| Literature DB >> 26522778 |
Kapil Gadkar1, James Lu2, Srikumar Sahasranaman3, John Davis3, Norman A Mazer2, Saroja Ramanujan3.
Abstract
The recent failures of cholesteryl ester transport protein inhibitor drugs to decrease CVD risk, despite raising HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) levels, suggest that pharmacologic increases in HDL-C may not always reflect elevations in reverse cholesterol transport (RCT), the process by which HDL is believed to exert its beneficial effects. HDL-modulating therapies can affect HDL properties beyond total HDL-C, including particle numbers, size, and composition, and may contribute differently to RCT and CVD risk. The lack of validated easily measurable pharmacodynamic markers to link drug effects to RCT, and ultimately to CVD risk, complicates target and compound selection and evaluation. In this work, we use a systems pharmacology model to contextualize the roles of different HDL targets in cholesterol metabolism and provide quantitative links between HDL-related measurements and the associated changes in RCT rate to support target and compound evaluation in drug development. By quantifying the amount of cholesterol removed from the periphery over the short-term, our simulations show the potential for infused HDL to treat acute CVD. For the primary prevention of CVD, our analysis suggests that the induction of ApoA-I synthesis may be a more viable approach, due to the long-term increase in RCT rate.Entities:
Keywords: apolipoprotein A-I; cholesterol metabolism; cholesteryl ester transport protein; high density lipoprotein; in-silico model; low density lipoprotein; reverse cholesterol transport
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26522778 PMCID: PMC4689335 DOI: 10.1194/jlr.M057943
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Lipid Res ISSN: 0022-2275 Impact factor: 5.922
Fig. 1.A schematic diagram of the LMK model with a depiction of the set of HDL interventions that have been analyzed: 1) upregulation of ApoA-I synthesis; 2) infusion of rHDL; 3) infusion of delipidated HDL; 4) upregulation of ABCA1; and 5) inhibition of CETP.
Fig. 2.Changes in lipid parameters and RCT under the upregulation of ApoA-I synthesis; solid line is the mean of population and the dotted lines are the 5–95% CI of the mean; the solid red circle with error bars shows the median and interquartile range of the clinical data for RVX-208 at the 150 mg dose reported in (22).
Comparison of the lipid measures reported in (22) and model simulations of the LMK model
| RVX-208 (150 mg Dose) | ||
| Reported Data | Model Simulation | |
| Upregulation of ApoA-I synthesis (%) | NA | 6.8 |
| Change in HDL-C (%) | 8.3 (−1.9 to 17.9) | 8.3 (7.6–9.1) |
| Change in ApoA-I (%) | 5.6 (−1.1 to 14.3) | 5.9 (5.4–6.6) |
| Change in HDL particle concentration (%) | 5.1 (−4.8 to 16.5) | 4.8 (4.3–5.2) |
| Change in HDL particle size (%) | 1.1 (−1.1 to 2.4) | 0.7 (0.6–0.7) |
| Change in LDL-C (%) | 1.0 (−14.2 to 10.1) | 8.4 (7.8–9.3) |
| Change in RCT rate (%) | 8.5 (7.9–9.4) | |
Clinical data are given with their median and interquartile range; simulation results are given with mean and 95% CI of mean .
Fig. 3.Simulated profiles of lipid parameters and RCT for CSL-111; solid line is the mean of population and the dotted lines are the 5–95% CI of the mean. The solid red circle shows clinical data (6) where available.
Comparison of the changes in lipid measures reported in (6) and model simulations using the LMK model for CSL-111 infusions
| CSL-111 (80 mg/kg Dose) | ||
| Reported Data | Model Simulation | |
| Change in LDL-C (%) | 14.3 | 13.5 (11.2–16.8) |
| Change in HDL-C (%) | 18.2 | 12.3 (10.2–15.5) |
Clinical data are given as percent change in mean values (pre-infusion and 5–7 days post-infusion) and the model predictions are given with mean and 95% CI of the mean.
Comparison of the lipid measures reported in (21) with model simulations using the LMK model corresponding to a delipidation procedure of 1 l of blood
| Reported Data | Model Simulation | |||
| Prior to Delipidation | After Delipidation | Prior to Delipidation | After Delipidation | |
| Lipid-poor ApoA-I (%) | 5.6 | 79.1 | 4.5 (2.8–7.6) | 80.9 (80.6–81.5) |
| α-HDL (%) | 92.8 | 20.9 | 95.5 (92.4–97.2) | 19.1 (18.5–19.4) |
Fig. 4.Simulated profiles of lipid parameters and RCT for selective HDL delipidation; solid line is the mean of population and the dotted lines are the 5–95% CI of the mean.
Fig. 5.Mean response of virtual population for ApoA-I upregulation (solid line) and ABCA1 upregulation (dashed line). A: HDL-C increase with anti-miR-33 with NHP (circle), HDL-C increase with RVX-208 in NHP (square), and HDL-C with highest tested dose of 150 mg BID in humans with RVX-208 (diamond). B: Lipid-poor ApoA-I. C: RCT rate.
Published IVUS data for the interventions explored in this work and the predictions for RCT
| Intervention | Study Arm | Change in PAV | Change in AV (mm3) | Change in AV (%) | Reference |
| RVX-208 | RVX-208 at 100 mg bid for 26 weeks (n = 243) | −0.4 (median) | −4.2 | — | ASSURE study ( |
| Placebo for 26 weeks (n = 80) | −0.3 (median) | −3.8 | — | ||
| CSL-111 | CSL-111 at 4 weekly infusions of 40 mg/kg (n = 89) | — | −5.34 (median) | −3.41 (median) | ERASE study ( |
| Placebo (n = 47) | — | −2.33 (median) | −1.62 (median) | ||
| Delipidation | HDL delipidation, seven plasmapheresis 1 week apart (n = 14) | — | −12.18 (mean) | — | ( |
| Control (n = 12) | — | 2.8 (mean) | — | ||
| CETP inhibitor | Torcetrapib + atorvastatin | 0.12 (mean) | — | — | ILLUSTRATE ( |
| Atorvastatin | 0.19 (mean) | — | — |
AV, atheroma volume; PAV, percent atheroma volume.