Lipid Disorders

PARIS — Although metabolic liver diseases are mainly seen in patients with obesity or type 2 diabetes, studies have shown that non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, recently renamed metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), also affects slim patients. Moreover, the condition could be particularly severe in this population. 

A recent study carried out using data from the French Constance cohort showed that of the 25,753 patients with MASLD, 16.3% were lean (BMI of less than 25 kg/m²). In addition, 50% of these patients had no metabolic risk factors. 

These slim patients with MASLD were most often young patients, for the most part female, and less likely to present with symptoms of metabolic syndrome. Asian patients were overrepresented in this group. 

“These patients probably have genetic and/or environmental risk factors,” commented senior author Lawrence Serfaty, MD, PhD, head of the metabolic liver unit at the new Strasbourg public hospital, during a press conference at the Paris NASH meeting. 

The disease was more severe in slim subjects. Overall, 3.6% of the slim subjects had advanced fibrosis (Forns index > 6.9) vs 1.7% of patients with overweight or obesity (P < .001), regardless of demographic variables, metabolic risk factors, and lifestyle. They also had higher alanine aminotransferase levels. 

In addition, over the course of a mean follow-up of 3.8 years, liver events (eg, cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver cancer), chronic kidney diseases, and all-cause mortality were much more common in these patients than in patients with overweight or obesity (adjusted hazard ratios of 5.84, 2.49, and 3.01, respectively). It should be noted that these clinical results were linked to fibrosis severity in both slim and overweight subjects with MASLD. 

Nonetheless, cardiovascular events remained more common in patients with overweight or obesity, suggesting that obesity itself is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, regardless of MASLD. 

“Armed with these results, which confirm those obtained from other studies, we must seek to understand the pathogenesis of the disease in slim patients and study the role of the microbiota, genetics, and diet, as well as determining the effects of alcohol and tobacco, consumption of which was slightly more common in this subpopulation,” said Dr. Serfaty. 

According to the study authors, sarcopenia and bile acids could also be involved in the pathogenesis of MASLD in slim patients. The researchers concluded that “due to the relatively low rate of MASLD in slim subjects, screening should target patients presenting with metabolic anomalies and/or unexplained cytolysis.”
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

PARIS — Although metabolic liver diseases are mainly seen in patients with obesity or type 2 diabetes, studies have shown that non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, recently renamed metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), also affects slim patients. Moreover, the condition could be particularly severe in this population. 

A recent study carried out using data from the French Constance cohort showed that of the 25,753 patients with MASLD, 16.3% were lean (BMI of less than 25 kg/m²). In addition, 50% of these patients had no metabolic risk factors. 

These slim patients with MASLD were most often young patients, for the most part female, and less likely to present with symptoms of metabolic syndrome. Asian patients were overrepresented in this group. 

“These patients probably have genetic and/or environmental risk factors,” commented senior author Lawrence Serfaty, MD, PhD, head of the metabolic liver unit at the new Strasbourg public hospital, during a press conference at the Paris NASH meeting. 

The disease was more severe in slim subjects. Overall, 3.6% of the slim subjects had advanced fibrosis (Forns index > 6.9) vs 1.7% of patients with overweight or obesity (P < .001), regardless of demographic variables, metabolic risk factors, and lifestyle. They also had higher alanine aminotransferase levels. 

In addition, over the course of a mean follow-up of 3.8 years, liver events (eg, cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver cancer), chronic kidney diseases, and all-cause mortality were much more common in these patients than in patients with overweight or obesity (adjusted hazard ratios of 5.84, 2.49, and 3.01, respectively). It should be noted that these clinical results were linked to fibrosis severity in both slim and overweight subjects with MASLD. 

Nonetheless, cardiovascular events remained more common in patients with overweight or obesity, suggesting that obesity itself is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, regardless of MASLD. 

“Armed with these results, which confirm those obtained from other studies, we must seek to understand the pathogenesis of the disease in slim patients and study the role of the microbiota, genetics, and diet, as well as determining the effects of alcohol and tobacco, consumption of which was slightly more common in this subpopulation,” said Dr. Serfaty. 

According to the study authors, sarcopenia and bile acids could also be involved in the pathogenesis of MASLD in slim patients. The researchers concluded that “due to the relatively low rate of MASLD in slim subjects, screening should target patients presenting with metabolic anomalies and/or unexplained cytolysis.”
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

PARIS — Although metabolic liver diseases are mainly seen in patients with obesity or type 2 diabetes, studies have shown that non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, recently renamed metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), also affects slim patients. Moreover, the condition could be particularly severe in this population. 

A recent study carried out using data from the French Constance cohort showed that of the 25,753 patients with MASLD, 16.3% were lean (BMI of less than 25 kg/m²). In addition, 50% of these patients had no metabolic risk factors. 

These slim patients with MASLD were most often young patients, for the most part female, and less likely to present with symptoms of metabolic syndrome. Asian patients were overrepresented in this group. 

“These patients probably have genetic and/or environmental risk factors,” commented senior author Lawrence Serfaty, MD, PhD, head of the metabolic liver unit at the new Strasbourg public hospital, during a press conference at the Paris NASH meeting. 

The disease was more severe in slim subjects. Overall, 3.6% of the slim subjects had advanced fibrosis (Forns index > 6.9) vs 1.7% of patients with overweight or obesity (P < .001), regardless of demographic variables, metabolic risk factors, and lifestyle. They also had higher alanine aminotransferase levels. 

In addition, over the course of a mean follow-up of 3.8 years, liver events (eg, cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, and liver cancer), chronic kidney diseases, and all-cause mortality were much more common in these patients than in patients with overweight or obesity (adjusted hazard ratios of 5.84, 2.49, and 3.01, respectively). It should be noted that these clinical results were linked to fibrosis severity in both slim and overweight subjects with MASLD. 

Nonetheless, cardiovascular events remained more common in patients with overweight or obesity, suggesting that obesity itself is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, regardless of MASLD. 

“Armed with these results, which confirm those obtained from other studies, we must seek to understand the pathogenesis of the disease in slim patients and study the role of the microbiota, genetics, and diet, as well as determining the effects of alcohol and tobacco, consumption of which was slightly more common in this subpopulation,” said Dr. Serfaty. 

According to the study authors, sarcopenia and bile acids could also be involved in the pathogenesis of MASLD in slim patients. The researchers concluded that “due to the relatively low rate of MASLD in slim subjects, screening should target patients presenting with metabolic anomalies and/or unexplained cytolysis.”
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

TOPLINE: 

Compared with a healthy omnivore diet, a healthy vegan diet led to significant improvement in  low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as well as fasting insulin and weight loss in a randomized controlled trial of identical twins. 

METHODOLOGY:  

• Researchers randomly assigned 22 pairs of healthy adult identical twins (34 women, mean age 39 years, mean body mass index 25.9) to a healthy vegan or omnivore diet (1 twin per pair) for 8 weeks.
• For the first 4 weeks, diet-specific meals were provided via a meal delivery service. For the final 4 weeks, participants prepared their own diet-appropriate meals/snacks.
• The primary outcome was change in LDL-C; secondary outcomes included changes in body weight and fasting insulin. 

TAKEAWAY:

• After 8 weeks, twins eating a vegan diet showed a significant mean decrease of 13.9 mg/dL in LDL-C compared with twins eating an omnivorous diet.
• The vegan diet also led to a significant mean decrease of 2.9 Times New RomanμIU/mL in fasting insulin and 1.9 kg in body weight after 8 weeks compared with the omnivore diet, although weight loss was observed in both diet groups. 
• The vegan diet group also had a larger but nonsignificant absolute median decrease in fasting HDL-C  triglycerides , vitamin B12, glucose, and trimethylamine N-oxide levels at 8 weeks.

IN PRACTICE: 

“Our results corroborate a previous finding showing that eating a vegan diet can improve cardiovascular health. Clinicians may consider recommending plant-based diets to reduce cardiometabolic risk factors, as well as aligning with environmental benefits,” the researchers concluded. 

SOURCE: 

The study, with first author Matthew J. Landry, PhD, RDN, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online November 30 in  JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The adult twin population was generally healthy and findings may not be generalizable to other populations. The sample size was small, and the duration of intervention was short and there was no follow-up period, which limits insights on stability and sustainability of the diets. 

DISCLOSURES: 

Funding was provided by the Vogt Foundation, and grants from Stanford University and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Landry has no relevant disclosures. One author reported receiving funding from Beyond Meat outside of this study. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Compared with a healthy omnivore diet, a healthy vegan diet led to significant improvement in  low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as well as fasting insulin and weight loss in a randomized controlled trial of identical twins. 

METHODOLOGY:  

• Researchers randomly assigned 22 pairs of healthy adult identical twins (34 women, mean age 39 years, mean body mass index 25.9) to a healthy vegan or omnivore diet (1 twin per pair) for 8 weeks.
• For the first 4 weeks, diet-specific meals were provided via a meal delivery service. For the final 4 weeks, participants prepared their own diet-appropriate meals/snacks.
• The primary outcome was change in LDL-C; secondary outcomes included changes in body weight and fasting insulin. 

TAKEAWAY:

• After 8 weeks, twins eating a vegan diet showed a significant mean decrease of 13.9 mg/dL in LDL-C compared with twins eating an omnivorous diet.
• The vegan diet also led to a significant mean decrease of 2.9 Times New RomanμIU/mL in fasting insulin and 1.9 kg in body weight after 8 weeks compared with the omnivore diet, although weight loss was observed in both diet groups. 
• The vegan diet group also had a larger but nonsignificant absolute median decrease in fasting HDL-C  triglycerides , vitamin B12, glucose, and trimethylamine N-oxide levels at 8 weeks.

IN PRACTICE: 

“Our results corroborate a previous finding showing that eating a vegan diet can improve cardiovascular health. Clinicians may consider recommending plant-based diets to reduce cardiometabolic risk factors, as well as aligning with environmental benefits,” the researchers concluded. 

SOURCE: 

The study, with first author Matthew J. Landry, PhD, RDN, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online November 30 in  JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The adult twin population was generally healthy and findings may not be generalizable to other populations. The sample size was small, and the duration of intervention was short and there was no follow-up period, which limits insights on stability and sustainability of the diets. 

DISCLOSURES: 

Funding was provided by the Vogt Foundation, and grants from Stanford University and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Landry has no relevant disclosures. One author reported receiving funding from Beyond Meat outside of this study. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Compared with a healthy omnivore diet, a healthy vegan diet led to significant improvement in  low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as well as fasting insulin and weight loss in a randomized controlled trial of identical twins. 

METHODOLOGY:  

• Researchers randomly assigned 22 pairs of healthy adult identical twins (34 women, mean age 39 years, mean body mass index 25.9) to a healthy vegan or omnivore diet (1 twin per pair) for 8 weeks.
• For the first 4 weeks, diet-specific meals were provided via a meal delivery service. For the final 4 weeks, participants prepared their own diet-appropriate meals/snacks.
• The primary outcome was change in LDL-C; secondary outcomes included changes in body weight and fasting insulin. 

TAKEAWAY:

• After 8 weeks, twins eating a vegan diet showed a significant mean decrease of 13.9 mg/dL in LDL-C compared with twins eating an omnivorous diet.
• The vegan diet also led to a significant mean decrease of 2.9 Times New RomanμIU/mL in fasting insulin and 1.9 kg in body weight after 8 weeks compared with the omnivore diet, although weight loss was observed in both diet groups. 
• The vegan diet group also had a larger but nonsignificant absolute median decrease in fasting HDL-C  triglycerides , vitamin B12, glucose, and trimethylamine N-oxide levels at 8 weeks.

