reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). An alternative approach is to begin with moderate-intensity statins and titrate to a specific LDL-C goal. These alternatives have not been compared head-to-head in a clinical trial involving patients with known coronary artery disease. Objective: To assess whether a treat-to-target strategy is noninferior to a strategy of high-intensity statins for long-term clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, multicenter, noninferiority trial in patients with a coronary disease diagnosis treated at 12 centers in South Korea (enrollment: September 9, 2016, through November 27, 2019; final follow-up: October 26, 2022). Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either the LDL-C target strategy, with an LDL-C level between 50 and 70 mg/dL as the target, or high-intensity statin treatment, which consisted of rosuvastatin, 20 mg, or atorvastatin, 40 mg. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was a 3-year composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization with a noninferiority margin of 3.0 percentage points. Results: Among 4400 patients, 4341 patients (98.7%) completed the trial (mean [SD] age, 65.1 [9.9] years; 1228 females [27.9%]). In the treat-to-target group (n = 2200), which had 6449 person-years of follow-up, moderate-intensity and high-intensity dosing were used in 43% and 54%, respectively. The mean (SD) LDL-C level for 3 years was 69.1 (17.8) mg/dL in the treat-to-target group and 68.4 (20.1) mg/dL in the high-intensity statin group (n = 2200) (P = .21, compared with the treat-to-target group). The primary end point occurred in 177 patients (8.1%) in the treat-to-target group and 190 patients (8.7%) in the high-intensity statin group (absolute difference, -0.6 percentage points [upper boundary of the 1-sided 97.5% CI, 1.1 percentage points]; P < .001 for noninferiority). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with coronary artery disease, a treat-to-target LDL-C strategy of 50 to 70 mg/dL as the goal was noninferior to a high-intensity statin therapy for the 3-year composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization. These findings provide additional evidence supporting the suitability of a treat-to-target strategy that may allow a tailored approach with consideration for individual variability in drug response to statin therapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02579499.

Single Ascending Dose Study of a Short Interfering RNA Targeting Lipoprotein(a) Production in Individuals With Elevated Plasma Lipoprotein(a) Levels.

Importance: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is an important risk factor for atherothrombotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis, for which there are no treatments approved by regulatory authorities. Objectives: To assess adverse events and tolerability of a short interfering RNA (siRNA) designed to reduce hepatic production of apolipoprotein(a) and to assess associated changes in plasma concentrations of Lp(a) at different doses. Design, Setting, and Participants: A single ascending dose study of SLN360, an siRNA targeting apolipoprotein(a) synthesis conducted at 5 clinical research unit sites located in the US, United Kingdom, and Australia. The study enrolled adults with Lp(a) plasma concentrations of 150 nmol/L or greater at screening and no known clinically overt cardiovascular disease. Participants were enrolled between November 18, 2020, and July 21, 2021, with last follow-up on December 29, 2021. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive placebo (n = 8) or single doses of SLN360 at 30 mg (n = 6), 100 mg (n = 6), 300 mg (n = 6), or 600 mg (n = 6), administered subcutaneously. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was evaluation of safety and tolerability. Secondary outcomes included change in plasma concentrations of Lp(a) to a maximum follow-up of 150 days. Results: Among 32 participants who were randomized and received the study intervention (mean age, 50 [SD, 13.5] years; 17 women [53%]), 32 (100%) completed the trial. One participant experienced 2 serious adverse event episodes: admission to the hospital for headache following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and later for complications of cholecystitis, both of which were judged to be unrelated to study drug. Median baseline Lp(a) concentrations were as follows: placebo, 238 (IQR, 203-308) nmol/L; 30-mg SLN360, 171 (IQR, 142-219) nmol/L; 100-mg SLN360, 217 (IQR, 202-274) nmol/L; 300-mg SLN360, 285 (IQR, 195-338) nmol/L; and 600-mg SLN360, 231 (IQR, 179-276) nmol/L. Maximal median changes in Lp(a) were -20 (IQR, -61 to 3) nmol/L, -89 (IQR, -119 to -61) nmol/L, -185 (IQR, -226 to -163) nmol/L, -268 (IQR, -292 to -189) nmol/L, and -227 (IQR, -270 to -174) nmol/L, with maximal median percentage changes of -10% (IQR, -16% to 1%), -46% (IQR, -64% to -40%), -86% (IQR, -92% to -82%), -96% (IQR, -98% to -89%), and -98% (IQR, -98% to -97%), for the placebo group and the 30-mg, 100-mg, 300-mg, and 600-mg SLN360 groups, respectively. The duration of Lp(a) lowering was dose dependent, persisting for at least 150 days after administration. Conclusions and Relevance: In this phase 1 study of 32 participants with elevated Lp(a) levels and no known cardiovascular disease, the siRNA SLN360 was well tolerated, and a dose-dependent lowering of plasma Lp(a) concentrations was observed. The findings support further study to determine the safety and efficacy of this siRNA. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04606602; EudraCT Identifier: 2020-002471-35.

