4.1 Article

The promise of apolipoprotein A-I mimetics

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MED.0b013e3283373cb5

关键词

apolipoprotein A-I; atherosclerosis; high-density lipoproteins; peptides

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review Synthetic high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and apolipoprotein (apo) A-I mimetic peptides emulate many of the atheroprotective biological functions attributed to HDL and can modify atherosclerotic disease processes. Administration of these agents as HDL replacement or modifying therapy has tremendous potential of providing new treatments for cardiovascular disease. Progress in the understanding of these agents is discussed in this review. Recent findings Prospective, observational, and interventional studies have convincingly demonstrated that elevated serum levels of high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) are associated with reduced risk for coronary heart disease (CHD). Although traditional pharmacological agents have shown modest utility in raising HDL levels and reducing CHD risk, use of HDL and apo A-I mimetics provides novel therapies to not only increase HDL levels, but to also influence HDL functionality. Evidence developed over the last several years has identified a number of pathways affected by synthetic HDL and apoA-I mimetic peptides, including enhancing reverse cholesterol transport and reducing oxidation and inflammation that directly influence the progression and regression of atherosclerotic disease. Summary Clinical trials of relatively short-term synthetic HDL infusion into patients with CHD demonstrate beneficial effects. Use of apo A-I mimetic peptides could potentially overcome some of the limitations associated with use of the intact apo. Studies to establish the most efficacious peptides, optimal dosing regimens, and routes of administration are needed. Use of apo A-I mimetic peptides shows great promise as a therapeutic modality for HDL replacement and enhancing HDL function in treatment of patients with CHD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据