Why the study?
PCSK9 increases LDL levels and cardiovascular disease risk, with levels potentially related to glycemic control and affected by estrogens, but its determinants and correlation with cardiovascular parameters in post-menopausal diabetic women in primary prevention were unclear.
Are PCSK9 levels associated with cardiovascular risk parameters like pulse wave velocity in post-menopausal diabetic women in primary prevention?
Are PCSK9 levels associated with cardiovascular risk parameters like pulse wave velocity in post-menopausal diabetic women in primary prevention?
PCSK9 levels are associated with pulse wave velocity in post-menopausal diabetic women, suggesting a potential role as a biomarker for cardiovascular risk in primary prevention.
Background and aims Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) increases circulating LDL levels and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk; its levels may be related to the dysregulation of glycemic control and may be affected by estrogens. The aim of this study was to assess factors related to PCSK9 levels, and to evaluate the correlation between PCSK9 levels and CV parameters in post-menopausal diabetic women in primary prevention. Methods Generalized linear models (GLM) were adopted to evaluate predictors of PCSK9 levels as well as factors related to CV outcomes, such as pulse wave velocity (PWV), pulse pressure (PP), and augmentation index (AI). Results A total of 135 post-menopausal diabetic women, with a median (Q1-Q3) serum PCSK9 levels of 370.3 (344.0–409.4) ng/ml were enrolled. Apolipoprotein B values resulted an independent predictor of PCSK9 levels ( B = 1.023; p < 0.001). However, LDL values were inversely related to PCSK9 levels ( B = −0.578; p < 0.001). PCSK9 levels influenced PWV ( B = 0.010; p = 0.010), but did not influence other CV outcomes. Conclusion ApoB and LDL may influence PCSK9 levels and PCSK9 directly influence PWV in post-menopausal diabetic women in primary prevention. Therefore, the relationship between PCSK9 and primary prevention cannot be excluded, thus highlighting its role as biomarker of CV risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rottura et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: