The Combination of Beta-Blockers and ACE Inhibitors Across the Spectrum of Cardiovascular Diseases.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality worldwide, affecting a wide range of patients at different stages across the cardiovascular continuum. Hypertension is one of the earliest risk factors in this continuum and can be controlled in most patients with currently available antihypertensive agents. However, goals are often not met because treatments are not optimized in terms of tailoring therapy to individual patients based on their hypertension subclass and cardiovascular risk profile and initiating early use of adapted-dose, single-pill combinations. In this context, beta-blockers in combination with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are of special interest as a result of their complementary actions on the sympathetic nervous system and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, two interlinked pathways that influence cardiovascular risk and disease outcomes. In addition to their antihypertensive actions, beta-blockers are used to manage arrhythmias and treat angina pectoris and heart failure, while ACE inhibitors provide cardioprotection in patients with acute coronary syndromes and treat congestive heart failure. A broad range of patients may therefore receive the combination in routine clinical practice. This paper examines the supporting evidence for beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors in each of the above indications and considers the rationale for combining these agents into a single pill, using data from bisoprolol and perindopril randomized controlled trials as supporting evidence. Combining these established antihypertensive agents into a single pill continues to provide effective blood pressure lowering and improved cardiovascular outcomes while allowing a greater proportion of patients to rapidly achieve treatment targets.

Sex differences in health-related quality of life trajectories following myocardial infarction: national longitudinal cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate sex-based differences in baseline values and longitudinal trajectories of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a large cohort of myocardial infarction (MI) survivors after adjusting for other important factors. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study. SETTING: Population-based longitudinal study the Evaluation of the Methods and Management of Acute Coronary Events study linked with national cardiovascular registry. Data were collected from 77 hospitals in England between 1 November 2011 and 24 June 2015. PARTICIPANTS: 9551 patients with MI. Patients were eligible for the study if they were ≥18 years of age. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: HRQoL was measured by EuroQol five-dimension, visual analogue scale (EQ-5D, EQ VAS) survey at baseline, 1, 6 and 12 months after discharge. Multi-level linear and logistic regression models coupled with inverse probability weighted propensity scoring were used to evaluate sex differences in HRQoL following MI. RESULTS: Of the 9551 patients with MI and complete data on sex, 25.1% (2,397) were women. At baseline, women reported lower HRQoL (EQ VAS (mean (SD) 59.8 (20.4) vs 64.5 (20.9)) (median (IQR) 60.00 (50.00-75.00) vs 70.00 (50.00-80.00))) (EQ-5D (mean (SD) 0.66 (0.31) vs 0.74 (0.28)) (median (IQR) 0.73 (0.52-0.85) vs 0.81 (0.62-1.00))) and were more likely to report problems in each HRQoL domain compared with men. In the covariate balanced and adjusted multi-level model sex differences in HRQoL persisted during follow-up, with lower EQ VAS and EQ-5D scores in women compared with men (adjusted EQ VAS model sex coefficient: -4.41, 95% CI -5.16 to -3.66 and adjusted EQ-5D model sex coefficient: -0.07, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Women have lower HRQoL compared with men at baseline and during 12 months follow-up after MI. Tailored interventions for women following an MI could improve their quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04598048, NCT01808027, NCT01819103.

Long-term survival benefit of ramipril in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure.

AIMS: ACE inhibition reduces mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, there are limited randomised data about the long-term survival benefits of ACE inhibition in this population. METHODS: In 1993, the Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) study randomly allocated patients with AMI and clinical heart failure to ramipril or placebo. The duration of masked trial therapy in the UK cohort (603 patients, mean age=64.7 years, 455 male patients) was 12.4 and 13.4 months for ramipril (n=302) and placebo (n=301), respectively. We estimated life expectancy and extensions of life (difference in median survival times) according to duration of follow-up (range 0-29.6 years). RESULTS: By 9 April 2019, death from all causes occurred in 266 (88.4%) patients in placebo arm and 275 (91.1%) patients in ramipril arm. The extension of life between ramipril and placebo groups was 14.5 months (95% CI 13.2 to 15.8). Ramipril increased life expectancy more for patients with than without diabetes (life expectancy difference 32.1 vs 5.0 months), previous AMI (20.1 vs 4.9 months), previous heart failure (19.5 vs 4.9 months), hypertension (16.6 vs 8.3 months), angina (16.2 vs 5.0 months) and age >65 years (11.3 vs 5.7 months). Given potential treatment switching, the true absolute treatment effect could be underestimated by 28%. CONCLUSION: For patients with clinically defined heart failure following AMI, ramipril results in a sustained survival benefit, and is associated with an extension of life of up to 14.5 months for, on average, 13 months treatment duration.

