Lipoprotein apheresis to treat elevated lipoprotein

An elevated plasma concentration of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Life style modification and currently available drugs either fail to effectively lower plasma Lp(a) levels or do not result in clinical benefit. However, lipoprotein apheresis is very efficient in decreasing Lp(a) concentrations. A single apheresis session can acutely decrease Lp(a) by approximately 60–75%, and apheresis performed weekly or biweekly results in considerably decreased mean interval concentrations (approximately 25–40% reduction). While most apheresis systems (heparin-induced extracorporeal LDL precipitation, direct adsorption of lipoproteins, lipoprotein apheresis with dextran-sulfate, lipid filtration, immunoadsorption) decrease LDL and Lp(a), Lipopac is specific and only decreases Lp(a). Lp(a) apheresis is expensive and time consuming, but associated with very few side effects. Two randomized controlled trials give conflicting consults with respect to the effect on angiographic changes. Retrospective analyses indicate that regular apheresis translates into clinical benefit in patients with elevated Lp(a), but adequate randomized controlled trials are lacking.

‍

apolipoproteins dyslipidemia low density lipoprotein lipids extracorporeal plasmapheresis

‍

Elevated concentrations of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] are causally linked to atherosclerotic disease (1, 2, 3). Decreasing elevated concentrations is therefore a potential strategy to reduce the risk for cardiovascular diseases. In that context, the European Atherosclerosis Society generally recommends the reduction of Lp(a) to less than 50 mg/dl (4). However, unlike other disorders of lipid metabolism, elevations of Lp(a) cannot be influenced by lifestyle modification. Similarly, only very few drugs can significantly lower Lp(a) concentrations (niacin, mipomersen, proprotein-convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, and cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitors). Treatment with niacin, however, does not translate into clinical benefit, though subjects in these studies had relatively normal baseline Lp(a) levels (5, 6). PCSK9 inhibition seems to be beneficial; it is, however, unclear whether this is related to the Lp(a) lowering effects (7, 8).

Lp(a) concentrations can be reduced by plasma exchange procedures, or more specifically by lipoprotein apheresis. In 1975, such procedures were first described as a treatment option for severe hyperlipoproteinemia [homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH)] (9). Since the 1980s, more specific techniques have been developed to reduce atherogenic apoB-containing particles, such as LDL and Lp(a) (10, 11). Currently, five techniques are available that eliminate apoB-containing lipoproteins. In addition, there is one technique that is specific for Lp(a).

In this review, we will discuss the indications for lipoprotein apheresis focusing on patients with elevated Lp(a), describe the different techniques, and review the current evidence regarding the efficacy and the long-term effects on cardiovascular disease.

INDICATIONS FOR LIPOPROTEIN APHERESIS

Apheresis for elevated LDL-cholesterol

Indications for apheresis for elevated LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) vary considerably by country (11). In the USA, lipoprotein apheresis is primarily indicated for patients with homozygous FH. It is also approved in other forms of severe LDL-hypercholesterolemia that persist despite maximal drug therapy (LDL >300 mg/dl without concomitant cardiovascular disease or >200 mg/dl with concomitant cardiovascular disease) (12). In Germany, apheresis for elevated LDL-C can be performed in severe hypercholesterolemia if, despite maximal dietary and drug therapy, LDL-C cannot be reduced sufficiently (documented for 12 months). No specific threshold is given because the overall risk profile of the patient should be considered in evaluating the indication for apheresis. In practical terms, this primarily refers to patients with cardiovascular disease whose LDL-C remains above 130 mg/dl (variable threshold) despite maximal possible drug therapy. Other countries have less specific recommendations with respect to apheresis for elevated LDL-C (11, 13, 14). Generally, homozygous FH is widely recognized as an indication, while other forms of LDL-hypercholesterolemia are not.

In Germany, it is estimated that between 2,000 and 2,500 subjects are currently being treated with lipoprotein apheresis. Approximately 1,000 of them are treated for elevated LDL-C only. Of the remaining 1,000–1,500 subjects, approximately half are treated for elevated Lp(a) only, while the other half are treated for combined elevations of LDL and Lp(a). Although no exact data are available, the availability of PCSK9 antibodies will most likely decrease the number of patients being treated for elevated LDL-C only very significantly (by approximately 80–90%). In addition, some patients treated with apheresis for elevated Lp(a) and LDL-C will also receive PCSK9 antibody therapy in the future.

