High lipoprotein(a) and high risk of mortality

High lipoprotein(a) is a risk factor for peripheral artery disease, abdominal aortic aneurysms, and major adverse limb events

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize evidence from recent studies of high lipoprotein(a) as a risk factor for peripheral artery disease (PAD), abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), and major adverse limb events (MALE). Additionally, provide clinicians with 10-year absolute risk charts enabling risk prediction of PAD and AAA by lipoprotein(a) levels and conventional risk factors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous studies support high lipoprotein(a) as an independent risk factor for PAD, AAA, and MALE. The strongest evidence is from the Copenhagen General Population Study (CGPS) and the UK Biobank, two large general population-based cohorts. In the CGPS, a 50 mg/dl higher genetically determined lipoprotein(a) associated with hazard ratios of 1.39 (1.24-1.56) for PAD and 1.21 (1.01-1.44) for AAA. Corresponding hazard ratio in the UK Biobank were 1.38 (1.30-1.46) and 1.42 (1.28-1.59). In CGPS participants with levels at least 99th (≥143 mg/dl) vs, less than 50th percentile (≤9 mg/dl), hazard ratios were 2.99 (2.09-4.30) for PAD and 2.22 (1.21-4.07) for AAA, with a corresponding incidence rate ratio for MALE of 3.04 (1.55-5.98) in participants with PAD.

SUMMARY

Evidence from both observational and genetic studies support high lipoprotein(a) as a causal risk factor for PAD, AAA, and MALE, and highlight the potential of future lipoprotein(a)-lowering therapy to reduce the substantial morbidity and mortality associated with these diseases.

Association of elevated lipoprotein(a) levels with ischemic stroke in young patients - a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an established independent causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease and atherosclerosis. However, its association with young-onset ischemic stroke is not well-established. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate the association of elevated Lp(a) with young ischemic stroke.

METHODS

Four electronic databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Library were systematically searched, profiling studies from inception till 6 Mar 2024. We included studies investigating the relationship between stratified Lp(a) levels and young ischemic stroke. We compared the odds of young stroke patients (age <65 years) having elevated Lp(a) compared to age-matched controls without stroke or transient ischemic attack.

RESULTS

Five case-control studies comprising a total of 1345 patients were included; 57.7 % (776/1345) were females, with a mean age of 41.5 years. Among them, 22.5 % (264/1171) were smokers. Additionally, 16.8 % (197/1171) had hypertension, 5.9 % (69/1171) had diabetes, and 29.2 % (284/971) had hyperlipidemia. Young stroke patients were more likely to have high Lp(a) level than age-matched controls (OR 1.61, 95 %CI 1.24-2.10). Four studies defined a high Lp(a) level as ≥30mg/dL, whilst one study used a Lp(a) level of >23.2mg/dL as the cut-off. A sensitivity analysis excluding this study showed that young stroke patients were still more likely to have Lp(a) ≥30mg/dL than controls (OR 1.43, 95 %CI 1.08-1.88).

CONCLUSION

Young stroke patients are more likely to have elevated Lp(a) compared to age-matched controls, suggesting an association between elevated Lp(a) and young stroke. Further research is warranted to evaluate the causal relationships between Lp(a) and young-onset ischemic stroke, as well as to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of Lp(a) screening in young adults as part of a primary prevention strategy.

Treat the patient, not the disease: The embolic stroke of undetermined source as an opportunity to optimize cardiovascular prevention in a holistic approach

For any physician treating a patient with a medical condition of unclear etiology, the differential diagnosis aims to identify the actual most probable cause among various potential etiologies, in order to tailor treatment options. In patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS), this can be challenging due to the frequent presence of multiple potential embolic sources, raising difficulties to identify the most likely cause. Additionally, despite targeted preventive measures for the presumed embolic source, patients may remain at risk for stroke and cardiovascular events due to other unrecognized or underestimated pathologies. The multi-level complexity and multimorbidity typically associated with ESUS, represents a challenge that requires broad knowledge of the cardiovascular pathophysiology, deep expertise of the available diagnostic and therapeutic options, and interdisciplinary approach. At the same time, it is an ideal opportunity to assess thoroughly the overall cardiovascular status of the patient, which in turn can allow us to optimize therapeutic and preventive strategies in a holistic approach, and prevent future strokes, cardiovascular events and disability through different parallel pathways. In this context, rather than narrowing our perspective on identifying the specific embolic source presumed to be the most likely cause of ESUS, it is crucial to shift our focus from the disease to the patient, and evaluate the overall cardiovascular profile by assessing the risk of all cardiovascular comorbidities present, no matter if causally associated with ESUS or not. In order to bring across these points and more, this article is centred around a clinical case that serves as a starting point to illustrate the holistic approach to the management of patients with ESUS. After all, this is the beauty, the magic and the art of Internal Medicine: to treat the patient, not the disease, the system or the organ.

Serum Lipoprotein(a) Levels and Their Association with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Japan

AIMS

To investigate the distribution of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and its association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in Japanese patients at high risk for ASCVD using a health insurance database.

METHODS

Between July 2013 and June 2021, patients eligible for ASCVD prevention according to the 2017 Japan Atherosclerosis Society (JAS) guidelines with documented Lp(a) test results were extracted from the Medical Data Vision claims database and divided into three groups: primary prevention high-risk (Group I), secondary prevention (Group II) and secondary prevention high-risk (Group III). Data on lipid levels, cardiovascular morbidity risk factors and lipid-lowering treatments were extracted.

RESULTS

Of 700,580 patients with documented low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), 2,967 (0.42%) were tested for Lp(a). In 2,170 eligible patients, the median [interquartile range] serum concentration of Lp(a) was 13.9 [7.5-24.6] mg/dL, with 151 patients (7.0%) above the recommended risk threshold of ≥ 50 mg/dL. Lp(a) levels increased with risk across all prevention groups. Being in the highest Lp(a) quintile (Q5) was associated with an increased frequency of ASCVD (28.9% versus 18.9% in the lowest quintile (Q1) for unstable angina; 18.7% versus 10.1% for myocardial infarction; 27.9% versus 17.0% for ischemic stroke). In the secondary prevention groups, the proportion of patients meeting an LDL-C target of ＜70 mg/dL decreased from 30.2% in Q1 to 19.0% in Q5 for Group II and from 32.9% to 16.3% for Group III.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a high prevalence of Lp(a) ≥ 50mg/dL in Japanese patients at high risk for ASCVD, it found that the Lp(a) testing rate was very low.

A machine learning algorithm for the identification elevated Lp(a) in patients with, or high-risk of having, coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

Decision tree algorithms, obtained by machine learning, provide clusters of patients with similar clinical patterns by the identification of variables that best merge with a given dependent variable.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter registry, with 7 hospitals form Spain, of patients with, or high-risk of having, coronary heart disease (CHD). Elevated Lp(a) was defined as >50 mg/dl. Machine learning based decision trees were obtained by Chi-square automatic interaction detection.

RESULTS

We analyzed 2301 patients. Median Lp(a) was 26.7 (9.3-79.9) mg/dl and 887 (38.6 %) patients had Lp(a) >50 mg/dl. The machine learning algorithm identified 6 clusters based on LDLc, CHD, FH of premature CHD and age (Fig. 1). Clusters 1 (LDLc <100 mg/dl, no CHD and, no FH of CHD) and 3 (LDLc <100 mg/dl, CHD and, no FH and, age < 50 yo) had the lowest Lp(a) values (Fig. 2); patients classified in cluster 5 (LDLc >100 mg/dl, CHD and, FH of CHD) and 6 (LDLc >100 mg/dl) had the highest values. We collapsed clusters in 3 groups: group 1 with clusters 1 and 3; group 2 with clusters 2 and 4; group 3 with clusters 5 and 6. The 3 groups have significantly different (p < 0.001) and progressively higher Lp(a) values. The prevalence of Lp(a) >50 mg/dl was 15.4 % in group 1, 29.2 % in group 2 and 91.1 % in group 3; similarly, the prevalence of Lp(a) >180 mg/dl was 1.0 %, 3.0 % and 7.6 % respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A decision tree algorithm, performed by machine learning, identified patients with, or at high risk of having, CHD have higher probabilities of having elevated Lp(a).

Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease

One in five people are at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic valve stenosis due to high lipoprotein(a). Lipoprotein(a) concentrations are lowest in people from east Asia, Europe, and southeast Asia, intermediate in people from south Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, and highest in people from Africa. Concentrations are more than 90% genetically determined and 17% higher in post-menopausal women than in men. Individuals at a higher cardiovascular risk should have lipoprotein(a) concentrations measured once in their lifetime to inform those with high concentrations to adhere to a healthy lifestyle and receive medication to lower other cardiovascular risk factors. With no approved drugs to lower lipoprotein(a) concentrations, it is promising that at least five drugs in development lower concentrations by 65-98%, with three currently being tested in large cardiovascular endpoint trials. This Review covers historical perspectives, physiology and pathophysiology, genetic evidence of causality, epidemiology, role in familial hypercholesterolaemia and diabetes, management, screening, diagnosis, measurement, prevention, and future lipoprotein(a)-lowering drugs.