Ensuring that COVID-19 research is inclusive: guidance from the NIHR INCLUDE project.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to researchers, funders, regulators and study delivery teams to ensure that research on COVID-19 is inclusive, particularly of groups disproportionately affected by COVID-19 and who may have been historically under-served by research. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS: Groups who are disproportionately affected by COVID-19 include (but are not limited to) older people, people with multiple long-term conditions, people with disabilities, people from Black, Asian and Ethnic minority groups, people living with obesity, people who are socioeconomically deprived and people living in care homes. All these groups are under-served by clinical research, and there is an urgent need to rectify this if COVID-19 research is to deliver relevant evidence for these groups who are most in need. We provide a framework and checklists for addressing key issues when designing and delivering inclusive COVID-19 research, based on the National Institute for Health Research INnovations in CLinical trial design and delivery for the UnDEr-served project roadmap. Strong community engagement, codevelopment and prioritisation of research questions and interventions are essential. Under-served groups should be represented on funding panels and ethics committees, who should insist on the removal of barriers to participation. Exclusion criteria should be kept to a minimum; intervention delivery and outcome measurement should be simple, flexible and tailored to the needs of different groups, and local advice on the best way to reach and engage with under-served communities should be taken by study delivery teams. Data on characteristics that allow identification of under-served groups must be collected, analyses should include these data to enable subgroup comparisons and results should be shared with under-served groups at an early stage. CONCLUSION: Inclusive COVID-19 research is a necessity, not a luxury, if research is to benefit all the communities it seeks to serve. It requires close engagement with under-served groups and attention to aspects of study topic, design, delivery, analysis and dissemination across the research life cycle.

Association of cardiac rehabilitation and health-related quality of life following acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To study the association of cardiac rehabilitation and physical activity with temporal changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: Evaluation of the Methods and Management of Acute Coronary Events-3 is a nationwide longitudinal prospective cohort study of 4570 patients admitted with an AMI between 1 November 2011 and 17 September 2013. HRQoL was estimated using EuroQol 5-Dimension-3 Level Questionnaire at hospitalisation, 30 days, and 6 and 12 months following hospital discharge. The association of cardiac rehabilitation and self-reported physical activity on temporal changes in HRQoL was quantified using inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score and multilevel regression analyses. RESULTS: Cardiac rehabilitation attendees had higher HRQoL scores than non-attendees at 30 days (mean EuroQol 5-Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) scores: 71.0 (SD 16.8) vs 68.6 (SD 19.8)), 6 months (76.0 (SD 16.4) vs 70.2 (SD 19.0)) and 12 months (76.9 (SD 16.8) vs 70.4 (SD 20.4)). Attendees who were physically active ≥150 min/week had higher HRQoL scores compared with those who only attended cardiac rehabilitation at 30 days (mean EQ-VAS scores: 79.3 (SD 14.6) vs 70.2 (SD 17.0)), 6 months (82.2 (SD 13.9) vs 74.9 (SD 16.7)) and 12 months (84.1 (SD 12.1) vs 75.6 (SD 17.0)). Cardiac rehabilitation and self-reported physical activity of ≥150 min/week were each positively associated with temporal improvements in HRQoL (coefficient: 2.12 (95% CI 0.68 to 3.55) and 4.75 (95% CI 3.16 to 6.34), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac rehabilitation was independently associated with temporal improvements in HRQoL at up to 12 months following hospitalisation, with such changes further improved in patients who were physically active.

Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process.