Apheresis for elevated Lp(a)

Because apheresis systems for LDL-hypercholesterolemia are based on the elimination of apoB-containing lipoproteins, they also decrease Lp(a) concentrations to a similar extent as LDL. However, in most countries, lipoprotein apheresis is rarely used to treat patients with isolated increases of Lp(a). In Germany, increased Lp(a) concentrations are considered to be an indication for regular apheresis in certain patients (Fig. 1). According to German guidelines, apheresis may be indicated if Lp(a) is >60 mg/dl in patients with progressive cardiovascular disease despite optimal control of all other risk factors, including LDL-C; progression must be documented clinically and with imaging techniques (15). Although no exact data are available, it is estimated that 1,000–1,500 patients are undergoing regular apheresis for elevated Lp(a); approximately half of them are being treated for isolated Lp(a) elevation (thus, with LDL-cholesterol at goal without apheresis), while the other half of them are treated with apheresis for elevated Lp(a) and LDL-C.

‍

Fig. 1. Path to lipoprotein apheresis in Germany. Lipoprotein apheresis can be indicated because of elevated LDL-C and/or elevated Lp(a) concentrations. RF, risk factor.

Although the Food and Drug Administration does not comment on apheresis for elevated Lp(a), there is a recommendation of the National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolemia to consider apheresis in functional heterozygotes with LDL-C >200 mg/dl (or nonHDL-C >230 mg/dl) and additional risk factors including high Lp(a) >50 mg/dl (16). Furthermore, apheresis for isolated elevated Lp(a) is also used and reimbursed in US on an ad hoc basis, but this option is rarely used at present. The HEART-UK criteria for the use of LDL apheresis include patients with progressive coronary artery disease, hypercholesterolemia, and Lp(a) >60 mg/dl in whom LDL-C remains elevated despite drug therapy (13).

Thus, while Germany is the only country where apheresis may be considered for isolated Lp(a) elevation, in other countries elevated Lp(a) is taken into account when making a decision on using apheresis to treat LDL-hypercholesterolemia.

PROCEDURES

Independent of its indication [elevated LDL and/or elevated Lp(a)], lipoprotein apheresis is usually performed on a weekly or biweekly basis. The duration of every treatment varies between 1.5 and 4 h. All apheresis techniques can be performed by venous approaches only and all require some form of anticoagulation. Due to the extracorporeal circulation, apheresis may result in a drop in blood pressure. In some patients on regular apheresis, iron deficiency and anemia may develop, which may necessitate iron substitution. However, generally speaking, all apheresis methods are tolerated well (17). The different principles underlying the different apheresis systems are shown in Fig. 2.

‍

Fig. 2. Mechanisms underlying different apheresis systems for eliminating LDL and/or Lp(a).

Heparin-induced extracorporeal LDL precipitation (HELP) is a technique that has been used for more than 30 years (18). It is based on the fact that apoB-containing lipoproteins [including LDL and Lp(a)] precipitate in acidic conditions (pH 5.12) by forming a complex with a number of other proteins, including C-reactive protein (CRP) and fibrinogen. The simultaneous elimination of fibrinogen can be seen as an advantage (due to its role in acute coronary events), but also as a disadvantage because the reduction in fibrinogen may limit the amount of plasma that can be treated within one session.

Direct absorption of lipoproteins was implemented in 1996 and was the first system to be based on whole blood (19). Similar to the apheresis system using dextran-sulfate, the elimination of lipoproteins is based on electrostatic binding of positively charged apoB to negatively charged polyacrylate ions. The contact of plasma with polyacrylate ions leads to the release of bradykinin. Because the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) is responsible for inactivation of bradykinin, treatment with ACE-inhibitors is contraindicated. However, angiotensin-1-receptor antagonists can be used.

Apheresis with dextran-sulfate (Kaneka), introduced in 1984, uses the negative electric charge of cellulose-bound dextran-sulfate to eliminate positively charged apoB-100 (20). Thus, apoB-100-containing particles, such as LDL, Lp(a), and VLDL, are bound to the column and thus eliminated. This system can be used with plasma or whole blood. Rarely, allergic reactions occur. This system also leads to a release of bradykinin; therefore, ACE-inhibitors are contraindicated and should be replaced by angiotensin-receptor antagonists (ACE is involved in the inactivation of bradykinin).

Lipid filtration/membrane differential filtration (OctoNova, Diamed) is based on a series of filters whose pores are of such size that only LDL, Lp(a), and fibrinogen are held back (21). The remaining plasma components pass the through filter without being eliminated. Obviously this method requires separation of plasma from cellular components of blood beforehand. This method is somewhat less specific than the other available methods.