Analysis of dietary inflammatory potential and mortality in cancer survivors using NHANES data

Background

In the United States, cancer is a leading cause of mortality, with inflammation playing a crucial role in cancer progression and prognosis. Diet, with its capacity to modulate inflammatory responses, represents a potentially modifiable risk factor in cancer outcomes.

Methods

This study utilized data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 1999-2018) to investigate the association between the Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII), which reflects dietary-induced inflammation, and mortality among cancer survivors. A total of 3,011 participants diagnosed with cancer were included, with DII scores derived from dietary recall data. All-cause and cancer-related mortalities served as primary endpoints.

Results

The study identified a significant linear positive correlation between higher DII scores and all-cause mortality among cancer survivors. Each unit increase in DII was associated with a 10% higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] per 1-unit increase, 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.15). Similarly, a unit increase in DII was associated with a 13% higher risk of cancer-related mortality (HR per 1-unit increase, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.25). Kaplan-Meier analyses demonstrated higher all-cause mortality rates in individuals with elevated DII scores. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings.

Conclusion

Adoption of an anti-inflammatory diet, characterized by lower DII scores, may improve survival outcomes in cancer survivors. These results emphasize the critical role of dietary interventions in post-cancer care.

New insights into the therapeutic options to lower lipoprotein(a)

BACKGROUND

Elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] represent a risk factor for cardiovascular disease including aortic valve stenosis, myocardial infarction and stroke. While the patho-physiological mechanisms linking Lp(a) with atherosclerosis are not fully understood, from genetic studies that lower Lp(a) levels protect from CVD independently of other risk factors including lipids and lipoproteins. Hereby, Lp(a) has been considered an appealing pharmacological target.

RESULTS

However, approved lipid lowering therapies such as statins, ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors have a neutral to modest effect on Lp(a) levels, thus prompting the development of new strategies selectively targeting Lp(a). These include antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) directed towards apolipoprotein(a) [Apo(a)], which are in advanced phase of clinical development. More recently, additional approaches including inhibitors of Apo(a) and gene editing approaches via CRISPR-Cas9 technology entered early clinical development.

CONCLUSION

If the results from the cardiovascular outcome trials, designed to demonstrate whether the reduction of Lp(a) of more than 80% as observed with pelacarsen, olpasiran or lepodisiran translates into the decrease of cardiovascular mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events, will be positive, lowering Lp(a) will become a new additional target in the management of patients with elevated cardiovascular risk.

Polygenic prediction of human longevity on the supposition of pervasive pleiotropy

The highly polygenic nature of human longevity renders pleiotropy an indispensable feature of its genetic architecture. Leveraging the genetic correlation between aging-related traits (ARTs), we aimed to model the additive variance in lifespan as a function of the cumulative liability from pleiotropic segregating variants. We tracked allele frequency changes as a function of viability across different age bins and prioritized 34 variants with an immediate implication on lipid metabolism, body mass index (BMI), and cognitive performance, among other traits, revealed by PheWAS analysis in the UK Biobank. Given the highly complex and non-linear interactions between the genetic determinants of longevity, we reasoned that a composite polygenic score would approximate a substantial portion of the variance in lifespan and developed the integrated longevity genetic scores (iLGSs) for distinguishing exceptional survival. We showed that coefficients derived from our ensemble model could potentially reveal an interesting pattern of genomic pleiotropy specific to lifespan. We assessed the predictive performance of our model for distinguishing the enrichment of exceptional longevity among long-lived individuals in two replication cohorts (the Scripps Wellderly cohort and the Medical Genome Reference Bank (MRGB)) and showed that the median lifespan in the highest decile of our composite prognostic index is up to 4.8 years longer. Finally, using the proteomic correlates of iLGS, we identified protein markers associated with exceptional longevity irrespective of chronological age and prioritized drugs with repurposing potentials for gerotherapeutics. Together, our approach demonstrates a promising framework for polygenic modeling of additive liability conferred by ARTs in defining exceptional longevity and assisting the identification of individuals at a higher risk of mortality for targeted lifestyle modifications earlier in life. Furthermore, the proteomic signature associated with iLGS highlights the functional pathway upstream of the PI3K-Akt that can be effectively targeted to slow down aging and extend lifespan.

Genetically predicted lipoprotein(a) associates with coronary artery plaque severity independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol

AIMS

Elevated Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but the mechanisms of risk are debated. Studies have found inconsistent associations between Lp(a) and measurements of atherosclerosis. We aimed to assess the relationship between Lp(a), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and coronary artery plaque severity.

METHODS

The study population consisted of participants of the Million Veteran Program who have undergone an invasive angiogram. The primary exposure was genetically predicted Lp(a), estimated by a polygenic score. Genetically predicted LDL-C was also assessed for comparison. The primary outcome was coronary artery plaque severity, categorized as normal, non-obstructive disease, 1-vessel disease, 2-vessel disease, and 3-vessel or left main disease.

RESULTS

Among 18,927 adults of genetically inferred European ancestry and 4,039 adults of genetically inferred African ancestry, we observed consistent associations between genetically predicted Lp(a) and obstructive coronary plaque, with effect sizes trending upward for increasingly severe categories of disease. Associations were independent of risk factors, clinically measured LDL-C and genetically predicted LDL-C. However, we did not find strong or consistent evidence for an association between genetically predicted Lp(a) and risk for non-obstructive plaque.

CONCLUSIONS

Genetically predicted Lp(a) is positively associated with coronary plaque severity independent of LDL-C, consistent with Lp(a) promoting atherogenesis. However, the effects of Lp(a) may be greater for progression of plaque to obstructive disease than for the initial development of non-obstructive plaque. A limitation of this study is that Lp(a) was estimated using genetic markers and could not be directly assayed, nor could apo(a) isoform size.

Elderly patients with very high plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations and few cardiovascular consequences: a case series

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an atherogenic low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-like particle that is currently regarded as a non-modifiable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The number of patients detected with elevated Lp(a) concentrations has been increasing in recent years, although the implication of this finding is unclear for patients and physicians. We screened our lipid clinic database for patients aged >65 years with very high Lp(a) concentrations, which were defined as >230 nmol/L, and cardiovascular outcomes were assessed. The patients' (n = 16) mean (±standard deviation) age was 72.2 ± 7.1 years and the mean Lp(a) concentration was 313 ± 68 nmol/L. After a cumulative 129.0 patient-year follow-up (mean: 8.1 ± 4.2 years), the mean age was 80.3 ± 7.0 years. We observed a low baseline prevalence of cardiovascular events, with only two patients having a history of cardiovascular events. Furthermore, zero incident adverse cardiovascular events were recorded over the follow-up. Therefore, very high Lp(a) concentrations and disease-free old age are not mutually exclusive. Our aggregated clinical experience is that there is only a modest association between elevated Lp(a) concentrations and adverse outcomes. Nonetheless, we still advise treating modifiable risk factors in these patients.

Lipoprotein(a) as a cardiovascular risk factor among patients with and without diabetes Mellitus: the Mass General Brigham Lp(a) Registry

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and Lp(a) are well-established predictors of coronary artery disease (CAD) outcomes. However, their combined association remains poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between elevated Lp(a) and DM with CAD outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the MGB Lp(a) Registry involving patients ≥ 18 years who underwent Lp(a) measurements between 2000 and 2019. Exclusion criteria were severe kidney dysfunction, malignant neoplasms, and prior atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The primary outcome was a combination of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (MI). Elevated Lp(a) was defined as > 90th percentile (≥ 216 nmol/L).

RESULTS

Among 6,238 patients who met the eligibility criteria, the median age was 54, 45% were women, and 12% had DM. Patients with DM were older, more frequently male, and had a higher prevalence of additional cardiovascular risk factors. Over a median follow-up of 12.9 years, patients with either DM or elevated Lp(a) experienced higher rates of the primary outcome. Notably, those with elevated Lp(a) had a higher incidence of the primary outcome regardless of their DM status. The annual event rates were as follows: No-DM and Lp(a) < 90th% - 0.6%; No-DM and Lp(a) > 90th% - 1.3%; DM and Lp(a) < 90th% - 1.9%; DM and Lp(a) > 90th% - 4.7% (p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, elevated Lp(a) remained independently associated with the primary outcome among both patients with DM (HR = 2.66 [95%CI: 1.55-4.58], p < 0.001) and those without DM (HR = 2.01 [95%CI: 1.48-2.74], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated Lp(a) constitutes an independent and incremental risk factor for CAD outcomes in patients with and without DM.

