Is Lipoprotein(a) Clinically Actionable with Today's Evidence? The Answer is Yes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Lipoprotein(a) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. We review the ongoing shifts in consensus guidelines for the testing and management of Lp(a) and provide insight into whether current evidence suggests that awareness and testing of Lp(a) is clinically actionable. RECENT FINDINGS: GWAS and Mendelian randomization studies have established causal links between elevated Lp(a) and forms of CVD, including CAD and calcific aortic valve disease. Testing of Lp(a) identifies patients with similar risk to that of heterozygous FH, enhances risk stratification in patients with borderline/intermediate risk as determined through traditional factors, and facilitates the assessment of inherited CVD risk through cascade screening in patients with known family history of elevated Lp(a). Reductions in Lp(a) through non-targeted therapies including PCSK9 inhibition and lipoprotein apheresis have demonstrated reductions in ASCVD risk that are likely attributable to lowering Lp(a). Targeted therapies to potently lower Lp(a) are in clinical development. Lp(a) is actionable, and can be used to identify high risk patients for primary prevention and their family members through cascade screening, and to guide intensification of therapy in primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD.

Inclisiran creates unique opportunities and challenges for patient access to therapy: early experience in a United States Lipid Clinic.

We report an early experience with inclisiran, an siRNA targeting PCSK9 administered by a healthcare professional, in an academic lipid clinic. 37 patients were prescribed inclisiran, age (mean±SD) 66±13 years, 26 (70%) women, 32 (87%) White, LDL-C 113±62 mg/dL, 18 (49%) with ASCVD and 19 (51%) with HeFH. Most patients were referred to alternate injection centers. Inclisiran was approved by insurance for 25 (68%), denied for 9 (24%), with 3 under review. While 100% of patients with Medicare obtained access to inclisiran, only 3 of 12 (25%) patients with non-Medicare insurance received approval. Approved patients were older (72±8 vs 52±13 years, p<0.001), disproportionately Medicare enrollees (88%, p<0.001), less had HeFH (40% vs 89%, p=0.019), more had ASCVD (60% vs 11%, p=0.019), less were on a statin (28% vs 78%, p=0.017), and pre-treatment LDL-C was higher (121±65 vs 77±40 mg/dL, p=0.039). These findings have implications for the future of inclisiran in the U.S. and whether inclisiran can be made more accessible, including to younger patients with non-Medicare insurance.