Background

The value of lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) for predicting cardiovascular disease (CVD) across low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is uncertain.

Hypothesis

In older high-risk adults, higher LDL and Lp(a) combined would be associated with higher CVD risk and more healthcare costs.

Methods

We included 3251 high-risk subjects (prior CVD, diabetes, or 10-year Framingham CVD risk >20%) age ≥65 years from the Cardiovascular Health Study and examined the relation of Lp(a) tertiles with incident CVD, coronary heart disease (CHD), and all-cause mortality within LDL-C strata (spanning <70 mg/dL to ≥160 mg/dL). We also examined 1-year all-cause and CVD healthcare costs from Medicare claims.

Results

Over a 22.5-year follow-up, higher Lp(a) levels predicted CVD and total mortality (both standardized hazard ratio [HR]: 1.06, P < 0.01), whereas higher LDL-C levels predicted higher CHD (standardized HR: 1.09, P < 0.01) but lower total mortality (standardized HR: 0.94, P < 0.001). Adjusted HRs in the highest (vs lowest) tertile of Lp(a) level were 1.95 (P = 0.06) for CVD events and 2.68 (P = 0.03) for CHD events when LDL-C was <70 mg/dL. One-year all-cause healthcare costs were increased for Lp(a) ($771 per SD of 56 µg/mL [P = 0.03], $1976 for Lp(a) 25-64 µg/mL vs <25 µg/mL [P = 0.02], and $1648 for Lp(a) ≥65 µg/mL vs <25 µg/mL [P = 0.054]) but not LDL-C.

Conclusions

In older high-risk adults, increased Lp(a) levels were associated with higher CVD risk, especially in those with LDL-C <70 mg/dL, and with higher healthcare costs.

Background

Residual atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk in statin-treated US adults without known ASCVD is not well described.

Objective

To quantitate residual ASCVD risk and its predictors in statin-treated adults.

Methods

We studied 1014 statin-treated adults (53.3% female, mean 66.0 years) free of clinical ASCVD in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. We examined ASCVD event rates by National Lipid Association risk groups over 11-year follow-up and the relation of standard risk factors, biomarkers, and subclinical atherosclerosis measures with residual ASCVD event risk.

Results

Overall, 5.3% of participants were at low, 12.2% at moderate, 60.3% at high, and 22.2% at very high baseline risk. Despite statin therapy, age- and race-standardized ASCVD rates per 1000 person-years for men and women were both 4.9 for low/moderate risk, 19.1 and 14.2 for high risk, and 35.6 and 26.7 for very high risk, respectively. Specific independent predictors of residual risk included current smoking, family history, diabetes, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, low-density lipoprotein particle number, carotid intimal medial thickness, and especially coronary artery calcium score. Those on moderate- or high-intensity statins at baseline (compared with low intensity) had 39% lower risks and those who increased statin intensity 62% lower ASCVD event risks (P < .01).

Conclusion

Residual risk of ASCVD remains high despite statin treatment and is predicted by specific risk factors and subclinical atherosclerosis. These findings may be helpful for identifying those at highest risk needing more aggressive treatment.

Robust associations between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and CVD outcomes among general populations have been published in previous studies. However, associations in high risk primary prevention and secondary prevention populations are less well defined. In order to investigate this further, a systematic review was performed including prospective studies, which assessed the relationship between Lp(a) and CVD outcomes using multivariable analyses. Additional information was gathered on Lp(a) assays, multivariable modelling and population characteristics. Literature searches from inception up to December 2015 retrieved 2850 records. From these 60 studies were included. Across 39 primary prevention studies in the general population (hazard ratios ranged from 1.16 to 2.97) and seven high risk primary prevention studies (hazard ratios ranged from 1.01 to 3.7), there was evidence of a statistically significant relationship between increased Lp(a) and an increased risk of future CVD. Results in 14 studies of secondary prevention populations were also suggestive of a modest statistically significant relationship (hazard ratios ranged from 0.75 to 3.7).Therefore current evidence would suggest that increased Lp(a) levels are associated with modest increases in the risk of future CVD events in both general and higher risk populations. However, further studies are required to confirm these findings.