Association between lipoprotein(a), fibrinogen and their combination with all-cause, cardiovascular disease and cancer-related mortality: findings from the NHANES

BACKGROUND

There is evidence indicating that both lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and fibrinogen (FIB) are associated with mortality, However, the impact of their combination on mortality has not been determined. Thus, the aim of this study was to examine the association between the combination of Lp(a) and FIB with all-cause and cause-specific mortality.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study enrolled 4,730 participants from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The exposure variables included Lp(a), FIB and their combination, while the outcome variables consisted of all-cause, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer-related mortality. Multivariate COX regression, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and restricted cubic spline (RCS) were used to investigate the association between Lp(a), FIB and their combination with all-cause, CVD and cancer-related mortality.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up period of 235 months, 2,668 individuals died, including 1,051 deaths attributed to CVD and 549 deaths due to cancer. Multivariate Cox regression analyses revealed independent associations between both Lp(a) and FIB with all-cause, CVD, and cancer-related mortality. Compared to participants in the 1st to 50th percentiles of both Lp(a) and FIB, those in the 90th to 100th percentiles exhibited multivariable adjusted HRs of 1.813 (95% CI: 1.419-2.317, P < 0.001), 2.147 (95% CI: 1.483-3.109, P < 0.001) and 2.355 (95% CI: 1.396, 3.973, P = 0.001) for all-cause, CVD and cancer-related mortality, respectively. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not substantially attenuate the association between the combination of high Lp(a) and high FIB with the risk of all-cause and CVD-related mortality. Additionally, the RCS analysis showed that the relationship between Lp(a) and the risk of all-cause and cancer-related mortality, as well as the relationship between FIB and the risk of cancer-related mortality, were linear (P for nonlinearity > 0.05). Conversely, the relationship between Lp(a) and the risk of CVD-related mortality, as well as the relationship between FIB and the risk of all-cause and CVD-related mortality, were nonlinear (P for nonlinearity < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

High levels of Lp(a) and FIB together conferred a greater risk of mortality from all-cause, CVD and cancer.

Trends and findings of lipoprotein(a) testing and associated cardiovascular disease profiles: a large single-center study from the Middle East-Gulf region

Background

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a genetically determined risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD). Limited data are available on Lp(a) testing from the Middle-East region. Therefore, we aim to evaluate the utilization and yield of Lp(a) testing over time and characterize CVD profiles of patients with abnormal Lp(a) tasting at a single-quaternary-care center in the United Arab Emirates.

Methods

Unique Lp(a) tests conducted between 07/2017 and 10-2023 were included. Overtime trends in Lp(a) test utilization and abnormal Lp(a) [defined as Lp(a) > 125 nmol/L] test findings were described. CVD rates in patients with abnormal Lp(a) were compared to those with Lp(a) ≤ 125 nmol/L using appropriate methods.

Results

In our center, 0.95% of the patients (n = 5,677) had their Lp(a) measured, with a median level of 32 [11-82] nmol/L. Lp(a) was abnormal in 15.9% of the tests. Over the years 2018-2022, there was a 109% increase in Lp(a) testing, with concomitant up-trends in findings of abnormal Lp(a) (11.8% to 16.4%, P = 0.02). Compared to patients with Lp(a) ≤ 125 nmol/I, those with abnormal Lp(a) had higher rates of any prevalent CVD (34% vs. 25.1%, P < 0.001), CAD (25.6% vs. 17.7%, P < 0.001), HF (6.5% vs. 3.8%, P < 0.001), and stroke (7.1% vs. 4.4%, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Almost one in six patients tested for Lp(a) had abnormally elevated Lp(a), and CVD was prevalent in one-third of the patients who tested abnormal for Lp(a). The study highlights the growing awareness of the relevance of Lp(a) for CVD risk stratification and prevention.

Worldwide Increasing Use of Nonfasting Rather Than Fasting Lipid Profiles

BACKGROUND

Historically, lipids and lipoproteins were measured in the fasting state for cardiovascular risk prediction; however, since 2009 use of nonfasting lipid profiles has increased substantially worldwide. For patients, nonfasting lipid profiles are convenient and avoid any risk of hypoglycemia. For laboratories, blood sampling in the morning and extra visits for patients who have not fasted are avoided. For patients, clinicians, hospitals, and society, nonfasting sampling allows same-day visits with first blood sampling followed by a short wait for test results before clinical consultation. Therefore, nonfasting compared to fasting lipid profiles will save money and time and may improve patient compliance with cardiovascular prevention programs.

CONTENT

We report on the progression of endorsement and implementation of nonfasting lipid profiles for cardiovascular risk prediction worldwide and summarize the recommendations from major medical societies and health authorities in different countries. We also describe practical advantages and disadvantages for using nonfasting lipid profiles. Further, we include a description of why fasting has been the standard historically, the barriers against implementation of nonfasting lipid profiles, and finally we suggest the optimal content of a nonfasting lipid profile.

SUMMARY

Lipid, lipoprotein, and apolipoprotein concentrations vary minimally in response to normal food intake and nonfasting lipid profiles are equal or superior to fasting profiles for cardiovascular risk prediction. Major guidelines and consensus statements in Europe, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Japan, India, and Australia now endorse use of nonfasting lipid profiles in some or all patients; however, there are still gaps in endorsement and implementation of nonfasting lipid profiles worldwide.

Consensus on lipoprotein(a) of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis. Literature review and recommendations for clinical practice

The irruption of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) in the study of cardiovascular risk factors is perhaps, together with the discovery and use of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (iPCSK9) inhibitor drugs, the greatest novelty in the field for decades. Lp(a) concentration (especially very high levels) has an undeniable association with certain cardiovascular complications, such as atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD) and aortic stenosis. However, there are several current limitations to both establishing epidemiological associations and specific pharmacological treatment. Firstly, the measurement of Lp(a) is highly dependent on the test used, mainly because of the characteristics of the molecule. Secondly, Lp(a) concentration is more than 80% genetically determined, so that, unlike other cardiovascular risk factors, it cannot be regulated by lifestyle changes. Finally, although there are many promising clinical trials with specific drugs to reduce Lp(a), currently only iPCSK9 (limited for use because of its cost) significantly reduces Lp(a). However, and in line with other scientific societies, the SEA considers that, with the aim of increasing knowledge about the contribution of Lp(a) to cardiovascular risk, it is relevant to produce a document containing the current status of the subject, recommendations for the control of global cardiovascular risk in people with elevated Lp(a) and recommendations on the therapeutic approach to patients with elevated Lp(a).

Genetics and Pathophysiological Mechanisms of Lipoprotein(a)-Associated Cardiovascular Risk

Elevated lipoprotein(a) is a genetically transmitted codominant trait that is an independent risk driver for cardiovascular disease. Lipoprotein(a) concentration is heavily influenced by genetic factors, including LPA kringle IV-2 domain size, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and interleukin-1 genotypes. Apolipoprotein(a) is encoded by the LPA gene and contains 10 subtypes with a variable number of copies of kringle -2, resulting in >40 different apolipoprotein(a) isoform sizes. Genetic loci beyond LPA, such as APOE and APOH, have been shown to impact lipoprotein(a) levels. Lipoprotein(a) concentrations are generally 5% to 10% higher in women than men, and there is up to a 3-fold difference in median lipoprotein(a) concentrations between racial and ethnic populations. Nongenetic factors, including menopause, diet, and renal function, may also impact lipoprotein(a) concentration. Lipoprotein(a) levels are also influenced by inflammation since the LPA promoter contains an interleukin-6 response element; interleukin-6 released during the inflammatory response results in transient increases in plasma lipoprotein(a) levels. Screening can identify elevated lipoprotein(a) levels and facilitate intensive risk factor management. Several investigational, RNA-targeted agents have shown promising lipoprotein(a)-lowering effects in clinical studies, and large-scale lipoprotein(a) testing will be fundamental to identifying eligible patients should these agents become available. Lipoprotein(a) testing requires routine, nonfasting blood draws, making it convenient for patients. Herein, we discuss the genetic determinants of lipoprotein(a) levels, explore the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the association between lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease, and provide practical guidance for lipoprotein(a) testing.

Remnant cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and apoB absolute mass changes explain results of the PROMINENT trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The PROMINENT trial, a cardiovascular outcome trial of the triglyceride- and remnant cholesterol-lowering agent pemafibrate, has shown neutral results despite reduction in plasma triglycerides and remnant cholesterol. We tested the hypothesis that absolute mass changes in remnant cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B explain the results of the PROMINENT trial.

METHODS

Among 108,431 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study (CGPS), those who met the key inclusion criteria of the PROMINENT trial were analyzed to mimic the trial design. Endpoint atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and coronary revascularization as defined in PROMINENT.

