Cardiovascular outcomes in patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia on lipoprotein apheresis initiated during childhood: long-term follow-up of an international cohort from two registries.

Homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HoFH) is a rare genetic disease characterised by extremely high plasma LDL cholesterol from birth, causing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at a young age. Lipoprotein apheresis in combination with lipid-lowering drugs effectively reduce LDL cholesterol, but long-term health outcomes of such treatment are unknown. We aimed to investigate the long-term cardiovascular outcomes associated with lipoprotein apheresis initiated in childhood or adolescence. In this cohort study, data were drawn from the HoFH International Clinical Collaboration (HICC) and the international registry for Children with Homozygous Hypercholesterolemia on Lipoprotein Apheresis (CHAIN). An overall cohort included patients diagnosed with HoFH aged 0-18 years who were alive and in follow-up between Jan 1, 2010, and Nov 8, 2021, and whose high plasma LDL cholesterol concentrations made them eligible for lipoprotein apheresis. To compare cardiovascular outcomes, patients who initiated lipoprotein apheresis in childhood (lipoprotein apheresis group) and patients who only received lipid-lowering drugs (pharmacotherapy-only group) were matched by sex and untreated plasma LDL cholesterol concentrations. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, aortic valve replacement, peripheral artery disease, carotid endarterectomy, angina pectoris, and supra-aortic or aortic stenosis (collectively referred to as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), for which survival analyses were performed in the matched cohort. Cox regression analyses were used to compare disease-free survival between cohorts and to calculate hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI adjusted for sex, age at diagnosis, untreated plasma LDL cholesterol concentration, and number of lipid-lowering therapies other than lipoprotein apheresis. The overall cohort included 404 patients with a median age at diagnosis of 6·0 years (IQR 3·0-9·5) and median untreated plasma LDL cholesterol of 17·8 mmol/L (14·7-20·8). The matched cohorts included 250 patients (125 patients per group), with a median untreated LDL cholesterol of 17·2 mmol/L (14·8-19·7). Mean reduction in plasma LDL cholesterol concentrations between baseline and final follow-up was greater in the lipoprotein apheresis group (-55% [95% CI -60 to -51] vs -31% [-36 to -25]; p<0·0001). Patients in the lipoprotein apheresis group had longer atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-free survival (adjusted HR 0·52 [95% CI 0·32-0·85]) and longer cardiovascular death-free survival (0·0301 [0·0021-0·4295]). Cardiovascular death was more common in the pharmacotherapy-only group than in the lipoprotein apheresis group (ten [8%] vs one [1%]; p=0·010), whereas median age at coronary artery bypass grafting was lower in the lipoprotein apheresis group than in the pharmacotherapy-only group (15·0 years [IQR 12·0-24·0] vs 30·5 years [19·0-33·8]; p=0·037). Among patients with HoFH, lipoprotein apheresis initiated during childhood and adolescence is associated with reduced long-term risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and death, and clear benefits of early initiation of high-frequency treatment on reducing plasma cholesterol were found. Consensus recommendations are now needed to guide more widespread and timely use of lipoprotein apheresis for children with HoFH, and research is required to further optimise treatment and ensure benefits of early and aggressive treatment delivery are balanced against effects on quality of life. Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location Academic Medical Center; Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania; European Atherosclerosis Society; and the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health.

Reijman MD ，Tromp TR ，Hutten BA ，Hovingh GK ，Blom DJ ，Catapano AL ，Cuchel M ，Dann EJ ，Gallo A ，Hudgins LC ，Raal FJ ，Ray KK ，Sadiq F ，Soran H ，Groothoff JW ，Wiegman A ，Kusters DM ，Homozygous Familial Hypercholesterolaemia International Clinical Collaborators (HICC) ，Children with Homozygous Hypercholesterolemia on Lipoprotein Apheresis: an International Registry (CHAIN) consortia ... -  《-》

Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.

Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided. (1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS? Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS. Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments. Level III, diagnostic study.