BACKGROUND: Participants in clinical research studies often do not reflect the populations for which healthcare interventions are needed or will be used. Enhancing representation of under-served groups in clinical research is important to ensure that research findings are widely applicable. We describe a multicomponent workstream project to improve representation of under-served groups in clinical trials. METHODS: The project comprised three main strands: (1) a targeted scoping review of literature to identify previous work characterising under-served groups and barriers to inclusion, (2) surveys of professional stakeholders and participant representative groups involved in research delivery to refine these initial findings and identify examples of innovation and good practice and (3) a series of workshops bringing together key stakeholders from funding, design, delivery and participant groups to reach consensus on definitions, barriers and a strategic roadmap for future work. The work was commissioned by the UK National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. Output from these strands was integrated by a steering committee to generate a series of goals, workstream plans and a strategic roadmap for future development work in this area. RESULTS: 'Under-served groups' was identified and agreed by the stakeholder group as the preferred term. Three-quarters of stakeholders felt that a clear definition of under-served groups did not currently exist; definition was challenging and context-specific, but exemplar groups (e.g. those with language barriers or mental illness) were identified as under-served. Barriers to successful inclusion of under-served groups could be clustered into communication between research teams and participant groups; how trials are designed and delivered, differing agendas of research teams and participant groups; and lack of trust in the research process. Four key goals for future work were identified: building long-term relationships with under-served groups, developing training resources to improve design and delivery of trials for under-served groups, developing infrastructure and systems to support this work and working with funders, regulators and other stakeholders to remove barriers to inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: The work of the INCLUDE group over the next 12 months will build on these findings by generating resources customised for different under-served groups to improve the representativeness of trial populations.

The my experience of taking medicines (MYMEDS) questionnaire for assessing medicines adherence barriers in post-myocardial infarction patients: development and utility.

BACKGROUND: The 'My Experience of Taking Medicines' (MYMEDS) questionnaire is a self-reporting tool for identifying modifiable adherence barriers among individuals prescribed post-myocardial infarction (MI) secondary prevention medicines (SPM) in clinical practice. It was found to be a useful tool to support the conduction of patient-centred consultation in cardiology outpatient leading to improved outcomes including better adherence to SPM and patient satisfaction. This study describes the rationale and development of the MYMEDS tool, its performance and usefulness in identifying modifiable barriers to adherence in cardiology medical practice including user feedback of 204 consecutive post-MI patients who completed an evaluation based on MYMEDS. METHODS: Modifiable non-adherence factors were initially identified based on literature review and stakeholder feedback. A draft MYMEDS questionnaire was piloted in 10 patients and adapted accordingly. The final version comprises six sections, covering current medicines, understanding and satisfaction with medicines, concerns about medicines, practical adherence barriers, fitting medicines into daily routine, and adherence to individual SPMs. The questionnaire was mailed to post-MI patients who then attended an outpatient medicines optimisation clinic. RESULTS: Mean age was 70.5 years and 67.6% were male. The tool was effective in revealing modifiable adherence barriers that could be addressed during the consultation. There were high rates of concern that SPMs could be harmful (33.2%) or overprescribed (43.2%), practical issues with swallowing medicines (8.2%), opening packaging (7.3%) or accessing repeat prescriptions (5.2%), forgetfulness (19.7%), and concerns about inconvenience (13.5%). Mean number of barriers per patient was 1.8 ± 1.5. The medications most commonly associated with non-adherence were statins (21.5%), angiotensin II receptor blockers (21.1%), and antiplatelet agents (18.5%). In total, 42.5% of patients acknowledged non-adherence behaviour. Patient feedback on MYMEDS was positive, with near-unanimous agreement that it was simple, clear and not too long, and that it enabled them to raise any concerns they had about their medicines. Patients reported that their individual medicines related needs were better addressed. CONCLUSIONS: MYMEDS is a practical tool that can successfully identify modifiable barriers to SPM adherence which can be addressed in a clinical setting. It can be easily rolled out in daily clinical practice to enable individualised person-centred medicines optimisation consultation.

Adherence to coronary artery disease secondary prevention medicines: exploring modifiable barriers.