IN PRACTICE: 

“Our results corroborate a previous finding showing that eating a vegan diet can improve cardiovascular health. Clinicians may consider recommending plant-based diets to reduce cardiometabolic risk factors, as well as aligning with environmental benefits,” the researchers concluded. 

SOURCE: 

The study, with first author Matthew J. Landry, PhD, RDN, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, was published online November 30 in  JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS: 

The adult twin population was generally healthy and findings may not be generalizable to other populations. The sample size was small, and the duration of intervention was short and there was no follow-up period, which limits insights on stability and sustainability of the diets. 

DISCLOSURES: 

Funding was provided by the Vogt Foundation, and grants from Stanford University and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Landry has no relevant disclosures. One author reported receiving funding from Beyond Meat outside of this study. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Changes in statin prescribing guidelines in 2013 had little effect on statin use for patients who are at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), according to a study published Dec. 5 in the Annals of Internal Medicine. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Statins lower cholesterol and can reduce the risk for heart and circulatory disease.
• In 2013, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) expanded indications for which clinicians could prescribe statins to adults for primary prevention, including risk scores for ASCVD above a certain threshold. 
• Researchers studied trends in statin use between 1999 and 2018 using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data for 21,961 adults older than 20 years who did not have ASCVD. 
• They analyzed data from before and after implementation of the 2013 guidelines.

TAKEAWAY:

• Statin usage increased since 1999 but peaked at 35% in 2013 despite the expanded ACC/AHA guidelines.
• No changes in usage were observed for the proportion of adults who were newly eligible for statins. 
• Statin use among patients with diabetes increased by 31.1 percentage points between 1999 and 2014 but then remained stagnant from 2014 to 2018.
• Statin use among those with ASCVD risk of more than 20% increased by 23.1 percentage points between 1999 and 2013 but did not increase between 2013 and 2018.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the ACC/AHA guidelines expanded indications for primary prevention, they also increased decision-making complexity, requiring new multistep risk calculation… Many clinicians do not routinely use cardiovascular risk calculators because of a lack of time, input availability, or buy-in. Electronic health record tools that calculate ASCVD risks show promise, but they are not routinely implemented and do not address other barriers, such as competing patient priorities and limited time for shared decision-making.“

SOURCE:

The study was led by Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, Division of General Internal Medicine, at the University of Pittsburgh. The research was funded by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on whether patients had previously been offered and declined statins were not available. Risk score data for baseline ASCVD, which affects risk classification, were also not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Changes in statin prescribing guidelines in 2013 had little effect on statin use for patients who are at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), according to a study published Dec. 5 in the Annals of Internal Medicine. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Statins lower cholesterol and can reduce the risk for heart and circulatory disease.
• In 2013, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) expanded indications for which clinicians could prescribe statins to adults for primary prevention, including risk scores for ASCVD above a certain threshold. 
• Researchers studied trends in statin use between 1999 and 2018 using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data for 21,961 adults older than 20 years who did not have ASCVD. 
• They analyzed data from before and after implementation of the 2013 guidelines.

TAKEAWAY:

• Statin usage increased since 1999 but peaked at 35% in 2013 despite the expanded ACC/AHA guidelines.
• No changes in usage were observed for the proportion of adults who were newly eligible for statins. 
• Statin use among patients with diabetes increased by 31.1 percentage points between 1999 and 2014 but then remained stagnant from 2014 to 2018.
• Statin use among those with ASCVD risk of more than 20% increased by 23.1 percentage points between 1999 and 2013 but did not increase between 2013 and 2018.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the ACC/AHA guidelines expanded indications for primary prevention, they also increased decision-making complexity, requiring new multistep risk calculation… Many clinicians do not routinely use cardiovascular risk calculators because of a lack of time, input availability, or buy-in. Electronic health record tools that calculate ASCVD risks show promise, but they are not routinely implemented and do not address other barriers, such as competing patient priorities and limited time for shared decision-making.“

SOURCE:

The study was led by Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, Division of General Internal Medicine, at the University of Pittsburgh. The research was funded by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on whether patients had previously been offered and declined statins were not available. Risk score data for baseline ASCVD, which affects risk classification, were also not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Changes in statin prescribing guidelines in 2013 had little effect on statin use for patients who are at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), according to a study published Dec. 5 in the Annals of Internal Medicine. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Statins lower cholesterol and can reduce the risk for heart and circulatory disease.
• In 2013, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) expanded indications for which clinicians could prescribe statins to adults for primary prevention, including risk scores for ASCVD above a certain threshold. 
• Researchers studied trends in statin use between 1999 and 2018 using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data for 21,961 adults older than 20 years who did not have ASCVD. 
• They analyzed data from before and after implementation of the 2013 guidelines.

TAKEAWAY:

• Statin usage increased since 1999 but peaked at 35% in 2013 despite the expanded ACC/AHA guidelines.
• No changes in usage were observed for the proportion of adults who were newly eligible for statins. 
• Statin use among patients with diabetes increased by 31.1 percentage points between 1999 and 2014 but then remained stagnant from 2014 to 2018.
• Statin use among those with ASCVD risk of more than 20% increased by 23.1 percentage points between 1999 and 2013 but did not increase between 2013 and 2018.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although the ACC/AHA guidelines expanded indications for primary prevention, they also increased decision-making complexity, requiring new multistep risk calculation… Many clinicians do not routinely use cardiovascular risk calculators because of a lack of time, input availability, or buy-in. Electronic health record tools that calculate ASCVD risks show promise, but they are not routinely implemented and do not address other barriers, such as competing patient priorities and limited time for shared decision-making.“

SOURCE:

The study was led by Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, Division of General Internal Medicine, at the University of Pittsburgh. The research was funded by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on whether patients had previously been offered and declined statins were not available. Risk score data for baseline ASCVD, which affects risk classification, were also not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – An investigational PCSK9 inhibitor that can be injected every 1-3 months as add-on therapy for patients with stubbornly high low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol has demonstrated cholesterol lowering for up to a year, in a clinical trial.

The results are from the phase 3 Recaticimab Add-On Therapy in Patients With Non-Familial Hypercholesterolemia and Mixed Hyperlipidemia (REMAIN-2) trial.

“It’s a new antibody that has a long half-life so each treatment can be prolonged,” investigator Xin Du, MD, professor of cardiology at Beijing Anzhen Hospital and the Capital Medical University, said in an interview. “Previous drugs like alirocumab and evolocumab have to be given every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, and this new drug can be given even every 12 weeks, so it can get a very strong effect of LDL cholesterol lowering even when given every 3 months.”

Recaticimab has demonstrated a half-life of 18.6 to 27.4 days vs. 11 to 17 days for alirocumab and evolocumab, she said.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

“Currently a high proportion of patients prescribed the PCSK9 inhibitors withdraw from therapy,” Dr. Du said. “After 36 months, only half of them are still on that therapy.”

Dr. Du presented the trial results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
 

Trial design and results

REMAIN-2 randomly assigned 692 patients to one of three recaticimab dosing arms vs. placebo: 150 mg/kg every 4 weeks; 300 mg/kg every 8 weeks; and 450 mg/kg every 12 weeks. The study was conducted from June 2021 to March 2023. The average age of the participants was 56 years and 64% were men. A high percentage of patients, 87% to 93.5%, completed the study across all groups. All participants had high LDL-C levels despite statin therapy: ≥ 70 mg/dL for those with cardiovascular disease and ≥ 100 mg/dL for those without.

Recaticimab enhanced LDL-C reduction by 53.4% to 62% vs. placebo at 24 weeks with a similar effect across all dosing regimens, Dr. Du said. That level of reduction was sustained out to 48 weeks, she said, at 48.4% to 64%.

At week 24, 86% to 94.5% of all patients across the three dosing arms achieved their LDL-C goal. The treatment had a positive impact on other lipid levels as well, Dr. Du said. Levels of non-HDL-C declined 55% to 47%. Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) levels fell 53% to 42% and lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a) readings declined 39.5% to 29%. The placebo arms had no change or small increases in non-HDL-C and ApoB levels and modest reductions in Lp(a).

The trial demonstrated acceptable safety and tolerability of recaticimab, Dr. Du said. At 48 weeks, the rates of injection site reactions were 3.9% in the treatment arms vs. 1.3% in the placebo arms. Common adverse events with a frequency ≥ 5% in patients receiving recaticimab were upper respiratory tract infection, hyperuricemia, urinary tract infection, increased blood creatine phosphokinase – a marker of damage to the heart – COVID-19 infection, and increased alanine transferase and aspartate transferase, both of which are markers of liver damage.
 

Larger, longer studies needed

Longer-term studies of recaticimab are still needed to determine its ability produce durable LDL-C reduction in a cost-effective manner, said discussant Stephen Nicholls, MD, director of Victorian Heart Institute and professor at Monash University in Australia. “It is important to note that these are still relatively short studies and the short treatment period cannot exclude the formation of neutralizing antibodies that have undermined development of other humanized antibodies,” he told attendees.

Victorian Heart Institute

The every-12-week dosing, Dr. Nicholls said in an interview, “provides a dosing regimen that may be palatable to many patients.”

Besides the potential for the development of antibodies, Dr. Nicholls foresaw potential challenges with recaticimab. “The reality will lie in longer-term data,” he said. “If they can achieve durable lipid lowering without such neutralizing antibodies that would be very good.”

Dr. Nicholls added, “There’s a lot going on in the PCSK9 inhibitor space and the challenge for any new therapeutic, including this one, is where will it fit in given the space is getting crowded. So, data is important and clinical uptake will be equally important.”

Dr. Du disclosed relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca and Bayer. Dr. Nicholls disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Akcea, Amarin, Amgen, Anthera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cerenis, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis,  LipoScience, The Medicines Company, Merck, New Amsterdam Pharma, Omthera, Resverlogix, InfraReDx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, Takeda, Vaxxinity, and Seqirus.

PHILADELPHIA – An investigational PCSK9 inhibitor that can be injected every 1-3 months as add-on therapy for patients with stubbornly high low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol has demonstrated cholesterol lowering for up to a year, in a clinical trial.

The results are from the phase 3 Recaticimab Add-On Therapy in Patients With Non-Familial Hypercholesterolemia and Mixed Hyperlipidemia (REMAIN-2) trial.

“It’s a new antibody that has a long half-life so each treatment can be prolonged,” investigator Xin Du, MD, professor of cardiology at Beijing Anzhen Hospital and the Capital Medical University, said in an interview. “Previous drugs like alirocumab and evolocumab have to be given every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, and this new drug can be given even every 12 weeks, so it can get a very strong effect of LDL cholesterol lowering even when given every 3 months.”

Recaticimab has demonstrated a half-life of 18.6 to 27.4 days vs. 11 to 17 days for alirocumab and evolocumab, she said.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

“Currently a high proportion of patients prescribed the PCSK9 inhibitors withdraw from therapy,” Dr. Du said. “After 36 months, only half of them are still on that therapy.”

Dr. Du presented the trial results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
 

Trial design and results

REMAIN-2 randomly assigned 692 patients to one of three recaticimab dosing arms vs. placebo: 150 mg/kg every 4 weeks; 300 mg/kg every 8 weeks; and 450 mg/kg every 12 weeks. The study was conducted from June 2021 to March 2023. The average age of the participants was 56 years and 64% were men. A high percentage of patients, 87% to 93.5%, completed the study across all groups. All participants had high LDL-C levels despite statin therapy: ≥ 70 mg/dL for those with cardiovascular disease and ≥ 100 mg/dL for those without.

Recaticimab enhanced LDL-C reduction by 53.4% to 62% vs. placebo at 24 weeks with a similar effect across all dosing regimens, Dr. Du said. That level of reduction was sustained out to 48 weeks, she said, at 48.4% to 64%.

At week 24, 86% to 94.5% of all patients across the three dosing arms achieved their LDL-C goal. The treatment had a positive impact on other lipid levels as well, Dr. Du said. Levels of non-HDL-C declined 55% to 47%. Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) levels fell 53% to 42% and lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a) readings declined 39.5% to 29%. The placebo arms had no change or small increases in non-HDL-C and ApoB levels and modest reductions in Lp(a).

The trial demonstrated acceptable safety and tolerability of recaticimab, Dr. Du said. At 48 weeks, the rates of injection site reactions were 3.9% in the treatment arms vs. 1.3% in the placebo arms. Common adverse events with a frequency ≥ 5% in patients receiving recaticimab were upper respiratory tract infection, hyperuricemia, urinary tract infection, increased blood creatine phosphokinase – a marker of damage to the heart – COVID-19 infection, and increased alanine transferase and aspartate transferase, both of which are markers of liver damage.
 

Larger, longer studies needed

Longer-term studies of recaticimab are still needed to determine its ability produce durable LDL-C reduction in a cost-effective manner, said discussant Stephen Nicholls, MD, director of Victorian Heart Institute and professor at Monash University in Australia. “It is important to note that these are still relatively short studies and the short treatment period cannot exclude the formation of neutralizing antibodies that have undermined development of other humanized antibodies,” he told attendees.

Victorian Heart Institute

The every-12-week dosing, Dr. Nicholls said in an interview, “provides a dosing regimen that may be palatable to many patients.”

Besides the potential for the development of antibodies, Dr. Nicholls foresaw potential challenges with recaticimab. “The reality will lie in longer-term data,” he said. “If they can achieve durable lipid lowering without such neutralizing antibodies that would be very good.”

Dr. Nicholls added, “There’s a lot going on in the PCSK9 inhibitor space and the challenge for any new therapeutic, including this one, is where will it fit in given the space is getting crowded. So, data is important and clinical uptake will be equally important.”

Dr. Du disclosed relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca and Bayer. Dr. Nicholls disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Akcea, Amarin, Amgen, Anthera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cerenis, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis,  LipoScience, The Medicines Company, Merck, New Amsterdam Pharma, Omthera, Resverlogix, InfraReDx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, Takeda, Vaxxinity, and Seqirus.

PHILADELPHIA – An investigational PCSK9 inhibitor that can be injected every 1-3 months as add-on therapy for patients with stubbornly high low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol has demonstrated cholesterol lowering for up to a year, in a clinical trial.

The results are from the phase 3 Recaticimab Add-On Therapy in Patients With Non-Familial Hypercholesterolemia and Mixed Hyperlipidemia (REMAIN-2) trial.

“It’s a new antibody that has a long half-life so each treatment can be prolonged,” investigator Xin Du, MD, professor of cardiology at Beijing Anzhen Hospital and the Capital Medical University, said in an interview. “Previous drugs like alirocumab and evolocumab have to be given every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, and this new drug can be given even every 12 weeks, so it can get a very strong effect of LDL cholesterol lowering even when given every 3 months.”

Recaticimab has demonstrated a half-life of 18.6 to 27.4 days vs. 11 to 17 days for alirocumab and evolocumab, she said.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

“Currently a high proportion of patients prescribed the PCSK9 inhibitors withdraw from therapy,” Dr. Du said. “After 36 months, only half of them are still on that therapy.”

Dr. Du presented the trial results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
 

Trial design and results

REMAIN-2 randomly assigned 692 patients to one of three recaticimab dosing arms vs. placebo: 150 mg/kg every 4 weeks; 300 mg/kg every 8 weeks; and 450 mg/kg every 12 weeks. The study was conducted from June 2021 to March 2023. The average age of the participants was 56 years and 64% were men. A high percentage of patients, 87% to 93.5%, completed the study across all groups. All participants had high LDL-C levels despite statin therapy: ≥ 70 mg/dL for those with cardiovascular disease and ≥ 100 mg/dL for those without.

Recaticimab enhanced LDL-C reduction by 53.4% to 62% vs. placebo at 24 weeks with a similar effect across all dosing regimens, Dr. Du said. That level of reduction was sustained out to 48 weeks, she said, at 48.4% to 64%.

At week 24, 86% to 94.5% of all patients across the three dosing arms achieved their LDL-C goal. The treatment had a positive impact on other lipid levels as well, Dr. Du said. Levels of non-HDL-C declined 55% to 47%. Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) levels fell 53% to 42% and lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a) readings declined 39.5% to 29%. The placebo arms had no change or small increases in non-HDL-C and ApoB levels and modest reductions in Lp(a).

The trial demonstrated acceptable safety and tolerability of recaticimab, Dr. Du said. At 48 weeks, the rates of injection site reactions were 3.9% in the treatment arms vs. 1.3% in the placebo arms. Common adverse events with a frequency ≥ 5% in patients receiving recaticimab were upper respiratory tract infection, hyperuricemia, urinary tract infection, increased blood creatine phosphokinase – a marker of damage to the heart – COVID-19 infection, and increased alanine transferase and aspartate transferase, both of which are markers of liver damage.
 

Larger, longer studies needed

Longer-term studies of recaticimab are still needed to determine its ability produce durable LDL-C reduction in a cost-effective manner, said discussant Stephen Nicholls, MD, director of Victorian Heart Institute and professor at Monash University in Australia. “It is important to note that these are still relatively short studies and the short treatment period cannot exclude the formation of neutralizing antibodies that have undermined development of other humanized antibodies,” he told attendees.

Victorian Heart Institute

The every-12-week dosing, Dr. Nicholls said in an interview, “provides a dosing regimen that may be palatable to many patients.”

Besides the potential for the development of antibodies, Dr. Nicholls foresaw potential challenges with recaticimab. “The reality will lie in longer-term data,” he said. “If they can achieve durable lipid lowering without such neutralizing antibodies that would be very good.”

Dr. Nicholls added, “There’s a lot going on in the PCSK9 inhibitor space and the challenge for any new therapeutic, including this one, is where will it fit in given the space is getting crowded. So, data is important and clinical uptake will be equally important.”

Dr. Du disclosed relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca and Bayer. Dr. Nicholls disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Akcea, Amarin, Amgen, Anthera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cerenis, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis,  LipoScience, The Medicines Company, Merck, New Amsterdam Pharma, Omthera, Resverlogix, InfraReDx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, Takeda, Vaxxinity, and Seqirus.

Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.

“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”

Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.

Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m² or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and severe comorbidities.

Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”

During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.

“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.

Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.

Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m² and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.

Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.

Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.

One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.

Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.

The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.

A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.

Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.

And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.

However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”

Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.

“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”

Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.

Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m² or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and severe comorbidities.

Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”

During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.

“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.

Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.

Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m² and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.

Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.

Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.

One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.

Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.

The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.

A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.

Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.

And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.

However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”

Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.

“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”

Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.

Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m² or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and severe comorbidities.

Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”

During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.

“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.

Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.

Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m² and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.

Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.

Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.

One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.

Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.

The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.

A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.

Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.

And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.

However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”

Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association (AHA) has unveiled a new heart disease risk calculator that aims to estimate an individual’s long-term risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD).

The new Predicting Risk of CVD Events (PREVENT) calculator is the first risk calculator that combines measures of cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic health to estimate risk for CVD.

It follows an AHA presidential advisory and scientific statement published in October, formally defining cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome.

The PREVENT calculator also “starts earlier and goes longer” than the pooled cohort equations (PCE), Sadiya Khan, MD, MSc, chair of the statement writing committee, told this news organization.

PREVENT is for use in adults aged 30-79 years and estimates the 10- and 30-year risk of total CVD including, for the first time, heart failure. The PCE were designed to assess 10-year risk of only myocardial infarction and stroke and only in adults aged 40-79 years.

“The new PREVENT equations are important for doctors because they allow us to start conversations earlier and more comprehensively and accurately calculate risk for our patients,” said Dr. Khan, preventive cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine and associate professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

“We want to support clinicians in starting these conversations around optimizing CKM health earlier and begin to engage in discussions on ways to optimize health,” Dr. Khan added.

The AHA scientific statement on the PREVENT calculator, with Dr. Khan as lead author, was published online in Circulation, with an accompanying article that describes development and validation of the tool. 

Going beyond the PCE

The new calculator was developed using health information from more than 6 million adults from diverse racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic backgrounds.

In addition to blood pressure and cholesterol levels, the PREVENT equations allow for inclusion of hemoglobin A1c, if necessary, to monitor metabolic health.

It also includes estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of kidney function, and allows for use of albumin excretion to monitor kidney disease to further individualize risk assessment and help inform personalized treatment options.

The new calculator also asks about tobacco use and use of medications for CVD risk factors and factors in age and sex, and it removes race from the risk calculations.

“The inclusion of race in risk prediction may imply that differences by race are not modifiable and may reify race as a biological construct, which may worsen health disparities. Therefore, it was decided a priori not to include race as a predictor in the development of PREVENT,” the writing group said.

They emphasized that the PREVENT calculator has similar accuracy among varied racial and ethnic groups.

The equations include an option to use the Social Deprivation Index, which incorporates measures of adverse social determinants of health such as education, poverty, unemployment, and factors based on a person’s environment.

The PREVENT equations are a “critical first step” toward including CKM health and social factors in risk prediction for CVD, Dr. Khan said in a news release.

“We are working on finalizing the online tool and it should be available soon – hopefully in a few weeks,” Dr. Khan told this news organization.
 

Knowledge gaps

The scientific statement lists several knowledge gaps and areas for more research. These include:

• Incorporating “net benefit” to identify the expected benefit of treatment recommendations based on an individual’s level of risk.
• Collecting more data from people of diverse race and ethnic backgrounds to better represent the increasing diversity in the United States. The number of Hispanic and Asian people included in the PREVENT datasets is lower than national estimates in the general U.S. population, so risk estimations in these populations may be less precise.
• Expanding the collection, reporting, and standardization of social determinants of health data, such as individual information rather than neighborhood information.
• Expanding risk assessment and prevention to earlier in life (childhood and/or adolescence) and in key life periods, such as during the peripartum period, since adverse pregnancy outcomes are associated with increased CVD risk.
• Investigating whether predicting adverse kidney outcomes, particularly among people with and without type 2 diabetes, may further optimize cardiovascular risk prediction.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA. Dr. Khan reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association (AHA) has unveiled a new heart disease risk calculator that aims to estimate an individual’s long-term risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD).

The new Predicting Risk of CVD Events (PREVENT) calculator is the first risk calculator that combines measures of cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic health to estimate risk for CVD.

It follows an AHA presidential advisory and scientific statement published in October, formally defining cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome.

The PREVENT calculator also “starts earlier and goes longer” than the pooled cohort equations (PCE), Sadiya Khan, MD, MSc, chair of the statement writing committee, told this news organization.

PREVENT is for use in adults aged 30-79 years and estimates the 10- and 30-year risk of total CVD including, for the first time, heart failure. The PCE were designed to assess 10-year risk of only myocardial infarction and stroke and only in adults aged 40-79 years.

“The new PREVENT equations are important for doctors because they allow us to start conversations earlier and more comprehensively and accurately calculate risk for our patients,” said Dr. Khan, preventive cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine and associate professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

“We want to support clinicians in starting these conversations around optimizing CKM health earlier and begin to engage in discussions on ways to optimize health,” Dr. Khan added.

The AHA scientific statement on the PREVENT calculator, with Dr. Khan as lead author, was published online in Circulation, with an accompanying article that describes development and validation of the tool. 

