Aims We assembled a cohort of patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) for both basic and clinical research. We used a set of established diagnostic criteria to define FH. Some put forward that a definite diagnosis of FH is made when a mutation in the LDL-receptor (LDLR) gene is identified. We therefore set out to determine in these patients whether patients with a DNA diagnosis would differ significantly from those diagnosed clinically.

Methods and results We randomly selected 4000 hypercholesterolaemic patients from the Dutch Lipid Clinic network database. Phenotypical data were acquired by reviewing medical records. After review of medical records, 2400 patients could be defined as having FH. An LDLR mutation was identified in 52.3% of these patients. Patients with and without an LDLR mutation demonstrated different clinical and laboratory characteristics. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was higher in patients with an LDLR mutation, whereas triglycerides were higher in patients without an LDLR mutation. The phenotypic differences between the groups remained even after stratification for the presence or absence of tendon xanthomas.

Conclusion Despite the use of stringent clinical criteria to define FH patients, two cohorts could be identified within our study population, namely those patients with and those without an LDLR mutation. Our findings suggest that among those without an LDLR mutation, patients with other causes of dyslipidaemia may be present. These observations underline the relevance of genetic testing in FH for clinical practice, for screening purposes, and for research involving these patients.

Introduction

Heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a common (1:500) and inherited autosomal dominant disorder of lipoprotein metabolism. Clinically, FH is characterized by elevated serum levels of total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and the presence of tendon xanthomas, xanthelasmata, and/or an arcus cornealis. In most patients, there is also excessive deposition of cholesterol in the arterial wall, leading to accelerated atherosclerosis and premature cardiovascular disease (CVD). Typically, approximately 45% of male and 20% of female patients suffer from coronary artery disease (CAD) by the age of 50.1

The clinical diagnosis of FH is based on personal and family history, physical examination, and laboratory findings. The underlying molecular defect of FH consists of mutations in the gene coding for the LDL-receptor protein, detection of which provides the only unequivocal diagnosis.2 Therefore, there is a need for accurate clinical diagnostic criteria as long as a genetic diagnosis has not been made. We assembled a large cohort of FH patients for both clinical and basic research. We used a set of established clinical diagnostic criteria to define FH.1,36 Subsequently, the clinical and biochemical features of this FH cohort, stratified by the presence of LDL-receptor (LDLR) mutations as well as the presence of tendon xanthomas were compared.

Methods

Study design and study population

The present investigation was a retrospective, multi-centre, cohort study. The study population has been described elsewhere.7 Briefly, lipid clinics in the Netherlands submit DNA samples from clinically suspected FH patients to a central laboratory for LDL-receptor (LDLR) mutation analysis. This laboratory, located at the Academic Medical Centre of the University of Amsterdam, manages a DNA-bank database, which currently contains over 9300 samples.8 We randomly selected 4000 hypercholesterolaemic patients with the aid of a computer programme (Microsoft Excel) from this database. These patients had been referred from 27 Lipid Clinics throughout the Netherlands.

Phenotypical data were acquired by reviewing these patients' medical records by a trained team of data collectors.9 The inclusion and exclusion criteria for participation in the study are outlined in Table 1. The FH diagnostic criteria were based on criteria used in the USA (the MedPed criteria6), the UK (the Simon Broome Register criteria10), and the Netherlands (the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network criteria5). Contrary to the criteria we applied in our study, these sets distinguish ‘possible’ from ‘definite’ FH patients. Specifically, the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network uses a numeric score: the higher the score, the more probable the diagnosis of FH. If a mutation has not been identified, the presence of tendon xanthomas is required for a definite diagnosis of FH in the MedPed and Simon Broome Register criteria. In the Dutch scoring system, the presence of xanthomas is not required but increases the score substantially.

Table 1

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria 
Males and females 
Age 18 years and older 
FH diagnostic criteria 
Presence of a documented LDL-receptor mutation or 
LDL-cholesterol level above the 95th percentile for sex and age 
In combination with at least one of the following 
 The presence of typical tendon xanthomas in the patient or in a first degree relative 
 An LDL-cholesterol level above the 95th percentile for age and sex in a first degree relative 
 Proven CAD in the patient or in a first degree relative under the age of 60 
Exclusion criteria 
Secondary causes of hypercholesterolemia such as renal, liver, or thyroid disease 
Hypercholesterolemia due to other genetic defects, such as familial defective apolipoprotein B 
Inclusion criteria 
Males and females 
Age 18 years and older 
FH diagnostic criteria 
Presence of a documented LDL-receptor mutation or 
LDL-cholesterol level above the 95th percentile for sex and age 
In combination with at least one of the following 
 The presence of typical tendon xanthomas in the patient or in a first degree relative 
 An LDL-cholesterol level above the 95th percentile for age and sex in a first degree relative 
 Proven CAD in the patient or in a first degree relative under the age of 60 
Exclusion criteria 
Secondary causes of hypercholesterolemia such as renal, liver, or thyroid disease 
Hypercholesterolemia due to other genetic defects, such as familial defective apolipoprotein B 

Additional data were collected from the patients' medical records on classical risk factors for CVD, family history of CVD, medication use, physical examinations, laboratory parameters, and extensive information on CVD.7 All patients gave informed consent and the Ethics Institutional Review Board of each participating hospital approved the protocol.

