Screening and treatment of familial hypercholesterolemia in a French sample of ambulatory care patients: A retrospective longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Untreated Familial Hypercholesterolemia (FH) leads to premature morbidity and mortality. In France, its epidemiology and management are understudied in ambulatory care. We described the clinical profile, pharmacological management, and clinical outcomes in a French sample of FH patients.
METHODS: This was a retrospective longitudinal study on patients from The Health Improvement Network (THIN®) database in France, between October 2016-June 2019. Patients ≥18 years, with probable/definite FH based on the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) criteria were included. Baseline characteristics, lipid profile, lipid-lowering therapy (LLT), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement; and disease management at 6-month of follow-up were analyzed.
RESULTS: 116 patients with probable (n = 70)/definite (n = 46) FH were included (mean age:57.8±14.0 years; 56.0% women; 9.5% with personal history of cardiovascular events); 90 patients had data available at follow-up. At baseline, 77.6% of patients had LDL-C>190 mg/dL, 27.6% were not receiving LLTs, 37.9% received statins alone, 20.7% statins with other LLTs, and 7.7% other LLTs. High-intensity statins were prescribed to 11.2% of patients, 30.2% received moderate-intensity statins, and 8.6% low-intensity statins. Only 6.0% of patients achieved LDL-C goal. At 6-month of follow-up, statins discontinuation and switching were 22.7% and 2.3%, respectively. None of the patients received proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors at baseline nor follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the existence of effective LLTs, FH patients are suboptimally-treated, do not achieve LDL-C goal, and exhibit worsened pharmacological management over time. Future studies with longer follow-up periods and assessment of factors affecting LDL-C management, including lifestyle and diet, are needed.

Introduction

Familial Hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a group of inherited genetic defects resulting in lifelong elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) [1-5]. FH is more common than previously believed [6, 7]. Worldwide, it affects 1 in 311 [6] to 313 [7] people of every race and ethnicity [1], making it one of the most common serious genetic disorders [5, 6]. In Europe, the prevalence of FH in the general population is estimated at 0.3% [6, 7]. In France, the most recent population surveys estimated the prevalence of FH at about 0.83% [8].

When left untreated, FH unequivocally put patients at increased risk for premature morbidity and mortality due to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) [1, 2, 5, 9–14]. The risk of cardiac disease among FH patients increases between 13 [2] and 22 folds [15] compared with the general population. Further, FH patients are predicted to have 3.9 times more lifetime cardiovascular (CV) events than non-FH patients with a similar risk profile [16].

Different guidelines and statements agree on the importance of early diagnosis and adequate treatment as cornerstones to prevent premature CVD and improve overall survival of patients [17-19]. However, FH remains substantially underdiagnosed and undertreated [2]. In European countries, diagnosis rates range between 6% in Spain and 71% in the Netherlands, and these numbers seem to be overestimated [2]. Until now, late FH diagnosis remains the norm across all world regions, including Europe [20]. Further, a large body of evidence reports massive under-treatment of subjects with FH, including an insufficient dose of Lipid-Lowering Therapy (LLT), and late introduction of the treatment, when severe atherosclerosis had already developed [21-23]. The Copenhagen General Population Study reports that only 48% of FH patients received statins [24].

A global call to action was initiated to recognize FH as a health priority, acknowledging that considerable gains to health are achievable through optimal diagnosis and treatment [3].

In France, there is no clear knowledge about FH, its epidemiology and management in-depth, as there is a lack of longitudinal information from large databases [8, 25]. In light of the scarcity of available data, we aimed to explore the clinical profile and pharmacological management in patients with FH using data from a large French sample in ambulatory care, with the ultimate goal of informing advancements in patient care and outcomes.

Materials and methods

Study design and source of data

This was a retrospective longitudinal study, based on a subset of patients from The Health Improvement Network (THIN®) database in France. THIN® is a large real-world medico-economic European database, powered by GERS Data, a Cegedim Health Data Division. It comprises fully anonymized and non-extrapolated electronic medical records (EMR) collected at the physicians-level and coded using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes. THIN® database includes information on prescribed medicines per patient, and those reimbursed by the French National Insurance Healthcare Fund (CNAM). Data were collected by 2,000 General Practitioners (GPs), 130 cardiologists, and 40 endocrinologists, receiving 5.5 million patients regularly in their community office.

The database obtained approval from the French National Data Protection Authority (CNIL) for data collection since 2002. As the study was a retrospective analysis using secondary anonymized patient data only, no additional ethical approval was needed.