Lee CC ，Chen CW ，Yen HK ，Lin YP ，Lai CY ，Wang JL ，Groot OQ ，Janssen SJ ，Schwab JH ，Hsu FM ，Lin WH ... -  《-》

Lomitapide for the treatment of paediatric patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (APH-19): results from the efficacy phase of an open-label, multicentre, phase 3 study.

Homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HoFH) is a rare inherited disorder characterised by extremely high concentrations of LDL cholesterol, leading to early-onset atherosclerosis. Lomitapide is an orally administered microsomal triglyceride transfer protein (MTP) inhibitor that effectively lowers LDL cholesterol and is approved for adults with HoFH. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of lomitapide in paediatric patients with HoFH receiving standard-of-care lipid-lowering therapy. APH-19 is an open-label, single-arm, phase 3 trial performed at 12 study centres in Germany, Israel, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Spain, and Tunisia. A 6-week run-in period was followed by a 24-week efficacy phase and an 80-week safety phase. Patients aged 5-17 years, on stable lipid-lowering therapy, with HoFH diagnosed using the criteria from the 2014 European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel on HoFH were titrated to maximum tolerated doses of oral lomitapide, starting at 2 mg (patients aged 5-15 years) or 5 mg (patients aged 16-17 years). The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline to week 24 in LDL cholesterol, which was assessed in patients who had received at least one dose of lomitapide, and who had a baseline and at least one post-baseline measurement. The secondary outcomes were the percentage change from baseline at week 24 in total cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, VLDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, triglycerides, and lipoprotein(a). Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04681170. Between Dec 20, 2020, and Oct 16, 2022, 43 patients were included and treated (24 [56%] were female and 19 [44%] were male, and median age was 10·7 years [7·0-14·0]). Mean change from baseline in LDL cholesterol at week 24 was -53·5% (95% CI -61·6 to -45·4, p<0·0001). Mean percentage reductions were observed at week 24 for non-HDL cholesterol (-53·9%, 95% CI -61·7 to -46·1, p<0·0001), total cholesterol (-50·0%, 95% CI -57·6 to -42·4, p<0·0001), VLDL cholesterol (-50·2%, -59·1 to -41·2, p<0·0001), apolipoprotein B (-52·4%, -60·3 to -44·5, p<0·0001), triglycerides was -49·9% (-58·8 to -41·0, p<0·0001), and lipoprotein(a) (-11·3%, -32·9 to 10·3 [in 21 patients with measurements in mg/dL]; -23·6%, -38·2 to -9·0 [in 22 patients with measurements in nmol/L]; p=0·0070 combined). Adverse events were mostly mild, and gastrointestinal and hepatic in nature. Adverse events of special interest were reported for five (12%) patients (gastrointestinal in two patients and hepatic in three). One serious treatment-emergent adverse event was reported (also classed as an adverse event of special interest): an increase in hepatic enzymes, resulting in two dose interruptions, two dose reductions, and a repeated dose escalation. Lomitapide provided a significant, clinically meaningful LDL cholesterol reduction and has the potential to be an efficient, LDL receptor-independent option for paediatric patients with HoFH. Amryt Pharmaceuticals.

Masana L ，Zambon A ，Schmitt CP ，Taylan C ，Driemeyer J ，Cohen H ，Buonuomo PS ，Alashwal A ，Al-Dubayee M ，Kholaif N ，Diaz-Diaz JL ，Maatouk F ，Martinez-Hervas S ，Mangal B ，Löwe S ，Cunningham T ... -  《-》

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

Elwenspoek MM ，Thom H ，Sheppard AL ，Keeney E ，O'Donnell R ，Jackson J ，Roadevin C ，Dawson S ，Lane D ，Stubbs J ，Everitt H ，Watson JC ，Hay AD ，Gillett P ，Robins G ，Jones HE ，Mallett S ，Whiting PF ... -  《-》

Assessing long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of statin therapy in the UK: a modelling study using individual participant data sets.

Mihaylova B ，Wu R ，Zhou J ，Williams C ，Schlackow I ，Emberson J ，Reith C ，Keech A ，Robson J ，Parnell R ，Armitage J ，Gray A ，Simes J ，Baigent C ... -  《-》