2018
DOI: 10.1161/atvbaha.117.310675
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Expression of LDLRs (Low-Density Lipoprotein Receptors), Dyslipidemia Severity, and Response to PCSK9 (Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin Kexin Type 9) Inhibition in Homozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Long-term data from TAUSSIG suggests a mean response rate of evolocumab in FH of 21.2% [24]. The issues with variability of response to PCSK9 inhibitors in HoFH indicate a need to carefully select therapies based on available genetic profiling [25]. Expert opinion underscores the limitations of PCSK9 inhibitors in HoFH and suggests that they may not have the broad applicability required to reduce the burden of LA, certainly for HoFH patients with receptornegative mutations [26].…”
Section: Standards Of Carementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Long-term data from TAUSSIG suggests a mean response rate of evolocumab in FH of 21.2% [24]. The issues with variability of response to PCSK9 inhibitors in HoFH indicate a need to carefully select therapies based on available genetic profiling [25]. Expert opinion underscores the limitations of PCSK9 inhibitors in HoFH and suggests that they may not have the broad applicability required to reduce the burden of LA, certainly for HoFH patients with receptornegative mutations [26].…”
Section: Standards Of Carementioning
confidence: 99%
“…[16][17][18] Furthermore, LDLR expression varies considerably in patients with HoFH, even in those with identical LDLR sequence variations, and marked interindividual variability in response to LDL-C-lowering therapies has been observed in these patients treated with anti-PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies. 17,[19][20][21][22] This variability in the response to LDL-C-lowering therapies remains unexplained; however, residual LDLR expression in patients with HoFH is suggested to be an important contributor. 19,23 In this study, there was substantial variability in the LDL-C-lowering response to inclisiran treatment, possibly because of the different genotype subgroups with varying treatment effects; the reduction in LDL-C level was of greater magnitude in patients with higher residual LDLR function.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…LDL-C-lowering therapy is categorized as LDLR dependent, that is, improving direct LDL clearance by upregulation of the LDLR, or LDLR independent, when the reduction in LDL-C is driven by either increased LDLR-independent clearance or decreased production of LDL and its precursors (Figure). 6,[12][13][14] The efficacy of statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 inhibitors depends on residual LDLR function and may be limited in patients with HoFH. On the contrary, the microsomal transfer protein inhibitor lomitapide and evinacumab act totally independently of the LDLR and are more consistently effective in lowering LDL-C in these patients independently of their residual LDLR activity.…”
Section: Articles See P 343 and P 354mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Baseline mean±SD LDL-C was 315.3±134.0 mg/dL overall but higher in those randomized to placebo (356.7±122.4 mg/dL versus 294.0±136.3 mg/dL). It is important to note that null/null LDLR genotypes that would hamper response to PCSK9 inhibition 6 were more frequent in those randomized to inclisiran (27% versus 15.8%). There was overall no difference (−1.68%; P =0.90) in LDL-C levels compared with placebo at day 150 despite a 60.6% average sustained reduction in free PCSK9 plasma concentrations with inclisiran.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%