Since 2016, physicians are alerted to LDL-C levels >190 mg/dL, suggesting a case of FH, and invited to complete the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) score. These criteria are validated to be used in daily practice to identify patients with FH who warrant aggressive treatment, their use is widespread across Europe [19, 26], and are recommended to establish the clinical diagnosis of FH by the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) [2, 19]. The DLCN is a composite score that predicts the likelihood of a patient having FH and allows the classification of patients into probability groups of FH, ranging from unlikely, to possible, probable, or definite FH diagnosis. It is based on a combination of five dimensions: 1) Family history, i.e. having a first-degree relative with known premature coronary heart disease (CHD), or a first-degree relative with known LDL-C >95th percentile by age and sex for country, or a first-degree relative with tendon xanthoma and/or corneal arcus, or a child <18 years with LDL-C >95th percentile by age and sex for country; 2) Clinical history corresponds to premature CHD or premature cerebral or peripheral vascular disease; 3) Physical examination confirming the presence of tendon xanthoma or corneal arcus in a person <45 years; 4) high LDL-C levels; and 5) Molecular genetic testing and the finding of a causative mutation, if available. Definite Unlikely FH is diagnosed with a score between 0 and 2 points, possible FH diagnosis can be made with a score between 3 and 5 points, probable FH diagnosis corresponds to a score between 6 and 8 points, and FH is diagnosed with a score higher than 8 points [2, 18].

Study population

Patients ≥18 years, with probable FH (6–8 points) or definite FH (>8 points) on the DLCN score at index date were included. The inclusion period extended between 01 October 2016 and 30 June 2019.

Study period

The index date was the date of the first recording of the DLCN score of the patient by the consented physician into the database. A two-year lookback period was used to collect baseline characteristics and treatments prescribed. However, the baseline assessment was based on the closest measurement prior to the index date. After the baseline assessment, the patient was followed-up for a period of 6 months.

Outcome measures

Baseline characteristics included: demographic characteristics (age and gender); clinical characteristics/laboratory measurements (lipid panel including total-cholesterol, LDL-C and triglycerides levels); basic CV risk factors (history of familial dyslipidemia, body mass index (BMI) calculated as weight in kg/height in m2, and comorbidities (diabetes defined as diagnosis of diabetes and/or prescription/reimbursement of at least 3 oral antidiabetic agents and/or insulin in the last 2 years; hypertension: defined as diagnosis of hypertension and/or blood pressure (BP) ≥140/90 mmHg; and CVD defined as diagnosis of at least one of the following: myocardial infarction, chronic ischemic heart disease, stable angina, unstable angina, ischemic stroke, carotid artery disease, transient ischemic attack, peripheral artery disease, abdominal aortic aneurysm); LLT defined as any single prescription of statins, ezetimibe, statin and ezetimibe in fixed or separate combinations, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, statin and PCSK9 inhibitors combinations, or other LLTs (nicotinic acid, fibrates, bile acid sequestrants); statins intensity, categorized into high, medium and low-intensity based on the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline [27]; and LDL-C goal achievement defined as the number (%) of patients who achieved LDL-C goal (LDL-C <130 mg/dL in patients without CVD, and LDL-C <70 mg/dL in those with CVD) [14].

The outcomes consisted of disease management at 6-month of follow-up, categorized as LLT discontinuation (defined as any LLT prescription at index date but no LLT prescription at 6-month of follow-up), switching (defined as different LLT/combination of LLT prescribed during follow-up than the LLT prescribed at index date, i.e. drug or drugs at index date no longer used during follow-up), increase (defined as one or more new LLT started during follow-up with index drugs also still continued), decrease (defined as one or more LLT at index date no longer taken at follow-up, but one or more LLT at index date still continued), or no change (defined as no change in LLT drugs prescribed between index date and follow-up); and cumulative all-cause hospitalizations during the follow-up period.

Statistical considerations

All data were collected and analyzed at baseline and at the end of the 6-month of follow-up. Descriptive analyses were performed for all baseline characteristics and outcomes of interest. Continuous variables were described using mean, standard deviation (SD), median, quartiles and minimum and maximum values. Categorical variables were described using percentage and 95% confidence interval for each category.

Results

The analysis included 45,487 patients with an LDL-C level >190 mg/dL. Of these, 1,098 subjects (2.4%) had a DLCN score completed between 01 October 2016 and 30 June 2019 (Fig 1). Patients with unlikely FH (n = 435) or possible FH (n = 547) DLCN scores were excluded. Therefore, at baseline, the study cohort included 116 patients with probable FH (n = 70) or definite FH (n = 46) DLCN scores; of whom ten (8.6%) had a genetic confirmation of their FH status. Physical stigmata of FH were detected in 19 patients (16.3%). Ninety patients (77.6%) had data available for the 6-month follow-up; of whom 58 patients (64.4%) had at least one contact with the physician during this period.

Fig 1

Flowchart of study subjects.

LDL-C, Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LLT, Lipid-lowering therapy; DLCN, Dutch Lipid Clinic Network; FH, Familial hypercholesterolemia. aAn unlikely FH refers to a DLCN score of 0 to 2 points. bA possible FH refers to a DLCN score of 3 to 5 points. cA probable FH refers to a DLCN score of 6 to 8 points. dA definite FH refers to a DLCN score of above 8 points.

The baseline characteristics of the cohort are shown in Table 1. Mean age was 57.8±14.0 years, 56.0% of the patients were women, and 56.0% had a family history of dyslipidemia. Within this cohort, 11.2% were obese, and 34.5% had at least one comorbidity; the most common comorbidity was hypertension (28.4%), followed by CVD (9.5%).

Table 1

Demographic characteristics and comorbidities of patients with probable or definite FH at baseline.

	All patients	Probable FH	Definite FH
	N = 116, % [95% CI]	N = 70, % [95% CI]	N = 46, % [95% CI]
Demographic Characteristics
Age, years, mean (SD)	57.8 (14.0)	60.9 (12.7)	53.0 (14.7)
Gender
Females	65, 56.0 [46.5–65.2]	40, 57.1 [44.7–68.9]	25, 54.3 [39.0–69.1]
Males	51, 44.0 [34.8–53.5]	30, 42.9 [31.1–55.3]	21, 45.7 [30.9–61.0]
History of familial dyslipidaemia*	65, 56.0 [46.5–65.2]	35, 50.0 [37.8–62.2]	30, 65.2 [49.8–78.6]
Comorbidities
Diabetes	10, 8.6 [4.2–15.3]	7, 10.0 [4.1–19.5]	3, 6.5 [1.4–17.9]
Hypertension	33, 28.4 [20.5–37.6]	24, 34.3 [23.3–46.6]	9, 19.6 [9.4–33.9]
CVD	11, 9.5 [4.8–16.3]	9, 12.9 [6.1–23.0]	2, 4.3 [0.5–14.8]
Myocardial Infarction	-	-	-
Ischaemic Stroke	-	-	-
Peripheral Artery Disease	2, 1.7 [0.2–6.1]	1, 1.4 [<0.1–7.7]	1, 2.2 [0.1–11.5]
CIHD	4, 3.4 [0.9–8.6]	2, 2.9 [0.3–9.9]	2, 4.3 [0.5–14.8]
Stable Angina	3, 2.6 [0.5–7.4]	3, 4.3 [0.9–12.0]	-
Unstable Angina	-	-	-
Carotid Artery Disease	2, 1.7 [0.2–6.1]	2, 2.9 [0.3–9.9]	-
Transient Ischemic Attack	2, 1.7 [0.2–6.1]	2, 2.9 [0.3–9.9]	-
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm	1, 0.9 [<0.1–4.7]	1, 1.4 [<0.1–7.7]	-
Obesity
Non-obese	71, 61.2 [51.7–70.1]	39, 55.7 [43.3–67.6]	32, 69.6 [54.2–82.3]
Obese	13, 11.2 [6.1–18.4]	7, 10.0 [4.1–19.5]	6, 13.0 [4.9–26.3]
Missing	32, 27.6 [19.7–36.7]	24, 34.3 [23.3–46.6]	8, 17.4 [7.8–31.4]
Any of the comorbidities listed above	40, 34.5 [25.9–43.9]	28, 40.0 [28.5–52.4]	12, 26.1 [14.3–41.1]

FH, Familial hypercholesterolemia; SD, Standard deviation; CI, Confidence interval; CVD, Cardiovascular disease; CIHD, Chronic ischemic heart disease.

*ICD-10 code of FH (E78.01).

Fig 2 details the lipid panel of the study participants at baseline. Overall, 77.6% of patients had an LDL-C level >190 mg/dL; 5.2% had an LDL-C level >325 mg/dL. Only 10.3% had an LDL-C level <160 mg/dL, and 6.9% had an LDL-C level between 160 and 190 mg/dL. Of the cohort, 82.8% had a total-cholesterol level ≥200 mg/dL; 37.0% had a triglycerides level ≥150 mg/dL. Finally, just 6.0% of the cohort achieved LDL-C treatment goal at baseline.

Fig 2

Lipid panel of study subjects at baseline.

Min, Minimum; Max, Maximum; Q, Quartile. aNumber of days to index-date: For all patients: Min: 0; Q1: 5; Q2: 43; Q3: 287; Max: 726; For patients with Definite FH: Min: 0; Q1: 8.5; Q2: 51.5; Q3: 333.5; Max: 687; For patients with Probable FH: Min: 0; Q1: 5; Q2: 25; Q3: 229; Max: 726. bNumber of days to index-date: For all patients: Min: 0; Q1: 5.5; Q2: 43; Q3: 265.5; Max: 726; For patients with Definite FH: Min: 0; Q1: 15; Q2: 54; Q3: 347; Max: 687; For patients with Probable FH: Min: 0; Q1: 5; Q2: 22; Q3: 199; Max: 726. cNumber of days to index-date: For all patients: Min: 0; Q1: 6; Q2: 47.5; Q3: 310.5; Max: 726; For patients with Definite FH: Min: 0; Q1: 15; Q2: 84; Q3: 347; Max: 709; For patients with Probable FH: Min: 0; Q1: 5; Q2: 25; Q3: 297; Max: 726. dThe index date is the date of the first entry of the DLCN score of the patient by the consented physician into the database.

Change of clinical management during the follow-up period

Therapeutic management of FH patients is shown in Table 2. At baseline, 27.6% of the patients were not receiving any LLTs. While only 37.9% received statin monotherapy, 6.0% received ezetimibe alone, 20.7% were prescribed statins in combination with other LLTs (including 15.5% with ezetimibe and 5.2% with LLTs other than ezetimibe). Finally, 7.7% of the patients received a combination of LLTs other than statins. Regarding statin intensity, only 11.2% of the study subjects were treated with high-intensity statins, 30.2% received moderate-intensity statins, and 8.6% were prescribed low-intensity statins (statin intensity was unknown for 8.6% of patients). At 6-month of follow-up, the percentage of patients not receiving any LLT increased to 47.8%; the percentage of patients receiving statins only decreased to 27.8%, and the percentage of patients prescribed statins and ezetimibe decreased to 12.2%. Further, the percentage of patients treated with high-intensity statins decreased to 8.9%, and those prescribed moderate-intensity statins dropped from to 20.0%. None of the patients were prescribed PCSK9 inhibitors at baseline nor at 6-month of follow-up.

Table 2

Pharmacological management and clinical outcomes of patients with probable or definite FH, at baseline and at 6-month of follow-up.

	Baseline	Follow-up (month 6)
	N = 116, % [95% CI]	N = 90, % [95% CI]
LLT prescription
No LLT	32, 27.6 [19.7–36.7]	43, 47.8 [37.1–58.6]
Any LLT prescription	84, 72.4 [63.3–80.3]	47, 52.2 [41.4–62.9]
Monotherapy
Statins	44, 37.9 [29.1–47.4]	25, 27.8 [18.9–38.2]
Ezetimibe	7, 6.0 [2.5–12.0]	1, 1.1 [<0.1–6.0]
Combined therapy
Ezetimibe + Statins	18, 15.5 [9.5–23.4]	11, 12.2 [6.3–20.8]
Ezetimibe + Other LLT	2, 1.7 [0.2–6.1]	4, 4.4 [1.2–11.0]
Ezetimibe + Other LLT + Statins	3, 2.6 [0.5–7.4]	-
Other LLT	7, 6.0 [2.5–12.0]	6, 6.7 [2.5–13.9]
Other LLT + Statins	3, 2.6 [0.5–7.4]	-
Statin intensitya
Unknown	10, 8.6 [4.2–15.3]	7, 7.8 [3.2–15.4]
Low	10, 8.6 [4.2–15.3]	3, 3.3 [0.7–9.4]
Moderate	35, 30.2 [22.0–39.4]	18, 20.0 [12.3–29.8]
High	13, 11.2 [6.1–18.4]	8, 8.9 [3.9–16.8]
Clinical Outcomes
Hospitalizations, all causes
Number of patients hospitalized	-	3, 3.3 [0.7–9.4]

FH, Familial hypercholesterolemia; CI, Confidence interval; LLT, Lipid-lowering therapy; LDL-C, Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

aAny statin, excluding statin + ezetimibe fixed combination.

Change in LLT prescription between baseline and follow-up is detailed in Fig 3, and S1 Table. The majority of patients (71.9%) without an LLT prescription at baseline maintained this status at follow-up. Around half of the patients (47.7%) receiving statins at baseline maintained this prescription at 6-month of follow-up, while 22.7% discontinued therapy, and only one patient (2.3%) was prescribed additional ezetimibe. More than half of the patients (55.6%) prescribed statins and ezetimibe at baseline maintained their status, while 5.6% stopped the treatment. Over time, statin users rarely switched therapies (2.3%), compared with those receiving a combination of statins and ezetimibe (11.1%) or other LLTs (14.3%).

Fig 3

LLT change status of patients with definite or probable FH at 6-month of follow-up.

Discontinued defined as any LLT prescription at index date but no LLT prescription at 6-month of follow-up. Switching defined as different LLT/combination of LLT prescribed during follow-up than the LLT prescribed at index date. Increase defined as one or more new LLT started during follow-up with index drugs also still continued. Decrease defined as one or more LLT at index date no longer taken at follow-up, but one or more LLT at index date still continued. No change defined as no change in LLT drugs prescribed between index date and follow-up.

More than half of the patients (53.8%) prescribed high-intensity statins at baseline maintained their status at 6-month of follow-up. Only 2.9% of those receiving moderate-intensity statins intensified their therapy at follow-up, while 42.9% maintained their baseline intensity. Ten percent of patients receiving low-intensity statins at baseline were prescribed a higher intensity at follow-up, while 30% kept their baseline intensity (S2 Table). During the follow-up period, only 3 patients (3.3%) were hospitalized.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study in France to screen for FH in a cohort using ambulatory care EMR from a large database and to support GPs, and ambulatory cardiologists and endocrinologists in identifying those who need to be treated. Our results provide evidence on clinical profiles, pharmacological management, and LDL-C goal attainment in FH, thus informing care of this understudied patient-population in France.