Laboratory analysis

All laboratory parameters were measured in fasting blood samples. Lipid levels, as stated in the medical records, were determined after at least 6 weeks of withdrawal of any lipid-lowering medication.7 Mutations in the LDLR gene were assessed by methods described previously.11 In short, all patients were analysed by PCR for the 14 most common mutations found in the Netherlands.11 If no mutation was found, the promoter and all coding regions of the LDLR gene were analysed by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and aberrant bands were sequenced. In addition, long-range PCR and Southern blotting techniques were used to identify large deletions and insertions. However, since these techniques were time-consuming and not very discriminating, a different approach was used in a later stage: the promoter region and all exons (including exon-intron boundaries) of the LDLR gene were sequenced directly and major LDLR gene rearrangements were identified by the multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification technique.

Furthermore, exons 26 and 29 as ligand-binding domains of the APOB gene were sequenced in all patients.

Sample size

The sample size of 2400 is appropriate to detect a minimal difference of 0.2 standard deviations (continuous variables, t-test) or 10% (categorical variables, χ2-test) between groups with 90% power and a two-sided alpha of 0.001.

Statistical methods

Comparison of subgroups for continuous and categorical variables was performed using linear and logistic regression, respectively, with or without adjustment for possible confounders: age, gender, smoking, alcohol use, concomitant medication use, and body mass index (BMI). For all models, the generalized estimating equations method was used to correct for possible correlations between patients due to family relations. Total outpatient clinical follow-up was calculated for each individual as the difference between age at end of observation and age at first visit. For statistical testing, total clinical follow-up was rank transformed, whereas triglycerides and glucoses were loge-transformed. To correct for multiple testing, two-sided P-values <0.001 were regarded as statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using the SAS system (SAS 9.1; Cary, North Carolina). For the purpose of this study, a representative random sample of 199 patients was sequenced from the patients in whom an LDLR mutation was not yet found (denoted as the LDL-R minus group).

Results

After thorough review of the 4000 medical records and application of the FH diagnostic criteria, 2400 patients were defined as having FH (Figure 1). An LDLR mutation was identified in 52.3% of these patients (denoted as the LDL-R plus group). In the remaining 47.8% (denoted as the LDL-R minus group), an LDLR mutation has not yet been found, but at least the 14 most prevalent Dutch LDLR gene mutations can be excluded11. Further sequencing of the coding regions is currently being performed. In the random sample of 199 patients from the LDL-R minus group, an LDLR mutation was found by sequencing in 40 (20%) of these patients (data not shown). Individuals with inherited hypercholesterolaemia due to familial defective apolipoprotein B (FDB), caused by mutations in the apolipoprotein B gene, were excluded from this study.

Figure 1

Study subjects profile.

Figure 1

Study subjects profile.

The two cohorts demonstrated significantly different clinical and laboratory profiles (Table 2). LDL-C was higher in LDL-R plus patients, whereas triglycerides were higher in LDL-R minus patients. The LDL-R minus patients were older, more often males and had, on average, higher values of BMI, blood pressure, and glycaemia, in addition to a higher prevalence of smoking and a positive family history for premature CVD. The differences in lipid levels (including HDL-cholesterol), BMI and diastolic blood pressure remained significant after adjustment for age and gender. Differences in lipid levels remained significant also after adjustment for smoking, alcohol use, concomitant beta-blocker use, and BMI.

Table 2

Clinical characteristics of FH patients with and without a known LDL-receptor mutation

 LDL-R plus n=1255 LDL-R minus n=1145 P-value 

 
Demographics    
 Male gender (%) 45.8 (575/680) 52.8 (605/540) <0.001 
 Age at first visit (year) 42.1 (±12.6) 47.6 (±12.2) <0.001 
 Age at end of observation 48.0 (±13.4) 51.7 (±12.7) <0.001 
 Total outpatient clinic follow-up (years) 4.3 [2.0–8.5] 3.1 [1.2–6.1] <0.001 
Risk factors    
 Smoking, ever (%) 68.7 (787/359) 79.5 (811/209) <0.001 
 Hypertension 7.8 (97/1146) 11.7 (133/1000) 0.001 
 Diabetes mellitus (%) 5.0 (63/1192) 6.6 (75/1070) 0.114 
 First-degree family history of premature CVD (%) 56.4 (596/460) 65.5 (664/350) <0.001 
Physical examination    
 BMI (kg/m224.7 (±3.4) 25.6 (±3.6) <0.001 
 Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) 133 (±19) 137 (±20) <0.001 
 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) 81 (±10) 83 (±10) <0.001 
 Tendon xanthomas (%) 41.8 (489/682) 40.2 (419/624) 0.462 
Laboratory parameters    
 TC (mmol/L) 10.25 (±2.13) 8.80 (±1.54) <0.001 
 LDL cholesterol (mmol/L) 8.18 (±2.05) 6.61 (±1.47) <0.001 
 HDL cholesterol (mmol/L) 1.19 (±0.35) 1.23 (±0.36) 0.003 
 Triglycerides (mmol/L) 1.39 [0.98–2.03] 1.71 [1.24–2.35] <0.001 
 Glucose (mmol/L) 4.9 [4.5–5.3] 5.0 [4.6–5.5] <0.001 
 LDL-R plus n=1255 LDL-R minus n=1145 P-value 

