OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to assess the LDL-C efficacy of rosuvastatin versus placebo in HoFH children, and the relationship with underlying genetic mutations.
METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, 12-week, crossover study of rosuvastatin 20 mg versus placebo, followed by 12 weeks of open-label rosuvastatin. Patients discontinued all lipid-lowering treatment except ezetimibe and/or apheresis. Clinical and laboratory assessments were performed every 6 weeks. The relationship between LDL-C response and genetic mutations was assessed by adding children and adults from a prior HoFH rosuvastatin trial.
RESULTS: Twenty patients were screened, 14 randomized, and 13 completed the study. The mean age was 10.9 years; 8 patients were on ezetimibe and 7 on apheresis. Mean LDL-C was 481 mg/dl (range: 229 to 742 mg/dl) on placebo and 396 mg/dl (range: 130 to 700 mg/dl) on rosuvastatin, producing a mean 85.4 mg/dl (22.3%) difference (p = 0.005). Efficacy was similar regardless of age or use of ezetimibe or apheresis, and was maintained for 12 weeks. Adverse events were few and not serious. Patients with 2 defective versus 2 negative LDL receptor mutations had mean LDL-C reductions of 23.5% (p = 0.0044) and 14% (p = 0.038), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This first-ever pediatric HoFH statin trial demonstrated safe and effective LDL-C reduction with rosuvastatin 20 mg alone or added to ezetimibe and/or apheresis. The LDL-C response in children and adults was related to underlying genetic mutations. (A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Rosuvastatin in Children and Adolescents With Homozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia [HYDRA]; NCT02226198).
METHODS: Lead Investigators from countries formally involved in the EAS FHSC by mid-May 2018 were invited to provide a brief report on FH status in their countries, including available information, programmes, initiatives, and management.
RESULTS: 63 countries provided reports. Data on FH prevalence are lacking in most countries. Where available, data tend to align with recent estimates, suggesting a higher frequency than that traditionally considered. Low rates of FH detection are reported across all regions. National registries and education programmes to improve FH awareness/knowledge are a recognised priority, but funding is often lacking. In most countries, diagnosis primarily relies on the Dutch Lipid Clinics Network criteria. Although available in many countries, genetic testing is not widely implemented (frequent cost issues). There are only a few national official government programmes for FH. Under-treatment is an issue. FH therapy is not universally reimbursed. PCSK9-inhibitors are available in ∼2/3 countries. Lipoprotein-apheresis is offered in ∼60% countries, although access is limited.
CONCLUSIONS: FH is a recognised public health concern. Management varies widely across countries, with overall suboptimal identification and under-treatment. Efforts and initiatives to improve FH knowledge and management are underway, including development of national registries, but support, particularly from health authorities, and better funding are greatly needed.