Immunophoresis or immunoadsorption was one of the first apheresis techniques to be developed (10). It is based on columns in which sheep antibodies against apoB-100 eliminate apoB-100-containing particles, such as LDL, IDL, and Lp(a). VLDLs are largely protected against elimination because the epitopes on apoB interacting with the antibodies are protected by lipids. The length of an individual apheresis session depends on the plasma volume to be treated (usually reflecting LDL-apoB concentrations). Because the mechanism is very specific for apoB-100-containing particles, there is no relevant elimination of other plasma components, such as HDL and fibrinogen. Therefore, there is no restriction regarding the treated volume.

Lipopac apheresis is another form of immunophoresis that was introduced in 1994 (22). In contrast to immunoadsorption (antibodies against apoB), the antibodies are directed against apo(a) of Lp(a). Plasma is passed through columns loaded with sheep polyclonal monospecific antibodies against human apo(a). This apheresis system only binds and eliminates Lp(a), while other lipoproteins such as LDL, IDL, VLDL, and HGDL are not eliminated. Currently this apheresis system is only available for research purposes.

EFFECT OF LIPOPROTEIN APHERESIS ON LIPID LEVELS

The effect of the different apheresis methods on lipid parameters is relatively homogenous (11, 23, 24). LDL and Lp(a) decrease acutely by approximately 60–75% with each apheresis. HELP, direct adsorption of lipoproteins, immunoadsorption, dextran-sulfate, and Lipopac (very little effect on LDL) are slightly more effective in reducing Lp(a) levels (61–64%) than the less specific cascade filtration system (53%). It should also be noted that with weekly apheresis, pre-apheresis Lp(a) values tend to decrease over time because the rebound of Lp(a) concentration is not sufficient to achieve baseline values within 1 week. Depending on the selected interval (weekly or biweekly) and baseline Lp(a) concentration, mean interval reduction varies between 20% (biweekly apheresis, relatively low baseline values) (25) and 36% (weekly apheresis, high baseline values) (26). Thus, despite resulting in the same immediate Lp(a) reduction, biweekly apheresis results in a much lower interval mean reduction. Unpublished data on 15 subjects from our institution, using different apheresis systems, indicate that Lp(a) is acutely decreased by 76% with a single apheresis, that mean interval reduction on regular apheresis is 25%, and that mean interval concentrations are 40% below the baseline values (concentrations before first apheresis) (Fig. 3). Triglycerides are also decreased (up to 50%) but rebound quickly. Similarly, HDL-cholesterol can be transiently decreased by 5–10%.

‍

Fig. 3. Lp(a) reduction with regular apheresis (schematic presentation), see text for details.

Analyzing the rebound of plasma concentrations following apheresis allows estimating metabolic parameters (27). Lp(a) concentration rebounds somewhat more slowly following apheresis than LDL-C, indicating that the half-life of Lp(a) is longer than that of LDL particles, which is in good agreement with turnover studies indicating that apo(a) may associate with different apoB-100-containing lipoproteins before elimination from plasma (28).

The various apheresis systems also differ in their capacity to eliminate other proteins. All systems acutely decrease CRP, and most systems (except immunoadsorption) decrease coagulation factors and complement (29, 30). In addition, HELP decreases fibrinogen very effectively. However, all of these proteins rebound quickly (usually <24 h following apheresis) and the clinical importance of these reductions remains unclear. However, even after many years of treatment, there seems to be no specific side effect relating to the elimination of these proteins.

THE EFFECT OF APHERESIS ON ATHEROSCLEROSIS

The ultimate goal of regular apheresis for elevated Lp(a) is, obviously, to reduce cardiovascular events. Although the causal role of Lp(a) in atherosclerosis is well-known and although apheresis can significantly reduce elevated Lp(a) concentrations, no adequately controlled and powered trial has been performed to test the hypothesis that apheresis-induced reduction in Lp(a) concentration results in clinical benefit. However, there are a number of studies evaluating the potential benefit of apheresis for elevated Lp(a) (Table 1).

