Short-term and long-term effects of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis on restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA): is lowering Lp(a) by LDL apheresis effective on restenosis after PTCA?

It has been reported that serum lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels in patients with restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) were significantly higher than in patients without restenosis. In this study, we evaluated the preventive effect of LDL apheresis on restenosis after PTCA in patients with hypercholesterolemia. For 10 patients who had shown a serum cholesterol level of more than 220 mg/dl despite treatment with antihypercholesterolemic drugs, LDL apheresis was conducted every 2 weeks after a successful PTCA until restenosis could be checked. In 4 patients, LDL apheresis was conducted for 2 years. LDL apheresis significantly reduced serum cholesterol from 248 +/- 22 mg/dl to 135 +/- 26 mg/dl and Lp(a) from 42 +/- 34 mg/dl to 21 +/- 16 mg/dl. The average degree of stenosis in the 11 lesions undergoing PTCA was 92 +/- 6% before PTCA, 35 +/- 10% immediately after PTCA, and 38 +/- 19% at 3 to 4 months after PTCA. Restenosis was observed in only 1 lesion. In 4 patients who received LDL apheresis for 2 years, restenosis did not occur in any of the 4 lesions treated. We concluded that LDL apheresis was an efficacious therapy to prevent restenosis after PTCA in patients with hypercholesterolemia.     

Can aggressive lipid lowering using low-density lipoprotein apheresis prevent restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in patients with normocholesterolemia?

We examined whether aggressive lipid lowering using low-density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis could prevent restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Fifteen patients with 17 lesions underwent LDL apheresis once within a week before and after PTCA and thereafter every 2 or 3 weeks (apheresis group) for about 4 months. The control group consisted of 17 patients with 17 lesions. No patients received additional lipid lowering drugs after PTCA. In the apheresis group, the time interval means of the total and LDL cholesterol levels were significantly lower than those in the control group whereas no significant differences were found between the 2 groups regarding the mean percent diameter stenosis or minimal lumen diameter before and after PTCA and at follow-up. The restenosis rate was 29.4% in the apheresis group and 47.1% in the control group. The restenosis rate tended to be slightly lower in the apheresis group. The overall results, however, indicated that aggressive lipid lowering does not prevent restenosis.     

LDL apheresis in clinical practice: long-term treatment of severe hyperlipidemia.

Thirty patients (13 males, 17 females) suffering from familial hypercholesterolemia resistant to diet and lipid-lowering drugs were treated for 48.7 +/- 19.2 months (range, 2-87 months) with low density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis. Three different systems (dextran sulfate adsorption for 27 of 30 [Kaneka, Liposorber, Japan], immunoadsorption system for 2 of 30 [Baxter, Therasorb, Germany], immunoadsorption system with special lipoprotein a [Lp(a)] columns for 1 of 30 patients [Lipopak, Pocard, Russia]) were applied. Before LDL apheresis 24 of 30 patients suffered from coronary heart disease (CHD) with angina symptoms. With LDL apheresis, reductions of 46% for total cholesterol, 49% for LDL, 30% for Lp(a), and 38% for triglycerides were reached. Severe side effects such as shock or allergic reactions were very rare (0.5%). In the course of treatment, an improvement in general well-being and increased performance were experienced in 27 of 30 patients. A 60 to 100% reduction of nitrate medication was observed in 17 of 24 patients. Regarding the different apheresis systems used, at the end of the trial there were no significant differences with respect to the clinical outcome experienced by the patients and concerning total cholesterol, LDL, high density lipoprotein, and triglyceride concentrations. But to reduce high Lp(a) levels, the immunoadsorption method with special Lp(a) columns seems to be the most effective (-57% versus 25% [Kaneka] and 23% [Baxter]). The present data clearly demonstrate that treatment with LDL apheresis of patients suffering from familial hypercholesterolemia, resistant to maximum conservative therapy, is very effective and safe, even in long-term application.     

