Discordance among apoB, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides: implications for cardiovascular prevention.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite growing evidence that apolipoprotein B (apoB) is the most accurate marker of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk, its adoption in clinical practice has been low. This investigation sought to determine whether low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglycerides are sufficient for routine cardiovascular care. METHODS: A sample of 293 876 UK Biobank adults (age: 40-73 years, 42% men), free of cardiovascular disease, with a median follow-up for new-onset ASCVD of 11 years was included. Distribution of apoB at pre-specified levels of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and triglycerides was examined graphically, and 10-year ASCVD event rates were compared for high vs. low apoB. Residuals of apoB were constructed after regressing apoB on LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and log-transformed triglycerides and used as predictors in a proportional hazards regression model for new-onset ASCVD adjusted for standard risk factors, including HDL-C. RESULTS: ApoB was highly correlated with LDL-C and non-HDL-C (Pearson's r = .96, P < .001 for both) but less so with log triglycerides (r = .42, P < .001). However, apoB ranges necessary to capture 95% of all observations at pre-specified levels of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, or triglycerides were wide, spanning 85.8-108.8 md/dL when LDL-C 130 mg/dL, 88.3-112.4 mg/dL when non-HDL-C 160 mg/dL, and 67.8-147.4 md/dL when triglycerides 115 mg/dL. At these levels (±10 mg/dL), 10-year ASCVD rates for apoB above mean + 1 SD vs. below mean - 1 SD were 7.3 vs. 4.0 for LDL-C, 6.4 vs. 4.6 for non-HDL-C, and 7.0 vs. 4.6 for triglycerides (all P < .001). With 19 982 new-onset ASCVD events on follow-up, in the adjusted model, residual apoB remained statistically significant after accounting for LDL-C and HDL-C (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.0-1.07), after accounting for non-HDL-C and HDL-C (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.06), and after accounting for triglycerides and HDL-C (hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.15). None of the residuals of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, or of log triglycerides remained significant when apoB was included in the model. CONCLUSIONS: High variability of apoB at individual levels of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and triglycerides coupled with meaningful differences in 10-year ASCVD rates and significant residual information contained in apoB for prediction of new-onset ASCVD events demonstrate that LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and triglycerides are not adequate proxies for apoB in clinical care.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B for cardiovascular care.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Some experts and consensus groups continue to argue that apolipoprotein B (apoB) should not be introduced broadly into clinical care. But, too often, the present approach to clinical care is not succeeding. An important reason for this failure, we believe, is that the conventional approach limits what the expert clinician can accomplish and is too complex, confusing, and contradictory for primary care physicians to apply effectively in their practise. RECENT FINDINGS: There are four major reasons that apoB should be measured routinely in clinical care. First, apoB is a more accurate marker of cardiovascular risk than LDL-C or non-HDL-C. Second, the measurement of apoB is standardized whereas the measurements of LDL-C and non-HDL-C are not. Third, with apoB and a conventional lipid panel, all the lipid phenotypes can be simply and accurately distinguished. This will improve the care of the expert. Fourth, apoB, as the single measure to evaluate the success of therapy, would simplify the process of care for primary care physicians. SUMMARY: By introducing apoB broadly into clinical care, the process of care will be improved for both the expert and the primary care physician, and this will improve the outcomes of care.

Triglyceride-rich lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular risk.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The triglyceride-rich apoB lipoprotein particles make up a minority of the apoB particles in plasma. They vary in size, in lipid, and in protein content. Most are small enough to enter the arterial wall and therefore most are atherogenic. But how important a contribution TRL particles make to the total risk created by the apoB lipoproteins remains controversial. A recent Mendelian randomization analysis determined that the cardiovascular risk related to the cholesterol within these apoB particles--the TRL cholesterol--was greater than--and independent of--the risk related to apoB. If correct, these observations have major clinical significance. RECENT FINDINGS: Accordingly, we have analyzed these results in detail. In our view, the independent strength of the association between TRL cholesterol and apoB with cardiovascular risk seems inconsistent with the biological connections between apoB and cholesterol as integral and highly correlated constituents of apoB particles. These results are also inconsistent with other lines of evidence such as the results of the fibrate randomized clinical trials. Moreover, we are also concerned with other aspects of the analysis. SUMMARY: We do not regard the issue as settled. However, this enquiry has led us to a fuller understanding of the determinants of the cholesterol content of the TRL apoB particles and the complex processing of cholesterol amongst the plasma lipoproteins.

Interplay of Atherogenic Particle Number and Particle Size and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease.

BACKGROUND: We examined the interplay of apolipoprotein B (apoB) and LDL particle size, approximated by the LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C)/apoB ratio, on the risk of new-onset coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: Participants without cardiovascular disease from the UK Biobank (UKB; n = 308 182), the Women's Health Study (WHS; n = 26 204), and the Framingham Heart Study (FHS; n = 2839) were included. Multivariable Cox models were used to assess the relationship between apoB and LDL-C/apoB ratio and incidence of CHD (14 994 events). Our analyses were adjusted for age, sex (except WHS), HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C), systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive treatment, diabetes, and smoking. RESULTS: In all 3 studies, there was a strong positive correlation between apoB and LDL-C (correlation coefficients r = 0.80 or higher) and a weak inverse correlation of apoB with LDL-C/apoB ratio (-0.28 ≤ r ≤ -0.14). For all 3 cohorts, CHD risk was higher for higher levels of apoB. Upon multivariable adjustment, the association between apoB and new-onset CHD remained robust and statistically significant in all 3 cohorts with hazard ratios per 1 SD (95% CI): 1.24 (1.22-1.27), 1.33 (1.20-1.47), and 1.24 (1.09-1.42) for UKB, WHS, and FHS, respectively. However, the association between LDL-C/apoB and CHD was statistically significant only in the FHS cohort: 0.78 (0.64-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis confirms that apoB is a strong risk factor for CHD. However, given the null association in 2 of the 3 studies, we cannot confirm that cholesterol-depleted LDL particles are substantially more atherogenic than cholesterol-replete particles. These results lend further support to routine measurement of apoB in clinical care.

Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition Reduces Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events by Lowering Apolipoprotein B Levels.

Cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) facilitates the exchange of cholesteryl esters and triglycerides (TG) between high-density lipoprotein (HDL) particles and TG-rich, apolipoprotein (apo) B-containing particles. Initially, these compounds were developed to raise plasma HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) levels, a mechanism that was previously thought to lower the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). More recently, the focus changed and the use of pharmacologic CETP inhibitors to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non-HDL-C and apoB concentrations became supported by several lines of evidence from animal models, observational investigations, randomized controlled trials and Mendelian randomization studies. Furthermore, a cardiovascular outcome trial of anacetrapib demonstrated that CETP inhibition significantly reduced the risk of major coronary events in patients with ASCVD in a manner directly proportional to the substantial reduction in LDL-C and apoB. These data have dramatically shifted the attention on CETP away from raising HDL-C instead to lowering apoB-containing lipoproteins, which is relevant since the newest CETP inhibitor, obicetrapib, reduces LDL-C by up to 51% and apoB by up to 30% when taken in combination with a high-intensity statin. An ongoing cardiovascular outcome trial of obicetrapib in patients with ASCVD is expected to provide further evidence of the ability of CETP inhibitors to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events by lowering apoB. The purpose of the present review is to provide an up-to-date understanding of CETP inhibition and its relationship to ASCVD risk reduction.

The Expected 30-Year Benefits of Early Versus Delayed Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease by Lipid Lowering.