TABLE 1. Studies evaluating lipoprotein apheresis on cardiovascular outcome

‍

StudyDesignPopulationDurationBaseline LDL (mmol/l)Baseline Lp(a)Lp(a) ReductionPrimary EndpointFindingCommentThompson (25)Randomized, prospective, controlled (simvastatin + apheresis vs. simvastatin + colestipol)N = 39; 72% male; heterozygous FH; CHD2.1 years6.5 ± 2.041 ± 15^a58%; interval mean 33 mg/dlAngiographic changesNo significant difference between drug only and apheresis groupStrength: prospective, randomized, controlledLimitations: Relatively low baseline Lp(a) concentration; apheresis only every 2 weeksSafarova (31)Randomized, prospective, controlled (atorvastatin + apheresis vs. atorvastatin alone)N = 30; 70% male; CHD; low LDL-C (<2.5 mmol/l); elevated Lp(a) (>50 mg/dl)18 months2.2 ± 0.2102 ± 37^a73%, interval mean not listedAngiographic changesSignificantly (P < 0.01) more regression and less progression with apheresis compered to atorvastatin aloneStrength: prospective, randomized, controlled; specific Lp(a) eliminationLimitations: small patient group; no clinical end pointsJaeger (32)Retrospective analysis of events observed in periods before and after initiation of apheresisN = 120; 72% male; CHD; elevated Lp(a) (>2.14 μmol/l)5.6 ± 5.8 years before initiation of apheresis versus 5.0 ± 3.6 years after initiation of apheresis3.26 ± 1.274.21 ± 1.5^b74%; interval mean 2.68 ± 0.89 μmol/lChange in MACEsSignificant (P < 0.0001) reduction of event rate: 1.056 per patient year versus 0.144 per patient yearStrength: large number of patients; different apheresis systemsLimitations: no control group; patients in the studies by Jaeger and Rosada overlapLeebmann (26)Retrospective analysis of events observed in periods before and after initiation of apheresisN = 170; 72% male; progressive CHD despite low LDL-C; elevated Lp(a) (>60 mg/dl)2 years before initiation of apheresis versus 2 years after initiation of apheresis2.56 ± 0.983.94 ± 1.77^b69%; interval mean 2.54 ± 0.99 μmol/lChange in MACEsSignificant (P < 0.0001) reduction of event rate: 0.41 per patient year versus 0.09 per patient yearStrength: large number of patients; only patients with elevated Lp(a); different apheresis systemsLimitations: no control groupRosada (33)Retrospective analysis of events observed in periods before and after initiation of apheresisN = 37; 95% male; progressive CHD despite low LDL-C; elevated Lp(a) (>60 mg/dl)Event free survival after first event versus event free survival after initiation of apheresis2.18 ± 0.56112 ± 34^a68%; interval mean 83 ± 26 mg/dlThe 1 year event free survival rateSignificant (P < 0.0001) increase in event free survival 38% per year before initiation of apheresis versus 75% per year after initiation of apheresisStrength: only patients with elevated Lp(a); different apheresis systemsLimitations: no control group; patients in the studies by Jaeger and Rosada overlap

a

Results are in milligrams per deciliter.

b

Results are in micromoles per liter.

‍

Thompson et al. (25) evaluated whether, in patients with heterozygous FH and coronary heart disease (CHD) (n = 39), the combination of biweekly apheresis with simvastatin (40 mg/day) is superior to the combination of colestipol (20 g/day) with simvastatin (40 mg/day). After 2.1 years, there was no significant difference in angiographic changes between the two groups. The authors concluded that “decreasing Lp(a) seems to be unnecessary if LDL-C is reduced to 3.4 mmol/l or less.” (ref. 25; p.811) However, the study did not select patients with elevated Lp(a) and is therefore limited by a low baseline Lp(a) concentration (43 mg/dl) and only a modest Lp(a) reduction with apheresis (mean interval concentration 33 mg/dl) due to the biweekly apheresis interval.

Safarova et al. (31) more recently evaluated whether atorvastatin together with specific Lp(a) apheresis (Lipopac apheresis) reduces CHD progression on coronary angiography compared with atorvastatin alone in patients (n = 30) with CHD and elevated Lp(a) (>50 mg/dl). After 18 months, there was significantly more regression and less progression in the patients treated with atorvastatin and apheresis compared with atorvastatin alone. The trial is limited by a small number of subjects and the lack of reporting of clinical events.

Three German studies with partially overlapping patient cohorts evaluated whether the cardiovascular event rate is different during the period before initiation of apheresis and during regular apheresis therapy (26, 32, 33).

The first study by Jaeger et al. (32) compared the major adverse coronary events (MACEs) (myocardial infarction, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, coronary bypass grafting, cardiac death) before and after initiation of lipoprotein apheresis. One hundred and twenty patients receiving regular apheresis because of elevated Lp(a) (with or without concomitantly elevated LDL-C) were included in the analysis. The observation time before initiation of apheresis was 5.6 ± 5.8 years, while the observation time on apheresis was 5.0 ± 3.6 years. MACEs during the two periods were calculated and compared. The annual MACE rate per person was 1.056 before apheresis and 0.144 during apheresis, indicating an 86% risk reduction, which was highly significant (P < 0.0001).

The second study by Rosada et al. (33) included 37 subjects who only had isolated Lp(a) elevation and were treated by regular lipoprotein apheresis. A slightly different approach was used, as time to event was calculated for the pre-apheresis period and the on-apheresis period. In the pre-apheresis period, the time from the first recorded cardiovascular event until the next event was calculated, while in the on-apheresis period, the time from initiation of lipoprotein apheresis until the next event was counted. The 1 year event-free survival was 38% during the time period before apheresis, while it increased to 75% after initiation of apheresis. This corresponds to an approximately 50% risk reduction and, again, was highly significant (P < 0.0001).

The third analysis by Leebmann et al. (26) used a similar approach as Jaeger et al. (32), however, only including subjects that were treated for isolated Lp(a) elevation. A total of 170 patients were included and MACEs were compared in the 2 years before initiation of apheresis and in the following 2 years on apheresis. The mean annual event rate (MACEs) was 0.41 during the 2 years before initiation of regular lipoprotein apheresis and 0.09 on regular apheresis, again corresponding to a highly significant 78% risk reduction (P < 0.0001)

Thus, all three studies (partially evaluating the same patients) showed a dramatic decrease in event rates after initiation of regular lipoprotein apheresis. Although these data seem to indicate a very impressive risk reduction, the lack of a control group must be acknowledged as a severe limitation.

Because worsening of atherosclerotic disease is one of the prerequisites to start apheresis for elevated Lp(a), recurrent events must be very common in the time period before apheresis is initiated. Thus, the patient cohort is selected for recurrent events in the pre-apheresis period. It is unclear whether the event rate would remain that high for an extended time period (which is assumed in the analyses). Furthermore, multiple events in a single patient are counted separately resulting in another difficulty: if a patient has a single deadly event 3 years after initiating apheresis, the calculated prognosis is much better than for a patient having two nonfatal events in the same period, while this is obviously not the case.

The problems associated with the evaluation can also be exemplified with the data of the 4S trial, a simvastatin secondary prevention trial showing a clear benefit (34% risk reduction) for simvastatin compared with placebo (34). In this statin trial, the annual event rate was two per subject before randomization (inclusion criteria was one event during the last 6 months). During the trial, the annual event rate was 0.052 per subject in the placebo group (28% over 5.4 years) and 0.035 per subject in the simvastatin group (19% over 5.4 years). If a similar approach as used by Jaeger et al. (32) or Leebmann et al. (26) was applied to these data, a 98.3% risk reduction would have been observed in the simvastatin group and a 97.4% risk reduction in the placebo group. Obviously, the true effect of simvastatin can only be estimated on the basis of a comparison with a control group. Similarly, in any primary prevention statin trial, the event rate will be zero before randomization and will be higher than zero during the trial (in both groups: statin and comparator). Again, the effect of an intervention can only be estimated with the use of an appropriate control group. These examples highlight the difficulties of interpreting the data shown in the three publications (26, 32, 33).

While it is very likely that Lp(a) reduction by apheresis reduces event rates, the magnitude of the benefit is unclear and cannot be deduced from pre- and post-apheresis evaluations. To correctly determine the effect of Lp(a) apheresis, a study using an adequate control group is required. Such a study must have a controlled prospective randomized study design. Ideally, all included patients should have elevated Lp(a) as their only remaining risk factor. While the intervention group should receive weekly or bi-weekly apheresis, the control group should receive standard care (continued optimal control of all other risk factors). Ideally, a third arm, treated by antisense therapy to apo(a) could be included in such a study (35, 36).

Thus, two randomized controlled trials, each with significant limitations, gave conflicting results with respect to whether or not apheresis for elevated Lp(a) results in angiographic benefit. The retrospective analyses are hypothesis-generating in that they indicate that regular apheresis for elevated Lp(a) may reduce cardiovascular events. An adequately powered and controlled trial is urgently needed to determine whether regular apheresis for elevated Lp(a) translates into clinical benefit.

THE FUTURE OF APHERESIS FOR ELEVATED Lp(a)The future of apheresis for elevated Lp(a) concentrations is difficult to predict. Antisense therapy to apo(a), which is currently being developed, can reduce Lp(a) concentrations even more profoundly than apheresis (35, 36). On the other hand, although it is time consuming and costly, apheresis is an extremely safe procedure that has been in use for more than 30 years. It is also unclear whether and to what extent elevated Lp(a) remains a risk factor once LDL-C is reduced to very low levels, for example by combined statin and PCSK9 antibody therapy. Ultimately, these questions must be addressed by outcome trials.

CONCLUSIONIn summary, regular apheresis can decrease Lp(a) concentrations acutely by approximately 60–75%, which translates into significant interval mean reduction (25–40%). The procedures are associated with minimal side effects, but are cost and time intensive. Retrospective analyses indicate that regular apheresis translates into clinical benefit, but adequate randomized controlled trials are lacking.

REFERENCES1R. Clarke, J.F. Peden, J.C. Hopewell, T. Kyriakou, A. Goel, S.C. Heath, S. Parish, S. Barlera, M.G. Franzosi, S. Rust, et al.Genetic variants associated with Lp(a) lipoprotein level and coronary diseaseN. Engl. J. Med., 361 (2009), pp. 2518-2528View in ScopusGoogle Scholar2P.R. Kamstrup, M. Benn, A. Tybjaerg-Hansen, B.G. NordestgaardExtreme lipoprotein(a) levels and risk of myocardial infarction in the general population: the Copenhagen City Heart StudyCirculation., 117 (2008), pp. 176-184View in ScopusGoogle Scholar3P.R. Kamstrup, A. Tybjaerg-Hansen, R. Steffensen, B.G. NordestgaardGenetically elevated lipoprotein(a) and increased risk of myocardial infarctionJAMA., 301 (2009), pp. 2331-2339 View PDF This article is free to access.CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar4B.G. Nordestgaard, M.J. Chapman, K. Ray, J. Boren, F. Andreotti, G.F. Watts, H. Ginsberg, P. Amarenco, A. Catapano, O.S. Descamps, et al.Lipoprotein(a) as a cardiovascular risk factor: current statusEur. Heart J., 31 (2010), pp. 2844-2853 View PDF This article is free to access.CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar5W.E. Boden, J.L. Probstfield, T. Anderson, B.R. Chaitman, P. Desvignes-Nickens, K. Koprowicz, R. McBride, K. Teo, W. WeintraubNiacin in patients with low HDL cholesterol levels receiving intensive statin therapyN. Engl. J. Med., 365 (2011), pp. 2255-2267View in ScopusGoogle Scholar6M.J. Landray, R. Haynes, J.C. Hopewell, S. Parish, T. Aung, J. Tomson, K. Wallendszus, M. Craig, L. Jiang, R. Collins, et al.Effects of extended-release niacin with laropiprant in high-risk patientsN. Engl. J. Med., 371 (2014), pp. 203-212View in ScopusGoogle Scholar7J.G. Robinson, M. Farnier, M. Krempf, J. Bergeron, G. Luc, M. Averna, E.S. Stroes, G. Langslet, F.J. Raal, M. El Shahawy, et al.Efficacy and safety of alirocumab in reducing lipids and cardiovascular eventsN. Engl. J. Med., 372 (2015), pp. 1489-1499View article CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar8M.S. Sabatine, R.P. Giugliano, S.D. Wiviott, F.J. Raal, D.J. Blom, J. Robinson, C.M. Ballantyne, R. Somaratne, J. Legg, S.M. Wasserman, et al.Efficacy and safety of evolocumab in reducing lipids and cardiovascular eventsN. Engl. J. Med., 372 (2015), pp. 1500-1509View in ScopusGoogle Scholar9G.R. Thompson, R. Lowenthal, N.B. MyantPlasma exchange in the management of homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemiaLancet., 1 (1975), pp. 1208-1211View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar10W. Stoffel, H. Borberg, V. GreveApplication of specific extracorporeal removal of low density lipoprotein in familial hypercholesterolaemiaLancet., 2 (1981), pp. 1005-1007View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar11G.R. Thompson, A. Catapano, S. Saheb, M. Atassi-Dumont, M. Barbir, M. Eriksson, B. Paulweber, E. Sijbrands, A.F. Stalenhoef, K.G. ParhoferSevere hypercholesterolaemia: therapeutic goals and eligibility criteria for LDL apheresis in EuropeCurr. Opin. Lipidol., 21 (2010), pp. 492-498View in ScopusGoogle Scholar12J.L. WintersLipid apheresis, indications, and principlesJ. Clin. Apher., 26 (2011), pp. 269-275View article CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar13G.R. ThompsonRecommendations for the use of LDL apheresisAtherosclerosis., 198 (2008), pp. 247-255View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar14., Agence Francaise de Securite Sanitaire des Produits de Sante. 2000. Prise en charge thérapeutique du patient dyslipidémique. Accessed March 1, 2016, at http://www.soc-nephrologie.org/PDF/enephro/recommandations/Afssaps/2005/dyslipemie_argu.pdf. French.Google Scholar15., Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. 2015. Richtlinie des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses zu Untersuchungs- und Behandlungsmethoden der vertragsärztlichen Versorgung 2015. Accessed March 1, 2016, at https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/62-492-1022/MVV-RL_2015-02-19_iK-2016-05-16.pdf. German.Google Scholar16A.C. Goldberg, P.N. Hopkins, P.P. Toth, C.M. Ballantyne, D.J. Rader, J.G. Robinson, S.R. Daniels, S.S. Gidding, S.D. de Ferranti, M.K. Ito, et al.Familial hypercholesterolemia: screening, diagnosis and management of pediatric and adult patients: clinical guidance from the National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial HypercholesterolemiaJ. Clin. Lipidol., 5 (2011), pp. 133-140View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar17J. Dittrich-Riediger, U. Schatz, B. Hohenstein, U. JuliusAdverse events of lipoprotein apheresis and immunoadsorption at the Apheresis Center at the University Hospital DresdenAtheroscler. Suppl., 18 (2015), pp. 45-52View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar18V.W. Armstrong, M. Windisch, H. Wieland, C. Fuchs, J. Rieger, H. Kostering, K. Nebendahl, F. Scheler, D. SeidelSelective continuous extracorporal elimination of low-density lipoproteins with heparin at acidic pHTrans. Am. Soc. Artif. Intern. Organs., 29 (1983), pp. 323-328View in ScopusGoogle Scholar19T. Bosch, B. Schmidt, W. Kleophas, C. Gillen, V. Otto, J. Passlick-Deetjen, H.J. GurlandLDL hemoperfusion–a new procedure for LDL apheresis: first clinical application of an LDL adsorber compatible with human whole bloodArtif. Organs., 21 (1997), pp. 977-982View article CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar20S. Yokoyama, R. Hayashi, T. Kikkawa, N. Tani, S. Takada, K. Hatanaka, A. YamamotoSpecific sorbent of apolipo­protein B-containing lipoproteins for plasmapheresis. Characterization and experimental use in hypercholesterolemic rabbitsArteriosclerosis., 4 (1984), pp. 276-282View in ScopusGoogle Scholar21Y. Matsuda, A. Sueoka, Y. NoseAn effective LDL removal filter for the treatment of hyperlipidemiaArtif. Organs., 19 (1995), pp. 129-134View article CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar22S.N. Pokrovsky, I. Adamova, O.Y. Afanasieva, G.F. BenevolenskayaImmunosorbent for selective removal of lipoprotein (a) from human plasma: in vitro studyArtif. Organs., 15 (1991), pp. 136-140View article CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar23C. Otto, P. Kern, R. Bambauer, S. Kallert, P. Schwandt, K.G. ParhoferEfficacy and safety of a new whole-blood low-density lipoprotein apheresis system (Liposorber D) in severe hypercholesterolemiaArtif. Organs., 27 (2003), pp. 1116-1122View in ScopusGoogle Scholar24K.G. Parhofer, H.C. Geiss, P. SchwandtEfficacy of different low-density lipoprotein apheresis methodsTher. Apher., 4 (2000), pp. 382-385View in ScopusGoogle Scholar25G.R. Thompson, V.M. Maher, S. Matthews, Y. Kitano, C. Neuwirth, M.B. Shortt, G. Davies, A. Rees, A. Mir, R.J. Prescott, et al.Familial Hypercholesterolaemia Regression Study: a randomised trial of low-density-lipoprotein apheresisLancet., 345 (1995), pp. 811-816View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar26J. Leebmann, E. Roeseler, U. Julius, F. Heigl, R. Spitthoever, D. Heutling, P. Breitenberger, W. Maerz, W. Lehmacher, A. Heibges, et al.Lipoprotein apheresis in patients with maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy, lipoprotein(a)-hyperlipoproteinemia, and progressive cardiovascular disease: prospective observational multicenter studyCirculation., 128 (2013), pp. 2567-2576View in ScopusGoogle Scholar27K.G. Parhofer, T. Demant, M.M. Ritter, H.C. Geiss, M. Donner, P. SchwandtLipoprotein (a) metabolism estimated by nonsteady-state kineticsLipids., 34 (1999), pp. 325-335View article CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar28J.L. Jenner, L.J. Seman, J.S. Millar, S. Lamon-Fava, F.K. Welty, G.G. Dolnikowski, S.M. Marcovina, A.H. Lichtenstein, P.H. Barrett, C. deLuca, et al.The metabolism of apolipoproteins (a) and B-100 within plasma lipoprotein (a) in human beingsMetabolism., 54 (2005), pp. 361-369View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar29C. Otto, H.C. Geiss, K. Empen, K.G. ParhoferLong-term reduction of C-reactive protein concentration by regular LDL apheresisAtherosclerosis., 174 (2004), pp. 151-156View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar30G.R. ThompsonLDL