Association of lipoprotein(a) concentration and apo(a) isoform size with restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

Lp(a) is a unique class of lipoprotein particles that exhibits a considerable size heterogeneity resulting from the size polymorphism of apo(a), its unique protein component. An elevated level of Lp(a) in plasma has been proposed to be a risk factor for premature development of coronary artery disease. To evaluate the relationship between Lp(a) concentration and apo(a) isoform size with restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, Lp(a) levels and apo(a) phenotypes were determined in 204 patients who underwent a successful coronary angioplasty procedure and stent implantation. The patients were followed with clinical examinations and exercise tests at 1, 3, and 6 months, and a control coronary angiography was performed after 6 months to evaluate restenosis. Lp(a) levels were determined with an ELISA that is insensitive to the size heterogeneity of Lp(a), and the apo(a) isoforms were determined by a high-resolution agarose gel electrophoresis method followed by immunoblotting with a specific monoclonal antibody. Of the 146 patients who underwent angiographic evaluation, 57 (39%) had restenosis, whereas 89 (61%) did not. Lp(a) levels and the distribution of the expressed apo(a) phenotypes were compared in these two groups of patients. Although the mean and median Lp(a) levels were higher in the restenosed group, the difference was not statistically significant. However, a significant difference in Lp(a) values was found in women (P=0.043), even though, because of the small number of women in the study (n=35), no sound conclusions can be reached on the predictive role of Lp(a) in restenosis. There also was no difference in the distribution of apo(a) phenotypes between the two groups. Because of their wide distribution, Lp(a) values and apo(a) isoforms do not seem to be a useful indicator of risk of restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in our study cohort.     

The familial hypercholesterolemia regression study: a randomized comparison of therapeutic reduction of both low-density lipoprotein and lipoprotein(a) versus low-density lipoprotein alone.

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp (a)] is a risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD), especially in the presence of a raised low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (LDL-C). To ascertain whether reduction of both LDL and Lp(a) is more advantageous than reduction of LDL alone, patients with heterozygous FH and CHD were selected randomly to receive either LDL apheresis fortnightly plus simvastatin 40 mg/day or colestipol 20 g plus simvastatin 40 mg/day. Quantitative coronary angiography was undertaken before and after 2.1 years. Changes in serum lipids were similar in both groups except for the greater reduction of LDL-C and Lp(a) by apheresis. There were no significant differences in primary angiographic endpoints, and none of the angiographic changes correlated with Lp(a). Although LDL apheresis plus simvastatin was more effective than colestipol plus simvastatin in reducing LDL-C and Lp(a), it was not more beneficial in influencing coronary atherosclerosis. Decreasing Lp(a) seems unnecessary if LDL-C is reduced below 130 mg/dl.     

Dramatic fate of a young coronary heart disease patient rescued with specific lipoprotein(a) apheresis

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is acknowledged to be an independent atherothrombotic risk factor. Although genetic studies have highlighted the causal relationship between coronary disease and Lp(a), it is uncertain which strategies maximize the therapeutic benefit of patients with high Lp(a) levels. We report the challenging case of a young coronary heart disease (CHD) patient who underwent 10 percutaneous coronary interventions due to repeated acute coronary syndromes (2006–2009) despite an optimally controlled, traditional risk‐factor profile. For the first time, we performed specific Lp(a) immunoadsorption in the presence of very low levels of low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) while the patient was on a high‐dose statin regimen. There have been no previous reports of patients with high Lp(a) levels who achieved LDL‐C goals when treated with an isolated Lp(a)‐lowering method. Despite the very high risk of cardiovascular death, targeting Lp(a) resulted in dramatic improvement of the patient's clinical condition. Thus, we suggest that specific Lp(a) apheresis should be considered an effective new treatment strategy for patients with progressive CHD who have reached LDL‐C goals but harbor elevated Lp(a) levels. J. Clin. Apheresis 30:193–195, 2015. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Current topics on low-density lipoprotein apheresis.

The prognosis of patients suffering from severe hyperlipidemia, sometimes combined with elevated lipoprotein (a) (Lp[a]) levels, and coronary heart disease (CHD) refractory to diet and lipid-lowering drugs is poor. For such patients, regular treatment with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis is the therapeutic option. Today, there are four different LDL-apheresis systems available: immunoadsorption, heparin-induced extracorporeal LDL/fibrinogen precipitation, dextran sulfate LDL-adsorption, and LDL-hemoperfusion. Despite substantial progress in diagnostics, drug therapy, and cardiosurgical procedures, atherosclerosis with myocardial infarction, stroke, and peripheral cellular disease still maintains its position at the top of morbidity and mortality statistics in industrialized nations. Established risk factors widely accepted are smoking, arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and central obesity. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between hyperlipidemia and atherosclerosis. Besides the elimination of other risk factors, in severe hyperlipidemia (HLP) therapeutic strategies should focus on a drastic reduction of serum lipoproteins. Despite maximum conventional therapy with a combination of different kinds of lipid-lowering drugs, however, sometimes the goal of therapy cannot be reached. Mostly, the prognosis of patients suffering from severe HLP, sometimes combined with elevated Lp(a) levels and CHD refractory to diet and lipid-lowering drugs is poor. Hence, in such patients, treatment with LDL-apheresis can be useful. Regarding the different LDL-apheresis systems used, there were no significant differences with respect to the clinical outcome or concerning total cholesterol, LDL, high-density lipoprotein, or triglyceride concentrations. With respect to elevated Lp(a) levels, however, the immunoadsorption method seems to be the most effective. The published data clearly demonstrate that treatment with LDL-apheresis in patients suffering from severe hyperlipidemia refractory to maximum conservative therapy is effective and safe in long-term application.     

State of percutaneous transluminal coronary artery angioplasty and effectiveness of low-density lipoprotein apheresis.

We have recognized percutaneous transluminal coronary artery angioplasty (PTCA) as an important procedure for achieving myocardial revascularization. PTCA has been performed for stable and unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction, and silent myocardial ischemia. Among many new devices, the coronary stent is the most important advancement in PTCA. Frequent stent use is due to the introduction of antiplatelet therapy to prevent stent thrombosis. One serious problem is that PTCA, even with stent use, often causes chronic restenosis. This problem has not been solved, however, despite various strategies. Aggressive lipid-lowering therapy is one of the most important therapies for coronary heart disease. The findings in aggressive lipid-lowering therapy show us its importance. We report that low-density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis, when performed immediately before and after PTCA, can prevent restenosis of coronary artery lesions. Lipid-lowering therapy should be applied more aggressively with medicine and/or with LDL apheresis for patients who have undergone PTCA.     

Efficacy of different low-density lipoprotein apheresis methods.

Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis is a treatment option in patients with coronary heart disease and drug resistant hypercholesterolemia. Various apheresis systems based on different elimination concepts are currently in use. We compared the efficacy of 4 different apheresis systems concerning the elimination of lipoproteins. The study included 7 patients treated by heparin extracorporeal LDL precipitation (HELP), 10 patients treated by immunoadsorption, 8 patients treated by dextran-sulfate adsorption, and 4 patients treated by cascade filtration. Ten subsequent aphereses were evaluated in patients undergoing regular apheresis for more than 6 months. Total cholesterol decreased by approximately 50% with all 4 systems. LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) (64-67%) and lipoprotein a [Lp(a)] (61-64%) were decreased more effectively by HELP, immunoadsorption, and dextran-sulfate apheresis than by the less specific cascade filtration system [LDL-C reduction 56%, Lp(a) reduction 53%]. Triglyceride concentrations were reduced by 40% (dextran-sulfate) to 49% (cascade filtration) and high-density lipoproteins (HDL) by 9% (dextran-sulfate) to 25% (cascade filtration). On the basis of plasma volume treated, HELP was the most efficient system (LDL-C reduction 25.0%/L plasma), followed by dextran-sulfate (21.0%/L plasma), cascade (19.4%/L plasma), and immunoadsorption (17.0%/L plasma). However, a maximal amount of 3 L plasma can be processed with HELP due to concomitant fibrinogen reduction while there is no such limitation with immunoadsorption. Therefore, the decision of which system should be used in a given patient must be individualized taking the pre-apheresis LDL concentration, concomitant pharmacotherapy, and fibrinogen concentration into account.     

Low density lipoprotein hemoperfusion by direct adsorption of lipoproteins from whole blood (DALI apheresis): clinical experience from a single center.

The elimination of low density lipoprotein (LDL) and lipoprotein (a) (Lp[a]) by conventional LDL apheresis techniques can only be achieved in a cell-free medium and thus requires the initial separation of plasma from the blood cells. The present paper describes the first LDL hemoperfusion system which is able to adsorb LDL and Lp(a) directly from whole blood. This simplifies the procedure substantially. The adsorber consists of polyacrylate ligands linked to a modified polyacrylamide matrix. These negatively charged polyacrylate ligands interact with the positively charged apoprotein B moiety of LDL and Lp(a), which results in selective adsorption of these lipoproteins onto the column. Three hypercholesterolemic patients suffering from overt atherosclerotic complications were treated weekly by direct adsorption of lipoproteins (DALI) (n = 20 sessions each). All patients were on the highest tolerated dose of cholesterol synthesis enzyme (CSE) inhibitors. About 1.3 patient blood volumes were treated per session. The anticoagulation was performed with acid citrate dextrose (ACD-A). The following acute reductions were achieved: LDL: 66%; Lp(a): 63%; and triglycerides: 29%. High density lipoprotein (HDL) (-13%) and fibrinogen (-16%) were not substantially reduced. The sessions were essentially uneventful. Due to a low ACD-A infusion rate, no hypocalcemic episodes were registered. One patient on enalapril was treated without complications when this angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor was withdrawn 2 days prior to apheresis. In summary, in our hands, DALI apheresis proved to be a simple, safe, and efficient method of lipid apheresis in hypercholesterolemic patients refractory to conservative lipid lowering therapy.     

Low density lipoprotein apheresis in treatment of hyperlipidemia: experience with four different technologies.

The prognosis of patients suffering from severe hyperlipidaemia (HLP), sometimes combined with elevated lipoprotein (a) levels, and coronary heart disease (CHD) refractory to diet and lipid lowering drugs is poor. A new therapeutic option for such patients is regular treatment with low density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis. In total 33 patients (16 males, 17 female, aged 43.8+/-14.3 years), suffering from severe HLP resistant to diet and lipid lowering drugs, were treated for 62.3+/-21.3 (range, 1-113) months with LDL-apheresis. Four different LDL-apheresis systems were used: the dextran sulfate adsorption for 28 of 33 (Liposorber, Kaneka, Japan), immunoadsorption for 2 of 33 (Therasorb, Baxter, Germany), LDL-hemoperfusion for 2 of 33 (Dali, Fresenius, Germany), and the immunoadsorption system with special antilipoprotein (a) columns for 1 of 33 patients (Lipopak, Pocard, Russia). Before applying LDL-apheresis, 27 of 33 patients suffered from CHD with severe angina pectoris symptoms, a history of myocardial infarction or coronary artery venous bypass (CAVB). With LDL-apheresis, reductions (p < 0.05) of 46% for total cholesterol, 49% for LDL, 28% for Lp(a), and 38% for triglycerides were reached. Severe side-effects, such as shock or allergic reactions, were very rare (0.5%). In the course of treatment an improvement in general well-being and increased performance were experienced in 29 of 33 patients. In 23 of 27 patients suffering from CHD, a reduction of 60 to 100% of nitrate medication was observed. Regarding the different apheresis systems used, there were no significant differences with respect to the clinical outcome and concerning total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, and triglyceride concentrations. But, in respect to elevated lipoprotein (a) levels, the immunoadsorption method using special anti-lipoprotein (a) columns seems to be the most effective (-57% versus -25% [Kaneka, p < 0.05] or -23% [Baxter, p < 0.05]). The present data clearly demonstrate that treatment with LDL-apheresis in patients suffering from severe HLP, refractory to maximum conservative therapy, is effective and safe in long-term application.     

Direct adsorption of lipoproteins from whole blood by DALI apheresis: technique and effects.

Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis can drastically reduce atherogenic lipoproteins in coronary patients in whom LDL and lipoprotein (a) (Lp[a]) cannot be sufficiently reduced by conservative therapy. LDL and Lp(a) adsorption by polyacrylate/polyacrylamide (DALI) is the simplest procedure for clinical LDL apheresis to date. DALI was first applied in patients in 1994 and introduced into clinical routine in 1996. It is the first LDL-hemoperfusion system, i.e., it adsorbs LDL and Lp(a) directly from whole blood. This markedly simplifies the extracorporeal circuit, the handling of the system, and reduces significantly staff time and, especially at higher blood flow rates, treatment time. Its features are high selectivity and capacity of lipoprotein removal (maximum about 8 g low-density lipoprotein cholesterol per session). Using citrate anticoagulation, good biocompatibility is evidenced by the lack of cell losses, hemolysis, thrombotic events, and complement activation. Some clotting factors of the intrinsic system are also adsorbed. There is significant bradykinin activation that, however, does not cause problems in most patients if angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor medication is avoided. In a first long-term study, 93% of sessions were uneventful. Major side effects were citrate-induced paresthesias (1.3%) and hypotension (0.8%). To date, more than 25,000 DALI sessions have been performed all over the world.     

