Impact of Providing Future Cardiovascular Risk Based on Genetic Testing on Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Patients with Familial Hypercholesterolemia (GenTLe-FH): A Randomized Wait-list Controlled Open-Label Trial

Introduction

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is an autosomal dominant Mendelian disease, one of the leading causes of premature coronary heart disease (CHD) along with life-long exposure to high low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterolemia. ^1-6 The prevalence of patients with heterozygous FH is nearly 0.2-0.5% of the general population (1 in 200-500 individuals). Major FH causative genes are LDL receptor (LDLR), proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9), and apolipoprotein B (APOB) and LDLR adaptor protein 1 (LDLRAP1, for a particular case of autosomal recessive hypercholesterolemia). FH’s clinical guidelines of FH across the world recommend that patients with FH should be treated using lipid-lowering agents at a younger age to reduce plasma LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, which can prevent future episodes of CHD. Therefore, it is important to diagnose FH as early as possible.⁷

Because FH is a monogenic disorder, genetic testing is important for a definitive diagnosis.⁸ Additionally, our previous study and other studies showed that FH-related pathogenic variants are significantly associated with a higher risk of CHD,^9,10 which strongly suggests that genetic testing can be used for risk stratification. However, it remains unclear whether FH-related genetic testing would have a potential to affects patients’ outcomes beyond risk stratification. Recently, Kullo et al. reported that disclosure of CHD risk estimates with polygenic risk information, which consists of multiple small-effect genome-wide common genetic variations, led to lower LDL-C levels than disclosure of CHD risk based on classical risk factors alone.¹¹ Thus, does providing cardiovascular risk based on FH-related genetic testing also have an impact on changing outcomes in patients with FH?

Here, we examined whether informing future cardiovascular risk based on genetic testing besides conventional FH patient education leads to reduced LDL-C levels in patients with FH.

Methods

Results

Figure 1 shows the flowchart of the trial. We recruited 53 clinically diagnosed FH patients without a history of cardiovascular disease from March 2018 to March 2020 and followed them up until October 2021. Of these, three patients were excluded from the trial because of inappropriate eligibility (n=2) and randomization violation (n=1). The remaining 50 eligible patients were randomly allocated to the intervention group (n=24) or the wait-list control group (n=26). In the intention-to-treat principle, we included all 50 patients for further analyses. The mean age of the patients was 52 ± 16 years, 58% were female, 22% had hypertension, and 8% had diabetes mellitus. Regarding FH-related profiles, 76% had Achilles tendon xanthomas, 60% reported a family history of FH, and the mean plasma LDL-C level was 127 ± 25 mg/dL. The number of FH-related causative genetic variant positive patients was 34 (68%): 31 patients had causal variants at LDLR gene, 1 had causal variant (p.Glu32Lys) at PCSK9 gene, and 2 had copy number variations at LDLR gene. We did not detect any causal variants at APOB or LDLRAP1. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between the intervention and the wait-list control groups (Table 1). Since one patient in the wait-list control group refused to follow scheduled visits and laboratory tests after randomization, the study investigators excluded the patient from the study and following outcome analyses.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Trial flowchart.

We enrolled 53 patients with clinically diagnosed FH and no prior coronary artery disease. Of those, 50 eligible FH patients were randomly allocated to the intervention group (24 patients receiving conventional FH education and future cardiovascular risk assessment based on genetic testing) or the wait-list control group (26 patients receiving only conventional FH education). We followed the two groups for up to 48 weeks and performed an intention-to-treat analysis. The primary endpoint was the change in LDL-C levels from baseline at week 24. Because we handled the wait-list control group as a wait-list group, we also provided future cardiovascular risk assessment based on genetic testing after evaluating the primary endpoint at week 24.

Primary outcome

At week 24, the intervention group had a significantly greater reduction in plasma LDL-C levels than the wait-list control group (mean changes from baseline, -13.1 mg/dL vs. 6.6 mg/dL; between-group difference, -19.7 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval [CI], -34 to -5.6; p=0.009) (Table 2, Figure 2). Even when adjusted by the baseline LDL-C levels, the result was consistent (adjusted difference, -18.0 mg/dL; 95% CI, -32 to -3.8; p=0.02).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 2. Within-group changes and between-group differences of LDL cholesterol levels.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol changes from baseline.

Regarding the primary endpoint at week 24, the intervention group had a significantly greater reduction in plasma LDL-C level than the wait-list control group. After the wait-list control group also received genetic testing-based future cardiovascular risk assessment at week 24, the difference between the two groups was attenuated at week 48. *:p<0.05. Error bars indicated the standard error.

Secondary outcomes

After the wait-list control group also received genetic testing-based future cardiovascular risk assessment at week 24, the LDL-C level in the wait-list control group was certainly decreased (the within-group change from week 24 to 48 was -8.0 mg/dL). In contrast, the within-group change in the intervention group from week 24 to 48 was increased by 4.3 mg/dL, that lead to diminish the effect of LDL-C reduction in the intervention group at week 48 from baseline. As a result, the difference between the two groups (between-group difference) from baseline to week 48 was attenuated (0.7 vs. -2.0; between-group difference, 2.8; 95% CI, -26 to 31; p=0.85) (Table 2).

Figure 3 shows the LDL-C changes according to FH-related causative variant carrier status. Among variant carriers, the intervention group also had a greater plasma LDL-C level reduction than the wait-list control group at week 24 (−19.8 mg/dL vs. 2.9 mg/dL; between-group difference, -22.7 mg/dL; 95% CI, -40 to -5.5; p=0.02). However, we could not detect any significant differences between the groups for non-carriers at week 24 (2.3 mg/dL vs. 12.4 mg/dL; between-group difference, -10.1 mg/dL; 95% CI, -33 to 12; p=0.39).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol changes from baseline by FH-related causative variant carrier status with additional treatment information.

A. Variant carriers (n=34). B. Non-carriers (n=16). Treatment icons (statin or ezetimibe, statin and ezetimibe, or PCSK9 inhibitor) were placed at the time of each additional medication. Among variant carriers, the intervention group also had a greater plasma LDL-C level reduction than the wait-list control group at week 24. However, we could not detect any apparent differences between the groups for non-carriers. Error bars indicated standard errors

Since the physicians managed LDL cholesterol levels of their patients at their own discretion according to the guideline, we investigated additional treatment regimens on top of the baseline lipid-lowering agents in both groups (Table 3). The numbers of participants receiving add-on treatment during the study were 10 (42%) in the intervention group and 6 (23%) in the wait-list control group (chi-square test, p=0.26). Of note, 90% (9/10) in the intervention group and 67% (4/6) in the wait-list control group of add-on lipid-lowering agents were prescribed within 24 weeks from receiving genetic counseling and future cardiovascular risk based on the genetic test. Moreover, the add-on treatments were conducted more frequent in causative variant carrier group (14/16, 88%) than in non-carrier group (2/16, 12%).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 3. Add-on treatment regimens by primary physicians during study period.

Patient satisfaction evaluation

We further assessed the FH patients’ satisfaction for medical care they received during the study period by the PSQ-18 scale analysis (Figure 4). We evaluated the score changes by seven aspects (general satisfaction, technical quality, interpersonal manner, communication, financial aspects, time spent with doctor, and accessibility and convenience), and there were no between-group differences in each aspect except in the “general satisfaction” aspect for medical care. Notably, FH-related causal variant non-carriers in the intervention group were less satisfied with general medical care than the wait-list control group at 24 weeks.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Changes in patient satisfaction questionnaire scale scores by groups.

There were no between-group differences except in the “general satisfaction” aspect of medical care. According to the general satisfaction scale results, variant non-carriers in the intervention group were less satisfied with general medical care than the wait-list control group at 24 weeks. *:p<0.05. Error bars indicated the standard error.

Discussion

This trial was the first randomized, wait-list controlled study to assess whether disclosing the risk for future cardiovascular diseases based on genetic testing results in addition to standard FH education would lead to reduced LDL-C levels in patients with FH. For the primary endpoint, the intervention group showed a significantly greater reduction in plasma LDL-C levels than the wait-list control group at week 24. The difference between the groups was attenuated at week 48 after the wait-list control group also received future cardiovascular risk assessment based on genetic testing at week 24. On the other hand, as for patient satisfaction evaluation by the PSQ-18, no between-group differences were found except for the general satisfaction aspect of medical care. Notably, non-carriers of FH-related causal variants in the intervention group were less satisfied with general medical care than those in the wait-list control group at 24 weeks.

The conclusions of this study are as follows. First, providing cardiovascular risk based on genetic testing further reduced plasma LDL-C levels, in addition to standard FH care. One of the reasons for the significant reduction effect could be that patients with FH may become aware of the necessity of medication, leading to better adherence to medications and achieving lifestyle modifications by themselves. However, there was a concern that the LDL-C reduction might be derived from more intensive treatments based on the information on genetic testing-based cardiovascular risk. Previous studies reported that providing genetic testing results for primary physicians did not affect their practice because they thought plasma lipid levels were simply sufficient to select treatment options for patients with FH and felt little need for genetic testing.^16,17 Nevertheless, another studies demonstrated that FH genetic counseling for patients with FH might convince them of the use of more intensified lipid-lowering drugs and improve medication adherence, leading to lower LDL-C levels, irrespective of their treatment status.^18-20 Moreover, a genetic diagnosis itself could promote the selection of more aggressive lipid-lowering drugs for primary physicians.²¹ For example, the MI-GENES clinical trial, which demonstrated the effect of disclosure of CHD genetic risk on LDL-C levels for patients with intermediate CHD risk, indicated that the lipid-lowering effects were derived from the initiation of statin medication.²² In this study, We did not observe any interactions between baseline plasma LDL-C levels and the addition of lipid-lowering agents between weeks 0 and 24 (Figure 4). However, although non-significant, an add-on lipid-lowering treatment was more frequent within 24 weeks from receiving genetic counseling and future cardiovascular risk based on the genetic test (Table 3), which might have contributed to the favorable result for LDL-C reduction in the intervention group. In addition, genetic confirmation might help patients with FH reinforce a healthier diet and exercise behaviors.²³ These multilateral effects could affect the LDL-C levels of FH patients without a history of cardiovascular complications.

Second, we observed inconsistent effects of the intervention according to the variant carrier status on LDL-C levels. For FH-related causal variant carriers, the change in LDL-C levels in the intervention group was greater than that in the wait-list control group at week 24, although this favorable change did not occur in non-carriers. As stated above, providing a “positive” genetic testing result for patients may improve adherence to lipid-lowering medication and permit access to specific treatments, such as the PCSK9 inhibitor.²⁴ Moreover, Claassen et al. showed that patients with FH who received their genetic testing results had a higher perceived efficacy of lipid-lowering medication than those without.²⁵ In contrast, when the FH causal variant was not identified, the negative genetic testing result might provide mental relief even for at-risk patients,²⁶ which could have a literal “negative” effect on non-carrier patients. Additionally, it could cause reduced compliance or motivation in patients.²⁴

Third, although the significant LDL-C reduction was achieved after 24 weeks from the disclosure of future cardiovascular risk based on genetic testing, the effect was attenuated after 48 weeks of the intervention. The changes in LDL-C levels from genetic counseling with providing cardiovascular risk assessment to 24 weeks were consistent in both groups (−13.1 mg/dL in the intervention group and -8.0 mg/dL in the wait-list control group), whereas the change in LDL-C to 48 weeks was just +0.7 mg/dL despite performing some additional lipid-lowering treatments on the baseline regimen. Although a long-term health behavior change was certainly challenging,^27,28 our results implicated that the effect of our “one-time” intervention in an outpatient clinic at week 0 might be effective through 6 months but could be attenuated from then on.

Fourth, genetic counseling for FH did not make patients nervous overall, although non-carriers were less satisfied with general medical care than carriers. In general, patient empowerment is a potential non-clinical benefit of genetic testing. Providing a diagnosis could allow the patient to improve their understanding of the disease’s clinical course, treatment options, and psychological control.^26,29 Genetic testing sometimes ameliorates uncertainty, stigma, and personal guilt.^30,31 However, it could be valid only in FH patients with positive genetic testing, not in those with negative genetic testing. Patients sometimes undergo genetic testing because they want to confirm whether they are negative. Clinically diagnosed patients with FH are at a higher risk for cardiovascular disease than patients without FH, regardless of the causative variant carrier status. However, when we provide variant-negative patients with less CHD risk than variant-positive FH patients, they might misunderstand the information, become unexpectedly reassured, and decrease their adherence and lifestyle modification. Care might be taken with these “non-carriers” to provide the current FH education strategy with future cardiovascular risk assessment based on the variant-negative genetic testing results. This is because the counseling provided in this study might potentially provide misinterpretation and less satisfaction for medical care to “non-carriers”. Therefore, alternative counseling strategies may be needed for patients with variant-negative FH.

The strength of this study was that it was a randomized trial to demonstrate the efficacy of disclosing future cardiovascular disease risk assessment based on genetic testing results in addition to standard FH education for FH patients without a history of cardiovascular disease. The most important limitation of this study was that while we originally planned to enroll approximately 100 FH patients in this study,⁸ we halted enrollment due to the COVID-19 pandemic and closed recruitment before completing the pre-specified protocol schedule. Although the effect difference on LDL-C was larger than expected and we demonstrated the efficacy of the intervention on LDL-C levels, this unique situation needs to be considered with caution for clinical application of our findings. In addition, in terms of LDL-C levels, the mean LDL-C levels at 48 weeks were still >100 mg/dL in both groups, which was above the recommended lipid control threshold (<100 mg/dL) for FH patients as primary prevention. Although clarifying cardiovascular risk for both FH patients and primary physicians could improve the treatment quality,³² achieving the target LDL-C level (<100 mg/dL) has still been a challenging goal, as the CASCADE-FH registry reported.³³ Although this study’s median LDL-C level was lower than that from the registry, we need to focus on the target cholesterol level to reduce the future cardiovascular risk for patients with FH as much as possible. Furthermore, we could not assessed patients’ medication adherence except patient-reported drug non-compliance that might affect the results.

In conclusion, in addition to standard FH care, providing cardiovascular risk assessment based on genetic testing further reduced plasma LDL-C levels further, particularly among patients with FH causal variants carriers. Meanwhile, we might be careful with the non-carriers to provide this risk disclosure strategy based on the variant-negative genetic testing results.

Funding

This trial was supported by a Clinical Research Grant from Kanazawa University Hospital, JSPS KAKENHI (18K08064, 19K08553, 20H03927), the Astellas Foundation for Research on Metabolic Disorders, the ONO Medical Research Foundation, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (Research Grant for Rare and Intractable Diseases), and the Japanese Circulation Society (Project for Genome Analysis in Cardiovascular Diseases).

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Data availability statement

The data in this trial are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.