High lipoprotein(a) and high risk of mortality

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.

Clinical Trial Design for Lipoprotein(a)-Lowering Therapies: JACC Focus Seminar 2/3

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a source of residual risk in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Clinical trials of fully human monoclonal antibodies targeting proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9 have shown that reductions in Lp(a) concentrations may be a predictor of event reduction with this class of cholesterol-lowering therapy. With the advent of selective therapies targeting Lp(a) such as antisense oligonucleotides, small-interfering RNA-based therapies, and gene editing, lowering of Lp(a) may lead to reduction in ASCVD. The phase 3 Lp(a)HORIZON (Assessing the Impact of Lipoprotein(a) Lowering with TQJ230 on Major Cardiovascular Events in Patients With CVD) outcomes trial is currently testing the effect of pelacarsen, an antisense oligonucleotide, on ASCVD risk. Olpasiran is a small-interfering RNA that is in a phase 3 clinical trial. As these therapies enter clinical trials, challenges in trial design will have to be addressed to optimize patient selection and outcomes.

Lipoprotein(a)-related cardiovascular and all-cause mortalities in Korean adults

AIMS

There are inconsistent results on the association between lipoprotein(a) and mortality-related outcomes due to a lack of evidence from large-scale observational studies of Asians. This study aims to evaluate the effects of lipoprotein(a) on mortality-related outcomes in the Korean population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This cohort study included 275 430 individuals (mean age: 38 years; 50.1% men) enrolled in the Kangbuk Samsung Health Study between 2003 and 2016. The median follow-up period was 6.6 years. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for evaluating mortality risk based on lipoprotein(a) levels and specific lipoprotein(a) categories. The median lipoprotein(a) value was 18.5 mg/dL, and the proportion of lipoprotein(a) ≥50 mg/dL was 12.8%. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that the group with lipoprotein(a) ≥50 mg/dL had a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (HR[95% CI]: 1.83[1.26, 2.64]) and all-cause mortality (1.20[1.03, 1.41]) than the group with lipoprotein(a) < 50 mg/dL without increased risk of cancer mortality (1.05[0.81, 1.34]). The relationship between lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular mortality was significant regardless of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Specifically, lipoprotein(a) ≥100 mg/dL was associated with more than twice as increased a risk of cardiovascular mortality (2.45[1.12, 5.34]) than lipoprotein(a) < 10 mg/dL. In subgroup analyses, there was an interaction in the relationships between the two lipoprotein(a) categories and cardiovascular mortality for only high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

CONCLUSIONS

High lipoprotein(a) concentration is an independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality in the Korean population, regardless of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

The LDL-C/Apo B predicts coronary atherosclerotic heart disease in non-diabetic patients without high LDL-C

The apolipoprotein B (Apo B), Apo B/A1 ratio, lipoprotein (a), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)/Apo B ratio are associated with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the association between these parameters and CAD in non-diabetic patients without high LDL-C levels is unclear. Our goal was to assess which parameter was most strongly associated with CAD in non-diabetic patients without high LDL-C levels. This study included 487 non-diabetic patients with LDL-C < 130.0 mg/dL. All the patients underwent coronary computed tomographic angiography. We assessed the significance of each continuous atherogenic biomarker for CAD (incidence of coronary plaque and revascularization) without and after adjustment for standard risk factors. The LDL-C/Apo B ratio and lipoprotein (a) were significant risk factors for the incidence of coronary plaque on multivariate analysis after adjustment for standard risk factors. The LDL-C/Apo B ratio was significant for the incidence of revascularization in multivariate analysis after adjustment for standard risk factors. The degree of coronary calcification and plaque burden according to the tertile of LDL-C/Apo B showed significant differences between the groups. Our data indicate that LDL-C/Apo B ratio is the most predictive parameter for coronary atherosclerosis in non-diabetic patients without high LDL-C levels.

Use of Lipoprotein(a) to improve diagnosis and management in clinical familial hypercholesterolemia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an LDL-like particle whose plasma levels are largely genetically determined. The impact of measuring Lp(a) in patients with clinical familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) referred for genetic testing is largely unknown. We set out to evaluate the contribution of (genetically estimated) Lp(a) in a large nation-wide referral population of clinical FH.

METHODS

In 1504 patients referred for FH genotyping, we used an LPA genetic instrument (rs10455872 and rs3798220) as a proxy for plasma Lp(a) levels. The genetic Lp(a) proxy was used to correct LDL-cholesterol and reclassify patients with clinical FH based on Dutch Lipid Criteria Network (DLCN) scoring. Finally, we used estimated Lp(a) levels to reclassify ASCVD risk using the SCORE and SMART risk scores.

RESULTS

LPA SNPs were more prevalent among mutation-negative compared with mutation-positive patients (296/1280 (23.1%) vs 35/224 (15.6%), p = 0.016). Among patients with genetically defined high Lp(a) levels, 9% were reclassified to the DLCN category 'unlikely FH' using Lp(a)-corrected LDL-cholesterol (LDL-Ccor) and all but one of these patients indeed carried no FH variant. Furthermore, elevated Lp(a) reclassified predicted ASCVD risk into a higher category in up to 18% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients referred for FH molecular testing, we show that taking into account (genetically estimated) Lp(a) levels not only results in reclassification of probability of genetic FH, but also has an impact on individual cardiovascular risk evaluation. However, to avoid missing the diagnosis of an FH variant, clear thresholds for the use of Lp(a)-cholesterol adjusted LDL-cholesterol levels in patients referred for genetic testing of FH must be established.

Association of lipoprotein(a) with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

A growing number of studies have demonstrated a causal association between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVDs), but its association with all-cause and cause-specific mortality remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the association of Lp(a) with all-cause and cause-specific mortality.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 8,525 participants from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Lp(a) was considered an exposure variable, all-cause and cause-specific mortality were used as outcome variables, and all participants were followed from the interview date until death or December 31, 2015. COX proportional hazards regression models, stratified analysis, sensitivity analysis, restricted cubic spline plots and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to analyze the association of Lp(a) with all-cause and cause-specific mortality.

RESULTS

After adjusting for traditional cardiovascular risk factors, Lp(a) remained strongly associated with all-cause and CVDs-related mortality (P for trend = 0.007 and < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed that higher Lp(a) remained associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality in those > 60 years of age, with a BMI < 30 kg/m², and without diabetes, whereas the association between Lp(a) and CVDs-related mortality remained stable in participants ≤ 60 years of age, male, with a BMI < 30 kg/m², with hypertension, without diabetes, or without CVDs (P < 0.05). In sensitivity analyses, we found that the association of Lp(a) with all-cause and CVDs-related mortality remained robust after excluding individuals who died within one year of follow-up (P for trend = 0.041 and 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) was associated with the risk of all-cause and CVDs-related mortality.

New Horizons: Revival of Lipoprotein (a) as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Disease

The status of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] as a cardiovascular risk factor has been resurrected by advances in genetics. Mendelian randomization studies show a causal link of Lp(a) with coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral artery disease (PAD), and calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS). The genetics of Lp(a) is complex and extends beyond the kringle-IV type 2, as it is also dependent on ancestry. The plasma concentration of Lp(a) is determined by the hepatic production of apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] component of Lp(a), supporting the use of nucleic acids that inhibit the messenger RNA (mRNA) gene transcript for apo(a). Analytical barriers to measurement of Lp(a) are being addressed using isoform independent assays and a traceable standard. The association of Lp(a) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is higher for myocardial infarction than PAD and CAVS. Increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus associated with low Lp(a) levels is perplexing and requires further investigation. The greatest advancement in Lp(a)-lowering therapies is based on using RNA therapeutics that are now being investigated in clinical trials. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibition lowers Lp(a) modestly, but whether cardiovascular benefit is independent of low-density lipoprotein lowering remains unclear. Opportunistic and selective testing for Lp(a) is supported by moderate evidence, with the case for universal screening premature. Modification of behavioral and clinical risk factors may be targeted to mitigate Lp(a)-mediated risk of cardiovascular disease. Clinical practice guidelines have been developed to address gaps in care of high Lp(a), but full implementation awaits the findings of clinical outcome trials using RNA-directed therapies currently underway.

Lipoprotein(a) predicts recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with prior cardiovascular events post-PCI: five-year findings from a large single center cohort study

Background

It is well established that lipoprotein(a)[Lp(a)] play a vital role in atherosclerosis. Whether Lp(a) can predict recurrence of cardiovascular events (CVEs) in prior CVEs patients is still unclear. We aim to investigate its association with subsequent long-term adverse events in this high-risk population.

Methods

A total of 4,469 patients with prior CVEs history after PCI were consecutively enrolled and categorized according Lp(a) values of < 10 (low), 10 to 30 (medium), and ≥ 30 mg/dL (high). The primary endpoint was MACCE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke and unplanned revascularization.

Results

During an average of 5.0 years of follow-up, 1,078 (24.1%) and 206 (4.6%) patients experienced MACCE and all-cause death with 134 (3.0%) of whom from cardiac death. The incidence of MACCE, all-cause death and cardiac death were significantly higher in the high Lp(a) group (p < 0.05). After adjustment of confounding factors, high Lp(a) level remained an independent risk factor for MACCE (adjusted HR 1.240, 95%CI 1.065–1.443, p = 0.006), all-cause death (adjusted HR 1.445, 95%CI 1.023–2.042, p = 0.037) and cardiac death (adjusted HR 1.724, 95%CI 1.108–2.681, p = 0.016). This correlation remained significant when treated as a natural logarithm-transformed continuous variable. This finding is relatively consistent across subgroups and confirmed again in two sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

Our present study confirmed that Lp(a) was an independent predictor for recurrent CVEs in patients with established CVEs, illustrating that Lp(a) level might be a valuable biomarker for risk stratification and prognostic assessment in this high-risk population.

Biomedical Indicators of Patients with Non-Puerperal Mastitis: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Non-puerperal mastitis (NPM), a recurrent chronic inflammation of non-lactating breast, often proves tremendous difficulty in treatment, and it may give rise to its complicated symptoms and unclear etiology. Furthermore, the clinical morbidity rate of NPM has been increasing in recent years.

METHODS

Overall, 284 patients diagnosed with NPM were consecutively recruited as cases in this study, and patients with benign breast disease (n = 1128) were enrolled as control. The clinical, biomedical, and pathological indicators were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate logistic analysis were used to distinguish risks between NPM and benign breast mass patients. Furthermore, according to the pathological characteristics, the patients of NPM were classified into two subgroups: mammary duct ectasia (MDE) and granulomatous lobular mastitis (GLM). The differences of biomedical indicators between MDE and GLM groups were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Compared with benign breast mass group, the level of high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C) significantly decreased, while lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and blood glucose (GLU) both increased in NPM group. According to univariate and multivariate logistic analysis, the onset age and HDL-C were generally decreased, while Lp(a) and GLU were increased in NPM group. The onset age, HDL-C, Lp(a), and GLU were modeled to distinguish NPM and benign breast mass. Significant differences were also observed between MDE and GLM patients in biomedical indicators, such as lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), creatine kinase (CK), total cholesterol (TC), and so on.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicated for the first time that biomarkers were associated with NPM. The biomedical indicators involved in lipid metabolism might be important factors in the development and treatment of NPM. In addition, MDE and GLM are two diseases with different inflammatory states of NPM. These findings would be helpful for a better understanding of NPM and give us some insights to develop new diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

Lp(a): a New Pathway to Target?

Purpose of Review

Over the past decades, genetic and observational evidence has positioned lipoprotein(a) as novel important and independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve stenosis.

Recent Findings

As Lp(a) levels are determined genetically, lifestyle interventions have no effect on Lp(a)-mediated ASCVD risk. While traditional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) can now be effectively lowered in the vast majority of patients, current lipid lowering therapies have no clinically relevant Lp(a) lowering effect.

Summary

There are multiple Lp(a)-directed therapies in clinical development targeting LPA mRNA that have shown to lower Lp(a) plasma levels for up to 90%: pelacarsen, olpasiran, and SLN360. Pelacarsen is currently investigated in a phase 3 cardiovascular outcome trial expected to finish in 2024, while olpasiran is about to proceed to phase 3 and SLN360’s phase 1 outcomes were recently published. If proven efficacious, Lp(a) will soon become the next pathway to target in ASCVD risk management.

Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis: a European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement

This 2022 European Atherosclerosis Society lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] consensus statement updates evidence for the role of Lp(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve stenosis, provides clinical guidance for testing and treating elevated Lp(a) levels, and considers its inclusion in global risk estimation. Epidemiologic and genetic studies involving hundreds of thousands of individuals strongly support a causal and continuous association between Lp(a) concentration and cardiovascular outcomes in different ethnicities; elevated Lp(a) is a risk factor even at very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. High Lp(a) is associated with both microcalcification and macrocalcification of the aortic valve. Current findings do not support Lp(a) as a risk factor for venous thrombotic events and impaired fibrinolysis. Very low Lp(a) levels may associate with increased risk of diabetes mellitus meriting further study. Lp(a) has pro-inflammatory and pro-atherosclerotic properties, which may partly relate to the oxidized phospholipids carried by Lp(a). This panel recommends testing Lp(a) concentration at least once in adults; cascade testing has potential value in familial hypercholesterolaemia, or with family or personal history of (very) high Lp(a) or premature ASCVD. Without specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies, early intensive risk factor management is recommended, targeted according to global cardiovascular risk and Lp(a) level. Lipoprotein apheresis is an option for very high Lp(a) with progressive cardiovascular disease despite optimal management of risk factors. In conclusion, this statement reinforces evidence for Lp(a) as a causal risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes. Trials of specific Lp(a)-lowering treatments are critical to confirm clinical benefit for cardiovascular disease and aortic valve stenosis.

Use of Lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice: A biomarker whose time has come. A scientific statement from the National Lipid Association

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a well-recognized, independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with elevated levels estimated to be prevalent in 20% of the population. Observational and genetic evidence strongly support a causal relationship between high plasma concentrations of Lp(a) and increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events, such as myocardial infarction and stroke, and valvular aortic stenosis. In this scientific statement, we review an array of evidence-based considerations for testing of Lp(a) in clinical practice and the utilization of Lp(a) levels to inform treatment strategies in primary and secondary prevention.

Serum lipoprotein(a) and 3-year outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We aimed at addressing the association between serum lipoprotein (a) levels and clinical outcomes of consecutive patients undergoing PCI.

METHODS

We used consecutive patients undergoing PCI at the Heart Center University of Freiburg, Bad Krozingen in Germany between January 2005 and November 2013. A total of 6679 patients [men (n = 5391) and women (n = 1288)] mean aged 67.5 (± 11.1) years were assessed at baseline and prospectively followed for 3 years. Lp(a) measurement were performed at hospital admission as a routine laboratory parameter.

RESULTS

Approximately 30% of PCI patients show an elevated Lp(a) value of more than 50mg/dL. In total, 736 Patients died during the follow-up, thereof 189 (11.3%) in the first quartile, 186 (10.7%) in the second quartile, 183 (11.5%) in the third quartile and 178 (10.7%) in the last quartile (p value 0.843 from LogRank test). The MACE rate showed consistent results with 409 (24.4%), 385 (22.1%), 395 (24.7%) and 419 (25.3%) in the different respective quartiles (p value 0.125 from LogRank test).

CONCLUSION

In this large non-selected cohort of patients undergoing PCI followed by moderate intensity statin therapy, higher Lp(a) levels were not associated with worse clinical outcomes during a follow-up of 3 years.

The role of inflammation and the possibilities of inflammation reduction to prevent cardiovascular events

Chronic systemic inflammation is a risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD). Whether this relationship extends to subclinical inflammation, quantified by values of circulating markers associated with inflammation in the high range of the normal interval, remains debatable. This narrative review evaluates evidence exploring this relationship. A review of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, including diet and lifestyle strategies, supplements, nutraceuticals, and other natural substances aimed at reducing inflammation was also conducted, since few reviews have synthesized this literature. PubMed and EMBASE were used to search the literature and several well-studied triggers of inflammation [oxidized LDL, Lp(a), as well as C-reactive protein (CRP)/high-sensitivity CRP (hs-CRP)] were included to increase sensitivity and address the lack of existing reviews summarizing their influence in the context of inflammation. All resulting references were assessed. Overall, there is good data supporting associations between circulating hs-CRP and CV outcomes. However, the same was not seen in studies evaluating triggers of inflammation, such as oxidized LDL or Lp(a). There is also insufficient evidence showing treatments to target inflammation and lead to reductions in hs-CRP result in improvements in CV outcomes, particularly in those with normal baseline levels of hs-CRP. Regarding pharmacological interventions, statins, bempedoic acid, and apabetalone significantly reduce circulating hs-CRP, unlike PCSK-9 inhibitors. A variety of natural substances and vitamins were also evaluated and none reduced hs-CRP. Regarding non-pharmacological interventions, weight loss was strongly associated with reductions in circulating hs-CRP, whereas various dietary interventions and exercise regimens were not, unless accompanied by weight loss.

Impact of Lipoprotein(a) concentrations on long-term cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A large cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Till now, the prognostic value of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. We therefore conducted this study to evaluate the effect of Lp(a) levels on clinical outcomes in this population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 10,059 CAD patients who underwent PCI were prospectively enrolled in this cohort study, of which 6564 patients had Lp(a) ≤30 mg/dl and 3495 patients had Lp(a) > 30 mg/dl. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned revascularization. Multivariate Cox regression analysis and propensity-score matching analysis were performed. After propensity-score matching, 3449 pairs of patients were identified, and post-matching absolute standardized differences were <10% for all the covariates. At 2.4 years, the risk of MACCE was significantly higher in patients with elevated Lp(a) levels than those with normal Lp(a) levels in both overall population (13.0% vs. 11.4%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.142, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.009-1.293; P = 0.040) and propensity-matched cohorts (13.0% vs. 11.2%; HR 1.167, 95%CI 1.019-1.337; P = 0.026). Of note, the predictive value of Lp(a) levels on MACCE tended to be more evident in individuals >65 years or those with left main and/or three-vessel disease. On the contrary, elevated Lp(a) levels had almost no effect on clinical outcomes in patients ≤65 years (P _interaction = 0.021) as well as those who had one- or two-vessel coronary artery disease (P _interaction = 0.086).

CONCLUSION

In CAD patients who underwent PCI, elevated Lp(a) levels were positively related to higher risk of MACCE at 2.4-year follow-up, especially in patients >65 years and those with left main and/or three-vessel disease.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

not applicable.

Elevated Remnant Cholesterol Reclassifies Risk of Ischemic Heart Disease and Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Elevated remnant cholesterol causes ischemic heart disease.

OBJECTIVES

We tested the hypothesis that the inclusion of elevated remnant cholesterol will lead to appropriate reclassification of individuals who later experience myocardial infarction and ischemic heart disease.

METHODS

For >10 years we followed up 41,928 white Danish individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study without a history of ischemic cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and statin use. Using predefined cut points for elevated remnant cholesterol, we calculated net reclassification index (NRI) from below to above 5%, 7.5%, and/or 10% 10-year occurrence of myocardial infarction and ischemic heart disease defined as a composite of death from ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization.

RESULTS

For individuals with remnant cholesterol levels ≥95th percentile (≥1.6 mmol/L, 61 mg/dL), 23% (P < 0.001) of myocardial infarction and 21% (P < 0.001) of ischemic heart disease were reclassified correctly from below to above 5% for 10-year occurrence when remnant cholesterol levels were added to models based on conventional risk factors, whereas no events were reclassified incorrectly. Consequently, the addition of remnant cholesterol levels yielded NRI of 10% (95% CI: 1%-20%) for myocardial infarction and 5% (95% CI: -3% to 13%) for ischemic heart disease. Correspondingly, when reclassifications were combined from below to above 5%, 7.5%, and 10% risk of events, 42% (P < 0.001) of individuals with myocardial infarction and 41% (P < 0.001) with ischemic heart disease were reclassified appropriately, leading to NRI of respectively 20% (95% CI: 9%-31%) and 11% (95% CI: 2%-21%).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated remnant cholesterol levels considerably improve myocardial infarction and ischemic heart disease risk prediction.

Considerations for routinely testing for high Lp(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.

Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular and valvular diseases: A genetic epidemiological perspective

Rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in the Western world have spectacularly decreased over the past 50 years. However, a substantial proportion of high-risk patients still develop heart attacks, strokes and valvular heart diseases despite benefiting from state-of-the-art treatments including lipid-lowering therapies. Over the past 10-15 years, it has become increasingly clear that Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a critical component of this so-called residual risk. Genetic association studies revealed that Lp(a) is robustly, independently and causally associated with a broad range of cardiovascular and valvular heart diseases. Up to 1 billion people around the globe may have an Lp(a) level that places them in a high-risk category. Lp(a) is strongly associated with calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS), coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and to a lesser extent with ischemic stroke (IS) and heart failure (HF). Because of this strong association with cardiovascular and valvular heart diseases, Lp(a) even emerged as one of the most important genetic determinants of human lifespan and healthspan. Here, we review the evidence from the largest and most informative genetic association studies and prospective studies that have investigated the association between Lp(a) and human lifespan, healthspan, CVD, CAVS and non-cardiovascular diseases. We present Lp(a) threshold values that may be clinically relevant and identify other cardiovascular risk factors that may modulate the absolute risk of CVD in individuals with high Lp(a) levels. Finally, we identify key clinical and research questions that require further investigation to eventually and optimally reduce CVD risk in patients with high Lp(a) levels.

Dose-Response Association of Dietary Inflammatory Potential with All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality

Although the association of dietary inflammatory potential, evaluated by the dietary inflammatory index (DII), with all-cause and cause-specific mortality has been reported, evidence remains equivocal, with no relevant dose-response meta-analysis having been conducted. To examine the dose-response association of dietary inflammatory potential with risk of all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched up to August 9, 2021. Cohort studies were included if DII was reported as ≥3 levels or per incremental increase, and if the associations of DII with all-cause, cancer, and CVD mortality were assessed. Generalized least squares regression was used to estimate study-specific dose-response associations, and the random effect model was used to pool the RRs and 95% CIs of all-cause, cancer, and CVD mortality per 1-unit increase in DII. Restricted cubic splines were used to intuitively display the dose-response association between dietary inflammatory potential and mortality. Of the 1415 studies retrieved, 15 articles (17 cohort studies involving 397,641 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. With per 1-unit increase in DII, the risks were significantly increased for all-cause mortality (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.05, I2 = 51.8%; P-heterogeneity = 0.009), cancer mortality (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.04, I2 = 58.6%; P-heterogeneity = 0.013), and CVD mortality (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.06, I2 = 85.7%; P-heterogeneity <0.001), respectively. Restricted cubic splines showed significant positive linear associations between DII and the above 3 outcomes. Our study indicated that proinflammatory diets can increase the risk of all-cause, cancer, and CVD mortality in a linear manner.

How Do Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations Affect Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease Who Underwent Different Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?

Background Lp(a) (lipoprotein[a]) plays an important role in predicting cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease through its proatherogenic and prothrombotic effects. We hypothesized that prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) might be beneficial for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention who had elevated Lp(a) levels. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of Lp(a) on the efficacy and safety of prolonged DAPT versus shortened DAPT in stable patients with coronary artery disease who were treated with a drug-eluting stent. Methods and Results We selected 3201 stable patients with CAD from the prospective Fuwai Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Registry, of which 2124 patients had Lp(a) ≤30 mg/dL, and 1077 patients had Lp(a) >30 mg/dL. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to Lp(a) levels and the duration of DAPT therapy (≤1 year versus >1 year). The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event, defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The median follow-up time was 2.5 years. Among patients with elevated Lp(a) levels, DAPT >1 year presented lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event and definite/probable stent thrombosis compared with DAPT ≤1 year. In contrast, in patients with normal Lp(a) levels, the risks of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event and definite/probable stent thrombosis were not significantly different between the DAPT >1 year and DAPT ≤1 year groups. Prolonged DAPT had 2.4-times higher risk of clinically relevant bleeding than shortened DAPT in patients with normal Lp(a) levels, although without statistical difference. Conclusions In stable patients with coronary artery disease, who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-eluting stent, prolonged DAPT was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular events among those with elevated Lp(a) levels, whereas it did not show statistically significant evidence of benefit for reducing ischemic events and tended to increase clinically relevant bleeding among those with normal Lp(a) levels.

The effect of LPA Thr3888Pro on lipoprotein(a) and coronary artery disease is modified by the LPA KIV-2 variant 4925G>A

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentrations are associated with increased coronary artery disease (CAD) risk. Lp(a) is regulated mainly genetically by the LPA gene but involved genetic variants have not been fully elucidated. Improved understanding of the entanglements of genetic Lp(a) regulation may enhance genetic prediction of Lp(a) and CAD risk. We investigated an interaction between the well-known LPA missense SNP rs41272110 (known as Thr3888Pro) and the frequent LPA splicing mutation KIV-2 4925G>A.

METHODS

Effects on Lp(a) concentrations were investigated by multiple quantile regression in the German Chronic Kidney Disease (GCKD) study, KORA-F3 and KORA-F4 (n_total = 10,405) as well as in the UK Biobank (UKB) 200k exome dataset (n = 173,878). The impact of the interaction on CAD risk was assessed by survival analysis in UKB.

RESULTS

We observed a significant SNP-SNP interaction in all studies (p = 1.26e-05 to 3.03e-04). In quantile regression analysis, rs41272110 as a predictor shows no impact on Lp(a) (β = -0.06 [-0.79; 0.68], p = 0.879), but in a joint model including both SNPs as predictors, rs41272110 is associated with markedly higher Lp(a) (β = +9.40 mg/dL [6.45; 12.34], p = 4.07e-10). Similarly, rs41272110 shows no effect on CAD in UKB (HR = 1.01 [0.97; 1.04], p = 0.731), while rs41272110 carriers not carrying 4925G>A show an increased CAD risk (HR = 1.10 [1.04; 1.16], p = 6.9e-04). This group corresponds to 4% of the population. Adjustment for apolipoprotein(a) isoforms further modified the effect estimates markedly.

CONCLUSIONS

This work emphasizes the complexity of the genetic regulation of Lp(a) and the importance to account for genetic subgroups in Lp(a) association studies and when interpreting genetic cardiovascular risk profiles.

Repeat Measures of Lipoprotein(a) Molar Concentration and Cardiovascular Risk

BACKGROUND

When indicated, guidelines recommend measurement of lipoprotein(a) for cardiovascular risk assessment. However, temporal variability in lipoprotein(a) is not well understood, and it is unclear if repeat testing may help refine risk prediction of coronary artery disease (CAD).

OBJECTIVES

The authors examined the stability of repeat lipoprotein(a) measurements and the association between instability in lipoprotein(a) molar concentration with incident CAD.

METHODS

The authors assessed the correlation between baseline and first follow-up measurements of lipoprotein(a) in the UK Biobank (n = 16,017 unrelated individuals). The association between change in lipoprotein(a) molar concentration and incident CAD was assessed among 15,432 participants using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Baseline and follow-up lipoprotein(a) molar concentration were significantly correlated over a median of 4.42 years (IQR: 3.69-4.93 years; Spearman rho = 0.96; P < 0.0001). The correlation between baseline and follow-up lipoprotein(a) molar concentration were stable across time between measurements of <3 (rho = 0.96), 3-4 (rho = 0.97), 4-5 (rho = 0.96), and >5 years (rho = 0.96). Although there were negligible-to-modest associations between statin use and changes in lipoprotein(a) molar concentration, statin usage was associated with a significant increase in lipoprotein(a) among individuals with baseline levels ≥70 nmol/L. Follow-up lipoprotein(a) molar concentration was significantly associated with risk of incident CAD (HR per 120 nmol/L: 1.32 [95% CI: 1.16-1.50]; P = 0.0002). However, the delta between follow-up and baseline lipoprotein(a) molar concentration was not significantly associated with incident CAD independent of follow-up lipoprotein(a) (P = 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that, in the absence of therapies substantially altering lipoprotein(a), a single accurate measurement of lipoprotein(a) molar concentration is an efficient method to inform CAD risk.

Lipoprotein(a) and Body Mass Compound the Risk of Calcific Aortic Valve Disease

BACKGROUND

High plasma lipoprotein(a) and high body mass index are both causal risk factors for calcific aortic valve disease.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to test the hypothesis that risk of calcific aortic valve disease is the highest when both plasma lipoprotein(a) and body mass index are extremely high.

METHODS

From the Copenhagen General Population Study, we used information on 69,988 randomly selected individuals recruited from 2003 to 2015 (median follow-up 7.4 years) to evaluate the association between high lipoprotein(a) and high body mass index with risk of calcific aortic valve disease.

RESULTS

Compared with individuals in the 1st to 49th percentiles for both lipoprotein(a) and body mass index, the multivariable adjusted HRs for calcific aortic valve disease were 1.6 (95% CI: 1.3-1.9) for the 50th to 89th percentiles of both (16% of all individuals) and 3.5 (95% CI: 2.5-5.1) for the 90th to 100th percentiles of both (1.1%) (P for interaction = 0.92). The 10-year absolute risk of calcific aortic valve disease increased with higher lipoprotein(a), body mass index, and age, and was higher in men than in women. For women and men 70-79 years of age with body mass index ≥30.0 kg/m², 10-year absolute risks were 5% and 8% for lipoprotein(a) ≤42 mg/dL (88 nmol/L), 7% and 11% for 42-79 mg/dL (89-169 nmol/L), and 9% and 14% for lipoprotein(a) ≥80 mg/dL (170 nmol/L), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Extremely high lipoprotein(a) levels and extremely high body mass index together conferred a 3.5-fold risk of calcific aortic valve disease. Ten-year absolute risk of calcific aortic valve disease by categories of lipoprotein(a) levels, body mass index, age, and sex ranged from 0.4% to 14%.

Lipoprotein(a) as Part of the Diagnosis of Clinical Familial Hypercholesterolemia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Individuals with familial hypercholesterolemia have very high risk of cardiovascular disease due to lifelong elevations in LDL cholesterol. Elevated lipoprotein(a) is a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases such as myocardial infarction and aortic valve stenosis. It has been proposed to include elevated lipoprotein(a) in the diagnosis of clinical familial hypercholesterolemia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Lipoprotein(a) is co-measured in LDL cholesterol, and up to one-quarter of all diagnoses of clinical familial hypercholesterolemia are due to high levels of lipoprotein(a). Further, individuals with both familial hypercholesterolemia and elevated lipoprotein(a) have an extremely high risk of myocardial infarction. We discuss the background for familial hypercholesterolemia and elevated lipoprotein(a) as risk factors for cardiovascular disease and the consequences of the fact that LDL cholesterol measurements/calculations include the cholesterol present in lipoprotein(a). Finally, we discuss the potential of including lipoprotein(a) as part of the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia and in consequence possible treatments.

Association of Lipoprotein(a) With Atherosclerotic Plaque Progression

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction, although the mechanism for this observation remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate whether Lp(a) is associated with adverse plaque progression.

METHODS

Lp(a) was measured in patients with advanced stable coronary artery disease undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography at baseline and 12 months to assess progression of total, calcific, noncalcific, and low-attenuation plaque (necrotic core) in particular. High Lp(a) was defined as Lp(a) ≥ 70 mg/dL. The relationship of Lp(a) with plaque progression was assessed using linear regression analysis, adjusting for body mass index, segment involvement score, and ASSIGN score (a Scottish cardiovascular risk score comprised of age, sex, smoking, blood pressure, total and high-density lipoprotein [HDL]-cholesterol, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and deprivation index).

RESULTS

A total of 191 patients (65.9 ± 8.3 years of age; 152 [80%] male) were included in the analysis, with median Lp(a) values of 100 (range: 82 to 115) mg/dL and 10 (range: 5 to 24) mg/dL in the high and low Lp(a) groups, respectively. At baseline, there was no difference in coronary artery disease severity or plaque burden. Patients with high Lp(a) showed accelerated progression of low-attenuation plaque compared with low Lp(a) patients (26.2 ± 88.4 mm3 vs -0.7 ± 50.1 mm3; P = 0.020). Multivariable linear regression analysis confirmed the relation between Lp(a) and low-attenuation plaque volume progression (β = 10.5% increase for each 50 mg/dL Lp(a), 95% CI: 0.7%-20.3%). There was no difference in total, calcific, and noncalcific plaque volume progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with advanced stable coronary artery disease, Lp(a) is associated with accelerated progression of coronary low-attenuation plaque (necrotic core). This may explain the association between Lp(a) and the high residual risk of myocardial infarction, providing support for Lp(a) as a treatment target in atherosclerosis.

Lipoprotein(a) Levels at Birth and in Early Childhood: The COMPARE Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

High lipoprotein(a) is a genetically determined causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and 20% of the adult population has high levels (ie, >42 mg/dL, >88 nmol/L). We investigated whether early life lipoprotein(a) levels measured in cord blood may serve as a proxy for neonatal venous blood levels, whether lipoprotein(a) birth levels (ie, cord or venous) predict levels later in life, and whether early life and parental levels correlate.

METHODS

The Compare study is a prospective cohort study of newborns (N = 450) from Copenhagen, Denmark, including blood sampling of parents. Plasma lipoprotein(a) was measured in cord blood (N = 402), neonatal venous blood (N = 356), and at 2 (N = 320) and 15 months follow-up (N = 148) of infants, and in parents (N = 705).

RESULTS

Mean lipoprotein(a) levels were 2.2 (95% CI, 1.9-2.5), 2.4 (2.0-2.7), 4.1 (3.4-4.9), and 14.6 (11.4-17.9) mg/dL in cord, neonatal venous, and 2- and 15-month venous samples, respectively. Lipoprotein(a) levels in cord blood correlated strongly with neonatal venous blood levels (R2 = 0.95, P < 0.001) and neonatal levels correlated moderately with 2- and 15-month levels (R2 = 0.68 and 0.67, both P < 0.001). Birth levels ≥ 90th percentile predicted lipoprotein(a) > 42 mg/dL at 15 months with positive predictive values of 89% and 85% for neonatal venous and cord blood. Neonatal and infant levels correlated weakly with parental levels, most pronounced at 15 months (R2 = 0.22, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Lipoprotein(a) levels are low in early life, cord blood may serve as a proxy for neonatal venous blood, and birth levels ≥ 90th percentile can identify newborns at risk of developing high levels.

Assessing the Accuracy of Estimated Lipoprotein(a) Cholesterol and Lipoprotein(a)-Free Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

Background

Accurate measurement of the cholesterol within lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]‐C) and its contribution to low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) has important implications for risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, as well as in familial hypercholesterolemia. A method for estimating Lp(a)‐C from particle number using fixed conversion factors has been proposed (Lp[a]‐C from particle number divided by 2.4 for Lp(a) mass, multiplied by 30% for Lp[a]‐C). The accuracy of this method, which theoretically can isolate “Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C,” has not been validated.

Methods and Results

In 177 875 patients from the VLDbL (Very Large Database of Lipids), we compared estimated Lp(a)‐C and Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C with measured values and quantified absolute and percent error. We compared findings with an analogous data set from the Mayo Clinic Laboratory. Error in estimated Lp(a)‐C and Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C increased with higher Lp(a)‐C values. Median error for estimated Lp(a)‐C <10 mg/dL was −1.9 mg/dL (interquartile range, −4.0 to 0.2); this error increased linearly, overestimating by +30.8 mg/dL (interquartile range, 26.1–36.5) for estimated Lp(a)‐C ≥50 mg/dL. This error relationship persisted after stratification by overall high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol subtypes. Similar findings were observed in the Mayo cohort. Absolute error for Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C was +2.4 (interquartile range, −0.6 to 5.3) for Lp(a)‐C<10 mg/dL and −31.8 (interquartile range, −37.8 to −26.5) mg/dL for Lp(a)‐C≥50 mg/dL.

Conclusions

Lp(a)‐C estimations using fixed conversion factors overestimated Lp(a)‐C and subsequently underestimated Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C, especially at clinically relevant Lp(a) values. Application of inaccurate Lp(a)‐C estimations to correct LDL‐C may lead to undertreatment of high‐risk patients.

Baseline Low-Density-Lipoprotein Cholesterol Modifies the Risk of All-Cause Death Associated With Elevated Lipoprotein(a) in Coronary Artery Disease Patients

Background: The prognostic value of elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients is inconsistent in previous studies, and whether such value changes at different low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels is unclear. Methods and Findings: CAD patients treated with statin therapy from January 2007 to December 2018 in the Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (NCT04407936) were consecutively enrolled. Individuals were categorized according to the baseline LDL-C at cut-off of 70 and 100 mg/dL. The primary outcome was 5-year all-cause death. Multivariate Cox proportional models and penalized spline analyses were used to evaluate the association between Lp(a) and all-cause mortality. Among 30,908 patients, the mean age was 63.1 ± 10.7 years, and 76.7% were men. A total of 2,383 (7.7%) patients died at 5-year follow-up. Compared with Lp(a) <50 mg/dL, Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL predicted higher all-cause mortality (multivariable adjusted HR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.07-1.31) in the total cohort. However, when analyzed within each LDL-C category, there was no significant association between Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL and higher all-cause mortality unless the baseline LDL-C was ≥ 100 mg/dL (HR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.36). The results from penalized spline analyses were robust. Conclusions: In statin-treated CAD patients, elevated Lp(a) was associated with increased risks of all-cause death, and such an association was modified by the baseline LDL-C levels. Patients with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL had higher long-term risks of all-cause death compared with those with Lp(a) <50 mg/dL only when their baseline LDL-C was ≥ 100 mg/dL.

Biochemical risk factors of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: from a narrow and controversial approach to an integral approach and precision medicine

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines of management of dyslipidemias and prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) are based on firm scientific evidence obtained by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, the role of elevated low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C)as a risk factor of CVD and therapies to lower LDL-C are frequently disputed by colleagues who disagree with the conclusions of the RCTs published. This review focuses on this dispute, and evaluates the current approach of management of dyslipidemias and CVD prevention to find modern alternatives for more precise diagnosis and therapy of dyslipidemic patients.

AREAS COVERED

Recent interest in lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and remnants lipoproteins and in therapies that do not influence LDL-C levels primarily, such as anti-inflammatory drugs and icosapent ethyl, has revitalized our concern to optimize the care for patients with increased CVD risk without focusing simply on reduction of LDL-C by therapy with statins, ezitemibe, and proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors.

EXPERT OPINION

The limited characterization of study populations by measurement of total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) and triglycerides (TG) followed by measurement or calculation of LDL-C should be extended by a more integral approach in order to realize precision diagnostics and precision medicine, for the sake of personalized patient care.

Lipoprotein(a): A Genetically Determined, Causal, and Prevalent Risk Factor for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], an apoB100-containing lipoprotein, are an independent and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases through mechanisms associated with increased atherogenesis, inflammation, and thrombosis. Lp(a) is predominantly a monogenic cardiovascular risk determinant, with ≈70% to ≥90% of interindividual heterogeneity in levels being genetically determined. The 2 major protein components of Lp(a) particles are apoB100 and apolipoprotein(a). Lp(a) remains a risk factor for cardiovascular disease development even in the setting of effective reduction of plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apoB100. Despite its demonstrated contribution to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease burden, we presently lack standardization and harmonization of assays, universal guidelines for diagnosing and providing risk assessment, and targeted treatments to lower Lp(a). There is a clinical need to understand the genetic and biological basis for variation in Lp(a) levels and its relationship to disease in different ancestry groups. This scientific statement capitalizes on the expertise of a diverse basic science and clinical workgroup to highlight the history, biology, pathophysiology, and emerging clinical evidence in the Lp(a) field. Herein, we address key knowledge gaps and future directions required to mitigate the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk attributable to elevated Lp(a) levels.

Preclinical development and phase 1 trial of a novel siRNA targeting lipoprotein(a)

Compelling evidence supports a causal role for lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) in cardiovascular disease. No pharmacotherapies directly targeting Lp(a) are currently available for clinical use. Here we report the discovery and development of olpasiran, a first-in-class, synthetic, double-stranded, N-acetylgalactosamine-conjugated small interfering RNA (siRNA) designed to directly inhibit LPA messenger RNA translation in hepatocytes and potently reduce plasma Lp(a) concentration. Olpasiran reduced Lp(a) concentrations in transgenic mice and cynomolgus monkeys in a dose-responsive manner, achieving up to over 80% reduction from baseline for 5-8 weeks after administration of a single dose. In a phase 1 dose-escalation trial of olpasiran (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03626662 ), the primary outcome was safety and tolerability, and the secondary outcomes were the change in Lp(a) concentrations and olpasiran pharmacokinetic parameters. Participants tolerated single doses of olpasiran well and experienced a 71-97% reduction in Lp(a) concentration with effects persisting for several months after administration of doses of 9 mg or higher. Serum concentrations of olpasiran increased approximately dose proportionally. Collectively, these results validate the approach of using hepatocyte-targeted siRNA to potently lower Lp(a) in individuals with elevated plasma Lp(a) concentration.

Benefit and Risk of Prolonged Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Elevated Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations

Background: Lipoprotein(a) is positively related to cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Given that lipoprotein(a) has a prothrombotic effect, prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) might have a beneficial effect on reducing ischemic events in patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We performed this study to assess the efficacy and safety of prolonged DAPT (>1 year) in this population.

Methods: We evaluated a total of 3,025 CAD patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels who were event-free at 1 year after PCI from the prospective Fuwai PCI Registry, of which 913 received DAPT ≤ 1 year and 2,112 received DAPT>1 year. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction or stroke.

Results: After a median follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received DAPT>1 year were associated with lower risks of MACCE compared with DAPT ≤ 1 year (1.6 vs. 3.8%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.383, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.238–0.616), which was primarily driven by the lower all-cause mortality (0.2 vs. 2.3%; HR 0.078, 95% CI 0.027–0.227). In addition, DAPT>1 year was also associated with lower risks of cardiac death, and definite/probable stent thrombosis than those who received DAPT ≤ 1 year (P < 0.05). Conversely, no difference was found between the two groups in terms of clinically relevant bleeding. Similar results were observed in multivariate Cox regression analysis and inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.

Conclusions: In patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) concentrations after PCI, prolonged DAPT (>1 year) reduced ischemic cardiovascular events, including MACCE, all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and definite/probable stent thrombosis, without increase in clinically relevant bleeding risk compared with ≤ 1-year DAPT. Lipoprotein(a) levels might be a new important consideration when deciding the duration of DAPT after PCI.

LPA Genotypes and Haplotypes Are Associated with Lipoprotein(a) Levels but Not Arterial Wall Properties in Stable Post-Coronary Event Patients with Very High Lipoprotein(a) Levels

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels are an independent risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD). Two single-nucleotide polymorphisms (rs10455872, rs3798220) and number of KIV-2 repeats in the gene encoding Lp(a) (LPA) are associated with Lp(a) and CAD. Our aim was to investigate whether in patients with stable CAD and high Lp(a) levels these genetic variants are associated with increased Lp(a) and arterial wall properties. Blood samples underwent biochemical and genetic analyses. Ultrasound measurements for the functional and morphological properties of arterial wall were performed. Genotypes of rs10455872 and haplotypes AT and GT showed significant association with Lp(a) levels. Patients with GG showed significantly higher Lp(a) levels compared with those with AG genotype (2180 vs. 1391 mg/L, p = 0.045). Patients with no AT haplotype had significantly higher Lp(a) compared to carriers of one AT haplotype (2158 vs. 1478 mg/L, p = 0.023) or two AT haplotypes (2158 vs. 1487 mg/L, p = 0.044). There were no significant associations with the properties of the arterial wall. Lp(a) levels significantly correlated also with number of KIV-2 repeats (r = -0.601; p < 0.0001). In our patients, these two LPA polymorphisms and number of KIV-2 repeats are associated with Lp(a), but not arterial wall properties.

Lipoprotein (a) and Hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an overview of the associations between elevated blood pressure and lipoprotein (a) and possible causal links, as well as data on the prevalence of elevated lipoprotein (a) in a cohort of hypertensive patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Elevated lipoprotein (a) is now considered to be an independent and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and calcific aortic valve disease. Despite this, there are limited data demonstrating an association between elevated lipoprotein (a) and hypertension. Further, there is limited mechanistic data linking lipoprotein (a) and hypertension through either renal impairment or direct effects on the vasculature. Despite the links between lipoprotein (a) and atherosclerosis, there are limited data demonstrating an association with hypertension. Evidence from our clinic suggests that ~ 30% of the patients in this at-risk, hypertensive cohort had elevated lipoprotein (a) levels and that measurement of lipoprotein (a) maybe useful in risk stratification.