apheresisAtherosclerosis., 167 (2003), pp. 1-13View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar31M.S. Safarova, M.V. Ezhov, O.I. Afanasieva, Y.G. Matchin, R.V. Atanesyan, I.Y. Adamova, E.A. Utkina, G.A. Konovalov, S.N. PokrovskyEffect of specific lipoprotein(a) apheresis on coronary atherosclerosis regression assessed by quantitative coronary angiographyAtheroscler. Suppl., 14 (2013), pp. 93-99View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar32B.R. Jaeger, Y. Richter, D. Nagel, F. Heigl, A. Vogt, E. Roeseler, K. Parhofer, W. Ramlow, M. Koch, G. Utermann, et al.Longitudinal cohort study on the effectiveness of lipid apheresis treatment to reduce high lipoprotein(a) levels and prevent major adverse coronary eventsNat. Clin. Pract. Cardiovasc. Med., 6 (2009), pp. 229-239View article CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar33A. Rosada, U. Kassner, A. Vogt, M. Willhauck, K. Parhofer, E. Steinhagen-ThiessenDoes regular lipid apheresis in patients with isolated elevated lipoprotein(a) levels reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events?Artif. Organs., 38 (2014), pp. 135-141 View PDF This article is free to access.CrossRefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar34., Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. 1994. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet. 344: 1383–1389.Google Scholar35M.J. Graham, N. Viney, R. Crooke, S. TsimikasAntisense inhibition of apolipoprotein(a) to lower plasma lipoprotein(a) levels in humansJ. Lipid Res. (2016)In press.Google Scholar36S. Tsimikas, N.J. Viney, S.G. Hughes, W. Singleton, M.J. Graham, B.F. Baker, J.L. Burkey, Q. Yang, S.M. Marcovina, R.S. Geary, et al.Antisense therapy targeting apolipoprotein(a): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 studyLancet., 386 (2015), pp. 1472-1483View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle ScholarCited by (74)Consensus document on Lipoprotein(a) from the Italian Society for the Study of Atherosclerosis (SISA)2023, Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular DiseasesShow abstractLipoprotein(a) in Cardiovascular Risk Assessment2023, Clinical Lipidology: A Companion to Braunwald's Heart DiseaseShow abstractLp(a) - an overlooked risk factor2023, Trends in Cardiovascular MedicineShow abstractNew and Emerging Therapies for Dyslipidemia2022, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North AmericaCitation Excerpt :The most effective clinically available intervention for Lp(a) lowering is lipoprotein apheresis where the Lp(a) concentration is acutely lowered by approximately 50% to 85%, in association with comparable reductions in oxidized phospholipids. In addition to lowering Lp(a), lipoprotein apheresis with some systems also lowers LDL concentrations by 60% to 85%.75,76 Limited clinical trial data suggest that Lp(a) lowering with lipoprotein apheresis may reduce the risk of ASCVD events,77 but definitive studies are needed.

Existing and emerging strategies to lower Lipoprotein(a)2022, AtherosclerosisShow abstractHealth-related quality of life in homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis2022, Journal of Clinical LipidologyShow abstractView all citing articles on ScopusK.G.P. received research support by Genzyme, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sanofi and honoraria for presentations, advisory board activities, or data monitoring committee activities by Aegerion, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Fresenius, Genzyme, Kaneka, Kowa, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, and Sanofi. E.W. declares no financial conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations:ACEangiotensin converting enzyme

CETPcholesteryl ester transfer protein

CHDcoronary heart disease

FHfamilial hypercholesterolemia

HELPheparin-induced extracorporeal LDL precipitation

LDL-CLDL-cholesterol

Lp(a)lipoprotein (a)

MACEmajor adverse coronary event

PCSK9proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9

1This work is dedicated to Prof. Dr. Peter Schwandt on the occasion of his 80th birthday.

© 2016 ASBMB. Currently published by Elsevier Inc; originally published by American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

‍