BACKGROUND: Lipid-lowering recommendations for prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease rely principally on estimated 10-year risk. We sought to determine the optimal time for initiation of lipid lowering in younger adults as a function of expected 30-year benefit. METHODS: Data from 3148 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2009-2016) participants, age 30 to 59 years, not eligible for lipid-lowering treatment recommendation under the most recent US guidelines, were analyzed. We estimated the absolute and relative impact of lipid lowering as a function of age, age at initiation, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) level on the expected rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease over the succeeding 30 years. We modeled expected risk reductions based on shorter-term effects observed in statin trials (model A) and longer-term benefits based on Mendelian randomization studies (model B). RESULTS: In both models, potential reductions in predicted 30-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk were greater with older age and higher non-HDL-C level. Immediate initiation of lipid lowering (ie, treatment for 30 years) in 40- to 49-year-old patients with non-HDL-C ≥160 mg/dL would be expected to reduce their average predicted 30-year risk of 17.1% to 11.6% (model A; absolute risk reduction [ARR], 5.5%) or 6.5% (model B; ARR 10.6%). Delaying lipid lowering by 10 years (treatment for 20 years) would result in residual 30-year risk of 12.7% (A; ARR 4.4) or 9.9% (B; ARR 7.2%) and delaying by 20 years (treatment for 10 years) would lead to expected mean residual risk of 14.6% (A; ARR 2.6%) or 13.9% (B; ARR 3.2%). The slope of the achieved ARR as a function of delay in treatment was also higher with older age and higher non-HDL-C level. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial reduction in expected atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in the next 30 years is achievable by intensive lipid lowering in individuals in their 40s and 50s with non-HDL-C ≥160 mg/dL. For many, the question of when to start lipid lowering might be more relevant than whether to start lipid lowering.

Quantifying Importance of Major Risk Factors for Coronary Heart Disease.

BACKGROUND: To optimize preventive strategies for coronary heart disease (CHD), it is essential to understand and appropriately quantify the contribution of its key risk factors. Our objective was to compare the associations of key modifiable CHD risk factors-specifically lipids, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diabetes mellitus, and smoking-with incident CHD events based on their prognostic performance, attributable risk fractions, and treatment benefits, overall and by age. METHODS: Pooled participant-level data from 4 observational cohort studies sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute were used to create a cohort of 22 626 individuals aged 45 to 84 years who were initially free of cardiovascular disease. Individuals were followed for 10 years from baseline evaluation for incident CHD. Proportional hazards regression was used to estimate metrics of prognostic model performance (likelihood ratio, C index, net reclassification, discrimination slope), hazard ratios, and population attributable fractions for SBP, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), diabetes mellitus, and smoking. Expected absolute risk reductions for antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment were assessed. RESULTS: Age, sex, and race capture 63% to 80% of the prognostic performance of cardiovascular risk models. In contrast, adding either SBP, non-HDL-C, diabetes mellitus, or smoking to a model with other risk factors increases the C index by only 0.004 to 0.013. However, primordial prevention could have a substantial effect as demonstrated by population attributable fractions of 28% for SBP≥130 mm Hg and 17% for non-HDL-C≥130 mg/dL. Similarly, lowering the SBP of all individuals to <130 mm Hg or lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 30% would be expected to lower a baseline 10-year CHD risk of 10.7% to 7.0 and 8.0, respectively (absolute risk reductions: 3.7% and 2.7%, respectively). Prognostic performance decreases with age (C indices for age groups 45-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75-84 are 0.75, 0.72, 0.66, and 0.62, respectively), whereas absolute risk reductions increase (SBP: 1.1%, 2.3%, 5.4%, 10.3%, respectively; non-HDL-C: 1.1%, 2.0%, 3.7%, 5.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although individual modifiable CHD risk factors contribute only modestly to prognostic performance, our models indicate that eliminating or controlling these individual factors would lead to substantial reductions in total population CHD events. Metrics used to judge importance of risk factors should be tailored to the research objectives.

Non-HDL Cholesterol or apoB: Which to Prefer as a Target for the Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Guidelines propose using non-HDL cholesterol or apolipoprotein (apo) B as a secondary treatment target to reduce residual cardiovascular risk of LDL-targeted therapies. This review summarizes the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of using apoB compared with non-HDL cholesterol. RECENT FINDINGS: Non-HDL cholesterol, calculated as total-HDL cholesterol, includes the assessment of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol, an additional risk factor independent of LDL cholesterol. ApoB is a direct measure of circulating numbers of atherogenic lipoproteins, and its measurement can be standardized across laboratories worldwide. Discordance analysis of non-HDL cholesterol versus apoB demonstrates that apoB is the more accurate marker of cardiovascular risk. Baseline and on-treatment apoB can identify elevated numbers of small cholesterol-depleted LDL particles that are not reflected by LDL and non-HDL cholesterol. ApoB is superior to non-HDL cholesterol as a secondary target in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (175-880 mg/dL), diabetes, obesity or metabolic syndrome, or very low LDL cholesterol < 70 mg/dL. When apoB is not available, non-HDL cholesterol should be used to supplement LDLC.

Evaluation of the Pleiotropic Effects of Statins: A Reanalysis of the Randomized Trial Evidence Using Egger Regression-Brief Report.

OBJECTIVE: To reanalyze data from recent randomized trials of statins to assess whether the benefits and risks of statins are mediated primarily via their LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) lowering effects or via other mechanisms. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We adapted Egger regression, a technique frequently used in Mendelian randomization studies to detect genetic pleiotropy, to reanalyze the available randomized control trial data of statin therapy. For cardiovascular end points, each 1 mmol/L change in LDL-C with statin therapy was associated with a hazard ratio of 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.84) with an intercept that was indistinguishable from zero (intercept, -0.0032; [95% confidence interval, -0.090 to 0.084]; P=0.94), indicating no pleiotropy. For incident diabetes mellitus, a 1 mmol/L change in LDL-C with statin therapy was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.07 (95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.16) and an intercept nondistinguishable from zero (intercept, -0.015; [95% confidence interval, -0.30 to 0.27]; P=0.91), again indicating no pleiotropy. CONCLUSIONS: Our reanalysis of the randomized control trial data using Egger regression adds to the existing evidence that the cardiovascular benefits of statins and their association with incident diabetes mellitus are mediated primarily, if not entirely, via their LDL-C lowering properties rather than by any pleiotropic effects.

Hypertriglyceridemia and cardiovascular risk: a cautionary note about metabolic confounding.

Triglycerides are the conventional tool to measure VLDLs, whereas LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) is the conventional tool to measure LDLs. Multiple epidemiological studies, including a series of genetically based analyses, have demonstrated that cardiovascular risk is related to triglycerides independently of LDL-C, and this has led to a series of new therapeutic agents designed specifically to reduce plasma triglycerides. The triglyceride hypothesis posits that increased levels of triglycerides increase cardiovascular risk and decreasing plasma triglycerides decreases cardiovascular risk. In this work, we will examine the validity of the triglyceride hypothesis by detailing the biological complexities associated with hypertriglyceridemia, the genetic epidemiological evidence in favor of hypertriglyceridemia, the evidence from the fibrate randomized clinical trials relating triglycerides and clinical outcomes, and the completeness of the evidence from the initial studies of novel mutations and the therapeutic agents based on these mutations that lower triglycerides. Because of the multiple metabolic links between VLDL and LDL, we will try to demonstrate that measuring triglycerides and LDL-C alone are inadequate to document the lipoprotein profile. We will try to demonstrate that apoB must be measured, as well as triglycerides and cholesterol, to have an accurate estimate of lipoprotein status.

Serial versus single troponin measurements for the prediction of cardiovascular events and mortality in stable chronic haemodialysis patients.

AIM: This study aims to describe the variability of pre-dialysis troponin values in stable haemodialysis patients and compare the performance of single versus fluctuating or persistently elevated troponins in predicting a composite of mortality and cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction or stroke. METHODS: A total of 128 stable ambulatory chronic haemodialysis patients were enrolled. Pre-dialysis troponin I was measured for three consecutive months. The patients were followed for 1 year. A troponin elevation (>0.06 µg/L) was considered high risk, and patients were classified into three risk groups: (i) patients who had normal troponin levels on all three measurements; (ii) patients with at least one elevated and one normal troponin value; and (iii) patients with elevated troponin values on all measurements. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients had all three troponin values in the normal range; 29 had fluctuating values; 18 had all three values elevated. Twenty-seven deaths or composite events were observed: eight in the first risk group, 10 in the second and nine in the third. Persistently elevated and fluctuating troponin values were associated with higher mortality and cardiovascular event rate. Serial troponin measurement had a higher sensitivity for the composite outcome than single troponin measurement when either fluctuating or persistently elevated values were considered to confer high risk. CONCLUSION: Most haemodialysis patients do not have elevated troponin levels at baseline. Troponin levels that remain elevated or fluctuate are associated with worse outcomes. A serial troponin measurement strategy is associated with better sensitivity and higher negative predictive value compared with single troponin measurement.