Hyperlipoprotein(a)aemia in nephrotic syndrome

The nephrotic syndrome is frequently associated with hyperlipidaemia and hyperfibrinogenaemia, leading to an increased coronary and thrombotic risk, which may be enhanced by high lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] concentrations. We followed the quantitative and qualitative pattern of plasma lipoproteins over 18 months in a patient with nephrotic syndrome suffering from premature coronary artery disease and with elevated level of Lp(a) (470 mg dL⁻¹). Analysis of kinetic parameters after heparin-induced extracorporeal plasma apheresis revealed a reduced fractional catabolic rate for both low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and Lp(a). After improvement of the nephrotic syndrome, Lp(a) decreased to 169 mg dL⁻¹ and LDL concentrations were normalized. The decrease of Lp(a) was associated with an increase in plasma albumin concentrations. Analysis of apo(a) isoforms in the patient showed the presence of isoform S2 (alleles 10 and 19). Consequently, the authors' present strategy is to normalize the elevated Lp(a) and fibrinogen levels. For this purpose heparin-mediated extracorporeal LDL precipitation (HELP) apheresis is a promising regimen, helping to reduce the thrombotic risk and prevent coronary and graft atherosclerosis as well as the progression of glomerulosclerosis in our patient.     

Primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with hyperlipoproteinemia (a)

General lipoprotein (Lp) (a) screening can help to identify patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease. Non-invasive methods allow early detection of clinically asymptomatic incipient atherosclerotic disease. Medical treatment options are still unsatisfactory. Lp(a) apheresis is an established treatment in Germany for secondary prevention of progressive cardiovascular disease. Statin-based lowering of LDL cholesterol and thrombocyte aggregation inhibitors still represent the basis of medical treatment. Target levels for LDL-cholesterol should be modified in patients with hyperlipoproteinemia (a).     

Effects of low-density lipoprotein apheresis on coronary and carotid atherosclerosis and diabetic scleredema in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia.

Correlations between serum cholesterol levels and progression of coronary and peripheral atherosclerosis have been found in many recent studies. It has also been demonstrated that aggressive cholesterol-lowering therapy with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis, a method of LDL elimination by extracorporeal circulation, is effective not only for coronary artery disease, but also for systemic circulatory disturbance in severe hypercholesterolemic patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) in particular. We found that LDL apheresis treatment with medical therapy improved coronary atherosclerotic lesions, based on coronary angiography evaluation and histopathological observation, suppressed progression of early carotid atherosclerotic lesions on annual B-mode ultrasonography, and improved diabetic scleredema in FH patients. This effectiveness of LDL apheresis appears to be due to recovery of vascular endothelial function and improvement of blood rheology. For diseases that are possibly due to circulation disturbance and that are intractable with drugs alone. LDL apheresis may be worth trying, particularly for patients complicated by hyperlipemia.     

The role of low density lipoprotein apheresis in the treatment of familial hypercholesterolemia.

The chief indication for low density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis is the treatment of homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), a potentially fatal condition that responds poorly to conventional therapy. Dextran sulfate/cellulose adsorption columns (Kaneka) and on-line heparin precipitation (HELP) are the most popular systems used in LDL apheresis. Weekly or biweekly procedures plus concomitant drug therapy enable LDL cholesterol to be maintained at 30-50% of its untreated level, with regression of xanthomas, arrest of progression of coronary atherosclerosis, and improved life expectancy. However, aortic stenosis may progress despite apheresis and necessitate valve replacement. Better control of hypercholesterolemia results from combining apheresis with a new 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor, atorvastatin. LDL apheresis can also be useful in treating drug-resistant FH heterozygotes with coronary disease. However, the FH Regression Study showed no evidence that reduction by apheresis of both LDL and lipoprotein(a), was more advantageous than reduction by combination drug therapy of LDL alone.     

Three different LDL apheresis columns efficiently and equally reduce lipoprotein(a) concentrations in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and small apolipoprotein(a) particles

Introduction

High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] are associated with cardiovascular disease. In this study we determined apo(a) particle size and compared the Lp(a) reducing efficacy of three different LDL apheresis columns; DL-75, LA-15 and EC-50W in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

Results

Average Lp(a) concentration was reduced by 70%, 74% and 75% (all p < 0.0001) for DL-75, LA-15 and EC-50W, respectively. No significant changes in the relative proportion of the isoforms of 14 and 32 K 4 domains were observed after apheresis.

Conclusion

Three different LDL apheresis columns reduced Lp(a) efficiently with preserved ratio between apo(a) isoforms.     

First steps toward the establishment of a German low-density lipoprotein-apheresis registry: recommendations for the indication and for quality management.

New recommendations for the indication of treatment with selective extracorporeal plasma therapy low-density lipoprotein apheresis (LDL-apheresis) in the prevention of coronary heart disease are urgently needed. The following points are the first results of the ongoing discussion process for indications for LDL-apheresis in Germany: all patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia with functional or genetically determined lack or dysfunction of LDL receptors and plasma LDL cholesterol levels >13.0 mmol/L (>500 mg/dL); patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) documented by clinical symptoms and imaging procedures in which over a period of at least 3 months the plasma LDL cholesterol levels cannot be lowered below 3.3 mmol/L (130 mg/dL) by a generally accepted, maximal drug-induced and documented therapy in combination with a cholesterol-lowering diet; and patients with progression of their CHD documented by clinical symptoms and imaging procedures and repeated plasma Lp(a) levels >60 mg/dL, even if the plasma LDL cholesterol levels are lower than 3.3 mmol/L (130 mg/dL). Respective goals for LDL cholesterol concentrations for high-risk patients have been recently defined by various international societies. To safely put into practice the recommendations for LDL-apheresis previously mentioned, standardized treatment guidelines for LDL-apheresis need to be established in Germany that should be supervised by an appropriate registry.     

Lipoprotein(a), Cardiovascular Disease,and Contemporary Management

Elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a causal genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease. To determine if current evidence supports both screening and treatment for elevated Lp(a) in high-risk patients, an English-language search of PubMed and MEDLINE was conducted. In population studies, there is a continuous association between Lp(a) concentrations and cardiovascular risk, with synergistic effects when low-density lipoprotein (LDL) is also elevated. Candidates for Lp(a) screening include patients with a personal or family history of premature cardiovascular disease, familial hypercholesterolemia, recurrent cardiovascular events, or inadequate LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) responses to statins. Given the comparative strength of clinical evidence, reducing LDL-C to the lowest attainable value with a high-potency statin should be the primary focus of lipid-modifying therapies. If the Lp(a) level is 30 mg/dL or higher in a patient who has the aforementioned characteristics plus residual LDL-C elevations (≥70-100 mg/dL) despite maximum-potency statins or combination statin therapy, the clinician may consider adding niacin (up to 2 g/d). If, after these interventions, the patient has progressive coronary heart disease (CHD) or LDL-C levels of 160-200 mg/dL or higher, LDL apheresis should be contemplated. Although Lp(a) is a major causal risk factor for CHD, no currently available controlled studies have suggested that lowering it through either pharmacotherapy or LDL apheresis specifically and significantly reduces coronary risk. Further research is needed to (1) optimize management in order to reduce CHD risk associated with elevated Lp(a) and (2) determine what other intermediate- or high-risk groups might benefit from Lp(a) screening.     

Atherogenic forms of dyslipidaemia in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

Objective: Dyslipidaemia is very common in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) but, beyond plasma lipids, atherogenic lipoprotein (Lp) and apolipoprotein (apo) alterations are still ill defined. Design: We measured concentrations of apoB, Lp(a) and small, dense low‐density lipoprotein (LDL) in 42 patients with PCOS [age: 28 ± 7 years, body mass index (BMI): 27 ± 5 kg/m²] vs. 37 age‐ and BMI‐matched healthy controls. Methods: Elevated Lp(a) levels considered were those > 30 mg/dl while elevated apoB concentrations were those > 100 g/l. Results: Polycystic ovary syndrome showed increased triglycerides levels (p = 0.0011) and lower high‐density lipoprotein (HDL)‐cholesterol concentrations (p = 0.0131) while total‐ and LDL cholesterol were similar. PCOS also showed smaller LDL size (p = 0.0005), higher levels of total small, dense LDL (p < 0.0001), higher concentrations of Lp(a), as considered as absolute values (p = 0.0143) and log‐transformed (p = 0.0014), while no differences were found in apoB levels. Elevated Lp(a) concentrations were found in 24% of PCOS, while elevated apoB levels were relatively uncommon (14%). Spearman correlation analysis revealed that Lp(a) concentrations were weakly correlated only with HDL‐cholesterol levels (r = ?0.378, p = 0.0431). In addition, 36% of patients with PCOS with normal plasma lipid profile showed elevated levels of Lp(a), apoB or small, dense LDL. Conclusions: Atherogenic Lp abnormalities may be found in one‐third of women with PCOS who have a normal lipid pattern. Future prospective studies are needed to test to which extent such atherogenic forms of dyslipidaemia may contribute to the increased cardiovascular risk in young women with PCOS.