Background: Non-adherence to secondary prevention medicines (SPMs) among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a challenge in clinical practice. This study attempted to identify actual and potential modifiable barriers to adherence that can be addressed in cardiology clinical practice. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, postal survey-based study of the medicines-taking experience of patients with CAD treated at a secondary/tertiary care centre. All participants had been on SPM for ≥3 months. Results: In total, 696 eligible patients were sent the survey and 503 responded (72.3%). The median age was 70 years, and 403 (80.1%) were male; the median number of individual daily doses of all medicines was 6. The rate of non-adherence to at least one SPM was 43.5% (n=219), but 53.3% of reported non-adherence was to only one SPM. Statins contributed to 66.7% and aspirin to 61.7% of overall non-adherence identified by the Single Question (SQ) tool. In 30.8% of non-adherent patients (n=65), this was at least partly intentional. Barriers included forgetfulness (84.9%; n=186), worry that medicines will do more harm than good (33.8%; n=74), feeling hassled about medicines taking (18.7%; n=41), feeling worse when taking medicines (14.2%; n=31) and not being convinced of the benefit of medicines (9.1%; n=20). In a multivariate analysis, modifiable factors associated with overall non-adherence included being prescribed aspirin (OR: 2.22; 95% CI: 1.18 to 4.17), having specific concern about SPM (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.18) and issues with repeat prescriptions (OR: 2.48; 95% CI: 1.26 to 4.90). Different factors were often associated with intentional versus unintentional non-adherence. Conclusions: Using appropriate self-report tools, patients share actual and potential modifiable barriers to adherence that can be addressed in clinical practice. Non-adherence behaviour was selective. Most non-adherence was driven by forgetfulness, concern about the harm caused by SPM and practical barriers.

Blood pressure reduction and clinical outcomes with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers: protocol for a systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) efficaciously reduce systolic blood pressure (BP), a well-established risk factor for myocardial infarction (MI). Both inhibit the renin-angiotensin system, albeit through different mechanisms, and produce similar reductions in BP. However, in parallel meta-analyses of ACEi and ARB trials, ACEis reduce risk of MI whereas ARBs do not-a phenomenon described as the 'ARB-MI paradox'. In addition, ACEis reduce all-cause mortality, whereas ARBs do not, which appears to be independent of BP lowering. The divergent cardiovascular effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, despite similar BP reductions, are counter-intuitive. This systematic review aims to ascertain the extent to which clinical outcomes in randomised trials of ACEi and ARBs are attributable to reductions in systolic BP. METHODS: A comprehensive search of bibliographic databases will be performed to identify all randomised studies of agents of the ACEi and ARB class. Placebo and active comparator-controlled studies that report clinical outcomes, with greater than 500 person-years of follow-up in each study arm, will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen study records against a priori-defined eligibility criteria and perform data extraction. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool will be applied to all included studies. Studies retracted subsequent to initial publication will be excluded. Primary outcomes of interest include MI and all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes include stroke, heart failure, revascularisation and cardiovascular mortality. Meta-regression will be performed, evaluating the relationship between attained reduction in systolic BP and relative risk of each outcome, stratified by drug class. Where a BP-dependent effect exists (two-tailed p value < 0.05), relative risks, standardised per 10 mmHg difference in BP, will be reported for each study outcome. Publication bias will be examined using Funnel plots, and calculation of Egger's statistic. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide a detailed synthesis of evidence regarding the relationship between BP reduction and clinical outcomes with ACEi and ARBs. Greater understanding of the dependency of the effect of each class on BP reduction will advance insight into the nature of the ARB-MI paradox and guide the future usage of these agents. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017072988.

Re-engineering the post-myocardial infarction medicines optimisation pathway: a retrospective analysis of a joint consultant pharmacist and cardiologist clinic model.

Background: Inadequate medicines optimisation and adherence are significant problems among patients taking secondary prevention medications following myocardial infarction (MI). A novel joint consultant cardiology pharmacist and cardiologist medicines optimisation clinic was initiated for patients recently discharged following MI. Methods: Patients completed a locally developed tool, the 'My Experience of Taking Medicines' questionnaire, designed to allow sharing of barriers to adherence with medications. They then attended a clinic with the consultant pharmacist or cardiologist (or both). Secondary prevention medicines needs and barriers to adherence were identified and discussed, and an action plan developed. The data provided are from a retrospective review of 270 post-MI patients attending the service between October 2015 and December 2016. Results: Mean age was 67.3 years and 67.8% were male. The mean time from discharge to first outpatient clinic attendance was reduced by 56.1% (49.4 days vs 88 days before the service began). More than 95% of patient without planned non-pharmacological intervention postdischarge did not need a cardiologist's input. Levels of medicines optimisation were improved substantially after attendance: patients receiving a recommended angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker dose increased from 16.3% to 73.9% (p<0.001); patients receiving a recommended beta-blocker dose increased from 6.2% to 46.1% (p<0.001). Patient concerns about their medications were significantly decreased (all p<0.001). Rates of non-adherence fell by 42.6%-70.8% at 3-6 months post-clinic. Readmission rates also declined after the service opened. Conclusions: A medicines optimisation and patient adherence strategy based on a joint consultant cardiology pharmacist and cardiologist clinic can improve both adherence and outcomes post-MI.

