Lipoprotein (a) measurements for clinical application

Lipoprotein(a): Are we ready for large-scale clinical trials?

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are currently the most important disease threatening human health, which may be due to the high incidence of risk factors including hyperlipidemia. With the deepening of research on lipoprotein, lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] has been shown to be an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases and calcified aortic valve stenosis and is now an unaddressed "residual risk" in current CVD management. Accurate measurement of Lp(a) concentration is the basis for diagnosis and treatment of high Lp(a). This review summarized the Lp(a) structure, discussed the current problems in clinical measurement of plasma Lp(a) concentration and the effects of existing lipid-lowering therapies on Lp(a).

Exploring the Interplay between Diabetes and Lp(a): Implications for Cardiovascular Risk

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The objective of this manuscript is to review and describe the relationship between Lp(a) and diabetes, exploring both their association and synergy as cardiovascular risk factors, while also describing the current evidence regarding the potential connection between low levels of Lp(a) and the presence of diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Epidemiological studies suggest a potential relationship between low to very low levels of Lp(a) and diabetes. Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is an intriguing lipoprotein of genetic origin, yet its biological function remains unknown. Elevated levels of Lp(a) are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular atherosclerosis, and coexisting diabetes status confers an even higher risk. On the other hand, epidemiological and genetic studies have paradoxically suggested a potential relationship between low to very low levels of Lp(a) and diabetes. While new pharmacological strategies are being developed to reduce Lp(a) levels, the dual aspects of this lipoprotein's behavior need to be elucidated in the near future.

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).

Comparative Analysis of Atherogenic Lipoproteins L5 and Lp(a) in Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) poses a risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). As LDL comprises various subtypes differing in charge, density, and size, understanding their specific impact on ASCVD is crucial. Two highly atherogenic LDL subtypes-electronegative LDL (L5) and Lp(a)-induce vascular cell apoptosis and atherosclerotic changes independent of plasma cholesterol levels, and their mechanisms warrant further investigation. Here, we have compared the roles of L5 and Lp(a) in the development of ASCVD.

RECENT FINDINGS

Lp(a) tends to accumulate in artery walls, promoting plaque formation and potentially triggering atherosclerosis progression through prothrombotic or antifibrinolytic effects. High Lp(a) levels correlate with calcific aortic stenosis and atherothrombosis risk. L5 can induce endothelial cell apoptosis and increase vascular permeability, inflammation, and atherogenesis, playing a key role in initiating atherosclerosis. Elevated L5 levels in certain high-risk populations may serve as a distinctive predictor of ASCVD. L5 and Lp(a) are both atherogenic lipoproteins contributing to ASCVD through distinct mechanisms. Lp(a) has garnered attention, but equal consideration should be given to L5.

Associations between lipoprotein(a), oxidized phospholipids, and extracoronary vascular disease

The roles of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and related oxidized phospholipids (OxPLs) in the development and progression of coronary disease is known, but their influence on extracoronary vascular disease is not well-established. We sought to evaluate associations between Lp(a), OxPL apolipoprotein B (OxPL-apoB), and apolipoprotein(a) (OxPL-apo(a)) with angiographic extracoronary vascular disease and incident major adverse limb events (MALEs). Four hundred forty-six participants who underwent coronary and/or peripheral angiography were followed up for a median of 3.7 years. Lp(a) and OxPLs were measured before angiography. Elevated Lp(a) was defined as ≥150 nmol/L. Elevated OxPL-apoB and OxPL-apo(a) were defined as greater than or equal to the 75th percentile (OxPL-apoB ≥8.2 nmol/L and OxPL-apo(a) ≥35.8 nmol/L, respectively). Elevated Lp(a) had a stronger association with the presence of extracoronary vascular disease compared to OxPLs and was minimally improved with the addition of OxPLs in multivariable models. Compared to participants with normal Lp(a) and OxPL concentrations, participants with elevated Lp(a) levels were twice as likely to experience a MALE (odds ratio: 2.14, 95% confidence interval: 1.03, 4.44), and the strength of the association as well as the C statistic of 0.82 was largely unchanged with the addition of OxPL-apoB and OxPL-apo(a). Elevated Lp(a) and OxPLs are risk factors for progression and complications of extracoronary vascular disease. However, the addition of OxPLs to Lp(a) does not provide additional information about risk of extracoronary vascular disease. Therefore, Lp(a) alone captures the risk profile of Lp(a), OxPL-apoB, and OxPL-apo(a) in the development and progression of atherosclerotic plaque in peripheral arteries.

A potentially underestimated predictor of coronary artery disease risk: The ApoB/ApoA1 ratio

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide, and statin therapy is the cornerstone of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, clinical practice is unsatisfactory, and there is significant interest in the risk of residual cardiovascular events. Traditional study methods make it difficult to exclude the crosstalk of confounding factors, and we investigated the impact of the ApoB/ApoA1 ratio on CVD using two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) and multivariate Mendelian randomization (MVMR) methods.

Methods

Two-sample MR and MVMR analyses were performed using pooled statistics from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of ApoB/ApoA1 ratio (BAR), lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)), and triglyceride (TG) in Europeans to assess the causal relationship between BAR, Lp(a), and TG with coronary artery disease (CAD).

Results

The genetic prediction of BAR was significantly correlated with CAD (Inverse variance weighted (IVW) beta = 0.255; OR = 1.291; 95 % CI = 1.061-1.571; P = 0.011) in a two-sample MR analysis. MVMR studies showed that BAR (beta = 0.373; OR = 1.452; 95 % CI = 1.305-1.615; P = 7.217e-12), Lp (a) (beta = 0.238; OR = 1.269; 95 % CI = 1.216-1.323; P = 2.990e-28), and TG (beta = 0.155; OR = 1.168; 95 % CI = 1.074-1.270; P = 2.829e-04) were significantly associated with CAD. After further colinearity analyses of LASSO regressions, the results of multivariate analyses were similar for IVW, MR-Egger, MR-Lasso, and median methods.

Conclusion

BAR is causally related to coronary artery disease. BAR is an independent predictor of CAD risk, independent of routine lipid measurements and other risk factors. TG and Lp(a) may be causally related to CAD, subject to verification in clinical practice.

Simultaneous quantitative LC-MS/MS analysis of 13 apolipoproteins and lipoprotein (a) in human plasma

Numerous studies have revealed a close correlation between the levels of apolipoproteins (Apos) (including lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]) and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in recent decades. However, clinically, lipid profiling remains limited to the conventional plasma levels of cholesterol, triglyceride, ApoA1, and ApoB, which brings the necessity to quantify more apolipoproteins in human plasma. In this study, we simultaneously quantified 13 apolipoproteins and Lp(a) in 5 μL of human plasma using the LC-MS/MS platform. A method was developed for the precise detection of Lp(a), ApoA1, A2, A5, B, C1, C2, C3, D, E, H, L1, M, and J. Suitable peptides were selected and optimized to achieve clear separation of each peak. Method validation consisting of linearity, sensitivity, accuracy and precision, recovery, and matrix effects was evaluated. The intra-day CV ranged from 0.58% to 14.2% and the inter-day CV ranged from 0.51% to 13.3%. The recovery rates ranged from 89.8% to 113.7%, while matrix effects ranged from 85.4% to 113.9% for all apolipoproteins and Lp(a). Stability tests demonstrated that these apolipoproteins remained stable for 3 days at 4 °C and 7 days at -20 °C. This validated method was successfully applied to human plasma samples obtained from 45 volunteers. The quantitative results of ApoA1, ApoB, and Lp(a) exhibited a close correlation with the results from the immunity transmission turbidity assay. Collectively, we developed a robust assay that can be used for high-throughput quantification of apolipoproteins and Lp(a) simultaneously for investigating related risk factors in patients with dyslipidemia.

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.

Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease: sifting the evidence to guide future research

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a genetically determined causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease including coronary heart disease, peripheral arterial disease, ischaemic stroke, and calcific aortic valve stenosis. Clinical trials of specific and potent Lp(a)-lowering drugs are currently underway. However, in clinical practice, widespread assessment of Lp(a) is still lacking despite several guideline recommendations to measure Lp(a) at least once in a lifetime in all adults to identify those at high or very high risk due to elevated levels. The present review provides an overview of key findings from observational and genetic Lp(a) studies, highlights the main challenges in observational Lp(a) studies, and proposes a minimum set of requirements to enhance the quality and harmonize the collection of Lp(a)-related data. Adherence to the recommendations set forth in the present manuscript is intended to enhance the quality of future observational Lp(a) studies, to better define thresholds for increased risk, and to better inform clinical trial design. The recommendations can also potentially assist in the interpretation and generalization of clinical trial findings, to improve care of patients with elevated Lp(a) and optimize treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease.