Going beyond the PCE

The new calculator was developed using health information from more than 6 million adults from diverse racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic backgrounds.

In addition to blood pressure and cholesterol levels, the PREVENT equations allow for inclusion of hemoglobin A1c, if necessary, to monitor metabolic health.

It also includes estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of kidney function, and allows for use of albumin excretion to monitor kidney disease to further individualize risk assessment and help inform personalized treatment options.

The new calculator also asks about tobacco use and use of medications for CVD risk factors and factors in age and sex, and it removes race from the risk calculations.

“The inclusion of race in risk prediction may imply that differences by race are not modifiable and may reify race as a biological construct, which may worsen health disparities. Therefore, it was decided a priori not to include race as a predictor in the development of PREVENT,” the writing group said.

They emphasized that the PREVENT calculator has similar accuracy among varied racial and ethnic groups.

The equations include an option to use the Social Deprivation Index, which incorporates measures of adverse social determinants of health such as education, poverty, unemployment, and factors based on a person’s environment.

The PREVENT equations are a “critical first step” toward including CKM health and social factors in risk prediction for CVD, Dr. Khan said in a news release.

“We are working on finalizing the online tool and it should be available soon – hopefully in a few weeks,” Dr. Khan told this news organization.
 

Knowledge gaps

The scientific statement lists several knowledge gaps and areas for more research. These include:

• Incorporating “net benefit” to identify the expected benefit of treatment recommendations based on an individual’s level of risk.
• Collecting more data from people of diverse race and ethnic backgrounds to better represent the increasing diversity in the United States. The number of Hispanic and Asian people included in the PREVENT datasets is lower than national estimates in the general U.S. population, so risk estimations in these populations may be less precise.
• Expanding the collection, reporting, and standardization of social determinants of health data, such as individual information rather than neighborhood information.
• Expanding risk assessment and prevention to earlier in life (childhood and/or adolescence) and in key life periods, such as during the peripartum period, since adverse pregnancy outcomes are associated with increased CVD risk.
• Investigating whether predicting adverse kidney outcomes, particularly among people with and without type 2 diabetes, may further optimize cardiovascular risk prediction.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA. Dr. Khan reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association (AHA) has unveiled a new heart disease risk calculator that aims to estimate an individual’s long-term risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD).

The new Predicting Risk of CVD Events (PREVENT) calculator is the first risk calculator that combines measures of cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic health to estimate risk for CVD.

It follows an AHA presidential advisory and scientific statement published in October, formally defining cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome.

The PREVENT calculator also “starts earlier and goes longer” than the pooled cohort equations (PCE), Sadiya Khan, MD, MSc, chair of the statement writing committee, told this news organization.

PREVENT is for use in adults aged 30-79 years and estimates the 10- and 30-year risk of total CVD including, for the first time, heart failure. The PCE were designed to assess 10-year risk of only myocardial infarction and stroke and only in adults aged 40-79 years.

“The new PREVENT equations are important for doctors because they allow us to start conversations earlier and more comprehensively and accurately calculate risk for our patients,” said Dr. Khan, preventive cardiologist at Northwestern Medicine and associate professor at Northwestern University in Chicago.

“We want to support clinicians in starting these conversations around optimizing CKM health earlier and begin to engage in discussions on ways to optimize health,” Dr. Khan added.

The AHA scientific statement on the PREVENT calculator, with Dr. Khan as lead author, was published online in Circulation, with an accompanying article that describes development and validation of the tool. 

Going beyond the PCE

The new calculator was developed using health information from more than 6 million adults from diverse racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic backgrounds.

In addition to blood pressure and cholesterol levels, the PREVENT equations allow for inclusion of hemoglobin A1c, if necessary, to monitor metabolic health.

It also includes estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), a measure of kidney function, and allows for use of albumin excretion to monitor kidney disease to further individualize risk assessment and help inform personalized treatment options.

The new calculator also asks about tobacco use and use of medications for CVD risk factors and factors in age and sex, and it removes race from the risk calculations.

“The inclusion of race in risk prediction may imply that differences by race are not modifiable and may reify race as a biological construct, which may worsen health disparities. Therefore, it was decided a priori not to include race as a predictor in the development of PREVENT,” the writing group said.

They emphasized that the PREVENT calculator has similar accuracy among varied racial and ethnic groups.

The equations include an option to use the Social Deprivation Index, which incorporates measures of adverse social determinants of health such as education, poverty, unemployment, and factors based on a person’s environment.

The PREVENT equations are a “critical first step” toward including CKM health and social factors in risk prediction for CVD, Dr. Khan said in a news release.

“We are working on finalizing the online tool and it should be available soon – hopefully in a few weeks,” Dr. Khan told this news organization.
 

Knowledge gaps

The scientific statement lists several knowledge gaps and areas for more research. These include:

• Incorporating “net benefit” to identify the expected benefit of treatment recommendations based on an individual’s level of risk.
• Collecting more data from people of diverse race and ethnic backgrounds to better represent the increasing diversity in the United States. The number of Hispanic and Asian people included in the PREVENT datasets is lower than national estimates in the general U.S. population, so risk estimations in these populations may be less precise.
• Expanding the collection, reporting, and standardization of social determinants of health data, such as individual information rather than neighborhood information.
• Expanding risk assessment and prevention to earlier in life (childhood and/or adolescence) and in key life periods, such as during the peripartum period, since adverse pregnancy outcomes are associated with increased CVD risk.
• Investigating whether predicting adverse kidney outcomes, particularly among people with and without type 2 diabetes, may further optimize cardiovascular risk prediction.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA. Dr. Khan reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – The first in-human study of a gene therapy designed to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol has shown a signal that the treatment works in a small group of patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH).

While one of four patients in the highest-dose groups had a myocardial infarction the day after getting the treatment, investigators have enough confidence to go forward with the next phase of study.

“The HEART-1trial demonstrated the first human proof of concept for in vivo DNA-based editing,” said Andrew Bellinger, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer of Verve Therapeutics, the company developing the treatment. “We saw dose-dependent–based reductions in LDL and the PCSK9 protein.”

The HEART-1 study was a phase 1b trial of VERVE-101, a CRISPR-based gene editing mechanism designed to inactivate the liver gene PCSK9, which contributes to raising cholesterol. “Human genetics suggest that turning off the cholesterol-raising gene PCSK9 in the liver will durably reduce LDL cholesterol,” Dr. Bellinger said in presenting the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Lipid nanoparticle

VERVE-101 is designed to be a single-course treatment to specifically treat HeFH, Dr. Bellinger said. He explained how the therapy, given by intravenous infusion, differs from adeno-associated virus vectors that have dominated gene therapy platforms.

“It’s a lipid nanoparticle encapsulating two RNA nanoparticles that are taken up by hepatocytes in the liver from the blood by the LDL receptor,” he explained. “Then the A-to-G–based editor protein and the guide mRNA protein together find the PCSK9 gene in the liver.” That single DNA-base change in one position of the PCSK9 gene is able to turn off PCSK9 production in those liver cells.

Dr. Bellinger presented interim results of the first 10 patients treated in the open-label, single ascending dose study. The patients were male and female, ages 18-75, with HeFH, established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and uncontrolled hypercholesterolemia despite being on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy.

They received four different doses: Three patients each received 0.1, 0.3, and 0.45 mg/kg; and one patient received 0.6 mg/kg.

Reductions in blood PCSK9 levels were measured across all dosing groups at 4 weeks, but they were most pronounced in the two highest groups, Dr. Bellinger said. Two patients in the 0.45-mg/kg group had reductions of 59% and 84%. The sole patient in the 0.6-mg/kg arm had a reduction of 47%.

Regarding the 84% reduction in one individual, Dr. Bellinger said, “Roughly 85% of PCSK9 comes from the liver. These data suggest that we have successfully made a single base pair change in both copies of the PCSK9 gene in nearly every hepatocyte in the liver of this individual.”

Those benefits carried over to LDL cholesterol measures, with the highest-dose patients registering 39%, 48% and 55% reductions.
 

Safety outcomes

Two patients had serious cardiovascular (CV) events. One in the 0.3-mg/kg arm died from cardiac arrest 5 weeks after receiving the infusion. A patient in the 0.45-mg/kg arm had a myocardial infarction a day after getting the infusion and then nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) 4 weeks later. Dr. Bellinger said an independent review panel determined that the CV events were in line with outcomes for high-risk patients and weren’t directly related to treatment.

He added, “Increased liver transaminases were seen in patients treated in the higher-dose cohorts. It’s transient, asymptomatic, and it resolved quickly.”

The next step involves pursuing only the 0.45- and 0.6-mg/kg doses in the next dose-escalation phase and enrolling an expansion cohort in 2024, Dr. Bellinger said, with a plan to initiate a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial in 2025.
 

First, do no harm

Karol Watson, MD, PhD, a women’s cardiovascular disease specialist at UCLA, said the promise of gene therapy was “revolutionary,” but that proving safety was critical going forward.

“You’re changing the genome forever,” she said. “Safety is going to be of the utmost importance especially because there are currently safe and efficacious strategies available for lipid lowering. This is a strategy that could be revolutionary, but we have to make sure that it’s safe.”

She pointed to a multinational study from earlier this year that warned about pathogenic consequences from CRISPR-based gene editing. “There are concerns about gene editing,” Dr. Watson said. “This was a whole-genome analysis showing atypical nonhomologous on-target effects of genome editing. Of course this is a very different strategy from what we heard today, but, again, we have to know that this is safe.”

Despite the small sample size from the two highest-dose groups in the study, Dr. Watson said the investigators have reason for going forward. “I think the preclinical data supports moving forward, but the next studies will have to be scrutinized carefully,” she said. “This is a preventive therapy; the first tenet is to do no harm.”

Dr. Bellinger is an employee of Verve Therapeutics, which sponsored the trial. Dr. Watson disclosed relationships with Boehringer-Ingelheim, Amgen, Lilly and Novartis.

PHILADELPHIA – The first in-human study of a gene therapy designed to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol has shown a signal that the treatment works in a small group of patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH).

While one of four patients in the highest-dose groups had a myocardial infarction the day after getting the treatment, investigators have enough confidence to go forward with the next phase of study.

“The HEART-1trial demonstrated the first human proof of concept for in vivo DNA-based editing,” said Andrew Bellinger, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer of Verve Therapeutics, the company developing the treatment. “We saw dose-dependent–based reductions in LDL and the PCSK9 protein.”

The HEART-1 study was a phase 1b trial of VERVE-101, a CRISPR-based gene editing mechanism designed to inactivate the liver gene PCSK9, which contributes to raising cholesterol. “Human genetics suggest that turning off the cholesterol-raising gene PCSK9 in the liver will durably reduce LDL cholesterol,” Dr. Bellinger said in presenting the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Lipid nanoparticle

VERVE-101 is designed to be a single-course treatment to specifically treat HeFH, Dr. Bellinger said. He explained how the therapy, given by intravenous infusion, differs from adeno-associated virus vectors that have dominated gene therapy platforms.

“It’s a lipid nanoparticle encapsulating two RNA nanoparticles that are taken up by hepatocytes in the liver from the blood by the LDL receptor,” he explained. “Then the A-to-G–based editor protein and the guide mRNA protein together find the PCSK9 gene in the liver.” That single DNA-base change in one position of the PCSK9 gene is able to turn off PCSK9 production in those liver cells.

Dr. Bellinger presented interim results of the first 10 patients treated in the open-label, single ascending dose study. The patients were male and female, ages 18-75, with HeFH, established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and uncontrolled hypercholesterolemia despite being on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy.