High lipoprotein(a) concentrations are associated with lower type 2 diabetes risk in the Chinese Han population: a large retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a proven independent risk factor for coronary heart disease. It is also associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, the correlation between Lp(a) and T2DM has not been clearly elucidated. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study involving 9248 T2DM patients and 18,496 control individuals (1:2 matched). Patients were randomly selected from among inpatients in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between 2006 and 2017. Clinical characteristics were compared between the two groups. Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the strength and direction of monotonic associations of serum Lp(a) with other metabolic risk factors. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to establish the correlation between Lp(a) levels and T2DM risk. RESULTS: The median Lp(a) concentration was lower in T2DM patients than in controls (16.42 vs. 16.88 mg/dL). Based on four quartiles of Lp(a) levels, there was a decrease in T2DM risk from 33.7% (Q1) to 31.96% (Q4) (P for trend < 0.0001). Then, Lp(a) levels > 28.72 mg/dL (Q4) were associated with a significantly lower T2DM risk in the unadjusted model [0.924 (0.861, 0.992), P = 0.030]. Similar results were obtained in adjusted models 1 [Q4, 0.925 (0.862, 0.993), P = 0.031] and 2 [Q4, 0.919 (0.854, 0.990), P = 0.026]. Furthermore, in the stratified analysis, Q4 of Lp(a) was associated with a significantly lower T2DM risk among men [0.813 (0.734, 0.900), P < 0.001] and those age > 60 years [0.819 (0.737, 0.910), P < 0.001]. In contrast, the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and coronary heart disease (CHD) did not impact these correlations between Lp(a) and diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: There is an inverse association between Lp(a) levels and T2DM risk in the Chinese population. Male patients, especially those aged more than 60 years with Lp(a) > 28.72 mg/dL, are low-risk T2DM individuals, regardless of LDL-C levels and CHD status.

Lipoprotein(a) is robustly associated with aortic valve calcium.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence and quantity of aortic valve calcium (AVC) in two large cohorts, stratified according to age and lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), and to assess the association between Lp(a) and AVC. METHODS: We included 2412 participants from the population-based Rotterdam Study (52% women, mean age=69.6±6.3 years) and 859 apparently healthy individuals from the Amsterdam University Medical Centers (UMC) outpatient clinic (57% women, mean age=45.9±11.6 years). All individuals underwent blood sampling to determine Lp(a) concentration and non-enhanced cardiac CT to assess AVC. Logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to investigate the associations of Lp(a) with the presence and amount of AVC. RESULTS: The prevalence of AVC was 33.1% in the Rotterdam Study and 5.4% in the Amsterdam UMC cohort. Higher Lp(a) concentrations were independently associated with presence of AVC in both cohorts (OR per 50 mg/dL increase in Lp(a): 1.54 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.75) in the Rotterdam Study cohort and 2.02 (95% CI 1.19 to 3.44) in the Amsterdam UMC cohort). In the Rotterdam Study cohort, higher Lp(a) concentrations were also associated with increase in aortic valve Agatston score (ß 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.32 per 50 mg/dL increase). CONCLUSIONS: Lp(a) is robustly associated with presence of AVC in a wide age range of individuals. These results provide further rationale to assess the effect of Lp(a) lowering interventions in individuals with early AVC to prevent end-stage aortic valve stenosis.

Expert position statements: comparison of recommendations for the care of adults and youth with elevated lipoprotein(a).