The Divergent Cardiovascular Effects of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers in Adult Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

The renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a central role in the pathophysiology of hypertension and vascular disease. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi's) suppress angiotensin II (ANG II) concentrations, whereas angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor blockers (ARBs) block the binding of ANG II to AT1 receptors. ACEi's and ARBs are both effective antihypertensive agents and produce similar risk reductions for stroke, a blood pressure-dependent phenomenon. ACEi's also reduce the risk for myocardial infarction (MI) and all-cause mortality in high-risk hypertensive patients as well as in people with diabetes, vascular disease and congestive heart failure. ARBs, in contrast, do not reduce the risk for MI or death in randomized clinical trials when assessed vs. placebo. Systematic reviews of ARBs that include meta-analyses or metaregression analyses confirm that ARBs lack the cardiovascular-protective effects of ACEi's. Practice guidelines, especially those for high-risk patients, such as those with diabetes mellitus, should reflect the evidence that ACEi's and ARBs have divergent cardiovascular effects: ACEi's reduce mortality, whereas ARBs do not. ACEi's should remain the preferred RAAS inhibitor for patients at high risk.

Loss of Cardioprotective Effects at the ADAMTS7 Locus as a Result of Gene-Smoking Interactions.

BACKGROUND: Common diseases such as coronary heart disease (CHD) are complex in etiology. The interaction of genetic susceptibility with lifestyle factors may play a prominent role. However, gene-lifestyle interactions for CHD have been difficult to identify. Here, we investigate interaction of smoking behavior, a potent lifestyle factor, with genotypes that have been shown to associate with CHD risk. METHODS: We analyzed data on 60 919 CHD cases and 80 243 controls from 29 studies for gene-smoking interactions for genetic variants at 45 loci previously reported to be associated with CHD risk. We also studied 5 loci associated with smoking behavior. Study-specific gene-smoking interaction effects were calculated and pooled using fixed-effects meta-analyses. Interaction analyses were declared to be significant at a P value of <1.0×10-3 (Bonferroni correction for 50 tests). RESULTS: We identified novel gene-smoking interaction for a variant upstream of the ADAMTS7 gene. Every T allele of rs7178051 was associated with lower CHD risk by 12% in never-smokers (P=1.3×10-16) in comparison with 5% in ever-smokers (P=2.5×10-4), translating to a 60% loss of CHD protection conferred by this allelic variation in people who smoked tobacco (interaction P value=8.7×10-5). The protective T allele at rs7178051 was also associated with reduced ADAMTS7 expression in human aortic endothelial cells and lymphoblastoid cell lines. Exposure of human coronary artery smooth muscle cells to cigarette smoke extract led to induction of ADAMTS7. CONCLUSIONS: Allelic variation at rs7178051 that associates with reduced ADAMTS7 expression confers stronger CHD protection in never-smokers than in ever-smokers. Increased vascular ADAMTS7 expression may contribute to the loss of CHD protection in smokers.

Protein-Truncating Variants at the Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Gene and Risk for Coronary Heart Disease.

RATIONALE: Therapies that inhibit CETP (cholesteryl ester transfer protein) have failed to demonstrate a reduction in risk for coronary heart disease (CHD). Human DNA sequence variants that truncate the CETP gene may provide insight into the efficacy of CETP inhibition. OBJECTIVE: To test whether protein-truncating variants (PTVs) at the CETP gene were associated with plasma lipid levels and CHD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We sequenced the exons of the CETP gene in 58 469 participants from 12 case-control studies (18 817 CHD cases, 39 652 CHD-free controls). We defined PTV as those that lead to a premature stop, disrupt canonical splice sites, or lead to insertions/deletions that shift frame. We also genotyped 1 Japanese-specific PTV in 27561 participants from 3 case-control studies (14 286 CHD cases, 13 275 CHD-free controls). We tested association of CETP PTV carrier status with both plasma lipids and CHD. Among 58 469 participants with CETP gene-sequencing data available, average age was 51.5 years and 43% were women; 1 in 975 participants carried a PTV at the CETP gene. Compared with noncarriers, carriers of PTV at CETP had higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (effect size, 22.6 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval, 18-27; P<1.0×10-4), lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-12.2 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval, -23 to -0.98; P=0.033), and lower triglycerides (-6.3%; 95% confidence interval, -12 to -0.22; P=0.043). CETP PTV carrier status was associated with reduced risk for CHD (summary odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.90; P=5.1×10-3). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with noncarriers, carriers of PTV at CETP displayed higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, lower triglycerides, and lower risk for CHD.

Association of Rare and Common Variation in the Lipoprotein Lipase Gene With Coronary Artery Disease.

Importance: The activity of lipoprotein lipase (LPL) is the rate-determining step in clearing triglyceride-rich lipoproteins from the circulation. Mutations that damage the LPL gene (LPL) lead to lifelong deficiency in enzymatic activity and can provide insight into the relationship of LPL to human disease. Objective: To determine whether rare and/or common variants in LPL are associated with early-onset coronary artery disease (CAD). Design, Setting, and Participants: In a cross-sectional study, LPL was sequenced in 10 CAD case-control cohorts of the multinational Myocardial Infarction Genetics Consortium and a nested CAD case-control cohort of the Geisinger Health System DiscovEHR cohort between 2010 and 2015. Common variants were genotyped in up to 305 699 individuals of the Global Lipids Genetics Consortium and up to 120 600 individuals of the CARDIoGRAM Exome Consortium between 2012 and 2014. Study-specific estimates were pooled via meta-analysis. Exposures: Rare damaging mutations in LPL included loss-of-function variants and missense variants annotated as pathogenic in a human genetics database or predicted to be damaging by computer prediction algorithms trained to identify mutations that impair protein function. Common variants in the LPL gene region included those independently associated with circulating triglyceride levels. Main Outcomes and Measures: Circulating lipid levels and CAD. Results: Among 46 891 individuals with LPL gene sequencing data available, the mean (SD) age was 50 (12.6) years and 51% were female. A total of 188 participants (0.40%; 95% CI, 0.35%-0.46%) carried a damaging mutation in LPL, including 105 of 32 646 control participants (0.32%) and 83 of 14 245 participants with early-onset CAD (0.58%). Compared with 46 703 noncarriers, the 188 heterozygous carriers of an LPL damaging mutation displayed higher plasma triglyceride levels (19.6 mg/dL; 95% CI, 4.6-34.6 mg/dL) and higher odds of CAD (odds ratio = 1.84; 95% CI, 1.35-2.51; P < .001). An analysis of 6 common LPL variants resulted in an odds ratio for CAD of 1.51 (95% CI, 1.39-1.64; P = 1.1 × 10-22) per 1-SD increase in triglycerides. Conclusions and Relevance: The presence of rare damaging mutations in LPL was significantly associated with higher triglyceride levels and presence of coronary artery disease. However, further research is needed to assess whether there are causal mechanisms by which heterozygous lipoprotein lipase deficiency could lead to coronary artery disease.

Phenotypic Characterization of Genetically Lowered Human Lipoprotein(a) Levels.

BACKGROUND: Genomic analyses have suggested that the LPA gene and its associated plasma biomarker, lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]), represent a causal risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD). As such, lowering Lp(a) levels has emerged as a therapeutic strategy. Beyond target identification, human genetics may contribute to the development of new therapies by defining the full spectrum of beneficial and adverse consequences and by developing a dose-response curve of target perturbation. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to establish the full phenotypic impact of LPA gene variation and to estimate a dose-response curve between genetically altered plasma Lp(a) and risk for CHD. METHODS: We leveraged genetic variants at the LPA gene from 3 data sources: individual-level data from 112,338 participants in the U.K. Biobank; summary association results from large-scale genome-wide association studies; and LPA gene sequencing results from case subjects with CHD and control subjects free of CHD. RESULTS: One SD genetically lowered Lp(a) level was associated with a 29% lower risk of CHD (odds ratio [OR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69 to 0.73), a 31% lower risk of peripheral vascular disease (OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.80), a 13% lower risk of stroke (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.96), a 17% lower risk of heart failure (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.94), and a 37% lower risk of aortic stenosis (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.83). We observed no association with 31 other disorders, including type 2 diabetes and cancer. Variants that led to gain of LPA gene function increased the risk for CHD, whereas those that led to loss of gene function reduced the CHD risk. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond CHD, genetically lowered Lp(a) levels are associated with a lower risk of peripheral vascular disease, stroke, heart failure, and aortic stenosis. As such, pharmacological lowering of plasma Lp(a) may influence a range of atherosclerosis-related diseases.