A focused update to the 2019 NLA scientific statement on use of lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice

Since the 2019 National Lipid Association (NLA) Scientific Statement on Use of Lipoprotein(a) in Clinical Practice was issued, accumulating epidemiological data have clarified the relationship between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level and cardiovascular disease risk and risk reduction. Therefore, the NLA developed this focused update to guide clinicians in applying this emerging evidence in clinical practice. We now have sufficient evidence to support the recommendation to measure Lp(a) levels at least once in every adult for risk stratification. Individuals with Lp(a) levels <75 nmol/L (30 mg/dL) are considered low risk, individuals with Lp(a) levels ≥125 nmol/L (50 mg/dL) are considered high risk, and individuals with Lp(a) levels between 75 and 125 nmol/L (30-50 mg/dL) are at intermediate risk. Cascade screening of first-degree relatives of patients with elevated Lp(a) can identify additional individuals at risk who require intervention. Patients with elevated Lp(a) should receive early, more-intensive risk factor management, including lifestyle modification and lipid-lowering drug therapy in high-risk individuals, primarily to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an indication for lipoprotein apheresis (which reduces both Lp(a) and LDL-C) in high-risk patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and documented coronary or peripheral artery disease whose Lp(a) level remains ≥60 mg/dL [∼150 nmol/L)] and LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. Although Lp(a) is an established independent causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and despite the high prevalence of Lp(a) elevation (∼1 of 5 individuals), measurement rates are low, warranting improved screening strategies for cardiovascular disease prevention.

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.

The current status of lipoprotein (a) measurement in clinical biochemistry laboratories in the UK: Results of a 2021 national survey

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is now established as a causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and accurate laboratory measurement is of pivotal importance in reducing Lp(a) associated risk. The consensus statement by HEART UK in 2019 included recommendations to improve standardisation of clinical laboratory measurement and reporting of Lp(a).

METHODS

A 16 question, electronic audit survey was circulated to 190 accredited clinical biochemistry laboratories to assess the adoption of these recommendations in the UK.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 65 of 190 laboratories (34%). Only 5 (8%) did not offer Lp(a) measurement. Of those providing the test, 23% (n = 14) offered an in-house service (IHS), the remaining laboratories (77%; n = 46) used an external referral service (ERS). The majority (10 of 14 or 71%) of IHS laboratories responded with details of their method, stating whether it minimised sensitivity to the effect of Lp(a) isoform size and used calibrators certified for traceability to the WHO/IFCC reference material, however, only a minority ERS laboratories (13 of the 46 or 28%) were able to specify the method used by their referral laboratory. Of the laboratories who specified their reporting units, 6 of 10 IHS and 7 of 23 ERS laboratories reported in nmol/L. Among the 60 laboratories who responded, the HEART UK recommendations appear to have been adopted in full by only 3 IHS laboratories.

CONCLUSIONS

Further efforts are needed to standardise the measurement and reporting of Lp(a) so that results and interpretation are comparable across clinical biochemistry laboratories in the UK.

Lp(a) Levels in Relatives of Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome and Elevated Lp(a): HER(a) Study

Background: Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a proatherogenic particle associated with increased cardiovascular risk. It is mainly genetically determined; so, the aim of our study is to evaluate the levels of Lp(a) in the relatives of a prospective cohort of patients who have suffered from an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL. Methods: We conducted a multicenter prospective study, in which consecutive patients who had suffered from an ACS and presented Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL and their first-degree relatives were included. Results: We included 413 subjects, of which 56.4% were relatives of the patients. Family history of early ischemic heart disease was present in 57.5%, and only 20.6% were receiving statin treatment. The family cohort was younger (37.5 vs. 59.1 years; p < 0.001), and 4% had ischemic heart disease and fewer cardiovascular risk factors. Mean Lp(a) levels were 64.9 mg/dL, 59.4% had levels ≥ 50 mg/dL, and 16.1% had levels ≥ 100 mg/dL. When comparing the patients with respect to their relatives, the mean level of Lp(a) was lower but without significant differences regarding the levels of LDLc, ApoB, and non-HDL. However, relatives with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL, had values similar to the group of patients with ACS (96.8 vs. 103.8 mg/dL; p = 0.18). No differences were found in Lp(a) levels in relatives based on the other lipid parameters. Conclusions: Overall, 59.4% of the first-degree relatives of patients who suffered from an ACS with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL also had elevated levels. Relatives with elevated Lp(a) had similar levels as patients.

Association between lipoprotein (a) and risk of heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization studies

BACKGROUND

Rising incidence of heart failure (HF) in the Western world despite advanced clinical care necessitate exploration of further preventive tools and strategies. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], recognized as one of the major cardiovascular risk factors has also been implicated as a risk factor for HF. However, existing evidence remains inconclusive and that has led us to perform this meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline, EMBASE and Scopus were systematically searched for studies evaluating an association of Lp(a) with occurrence of HF from inception-till November 2023. Random effects models and I2 statistics were used for pooled odds ratio (OR) and heterogeneity assessment. We performed leave one out sensitivity analyses by sequentially removing one study at a time and recalculating the pooled effect size.

RESULT

Our search rendered in total 360 studies and after final screening this resulted in 7 Mendelian randomization (MR) design. According to the MR analysis, increasing Lp(a) level were significantly associated with increased risk of HF (OR 1.064, 95 % CI: 1.043-1.086, I2= 97.59 %, P < 0.001). In addition, Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis showed that the effect size did not change substantially by removal of any particular study in MR studies and ORs ranged from 1.051 (when excluding Levin) to a maximum of 1.111 (when excluding Wang or Jiang), hereby confirming the association.

CONCLUSION

We were able to show that by meta-analysis of MR data, increasing lipoprotein (a) levels are associated with an increased risk of HF. Whether this is due to a direct effect on heart muscle contraction or whether this is due to an increased risk of ischemic cardiac disease remains to be elucidated.

Elevated Lp(a): Guidance for Identifying and Managing Patients

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a unique low-density lipoprotein-like lipoprotein that is considered an independent and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic valve stenosis. The Lp(a) molecule also contains apolipoprotein A and apolipoprotein B, which collectively promote atherosclerosis, thrombosis, and inflammation. Lp(a) is highly genetic and minimally responsive to nonpharmacological measures. Lp(a) serum levels ≥125 nmol/L are associated with increased ASCVD risk, but this threshold has not been accepted universally. Elevated Lp(a) is the most common genetic dyslipidemia affecting approximately 20% of the general population. Certain currently available lipid-lowering drugs, including the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 therapies, produce moderate reductions in Lp(a); however, none are indicated for the treatment of elevated Lp(a). There are currently four investigational RNA-based therapeutic agents that reduce Lp(a) by 70% to 100%. Two of these agents are being evaluated for ASCVD risk reduction in adequately powered outcomes trials, with results expected in 2 to 3 years. Until such therapies become available and demonstrate favorable clinical outcomes, strategies for elevated Lp(a) primarily involve early and intensive ASCVD risk factor management.

2024 Guidelines of the Polish Society of Laboratory Diagnostics and the Polish Lipid Association on laboratory diagnostics of lipid metabolism disorders

Lipid disorders are the most common (even 70%) and worst monitored cardiovascular risk factor (only 1/4 of patients in Poland and in CEE countries are on the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal). To improve this, clear and simple diagnostic criteria should be introduced for all components of the lipid profile. These are the updated guidelines of the two main scientific societies in Poland in the area - the Polish Society of Laboratory Diagnostics (PSLD) and the Polish Lipid Association (PoLA), which, in comparison to those from 2020, introduce few important changes in recommendations (two main lipid targets, new recommendations on LDL-C measurements, calculations new goals for triglycerides, new recommendations on remnants and small dense LDL) that should help the practitioners to be early with the diagnosis of lipid disorders and in the effective monitoring (after therapy initiation), and in the consequence to avoid the first and recurrent cardiovascular events.

Influence of triglyceride concentration in lipoprotein (a) as a function of dyslipidemia

BACKGROUND

Recently, an inverse relationship between the blood concentration of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and triglycerides (TG) has been demonstrated. The larger the VLDL particle size, the greater the presence of VLDL rich in apoliprotein E and in subjects with the apoE2/E2 genotype, the lower Lp(a) concentration. The mechanism of this inverse association is unknown. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the Lp(a)-TG association in patients treated at the lipid units included in the registry of the Spanish Society of Atherosclerosis (SEA) by comparing the different dyslipidemias.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Five thousand two hundred and seventy-five subjects ≥18 years of age registered in the registry before March 31, 2023, with Lp(a) concentration data and complete lipid profile information without treatment were included.

RESULTS

The mean age was 53.0 ± 14.0 years, with 48% women. The 9.5% of subjects (n = 502) had diabetes and the 22.4% (n = 1184) were obese. The median TG level was 130 mg/dL (IQR 88.0-210) and Lp(a) 55.0 nmol/L (IQR 17.9-156). Lp(a) concentration showed a negative association with TG concentration when TG values exceeded 300 mg/dL. Subjects with TG > 1000 mg/dL showed the lowest level of Lp(a), 17.9 nmol/L, and subjects with TG < 300 mg/dL had a mean Lp(a) concentration of 60.1 nmol/L. In subjects without diabetes or obesity, the inverse association of Lp(a)-TG was especially important (p < 0.001). The median Lp(a) was 58.3 nmol/L in those with TG < 300 mg/dL and 22.0 nmol/L if TG > 1000 mg/dL. No association was found between TG and Lp(a) in subjects with diabetes and obesity, nor in subjects with familial hypercholesterolemia. In subjects with multifactorial combined hyperlipemia with TG < 300 mg/dL, Lp(a) was 64.6 nmol/L; in the range of 300-399 mg/dL of TG, Lp(a) decreased to 38. 8 nmol/L, and up to 22.3 nmol/L when TG > 1000 mg/dL.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show an inverse Lp(a)-TG relationship in TG concentrations > 300 mg/dL in subjects without diabetes, obesity and without familial hypercholesterolemia. Our results suggest that, in those hypertriglyceridemias due to hepatic overproduction of VLDL, the formation of Lp(a) is reduced, unlike those in which the peripheral catabolism of TG-rich lipoproteins is reduced.

Digital droplet PCR versus quantitative PCR for lipoprotein (a) kringle IV type 2 repeat polymorphism genetic characterization

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level variability, related to atherothrombotic risk increase, is mainly attributed to LPA gene, encoding apolipoprotein(a), with kringle IV type 2 (KIV2) copy number variation (CNV) acting as the primary genetic determinant. Genetic characterization of Lp(a) is in continuous growth; nevertheless, the peculiar structural characteristics of this variant constitute a significant challenge to the development of effective detection methods. The aim of the study was to compare quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) and digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) in the evaluation of KIV2 repeat polymorphism.

METHODS

We analysed 100 subjects tested for cardiovascular risk in which Lp(a) plasma levels were assessed.

RESULTS

Correlation analysis between CNV values obtained with the two methods was slightly significant (R = 0.413, p = 0.00002), because of the wider data dispersion in qPCR compared with ddPCR. Internal controls C1, C2 and C3 measurements throughout different experimental sessions revealed the superior stability of ddPCR, which was supported by a reduced intra/inter-assay coefficient of variation determined in this method compared to qPCR. A significant inverse correlation between Lp(a) levels and CNV values was confirmed for both techniques, but it was higher when evaluated by ddPCR than qPCR (R = -0.393, p = 0.000053 vs R = -0.220, p = 0.028, respectively). When dividing subjects into two groups according to 500 mg/L Lp(a) cut-off value, a significantly lower number of KIV2 repeats emerged among subjects with greater Lp(a) levels, with stronger evidence in ddPCR than in qPCR (p = 0.000013 and p = 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Data obtained support a better performance of ddPCR in the evaluation of KIV2 repeat polymorphism.

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.

Quantification of LDL-Cholesterol Corrected for Molar Concentration of Lipoprotein(a)

PURPOSE

Cholesterol in lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)-C] is commonly estimated as 30% of the measured Lp(a) mass. However, difficulties in the accurate measurement of Lp(a) mass, along with the inaccuracy of the 30% assumption, produce erroneous values when LDL-C is corrected for Lp(a) [LDL-CLp(a)corr]. Our aim was to develop a new formula for LDL-CLp(a)corr to reduce this error.

METHODS

We developed a new formula to calculate Lp(a)-C from the molar measurement of Lp(a), which is Lp(a) nmol/L × 0.077 = Lp(a)-C mg/dL. The calculated Lp(a)-C is subtracted from LDL-C to obtain LDL-CLp(a)corr. The results obtained with our novel formula versus the conventional formula were compared in 440 samples from 239 participants enrolled in the BANTING study.

RESULTS

With the conventional formula, approximately 7% of samples with low LDL-C resulted in negative LDL-CLp(a)corr values. With the new formula, no negative LDL-CLp(a)corr values occurred. Among groups with the highest Lp(a)/apoB ratio (p < 0.001) and smaller apolipoprotein(a) isoform size (p < 0.006), LDL-CLp(a)corr was significantly underestimated by the conventional formula, which may result in the undertreatment of some patients.

CONCLUSION

The new formula provides more reliable estimates of LDL-CLp(a)corr than the conventional formula.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02739984.

An LC-MS-based designated comparison method with similar performance to the Lp(a) reference measurement procedure to guide molar Lp(a) standardization

BACKGROUND

The 2022 consensus statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) on lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) recognizes the role of Lp(a) as a relevant genetically determined risk factor and recommends its measurement at least once in an individual's lifetime. It also strongly urges that Lp(a) test results are expressed as apolipoprotein (a) (apo(a)) amount of substance in molar units and no longer in confounded Lp(a) mass units (mg/dL or mg/L). Therefore, IVD manufacturers should transition to molar units. A prerequisite for this transition is the availability of an Lp(a) Reference Measurement Procedure (RMP) that allows unequivocal molecular detection and quantification of apo(a) in Lp(a). To that end an ISO 17511:2020 compliant LC-MS based and IFCC-endorsed RMP has been established that targets proteotypic peptides of apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) in Lp(a). The RMP is laborious and requires highly skilled operators. To guide IVD-manufacturers of immunoassay-based Lp(a) test kits in the transition from mass to molar units, a Designated Comparison Method (DCM) has been developed and evaluated.

METHODS

To assess whether the DCM provides equivalent results compared to the RMP, the procedural designs were compared and the analytical performance of DCM and RMP were first evaluated in a head-to-head comparison. Subsequently, apo(a) was quantified in 153 human clinical serum samples. Both DCM and RMP were calibrated using external native calibrators that produce results traceable to SRM2B. Measurement uncertainty (MU) was checked against predefined allowable MU.

RESULTS

The major difference in the design of the DCM for apo(a) is the use of only one enzymatic digestion step. The analytical performance of the DCM and RMP for apo(a) is highly similar. In a direct method comparison, equivalent results were obtained with a median regression slope 0.997 of and a median bias of - 0.2 nmol/L (- 0.2%); the intermediate imprecision of the test results was within total allowable error (TEa) (CVa of 10.2% at 90 nmol/L).

CONCLUSIONS

The semi-automated, higher throughput, LC-MS-based method for Lp(a) meets the predefined analytical performance specifications and allowable MU and is hence applicable as a higher order Designated Comparison Method, which is ideally suited to guide IVD manufacturers in the transition from Lp(a) mass to molar units.

LP(a): Structure, Genetics, Associated Cardiovascular Risk, and Emerging Therapeutics

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a molecule bound to apolipoprotein(a) with some similarity to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), which has been found to be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Lp(a) appears to induce inflammation, atherogenesis, and thrombosis. Approximately 20% of the world's population has increased Lp(a) levels, determined predominantly by genetics. Current clinical practices for the management of dyslipidemia are ineffective in lowering Lp(a) levels. Evolving RNA-based therapeutics, such as the antisense oligonucleotide pelacarsen and small interfering RNA olpasiran, have shown promising results in reducing Lp(a) levels. Phase III pivotal cardiovascular outcome trials [Lp(a)HORIZON and OCEAN(a)] are ongoing to evaluate their efficacy in secondary prevention of major cardiovascular events in patients with elevated Lp(a). The future of cardiovascular residual risk reduction may transition to a personalized approach where further lowering of either LDL-C, triglycerides, or Lp(a) is selected after high-intensity statin therapy based on the individual risk profile and preferences of each patient.

Relating Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations to Cardiovascular Event Risk After Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Comparison of 3 Tests

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) is a risk factor for cardiovascular events and modifies the benefit of PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitors. Lipoprotein(a) concentration can be measured with immunoassays reporting mass or molar concentration or a reference measurement system using mass spectrometry. Whether the relationships between lipoprotein(a) concentrations and cardiovascular events in a high-risk cohort differ across lipoprotein(a) methods is unknown. We compared the prognostic and predictive value of these types of lipoprotein(a) tests for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

METHODS

The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) compared the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab with placebo in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome. We compared risk of a MACE in the placebo group and MACE risk reduction with alirocumab according to baseline lipoprotein(a) concentration measured by Siemens N-latex nephelometric immunoassay (IA-mass; mg/dL), Roche Tina-Quant turbidimetric immunoassay (IA-molar; nmol/L), and a noncommercial mass spectrometry-based test (MS; nmol/L). Lipoprotein(a) values were transformed into percentiles for comparative modeling. Natural cubic splines estimated continuous relationships between baseline lipoprotein(a) and outcomes in each treatment group. Event rates were also determined across baseline lipoprotein(a) quartiles defined by each assay.

RESULTS

Among 11 970 trial participants with results from all 3 tests, baseline median (Q1, Q3) lipoprotein(a) concentrations were 21.8 (6.9, 60.0) mg/dL, 45.0 (13.2, 153.8) nmol/L, and 42.2 (14.3, 143.1) nmol/L for IA-mass, IA-molar, and MS, respectively. The strongest correlation was between IA-molar and MS (r=0.990), with nominally weaker correlations between IA-mass and MS (r=0.967) and IA-mass and IA-molar (r=0.972). Relationships of lipoprotein(a) with MACE risk in the placebo group were nearly identical with each test, with estimated cumulative incidences differing by ≤0.4% across lipoprotein(a) percentiles, and all were incrementally prognostic after accounting for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (all spline P≤0.0003). Predicted alirocumab treatment effects were also nearly identical for each of the 3 tests, with estimated treatment hazard ratios differing by ≤0.07 between tests across percentiles and nominally less relative risk reduction by alirocumab at lower percentiles for all 3 tests. Absolute risk reduction with alirocumab increased with increasing lipoprotein(a) measured by each test, with significant linear trends across quartiles.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with recent acute coronary syndrome, 3 lipoprotein(a) tests were similarly prognostic for MACE in the placebo group and predictive of MACE reductions with alirocumab at the cohort level.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01663402.

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.

The ins and outs of lipoprotein(a) assay methods

Pathophysiological, epidemiological and genetic studies convincingly showed lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) to be a causal mediator of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). This happens through a myriad of mechanisms including activation of innate immune cells, endothelial cells as well as platelets. Although these certainties whether or not Lp(a) is ready for prime-time clinical use remain debated. Thus, remit of the present review is to provide an overview of different methods that have been employed for the measurement of Lp(a). The methods include dynamic light scattering, multi-angle light scattering analysis, near-field imaging, sedimentation, gel filtration, and electron microscopy. The development of multiple Lp(a) detection methods is vital for improved prediction of ASCVD risk.

Lipoprotein(a): a genetically determined risk factor for Cardiovascular disease

Lipoprotein(a) is a complex lipoprotein with unique characteristics distinguishing it from all the other apolipoprotein B-containing lipoprotein particles. Its lipid composition and the presence of a single molecule of apolipoprotein B per particle, render lipoprotein(a) similar to low-density lipoproteins. However, the presence of a unique, carbohydrate-rich protein termed apolipoprotein(a), linked by a covalent bond to apolipoprotein B imparts unique characteristics to lipoprotein(a) distinguishing it from all the other lipoproteins. Apolipoprotein(a) is highly polymorphic in size ranging in molecular weight from <300 KDa to >800 kDa. Both the size polymorphism and the concentration of lipoprotein(a) in plasma are genetically determined and unlike other lipoproteins, plasma concentration is minimally impacted by lifestyle modifications or lipid-lowering drugs. Many studies involving hundreds of thousands of individuals have provided strong evidence that elevated lipoprotein(a) is genetically determined and a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The concentration attained in adulthood is already present in children at around 5 years of age and therefore, those with elevated lipoprotein(a) are prematurely exposed to a high risk of cardiovascular disease. Despite the large number of guidelines and consensus statements on the management of lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease published in the last decade, lipoprotein(a) is still seldom measured in clinical settings. In this review, we provide an overview of the most important features that characterize lipoprotein(a), its role in cardiovascular disease, and the importance of adding the measurement of lipoprotein(a) for screening adults and youths to identify those at increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease due to their elevated plasma concentration of lipoprotein(a).

Developing an SI-traceable Lp(a) reference measurement system: a pilgrimage to selective and accurate apo(a) quantification

In the past decade a remarkable rebirth of serum/plasma lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) as an independent risk factor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) occurred. Updated evidence for a causal continuous association in different ethnic groups between Lp(a) concentrations and cardiovascular outcomes has been published in the latest European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) Lp(a) consensus statement. Interest in measuring Lp(a) at least once in a person's lifetime moreover originates from the development of promising new Lp(a) lowering drugs. Accurate and clinically effective Lp(a) tests are of key importance for the timely detection of high-risk individuals and for future evaluation of the therapeutic effects of Lp(a) lowering medication. To this end, it is necessary to improve the performance and standardization of existing Lp(a) tests, as is also noted in the Lp(a) consensus statement. Consequently, a state-of-the-art internationally endorsed reference measurement system (RMS) must be in place that allows for performance evaluation of Lp(a) field tests in order to certify their validity and accuracy. An ELISA-based RMS from Northwest Lipid Research Laboratory (University of Washington, Seattle, USA) has been available since the 1990s. A next-generation apo(a)/Lp(a) RMS is now being developed by a working group from the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). The envisioned apo(a) RMS is based on the direct measurement of selected proteotypic fragments generated after proteolytic digestion using quantitative protein mass spectrometry (MS). The choice for an MS-based RMS enables selective measurement of the proteotypic peptides and is by design apo(a) isoform insensitive. Clearly, the equimolar conversion of apo(a) into the surrogate peptide measurands is required to obtain accurate Lp(a) results. The completeness of proteolysis under reaction conditions from the candidate reference measurement procedure (RMP) has been demonstrated for the quantifying apo(a) peptides. Currently, the candidate apo(a) RMP is endorsed by the IFCC and recommendations for suitable secondary reference materials have been made in a recent commutability study paper. Ongoing efforts toward a complete apo(a) RMS that is listed by the Joint Committee on Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM) are focused on the peptide-based calibration and the establishment of a network of calibration laboratories running the apo(a) RMS in a harmonized way. Once completed, it will be the holy grail for evaluation and certification of Lp(a) field methods.

Reporting LDL cholesterol results by clinical biochemistry laboratories in Czechia and Slovakia to improve the detection rate of familial hypercholesterolemia

Introduction

This survey aims to assess the implementation of recommendations from the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) by clinical biochemistry laboratories in Czechia and Slovakia in their policies for reporting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations.

Materials and methods

The web-based survey was distributed to all 383 Czech and Slovak clinical biochemistry laboratories that measure lipids by external quality assessment provider SEKK. A total of 17 single-answer questions were included. The questionnaire was focused on the detection and decision points in familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). All survey answers were taken into account. The laboratories followed the EFLM and EAS guidelines when they reported an interpretative comment considering FH diagnosis in adults.

Results

A total of 203 (53%) laboratories answered. Only 5% of laboratories added interpretative comments considering FH diagnosis when LDL-C concentrations are above 5.0 mmol/L in adults, and 3% of laboratories added interpretative comments considering FH diagnosis when LDL-C concentrations are above 4.0 mmol/L in children. Only 7% of laboratories reported goals for all cardiovascular risk categories (low, moderate, high, very high). Non-HDL cholesterol concentrations were calculated by 74% of responders. A significant number (51%) of participants did not measure apolipoprotein B, and 59% of laboratories did not measure lipoprotein(a).

Conclusions

Only a small portion of laboratories from Czechia and Slovakia reported high LDL-C results with interpretative comments considering FH diagnosis in adults, the laboratories did not follow the guidelines.

Lipoprotein(a) as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Diseases: Pathophysiology and Treatment Perspectives

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is still a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, despite all the progress achieved as regards to both prevention and treatment. Having high levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease that operates independently. It can increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease even when LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels are within the recommended range, which is referred to as residual cardiovascular risk. Lp(a) is an LDL-like particle present in human plasma, in which a large plasminogen-like glycoprotein, apolipoprotein(a) [Apo(a)], is covalently bound to Apo B100 via one disulfide bridge. Apo(a) contains one plasminogen-like kringle V structure, a variable number of plasminogen-like kringle IV structures (types 1-10), and one inactive protease region. There is a large inter-individual variation of plasma concentrations of Lp(a), mainly ascribable to genetic variants in the Lp(a) gene: in the general po-pulation, Lp(a) levels can range from <1 mg/dL to >1000 mg/dL. Concentrations also vary between different ethnicities. Lp(a) has been established as one of the risk factors that play an important role in the development of atherosclerotic plaque. Indeed, high concentrations of Lp(a) have been related to a greater risk of ischemic CVD, aortic valve stenosis, and heart failure. The threshold value has been set at 50 mg/dL, but the risk may increase already at levels above 30 mg/dL. Although there is a well-established and strong link between high Lp(a) levels and coronary as well as cerebrovascular disease, the evidence regarding incident peripheral arterial disease and carotid atherosclerosis is not as conclusive. Because lifestyle changes and standard lipid-lowering treatments, such as statins, niacin, and cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors, are not highly effective in reducing Lp(a) levels, there is increased interest in developing new drugs that can address this issue. PCSK9 inhibitors seem to be capable of reducing Lp(a) levels by 25-30%. Mipomersen decreases Lp(a) levels by 25-40%, but its use is burdened with important side effects. At the current time, the most effective and tolerated treatment for patients with a high Lp(a) plasma level is apheresis, while antisense oligonucleotides, small interfering RNAs, and microRNAs, which reduce Lp(a) levels by targeting RNA molecules and regulating gene expression as well as protein production levels, are the most widely explored and promising perspectives. The aim of this review is to provide an update on the current state of the art with regard to Lp(a) pathophysiological mechanisms, focusing on the most effective strategies for lowering Lp(a), including new emerging alternative therapies. The purpose of this manuscript is to improve the management of hyperlipoproteinemia(a) in order to achieve better control of the residual cardiovascular risk, which remains unacceptably high.

Reducing saturated fat intake lowers LDL-C but increases Lp(a) levels in African Americans: the GET-READI feeding trial

Reducing dietary saturated fatty acids (SFA) intake results in a clinically significant lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) across ethnicities. In contrast, dietary SFA's role in modulating emerging cardiovascular risk factors in different ethnicities remains poorly understood. Elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], an independent cardiovascular risk factor, disproportionally affect individuals of African descent. Here, we assessed the responses in Lp(a) levels to dietary SFA reduction in 166 African Americans enrolled in GET-READI (The Gene-Environment Trial on Response in African Americans to Dietary Intervention), a randomized controlled feeding trial. Participants were fed two diets in random order for 5 weeks each: 1) an average American diet (AAD) (37% total fat: 16% SFA), and 2) a diet similar to the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet (25% total fat: 6% SFA). The participants' mean age was 35 years, 70% were women, the mean BMI was 28 kg/m2, and the mean LDL-C was 116 mg/dl. Compared to the AAD diet, LDL-C was reduced by the DASH-type diet (mean change: -12 mg/dl) as were total cholesterol (-16 mg/dl), HDL-C (-5 mg/dl), apoA-1 (-9 mg/dl) and apoB-100 (-5 mg/dl) (all P < 0.0001). In contrast, Lp(a) levels increased following the DASH-type diet compared with AAD (median: 58 vs. 44 mg/dl, P < 0.0001). In conclusion, in a large cohort of African Americans, reductions in SFA intake significantly increased Lp(a) levels while reducing LDL-C. Future studies are warranted to elucidate the mechanism(s) underlying the SFA reduction-induced increase in Lp(a) levels and its role in cardiovascular risk across populations.

Lipoprotein(a) and carotid intima-media thickness in children with familial hypercholesterolaemia in the Netherlands: a 20-year follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Elevated lipoprotein(a) and familial hypercholesterolaemia are both independent risk conditions for cardiovascular disease. Although signs of atherosclerosis can be observed in children with familial hypercholesterolaemia, it is unknown whether elevated lipoprotein(a) is an additional risk factor for atherosclerosis in these young patients. Therefore, we aimed to assess the contribution of lipoprotein(a) concentrations to arterial wall thickening (as measured by carotid intima-media thickness) in children with familial hypercholesterolaemia who were followed up into adulthood.

METHODS

We conducted a 20-year follow-up study of 214 children (aged 8-18 years) with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia who were randomly assigned in a statin trial in Amsterdam (Netherlands) between Dec 7, 1997, and Oct 4, 1999. At baseline, and at 2, 10, and 20 years thereafter, blood samples were taken and carotid intima-media thickness was measured. Linear mixed-effects models were used to evaluate the association between lipoprotein(a) and carotid intima-media thickness during follow-up. We adjusted for sex, age, corrected LDL-cholesterol, statin use, and BMI.

FINDINGS

Our study population comprised 200 children who had a carotid intima-media thickness measurement and a measured lipoprotein(a) concentration from at least one visit available. Mean age at baseline was 13·0 years (SD 2·9), 106 (53%) children were male, and 94 (47%) were female. At baseline, median lipoprotein(a) concentration was 18·5 nmol/L (IQR 8·7-35·5) and mean carotid intima-media thickness was 0·4465 mm (SD 0·0496). During follow-up, higher lipoprotein(a) concentrations contributed significantly to progression of carotid intima-media thickness (β adjusted 0·0073 mm per 50 nmol/L increase in lipoprotein(a) [95% CI 0·0013-0·0132]; p=0·017).

INTERPRETATION

Our findings suggest that lipoprotein(a) concentrations contribute significantly to arterial wall thickening in children with familial hypercholesterolaemia who were followed-up until adulthood, suggesting that lipoprotein(a) is an independent and additional risk factor for early atherosclerosis in those already at increased risk. Lipoprotein(a) measurement in young patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia is crucial to identify those at potentially highest risk for cardiovascular disease.

FUNDING

Silence Therapeutics.

Lipoprotein(a) and the pooled cohort equations for ASCVD risk prediction: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) but is not included in the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE). We aimed to assess how well the PCE predict 10-year event rates in individuals with elevated Lp(a), and whether the addition of Lp(a) improves risk prediction.

METHODS

We compared observed versus PCE-predicted 10-year ASCVD event rates, stratified by Lp(a) level and ASCVD risk category using Poisson regression, and evaluated the association between Lp(a) > 50 mg/dL and ASCVD risk using Cox proportional hazards models in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). We evaluated the C-index and net reclassification improvement (NRI) with addition of Lp(a) to the PCE.

RESULTS

The study population included 6639 individuals (20%, n = 1325 with elevated Lp(a)). The PCE accurately predicted 10-year event rates for individuals with elevated Lp(a) with observed event rates falling within predicted limits. Elevated Lp(a) was associated with increased risk of CVD events overall (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00-1.60), particularly in low (HR 2.45, 95% CI 1.40-4.31), and high-risk (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.02-1.96) individuals. Continuous NRI (95% CI) with the addition of Lp(a) to the PCE for CVD was 0.0963 (0.0158-0.1953) overall, and 0.2999 (0.0876, 0.5525) among low-risk individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

The PCE performs well for event rate prediction in individuals with elevated Lp(a). However, Lp(a) is associated with increased CVD risk, and the addition of Lp(a) to the PCE improves risk prediction, particularly among low-risk individuals. These results lend support for increasing use of Lp(a) testing for risk assessment.

Hyperlipoproteinemia (a) and Phytoestrogen Therapy in Dialysis Patients: A Review

PURPOSE

Hyperlipoproteinemia (a) is a prevalent complication in dialysis patients, with no valid treatment strategy. The aim of this narrative review was to investigate the clinical significance of hyperlipoproteinemia (a) and phytoestrogen therapy in dialysis patients.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of the published data was performed regarding the effects of phytoestrogen therapy on hyperlipoproteinemia (a) in dialysis patients.

FINDINGS

Hyperlipoproteinemia (a) occurs in dialysis patients due to decreased catabolism and increased synthesis of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)]. A few clinical trials have studied the effects of phytoestrogens on serum Lp(a). All studies of dialysis patients or nonuremic individuals with hyperlipoproteinemia (a), except one, showed that phytoestrogens could significantly reduce serum Lp(a) levels. However, all investigations of phytoestrogen therapy in individuals with normal serum Lp(a) levels showed that it had no effect on serum Lp(a). Phytoestrogens seem to have effects similar to those of estrogen in lowering Lp(a) concentrations.

IMPLICATIONS

Considering the high prevalence of hyperlipoproteinemia (a) in dialysis patients, phytoestrogen therapy is a reasonable approach for reducing serum Lp(a) levels and its complications in these patients.

Lipoprotein(a): a Case for Universal Screening in Youth

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lipoprotein(a) has emerged as a strong independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Targeted screening recommendations for Lp(a) measurement exist for adults and youth known to be at high-risk. However, Lp(a) measurements are not included in universal screening guidelines in the US; hence, most families in the US with high Lp(a) levels who are at risk of future atherosclerotic heart disease, stroke, or aortic stenosis are not recognized. Lp(a) measurement included as part of routine universal lipid screening in youth would identify those children at risk of ASCVD and enable family cascade screening with identification and early intervention for affected family members.

RECENT FINDINGS

Lp(a) levels can be reliably measured in children as young as two years of age. Lp(a) levels are genetically determined. The Lp(a) gene is inherited in a co-dominant fashion. Serum Lp(a) attains adult levels by two years of age and is stable for the lifetime of the individual. Novel therapies that aim to specifically target Lp(a) are in the pipeline, including nucleic acid-based molecules such as antisense oligonucleotides and siRNAs. Inclusion of a single Lp(a) measurement performed as part of routine universal lipid screening in youth (ages 9-11; or at ages 17-21) is feasible and cost effective. Lp(a) screening would identify youth at-risk of ASCVD and enable family cascade screening with identification and early intervention for affected family members.

Lipoprotein(a) and the Risk for Recurrent Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Events Among Adults With CKD: The Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study

Rationale & Objective

Many adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) have high lipoprotein(a) levels. It is unclear whether high lipoprotein(a) levels confer an increased risk for recurrent ASCVD events in this population. We estimated the risk for recurrent ASCVD events associated with lipoprotein(a) in adults with CKD and prevalent ASCVD.

Study Design

Observational cohort study.

Setting & Participants

We included 1,439 adults with CKD and prevalent ASCVD not on dialysis enrolled in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort study between 2003 and 2008.

Exposure

Baseline lipoprotein(a) mass concentration, measured using a latex-enhanced immunoturbidimetric assay.

Outcomes

Recurrent ASCVD events (primary outcome), kidney failure, and death (exploratory outcomes) through 2019.

Analytical Approach

We used Cox proportional-hazards regression models to estimate adjusted HR (aHRs) and 95% CIs.

Results

Among participants included in the current analysis (mean age 61.6 years, median lipoprotein(a) 29.4 mg/dL [25th-75th percentiles 9.9-70.9 mg/dL]), 641 had a recurrent ASCVD event, 510 developed kidney failure, and 845 died over a median follow-up of 6.6 years. The aHR for ASCVD events associated with 1 standard deviation (SD) higher log-transformed lipoprotein(a) was 1.04 (95% CI, 0.95-1.15). In subgroup analyses, 1 SD higher log-lipoprotein(a) was associated with an increased risk for ASCVD events in participants without diabetes (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.48), but there was no evidence of an association among those with diabetes (aHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88-1.10, P comparing aHRs = 0.031). The aHR associated with 1 SD higher log-lipoprotein(a) in the overall study population was 1.16 (95% CI, 1.04-1.28) for kidney failure and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.94-1.11) for death.

Limitations

Lipoprotein(a) was not available in molar concentration.

Conclusions

Lipoprotein(a) was not associated with the risk for recurrent ASCVD events in adults with CKD, although it was associated with a risk for kidney failure.

Association between lipoprotein(a) and long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention for lesions with in-stent restenosis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the association between increased lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for in-stent restenosis (ISR).

BACKGROUND

Elevated Lp(a) is demonstrated to be associated with recurrent ischemic events after PCI. However, the impact of Lp(a) in patients with ISR remains undetermined.

METHODS

Between January 2017 and December 2018, a total of 2086 patients who underwent PCI for ISR were consecutively enrolled. Patients were categorized as elevated group (> 30 mg/dL, n=834) and non-elevated group (≤ 30 mg/dL, n=1252) according to baseline Lp(a) levels. The primary outcome was the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as a composite endpoint of all-cause death, spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI), or repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 36 months, the primary outcome occurred in 202 of 1252 patients (26.7%) in the elevated Lp(a) group and 237 of 834 patients (21.8%) in the non-elevated Lp(a) group (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.31; 95% confidence interval: 1.08-1.58; P = 0.007), driven by higher rate of all-cause death (4.1% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.002 by Log-rank test; aHR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.07-2.94; P = 0.03) and repeat revascularization (22.3% vs. 19.5%, P = 0.04 by Log-rank test; aHR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.94-1.49; P = 0.16). Adding continuous or categorical Lp(a) to the Cox model led to a significant improvement in C-statistic, net reclassification, and integrated discrimination. The results were consistent across subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the current cohort of patients who underwent PCI for ISR, elevated Lp(a) at baseline is associated with higher risk of long-term MACE.

Lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice: A guide for the clinician

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. Serum lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) has been shown to be an independent and causative risk factor for atherosclerotic CVD and calcific aortic valvular disease. Lp(a) continues to be studied, with emerging insights into the epidemiology of CVD with respect to Lp(a), pathogenic mechanisms of Lp(a) and strategies to mitigate disease. There have been novel insights into genetic polymorphisms of the LPA gene, interactions between concomitant risk factors and Lp(a) based on real-world data, and metabolic pathway targets for Lp(a) reduction. This review highlights these recent advances in our understanding of Lp(a) and discusses management strategies as recommended by cardiovascular professional societies, emerging therapies for lowering Lp(a), and future directions in targeting Lp(a) to reduce CVD.

Lipoprotein(a) and the risk of recurrent coronary heart disease: the Dubbo Study

OBJECTIVE

Elevated Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has not been firmly established as a risk factor for recurrent coronary heart disease (CHD). The present analysis explored this relationship in senior citizens.

METHODS

This was a longitudinal study in 607 subjects, all with prevalent CHD, mean age 71 years, followed for 16 years. Baseline examinations of lipids and other CHD risk factors were conducted in 1988-89 in Dubbo, Australia. The independent contribution of Lp(a) to a further CHD event was examined in proportional hazards regression models.

RESULTS

There were 399 incident CHD cases. Median Lp(a) in CHD cases was 130 mg/L (Interquartile range 60-315) and in non-cases 105 mg/L (45-250) (p < .07, U-Test). 26% of CHD cases and 19% of non-cases had Lp(a) 300 + mg/L; 18% of CHD cases and 8% of non-cases had Lp(a) 500 + mg/L. Lp(a) in Quintile 5 of its distribution (355 + mg/L), using Lp(a) Quintile 1 (<50mg/L) as reference, significantly predicted recurrent CHD with Hazard Ratio 1.53 (95% CI 1.11-2.11, p = .01). Prediction was independent of other risk factors. Lp(a) 500 + mg/L versus lower, significantly predicted recurrent CHD with Hazard Ratio 1.59 (1.16-2.17, p < .01). Prediction was similarly significant for Lp(a) 300 + mg/L versus lower, with Hazard Ratio 1.37 (1.09-1.73, p < .01).

CONCLUSION

Elevated Lp(a) is an independent and significant predictor of recurrent CHD in senior citizens. Upper reference Lp(a) levels of 500 mg/L (≈125nmol/L) or 300 mg/L (≈75nmol/L) both appear to be appropriate. The clinical benefit of therapy to reduce elevated Lp(a) remains to be confirmed.

Contemporary patterns of lipoprotein(a) testing and associated clinical care and outcomes

Objective

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, yet little is known about Lp(a) testing patterns in real-world practice. The objective of this analysis was to determine how Lp(a) testing is used in clinical practice in comparison with low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) testing alone, and to determine whether elevated Lp(a) level is associated with subsequent initiation of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) and incident cardiovascular (CV) events.

Methods

This is an observational cohort study, based on lab tests administered between Jan 1, 2015 and Dec 31, 2019. We used electronic health record (EHR) data from 11 United States health systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet). We created two cohorts for comparison: 1) the Lp(a) cohort, of adults with an Lp(a) test and 2) the LDL-C cohort, of 4:1 date- and site-matched adults with an LDL-C test, but no Lp(a) test. The primary exposure was the presence of an Lp(a) or LDL-C test result. In the Lp(a) cohort, we used logistic regression to assess the relationship between Lp(a) results in mass units (< 50, 50-100, and > 100mg/dL) and molar units (<125, 125-250, > 250nmol/L) and initiation of LLT within 3 months. We used multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate these Lp(a) levels and time to composite CV hospitalization, including hospitalization for myocardial infarction, revascularization and ischemic stroke.

Results

Overall, 20,551 patients had Lp(a) test results and 2,584,773 patients had LDL-C test results (82,204 included in the matched LDL-C cohort). Compared with the LDL-C cohort, the Lp(a) cohort more frequently had prevalent ASCVD (24.3% vs. 8.5%) and multiple prior CV events (8.6% vs. 2.6%). Elevated Lp(a) was associated with greater odds of subsequent LLT initiation. Elevated Lp(a) reported in mass units was also associated with subsequent composite CV hospitalization [aHR (95% CI): Lp(a) 50-100mg/dL 1.25 (1.02-1.53), p<0.03, Lp(a) > 100mg/dL 1.23 (1.08-1.40), p<0.01].

Conclusion

Lp(a) testing is relatively infrequent in health systems across the U.S. As new therapies for Lp(a) emerge, improved patient and provider education is needed to increase awareness of the utility of this risk marker.

Lipoprotein(a) Genotype Influences the Clinical Diagnosis of Familial Hypercholesterolemia

Background Evidence suggests that LPA risk genotypes are a possible contributor to the clinical diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). This study aimed at determining the prevalence of LPA risk variants in adult individuals with FH enrolled in the Italian LIPIGEN (Lipid Transport Disorders Italian Genetic Network) study, with (FH/M+) or without (FH/M-) a causative genetic variant. Methods and Results An lp(a) [lipoprotein(a)] genetic score was calculated by summing the number risk-increasing alleles inherited at rs3798220 and rs10455872 variants. Overall, in the 4.6% of 1695 patients with clinically diagnosed FH, the phenotype was not explained by a monogenic or polygenic cause but by genotype associated with high lp(a) levels. Among 765 subjects with FH/M- and 930 subjects with FH/M+, 133 (17.4%) and 95 (10.2%) were characterized by 1 copy of either rs10455872 or rs3798220 or 2 copies of either rs10455872 or rs3798220 (lp(a) score ≥1). Subjects with FH/M- also had lower mean levels of pretreatment low-density lipoprotein cholesterol than individuals with FH/M+ (t test for difference in means between FH/M- and FH/M+ groups <0.0001); however, subjects with FH/M- and lp(a) score ≥1 had higher mean (SD) pretreatment low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (223.47 [50.40] mg/dL) compared with subjects with FH/M- and lp(a) score=0 (219.38 [54.54] mg/dL for), although not statistically significant. The adjustment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels based on lp(a) concentration reduced from 68% to 42% the proportion of subjects with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level ≥190 mg/dL (or from 68% to 50%, considering a more conservative formula). Conclusions Our study supports the importance of measuring lp(a) to perform the diagnosis of FH appropriately and to exclude that the observed phenotype is driven by elevated levels of lp(a) before performing the genetic test for FH.

Exploring the role of lipoprotein(a) in cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in Chinese population

A high level of lipoprotein (a) in the plasma has been associated with a variety of cardiovascular diseases and is considered to be an independent predictor of some other diseases. Based on recent studies, the concentration levels of Lp(a) in the Chinese population exhibit a distinctive variation from other populations. In the Chinese population, a high level of Lp(a) indicates a higher incidence of revascularization, platelet aggregation, and thrombogenicity following PCI. Increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in Chinese population has been linked to higher levels of Lp(a), according to studies. More specifically, it has been found that in Chinese populations, higher levels of Lp(a) were linked to an increased risk of coronary heart disease, severe aortic valve stenosis, deep vein thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injuries, central vein thrombosis in patients receiving hemodialysis, and stroke. Furthermore, new and consistent data retrieved from several clinical trials also suggest that Lp (a) might also play an essential role in some other conditions, including metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and cancers. This review explores the clinical and epidemiological relationships among Lp(a), cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in the Chinese population as well as potential Lp(a) underlying mechanisms in these diseases. However, further research is needed to better understand the role of Lp(a) in cardiovascular diseases and especially diabetes in the Chinese population.

Lipoprotein (a), Inflammation, and Atherosclerosis

Growing evidence has shown that high levels of lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) and chronic inflammation may be responsible for the residual risk of cardiovascular events in patients managed with an optimal evidence-based approach. Clinical studies have demonstrated a correlation between higher Lp(a) levels and several atherosclerotic diseases including ischemic heart disease, stroke, and degenerative calcific aortic stenosis. The threshold value of Lp(a) serum concentrations associated with a significantly increased cardiovascular risk is >125 nmol/L (50 mg/dL). Current available lipid-lowering drugs have modest-to-no impact on Lp(a) levels. Chronic inflammation is a further condition potentially implicated in residual cardiovascular risk. Consistent evidence has shown an increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients with high sensitivity C reactive protein (>2 mg/dL), an inflammation biomarker. A number of anti-inflammatory drugs have been investigated in patients with or at risk of cardiovascular disease. Of these, canakinumab and colchicine have been found to be associated with cardiovascular risk reduction. Ongoing research aimed at improving risk stratification on the basis of Lp(a) and vessel inflammation assessment may help refine patient management. Furthermore, the identification of these conditions as cardiovascular risk factors has led to increased investigation into diagnostic and therapeutic strategies targeting them in order to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease burden.

Association of the triglycerides and glucose index and the homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance with lipoprotein(a), apolipoprotein AI, and apolipoprotein B concentrations in children with normal-weight

The aim of this study was to compare the association of the triglycerides and glucose (TyG) index and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) with lipoprotein(a) (lp[a]), apolipoprotein AI (apoAI), and apoliprotein B (apoB) concentrations in children with normal-weight. Children with normal weight aged 6-10 years and Tanner 1 stage were included in a cross-sectional study. Underweight, overweight, obesity, smoking, alcohol intake, pregnancy, acute or chronic illnesses, and any kind of pharmacological treatment were exclusion criteria. According to the lp(a) levels, children were allocated into the groups with elevated concentrations and normal values. A total of 181 children with normal weight and an average age of 8.4 ± 1.4 years were enrolled in the study. The TyG index showed a positive correlation with lp(a) and apoB in the overall population (r = 0.161 and r = 0.351, respectively) and boys (r = 0.320 and r = 0.401, respectively), but only with apoB in the girls (r = 0.294); while the HOMA-IR had a positive correlation with lp(a) levels in the overall population (r = 0.213) and boys (r = 0.328). The linear regression analysis showed that the TyG index is associated with lp(a) and apoB in the overall population (B = 20.72; 95%CI 2.03-39.41 and B = 27.25; 95%CI 16.51-37.98, respectively) and boys (B = 40.19; 95%CI 14.50-65.7 and B = 29.60; 95%CI 15.03-44.17, respectively), but only with apoB in the girls (B = 24.22; 95%CI 7.90-40.53). The HOMA-IR is associated with lp(a) in the overall population (B = 5.37; 95%CI 1.74-9.00) and boys (B = 9.63; 95%CI 3.65-15.61).   Conclusion: The TyG index is associated with both lp(a) and apoB in children with normal-weight. What is Known: • The triglycerides and glucose index has been positively associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in adults. What is New: • The triglycerides and glucose index is strongly associated with lipoprotein(a) and apolipoprotein B in children with normal-weight. • The triglycerides and glucose index may be a useful tool to identify cardiovascular risk in children with normal-weight.

Lipoprotein(a) and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Diseases: Evidence from Chinese Population

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Multiple factors are involved in CVD, and emerging data indicate that lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) may be associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) independent of other traditional risk factors. Lp(a) has been identified as a novel therapeutic target. Previous studies on the influence of Lp(a) in CVD have mainly used in western populations. In this review, the association of plasma Lp(a) concentration with ASCVD was summarized, with regards to epidemiological, population-based observational, and pathological studies in Chinese populations. Lp(a) mutations and copy number variations in Chinese populations are also explored. Finally, the impact of plasma Lp(a) levels on patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, cancer, and familial hypercholesterolemia are discussed.

Apolipoprotein Proteomics for Residual Lipid-Related Risk in Coronary Heart Disease

BACKGROUND

Recognition of the importance of conventional lipid measures and the advent of novel lipid-lowering medications have prompted the need for more comprehensive lipid panels to guide use of emerging treatments for the prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD). This report assessed the relevance of 13 apolipoproteins measured using a single mass-spectrometry assay for risk of CHD in the PROCARDIS case-control study of CHD (941 cases/975 controls).

METHODS

The associations of apolipoproteins with CHD were assessed after adjustment for established risk factors and correction for statin use. Apolipoproteins were grouped into 4 lipid-related classes [lipoprotein(a), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides] and their associations with CHD were adjusted for established CHD risk factors and conventional lipids. Analyses of these apolipoproteins in a subset of the ASCOT trial (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial) were used to assess their within-person variability and to estimate a correction for statin use. The findings in the PROCARDIS study were compared with those for incident cardiovascular disease in the Bruneck prospective study (n=688), including new measurements of Apo(a).

RESULTS

Triglyceride-carrying apolipoproteins (ApoC1, ApoC3, and ApoE) were most strongly associated with the risk of CHD (2- to 3-fold higher odds ratios for top versus bottom quintile) independent of conventional lipid measures. Likewise, ApoB was independently associated with a 2-fold higher odds ratios of CHD. Lipoprotein(a) was measured using peptides from the Apo(a)-kringle repeat and Apo(a)-constant regions, but neither of these associations differed from the association with conventionally measured lipoprotein(a). Among HDL-related apolipoproteins, ApoA4 and ApoM were inversely related to CHD, independent of conventional lipid measures. The disease associations with all apolipoproteins were directionally consistent in the PROCARDIS and Bruneck studies, with the exception of ApoM.

CONCLUSIONS

Apolipoproteins were associated with CHD independent of conventional risk factors and lipids, suggesting apolipoproteins could help to identify patients with residual lipid-related risk and guide personalized approaches to CHD risk reduction.

Targeted proteomics using stable isotope labeled protein fragments enables precise and robust determination of total apolipoprotein(a) in human plasma

Lipoprotein(a), also known as Lp(a), is an LDL-like particle composed of apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) bound covalently to apolipoprotein B100. Plasma concentrations of Lp(a) are highly heritable and vary widely between individuals. Elevated plasma concentration of Lp(a) is considered as an independent, causal risk factor of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Targeted mass spectrometry (LC-SRM/MS) combined with stable isotope-labeled recombinant proteins provides robust and precise quantification of proteins in the blood, making LC-SRM/MS assays appealing for monitoring plasma proteins for clinical implications. This study presents a novel quantitative approach, based on proteotypic peptides, to determine the absolute concentration of apo(a) from two microliters of plasma and qualified according to guideline requirements for targeted proteomics assays. After optimization, assay parameters such as linearity, lower limits of quantification (LLOQ), intra-assay variability (CV: 4.7%) and inter-assay repeatability (CV: 7.8%) were determined and the LC-SRM/MS results were benchmarked against a commercially available immunoassay. In summary, the measurements of an apo(a) single copy specific peptide and a kringle 4 specific peptide allow for the determination of molar concentration and relative size of apo(a) in individuals.

Association of lipoprotein(a) with left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with new-onset acute myocardial infarction: A large cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The association of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] with echocardiography-estimated left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in high-risk population remains uncertain, so we assessed the association between Lp(a) with echocardiography-derived LVH in patients with new-onset acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS

In this large, single-center, cross-sectional observational study, we enrolled 2,096 patients with new-onset AMI. Lp(a) was used as the independent variable and LVH was used as the dependent variable. Logistic regression, subgroup and sensitivity analysis were performed to test the association of Lp(a) with LVH.

RESULTS

The concentration of Lp(a) was higher in LVH group compared with the non-LVH group (P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that higher Lp(a) was strongly associated with higher risk of LVH, independently of traditional cardiovascular risk factors (Fully adjusted model, Q4 vs Q1, OR: 1.941, 95% CI: 1.343-2.803, P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that the association of Lp(a) with LVH persisted in the subgroups of age (<60 and ≥60 years), sex (male and female), smoking (yes and no), diabetes (yes), hypertension (yes), hyperlipidemia (yes), and chronic kidney diseases (yes and no). Further sensitivity analysis indicated that Lp(a) remained significantly associated with LVH after further adjusting for high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or excluding patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 ml/min/1.73 m² or dividing Lp(a) into multiple dichotomous variables.

CONCLUSION

Lp(a) was closely associated with LVH in patients with new-onset AMI.

Association of lipoprotein(a) with coronary severity in patients with new-onset acute myocardial infarction: A large cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Although current evidence suggests a causal association between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and cardiovascular disease, there is still no consensus on its association with coronary severity in new-onset acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We explored the association of Lp(a) with coronary severity.

METHODS

In this large cross-sectional study, we enrolled 2,740 patients with new-onset AMI from the Zhongda Hospital affiliated to Southeast University. Lp(a) was considered as an exposure variable. Gensini score, left main disease and three-vessel disease were used to assess coronary severity. Multivariate logistic regression, restricted cubic spline (RCS) models and threshold effects were used to analyze the association of Lp(a) with coronary severity.

RESULTS

Multivariate adjusted models showed that Lp(a) was independently associated with Gensini score (≥100), left main disease and three-vessel disease [Q4 vs Q1, OR (95 % CI), P value: 2.301 (1.770, 2.992), P < 0.001; 1.743 (1.174, 2.587), P = 0.006; 1.431 (1.128, 1.816), P = 0.003; respectively], and the associations persisted in sensitivity analyses and most subgroups (P < 0.05). Additionally, the RCS showed that Lp(a) was nonlinearly associated with Gensini score (continuous variable), Gensini score (≥100) and three-vessel disease (P for nonlinearity < 0.05). Threshold effects analysis showed that Lp(a) above the inflection point was positively associated with Gensini score (continuous variable) as well as the risk of Gensini score (≥100) and three-vessel disease.

CONCLUSION

Lp(a) was closely associated with coronary severity represented by Gensini score, left main disease and three-vessel disease in patients with new-onset AMI.

Lipoprotein(a) in Atherosclerotic Diseases: From Pathophysiology to Diagnosis and Treatment

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol-like particle bound to apolipoprotein(a). Increased Lp(a) levels are an independent, heritable causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) as they are largely determined by variations in the Lp(a) gene (LPA) locus encoding apo(a). Lp(a) is the preferential lipoprotein carrier for oxidized phospholipids (OxPL), and its role adversely affects vascular inflammation, atherosclerotic lesions, endothelial function and thrombogenicity, which pathophysiologically leads to cardiovascular (CV) events. Despite this crucial role of Lp(a), its measurement lacks a globally unified method, and, between different laboratories, results need standardization. Standard antilipidemic therapies, such as statins, fibrates and ezetimibe, have a mediocre effect on Lp(a) levels, although it is not yet clear whether such treatments can affect CV events and prognosis. This narrative review aims to summarize knowledge regarding the mechanisms mediating the effect of Lp(a) on inflammation, atherosclerosis and thrombosis and discuss current diagnostic and therapeutic potentials.