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Summarize recent recommendations on clinical management of adults and youth with elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] who are at-risk of or affected by cardiovascular disease (CVD). RECENT FINDINGS: There is ample evidence to support elevated Lp(a) levels, present in approximately 20% of the general population, as a causal, independent risk factor for CVD and its role as a significant risk enhancer. Several guidelines and position statements have been published to assist in the identification, treatment and follow-up of adults with elevated levels of Lp(a). There is growing interest in Lp(a) screening and strategies to improve health behaviors starting in youth, although published recommendations for this population are limited. In addition to the well established increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke and valvular aortic stenosis, data from the coronavirus pandemic suggest adults with elevated Lp(a) may have a particularly high-risk of cardiovascular complications. Lp(a)-specific-lowering therapies are currently in development. Despite their inability to lower Lp(a), use of statins have been shown to improve outcomes in primary and secondary prevention. SUMMARY: Considerable differences exist amongst published guidelines for adults on the use of Lp(a) in clinical practice, and recommendations for youth are limited. With increasing knowledge of Lp(a)'s role in CVD, including recent observations of COVID-19-related risk of cardiovascular complications, more harmonized and comprehensive guidelines for Lp(a) in clinical practice are required. This will facilitate clinical decision-making and help define best practices for identification and management of elevated Lp(a) in adults and youth.

Cardiovascular events in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and hyperlipoproteinaemia (a): Indications for lipoprotein apheresis in Poland.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) is a safe method of reducing atherogenic lipoproteins and improving cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. We aimed to assess the reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] levels in patients undergoing regular LA therapy and to evaluate its influence on the incidence rate of adverse cardiac and vascular events (ACVE) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). METHODS: A longitudinal study in Poland evaluated the prospective and retrospective observational data of 23 patients with hyperlipoproteinaemia (a) [hyper-Lp(a)] and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), undergoing 1014 LA sessions between 2013 and 2020. Their pre- and post-apheresis LDL-C and Lp(a) levels were assessed to calculate the acute percent reductions. The time period used to evaluate annual rates of ACVE and MACE before and after initiation of LA was matched in each patient. RESULTS: The pre-apheresis LDL-C and Lp(a) concentrations were 155 (107-228) (mg/dL) (median and interquartile range) and 0.56 (0.14-1.37) (g/L), respectively. LA therapy resulted in a reduction of LDL-C to 50 (30-73.5) (mg/dL) and of Lp(a) to 0.13 (0.05-0.34) (g/L), representing a percent reduction of 70.0% and 72.7% for LDL-C and Lp(a), respectively. We found a significant reduction in the annual rate of ACVE (0.365[0.0-0.585] vs (0.0[0.0-0.265]; P = .047) and MACE (0.365[0.0-0.585] vs 0.0[0.0-0.265]; P = .031). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of our study indicate that LA treatment in patients with hyperlipoproteinaemia (a) and FH on maximally tolerated lipid lowering therapies leads to a substantial reduction in LDL-C and Lp(a) concentrations and lowers CV event rates in Polish patients.

[Lipidology update : Evidence-based treatment of dyslipidemia]. / Update Lipidologie : Evidenzbasierte Behandlung von Fettstoffwechselstörungen.

The treatment of elevated plasma lipids plays an important role in atherosclerosis prevention. Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol lowering with statins and, if required, additional inhibition is of the utmost importance. Lifestyle modification plays only a minor role in LDL cholesterol lowering. Absolute cardiovascular risk determines whether and at what intensity lipid lowering therapy should be implemented. Thus, in patients at very high risk, an LDL cholesterol level <55 mg/dl (<1.4 mmol/l) and a 50% reduction from baseline should be achieved. With respect to elevated triglyceride concentrations, treatment goals are less clearly defined, despite the fact that elevated triglyceride concentrations are causally linked to atherosclerotic events. Lifestyle modification can significantly reduce triglyceride concentrations and are often more effective than specific triglyceride lowering medications. New lipid lowering drugs still need to prove their clinical benefit in endpoint trials.