Clinical profiles

Underdiagnosis of FH patients remains a universal finding [28, 29], and is assumed to be more frequent among young adults, as they are less likely to refer to their physicians [30]. Recently, numerous efforts have been made in France to improve the national diagnosis and management of FH [31, 32]. Our study specifically pinpoints this issue in France, as reported by other large studies [8, 25], and adds evidence about the important role of primary care in identifying patients with FH, as found elsewhere [33-35]. Although being relatively young in age, patients included in our cohort study exhibit a cluster of CV risk factors, including poor LDL-C and triglycerides profiles at baseline, and a high level of comorbidities, all of which are known to be independently associated with CVD [36, 37], adding to the inherent CVD risk of FH [16], whether treated or not [38]; which was also shown in French patients [8]. It is worthy to note that in this study patients having a probable or definite FH were younger than those with unlikely or possible FH (mean age±SD: 57.8±14.0 vs. 61.5±12.6 years), and a greater proportion of them had LDL-C levels >190 mg/dL (77.6% vs. 67.0%) (S3 Table).

Pharmacological management

Our findings confirm that, despite this elevated CV risk, FH in France is undertreated, and when LLT is provided, the therapy is suboptimal. LLT prescription in this cohort is not in line with the national guidelines for standard practice [14], as well as the European guidelines [19] that recommend prescribing first-line high-intensity statins in combination with diet and lifestyle changes among patients with an LDL-C level >190 mg/dL to reduce it by 50%, and consider adding PCSK9 inhibitors if failed to attain the goal [14]. Despite the high-quality evidence of the safety, effectiveness, and tolerance of PCSK9 inhibitors and even though these agents are reimbursed in France (although not in all forms of FH), none of the patients included in this study were prescribed PCSK9 inhibitors at baseline nor follow-up. Underuse of this therapy is a missed opportunity for improving patient outcomes; this underuse might be caused by numerous reasons. First, the initial prescription of these agents is reserved for specialties in cardiology, endocrinology, diabetes and metabolic diseases or internal medicine, while in our study, the patients were mostly seen by GPs. Second, the initial reimbursement of PCSK9 inhibitors in France was published between January and February 2018, while our data collection ended in June 2019; thus, most physicians could not prescribe. Third, the reimbursement of PCSK9 inhibitors was restricted to homozygous FH patients, and heterozygous FH patients treated with LCL-C apheresis, at the time the study was conducted (the reimbursement of PCSK9 inhibitors for secondary prevention of CV events, independently of FH status, was published in July 2020). Fourth, underuse of these agents might only be due to the short duration of follow-up (6 months), as PCSK9 inhibitors are used as second line agents, after failure of therapy with statins alone.

Our findings are in line with the results of the third French MONICA and MONALISA population surveys among patients with probable or definite FH and underscore the issue of undertreatment of FH patients in France [8]. Also, our results add to the international literature regarding the universal issue of undertreatment of FH patients, whereby treatment with LLTs ranged between 25.8% [39] in Canada to 48% in Denmark [24], 53% in the Netherlands [40] and 84% in Spain [41]. Hence, LDL-C goal achievement ranged between 3.4% in Spain [41] and 23% [40] in the Netherlands.

Besides highlighting the massive undertreatment of this population, our findings provide evidence on a worsened pharmacological management and underutilization of LLT over time, and these results are more alarming that what was reported elsewhere. For instance, data from the national screening program in the Netherlands [42] showed an increase in LLT prescription from 39% to 93% one-year following the initial examination. Besides, during the 6-month follow-up period, only 77.5% of the initial cohort were retained for evaluation, as follow-up data were not available for 22.5% of the cohort. Generally, numerous barriers on the part of patients, their families, physicians, and health systems hinder the treatment of the disorder [17]. Besides underdiagnosis at baseline which hinders treatment initiation, undertreatment might be due to the relatively young age of our cohort, and the occurrence of adverse reactions [43, 44], two factors that are strongly associated with poor compliance with LLTs. Also, this may be due to the suboptimal knowledge of FH and its management, as well as the underestimation of its CV risk by physicians providing care to FH patients in France, as shown by a recent survey in a representative sample of physicians [4]. Possibly, within the context of the "French Paradox", French physicians think that patients with FH have a lower coronary artery disease risk than FH patients elsewhere [8]. Likewise, young FH patients perceive their vulnerability to CVD as low [45], which may affect their adherence to LLTs [46]. As undertreatment of FH is associated with unfavorable outcomes, increasing compliance with LLTs should become a major concern for physicians. Early and frequent follow-up by physicians, especially lipid testing, is associated with improved adherence to LLTs [47].

Strengths and limitations

This study uses real-world data from a national, large, established, and quality-assured database, where the information on FH was routinely and prospectively collected [48]. Using the DLCN criteria to diagnose FH is another strength of this study. Although genetic testing is the gold standard to ascertain the diagnosis of FH [14], recently, the Task Force for the management of dyslipidaemias of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) recommend that FH should be diagnosed using clinical criteria and confirmed, when possible, via DNA analysis [19]. These criteria are most frequently used in population surveys in FH, as they show a good diagnostic and predictive value [26, 49, 50], and their use has been fostered among GPs [30]. Moreover, as the DLCN criteria were completed by the physician, the bias from missing values should be limited. Finally, we relied on prescribed and reimbursed medicines per patient.

