Lipoprotein (a) measurements for clinical application

Lipoprotein(a), Cardiovascular Events and Sex Differences: A Single Cardiological Unit Experience

Lipoprotein(a)-Lp(a), which retains proatherogenic and prothrombotic properties, may be modified by hormonal and metabolic factors. However, few studies have focused on differences related to sex and cardiometabolic risk factors in the relationship between Lp(a) and cardiovascular disease, especially in terms of prognosis. This study aimed at evaluating the predictive value of Lp(a) (cut-off 30 mg/dL) for hard events (HEs: mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction) according to sex and cardiometabolic risk factors in 2110 patients (1501 males, mean age: 68 ± 9 years) undergoing coronary angiography for known or suspected coronary artery disease. There were 211 events over a median follow-up period of 33 months. Lp(a) > 30 mg/dL did not confer a worse prognosis on the overall population. However, Kaplan-Meier subgroup analysis evidenced a worse prognosis in type 2 diabetes (T2D) females with elevated Lp(a) (log-rank test: p = 0.03) vs. T2D males and no-T2D patients, but not in other high-risk cardiovascular states (e.g., smoking, hypertension, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or obesity). After Cox multivariate adjustment, Lp(a) remained an independent determinant for HEs in the T2D female subgroup, conferring an HR of 2.9 (95% CI 1.1-7.7, p < 0.05). Lp(a) is therefore a strong independent predictor of HR in T2D women, but not in T2D men, or in noT2D patients.

Efficacy and safety of pelacarsen in lowering Lp(a) in healthy Japanese subjects

BACKGROUND

Pelacarsen is a liver-targeted antisense oligonucleotide that potently lowers lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels. Its safety and efficacy in diverse populations has not been extensively studied.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of pelacarsen, including monthly dosing of 80 mg, in subjects of Japanese ancestry.

METHODS

A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, study was performed in 29 healthy Japanese subjects treated with single ascending doses (SAD) of pelacarsen 20, 40 and 80 mg subcutaneously or multiple doses (MD) of pelacarsen 80 mg monthly for 4 doses. The primary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability in healthy Japanese subjects; secondary objectives to assess the pharmacokinetics of pelacarsen; and exploratory objective to determine the effect of pelacarsen on plasma Lp(a) levels.

RESULTS

No serious adverse events or clinically relevant abnormalities in any laboratory parameters were noted. In the MD cohort, mean plasma concentrations of pelacarsen peaked at ∼4 hours and declined in a bi-exponential manner thereafter. In the SAD cohorts, the placebo-corrected least-square mean (PCLSM) percent changes in Lp(a) at Day 30 were: -55.4% (p=0.0008), -58.9% (p=0.0003) and -73.7% (p<0.0001) for the 20 mg, 40 mg, and 80 mg pelacarsen-treated groups, respectively. In the MD cohort, the PCLSM at Days 29, 85, 113, 176 and 204 were -84.0% (p=0.0003), -106.2% (p<0.0001), -70.0 (p<0.0001), -80.0% (p=0.0104) and -55.8% (p=0.0707), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelacarsen demonstrates an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and potently lowers plasma levels of Lp(a) in healthy Japanese subjects, including with the 80 mg monthly dose being evaluated in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial.

Lipoprotein(a) and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease, the Impact of Available Lipid-Lowering Medications on Lipoprotein(a): An Update on New Therapies

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence of existing and new pharmacological therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) concentrations and their impact on clinically relevant outcomes.

METHODS

We searched for literature pertaining to Lp(a) and pharmacological treatments in PubMed. We reviewed articles published between 1963 and 2020.

RESULTS

We found that statins significantly increased Lp(a) concentrations. Therapies that demonstrated varying degrees of Lp(a) reduction included ezetimibe, niacin, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, lipoprotein apheresis, fibrates, aspirin, hormone replacement therapy, antisense oligonucleotide therapy, and small interfering RNA therapy. There was limited data from large observational studies and post hoc analyses showing the potential benefits of these therapies in improving cardiovascular outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There are multiple lipid-lowering agents currently being used to treat hyperlipidemia that also have a Lp(a)-lowering effect. Two RNA therapies specifically targeted to lower Lp(a) are being investigated in phase 3 clinical trials and, thus far, have shown promising results. However, evidence is lacking to determine the clinical relevance of reducing Lp(a). At present, there is a need for large-scale, randomized, controlled trials to evaluate cardiovascular outcomes associated with lowering Lp(a).