 
Demographics    
 Male gender (%) 45.8 (575/680) 52.8 (605/540) <0.001 
 Age at first visit (year) 42.1 (±12.6) 47.6 (±12.2) <0.001 
 Age at end of observation 48.0 (±13.4) 51.7 (±12.7) <0.001 
 Total outpatient clinic follow-up (years) 4.3 [2.0–8.5] 3.1 [1.2–6.1] <0.001 
Risk factors    
 Smoking, ever (%) 68.7 (787/359) 79.5 (811/209) <0.001 
 Hypertension 7.8 (97/1146) 11.7 (133/1000) 0.001 
 Diabetes mellitus (%) 5.0 (63/1192) 6.6 (75/1070) 0.114 
 First-degree family history of premature CVD (%) 56.4 (596/460) 65.5 (664/350) <0.001 
Physical examination    
 BMI (kg/m224.7 (±3.4) 25.6 (±3.6) <0.001 
 Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) 133 (±19) 137 (±20) <0.001 
 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) 81 (±10) 83 (±10) <0.001 
 Tendon xanthomas (%) 41.8 (489/682) 40.2 (419/624) 0.462 
Laboratory parameters    
 TC (mmol/L) 10.25 (±2.13) 8.80 (±1.54) <0.001 
 LDL cholesterol (mmol/L) 8.18 (±2.05) 6.61 (±1.47) <0.001 
 HDL cholesterol (mmol/L) 1.19 (±0.35) 1.23 (±0.36) 0.003 
 Triglycerides (mmol/L) 1.39 [0.98–2.03] 1.71 [1.24–2.35] <0.001 
 Glucose (mmol/L) 4.9 [4.5–5.3] 5.0 [4.6–5.5] <0.001 

Values are given as mean levels (±SD), except where given as percentages (frequencies). Total outpatient clinic follow-up, triglycerides, and glucose are given as median [interquartile range]. LDL-R+/− indicates LDL receptor known/unknown.

Subsequently, both the LDL-R plus and the LDL-R minus groups were divided into two further groups, namely those characterized by the presence or absence of tendon xanthomas (Figure 1 and Table 3). LDL-R plus patients in whom tendon xanthomas are present are characterized by significantly increased mean TC and LDL-C when compared to LDL-R plus patients without tendon xanthomas (11.03 vs. 9.70 mmol/L and 8.94 vs. 7.66 mmol/L, respectively, both P<0.001) (3). Moreover, these patients are characterized by a higher prevalence of CAD (29.5 vs. 17.8% (data not shown). In the LDL-R minus group, patients with tendon xanthomas were also characterized by significantly increased TC and LDL-C levels (9.34 vs. 8.43 mmol/L and 7.20 vs. 6.25 mmol/L, respectively) (Table 3).

Table 3

Clinical characteristics of FH patients with (LDL-R plus) and without (LDL-R minus) a documented LDL-receptor mutation; stratified to the presence or absence of tendon xanthomas

 LDL-R plus LDL-R minus 
 Xanthomas present (n=489) Xanthomas absent (n=682) P-value Xanthomas present (n=419) Xanthomas absent (n=624) P-value 

 
Demographics       
 Male gender (%) 44.6 (218/271) 46.6 (318/364) 0.515 49.9 (209/210) 53.2 (332/292) 0.373 
 Age at first visit (year) 43.5 (±12.2) 40.4 (±12.5) <0.001 49.0 (±13.2) 46.5 (±11.8) 0.002 
 Age at end of observation 49.6 (±12.8) 45.8 (±13.2) <0.001 53.4 (±13.6) 50.2 (±12.4) <0.001 
 Total outpatient clinic follow-up (years) 4.6 [2.5–8.5] 3.9 [1.5–8.1] <0.001 3.4 [1.3–6.7] 2.7 [1.1–5.2] 0.004 
Risk factors       
 Smoking, ever (%) 69.8 (313/135) 68.1 (425/199) 0.589 73.7 (264/94) 81.7 (465/104) 0.005 
 Hypertension 9.1 (44/441) 6.7 (45/632) 0.166 11.3 (47/369) 12.0 (74/541) 0.689 
 Diabetes mellitus (%) 5.7 (28/461) 4.0 (27/655) 0.162 5.7 (24/395) 6.9 (43/581) 0.498 
 First-degree family history of premature CVD (%) 56.2 (248/193) 56.4 (321/248) 0.958 50.3 (184/182) 74.0 (425/149) <0.001 
Physical examination       
 BMI (kg/m225.0 (±3.5) 24.4 (±3.3) 0.002 25.6 (±3.8) 25.6 (±3.5) 0.918 
 Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) 134 (±19) 133 (±19) 0.527 137 (±20) 136 (±20) 0.736 
 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) 81 (±11) 80 (±10) 0.124 83 (±11) 83 (±10) 0.644 
Laboratory parameters       
 TC (mmol/L) 11.03 (±2.15) 9.70 (±1.95) <0.001 9.34 (±1.75) 8.43 (±1.27) <0.001 
 LDL-C (mmol/L) 8.94 (±2.07) 7.66 (±1.87) <0.001 7.20 (±1.75) 6.25 (±1.19) <0.001 
 HDL-C (mmol/L) 1.18 (±0.34) 1.20 (±0.36) 0.464 1.21 (±0.33) 1.24 (±0.35) 0.271 
 Triglycerides (mmol/L) 1.40 [1.01–2.15] 1.37 [0.93–1.96] 0.114 1.68 [1.20–2.20] 1.70 [1.28–2.39] 0.237 
 Glucose (mmol/L) 4.90 [4.50–5.30] 4.90 [4.50–5.30] 0.184 5.00 [4.50–5.40] 5.00 [4.60–5.50] 0.020 
 LDL-R plus LDL-R minus 
 Xanthomas present (n=489) Xanthomas absent (n=682) P-value Xanthomas present (n=419) Xanthomas absent (n=624) P-value 

 
Demographics       
 Male gender (%) 44.6 (218/271) 46.6 (318/364) 0.515 49.9 (209/210) 53.2 (332/292) 0.373 
 Age at first visit (year) 43.5 (±12.2) 40.4 (±12.5) <0.001 49.0 (±13.2) 46.5 (±11.8) 0.002 
 Age at end of observation 49.6 (±12.8) 45.8 (±13.2) <0.001 53.4 (±13.6) 50.2 (±12.4) <0.001 
 Total outpatient clinic follow-up (years) 4.6 [2.5–8.5] 3.9 [1.5–8.1] <0.001 3.4 [1.3–6.7] 2.7 [1.1–5.2] 0.004 
Risk factors       
 Smoking, ever (%) 69.8 (313/135) 68.1 (425/199) 0.589 73.7 (264/94) 81.7 (465/104) 0.005 
 Hypertension 9.1 (44/441) 6.7 (45/632) 0.166 11.3 (47/369) 12.0 (74/541) 0.689 
 Diabetes mellitus (%) 5.7 (28/461) 4.0 (27/655) 0.162 5.7 (24/395) 6.9 (43/581) 0.498 
 First-degree family history of premature CVD (%) 56.2 (248/193) 56.4 (321/248) 0.958 50.3 (184/182) 74.0 (425/149) <0.001 
Physical examination       
 BMI (kg/m225.0 (±3.5) 24.4 (±3.3) 0.002 25.6 (±3.8) 25.6 (±3.5) 0.918 
 Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) 134 (±19) 133 (±19) 0.527 137 (±20) 136 (±20) 0.736 
 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) 81 (±11) 80 (±10) 0.124 83 (±11) 83 (±10) 0.644 
Laboratory parameters       
 TC (mmol/L) 11.03 (±2.15) 9.70 (±1.95) <0.001 9.34 (±1.75) 8.43 (±1.27) <0.001 
 LDL-C (mmol/L) 8.94 (±2.07) 7.66 (±1.87) <0.001 7.20 (±1.75) 6.25 (±1.19) <0.001 
 HDL-C (mmol/L) 1.18 (±0.34) 1.20 (±0.36) 0.464 1.21 (±0.33) 1.24 (±0.35) 0.271 
 Triglycerides (mmol/L) 1.40 [1.01–2.15] 1.37 [0.93–1.96] 0.114 1.68 [1.20–2.20] 1.70 [1.28–2.39] 0.237 
 Glucose (mmol/L) 4.90 [4.50–5.30] 4.90 [4.50–5.30] 0.184 5.00 [4.50–5.40] 5.00 [4.60–5.50] 0.020 

Values are given as mean levels (±SD), except where given as percentages (frequencies). Total outpatient clinic follow-up, triglycerides, and glucose are given as median [interquartile range].

When the LDL-R minus patients with tendon xanthomas were compared with LDL-R plus patients, total and LDL-cholesterol levels differed significantly (9.34 vs. 10.25 mmol/L and 7.20 vs. 8.19 mmol/L, respectively, both P<0.001), as well as median triglyceride levels (1.68 vs. 1.39 mmol/L; P<0.001).

Discussion

We assembled a cohort of 2400 FH patients for clinical and basic research. We used a set of established clinical diagnostic criteria to define FH.1,36 However, analysis of this cohort revealed significantly different clinical and laboratory profiles between those patients with and those without a known LDLR mutation. Moreover, further LDLR gene sequencing of a random sample of the LDL-R minus group revealed that only 20% had an LDLR mutation. Our findings suggest that in fact the LDL-R minus group comprises, partially, patients with other causes of dyslipidaemia.

FH vs. other causes of (familial) dyslipidaemia

Similar to earlier findings,12 patients in our study population who are clinically diagnosed as having FH but yet without a known mutation are characterized by lower TC, lower LDL-C, higher triglyceride and HDL-cholesterol levels, a significantly higher prevalence of hypertension, and higher glucose levels. The LDL-R minus patients possess clinical characteristics of other forms of dyslipidaemia, namely familial combined hyperlipidaemia, polygenic hyper-cholesterolaemia, familial dyslipidaemic hypertension, hyperapobetalipoproteinaemia and the dyslipidaemias associated with the metabolic syndrome.1315 FCH, the most common genetic dyslipidaemia, is a complex phenotype, which most likely comprises a group of related disorders.13 Accordingly, FCH is also known as ‘multiple-type hyperlipidaemia’. An elevated plasma apolipoprotein B (apoB) level is often used to distinguish between these disorders.1618 Unfortunately, apoB levels were not determined in our study population. Therefore, we consider the LDL-R minus group to represent a mixture of these lipid disorders, possessing similarities with ‘the’ FCH phenotype.

Both prominent causes of high LDL-C and early CVD in adults, patients with FCH tend to have lower LDL-C levels, lower HDL-cholesterol levels, and higher triglyceride levels than their FH counterparts.13,19,20 LDL-C levels found in the LDL-R minus group are indeed in the range generally measured in FCH patients. HDL-cholesterol levels found in the LDL-R minus group are higher than generally measured in FCH patients. The slightly elevated triglyceride levels observed in the LDL-R minus group are somewhat lower than in most FCH patients, in whom these values tend to be higher.16 However, a characteristic feature of FCH is its variability in lipid phenotype expression among patients and even in the individual patient over time, suggesting a strong influence of environmental factors.21

FCH is often associated with obesity, diabetes mellitus and hypertension.22 Higher BMI values and higher values of glycaemia were indeed measured in the LDL-R minus group, indicating a tendency towards obesity and hyperinsulinaemia.

Patients without a known LDLR mutation were older, more often males, had a higher prevalence of a positive family history for premature CVD, were more often smokers and suffered from CVD. This was due to the selection criteria used for the diagnosis of FH. If the patient did not have an LDLR mutation, the patient was included on the basis of other criteria, most often proven CAD in the patient or in a first degree relative under the age of 60 years (data not shown). Patients with CVD were older, more often males and smokers (data not shown).

Diagnostic criteria

The phenotypic heterogeneity detected in our study cohort challenges the value of the current clinical criteria for diagnosing FH. Criteria used to identify individuals with FH include a combination of clinical characteristics, personal and family history of early CVD and biochemical parameters. In the present study, we used a set of established clinical diagnostic criteria to identify patients with FH.1,36 The primary diagnostic criterion is the detection of an increased plasma LDL-C. However, due to overlap in plasma lipid levels between FH heterozygotes and the general population, the cut-off values of LDL-C are difficult to define.23 Arbitrary definition of cut-off values for LDL-C leads to a compromise in sensitivity and specificity of this marker as a diagnostic criterion. Moreover, in one important report where stringent cut-off values were used, misdiagnosis occurred in 18% of mutation carriers and non-carriers on the basis of plasma cholesterol alone.8 Analysis of the diagnostic value of LDL-cholesterol concentrations has revealed that the best available cut-off point to diagnose the disorder is the age- and sex-specific 90th percentile.8 In our set of criteria, we used the age- and sex-specific 95th percentile, as obtained from the general Dutch population, to further reduce the inclusion of false positive FH patients.

An important distinguishing feature of FH is the presence of tendon xanthomas in the patient.1,2 Surprisingly, in our study population, the prevalence of tendon xanthomas did not differ between the LDL-R plus and LDL-R minus group. However, when we further subdivided these groups, we could demonstrate that FH patients, defined by DNA diagnosis and the presence of tendon xanthomas, had more severely elevated TC and LDL-C levels and were characterized by a higher prevalence of CVD.

It is of course possible that the current study has misclassified patients who have yet to be genetically diagnosed with FH. Nevertheless, we would expect the misclassification of true FH cases to have reduced the differences observed between the two groups. The presence of tendon xanthomas as recorded in the medical record is therefore subject to speculation. According to the Simon Broome Register criteria and the MedPed criteria, in which the presence of tendon xanthomas is the key feature of ‘definite’ FH, we included ‘possible’ FH patients in our study, which may have contributed to the heterogeneity of the study population. One could conclude that we therefore should have restricted inclusion of patients to those with tendon xanthomas if a mutation had not been identified. However, when the LDL-R minus group was subdivided into those patients with and without xanthomas, the phenotypic differences between the LDL-R plus and LDL-R minus groups remained. A possible explanation for this is the false-positive palpation of tendon xanthomas. Objective palpation (i.e. without knowing a patient's LDL-C concentrations) is not likely in an outpatient clinic setting.

A definite diagnosis of FH is made after identification of an LDLR mutation known to cause FH. A molecular diagnosis of FH can be made in 50–80% of clinically identified cases.11,24,25 This broad detection range is due to clinical misdiagnosis, technical insensitivity, or causes of FH not related to the LDLR gene.10,26,27 A higher mutation detection rate has been reported in ‘definite’ FH patients (those with tendon xanthomas) as opposed to those with ‘possible’ FH (without tendon xanthomas).25

Unfortunately, the presence of an arcus cornealis and a positive family history for premature CAD are insensitive diagnostic markers. The presence of an arcus cornealis by the age of 50 years occurs in 50% of patients, but not until a decade later in non-FH patients.28 However, an arcus cornealis can also be observed in subjects with normal lipid levels.1 A strong family history for premature CAD contributes to a patients risk of coronary heart disease; however, only 5–10% of early familial CAD can be attributed to FH.19,29

The results of LDLR gene sequencing of the random sample of patients from the LDL-R minus group may indicate that this group partially comprises patients with other causes of autosomal dominant hypercholesterolaemia.10,26,27 Mutations in PCSK9, a candidate gene on chromosome 1 encoding a protease named NARC-1, have recently been proposed as a new cause for hypercholesterolaemia.30 At present, sequencing of the remainder of the random sample of patients for mutations in this gene is ongoing. However, due to the disappointing outcome of sequencing of the random sample, further LDLR gene sequencing of the group without an LDLR mutation does not have a high priority in our laboratory.

The sensitivity and specificity of similar existing sets of diagnostic criteria have yet to be compared, possibly leading to the creation of more decisive clinical diagnostic criteria. In the meantime, advances in the application of DNA diagnostic techniques will hopefully favour the ultimate decisive criterion, namely, the genetic test.

The relevance of genetic testing in clinical practice and in screening for disease

FH is a disorder that begins early in life. Effective treatment to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has been available since the introduction of statins. In children with FH, increased LDL-C deteriorates endothelial function at a very young age, in addition to rapidly increasing the intima-media thickness of peripheral arteries.31 Such findings support the notion of taking preventive measures when children are young instead of waiting until they reach adulthood. The long-term efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering medication in children was recently evaluated by Wiegman et al.32 2 years of pravastatin therapy induced a significant regression of carotid atherosclerosis in children with FH, without any adverse effects on growth, sexual maturation, hormone levels, or liver or muscle tissue. It is therefore justified to initiate statin therapy in FH children. Furthermore, genetic testing is possible at a young age, whereas clinical manifestations such as a high LDL-cholesterol and tendon xanthomas often appear at a later age. Thus, there is a need for accurate criteria for the early diagnosis of FH. In addition to the presence or absence of a mutation in the LDLR gene, differences in prognosis due to the type of LDLR mutation33,34 could also influence initiation of lipid-lowering treatment, although the differences due mutation type are of less clinical relevance compared to the presence or absence of the mutation.

Genetic testing plays a central role in screening programmes for FH which are under development in many Western countries.8,35 These programmes aim to identify and treat asymptomatic individuals who are at high risk for CVD.

The relevance of genetic testing in research

Proper definition of study subjects is essential in any type of research. Moreover, international collaboration in research is facilitated when study subjects are defined according to highly sensitive and specific criteria. In the various forms of hyperlipidaemia, hypercholesterolaemia is due to different underlying defects in lipid metabolism. Careful interpretation of the outcomes of clinical drug trials that include FH patients who have not been genetically diagnosed is therefore required.36

In summary, the present study emphasizes the relevance of genetic testing in FH for screening and treatment of FH patients and for proper definition of study subjects in research with FH patients.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant of the Netherlands Heart Foundation (98/165). J.J.P.K. is an established investigator of the Netherlands Heart Foundation (grant D039/66510). We thank all patients who participated in the study and the specialists of the participating lipid clinics throughout the Netherlands.

Conflict of interest: none declared.

References

1
Goldstein
JL
Hobbs
HH
Brown
MS
Scriver
CR
Beaudet
AL
Sly
WS
Valle
D
Familial hypercholesterolemia
The Metabolic Basis of Inherited Disease
 
2001
New York
McGraw-Hill
2863
2913
2
Brown
MS
Goldstein
JL
Receptor-mediated control of cholesterol metabolism
Science
 
1976
191
150
154
3
Brown
MS
Goldstein
JL
Mortality in treated heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: implications for clinical management Scientific Steering Committee on behalf of the Simon Broome Register Group
Atherosclerosis
 
1999
142
105
112
4
Williams
RR
Hunt
SC
Schumacher
MC
Hegele
RA
Leppert
MF
Ludwig
EH
Hopkins
PN
Diagnosing heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia using new practical criteria validated by molecular genetics
Am J Cardiol
 
1993
72
171
176
5
Defesche
J.
Betteridge
DJ
Familial Hypercholesterolemia
Lipids and Vascular Disease
 
2000
London, UK
Martin Dunitz Ltd
65
76
6
Defesche
J.
Betteridge
DJ
US MedPed program. www.medped.org.medped.org (28 March 2005)
7
Jansen
AC
van Aalst-Cohen
ES
Tanck
MW
Trip
MD
Lansberg
PJ
Liem
AH
Roeters van Lennep
HWO
Sijbrands
EJG
Kastelein
JJP
The contribution of classical risk factors to cardiovascular disease in familial hypercholesterolemia
J. Intern. Med.
 
2004
256
482
490
8
Umans-Eckenhausen
MA
Defesche
JC
Sijbrands
EJ
Scheerder
RL
Kastelein
JJ
Review of first 5 years of screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia in the Netherlands
Lancet
 
2001
357
165
168
9
Jansen
AC
van Aalst-Cohen
ES
Hutten
BA
Büller
HR
Prins
MH
Kastelein
JJP
Guidelines were developed for data collection from medical records for use in retrospective analyses
J Clin Epid
 
2005
58
269
274
10
Scientific Steering Committee on behalf of the Simon Broome Register
Group
Risk of fatal coronary heart disease in familial hypercholesterolaemia
BMJ
 
1991
303
893
896
11
Fouchier
SW
Defesche
JC
Umans-Eckenhausen
MW
Kastelein
JP
The molecular basis of familial hypercholesterolemia in The Netherlands
Hum Genet
 
2001
109
602
615
12
Van Gaal
LF
Peeters
AV
De Block
CEM
De Leeuw
IH
Thiart
R
Kotze
MJ
Low-density lipoprotein receptor gene mutation analysis and clinical correlation in Belgian hypercholesterolaemics
Mol Cell Probes
 
2001
15
329
336
13
Williams
RR
Hunt
SC
Hopkins
PN
Stults
BM
Wu
LL
Hasstedt
SJ
Barlow
GK
Stephenson
SH
Lalouel
JM
Kuida
H
Familial dyslipidemic hypertension. Evidence from 58 Utah families for a syndrome present in approximately 12% of patients with essential hypertension
JAMA
 
1988
259
3579
3586
14
Hunt
SC
Wu
LL
Hopkins
PN
Stults
BM
Kuida
H
Ramirez
ME
Lalouel
JM
Williams
RR
Apolipoprotein, low density lipoprotein subfraction, and insulin associations with familial combined hyperlipidemia. Study of Utah patients with familial dyslipidemic hypertension
Arteriosclerosis
 
1989
9
335
344
15
Sniderman
A
Shapiro
S
Marpole
D
Skinner
B
Teng
B
Kwiterovich
PO
Jr
Association of coronary atherosclerosis with hyperapobetalipoproteinemia [increased protein but normal cholesterol levels in human plasma low density (beta) lipoproteins]
Proc Natl Acad Sci
 
1980
77
604
608
16
Veerkamp
MJ
de Graaf
J
Bredie
SJ
Hendriks
JC
Demacker
PN
Stalenhoef
AF
Diagnosis of familial combined hyperlipidemia based on lipid phenotype expression in 32 families: results of a 5-year follow-up study
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol
 
2002
22
274
282
17
Sniderman
AD
Castro Cabezas
M
Ribalta
J
Carmena
R
de Bruin
TW
de Graaf
J
Erkelens
DW
Humphries
SE
Masana
L
Real
JT
Talmud
PJ
Taskinen
MR
A proposal to redefine familial combined hyperlipidaemia—third workshop on FCHL held in Barcelona from 3 to 5 May 2001, during the scientific sessions of the European Society for Clinical Investigation
Eur J Clin Invest
 
2002
32
71
73
18
Ayyobi
AF
McGladdery
SH
McNeely
MJ
Austin
MA
Motulsky
AG
Brunzell
JD
Small, dense LDL and elevated apolipoprotein B are the common characteristics for the three major lipid phenotypes of familial combined hyperlipidemia
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol
 
2003
23
1289
1294
19
Goldstein
JL
Schrott
HG
Hazzard
WR
Bierman
EL
Motulsky
AG
Hyperlipidemia in coronary heart disease. II. Genetic analysis of lipid levels in 176 families and delineation of a new inherited disorder, combined hyperlipidemia
J Clin Invest
 
1973
52
1544
1568
20
Williams
RR
Hopkins
PN
Hunt
SC
Wu
LL
Hasstedt
SJ
Lalouel
JM
Ash
KO
Stults
BM
Kuida
H
Population-based frequency of dyslipidemia syndromes in coronary-prone families in Utah
Arch Intern Med
 
1990
150
582
588
21
Bredie
SJ
Kiemeney
LA
de Haan
AF
Demakcer
PN
Stalenhoef
AF
Inherited susceptibility determines the distribution of dense low-density lipoprotein subfraction profiles in familial combined hyperlipidemia
Am J Hum Genet
 
1996
58
812
822
22
Keulen
ET
Voors-Pette
C
de Bruin
TW
Familial dyslipidemic hypertension syndrome: familial combined hyperlipidemia, and the role of abdominal fat mass
Am J Hypertens
 
2001
14
357
363
23
Nora
JJ
Lortscher
RM
Spangler
RD
Bilheimer
DW
Familial hypercholesterolemia with ‘normal’ cholesterol in obligate heterozygotes
Am J Med Genet
 
1985
22
585
591
24
Sauvage Nolting
PR
Prevalence and significance of cardiovascular risk factors in a large cohort of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia
J Intern Med
 
2003
253
161
168
25
Heath
KE
Gudnason
V
Humphries
SE
Seed
M
The type of mutation in the low density lipoprotein receptor gene influences the cholesterol-lowering response of the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor simvastatin in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia
Atherosclerosis
 
1999
143
41
54
26
Marks
D
Thorogood
M
Neil
HA
Humphries
SE
A review on the diagnosis, natural history, and treatment of familial hypercholesterolaemia
Atherosclerosis
 
2003
168
1
14
27
Marks
D
Thorogood
M
Neil
HA
Humphries
SE
The recognition:management of hyperlipidaemia in adults: a policy statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society
Eur Heart J
 
1988
9
571
600
28
Winder
AF
Day
LB
Premature corneal arcus in familial hypercholesterolemia is characteristic but not a marker of individual coronary risk. (Abstract)
Atherosclerosis
 
1997
134
48
29
Koivisto
PV
Koivisto
UM
Miettinen
TA
Kontula
K
Diagnosis of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. DNA analysis complements clinical examination and analysis of serum lipid levels
Arterioscler Thromb
 
1992
12
584
592
30
Abifadel
M
Varret
M
Rabes
JP
Allard
D
Ouguerram
K
Devillers
M
Cruaud
C
Benjannet
S
Wickham
L
Erlich
D
Derre
A
Villeger
L
Farnier
M
Beucler
I
Bruckert
E
Chambaz
J
Chanu
B
Lecerf
JM
Luc
G
Moulin
P
Weissenbach
J
Prat
A
Krempf
M
Junien
C
Seidah
NG
Boileau
C
Mutations in PCSK9 cause autosomal dominant hypercholesterolemia
Nat Genet
 
2003
34
154
156
31
Celermajer
DS
Sorensen
KE
Gooch
VM
Spiegelhalter
DJ
Miller
OI
Sullivan
ID
Lloyd
JK
Deanfield
JE
Non-invasive detection of endothelial dysfunction in children and adults at risk of atherosclerosis
Lancet
 
1992
340
1111
1115
32
Wiegman
A
Hutten
BA
de Groot
E
Rodenburg
J
Bakker
HD
Buller
HR
Sijbrands
EJ
Kastelein
JJ
Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in children with familial hypercholesterolemia: a randomized controlled trial
JAMA
 
2004
292
331
337
33
Koeijvoets
KC
Rodenburg
J
Hutten
BA
Wiegman
A
Kastelein
JJ
Sijbrands
EJ
Low-density lipoprotein receptor genotype and response to pravastatin in children with familial hypercholesterolemia: substudy of an intima-media thickness trial
Circulation
 
2005
112
3168
3173
34
Umans-Eckenhausen
MAW
Sijbrands
EJG
Kastelein
JJP
Defesche
JC
Low-density lipoprotein receptor gene mutations and cardiovascular risk in a large genetic cascade screening population
Circulation
 
2002
106
3031
3036
35
Humphries
SE
Galton
D
Nicholls
P
Genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia: practical and ethical issues
QJM
 
1997
90
169
181
36
Smilde
TJ
van Wissen
S
Wollersheim
H
Trip
MD
Kastelein
JJ
Stalenhoef
AF
Effect of aggressive vs conventional lipid lowering on atherosclerosis progression in familial hypercholesterolaemia (ASAP): a prospective, randomised, double-blind trial
Lancet
 
2001
357
577
581

Comments

0 Comments