Skip to main content

New hope treatment in familial hypercholesterolemia

New hope comes today for those with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a genetic disorder characterized by high cholesterol levels, specifically very high levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL, "bad cholesterol"), in the blood and early cardiovascular disease.



Without treatment, the life expectancy of those with familial hypercholesterolemia can be reduced by approximately 15-30 years. However, in people with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, life expectancy may only be 20 years or less.

Homologous chromosomes come in pairs. One homologous chromosome is inherited from the mother; the other is inherited from the father.  Homozygous refers to a gene that has identical alleles on both homologous chromosomes.   This is why the homozygous condition is particularly rare and can be more severe.

HoFH is a rare and more severe form of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), an inherited condition characterized by very high levels of LDL-C and premature cardiovascular disease.

Inheriting FH- causing mutations from both parents results in HoFH in the child. HoFH is an extremely severe condition and is often associated with aggressive and markedly premature heart disease, including coronary artery disease and aortic valve disease. 

Children and teenagers with HoFH may have heart attacks or angina requiring the insertion of coronary stents or heart bypass surgery.

A new study shows that adding Praluent® (alirocumab) significantly reduced cholesterol levels by 35.6 per cent, compared to other lipid-lowering therapies alone, in patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia.

The results of the placebo-controlled trial were presented at the joint meeting of the American College of Cardiology (ACC.20) together with the World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) Scientific Sessions.

Results showed treatment with Praluent significantly reduced other lipoprotein and lipid measures associated with elevated cardiovascular risk, including apolipoprotein B [29.8 percent (p<0.0001)], total cholesterol [26.5 percent (p<0.0001)], non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) [32.9 percent (p<0.0001)] and lipoprotein(a) [28.4 percent (p<0.0001)] versus placebo.

Lead investigator Dr Dirk Blom says,

“These results demonstrate a statistically significant and clinically-meaningful reduction in LDL-C levels after 12 weeks and have the potential to expand treatment options for very high-risk patients with this serious condition.”



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As