They received four different doses: Three patients each received 0.1, 0.3, and 0.45 mg/kg; and one patient received 0.6 mg/kg.

Reductions in blood PCSK9 levels were measured across all dosing groups at 4 weeks, but they were most pronounced in the two highest groups, Dr. Bellinger said. Two patients in the 0.45-mg/kg group had reductions of 59% and 84%. The sole patient in the 0.6-mg/kg arm had a reduction of 47%.

Regarding the 84% reduction in one individual, Dr. Bellinger said, “Roughly 85% of PCSK9 comes from the liver. These data suggest that we have successfully made a single base pair change in both copies of the PCSK9 gene in nearly every hepatocyte in the liver of this individual.”

Those benefits carried over to LDL cholesterol measures, with the highest-dose patients registering 39%, 48% and 55% reductions.
 

Safety outcomes

Two patients had serious cardiovascular (CV) events. One in the 0.3-mg/kg arm died from cardiac arrest 5 weeks after receiving the infusion. A patient in the 0.45-mg/kg arm had a myocardial infarction a day after getting the infusion and then nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) 4 weeks later. Dr. Bellinger said an independent review panel determined that the CV events were in line with outcomes for high-risk patients and weren’t directly related to treatment.

He added, “Increased liver transaminases were seen in patients treated in the higher-dose cohorts. It’s transient, asymptomatic, and it resolved quickly.”

The next step involves pursuing only the 0.45- and 0.6-mg/kg doses in the next dose-escalation phase and enrolling an expansion cohort in 2024, Dr. Bellinger said, with a plan to initiate a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial in 2025.
 

First, do no harm

Karol Watson, MD, PhD, a women’s cardiovascular disease specialist at UCLA, said the promise of gene therapy was “revolutionary,” but that proving safety was critical going forward.

“You’re changing the genome forever,” she said. “Safety is going to be of the utmost importance especially because there are currently safe and efficacious strategies available for lipid lowering. This is a strategy that could be revolutionary, but we have to make sure that it’s safe.”

She pointed to a multinational study from earlier this year that warned about pathogenic consequences from CRISPR-based gene editing. “There are concerns about gene editing,” Dr. Watson said. “This was a whole-genome analysis showing atypical nonhomologous on-target effects of genome editing. Of course this is a very different strategy from what we heard today, but, again, we have to know that this is safe.”

Despite the small sample size from the two highest-dose groups in the study, Dr. Watson said the investigators have reason for going forward. “I think the preclinical data supports moving forward, but the next studies will have to be scrutinized carefully,” she said. “This is a preventive therapy; the first tenet is to do no harm.”

Dr. Bellinger is an employee of Verve Therapeutics, which sponsored the trial. Dr. Watson disclosed relationships with Boehringer-Ingelheim, Amgen, Lilly and Novartis.

PHILADELPHIA – The first in-human study of a gene therapy designed to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol has shown a signal that the treatment works in a small group of patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH).

While one of four patients in the highest-dose groups had a myocardial infarction the day after getting the treatment, investigators have enough confidence to go forward with the next phase of study.

“The HEART-1trial demonstrated the first human proof of concept for in vivo DNA-based editing,” said Andrew Bellinger, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer of Verve Therapeutics, the company developing the treatment. “We saw dose-dependent–based reductions in LDL and the PCSK9 protein.”

The HEART-1 study was a phase 1b trial of VERVE-101, a CRISPR-based gene editing mechanism designed to inactivate the liver gene PCSK9, which contributes to raising cholesterol. “Human genetics suggest that turning off the cholesterol-raising gene PCSK9 in the liver will durably reduce LDL cholesterol,” Dr. Bellinger said in presenting the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Lipid nanoparticle

VERVE-101 is designed to be a single-course treatment to specifically treat HeFH, Dr. Bellinger said. He explained how the therapy, given by intravenous infusion, differs from adeno-associated virus vectors that have dominated gene therapy platforms.

“It’s a lipid nanoparticle encapsulating two RNA nanoparticles that are taken up by hepatocytes in the liver from the blood by the LDL receptor,” he explained. “Then the A-to-G–based editor protein and the guide mRNA protein together find the PCSK9 gene in the liver.” That single DNA-base change in one position of the PCSK9 gene is able to turn off PCSK9 production in those liver cells.

Dr. Bellinger presented interim results of the first 10 patients treated in the open-label, single ascending dose study. The patients were male and female, ages 18-75, with HeFH, established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and uncontrolled hypercholesterolemia despite being on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy.

They received four different doses: Three patients each received 0.1, 0.3, and 0.45 mg/kg; and one patient received 0.6 mg/kg.

Reductions in blood PCSK9 levels were measured across all dosing groups at 4 weeks, but they were most pronounced in the two highest groups, Dr. Bellinger said. Two patients in the 0.45-mg/kg group had reductions of 59% and 84%. The sole patient in the 0.6-mg/kg arm had a reduction of 47%.

Regarding the 84% reduction in one individual, Dr. Bellinger said, “Roughly 85% of PCSK9 comes from the liver. These data suggest that we have successfully made a single base pair change in both copies of the PCSK9 gene in nearly every hepatocyte in the liver of this individual.”

Those benefits carried over to LDL cholesterol measures, with the highest-dose patients registering 39%, 48% and 55% reductions.
 

Safety outcomes

Two patients had serious cardiovascular (CV) events. One in the 0.3-mg/kg arm died from cardiac arrest 5 weeks after receiving the infusion. A patient in the 0.45-mg/kg arm had a myocardial infarction a day after getting the infusion and then nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) 4 weeks later. Dr. Bellinger said an independent review panel determined that the CV events were in line with outcomes for high-risk patients and weren’t directly related to treatment.

He added, “Increased liver transaminases were seen in patients treated in the higher-dose cohorts. It’s transient, asymptomatic, and it resolved quickly.”

The next step involves pursuing only the 0.45- and 0.6-mg/kg doses in the next dose-escalation phase and enrolling an expansion cohort in 2024, Dr. Bellinger said, with a plan to initiate a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial in 2025.
 

First, do no harm

Karol Watson, MD, PhD, a women’s cardiovascular disease specialist at UCLA, said the promise of gene therapy was “revolutionary,” but that proving safety was critical going forward.

“You’re changing the genome forever,” she said. “Safety is going to be of the utmost importance especially because there are currently safe and efficacious strategies available for lipid lowering. This is a strategy that could be revolutionary, but we have to make sure that it’s safe.”

She pointed to a multinational study from earlier this year that warned about pathogenic consequences from CRISPR-based gene editing. “There are concerns about gene editing,” Dr. Watson said. “This was a whole-genome analysis showing atypical nonhomologous on-target effects of genome editing. Of course this is a very different strategy from what we heard today, but, again, we have to know that this is safe.”

Despite the small sample size from the two highest-dose groups in the study, Dr. Watson said the investigators have reason for going forward. “I think the preclinical data supports moving forward, but the next studies will have to be scrutinized carefully,” she said. “This is a preventive therapy; the first tenet is to do no harm.”

Dr. Bellinger is an employee of Verve Therapeutics, which sponsored the trial. Dr. Watson disclosed relationships with Boehringer-Ingelheim, Amgen, Lilly and Novartis.

PHILADELPHIA – In two studies run in parallel fashion to test different strategies, one that employed automatic referral to a pharmacist appeared to be superior to one using alerts from the electronic health record (EHR) in increasing the number of at-risk patients receiving a prescription for statins.

When outcomes were compared across these related studies, the pharmacist referrals had a greater positive impact on statin prescriptions while also increasing the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose, reported Alexander C. Faranoff, MD, assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia.

The parallel studies were part of the SUPER LIPID program, created to generate evidence-based strategies for increasing the proportion of at-risk patients on statins. Dr. Faranoff said current data show that at least 50% of patients indicated for high-intensity statins in the United States are not taking them.

The two studies were presented together in a late breaking presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

EHR algorithm identifies statin candidates

The candidates for statin therapy were identified through an EHR algorithm for both studies. Both compared the impact of the intervention against a baseline period of usual care, although the study of EHR alerts also randomized physicians to provide usual care for 3 months or 6 months prior to intervention.

Dr. Faranoff described these interventions as non–visit related and visit related.

In the study of the non–visit-related strategy, referrals were generated by EHR and sent directly to the pharmacist. Upon receipt, the pharmacist verified the order was appropriate and called the patient directly to discuss starting therapy. Patients agreeing to start a statin were provided with a prescription and followed by the pharmacist.

In the study of the patient-visit approach, physicians seeing EHR-identified candidates received interruptive pop-up alerts during patient encounters. The physicians were randomized to provide usual care for 3 or 6 months before they began receiving alerts. The alerts recommended referral to a pharmacist.

During usual care in the non–visit-related study, only 15.2% of the 975 candidates for statins received a prescription. During the intervention period, the rate climbed to 31.6%. Statistically, the intervention more than doubled the odds ratio (OR) of receiving a statin prescription relative to usual care (OR 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-3.37).

In addition, the proportion of patients receiving an appropriate dose of statins climbed from 7.7% in the period of usual care to 24.8% in the intervention period (OR 6.79; 95% CI 4.00-11.53).
 

Visit-based study also randomized

In the study evaluating a visit-based intervention, 16 physicians were randomized to deliver usual care for 3 or 6 months. Of physicians randomized to 3 months, 970 candidates for statins were treated during the 6-month intervention period. The physicians randomized to usual care for 6 months treated 672 candidates for statins during a 3-month intervention period,

More than 3,000 alerts were sent to both groups of physicians over the intervention period. Only 165 (4.6%) were associated with a prescription.

For the group randomized to 3 months of usual care, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from 14.9% during the period of usual care to 17.6% in the first 3 months of intervention and then fell slightly to 15.5% in the second 3 months.

For the group randomized to usual care for 6 months, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from about 11% during the period of usual care to 14.6%. Combining data from both arms, the small gain in prescriptions was significant but modest (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.02-2.00).

In addition, the visit-based EHR notifications failed to yield a significant gain in the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose. During the intervention period, this proportion was only about 9% of patients treated by either of the two groups of randomized physicians,

The SUPER LIPID program involved 11 internal medicine and family medicine clinics in rural Pennsylvania. In the visit-based intervention, 16 primary care physicians (PCPs) were randomized. In the asynchronous intervention, 10 primary care practices participated. The EHR identified a total of 1,950 candidates for a statin.

Although the gain in statin prescriptions was disappointing for the visit-based intervention, the strategy of using the EHR to refer statin-eligible patients to pharmacists “could be an effective adjunct to visit-based clinical interactions in increasing statin prescribing for high-risk patients,” Dr. Faranoff maintained.
 

Overcoming clinical inertia a challenge

The greater efficacy of a pharmacist-based approach did not surprise the AHA-invited discussant, Benjamin M. Scirica, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Pointing out that the pharmacist-based strategy of increasing statin prescriptions is more complicated and more costly, he said, “You get what you pay for.” In his opinion, simple solutions are unlikely ever to be effective due to the complex reasons for clinical inertia. Overall, he thinks a multifaceted approach to placing more patients who need statins on therapy is essential.

“Implementation science is hard,” Dr. Scirica said. Even though the referral-to-a-pharmacist approach ended up putting more patients on statins and putting them on an appropriate dose, he said even this more effective strategy “is still not getting to the majority of patients.”

This does not mean that this approach is without merit or should not be one of many strategies employed, but Dr. Scirica said “there is so much more to be done,” and that it should be employed along with other initiatives.

Faranoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Scirica reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Aktiia, AstraZeneca, Better Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Hanmi, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

PHILADELPHIA – In two studies run in parallel fashion to test different strategies, one that employed automatic referral to a pharmacist appeared to be superior to one using alerts from the electronic health record (EHR) in increasing the number of at-risk patients receiving a prescription for statins.