RESULTS

In the PROMINENT trial, treatment with pemafibrate resulted in -7 mg/dL (-0.18 mmol/L; -18 %) change in remnant cholesterol, +10 mg/dL (+0.26 mmol/L; +12 %) LDL cholesterol, and +5 mg/dL (+0.05 g/L; +5 %) apolipoprotein B. In the CGPS mimicking PROMINENT, the estimated hazard ratios for ASCVD were 0.97 (95 % confidence interval: 0.94-0.99) for a -7 mg/dL (-0.18 mmol/L) change in remnant cholesterol, 1.04 (1.01-1.07) for a +10 mg/dL (+0.26 mmol/L) change in LDL cholesterol, and 1.02 (1.01-1.03) for a +5 mg/dL (+0.05 g/L) change in apolipoprotein B. When combining absolute changes in remnant cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B, the estimated hazard ratio for ASCVD was 1.05 (0.96-1.14) in the CGPS mimicking PROMINENT compared to 1.03 (0.91-1.15) in the PROMINENT trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Absolute mass changes in remnant cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B can explain results of the PROMINENT trial. The 3 mg/dL (0.08 mmol/L) higher total atherogenic cholesterol together with 5 mg/dL (0.05 g/L) higher apolipoprotein B seem to explain the trend toward more ASCVD in the pemafibrate arm.

Association of Lipoprotein (a) and Standard Modifiable Cardiovascular Risk Factors With Incident Myocardial Infarction: The Mass General Brigham Lp(a) Registry

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a robust predictor of coronary heart disease outcomes, with targeted therapies currently under investigation. We aimed to evaluate the association of high Lp(a) with standard modifiable risk factors (SMuRFs) for incident first acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective study used the Mass General Brigham Lp(a) Registry, which included patients aged ≥18 years with an Lp(a) measurement between 2000 and 2019. Exclusion criteria were severe kidney dysfunction, malignant neoplasm, and prior known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking were considered SMuRFs. High Lp(a) was defined as >90th percentile, and low Lp(a) was defined as <50th percentile. The primary outcome was fatal or nonfatal AMI. A combination of natural language processing algorithms, International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, and laboratory data was used to identify the outcome and covariates. A total of 6238 patients met the eligibility criteria. The median age was 54 (interquartile range, 43-65) years, and 45% were women. Overall, 23.7% had no SMuRFs, and 17.8% had ≥3 SMuRFs. Over a median follow-up of 8.8 (interquartile range, 4.2-12.8) years, the incidence of AMI increased gradually, with higher number of SMuRFs among patients with high (log-rank P=0.031) and low Lp(a) (log-rank P<0.001). Across all SMuRF subgroups, the incidence of AMI was significantly higher for patients with high Lp(a) versus low Lp(a). The risk of high Lp(a) was similar to having 2 SMuRFs. Following adjustment for confounders and number of SMuRFs, high Lp(a) remained significantly associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 2.9 [95% CI, 2.0-4.3]; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with no prior atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, high Lp(a) is associated with significantly higher risk for first AMI regardless of the number of SMuRFs.

All we need to know about lipoprotein(a)

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], a genetically determined macromolecular complex, is independently and causally associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic stenosis via proposed proinflammatory, prothrombotic, and proatherogenic mechanisms. While Lp(a) measurement standardization issues are being resolved, several guidelines now support testing Lp(a) at least once in each adult's lifetime for ASCVD risk prediction which can foster implementation of more aggressive primary or secondary prevention therapies. Currently, there are several emerging targeted Lp(a) lowering therapies in active clinical investigation for safety and cardiovascular benefit among both primary and secondary prevention populations. First degree relatives of patients with high Lp(a) should be encouraged to undergo cascade screening. Primary prevention patients with high Lp(a) should consider obtaining a coronary calcium score for further risk estimation and to guide further ASCVD risk factor management including consideration of low dose aspirin therapy. Secondary prevention patients with high Lp(a) levels should consider adding PCSK9 inhibition to statin therapy.

Development and multinational validation of an algorithmic strategy for high Lp(a) screening

Elevated lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) is associated with premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, fewer than 0.5% of individuals undergo Lp(a) testing, limiting the evaluation and use of novel targeted therapeutics currently under development. Here we describe the development of a machine learning model for targeted screening for elevated Lp(a) (≥150 nmol l-1) in the UK Biobank (N = 456,815), the largest cohort with protocolized Lp(a) testing. We externally validated the model in 3 large cohort studies, ARIC (N = 14,484), CARDIA (N = 4,124) and MESA (N = 4,672). The model, Algorithmic Risk Inspection for Screening Elevated Lp(a) (ARISE), reduced the number needed to test to find one individual with elevated Lp(a) by up to 67.3%, based on the probability threshold, with consistent performance across external validation cohorts. ARISE could be used to optimize screening for elevated Lp(a) using commonly available clinical features, with the potential for its deployment in electronic health records to enhance the yield of Lp(a) testing in real-world settings.

Novel Therapies for Lipoprotein(a): Update in Cardiovascular Risk Estimation and Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lipoprotein(a) is an important causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease but currently no available medication effectively reduces lipoprotein(a). This review discusses recent findings regarding lipoprotein(a) as a causal risk factor and therapeutic target in cardiovascular disease, it reviews current clinical recommendations, and summarizes new lipoprotein(a) lowering drugs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Epidemiological and genetic studies have established lipoprotein(a) as a causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease and mortality. Guidelines worldwide now recommend lipoprotein(a) to be measured once in a lifetime, to offer patients with high lipoprotein(a) lifestyle advise and initiate other cardiovascular medications. Clinical trials including antisense oligonucleotides, small interfering RNAs, and an oral lipoprotein(a) inhibitor have shown great effect on lowering lipoprotein(a) with reductions up to 106%, without any major adverse effects. Recent clinical phase 1 and 2 trials show encouraging results and ongoing phase 3 trials will hopefully result in the introduction of specific lipoprotein(a) lowering drugs to lower the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Causal association of blood lipids with all-cause and cause-specific mortality risk: a Mendelian randomization study

Dyslipidemia has long been implicated in elevating mortality risk; yet, the precise associations between lipid traits and mortality remained undisclosed. Our study aimed to explore the causal effects of lipid traits on both all-cause and cause-specific mortality. One-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) with linear and nonlinear assumptions was conducted in a cohort of 407,951 European participants from the UK Biobank. Six lipid traits, consisting of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides, apolipoprotein A1 (ApoA1), apolipoprotein B (ApoB), and lipoprotein(a), were included to investigate the causal associations with mortality. Two-sample MR was performed to replicate the association between each lipid trait and all-cause mortality. Univariable MR results showed that genetically predicted higher ApoA1 was significantly associated with a decreased all-cause mortality risk (HR[95% CI]:0.93 [0.89-0.97], P value = 0.001), which was validated by the two-sample MR analysis. Higher lipoprotein(a) was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (1.03 [1.01-1.04], P value = 0.002). Multivariable MR confirmed the direct causal effects of ApoA1 and lipoprotein(a) on all-cause mortality. Meanwhile, nonlinear MR found no evidence for nonlinearity between lipids and all-cause mortality. Our examination into cause-specific mortality revealed a suggestive inverse association between ApoA1 and cancer mortality, a significant positive association between lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease mortality, and a suggestive positive association between lipoprotein(a) and digestive disease mortality. High LDL-C was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease mortality but a decreased risk of neurodegenerative disease mortality. The findings suggest that implementing interventions to raise ApoA1 and decrease lipoprotein(a) levels may improve overall health outcomes and mitigate cancer and digestive disease mortality.

Lipoprotein(a) and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients With or Without Baseline Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, whether the optimal Lp(a) threshold for risk assessment should differ based on baseline ASCVD status is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the association between Lp(a) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with and without baseline ASCVD.

METHODS

We studied a retrospective cohort of patients with Lp(a) measured at 2 medical centers in Boston, Massachusetts, from 2000 to 2019. To assess the association of Lp(a) with incident MACE (nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular mortality), Lp(a) percentile groups were generated with the reference group set at the first to 50th Lp(a) percentiles. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to assess the association of Lp(a) percentile group with MACE.

RESULTS

Overall, 16,419 individuals were analyzed with a median follow-up of 11.9 years. Among the 10,181 (62%) patients with baseline ASCVD, individuals in the 71st to 90th percentile group had a 21% increased hazard of MACE (adjusted HR: 1.21; P < 0.001), which was similar to that of individuals in the 91st to 100th group (adjusted HR: 1.26; P < 0.001). Among the 6,238 individuals without established ASCVD, there was a continuously higher hazard of MACE with increasing Lp(a), and individuals in the 91st to 100th Lp(a) percentile group had the highest relative risk with an adjusted HR of 1.93 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large, contemporary U.S. cohort, elevated Lp(a) is independently associated with long-term MACE among individuals with and without baseline ASCVD. Our results suggest that the threshold for risk assessment may be different in primary vs secondary prevention cohorts.