The Prevalence of Elevated Lipoprotein(a) in Patients Presenting With Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an inherited lipid disorder and an independent risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) disease. Although its prevalence in the general population has been well-documented, the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) in patients with clinical coronary artery disease (CAD) is less clear. In this study, we hypothesised that there is an over-representation of elevated Lp(a) in patients with early-onset CAD compared to the general population. METHODS: Between 6 February and 8 June 2018, we screened consecutive patients aged ≤70 years who presented to the Austin Hospital with any of the following criteria: (1) acute coronary syndrome (ACS); (2) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); or (3) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Whilst examining a range of different Lp(a) levels, a dichotomous elevated Lp(a) was defined as concentrations ≥0.5 g/L. Other CV risk factors were documented including hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) using the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network Criteria (DLCNC), also incorporating family history and clinical examination. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-eight (158) patients were screened; 63 (39.9%) were under 60 years of age. Overall, elevated Lp(a) ≥0.5 g/L was identified in 57 patients (36.1%). Of these, nine patients (15.8%) also had probable or definite FH. General population data was obtained from the Copenhagen General Population Study which studied 6,000 men and women and showed that the estimated prevalence of Lp(a) ≥0.5 g/L in the general population was 20%. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated Lp(a) is more prevalent in patients with relatively early-onset CAD compared to the general population and may contribute to previously unappreciated residual cardiovascular risk. Patients who present with early-onset CAD, should be routinely screened for elevated Lp(a).

The dedicated "Lp(a) clinic": A concept whose time has arrived?

The emergence of pathophysiological, epidemiologic, and genetic data strongly supports the causality for lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD). In parallel, novel Lp(a) lowering approaches have been developed that have re-invigorated clinical interest in Lp(a). Because Lp(a) is the most prevalent monogenetic lipid disorder globally, with prevalence of Lp(a) > 50 mg/dL estimated at >1.4 billion people, the rationale for diagnosing and managing Lp(a)-mediated risk is now stronger than ever. Patients with elevated Lp(a) are significantly under-diagnosed and the diagnosis is frequently made ad hoc rather than systematically. Elevated Lp(a) levels are associated with atherothrombotic risk and patients present with varied clinical phenotypes, ranging from stroke in pediatric age groups, to ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in young males, to CAVD in elderly individuals. A new clinical care paradigm of a dedicated "Lp(a) Clinic" would serve to evaluate and manage such patients who have elevated Lp(a) as the pathophysiological etiology. Such a clinic would include multidisciplinary expertise in lipid metabolism, clinical cardiology, vascular medicine, valvular disease, thrombosis, and pediatric aspects of clinical care. This viewpoint argues for the rationale of an Lp(a) outpatient clinic where patients with elevated Lp(a) and their affected relatives can be referred, evaluated, managed and followed, to ultimately reduce Lp(a)-mediated CVD and CAVD risk.

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

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

Influence of lipoprotein apheresis on circulating plasma levels of miRNAs in patients with high Lp(a).

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) is a well-established therapy for lowering lipid levels in serious cases of dyslipidaemia, including high levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]. This method lowers both LDL cholesterol and Lp(a) by more than 60% in most of patients; however, because randomized clinical studies could be extremely difficult, also other markers of the effect of this procedures on vascular health are of importance. Therefore, in addition to changes in plasma lipids and Lp(a) during LA, we also analysed the response of biomarkers associated with vascular integrity: small non-coding microRNAs (miRNAs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed the changes in miRNAs in two women (age 70 and 72 years) with clinically manifest extensive and progressive atherosclerotic disease and high levels of Lp(a) and with different clinical course who were treated by LA. In both women we analysed changes of 175 circulating plasma miRNAs using pre-defined serum/plasma focus panels at the beginning of and one year after the therapy. RESULTS: In addition to reduced levels of plasma lipids and Lp(a), circulating plasma levels of miR-193a-5p; -215-5p; -328-3p; -130a-3p; -362-3p; -92b-3p decreased, and levels of miR-125a-5p; -185-5p; -106a-5p; -320b; -19a increased (all P < 0.05) in both women. Moderate differences were found between both women with regard to the different course of atherosclerotic disease. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term LA substantially changes circulating plasma miRNAs associated with vascular integrity reflected different clinical course in both women. If confirmed, this approach could improve the assessment of the effectiveness of this therapy on an individual basis.