When outcomes were compared across these related studies, the pharmacist referrals had a greater positive impact on statin prescriptions while also increasing the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose, reported Alexander C. Faranoff, MD, assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia.

The parallel studies were part of the SUPER LIPID program, created to generate evidence-based strategies for increasing the proportion of at-risk patients on statins. Dr. Faranoff said current data show that at least 50% of patients indicated for high-intensity statins in the United States are not taking them.

The two studies were presented together in a late breaking presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

EHR algorithm identifies statin candidates

The candidates for statin therapy were identified through an EHR algorithm for both studies. Both compared the impact of the intervention against a baseline period of usual care, although the study of EHR alerts also randomized physicians to provide usual care for 3 months or 6 months prior to intervention.

Dr. Faranoff described these interventions as non–visit related and visit related.

In the study of the non–visit-related strategy, referrals were generated by EHR and sent directly to the pharmacist. Upon receipt, the pharmacist verified the order was appropriate and called the patient directly to discuss starting therapy. Patients agreeing to start a statin were provided with a prescription and followed by the pharmacist.

In the study of the patient-visit approach, physicians seeing EHR-identified candidates received interruptive pop-up alerts during patient encounters. The physicians were randomized to provide usual care for 3 or 6 months before they began receiving alerts. The alerts recommended referral to a pharmacist.

During usual care in the non–visit-related study, only 15.2% of the 975 candidates for statins received a prescription. During the intervention period, the rate climbed to 31.6%. Statistically, the intervention more than doubled the odds ratio (OR) of receiving a statin prescription relative to usual care (OR 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-3.37).

In addition, the proportion of patients receiving an appropriate dose of statins climbed from 7.7% in the period of usual care to 24.8% in the intervention period (OR 6.79; 95% CI 4.00-11.53).
 

Visit-based study also randomized

In the study evaluating a visit-based intervention, 16 physicians were randomized to deliver usual care for 3 or 6 months. Of physicians randomized to 3 months, 970 candidates for statins were treated during the 6-month intervention period. The physicians randomized to usual care for 6 months treated 672 candidates for statins during a 3-month intervention period,

More than 3,000 alerts were sent to both groups of physicians over the intervention period. Only 165 (4.6%) were associated with a prescription.

For the group randomized to 3 months of usual care, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from 14.9% during the period of usual care to 17.6% in the first 3 months of intervention and then fell slightly to 15.5% in the second 3 months.

For the group randomized to usual care for 6 months, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from about 11% during the period of usual care to 14.6%. Combining data from both arms, the small gain in prescriptions was significant but modest (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.02-2.00).

In addition, the visit-based EHR notifications failed to yield a significant gain in the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose. During the intervention period, this proportion was only about 9% of patients treated by either of the two groups of randomized physicians,

The SUPER LIPID program involved 11 internal medicine and family medicine clinics in rural Pennsylvania. In the visit-based intervention, 16 primary care physicians (PCPs) were randomized. In the asynchronous intervention, 10 primary care practices participated. The EHR identified a total of 1,950 candidates for a statin.

Although the gain in statin prescriptions was disappointing for the visit-based intervention, the strategy of using the EHR to refer statin-eligible patients to pharmacists “could be an effective adjunct to visit-based clinical interactions in increasing statin prescribing for high-risk patients,” Dr. Faranoff maintained.
 

Overcoming clinical inertia a challenge

The greater efficacy of a pharmacist-based approach did not surprise the AHA-invited discussant, Benjamin M. Scirica, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Pointing out that the pharmacist-based strategy of increasing statin prescriptions is more complicated and more costly, he said, “You get what you pay for.” In his opinion, simple solutions are unlikely ever to be effective due to the complex reasons for clinical inertia. Overall, he thinks a multifaceted approach to placing more patients who need statins on therapy is essential.

“Implementation science is hard,” Dr. Scirica said. Even though the referral-to-a-pharmacist approach ended up putting more patients on statins and putting them on an appropriate dose, he said even this more effective strategy “is still not getting to the majority of patients.”

This does not mean that this approach is without merit or should not be one of many strategies employed, but Dr. Scirica said “there is so much more to be done,” and that it should be employed along with other initiatives.

Faranoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Scirica reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Aktiia, AstraZeneca, Better Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Hanmi, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

PHILADELPHIA – In two studies run in parallel fashion to test different strategies, one that employed automatic referral to a pharmacist appeared to be superior to one using alerts from the electronic health record (EHR) in increasing the number of at-risk patients receiving a prescription for statins.

When outcomes were compared across these related studies, the pharmacist referrals had a greater positive impact on statin prescriptions while also increasing the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose, reported Alexander C. Faranoff, MD, assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia.

The parallel studies were part of the SUPER LIPID program, created to generate evidence-based strategies for increasing the proportion of at-risk patients on statins. Dr. Faranoff said current data show that at least 50% of patients indicated for high-intensity statins in the United States are not taking them.

The two studies were presented together in a late breaking presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

EHR algorithm identifies statin candidates

The candidates for statin therapy were identified through an EHR algorithm for both studies. Both compared the impact of the intervention against a baseline period of usual care, although the study of EHR alerts also randomized physicians to provide usual care for 3 months or 6 months prior to intervention.

Dr. Faranoff described these interventions as non–visit related and visit related.

In the study of the non–visit-related strategy, referrals were generated by EHR and sent directly to the pharmacist. Upon receipt, the pharmacist verified the order was appropriate and called the patient directly to discuss starting therapy. Patients agreeing to start a statin were provided with a prescription and followed by the pharmacist.

In the study of the patient-visit approach, physicians seeing EHR-identified candidates received interruptive pop-up alerts during patient encounters. The physicians were randomized to provide usual care for 3 or 6 months before they began receiving alerts. The alerts recommended referral to a pharmacist.

During usual care in the non–visit-related study, only 15.2% of the 975 candidates for statins received a prescription. During the intervention period, the rate climbed to 31.6%. Statistically, the intervention more than doubled the odds ratio (OR) of receiving a statin prescription relative to usual care (OR 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-3.37).

In addition, the proportion of patients receiving an appropriate dose of statins climbed from 7.7% in the period of usual care to 24.8% in the intervention period (OR 6.79; 95% CI 4.00-11.53).
 

Visit-based study also randomized

In the study evaluating a visit-based intervention, 16 physicians were randomized to deliver usual care for 3 or 6 months. Of physicians randomized to 3 months, 970 candidates for statins were treated during the 6-month intervention period. The physicians randomized to usual care for 6 months treated 672 candidates for statins during a 3-month intervention period,

More than 3,000 alerts were sent to both groups of physicians over the intervention period. Only 165 (4.6%) were associated with a prescription.

For the group randomized to 3 months of usual care, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from 14.9% during the period of usual care to 17.6% in the first 3 months of intervention and then fell slightly to 15.5% in the second 3 months.

For the group randomized to usual care for 6 months, the proportion of candidates for statins who received a prescription rose from about 11% during the period of usual care to 14.6%. Combining data from both arms, the small gain in prescriptions was significant but modest (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.02-2.00).

In addition, the visit-based EHR notifications failed to yield a significant gain in the proportion of patients on an appropriate statin dose. During the intervention period, this proportion was only about 9% of patients treated by either of the two groups of randomized physicians,

The SUPER LIPID program involved 11 internal medicine and family medicine clinics in rural Pennsylvania. In the visit-based intervention, 16 primary care physicians (PCPs) were randomized. In the asynchronous intervention, 10 primary care practices participated. The EHR identified a total of 1,950 candidates for a statin.

Although the gain in statin prescriptions was disappointing for the visit-based intervention, the strategy of using the EHR to refer statin-eligible patients to pharmacists “could be an effective adjunct to visit-based clinical interactions in increasing statin prescribing for high-risk patients,” Dr. Faranoff maintained.
 

Overcoming clinical inertia a challenge

The greater efficacy of a pharmacist-based approach did not surprise the AHA-invited discussant, Benjamin M. Scirica, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Pointing out that the pharmacist-based strategy of increasing statin prescriptions is more complicated and more costly, he said, “You get what you pay for.” In his opinion, simple solutions are unlikely ever to be effective due to the complex reasons for clinical inertia. Overall, he thinks a multifaceted approach to placing more patients who need statins on therapy is essential.

“Implementation science is hard,” Dr. Scirica said. Even though the referral-to-a-pharmacist approach ended up putting more patients on statins and putting them on an appropriate dose, he said even this more effective strategy “is still not getting to the majority of patients.”

This does not mean that this approach is without merit or should not be one of many strategies employed, but Dr. Scirica said “there is so much more to be done,” and that it should be employed along with other initiatives.

Faranoff reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Scirica reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Aktiia, AstraZeneca, Better Therapeutics, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Hanmi, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

In an early phase multicenter clinical study, large reductions in lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), were achieved with a well-tolerated small interfering RNA (siRNA) therapeutic, lepodisiran.

The reductions in serum Lp(a) in patients receiving lepodisiran were dose dependent but adverse events were not, said Steven E. Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine.

Rather, drug-related adverse events “were uncommon and generally similar across all lepodisiran doses and the placebo group,” reported Dr. Nissen, who pointed out that safety and tolerability were the primary endpoints and purpose of this phase 1 study.
 

Lp(a) strongly associated with CV risk

Similar to LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), elevated levels of serum Lp(a) have been associated with major adverse cardiac events (MACE). In a 2022 review article that summarized pathophysiological, observational, and genetic studies, Lp(a) was found to be implicated in vascular inflammation, atherogenesis, calcification, and thrombosis.

Furthermore, Lp(a) has been associated with residual risk of cardiovascular (CV) events even after tight control of other risk factors, including elevated LDL-C, Dr. Nissen said.

So far, no well-tolerated therapy has been found to be effective for reducing Lp(a), but siRNA is a novel and attractive approach, according to Dr. Nissen, who presented these results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. They were also published online in JAMA.

By silencing target genes, siRNA therapies can inhibit a basic step in a given pathological process. In this case, lepodisiran silences the LPA gene to halt encoding of apolipoprotein(a), which plays a key role in Lp(a) production.

Lepodisiran is not the only treatment in development for Lp(a), noted the AHA-invited discussant Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, chair in cardiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. She mentioned several other siRNA therapies, including olpasiran that was effective in a phase 2 trial she led and published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Drugs with different mechanisms, such as the antisense oligonucleotide pelacarsen, showed activity when tested earlier this year in a phase 1 study. No study has yet been conducted to link reductions in Lp(a) with CV event risk reduction.

The current study with lepodisiran was conducted with the participation of five clinical research sites in the United States and Singapore. Participants between the ages of 18 and 65 years were enrolled if they had a serum Lp(a) of at least 75 nmol/L (30 mg/dL), which is considered moderately elevated.

They were excluded if they had CV disease or significant risk factors, including a blood pressure greater than 160/40 mm Hg, impaired renal function (eGFR < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²), or tobacco use (> 10 cigarettes/day).

Of 340 candidates screened, 48 were randomly assigned to one placebo or six lepodisiran groups. There were 12 participants in the placebo group and 6 in each of the lepodisiran dosing groups (4 mg, 12 mg, 32 mg, 96 mg, 304 mg, and 608 mg). All doses and placebo were administered subcutaneously one time with a planned follow-up of up to 48 weeks.
 

Safety profile is placebo-like

The single most common adverse event, shared by those randomly assigned to placebo, was injection-site reaction. There were no adverse events, including laboratory abnormalities, that were persistent and clearly different for those assigned to any dose of lepodisiran relative to placebo.

The maximum median percentage change in serum Lp(a) out to day 337 of follow-up was 5% reduction in the placebo group. In the active treatment groups, the reductions were 41% on 4 mg, 59% on 12 mg, 76% on 32 mg, 96% on 304 mg, and 97% on 608 mg.

These reductions were generally sustained for as long as therapy was maintained. Maximal reductions were reached at day 85 in the 4-mg group but were achieved by day 29 in the 605-mg group, Dr. Nissen reported. In fact, serum Lp(a) was undetectable in the 605-mg group at day 29 and remained so until day 281.

Currently, there is no practical treatment for Lp(a). The only potential exception, apheresis, is “cumbersome” to perform and must be repeated for sustained reductions. Niacin and PCSK9 inhibitors are known to provide modest reductions in Lp(a), but Dr. Nissen said they are too modest to expect a meaningful clinical benefit.
 

Lp(a) not responsive to lifestyle changes

Statins as well as all lifestyle modifications, including diet, have been shown to have “little or no effect,” Dr. Nissen said.

The safety and the evidence so far of sustained Lp(a) lowering has already led to a phase 2 trial, according to Dr. Nissen, but the more important test for the future of lepodisiran will be studies powered to confirm reductions in MACE. Lepodisiran may finally allow that hypothesis to be tested.

“I think a lot of us have been waiting a long time for evidence that we can reliably reduce Lp(a),” said Karol Watson, MD, PhD, who has a research interest in lipids and is a professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Although she conceded that the overwhelming evidence that Lp(a) is a risk factor does not ensure that any specific Lp(a)-lowering therapy will be clinically viable, she suggested this drug is a promising candidate to move this field forward.

“At the highest doses, lepodisiran is not just lowering Lp(a), it appears to be getting rid of it,” she said.

Dr. O’Donoghue said that the phase 1 results suggest lepodisiran might have a somewhat longer duration of action than other siRNA therapies studied for Lp(a) so far, but said larger trials are needed to determine whether the growing number of drugs in this class differ in ways that are clinically meaningful.

Overall, the excitement in this field is probably mostly driven by the fact that there are so many promising therapies for Lp(a) that address the target in so many unique ways. Dr. O’Donoghue cited, as an example, a gene-editing therapy called CTX320 that showed impressive effects in an animal study presented at the AHA meeting as a poster. She called the pipeline for treating Lp(a) “rich.”

Elevated Lp(a) is genetically determined, so levels do not generally change over time, said Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the department of preventive medicine, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago.

“It is not affected by your diet. It is not affected by your exercise. What your level is will be the level you will have for the rest of your life,” he said. Generally, it is recommended to have Lp(a) measured just once to more accurately calculate cardiovascular risk, but Dr. Lloyd-Jones predicted that this lipid subfraction might be measured more frequently to verify control if a therapeutic becomes available.

Dr. Nissen agreed. Estimating that 64 million people in the United States have significantly elevated Lp(a), he expects this risk to be addressed as a specific and independent target in CV risk management when and if it becomes treatable.

Dr. Nissen reported financial relationships with Novartis, Silence Therapeutics, and Eli Lilly, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Lloyd-Jones disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In an early phase multicenter clinical study, large reductions in lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), were achieved with a well-tolerated small interfering RNA (siRNA) therapeutic, lepodisiran.

The reductions in serum Lp(a) in patients receiving lepodisiran were dose dependent but adverse events were not, said Steven E. Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine.

Rather, drug-related adverse events “were uncommon and generally similar across all lepodisiran doses and the placebo group,” reported Dr. Nissen, who pointed out that safety and tolerability were the primary endpoints and purpose of this phase 1 study.
 

Lp(a) strongly associated with CV risk

Similar to LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), elevated levels of serum Lp(a) have been associated with major adverse cardiac events (MACE). In a 2022 review article that summarized pathophysiological, observational, and genetic studies, Lp(a) was found to be implicated in vascular inflammation, atherogenesis, calcification, and thrombosis.

Furthermore, Lp(a) has been associated with residual risk of cardiovascular (CV) events even after tight control of other risk factors, including elevated LDL-C, Dr. Nissen said.

So far, no well-tolerated therapy has been found to be effective for reducing Lp(a), but siRNA is a novel and attractive approach, according to Dr. Nissen, who presented these results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. They were also published online in JAMA.

By silencing target genes, siRNA therapies can inhibit a basic step in a given pathological process. In this case, lepodisiran silences the LPA gene to halt encoding of apolipoprotein(a), which plays a key role in Lp(a) production.

Lepodisiran is not the only treatment in development for Lp(a), noted the AHA-invited discussant Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, chair in cardiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. She mentioned several other siRNA therapies, including olpasiran that was effective in a phase 2 trial she led and published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Drugs with different mechanisms, such as the antisense oligonucleotide pelacarsen, showed activity when tested earlier this year in a phase 1 study. No study has yet been conducted to link reductions in Lp(a) with CV event risk reduction.

The current study with lepodisiran was conducted with the participation of five clinical research sites in the United States and Singapore. Participants between the ages of 18 and 65 years were enrolled if they had a serum Lp(a) of at least 75 nmol/L (30 mg/dL), which is considered moderately elevated.

They were excluded if they had CV disease or significant risk factors, including a blood pressure greater than 160/40 mm Hg, impaired renal function (eGFR < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²), or tobacco use (> 10 cigarettes/day).

Of 340 candidates screened, 48 were randomly assigned to one placebo or six lepodisiran groups. There were 12 participants in the placebo group and 6 in each of the lepodisiran dosing groups (4 mg, 12 mg, 32 mg, 96 mg, 304 mg, and 608 mg). All doses and placebo were administered subcutaneously one time with a planned follow-up of up to 48 weeks.
 

Safety profile is placebo-like

The single most common adverse event, shared by those randomly assigned to placebo, was injection-site reaction. There were no adverse events, including laboratory abnormalities, that were persistent and clearly different for those assigned to any dose of lepodisiran relative to placebo.

The maximum median percentage change in serum Lp(a) out to day 337 of follow-up was 5% reduction in the placebo group. In the active treatment groups, the reductions were 41% on 4 mg, 59% on 12 mg, 76% on 32 mg, 96% on 304 mg, and 97% on 608 mg.

These reductions were generally sustained for as long as therapy was maintained. Maximal reductions were reached at day 85 in the 4-mg group but were achieved by day 29 in the 605-mg group, Dr. Nissen reported. In fact, serum Lp(a) was undetectable in the 605-mg group at day 29 and remained so until day 281.

Currently, there is no practical treatment for Lp(a). The only potential exception, apheresis, is “cumbersome” to perform and must be repeated for sustained reductions. Niacin and PCSK9 inhibitors are known to provide modest reductions in Lp(a), but Dr. Nissen said they are too modest to expect a meaningful clinical benefit.
 

Lp(a) not responsive to lifestyle changes

Statins as well as all lifestyle modifications, including diet, have been shown to have “little or no effect,” Dr. Nissen said.

The safety and the evidence so far of sustained Lp(a) lowering has already led to a phase 2 trial, according to Dr. Nissen, but the more important test for the future of lepodisiran will be studies powered to confirm reductions in MACE. Lepodisiran may finally allow that hypothesis to be tested.

“I think a lot of us have been waiting a long time for evidence that we can reliably reduce Lp(a),” said Karol Watson, MD, PhD, who has a research interest in lipids and is a professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Although she conceded that the overwhelming evidence that Lp(a) is a risk factor does not ensure that any specific Lp(a)-lowering therapy will be clinically viable, she suggested this drug is a promising candidate to move this field forward.

“At the highest doses, lepodisiran is not just lowering Lp(a), it appears to be getting rid of it,” she said.

Dr. O’Donoghue said that the phase 1 results suggest lepodisiran might have a somewhat longer duration of action than other siRNA therapies studied for Lp(a) so far, but said larger trials are needed to determine whether the growing number of drugs in this class differ in ways that are clinically meaningful.

Overall, the excitement in this field is probably mostly driven by the fact that there are so many promising therapies for Lp(a) that address the target in so many unique ways. Dr. O’Donoghue cited, as an example, a gene-editing therapy called CTX320 that showed impressive effects in an animal study presented at the AHA meeting as a poster. She called the pipeline for treating Lp(a) “rich.”

Elevated Lp(a) is genetically determined, so levels do not generally change over time, said Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the department of preventive medicine, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago.

“It is not affected by your diet. It is not affected by your exercise. What your level is will be the level you will have for the rest of your life,” he said. Generally, it is recommended to have Lp(a) measured just once to more accurately calculate cardiovascular risk, but Dr. Lloyd-Jones predicted that this lipid subfraction might be measured more frequently to verify control if a therapeutic becomes available.

Dr. Nissen agreed. Estimating that 64 million people in the United States have significantly elevated Lp(a), he expects this risk to be addressed as a specific and independent target in CV risk management when and if it becomes treatable.

Dr. Nissen reported financial relationships with Novartis, Silence Therapeutics, and Eli Lilly, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Lloyd-Jones disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In an early phase multicenter clinical study, large reductions in lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), were achieved with a well-tolerated small interfering RNA (siRNA) therapeutic, lepodisiran.

The reductions in serum Lp(a) in patients receiving lepodisiran were dose dependent but adverse events were not, said Steven E. Nissen, MD, professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine.

Rather, drug-related adverse events “were uncommon and generally similar across all lepodisiran doses and the placebo group,” reported Dr. Nissen, who pointed out that safety and tolerability were the primary endpoints and purpose of this phase 1 study.
 

Lp(a) strongly associated with CV risk

Similar to LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), elevated levels of serum Lp(a) have been associated with major adverse cardiac events (MACE). In a 2022 review article that summarized pathophysiological, observational, and genetic studies, Lp(a) was found to be implicated in vascular inflammation, atherogenesis, calcification, and thrombosis.

Furthermore, Lp(a) has been associated with residual risk of cardiovascular (CV) events even after tight control of other risk factors, including elevated LDL-C, Dr. Nissen said.

So far, no well-tolerated therapy has been found to be effective for reducing Lp(a), but siRNA is a novel and attractive approach, according to Dr. Nissen, who presented these results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. They were also published online in JAMA.

By silencing target genes, siRNA therapies can inhibit a basic step in a given pathological process. In this case, lepodisiran silences the LPA gene to halt encoding of apolipoprotein(a), which plays a key role in Lp(a) production.

Lepodisiran is not the only treatment in development for Lp(a), noted the AHA-invited discussant Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, chair in cardiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. She mentioned several other siRNA therapies, including olpasiran that was effective in a phase 2 trial she led and published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Drugs with different mechanisms, such as the antisense oligonucleotide pelacarsen, showed activity when tested earlier this year in a phase 1 study. No study has yet been conducted to link reductions in Lp(a) with CV event risk reduction.

The current study with lepodisiran was conducted with the participation of five clinical research sites in the United States and Singapore. Participants between the ages of 18 and 65 years were enrolled if they had a serum Lp(a) of at least 75 nmol/L (30 mg/dL), which is considered moderately elevated.

They were excluded if they had CV disease or significant risk factors, including a blood pressure greater than 160/40 mm Hg, impaired renal function (eGFR < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²), or tobacco use (> 10 cigarettes/day).

Of 340 candidates screened, 48 were randomly assigned to one placebo or six lepodisiran groups. There were 12 participants in the placebo group and 6 in each of the lepodisiran dosing groups (4 mg, 12 mg, 32 mg, 96 mg, 304 mg, and 608 mg). All doses and placebo were administered subcutaneously one time with a planned follow-up of up to 48 weeks.
 

Safety profile is placebo-like

The single most common adverse event, shared by those randomly assigned to placebo, was injection-site reaction. There were no adverse events, including laboratory abnormalities, that were persistent and clearly different for those assigned to any dose of lepodisiran relative to placebo.

The maximum median percentage change in serum Lp(a) out to day 337 of follow-up was 5% reduction in the placebo group. In the active treatment groups, the reductions were 41% on 4 mg, 59% on 12 mg, 76% on 32 mg, 96% on 304 mg, and 97% on 608 mg.

These reductions were generally sustained for as long as therapy was maintained. Maximal reductions were reached at day 85 in the 4-mg group but were achieved by day 29 in the 605-mg group, Dr. Nissen reported. In fact, serum Lp(a) was undetectable in the 605-mg group at day 29 and remained so until day 281.

Currently, there is no practical treatment for Lp(a). The only potential exception, apheresis, is “cumbersome” to perform and must be repeated for sustained reductions. Niacin and PCSK9 inhibitors are known to provide modest reductions in Lp(a), but Dr. Nissen said they are too modest to expect a meaningful clinical benefit.
 

Lp(a) not responsive to lifestyle changes

Statins as well as all lifestyle modifications, including diet, have been shown to have “little or no effect,” Dr. Nissen said.

The safety and the evidence so far of sustained Lp(a) lowering has already led to a phase 2 trial, according to Dr. Nissen, but the more important test for the future of lepodisiran will be studies powered to confirm reductions in MACE. Lepodisiran may finally allow that hypothesis to be tested.

“I think a lot of us have been waiting a long time for evidence that we can reliably reduce Lp(a),” said Karol Watson, MD, PhD, who has a research interest in lipids and is a professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Although she conceded that the overwhelming evidence that Lp(a) is a risk factor does not ensure that any specific Lp(a)-lowering therapy will be clinically viable, she suggested this drug is a promising candidate to move this field forward.

“At the highest doses, lepodisiran is not just lowering Lp(a), it appears to be getting rid of it,” she said.

Dr. O’Donoghue said that the phase 1 results suggest lepodisiran might have a somewhat longer duration of action than other siRNA therapies studied for Lp(a) so far, but said larger trials are needed to determine whether the growing number of drugs in this class differ in ways that are clinically meaningful.

Overall, the excitement in this field is probably mostly driven by the fact that there are so many promising therapies for Lp(a) that address the target in so many unique ways. Dr. O’Donoghue cited, as an example, a gene-editing therapy called CTX320 that showed impressive effects in an animal study presented at the AHA meeting as a poster. She called the pipeline for treating Lp(a) “rich.”

Elevated Lp(a) is genetically determined, so levels do not generally change over time, said Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the department of preventive medicine, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago.

“It is not affected by your diet. It is not affected by your exercise. What your level is will be the level you will have for the rest of your life,” he said. Generally, it is recommended to have Lp(a) measured just once to more accurately calculate cardiovascular risk, but Dr. Lloyd-Jones predicted that this lipid subfraction might be measured more frequently to verify control if a therapeutic becomes available.

Dr. Nissen agreed. Estimating that 64 million people in the United States have significantly elevated Lp(a), he expects this risk to be addressed as a specific and independent target in CV risk management when and if it becomes treatable.

Dr. Nissen reported financial relationships with Novartis, Silence Therapeutics, and Eli Lilly, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Watson reported financial relationships with Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, and Novartis. Dr. Lloyd-Jones disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – The nomenclature may have changed, but the steady rise in the most common form of liver disease – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly known as NAFLD) – is predicted to continue into the middle of this century.

That’s according to Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic. They created a mathematical model incorporating data on the growth of the U.S. population and the natural history of MASLD/NAFLD. The model projected a relative 23% increase in MASLD among U.S. adults from 2020 to 2050.

Cleveland Clinic

“Our model forecasts a substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next 3 decades. In the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant,” Dr. Le said in a media briefing held on Nov. 7 prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The estimated worldwide prevalence of MASLD is 38%. In the United States, an estimated 27.8% of adults had MASLD as of 2020.

Dr. Le and colleagues wanted to get a clearer picture of the expected increase in the clinical burden of MASLD in the coming decades. The researchers used data from the medical literature to create an individual-level state transition model. They took into account projections of the growth of the U.S. population and the progression of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through stages of fibrosis to decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), transplant, and liver-related death as a proportion of all-cause mortality.
 

Validated model

They validated the model by testing it against liver outcomes from 2000 through 2018 and published data on the U.S. population. The model closely matched trends in MASLD prevalence, MASH proportion, HCC and liver transplant incidences, and overall survival rates for patients with MASLD.

As noted, the model predicted a steady increase in MASLD prevalence, from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% by 2050, a relative increase of about 23%. The model also predicted a slight uptick in the proportion of MASH among patients with MASLD, from 20% to 21.8%.

The investigators said that the prevalence of MASLD/MASH would likely remain relatively stable among people aged 18-29 years but would increase significantly for all other age groups.

In addition, the model predicted an increase in the proportion of cirrhosis in patients with MASLD from 1.9% to 3.1%, as well as a rise in liver-related deaths from 0.4% of all deaths in 2020 to 1% by 2050.

The investigators also foresaw a rise in HCC cases, from 10,400 annually to 19,300 by 2050 and a more than twofold increase in liver transplants, from 1,700 in 2020 to 4,200 in 2050.
 

A “tsunami” of liver disease

In the question-and-answer portion of the briefing, Norah Terrault, MD, AASLD president and chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, commented on the study findings and “the frightening trajectory in terms of disease burden.

“I’m thinking to myself there’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this tsunami of disease that’s coming our way,” she said, and asked Dr. Le what policy or societal approaches might be implemented to help stem the tide.

“This is a really huge question,” Dr. Le acknowledged. The study only provides estimates of what the future burden of disease might be if there are no changes in clinical care for patients with MASLD or if the trajectory of contributing factors, such as obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic diseases, continued to increase, she cautioned.

Raising awareness of MASLD/MASH and working to improve collaboration among liver specialists and general practitioners could help to flatten the curve, she suggested.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Le and Dr. Terrault have disclosed no relevant financial relations.


A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – The nomenclature may have changed, but the steady rise in the most common form of liver disease – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly known as NAFLD) – is predicted to continue into the middle of this century.

That’s according to Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic. They created a mathematical model incorporating data on the growth of the U.S. population and the natural history of MASLD/NAFLD. The model projected a relative 23% increase in MASLD among U.S. adults from 2020 to 2050.

Cleveland Clinic

“Our model forecasts a substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next 3 decades. In the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant,” Dr. Le said in a media briefing held on Nov. 7 prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The estimated worldwide prevalence of MASLD is 38%. In the United States, an estimated 27.8% of adults had MASLD as of 2020.

Dr. Le and colleagues wanted to get a clearer picture of the expected increase in the clinical burden of MASLD in the coming decades. The researchers used data from the medical literature to create an individual-level state transition model. They took into account projections of the growth of the U.S. population and the progression of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through stages of fibrosis to decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), transplant, and liver-related death as a proportion of all-cause mortality.
 

Validated model

They validated the model by testing it against liver outcomes from 2000 through 2018 and published data on the U.S. population. The model closely matched trends in MASLD prevalence, MASH proportion, HCC and liver transplant incidences, and overall survival rates for patients with MASLD.

As noted, the model predicted a steady increase in MASLD prevalence, from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% by 2050, a relative increase of about 23%. The model also predicted a slight uptick in the proportion of MASH among patients with MASLD, from 20% to 21.8%.

The investigators said that the prevalence of MASLD/MASH would likely remain relatively stable among people aged 18-29 years but would increase significantly for all other age groups.

In addition, the model predicted an increase in the proportion of cirrhosis in patients with MASLD from 1.9% to 3.1%, as well as a rise in liver-related deaths from 0.4% of all deaths in 2020 to 1% by 2050.

The investigators also foresaw a rise in HCC cases, from 10,400 annually to 19,300 by 2050 and a more than twofold increase in liver transplants, from 1,700 in 2020 to 4,200 in 2050.
 

A “tsunami” of liver disease

In the question-and-answer portion of the briefing, Norah Terrault, MD, AASLD president and chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, commented on the study findings and “the frightening trajectory in terms of disease burden.

“I’m thinking to myself there’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this tsunami of disease that’s coming our way,” she said, and asked Dr. Le what policy or societal approaches might be implemented to help stem the tide.

“This is a really huge question,” Dr. Le acknowledged. The study only provides estimates of what the future burden of disease might be if there are no changes in clinical care for patients with MASLD or if the trajectory of contributing factors, such as obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic diseases, continued to increase, she cautioned.

Raising awareness of MASLD/MASH and working to improve collaboration among liver specialists and general practitioners could help to flatten the curve, she suggested.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Le and Dr. Terrault have disclosed no relevant financial relations.


A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – The nomenclature may have changed, but the steady rise in the most common form of liver disease – metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD, formerly known as NAFLD) – is predicted to continue into the middle of this century.

That’s according to Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic. They created a mathematical model incorporating data on the growth of the U.S. population and the natural history of MASLD/NAFLD. The model projected a relative 23% increase in MASLD among U.S. adults from 2020 to 2050.

Cleveland Clinic

“Our model forecasts a substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next 3 decades. In the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant,” Dr. Le said in a media briefing held on Nov. 7 prior to her presentation of the data at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The estimated worldwide prevalence of MASLD is 38%. In the United States, an estimated 27.8% of adults had MASLD as of 2020.

Dr. Le and colleagues wanted to get a clearer picture of the expected increase in the clinical burden of MASLD in the coming decades. The researchers used data from the medical literature to create an individual-level state transition model. They took into account projections of the growth of the U.S. population and the progression of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through stages of fibrosis to decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), transplant, and liver-related death as a proportion of all-cause mortality.
 

Validated model

They validated the model by testing it against liver outcomes from 2000 through 2018 and published data on the U.S. population. The model closely matched trends in MASLD prevalence, MASH proportion, HCC and liver transplant incidences, and overall survival rates for patients with MASLD.

As noted, the model predicted a steady increase in MASLD prevalence, from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% by 2050, a relative increase of about 23%. The model also predicted a slight uptick in the proportion of MASH among patients with MASLD, from 20% to 21.8%.

The investigators said that the prevalence of MASLD/MASH would likely remain relatively stable among people aged 18-29 years but would increase significantly for all other age groups.

In addition, the model predicted an increase in the proportion of cirrhosis in patients with MASLD from 1.9% to 3.1%, as well as a rise in liver-related deaths from 0.4% of all deaths in 2020 to 1% by 2050.

The investigators also foresaw a rise in HCC cases, from 10,400 annually to 19,300 by 2050 and a more than twofold increase in liver transplants, from 1,700 in 2020 to 4,200 in 2050.
 

A “tsunami” of liver disease

In the question-and-answer portion of the briefing, Norah Terrault, MD, AASLD president and chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, commented on the study findings and “the frightening trajectory in terms of disease burden.

“I’m thinking to myself there’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this tsunami of disease that’s coming our way,” she said, and asked Dr. Le what policy or societal approaches might be implemented to help stem the tide.

“This is a really huge question,” Dr. Le acknowledged. The study only provides estimates of what the future burden of disease might be if there are no changes in clinical care for patients with MASLD or if the trajectory of contributing factors, such as obesity, diabetes, and other metabolic diseases, continued to increase, she cautioned.

Raising awareness of MASLD/MASH and working to improve collaboration among liver specialists and general practitioners could help to flatten the curve, she suggested.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Le and Dr. Terrault have disclosed no relevant financial relations.


A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.