Consideration and Application of Lipoprotein(a) in the Risk Assessment of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Adults

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is an low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-like particle in which apolipoprotein (apo) B is covalently bound to a plasminogen-like molecule called apo(a). A High level of Lp(a) has been demonstrated to be an independent, causal, and prevalent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), as well as aortic valve disease, through mechanisms that promote atherogenesis, inflammation, and thrombosis. With reliable and accessible assays, Lp(a) level has been established to be associated linearly with the risk for ASCVD. The 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Dyslipidemia Guidelines recommend measuring an Lp(a) level once in a person's lifetime as part of the initial lipid screening. The aim of this review is to provide an update and overview of the utility and application of Lp(a) level in the assessment and treatment of adults at risk for ASCVD, consistent with this guideline recommendation.

Lipoprotein(a): A Review of Risk Factors, Measurements, and Novel Treatment Modalities

The study of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has long been a source of interest as a possible independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The results of large sample observational studies, genome-wide association studies, and Mendelian randomization studies have been strong indicators supporting the link between ASCVD and Lp(a) despite early studies, with less sensitive assays, failing to show a connection. The recommendations for the indications and frequency of testing Lp(a) levels vary between US, Canadian, and European organizations due to the uncertain role of Lp(a) in ASCVD. The innovation of recent therapies, such as antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering RNA, designed to specifically target and reduce Lp(a) levels by targeting mRNA translation have once more thrust LP(a) into the spotlight of inquiry. These emerging modalities serve the dual purpose of definitively elucidating the connection between elevated Lp(a) levels and atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk, as well as the possibility of providing clinicians with the tools necessary to manage elevated Lp(a) levels in vulnerable populations. This review seeks to examine the mechanisms of atherogenicity of Lp(a) and explore the most current pharmacologic therapies currently in development.

High Lipoprotein(a) May Explain One-Quarter of Clinical Familial Hypercholesterolemia Diagnoses in Danish Lipid Clinics

CONTEXT

Cholesterol carried in lipoprotein(a) adds to measured low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and may therefore drive some diagnoses of clinical familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

OBJECTIVE

We investigated plasma lipoprotein(a) in individuals referred to Danish lipid clinics and evaluated the effect of plasma lipoprotein(a) on a diagnosis of FH.

METHODS

Individuals referred to 15 Danish lipid clinics who were suspected of having FH according to nationwide referral criteria were recruited between September 1, 2020 and November 30, 2021. All individuals were classified according to the Dutch Lipid Clinical Network criteria for FH before and after LDL-C was adjusted for 30% cholesterol content in lipoprotein(a). We calculated the fraction of individuals fulfilling a clinical diagnosis of FH partly due to elevated lipoprotein(a).

RESULTS

We included a total of 1166 individuals for analysis, of whom 206 fulfilled a clinical diagnosis of FH. Median lipoprotein(a) was 15 mg/dL (29 nmol/L) in those referred and 28% had lipoprotein(a) greater than or equal to 50 mg/dL (105 nmol/L), while 2% had levels greater than or equal to 180 mg/dL (389 nmol/L). We found that in 27% (55/206) of those fulfilling a clinical diagnosis of FH, this was partly due to high lipoprotein(a).

CONCLUSION

Elevated lipoprotein(a) was common in individuals referred to Danish lipid clinics and in one-quarter of individuals who fulfilled a clinical diagnosis of FH, this was partly due to elevated lipoprotein(a). These findings support the notion that the LPA gene should be considered an important causative gene in patients with clinical FH and further support the importance of measuring lipoprotein(a) when diagnosing FH as well as for stratification of cardiovascular risk.

The impact of baseline dietary fatty acid intake on the association between lipoprotein(a) and mortality in two US cohorts

Background

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an established casual risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. It remains unknown whether dietary fat modifies the association of Lp(a) with cardiovascular death.

Aim

To understand if dietary fat modifies the association between Lp(a) and cardiovascular death.

Methods

We utilized the Atherosclerotic Risk in Communities (ARIC) study and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III cohorts and used multivariate cox proportional hazard modeling to test the association between Lp(a), dietary fats, and cardiovascular death.

Results

The sample (n = 22,805) had average age 51.3 years and was mostly female (55.4%). Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL was associated with CV death in both ARIC (1.36, p = 0.001) and NHANES (1.31, p = 0.03). In multivariate analysis, no categorical or individual fatty acids modified the association between Lp(a) and CV death.

Conclusion

There was no evidence that baseline dietary fat intake modified the association between Lp(a) and CV death.

Association of Renal Function and Statin Therapy with Lipoprotein(a) in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

AIM

A high level of serum lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with kidney disease development in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Recent studies have suggested that statins may affect serum levels of Lp(a). However, the statin effect is not well-defined in patients with T2DM with kidney dysfunction. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the relevance of kidney dysfunction and statin therapy to Lp(a) in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

Japanese patients with T2DM (n=149, 96 men and 53 women) were divided into two groups: statin users (n=79) and non-statin users (n=70). Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed with Lp(a) as the objective variable and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), hemoglobin A1c, age, gender, and body mass index as the explanatory variables.

RESULTS

Lp(a) serum levels were higher in statin users than in non-statin users (P=0.022). Multivariate regression analysis results showed an inverse correlation of eGFR to log Lp(a) in all patients (P=0.009) and in non-statin users (P=0.025), but not in statin users. In a multiple logistic regression analysis for median Lp(a), there was an inverse association between eGFR and Lp(a) level (odds ratio, 0.965; 95% confidence interval, 0.935-0.997; P=0.030) in non-statin users as well as in all participants, but not in statin users.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests that a high Lp(a) level in patients with T2DM, except in statin users, is significantly associated with decreased eGFR, indicating that the increased Lp(a) levels under statin therapy might diminish the relationship between Lp(a) and eGFR.

Lp(a) and risk of cardiovascular disease - A review of existing evidence and emerging concepts

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death among adults in the United States. There has been significant advancement in the diagnosis and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and its underlying risk factors. In certain populations, there remains a significant residual risk despite adequate lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and control of traditional risk factors. This has led to an interest in research to identify additional risk factors that contribute to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Elevated lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] has been identified as an independent risk factor contributing to an increased risk for CVD. There are also ethnic and racial disparities in Lp(a) inheritance that need to be understood. This paper reviews the current literature on lipoprotein a, proposed mechanisms of actions for cardiovascular disease, recommendations for testing, and the current and emerging therapies for lowering Lp(a).

Lipoprotein(a) and Risks of Peripheral Artery Disease, Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm, and Major Adverse Limb Events

BACKGROUND

Lp(a) (lipoprotein[a])-lowering therapy to reduce cardiovascular disease is under investigation in phase 3 clinical trials. High Lp(a) may be implicated in peripheral artery disease (PAD), abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), and major adverse limb events (MALE).

OBJECTIVES

The authors investigated the association of high Lp(a) levels and corresponding LPA genotypes with risk of PAD, AAA, and MALE.

METHODS

The authors included 108,146 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study. During follow-up, 2,450 developed PAD, and 1,251 AAAs. Risk of MALE was assessed in individuals with PAD at baseline and replicated in the Copenhagen City Heart Study.

RESULTS

Higher Lp(a) was associated with a stepwise increase in risk of PAD and AAA (P for trend <0.001). For individuals with Lp(a) levels ≥99th (≥143 mg/dL, ≥307 nmol/L) vs <50th percentile (≤9 mg/dL, ≤17 nmol/L), multivariable-adjusted HRs were 2.99 (95% CI: 2.09-4.30) for PAD and 2.22 (95% CI: 1.21-4.07) for AAA. For individuals with PAD, the corresponding incidence rate ratio for MALE was 3.04 (95% CI: 1.55-5.98). Per 50 mg/dL (105 nmol/L) genetically higher Lp(a) risk ratios were 1.39 (95% CI: 1.24-1.56) for PAD and 1.21 (95% CI: 1.01-1.44) for AAA, consistent with observational risk ratios of 1.33 (95% CI: 1.24-1.43) and 1.27 (95% CI: 1.15-1.41), respectively. In women smokers aged 70 to 79 years with Lp(a) <50th and ≥99th percentile, absolute 10-year risks of PAD were 8% and 21%, and equivalent risks in men 11% and 29%, respectively. For AAA, corresponding risks were 2% and 4% in women, and 5% and 12% in men.

CONCLUSIONS

High Lp(a) levels increased risk of PAD, AAA, and MALE by 2- to 3-fold in the general population, opening opportunities for prevention given future Lp(a)-lowering therapies.

Polygenic prediction of human longevity on the supposition of pervasive pleiotropy

The highly polygenic nature of human longevity renders cross-trait pleiotropy an indispensable feature of its genetic architecture. Leveraging the genetic correlation between the aging-related traits (ARTs), we sought to model the additive variance in lifespan as a function of cumulative liability from pleiotropic segregating variants. We tracked allele frequency changes as a function of viability across different age bins and prioritized 34 variants with an immediate implication on lipid metabolism, body mass index (BMI), and cognitive performance, among other traits, revealed by PheWAS analysis in the UK Biobank. Given the highly complex and non-linear interactions between the genetic determinants of longevity, we reasoned that a composite polygenic score would approximate a substantial portion of the variance in lifespan and developed the integrated longevity genetic scores (iLGSs) for distinguishing exceptional survival. We showed that coefficients derived from our ensemble model could potentially reveal an interesting pattern of genomic pleiotropy specific to lifespan. We assessed the predictive performance of our model for distinguishing the enrichment of exceptional longevity among long-lived individuals in two replication cohorts and showed that the median lifespan in the highest decile of our composite prognostic index is up to 4.8 years longer. Finally, using the proteomic correlates of i L G S , we identified protein markers associated with exceptional longevity irrespective of chronological age and prioritized drugs with repurposing potentials for gerotherapeutics. Together, our approach demonstrates a promising framework for polygenic modeling of additive liability conferred by ARTs in defining exceptional longevity and assisting the identification of individuals at higher risk of mortality for targeted lifestyle modifications earlier in life. Furthermore, the proteomic signature associated with i L G S highlights the functional pathway upstream of the PI3K-Akt that can be effectively targeted to slow down aging and extend lifespan.

Predictive value of type D personality for cardiac events in Chinese patients with acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Our study aimed to investigate the association between type D personality and adverse cardiac events in chinese patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS

Patients with AMI admitted to cardiac care unit (CCU) of China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China between January 2016 and December 2017 were enrolled. 257 patients completed psychological questionnaires at enrollment. Type D personality was assessed with 14-item Type D Scale-14 (DS14). Anxiety and depression were quantified using Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine the independent predictors of in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), while cox regression analysis was used to evaluate post-discharge endpoints.

RESULTS

54 patients (21%) were classified as Type D personality defined by the combination of a negative affectivity (NA) score ≥ 10 and a social inhibition (SI) score ≥ 10 on the DS14. Patients with Type D personality displayed significantly higher scores of anxiety (7.4 ± 3.1 vs. 4.2 ± 3.1, p < .001) and depression (7.2 ± 3.8 vs. 4.0 ± 3.4, p < .001). AMI patients with Type D personality had higher prevalence rates of anxiety (χ2 = 30.095, P < .001) and depression (χ2 = 27.082, P < .001). Type D group also displayed a significantly higher level of blood lipoprotein(a) (177.2 ± 200.7 vs. 118.1 ± 255.7 mg/L, P = .048). The incidence of in-hospital MACEs was higher in type D than in non-Type D patients (24.1% vs. 11.3%, χ2 = 5.751, P = .026). Multivariable logistic regression showed three significant independent predictors of in-hospital MACEs: age [odds ratio(OR) = 1.055; 95%CI 1.016-1.095, p = .004], type-D personality(OR 3.332; 95% CI 1.149-9.661, p = .014) and killip classification(OR 2.275, 95% CI 1.506-3.437, p < .001). The average follow-up time was 31 (23-37.5) months. Type D patients had higher incidences of post-discharge events(23.1% vs. 11.5%, p = .032). In the analysis of post-discharge events by Cox regression, χ2 of the Cox regression equation was 16.795 (P = .032). Smoking (HR 2.602; 95% CI1.266-5.347, p = .009) and type-D personality (HR 2.265; 95%CI 1.028-4.988, p = .042) were independent predictors of long-term cardiac events. Kaplan-Meier curves showed significant difference in event-free survival between type D and non-type D group (p = .043).

CONCLUSIONS

Type D personality is an independent predictor of in-hospital and post-discharge cardiac events after AMI in Chinese patients.

Lipoproteins, Cholesterol, and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in East Asians and Europeans

One fifth of the world population live in East Asia comprising Japan, Korea, and China where ischemic heart disease, a major component of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), is the second most frequent cause of death. Each of low-density lipoproteins (LDL), remnant lipoproteins, and lipoprotein(a), summarized as non-high-density lipoproteins (non-HDL) or apolipoprotein B (apoB) containing lipoproteins, causes ASCVD. However, a significant proportion of the evidence on lipoproteins and lipoprotein cholesterol with risk of ASCVD came from White people mainly living in Europe and North America and not from people living in East Asia or of East Asian descent. With a unique biological, geohistorical, and social background in this world region, East Asians have distinctive characteristics that might have potential impact on the association of lipoproteins and lipoprotein cholesterol with risk of ASCVD. Considering the movement across national borders in the World, understanding of lipoprotein and lipoprotein cholesterol evidence on ASCVD in East Asia is important for both East Asian and non-East Asian populations wherever they live in the World.In this review, we introduce the biological features of lipoproteins and lipoprotein cholesterol and the evidence for their association with risk of ASCVD in East Asian and European populations. We also provide an overview of guideline recommendations for prevention of ASCVD in these two different world regions. Finally, specific preventive strategies and future perspectives are touched upon.

Predictive value of lipoprotein(a) in coronary artery calcification among asymptomatic cardiovascular disease subjects: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Studies have indicated inconsistent results regarding the association between plasma levels of Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and coronary artery calcification (CAC). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the association between elevated levels of Lp(a) and risk of CAC in populations free of cardiovascular disease (CVD) symptoms.

DATA SYNTHESIS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus were searched up to July 2022 and the methodological quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) scale. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval. Out of 298 studies, data from 8 cross-sectional (n = 18,668) and 4 cohort (n = 15,355) studies were used in meta-analysis. Cohort studies demonstrated a positive significant association between Lp(a) and CAC, so that individuals with Lp(a)≥30-50 exposed to about 60% risk of CAC incidence compared to those with lower Lp(a) concentrations in asymptomatic CVD subjects (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.38-1.80; l2, 0.0%; P, 0.483); Subgroup analysis showed that a cut-off level for Lp(a) measurement could not statistically affect the association, but race significantly affected the relationship between Lp(a) and CAC (OR,1.60; 95% CI, 1.41-1.81). Analyses also revealed that both men and women with higher Lp(a) concentrations are at the same risk for increased CAC.

CONCLUSIONS

Blood Lp(a) level was significantly associated with CAC incidence in asymptomatic populations with CVD, indicating that measuring Lp(a) may be a useful biomarker for diagnosing subclinical atherosclerosis in individuals at higher risk of CAC score.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022350297.

Lipoprotein(a)-60 Years Later-What Do We Know?

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) molecule includes two protein components: apolipoprotein(a) and apoB100. The molecule is the main transporter of oxidized phospholipids (OxPL) in plasma. The concentration of this strongly atherogenic lipoprotein is predominantly regulated by the LPA gene expression. Lp(a) is regarded as a risk factor for several cardiovascular diseases. Numerous epidemiological, clinical and in vitro studies showed a strong association between increased Lp(a) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), calcific aortic valve disease/aortic stenosis (CAVD/AS), stroke, heart failure or peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Although there are acknowledged contributions of Lp(a) to the mentioned diseases, clinicians struggle with many inconveniences such as a lack of well-established treatment lowering Lp(a), and common guidelines for diagnosing or assessing cardiovascular risk among both adult and pediatric patients. Lp(a) levels are different with regard to a particular race or ethnicity and might fluctuate during childhood. Furthermore, the lack of standardization of assays is an additional impediment. The review presents the recent knowledge on Lp(a) based on clinical and scientific research, but also highlights relevant aspects of future study directions that would approach more suitable and effective managing risk associated with increased Lp(a), as well as control the Lp(a) levels.

Women, lipids, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a call to action from the European Atherosclerosis Society

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in women and men globally, with most due to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Despite progress during the last 30 years, ASCVD mortality is now increasing, with the fastest relative increase in middle-aged women. Missed or delayed diagnosis and undertreatment do not fully explain this burden of disease. Sex-specific factors, such as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, premature menopause (especially primary ovarian insufficiency), and polycystic ovary syndrome are also relevant, with good evidence that these are associated with greater cardiovascular risk. This position statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society focuses on these factors, as well as sex-specific effects on lipids, including lipoprotein(a), over the life course in women which impact ASCVD risk. Women are also disproportionately impacted (in relative terms) by diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and auto-immune inflammatory disease. All these effects are compounded by sociocultural components related to gender. This panel stresses the need to identify and treat modifiable cardiovascular risk factors earlier in women, especially for those at risk due to sex-specific conditions, to reduce the unacceptably high burden of ASCVD in women.

Contribution of Lipoprotein(a) to Polygenic Risk Prediction of Coronary Artery Disease: A Prospective UK Biobank Analysis

BACKGROUND

Lp(a) (lipoprotein[a]) is a highly atherogenic lipoprotein subfraction that may contribute to polygenic risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), but the extent of this contribution is unknown. Our objective was to estimate the contribution of Lp(a) to polygenic risk of CAD and to evaluate the respective contributions of Lp(a) and a CAD polygenic risk score (PRS) to CAD.

METHODS

A total of 372 385 UK Biobank participants of European ancestry free of CAD at baseline were included. Plasma Lp(a) levels were measured and a CAD-PRS was calculated using the LDpred2 algorithm. Over the median follow-up of 12.6 years, 13 538 participants had incident CAD (myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, or coronary angioplasty).

RESULTS

The LPA region contribution to the CAD-PRS-mediated CAD risk was modest (7.2% [95% CI, 6.1-8.3]). Lp(a) levels significantly increased the predictive performance of a CAD-PRS including age and sex in Cox regression (C statistic 0.751 versus 0.746, difference, 0.005 [95% CI, 0.004-0.006]). Compared with participants in the bottom CAD-PRS quintile with Lp(a) levels <25 nmol/L (CAD event rate, 1.4%), the hazard ratio for incident CAD in participants in the top CAD-PRS quintile with Lp(a) levels ≥125 nmol/L was 5.45 (95% CI, 4.93-6.03; P=9.35×10-242, CAD event rate 6.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with individuals with a low genetic risk of CAD (low CAD-PRS and low Lp[a] levels), those with a high genetic risk (high CAD-PRS and high Lp[a] levels) had a 5-fold higher CAD risk. These results highlight a substantial contribution of genetic risk factors to CAD and that accurate estimation of genetic risk of CAD may need to consider blood levels of Lp(a).

Consensus document on Lipoprotein(a) from the Italian Society for the Study of Atherosclerosis (SISA)

AIMS

In view of the consolidating evidence on the causal role of Lp(a) in cardiovascular disease, the Italian Society for the Study of Atherosclerosis (SISA) has assembled a consensus on Lp(a) genetics and epidemiology, together with recommendations for its measurement and current and emerging therapeutic approaches to reduce its plasma levels. Data on the Italian population are also provided.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Lp(a) is constituted by one apo(a) molecule and a lipoprotein closely resembling to a low-density lipoprotein (LDL). Its similarity with an LDL, together with its ability to carry oxidized phospholipids are considered the two main features making Lp(a) harmful for cardiovascular health. Plasma Lp(a) concentrations vary over about 1000 folds in humans and are genetically determined, thus they are quite stable in any individual. Mendelian Randomization studies have suggested a causal role of Lp(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve stenosis and observational studies indicate a linear direct correlation between cardiovascular disease and Lp(a) plasma levels. Lp(a) measurement is strongly recommended once in a patient's lifetime, particularly in FH subjects, but also as part of the initial lipid screening to assess cardiovascular risk. The apo(a) size polymorphism represents a challenge for Lp(a) measurement in plasma, but new strategies are overcoming these difficulties. A reduction of Lp(a) levels can be currently attained only by plasma apheresis and, moderately, with PCSK9 inhibitor treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Awaiting the approval of selective Lp(a)-lowering drugs, an intensive management of the other risk factors for individuals with elevated Lp(a) levels is strongly recommended.

Development and Multinational Validation of a Novel Algorithmic Strategy for High Lp(a) Screening

Importance

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). However, fewer than 0.5% of patients undergo Lp(a) testing, limiting the evaluation and use of novel targeted therapeutics currently under development.

Objective

We developed and validated a machine learning model to enable targeted screening for elevated Lp(a).

Design

Cross-sectional.

Setting

4 multinational population-based cohorts.

Participants

We included 456,815 participants from the UK Biobank (UKB), the largest cohort with protocolized Lp(a) testing for model development. The model's external validity was assessed in Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) (N=14,484), Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) (N=4,124), and Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) (N=4,672) cohorts.

Exposures

Demographics, medications, diagnoses, procedures, vitals, and laboratory measurements from UKB and linked electronic health records (EHR) were candidate input features to predict high Lp(a). We used the pooled cohort equations (PCE), an ASCVD risk marker, as a comparator to identify elevated Lp(a).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was elevated Lp(a) (≥150 nmol/L), and the number-needed-to-test (NNT) to find one case with elevated Lp(a). We explored the association of the model's prediction probabilities with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and MACE.

Results

The Algorithmic Risk Inspection for Screening Elevated Lp(a) (ARISE) used low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, statin use, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, history of ASCVD, and anti-hypertensive medication use as input features. ARISE outperformed cardiovascular risk stratification through PCE for predicting elevated Lp(a) with a significantly lower NNT (4.0 versus 8.0 [with or without PCE], P<0.001). ARISE performed comparably across external validation cohorts and subgroups, reducing the NNT by up to 67.3%, depending on the probability threshold. Over a median follow-up of 4.2 years, a high ARISE probability was also associated with a greater hazard of all-cause death and MACE (age/sex-adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.35, and 1.38, respectively, P<0.001), with a greater increase in cardiovascular mortality (aHR, 2.17, P<0.001).

Conclusions and Relevance

ARISE optimizes screening for elevated Lp(a) using commonly available clinical features. ARISE can be deployed in EHR and other settings to encourage greater Lp(a) testing and to improve identifying cases eligible for novel targeted therapeutics in trials.

KEY POINTS

Question: How can we optimize the identification of individuals with elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] who may be eligible for novel targeted therapeutics?Findings: Using 4 multinational population-based cohorts, we developed and validated a machine learning model, Algorithmic Risk Inspection for Screening Elevated Lp(a) (ARISE), to enable targeted screening for elevated Lp(a). In contrast to the pooled cohort equations that do not identify those with elevated Lp(a), ARISE reduces the "number-needed-to-test" to find one case with elevated Lp(a) by up to 67.3%.Meaning: ARISE can be deployed in electronic health records and other settings to enable greater yield of Lp(a) testing, thereby improving the identification of individuals with elevated Lp(a).

[Primary disorders of lipid metabolism: their place in current dyslipidemia guidelines and treatment innovations]

According to current guidelines, the selection and intensity of lipid-effective therapies are based on the risk to be treated. The sole clinical categories of primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases result in over- and under-treatment, which may be a contributory cause of incomplete implementation of current guidelines in everyday practice. For the extent of benefit in cardiovascular outcome studies with lipid-lowering drugs, the importance of dyslipdemia for the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis-related diseases is crucial. Primary lipid metabolism disorders are characterized by life-long increased exposure to atherogenic lipoproteins. This article describes the relevance of new data for low density lipoprotein-effective therapy: inhibition of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9), adenosine triphosphate (ATP) citrate lyase with bempedoic acid, and ANGPTL3 with special consideration of primary lipid metabolism disorders, which are insufficiently taken into account, or not taken into account at all, in current guidelines. This is due to their apparently low prevalence rate and thus the lack of large outcome studies. The authors also discuss the consequences of increased lipoprotein (a), which cannot be sufficiently reduced until the ongoing intervention studies examining antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering RNA (siRNA) against apolipoprotein (a) are completed. Another challenge in practice is the treatment of rare, massive hypertriglyceridemia, especially with the aim of preventing pancreatitis. For this purpose, the apolipoprotein C3 (ApoC3) antisense oligonucleotide volenasorsen is available, which binds to the mRNA for ApoC3 and lowers triglycerides by around three quarters.

Lipoprotein(a): Just an Innocent Bystander in Arterial Hypertension?

Elevated plasma lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a relatively common and highly heritable trait conferring individuals time-dependent risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD). Following its first description, Lp(a) triggered enormous scientific interest in the late 1980s, subsequently dampened in the mid-1990s by controversial findings of some prospective studies. It was only in the last decade that a large body of evidence has provided strong arguments for a causal and independent association between elevated Lp(a) levels and CVD, causing renewed interest in this lipoprotein as an emerging risk factor with a likely contribution to cardiovascular residual risk. Accordingly, the 2022 consensus statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society has suggested inclusion of Lp(a) measurement in global risk estimation. The development of highly effective Lp(a)-lowering drugs (e.g., antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering RNA, both blocking LPA gene expression) which are still under assessment in phase 3 trials, will provide a unique opportunity to reduce "residual cardiovascular risk" in high-risk populations, including patients with arterial hypertension. The current evidence in support of a specific role of Lp(a) in hypertension is somehow controversial and this narrative review aims to overview the general mechanisms relating Lp(a) to blood pressure regulation and hypertension-related cardiovascular and renal damage.

Predictors of functional and morphological arterial wall properties in coronary artery disease patients with increased lipoprotein (a) levels before and after treatment with proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors

BACKGROUND

In addition to proatherogenic properties, lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) has also pro-inflammatory, antifibrinolytic and prothrombogenic features. The aim of the current study was to identify the predictors of functional and morphological properties of the arterial wall in patients after myocardial infarction and increased Lp(a) levels at the beginning and after treatment with proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors.

METHODS

Seventy-six post-myocardial infarction patients with high Lp(a) levels were included in the study. Ultrasound measurements of flow-mediated dilation of brachial artery (FMD), carotid intima-media thickness (c-IMT) and pulse wave velocity (PWV) were performed initially and after 6 months of treatment. At the same time points lipids, Lp(a), inflammatory and hemostasis markers were measured in blood samples.

RESULTS

In linear regression model FMD significantly correlated with age at first myocardial infarction (β = 0.689; p = 0.022), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (β = -1.200; p = 0.009), vascular cell adhesion protein 1 (VCAM-1) (β = -0.992; p = 0.006), overall coagulation potential (β = 1.428; p = 0.014) and overall hemostasis potential (β = -1.473; p = 0.008). c-IMT significantly correlated with age at first myocardial infarction (β = 0.574; p = 0.033) and Lp(a) (β = 0.524; p = 0.040). PWV significantly correlated with systolic blood pressure (β = 0.332; p = 0.002), tumor necrosis factor alpha (β = 0.406; p = 0.002), interleukin-8 (β = -0.315; p = 0.015) and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (β = 0.229; p = 0.031). After treatment FMD reached statistical significance only in univariant analysis with systolic blood pressure (r = -0.286; p = 0.004) and VCAM-1 (r = -0.229; p = 0.024). PWV and c-IMT correlated with age (r = 0.334; p = 0.001 and r = 0.486; p < 0.0001, respectively) and systolic blood pressure (r = 0.556; p < 0.0001 and r = 0.233; p = 0.021, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that age, systolic blood pressure, Lp(a) levels and other biochemical markers associated with Lp(a) are predictors of functional and morphological properties of the arterial vessel wall in post-myocardial patients with high Lp(a) levels initially. However, after 6 months of treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors only age and systolic blood pressure seem to be predictors of these properties.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol for this study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov on November, 3 2020 under registration number NCT04613167.

Considerations for routinely testing for high lipoprotein(a)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a likely causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve disease, confirmed by Mendelian randomization. With reliable assays, it has been established that Lp(a) is linearly associated with ASCVD. Current low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering therapies do not or minimally lower Lp(a). This review focuses on the clinical importance and therapeutic consequences of Lp(a) measurement.

RECENT FINDINGS

Development of RNA-based Lp(a) lowering therapeutics has positioned Lp(a) as one of the principal residual risk factors to target in the battle against lipid-driven ASCVD risk. Pelacarsen, which is a liver-specific antisense oligonucleotide, has shown Lp(a) reductions up to 90% and its phase 3 trial is currently underway. Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA targeting LPA messenger RNA, which is being investigated in phase 2 and has already shown dose-dependent Lp(a) reductions up to 90%.

SUMMARY

Lp(a) should be measured in every patient at least once to identify patients with very high Lp(a) levels. These patients could benefit from Lp(a) lowering therapies when approved. In the meantime, therapy in high Lp(a) patients should focus on further reducing LDL-C and other ASCVD risk factors.

Cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease and elevated lipoprotein(a): implications for the OCEAN(a)-outcomes trial population

Aims

The ongoing Olpasiran Trials of Cardiovascular Events and Lipoprotein(a) Reduction [OCEAN(a)]-Outcomes trial is evaluating whether Lp(a) lowering can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events among patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and elevated Lp(a) (≥200 nmol/L). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the association of elevated Lp(a) with cardiovascular outcomes in an observational cohort resembling the OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial main enrolment criteria.

Methods and results

This study included patients aged 18-85 years with Lp(a) measured as part of their clinical care between 2000 and 2019. While patients were required to have a history of MI, or PCI, those with severe kidney dysfunction or a malignant neoplasm were excluded. Elevated Lp(a) was defined as ≥200 nmol/L consistent with the OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial. The primary outcome was a composite of coronary heart disease death, MI, or coronary revascularization. Natural language processing algorithms, billing and ICD codes, and laboratory data were employed to identify outcomes and covariates. A total of 3142 patients met the eligibility criteria, the median age was 61 (IQR: 52-73) years, 28.6% were women, and 12.3% had elevated Lp(a). Over a median follow-up of 12.2 years (IQR: 6.2-14.3), the primary composite outcome occurred more frequently in patients with versus without elevated Lp(a) [46.0 vs. 38.0%, unadjHR = 1.30 (95% CI: 1.09-1.53), P = 0.003]. Following adjustment for measured confounders, elevated Lp(a) remained independently associated with the primary outcome [adjHR = 1.33 (95% CI: 1.12-1.58), P = 0.001].

Conclusion

In an observational cohort resembling the main OCEAN(a)-Outcomes Trial enrolment criteria, patients with an Lp(a) ≥200 nmol/L had a higher risk of cardiovascular outcomes.

Frequent questions and responses on the 2022 lipoprotein(a) consensus statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society

In 2022, the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) published a new consensus statement on lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], summarizing current knowledge about its causal association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic stenosis. One of the novelties of this statement is a new risk calculator showing how Lp(a) influences lifetime risk for ASCVD and that global risk may be underestimated substantially in individuals with high or very high Lp(a) concentration. The statement also provides practical advice on how knowledge about Lp(a) concentration can be used to modulate risk factor management, given that specific and highly effective mRNA-targeted Lp(a)-lowering therapies are still in clinical development. This advice counters the attitude: "Why should I measure Lp(a) if I can't lower it?". Subsequent to publication, questions have arisen relating to how the recommendations of this statement impact everyday clinical practice and ASCVD management. This review addresses 30 of the most frequently asked questions about Lp(a) epidemiology, its contribution to cardiovascular risk, Lp(a) measurement, risk factor management and existing therapeutic options.

Effects of Lipid-Modifying and Other Drugs on Lipoprotein(a) Levels-Potent Clinical Implications

The past few years have shown an ongoing interest in lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), a lipid molecule that has been proven to have atherogenic, thrombogenic, and inflammatory properties. Several lines of evidence, indeed, have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular disease as well as calcific aortic valve stenosis in patients with elevated Lp(a) levels. Statins, the mainstay of lipid-lowering therapy, slightly increase Lp(a) levels, while most other lipid-modifying agents do not significantly alter Lp(a) concentrations, except for proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. The latter have been shown to reduce Lp(a) levels; however, the clinical significance of this effect has not been clearly elucidated. Of note, the pharmaceutical lowering of Lp(a) may be achieved with novel treatments specifically designed for this purpose (i.e., antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) and small interfering RNAs (siRNAs)). Large clinical trials with cardiovascular outcomes with these agents are ongoing, and their results are eagerly awaited. Furthermore, several non-lipid-modifying drugs of various classes may influence Lp(a) concentrations. We have searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases up to 28 January 2023 and summarized the effects of established and emerging lipid-modifying drugs and other medications on Lp(a) levels. We also discuss the potent clinical implications of these alterations.

Supporting evidence for lipoprotein(a) measurements in clinical practice

High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] are causal for development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and highly regulated by genetics. Levels are higher in Blacks compared to Whites, and in women compared to men. Lp(a)'s main protein components are apolipoprotein (apo) (a) and apoB100, the latter being the main component of Low-Density Lipoprotein (LDL) particles. Studies have identified Lp(a) to be associated with inflammatory, coagulation and wound healing pathways. Lack of validated and accepted assays to measure Lp(a), risk cutoff values, guidelines for diagnosis, and targeted therapies have added challenges to the field. Scientific efforts are ongoing to address these, including studies evaluating the cardiovascular benefits of decreasing Lp(a) levels with targeted apo(a) lowering treatments. This review will provide a synopsis of evidence-based effects of high Lp(a) on disease presentation, highlight available guidelines and discuss promising therapies in development. We will conclude with current clinical information and future research needs in the field.

Circulating lipoprotein (a) and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

AIMS

To investigate the association between circulating lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the general population and in patients with chronic diseases, and to elucidate the dose-response relations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched literature to find prospective studies reporting adjusted risk estimates on the association of Lp(a) and mortality outcomes. Forty-three publications, reporting on 75 studies (957,253 participants), were included. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI ) for the top versus bottom tertile of Lp(a) levels and risk of all-cause mortality were 1.09 (95%CI: 1.01-1.18, I2: 75.34%, n = 19) in the general population and 1.18 (95%CI: 1.04-1.34, I2: 52.5%, n = 12) in patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVD). The HRs for CVD mortality were 1.33 (95%CI: 1.11-1.58, I2: 82.8%, n = 31) in the general population, 1.25 (95%CI: 1.10-1.43, I2: 54.3%, n = 17) in patients with CVD and 2.53 (95%CI: 1.13-5.64, I2: 66%, n = 4) in patients with diabetes mellitus. Linear dose-response analyses revealed that each 50 mg/dL increase in Lp(a) levels was associated with 31% and 15% greater risk of CVD death in the general population and in patients with CVD. No non-linear dose-response association was observed between Lp(a) levels and risk of all-cause or CVD mortality in the general population or in patients with CVD (Pnonlinearity > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study provides further evidence that higher Lp(a) levels are associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and CVD-death in the general population and in patients with CVD. These findings support the ESC/EAS Guidelines that recommend Lp(a) should be measured at least once in each adult person's lifetime, since our study suggests those with higher Lp(a) might also have higher risk of mortality.