On the other hand, based on the DLCN algorithm, a patient may obtain sufficient points to be categorized as a definite case solely from the non-LDL categories (family history, personal clinical history, physical exam). Besides, due to lack of time or by insufficient knowledge on FH and its risks by the physicians, selection bias may exist towards patients that are better followed-up by their physicians. Further, missing evaluation for some lifestyle factors limited the description of the characteristics of the patients included, and limited our ability to evaluate factors confounding the management of the patients. Additionally, there is the potential of misreporting of information in the existing health systems from where data are retrieved (EMR) as data are collected voluntarily. Moreover, familial combined hyperlipidemia or secondary causes of FH were not explored; the study did not entail molecular genetic testing to confirm FH status; hence all cases of probable/definite FH based on the DLCN score, irrespective of the cause, were included. This is a limitation of analyses using secondary patient data. Further, just as with all clinical database analyses, our findings dependent on the quality of information entered into the database. In some cases, incomplete or improper recording of some variables or diagnoses might take place, potentially leading to misclassification of some patients into subgroups. Due to the short-term duration of the study, we relied on surrogate outcomes and did not collect data on hard outcomes including mortality, and incidence recurrent CV events during follow-up (only all-cause hospitalizations during follow-up were reported). Also, data on LDL-C levels during follow-up were unavailable for the majority of patients, hindering our ability to assess attainment of treatment goal at follow-up. Besides, the short duration of the follow-up does not allow us to get the whole picture on second line treatment. Finally, our results may not be representative of the whole FH population in France, thus not be generalizable to this population.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to explore clinical profiles and pharmacological management of clinically-diagnosed FH patients, as specified in international guidelines, in primary care practice in France. This study provides evidence that the diagnosis of FH is possible within general medicine, and integral to the GPs’ activity; the latter are in the best position to identify patients before they manifest CV events. Also, our findings provide real-world evidence that FH patients in France are underdiagnosed, undertreated, and do not attain therapeutic LDL-C goals in ambulatory care settings, although effective therapy is available. Because of the debilitating clinical, societal and economic burden of untreated FH, it is imperative to escalate screening, and diagnosing of FH, intensify LLTs and make use of novel options such as PCSK9 inhibitors to reduce patients’ CV risk, improve their prognoses, and alleviate the disease’s burden.

LLT prescriptions of patients with definite or probable FH, at baseline and at month-6 of follow-upa.

LLT, Lipid-lowering therapy; FH, Familial hypercholesterolemia. aData are presented as n (%).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Statin intensity of patients with definite or probable FH, at baseline and at month-6 of follow-upa.

aData are presented as n (%). bAny statin, excluding statin + ezetimibe fixed combination. FH, Familial hypercholesterolemia.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Demographic and clinical characteristics and comorbidities of patients with definite, probable, possible or unlikely FH, at baselinea.

FH, Familial hypercholesterolemia; SD, Standard deviation; CI, Confidence interval; CVD, Cardiovascular disease; CIHD, Chronic ischemic heart disease; LDL, Low-density lipoprotein; Min, Minimum; Max, Maximum; Q, Quartile; LLT, Lipid lowering therapy. aThe index date is the date of the first entry of the DLCN score of the patient by the consented physician into the database. bAny statin, excluding statin + ezetimibe fixed combination.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

23 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-38253

Screening and treatment of Familial Hypercholesterolemia in a French sample of ambulatory care patients: a retrospective longitudinal cohort study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ferrières,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 07 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Antonio Palazón-Bru, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

"This study was funded by Amgen."

We note that one or more of the authors have an affiliation to the commercial funders of this research study : Amgen Ltd, Amgen SAS, Amgen (Europe) GmbH.

Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: FJ received lecture fees from the companies Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Sanofi and Servier. LG and BL have no conflict of interest to declare. PD, GF, RL, DBM, CJV, VG and DG own stock in and are full-time employee of Amgen. BV was a contract worker at Amgen."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: GERS SAS.

4.1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring these commercial affiliations, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organizations did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has studied the follow up of patients with FH . The Manuscript has been written in a well designed , and would be acceptable for publication. I have the following question:

1- What is the TG cut of for evalauting FH?

2- how the authors were assure that these patients are not familial combined hyperlipidemia?

3- Did the authors conduct genetic study?

Reviewer #2: The authors present data on characteristics and treatment patterns of 116 patients with FH in France.

Overall the findings are consistent with many other studies in other jurisdictions, including in France. The study is sound. The sample size is very small. A number of issues could be improved:

1. More data on how DLCN scores were derived are needed. How often was genetic testing used? In what percentage of patients were physical stigmata of FH detected?

2. How were secondary caused of hypercholesterolemia excluded?

3. The most notable finding was that of the 45,487 patients with an LDL-C level >190 mg/dL for whom the physician was alerted to calculate a DLCN score, a score was calculated in only 1098 patients. More details about what accounts for this gap are required. Was the primary limitation lack of familiarity with the DLCN score (and what decision support was provided to clinicians?).

4. It would also be helpful to show how many patients had an ICD-10 code of FH (E78.01) and what was the overalp with the patients win whom a DLCN score was calculated.

5. The lack of use of PCSK9 inhibitors is notable and in contrast to other contemporary cohorts of patients with FH. Does this relate to reimbursement criteria in France?

6. Some of the references are innapropriate. For instance, on page 17: "whereby

336 treatment with LLTs ranged between 25.8% [40] in Canada". Ref 40 refers to a study in the Netherlands, not in Canada. Please provide appropriate references for these statements.

7. The authors seem to overestimate the impact of the work. Eg "This study pioneers in generating national data regarding the management of FH patients in France". In fact, other studies have previously reported on FH in France such as reference 8 in the manuscript. Suggest toning down some of these conclusions.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

14 Jun 2021

Dear editor,

Thank you for your email dated March 23rd, 2021, enclosing the reviewers’ comments. We would like to thank the editorial board and the reviewers for the careful and thorough review of this manuscript, and for their thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which we feel have substantially contributed to improve our manuscript.

We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. We have addressed the comments that were raised by the reviewers and our responses are presented in a point-by-point manner below.

The changes implemented are tracked in the manuscript. The revision has been developed in consultation with all coauthors, and each coauthor has given approval to the final version of the manuscript.

We hope that the responses are satisfactory and that the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Jean Ferrieres, MD, PhD, FESC

Corresponding author

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has studied the follow up of patients with FH. The Manuscript has been written in a well-designed, and would be acceptable for publication. I have the following question:

We thank the reviewer for the effort invested in reviewing this manuscript and for their interesting comments.

1- What is the TG cut off for evaluating FH?

Indeed, the classification of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) in this study was based on the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) score, as per the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines [1]. This score relies on five criteria: family history, clinical history of premature coronary heart disease (CHD) or cerebral or peripheral vascular disease, physical examination for tendon xanthomas or corneal arcus, very high LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) level on repeated measurements, and/or a causative mutation detected by molecular genetic testing. Triglycerides (TG) level is not within these criteria; thus, it was not used to evaluate FH. TG levels are merely reported as part of the description of the study population [Figure 2 and S3 Table in the manuscript].

[1] Nordestgaard BG, Chapman MJ, Humphries SE, Ginsberg HN, Masana L, Descamps OS, Wiklund O, Hegele RA, Raal FJ, Defesche JC, Wiegman A. Familial hypercholesterolaemia is underdiagnosed and undertreated in the general population: guidance for clinicians to prevent coronary heart disease: consensus statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society. European heart journal. 2013 Dec 1;34(45):3478-90.

2- How the authors were assuring that these patients are not familial combined hyperlipidemia?

In French hospitals and with specialist physicians, when a patient presents with a potential case of FH, after calculating the DLCN score and assess family tree, a measurement of apolipoprotein B (Apo B) is conducted. If the latter is shown to be high, this might indicate a case of familial combined hyperlipidemia. However, in an ambulatory setting and with general practitioners (GPs), as it is the case with this study, the measurement of Apo B is not done, since it is not reimbursed. Moreover, the confirmation of familial hyperlipidemia requires molecular genetic testing, which was not part of the information collected in the database used for this study. Accordingly, in this study, it cannot be ensured that patients do not have familial combined hyperlipidemia, since both measurement of Apo B and molecular genetic testing were not conducted nor available. This has been added to the limitations of the study [Lines 387-390 of the revised manuscript].

3- Did the authors conduct genetic study?

Only 10 patients (8.6%) had genetic confirmation of their FH status at the time of the DLCN assessment [Lines 185-186 in the revised manuscript]. These patients already underwent molecular genetic testing. However, molecular genetic testing was not an inclusion criterion in the current study, nor did the study entail molecular genetic testing to confirm FH status. This has been added to the limitations of the study [Lines 387-390 of the revised manuscript].

Reviewer #2: The authors present data on characteristics and treatment patterns of 116 patients with FH in France.

Overall the findings are consistent with many other studies in other jurisdictions, including in France. The study is sound. The sample size is very small. A number of issues could be improved:

We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful comments and recommendations, which were considered in the revised version of the manuscript. Specifically, all changes suggested by the reviewer were added in track changes in the revised version of the manuscript.

1. More data on how DLCN scores were derived are needed. How often was genetic testing used? In what percentage of patients were physical stigmata of FH detected?

The calculation of the DLCN score is done by the physician on a voluntary basis. During the medical visit, the physician received pop-up style windows from the electronic medical record (EMR) system if LCL-C>190 mg/dL, offering her/him to carry out screening for FH for the patient. The physician had to choose between 4 options: “yes”; “no, not now”; “no, don't ask me again for this patient” and “no, no longer ask me for all my patients”. If the physician selected “yes”, she/he were then invited to fill the DLCN score, thus providing additional or missing information not yet collected in the EMR for this specific patient.

