Search

The Mendelian randomization approach is an epidemiological study design incorporating genetic information into traditional epidemiological studies to infer causality of biomarkers, risk factors, or lifestyle factors on disease risk. Mendelian randomization studies often draw on novel information generated in genome-wide association studies on causal associations between genetic variants and a risk factor or lifestyle factor. Such information can then be used in a largely unconfounded study design free of reverse causation to understand if and how risk factors and lifestyle factors cause cardiovascular disease. If causation is demonstrated, an opportunity for prevention of disease is identified; importantly however, before prevention or treatment can be implemented, randomized intervention trials altering risk factor levels or improving deleterious lifestyle factors needs to document reductions in cardiovascular disease in a safe and side-effect sparse manner. Documentation of causality can also inform on potential drug targets, more likely to be successful than prior approaches often relying on animal or cell studies mainly. The present review summarizes the history and background of Mendelian randomization, the study design, assumptions for using the design, and the most common caveats, followed by a discussion on advantages and disadvantages of different types of Mendelian randomization studies using one or more samples and different levels of information on study participants. The review also provides an overview of results on many of the risk factors and lifestyle factors for cardiovascular disease examined to date using the Mendelian randomization study design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After the introduction of statins, clinical emphasis first focussed on LDL cholesterol-lowering, then on the potential for raising HDL cholesterol, with less focus on lowering triglycerides. However, the understanding from genetic studies and negative results from randomised trials that low HDL cholesterol might not cause cardiovascular disease as originally thought has now generated renewed interest in raised concentrations of triglycerides. This renewed interest has also been driven by epidemiological and genetic evidence supporting raised triglycerides, remnant cholesterol, or triglyceride-rich lipoproteins as an additional cause of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. Triglycerides can be measured in the non-fasting or fasting states, with concentrations of 2-10 mmol/L conferring increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and concentrations greater than 10 mmol/L conferring increased risk of acute pancreatitis and possibly cardiovascular disease. Although randomised trials showing cardiovascular benefit of triglyceride reduction are scarce, new triglyceride-lowering drugs are being developed, and large-scale trials have been initiated that will hopefully provide conclusive evidence as to whether lowering triglycerides reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guidelines recommend initiating primary prevention for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) with statins based on absolute ASCVD risk assessment. Recently, alternative trial-based and hybrid approaches were suggested for statin treatment eligibility.Objectives: This study compared these approaches in a direct head-to-head fashion in a contemporary population.Methods: The study used the CGPS (Copenhagen General Population Study) with 37,892 subjects aged 40 to 75 years recruited in 2003 to 2008, all free of ASCVD, diabetes, and statin use at baseline.Results: Among the population studied, 42% were eligible for statin therapy according to the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) risk assessment and cholesterol treatment guidelines approach, versus 56% with the trial-based approach and 21% with the hybrid approach. Among these statin-eligible subjects, the ASCVD event rate per 1,000 person-years was 9.8, 6.8, and 11.2, respectively. The ACC/AHA-recommended absolute risk score was well calibrated around the 7.5% 10-year ASCVD risk treatment threshold and discriminated better than the trial-based or hybrid approaches. Compared with the ACC/AHA risk-based approach, the net reclassification index for eligibility for statin therapy among 40- to 75-year-old subjects from the CGPS was -0.21 for the trial-based approach and -0.13 for the hybrid approach.Conclusions: The clinical performance of the ACC/AHA risk-based approach for primary prevention of ASCVD with statins was superior to the trial-based and hybrid approaches. Our results indicate that the ACC/AHA guidelines will prevent more ASCVD events than the trial-based and hybrid approaches, while treating fewer people compared with the trial-based approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lipoprotein(a) levels are genetically determined and, when elevated, are a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis. There are no approved pharmacologic therapies to lower lipoprotein(a) levels.Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial involving 286 patients with established cardiovascular disease and screening lipoprotein(a) levels of at least 60 mg per deciliter (150 nmol per liter). Patients received the hepatocyte-directed antisense oligonucleotide AKCEA-APO(a)-LRx, referred to here as APO(a)-LRx (20, 40, or 60 mg every 4 weeks; 20 mg every 2 weeks; or 20 mg every week), or saline placebo subcutaneously for 6 to 12 months. The lipoprotein(a) level was measured with an isoform-independent assay. The primary end point was the percent change in lipoprotein(a) level from baseline to month 6 of exposure (week 25 in the groups that received monthly doses and week 27 in the groups that received more frequent doses).Results: The median baseline lipoprotein(a) levels in the six groups ranged from 204.5 to 246.6 nmol per liter. Administration of APO(a)-LRx resulted in dose-dependent decreases in lipoprotein(a) levels, with mean percent decreases of 35% at a dose of 20 mg every 4 weeks, 56% at 40 mg every 4 weeks, 58% at 20 mg every 2 weeks, 72% at 60 mg every 4 weeks, and 80% at 20 mg every week, as compared with 6% with placebo (P values for the comparison with placebo ranged from 0.003 to <0.001). There were no significant differences between any APO(a)-LRx dose and placebo with respect to platelet counts, liver and renal measures, or influenza-like symptoms. The most common adverse events were injection-site reactions.Conclusions: APO(a)-LRx reduced lipoprotein(a) levels in a dose-dependent manner in patients who had elevated lipoprotein(a) levels and established cardiovascular disease. (Funded by Akcea Therapeutics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03070782.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background--Elevated nonfasting remnant cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol are causally associated with ischemic heart disease (IHD), but whether elevated nonfasting remnant cholesterol and LDL cholesterol both cause low-grade inflammation is currently unknown. Methods and Results--We studied 60 608 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study, the Copenhagen City Heart Study, and the Copenhagen Ischemic Heart Disease study, of whom 10 668 had IHD diagnosed between 1977 and 2011. We genotyped for variants affecting levels of nonfasting remnant cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, C-reactive protein by CRP alleles, and C-reactive protein by IL6R alleles. Using a multidirectional mendelian randomization design, we investigated possible causal associations between the lipoproteins and C-reactive protein and between the lipoproteins and IHD. A 1-mmol/L(39 mg/dL) higher level of nonfasting remnant cholesterol was associated observationally with a 37% (95% confidence interval, 35-39) higher C-reactive protein level and causally with a 28% (95% confidence interval, 10-48) higher level. For LDL cholesterol, a 1-mmol/L (39-mg/dL) higher level was associated observationally with a 7% (95% confidence interval, 6-7) higher C-reactive protein level, but we found no causal association. Likewise, higher levels of C-reactive protein did not associate causally with elevated nonfasting remnant cholesterol or LDL cholesterol. Finally, the causal risk ratio for IHD for a 1-mmol/L (39-mg/dL) higher level was 3.3 (95% confidence interval, 2.1-5.2) for nonfasting remnant cholesterol and 1.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.2) for LDL cholesterol. The causal associations for remnant cholesterol were present even in those without diabetes mellitus and obesity. Conclusions--Elevated nonfasting remnant cholesterol is causally associated with low-grade inflammation and with IHD, whereas elevated LDL cholesterol is associated causally with IHD without inflammation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study tested whether genetic variation in the CETP gene is consistent with a protective effect of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibition on risk of ischemic events and on total mortality, without the adverse effects reported for torcetrapib. Background: Torcetrapib, an inhibitor of CETP, increased risk of death and ischemic cardiovascular disease of those randomized to the drug, despite improving the lipid profile. Methods: The Copenhagen City Heart Study is a prospective cohort study of 10,261 individuals, aged 20 to 93 years, who were followed for up to 34 years (1976 to 2010). Of these, 2,087 developed ischemic heart disease, 1,064 developed ischemic cerebrovascular disease, and 3,807 died during follow-up. We selected 2 common genetic variants in CETP previously associated with reductions in CETP activity, thus mimicking the effect of pharmacological CETP inhibition. Results: In individuals carrying 4 versus 0 high-density lipoprotein cholesterol–increasing alleles, there was an increase in levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol of up to 14% (0.2 mmol/l), and concomitant decreases in triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol of, respectively, 6% (0.1 mmol/l), 3% (0.1 mmol/l), and 4% (0.2 mmol/l) (p for trend 0.004 to <0.001). Corresponding hazard ratios were 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 0.85) for any ischemic vascular event, 0.74 (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.85) for ischemic heart disease, 0.65 (95% CI: 0.54 to 0.79) for myocardial infarction, 0.77 (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.93) for ischemic cerebrovascular disease, 0.71 (95% CI: 0.58 to 0.88) for ischemic stroke, and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.97) for total mortality. CETP genotypes did not associate with variation in markers of possible side effects previously reported for torcetrapib. Conclusions: Genetic CETP inhibition associates with reductions in risk of ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, ischemic cerebrovascular disease, and ischemic stroke, with a corresponding antiatherogenic lipid profile, and with increased longevity, without adverse effects. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]