BACKGROUND:In the EMBRACA phase III study (NCT01945775), talazoparib was associated with a significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT) in germline BRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). Herein, the safety profile of talazoparib is explored in detail. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Overall, 412 patients received ≥1 dose of talazoparib (n = 286) or PCT (n = 126). Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated, including timing, duration, and potential overlap of selected AEs. The relationship between talazoparib plasma exposure and grade ≥3 anemia was analyzed. Time-varying Cox proportional hazard models assessed the impact of dose reductions on PFS. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with common AEs and health resource utilization (HRU) were assessed in both treatment arms. RESULTS:The most common AEs with talazoparib were hematologic (195 [68.2%] patients) and typically occurred within the first 3-4 months of receiving talazoparib. Grade 3-4 anemia lasted approximately 7 days for both arms. Overlapping grade 3-4 hematologic AEs were infrequent with talazoparib. Higher talazoparib exposure was associated with grade ≥3 anemia. Permanent discontinuation of talazoparib due to hematologic AEs was low (<2%). A total of 150 (52.4%) patients receiving talazoparib had AEs associated with dose reduction. Hematologic toxicities were managed by supportive care medication (including transfusion) and dose modifications. Among patients with anemia or nausea and/or vomiting AEs, PROs favored talazoparib. After accounting for the treatment-emergent period, talazoparib was generally associated with a lower rate of hospitalization and supportive care medication use compared with chemotherapy. CONCLUSION:Talazoparib was associated with superior efficacy, favorable PROs, and lower HRU rate versus chemotherapy in gBRCA-mutated ABC. Toxicities were manageable with talazoparib dose modification and supportive care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:Talazoparib was generally well tolerated in patients with germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative advanced breast cancer in the EMBRACA trial. Common toxicities with talazoparib were primarily hematologic and infrequently resulted in permanent drug discontinuation (<2% of patients discontinued talazoparib due to hematologic toxicity). Hematologic toxicities typically occurred during the first 3-4 months of treatment and were managed by dose modifications and supportive care measures. A significant efficacy benefit, improved patient-reported outcomes, lower rate of health resource utilization and a tolerable safety profile support incorporating talazoparib into routine management of germline BRCA-mutated locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer.

Background

Talazoparib is a poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that causes death in cells with breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 or 2 (BRCA1/2) mutations.

Methods

EMBRACA (NCT01945775) was a randomized phase III study comparing efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of talazoparib (1 mg) with physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT: capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, vinorelbine) in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer with a germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2) mutation. Prespecified patient subgroups were analyzed for progression-free survival, objective response, clinical benefit, duration of response, and safety. PROs were evaluated in hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) or triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subgroups.

Results

Of 431 patients, 287 were randomly assigned to talazoparib and 144 to PCT. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed prolonged progression-free survival with talazoparib (HR+/HER2-: hazard ratio = 0.47, 95% confidence interval = 0.32 to 0.71; TNBC: hazard ratio = 0.60, 95% confidence interval = 0.41 to 0.87) and greater objective response rate (odds ratio = 1.97 to 11.89), clinical benefit rate (odds ratio = 2.05 to 7.77), and duration of response with talazoparib in all subgroups. PROs in HR+/HER2- and TNBC subgroups showed consistent overall improvement and delay in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration with talazoparib vs PCT. Across subgroups, common adverse events included anemia, fatigue, and nausea with talazoparib and neutropenia, fatigue, and nausea with PCT. Seven patients (2.4%) receiving talazoparib had grade II alopecia and 22.7% had grade I alopecia.

Conclusions

Across all patient subgroups with gBRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer, talazoparib demonstrated clinically significant superiority in outcomes compared with PCT.