Only 10 patients (8.6%) had genetic confirmation of their FH status at the time of the DLCN assessment [Lines 185-186 in the revised manuscript]. These patients already underwent molecular genetic testing. However, molecular genetic testing was not an inclusion criterion in the current study, nor did the study entail molecular genetic testing to confirm FH status. This has been added to the limitations of the study [Lines 387-390 of the revised manuscript].

Physical stigmata of FH were detected in 19 patients (16.3%) at the time of the DLCN assessment, this information has been added in the “Results / Study Population” section [Lines 186-187 of the revised manuscript].

2. How were secondary caused of hypercholesterolemia excluded?

Secondary causes of FH were not explored. Hence, all cases of FH, irrespective of the cause, were included. This has been added to the limitations of the study [Lines 387-390 of the revised manuscript].

3. The most notable finding was that of the 45,487 patients with an LDL-C level >190 mg/dL for whom the physician was alerted to calculate a DLCN score, a score was calculated in only 1098 patients. More details about what accounts for this gap are required. Was the primary limitation lack of familiarity with the DLCN score (and what decision support was provided to clinicians?).

The calculation of the DLCN score is done by the physician on a voluntary basis. During the medical visit, the physician received pop-up style windows from the EMR system if LCL-C>190 mg/dL, offering her/him to carry out screening for FH for the patient. The physician had to choose between 4 options: “yes”; “no, not now”; “no, don't ask me again for this patient” and “no, no longer ask me for all my patients”. If the physician selected “yes”, she/he were then invited to fill the DLCN score, thus providing additional or missing information not yet collected in the EMR for this specific patient.

The reasons behind not calculating the DLCN score were not reported in the database used for this study, and were not part of the aims of the current study. Burdensome pop-up alerts and clinical inertia may remain.

4. It would also be helpful to show how many patients had an ICD-10 code of FH (E78.01) and what was the overalp with the patients win whom a DLCN score was calculated.

This information is available in Table 1 [History of familial FH: N=65, 56.0%; 95%CI: 46.5 - 65.2]. For clarity, a footnote has been added to Table 1 providing further information on the exact ICD-10 code of FH [Line 210 of the revised manuscript].

5. The lack of use of PCSK9 inhibitors is notable and in contrast to other contemporary cohorts of patients with FH. Does this relate to reimbursement criteria in France?

Several reasons behind the underuse of PCSK9 inhibitors were already discussed in the “Discussion / Pharmacological management” section in the manuscript [Lines 320-331 of the revised manuscript], including: 1) the initial prescription of these agents that is reserved for specialties in cardiology, endocrinology, diabetes and metabolic diseases or internal medicine, while in this study, the patients were mostly seen by GPs; 2) the initial reimbursement of PCSK9 inhibitors in France that was published between January and February 2018, while the data collection in this study ended in June 2019; thus, most GPs could not prescribe them; 3) the reimbursement of PCSK9 inhibitors was restricted only to homozygous FH patients and heterozygous FH patients treated with LCL-C apheresis, at the time the study was conducted; 4) PCSK9 inhibitors are used as second line agents, after failure of therapy with statins alone, which may not be captured given the short duration of follow-up (6 months) in this study.

6. Some of the references are innapropriate. For instance, on page 17: "whereby 336 treatment with LLTs ranged between 25.8% [40] in Canada". Ref 40 refers to a study in the Netherlands, not in Canada. Please provide appropriate references for these statements.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this referencing error. The references have been corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.

7. The authors seem to overestimate the impact of the work. Eg "This study pioneers in generating national data regarding the management of FH patients in France". In fact, other studies have previously reported on FH in France such as reference 8 in the manuscript. Suggest toning down some of these conclusions.

This study on FH uses real-world data from a national, large, established, and quality-assured database, where the information on FH was routinely and prospectively collected. This is not the case of previous analyses of FH in France [1]. However, as per the reviewer’s comment, the sentence to describe this study has been changed as follows “This study uses real-world data from a national, large, established, and quality-assured database, where the information on FH was routinely and prospectively collected” [Line 365-368 of the revised manuscript].

[1] Bérard E, Bongard V, Haas B, Dallongeville J, Moitry M, Cottel D, Ruidavets JB, Ferrières J. Prevalence and treatment of familial hypercholesterolemia in France. Canadian Journal of Cardiology. 2019 Jun 1;35(6):744-52.

Submitted filename: Responsestoreviewers- 14062021.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 Jul 2021

Screening and treatment of Familial Hypercholesterolemia in a French sample of ambulatory care patients: a retrospective longitudinal cohort study

PONE-D-20-38253R1

Dear Dr. Ferrières,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Antonio Palazón-Bru, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

23 Jul 2021

PONE-D-20-38253R1

Screening and treatment of Familial Hypercholesterolemia in a French sample of ambulatory care patients: a retrospective longitudinal cohort study.

Dear Dr. Ferrières:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Antonio Palazón-Bru

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE