Revisiting Old Players in the Revitalized Field of Cardiovascular Gene Therapy∗

From traditional pharmacological towards nucleic acid-based therapies for cardiovascular diseases

Nucleic acid-based therapeutics are currently developed at large scale for prevention and management of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), since: (i) genetic studies have highlighted novel therapeutic targets suggested to be causal for CVD; (ii) there is a substantial recent progress in delivery, efficacy, and safety of nucleic acid-based therapies; (iii) they enable effective modulation of therapeutic targets that cannot be sufficiently or optimally addressed using traditional small molecule drugs or antibodies. Nucleic acid-based therapeutics include (i) RNA-targeted therapeutics for gene silencing; (ii) microRNA-modulating and epigenetic therapies; (iii) gene therapies; and (iv) genome-editing approaches (e.g. CRISPR-Cas-based): (i) RNA-targeted therapeutics: several large-scale clinical development programmes, using antisense oligonucleotides (ASO) or short interfering RNA (siRNA) therapeutics for prevention and management of CVD have been initiated. These include ASO and/or siRNA molecules to lower apolipoprotein (a) [apo(a)], proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9), apoCIII, ANGPTL3, or transthyretin (TTR) for prevention and treatment of patients with atherosclerotic CVD or TTR amyloidosis. (ii) MicroRNA-modulating and epigenetic therapies: novel potential therapeutic targets are continually arising from human non-coding genome and epigenetic research. First microRNA-based therapeutics or therapies targeting epigenetic regulatory pathways are in clinical studies. (iii) Gene therapies: EMA/FDA have approved gene therapies for non-cardiac monogenic diseases and LDL receptor gene therapy is currently being examined in patients with homozygous hypercholesterolaemia. In experimental studies, gene therapy has significantly improved cardiac function in heart failure animal models. (iv) Genome editing approaches: these technologies, such as using CRISPR-Cas, have proven powerful in stem cells, however, important challenges are remaining, e.g. low rates of homology-directed repair in somatic cells such as cardiomyocytes. In summary, RNA-targeted therapies (e.g. apo(a)-ASO and PCSK9-siRNA) are now in large-scale clinical outcome trials and will most likely become a novel effective and safe therapeutic option for CVD in the near future. MicroRNA-modulating, epigenetic, and gene therapies are tested in early clinical studies for CVD. CRISPR-Cas-mediated genome editing is highly effective in stem cells, but major challenges are remaining in somatic cells, however, this field is rapidly advancing.

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Ischemic Heart Disease Risk: A Mendelian Randomization Study

BACKGROUND

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has angiogenic and possibly proatherosclerotic properties. Observationally it is positively associated with cardiovascular disease, although these observations could be confounded or due to reverse causation. We assessed ischemic heart disease (IHD) risk by genetically predicted VEGF, ie, using Mendelian randomization.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) predicting VEGF level, at genome-wide significance, were applied to the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D 1000 Genomes-based genome-wide association study IHD case (n=60 801)-control (n=123 504) study. We obtained unconfounded estimates using instrumental variable analysis by combining the Wald estimates for each SNP using inverse variance weighting and Mendelian randomization-Egger regression. Based on 9 SNPs independently predicting VEGF (rs1740073 [C6orf223], rs2375981 [KCNV2], rs2639990 [ZADH2], rs4782371 [ZFPM1], rs6921438 [LOC100132354], rs7043199 [VLDLR-AS1], rs10761741 [JMJD1C], rs6993770 [ZFPM2], and rs114694170 [MEF2C]), VEGF was unrelated to IHD (odds ratio 0.99 per log-transformed pg/mL, 95%CI 0.96-1.02) using inverse variance weighting. However, Mendelian randomization-Egger regression suggested an inverse relation of VEGF with IHD (odds ratio 0.95, 95%CI 0.91-0.99), although the association was not evident after excluding the lead SNP (rs6921438) or additionally excluding the pleiotropic SNP (rs6993770).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study does not provide strong evidence for a positive effect of VEGF on IHD but does not rule out the possibility that some specific types of VEGF, for which genetic predictors have not yet been identified, might play a role.