Individualized Statin Benefit for Determining Statin Eligibility in the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend statins in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease on the basis of predicted cardiovascular risk without directly considering the expected benefits of statin therapy based on the available randomized, controlled trial evidence. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 2134 participants representing 71.8 million American residents potentially eligible for statins in primary prevention from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for the years 2005 to 2010. We compared statin eligibilities using 2 separate approaches: a 10-year risk-based approach (≥7.5% 10-year risk) and an individualized benefit approach (ie, based on predicted absolute risk reduction over 10 years [ARR10] ≥2.3% from randomized, controlled trial data). A risk-based approach led to the eligibility of 15.0 million (95% confidence interval, 12.7-17.3 million) Americans, whereas a benefit-based approach identified 24.6 million (95% confidence interval, 21.0-28.1 million). The corresponding numbers needed to treat over 10 years were 21 (range, 9-44) and 25 (range, 9-44). The benefit-based approach identified 9.5 million lower-risk (<7.5% 10-year risk) Americans not currently eligible for statin treatment who had the same or greater expected benefit from statins (≥2.3% ARR10) compared with higher-risk individuals. This lower-risk/acceptable-benefit group includes younger individuals (mean age, 55.2 versus 62.5 years; P<0.001 for benefit based versus risk based) with higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (140 versus133 mg/dL; P=0.01). Statin treatment in this group would be expected to prevent an additional 266 508 cardiovascular events over 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: An individualized statin benefit approach can identify lower-risk individuals who have equal or greater expected benefit from statins in primary prevention compared with higher-risk individuals. This approach may help develop guideline recommendations that better identify individuals who meaningfully benefit from statin therapy.

Application of new cholesterol guidelines to a population-based sample.

BACKGROUND: The 2013 guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC-AHA) for the treatment of cholesterol expand the indications for statin therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. METHODS: Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys of 2005 to 2010, we estimated the number, and summarized the risk-factor profile, of persons for whom statin therapy would be recommended (i.e., eligible persons) under the new ACC-AHA guidelines, as compared with the guidelines of the Third Adult Treatment Panel (ATP III) of the National Cholesterol Education Program, and extrapolated the results to a population of 115.4 million U.S. adults between the ages of 40 and 75 years. RESULTS: As compared with the ATP-III guidelines, the new guidelines would increase the number of U.S. adults receiving or eligible for statin therapy from 43.2 million (37.5%) to 56.0 million (48.6%). Most of this increase in numbers (10.4 million of 12.8 million) would occur among adults without cardiovascular disease. Among adults between the ages of 60 and 75 years without cardiovascular disease who are not receiving statin therapy, the percentage who would be eligible for such therapy would increase from 30.4% to 87.4% among men and from 21.2% to 53.6% among women. This effect would be driven largely by an increased number of adults who would be classified solely on the basis of their 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event. Those who would be newly eligible for statin therapy include more men than women and persons with a higher blood pressure but a markedly lower level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. As compared with the ATP-III guidelines, the new guidelines would recommend statin therapy for more adults who would be expected to have future cardiovascular events (higher sensitivity) but would also include many adults who would not have future events (lower specificity). CONCLUSIONS: The new ACC-AHA guidelines for the management of cholesterol would increase the number of adults who would be eligible for statin therapy by 12.8 million, with the increase seen mostly among older adults without cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Duke Clinical Research Institute and others.).