Lipoprotein apheresis - Shortening of treatment intervals reduces cardiovascular events: Case reports.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein (Lp-) apheresis is a life-long therapy, usually performed in weekly intervals. In some cases, however, atherosclerotic disease progresses despite adequate therapy with weekly Lp-apheresis and maximal lipid lowering medication. In an attempt to improve the effectiveness of therapy, we temporarily shortened treatment intervals of Lp-apheresis in patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and further progression of coronary atherosclerosis despite weekly Lp-apheresis and maximal lipid lowering medication. METHODS: We illustrate three case reports of patients with elevated Lp(a), who underwent regular weekly Lp-apheresis treatment for secondary prevention. The intensified treatment protocol contained three therapies in two weeks (alternating 2 per week and 1 per week). RESULTS: The shortening of treatment intervals achieved a stabilization of atherosclerotic disease in case 1. After a total of 68 therapies in 52 weeks (1.31 sessions/week) the elective coronary angiography revealed excellent long-term results. In case 2, the intensified treatment protocol is still ongoing. The patient reported a decrease in angina pectoris and an increase in exercise capacity since the beginning of more frequent therapy sessions. In some cases, as it is shown in case 3, a fast decision for shortening the treatment intervals is necessary. CONCLUSIONS: The intensified treatment regimen resulted in an improvement in clinical symptoms and no further progression of atherosclerosis. In conclusion, shorter therapeutic Lp-apheresis intervals, at least temporarily, should be considered in patients who suffer from clinical and/or angiographic progression of atherosclerosis, despite maximal lipid lowering medication and weekly Lp-apheresis.

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

BACKGROUND: Although lipid-lowering drugs, especially statins, and recently also PCSK9 inhibitors can reduce LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and decrease the risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) including coronary artery disease (CAD) events most efficiently, only 5-10% of high-risk cardiovascular patients reach the target values recommended by international guidelines. In patients who cannot be treated adequately by drugs it is possible to reduce increased LDL-C and/or lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) values by the use of lipoprotein apheresis (LA) with the potential to decrease severe CVD events in the range of 70%->80%. Even in Germany, a country with well-established reimbursement guidelines for LA, knowledge about this life-saving therapy is unsatisfactory in medical disciplines treating patients with CVD. Starting in 1996 our aim was to offer LA treatment following current guidelines for all patients in the entire region of our clinic as standard of care. METHODS: Based on the experience of our large apheresis competence center overlooking now nearly 80,000 LA treatments in the last two decades, we depict the necessary structure for identification of patients, defining indication, referral, implementation and standardisation of therapy as well as for reimbursement. LA is unfamiliar for most patients and even for many practitioners and consultants. Therefore nephrologists performing more than 90% of LA in Germany have to form a network for referral and ongoing medical education, comprising all regional care-givers, general practitioners as well as the respective specialists and insurances or other cost bearing parties for offering a scientifically approved therapeutic regimen and comprehensive care. The German Lipid Association (Lipid-Liga) has implemented the certification of a lipidological competence center as an appropriate way to realize such a network structure. RESULTS: Working as a lipidological and apheresis competence center in a region of 400,000 to 500,000 inhabitants, today we treat 160 patients in the chronic LA program. In spite of the availability of PCSK9 inhibitors since 2015, LA has remained as an indispensable therapeutic option for targeted lipid lowering treatment. An analysis of nearly 37,000 LA treatments in our own center documented a >80% reduction of cardiovascular events in patients treated by regular LA when comparing with the situation before the start of the LA therapy. We have implemented the concept of an apheresis competence center characterised by ongoing medical education with a focus on lipidological and cardiovascular aspects, interdisciplinary networking and referral. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence and prevalence of LA patients in our region demonstrate that based on our ongoing patient-centered approach the access of patients in need to LA is substantially above the German average, thus contributing to an extraordinary reduction of cardiovascular events in the population we in particular feel responsible for.

Lipoprotein apheresis in Austria - Reduction of cardiovascular events by regular lipoprotein apheresis treatment.

BACKGROUND: In Austria, about 12 patients per 1 million inhabitants are treated currently with lipoprotein (LP-) apheresis. In 2016 it has been suggested, that about 5000 patients were treated worldwide with LP-apheresis, more than half of them in Germany. Regular LP-apheresis aims to decrease apolipoprotein B-rich lipoproteins and to reduce cardiovascular events. In this analysis we present the current situation of LP-apheresis in Austria and we evaluated the cardiovascular event rate 2 years before versus 2 years after starting LP-apheresis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 30 patients (19 men and 11 women) was performed at Athos Institute, Vienna, Austria. The study period included two years prior versus two years after the beginning of LP-apheresis. Cardiovascular events and interventions were defined as regarding the coronary (MACE) or the non-coronary (peripheral, cerebral or renal) vascular system. RESULTS: The first cardiovascular event before treatment initiation occurred at a mean age of 48.4 years (range 34-73), treatment was started at a mean age of 55.6 years (range 34-73). The mean rate of incidence of cardiovascular events per patient per 2 years before beginning of LP-apheresis (y-2 and y-1) versus 2 years during treatment (y+1 and y+2) was reduced by 77.78% (1.50 versus 0.33 events/patient/2 years, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The significant reduction in MACE and vascular disease during regular LP-apheresis at weekly intervals is consistent with data from the literature. Difficulties arise in comparing such studies due to different definition of events or interventions and different study durations. However, LP-apheresis is an efficient treatment option and causes significantly prolonged event-free survival for patients at risk.

IDOL G51S Variant Is Associated With High Blood Cholesterol and Increases Low-Density Lipoprotein Receptor Degradation.

OBJECTIVE: A high level of LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The E3 ubiquitin ligase named IDOL (inducible degrader of the LDLR [LDL receptor]; also known as MYLIP [myosin regulatory light chain interacting protein]) mediates degradation of LDLR through ubiquitinating its C-terminal tail. But the expression profile of IDOL differs greatly in the livers of mice and humans. Whether IDOL is able to regulate LDL-C levels in humans remains to be determined. Approach and Results: By using whole-exome sequencing, we identified a nonsynonymous variant rs149696224 in the IDOL gene that causes a G51S (Gly-to-Ser substitution at the amino acid site 51) from a Chinese Uygur family. Large cohort analysis revealed IDOL G51S carriers (+/G51S) displayed significantly higher LDL-C levels. Mechanistically, the G51S mutation stabilized IDOL protein by inhibiting its dimerization and preventing self-ubiquitination and subsequent proteasomal degradation. IDOL(G51S) exhibited a stronger ability to promote ubiquitination and degradation of LDLR. Adeno-associated virus-mediated expression of IDOL(G51S) in mouse liver decreased hepatic LDLR and increased serum levels of LDL-C, total cholesterol, and triglyceride. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that IDOL(G51S) is a gain-of-function variant responsible for high LDL-C in both humans and mice. These results suggest that IDOL is a key player regulating cholesterol level in humans.

Patterns of serum lipids derangements and cardiovascular risk assessment in patients with primary biliary cholangitis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a chronic cholestatic autoimmune disease that disrupts the cholesterol metabolism. Our aim was to investigate the frequency of dyslipidemias and to evaluate the risk of cardiovascular events in a historic cohort of patients with PBC. PATIENTS: All patients attended from 2000 to 2009 with histological diagnosis of PBC were included and were compared with healthy controls. The 10-year cardiovascular risk was estimated by the Framingham risk score. RESULTS: Fifty four patients with PBC were included and compared to 106 controls. Differences in total cholesterol (263.8±123.9mg/dl vs. 199.6±40, p=0.0001), LDL-cholesterol (179.3±114.8 vs. 126.8±34.7, p=0.0001), HDL-cholesterol (62.4±36.2mg/dl vs. 47.3±12.3, p=0.0001) and triglycerides (149.1±59.1mg/dl vs. 126.4±55.4, p=0.001) were found. Hypercholesterolemia (>240mg/dl) was found in 52.4% of the patients with PBC vs. 11% in the control group, high LDL-cholesterol (160-189mg/dl) in 45.2% of the patients with PBC vs. 10% in controls and hyperalphalipoproteinemia (HDL-cholesterol >60mg/dl) in 45.2% of the patients with PBC vs. 16% in controls. The 10-year cardiovascular risk was 5.3%±5.9 in the patients with PBC and 4.1%±5.7 in the control group (p=0.723, IC 95%=0.637-1.104). Only one cardiovascular event (stroke) in a patient with PBC was registered in a mean follow up time of 57.9±36.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: Marked derangements in serum lipids and a high frequency of dyslipidemias are found in patients with PBC, however, these do not increase the risk of cardiovascular events.