Discordance between Circulating Atherogenic Cholesterol Mass and Lipoprotein Particle Concentration in Relation to Future Coronary Events in Women.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether measurement of circulating total atherogenic lipoprotein particle cholesterol mass [non-HDL cholesterol (nonHDLc)] or particle concentration [apolipoprotein B (apo B) and LDL particle concentration (LDLp)] more accurately reflects risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD). We evaluated CHD risk among women in whom these markers where discordant. METHODS: Among 27533 initially healthy women in the Women's Health Study (NCT00000479), using residuals from linear regression models, we compared risk among women with higher or lower observed particle concentration relative to nonHDLc (highest and lowest residual quartiles, respectively) to individuals with agreement between markers (middle quartiles) using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Although all 3 biomarkers were correlated (r ≥ 0.77), discordance occurred in up to 20.2% of women. Women with discordant high particle concentration were more likely to have metabolic syndrome (MetS) and diabetes (both P < 0.001). Over a median follow-up of 20.4 years, 1246 CHD events occurred (514725 person-years). Women with high particle concentration relative to nonHDLc had increased CHD risk: age-adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) = 1.77 (1.56-2.00) for apo B and 1.70 (1.50-1.92) for LDLp. After adjustment for clinical risk factors including MetS, these risks attenuated to 1.22 (1.07-1.39) for apo B and 1.13 (0.99-1.29) for LDLp. Discordant low apo B or LDLp relative to nonHDLc was not associated with lower risk. CONCLUSIONS: Discordance between atherogenic particle cholesterol mass and particle concentration occurs in a sizeable proportion of apparently healthy women and should be suspected clinically among women with cardiometabolic traits. In such women, direct measurement of lipoprotein particle concentration might better inform CHD risk assessment.

Statins, PCSK9 inhibitors and cholesterol homeostasis: a view from within the hepatocyte.

Statins and PCSK9 inhibitors dramatically lower plasma LDL levels and dramatically increase LDL receptor number within hepatocyte cell membranes. It seems self-evident that total clearance of LDL particles from plasma and total delivery of cholesterol to the liver must increase in consequence. However, based on the results of stable isotope tracer studies, this analysis demonstrates the contrary to be the case. Statins do not change the production rate of LDL particles. Accordingly, at steady state, the clearance rate cannot change. Because LDL particles contain less cholesterol on statin therapy, the delivery of cholesterol to the liver must, therefore, be reduced. PCSK9 inhibitors reduce the production of LDL particles and this further reduces cholesterol delivery to the liver. With both agents, a larger fraction of a smaller pool is removed per unit time. These findings are inconsistent with the conventional model of cholesterol homeostasis within the liver, but are consistent with a new model of regulation, the multi-channel model, which postulates that different lipoprotein particles enter the hepatocyte by different routes and have different metabolic fates within the hepatocyte. The multi-channel model, but not the conventional model, may explain how statins and PCSK9 inhibitors can produce sustained increases in LDL receptor number.

Estimating the Population Impact of Lp(a) Lowering on the Incidence of Myocardial Infarction and Aortic Stenosis-Brief Report.

OBJECTIVE: High lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is the most common genetic dyslipidemia and is a causal factor for myocardial infarction (MI) and aortic stenosis (AS). We sought to estimate the population impact of Lp(a) lowering that could be achieved in primary prevention using the therapies in development. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We used published data from 2 prospective cohorts. High Lp(a) was defined as ≥50 mg/dL (≈20th percentile). Relative risk, attributable risk, the attributable risk percentage, population attributable risk, and the population attributable risk percentage were calculated as measures of the population impact. For MI, the event rate was 4.0% versus 2.8% for high versus low Lp(a) (relative risk, 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-1.46). The attributable risk was 1.26% (95% CI, 1.24-1.27), corresponding to 31.3% (95% CI, 31.0-31.7) of the excess MI risk in those with high Lp(a). The population attributable risk was 0.21%, representing a population attributable risk percentage of 7.13%. For AS, the event rate was 1.51% versus 0.78% for high versus low Lp(a) (relative risk, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.94-1.97). The attributable risk was 0.74% (95% CI, 0.73-0.75), corresponding to 48.8% (95% CI, 48.3-49.3) of the excess AS risk in those with high Lp(a). The population attributable risk was 0.13%, representing a population attributable risk percentage of 13.9%. In sensitivity analyses targeting the top 10% of Lp(a), the population attributable risk percentage was 5.2% for MI and 7.8% for AS. CONCLUSIONS: Lp(a) lowering among the top 20% of the population distribution for Lp(a) could prevent 1 in 14 cases of MI and 1 in 7 cases of AS, suggesting a major impact on reducing the burden of cardiovascular disease. Targeting the top 10% could prevent 1 in 20 MI cases and 1 in 12 AS cases.