Lipoprotein(a): a risk factor for atherosclerosis and an emerging therapeutic target

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a complex circulating lipoprotein, and increasing evidence has demonstrated its role as a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and as a possible therapeutic target. Lp(a) atherogenic effects are attributed to several potential mechanisms in addition to cholesterol accumulation in the arterial wall, including proinflammatory effects mainly mediated by oxidised phospholipids. Several studies have found a causal and independent relationship between Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular risk. Furthermore, several studies also suggest a causal association between Lp(a) levels and calcific aortic valve stenosis. Available lipid-lowering agents have at best moderate impact on Lp(a) levels. Among available therapies, antibody proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors are the most effective in reducing Lp(a). Potent Lp(a)-lowering treatments that target LPA expression are under development. Lp(a) level measurement poses some challenges due to the absence of a definitive reference method and the reporting of Lp(a) values as molar (nanomoles per litre (nmol/L)) or mass concentrations (milligrams per decilitre (mg/dL)) by different assays. Currently, Lp(a) measurement is recommended to refine cardiovascular risk in specific clinical settings, that is, in individuals with a family history of premature ASCVD, in patients with ASCVD not explained by standard risk factors or in those with recurrent events despite optimal management of traditional risk factors. Patients with high Lp(a) levels should be managed with more intensive approaches to treat other modifiable cardiovascular risk factors. Overall, this review focuses on Lp(a) as an ASCVD risk factor and therapeutic target. Furthermore, it reports practical recommendations for Lp(a) measurement and interpretation and updated evidence on Lp(a)-lowering approaches.

Circulating Biomarkers for Laboratory Diagnostics of Atherosclerosis-Literature Review

Atherosclerosis is still considered a disease burden with long-term damaging processes towards the cardiovascular system. Evaluation of atherosclerotic stages requires the use of independent markers such as those already considered traditional, that remain the main therapeutic target for patients with atherosclerosis, together with emerging biomarkers. The challenge is finding models of predictive markers that are particularly tailored to detect and evaluate the evolution of incipient vascular lesions. Important advances have been made in this field, resulting in a more comprehensible and stronger linkage between the lipidic profile and the continuous inflammatory process. In this paper, we analysed the most recent data from the literature studying the molecular mechanisms of biomarkers and their involvement in the cascade of events that occur in the pathophysiology of atherosclerosis.

Lipoprotein(a) levels in a global population with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

OBJECTIVE

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an important genetically determined risk factor for atherosclerotic vascular disease (ASCVD). With the development of Lp(a)-lowering therapies, this study sought to characterise patterns of Lp(a) levels in a global ASCVD population and identify racial, ethnic, regional and gender differences.

METHODS

A multicentre cross-sectional epidemiological study to estimate the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) in patients with a history of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke or peripheral artery disease conducted at 949 sites in 48 countries in North America, Europe, Asia, South America, South Africa and Australia between April 2019 and July 2021. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and Lp(a) levels were measured either as mass (mg/dL) or molar concentration (nmol/L).

RESULTS

Of 48 135 enrolled patients, 13.9% had prior measurements of Lp(a). Mean age was 62.6 (SD 10.1) years and 25.9% were female. Median Lp(a) was 18.0 mg/dL (IQR 7.9-57.1) or 42.0 nmol/L (IQR 15.0-155.4). Median LDL-C was 77 mg/dL (IQR 58.4-101.0). Lp(a) in women was higher, 22.8 (IQR 9.0-73.0) mg/dL, than in men, 17.0 (IQR 7.1-52.2) mg/dL, p<0.001. Black patients had Lp(a) levels approximately threefold higher than white, Hispanic or Asian patients. Younger patients also had higher levels. 27.9% of patients had Lp(a) levels >50 mg/dL, 20.7% had levels >70 mg/dL, 12.9% were >90 mg/dL and 26.0% of patients exceeded 150 nmol/L.

CONCLUSIONS

Globally, Lp(a) is measured in a small minority of patients with ASCVD and is highest in black, younger and female patients. More than 25% of patients had levels exceeding the established threshold for increased cardiovascular risk, approximately 50 mg/dL or 125 nmol/L.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The Inherited Hypercholesterolemias

Inherited hypercholesterolemias include monogenic and polygenic disorders, which can be very rare (eg, cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis (CTX)) or relatively common (eg, familial combined hyperlipidemia [FCH]). In this review, we discuss familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), FH-mimics (eg, polygenic hypercholesterolemia [PH], FCH, sitosterolemia), and other inherited forms of hypercholesterolemia (eg, hyper-lipoprotein(a) levels [hyper-Lp(a)]). The prevalence, genetics, and management of inherited hypercholesterolemias are described and selected guidelines summarized.

Ancestry, Lipoprotein(a), and Cardiovascular Risk Thresholds: JACC Review Topic of the Week

This study reviews ancestral differences in the genetics of the LPA gene, risk categories of elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] as defined by guidelines, ancestry-specific Lp(a) risk, absolute and proportional risk, predictive value of risk thresholds among different ancestries, and differences between laboratory vs clinical accuracy in Lp(a) assays. For clinical decision-making, the preponderance of evidence suggests that the predictive value of Lp(a) does not vary sufficiently to mandate the use of ancestry-specific risk thresholds. This paper interprets the literature on Lp(a) and ancestral risk to support: 1) clinicians on understanding cardiovascular disease risk in different ancestral groups; 2) trialists for the design of clinical trials to ensure adequate ancestral diversity to support broad conclusions of drug effects; 3) regulators in the evaluation of the design and interpretation of results of Lp(a)-lowering trials with different Lp(a) inclusion thresholds; and 4) clinical laboratories to measure Lp(a) by assays that discriminate risk thresholds appropriately.

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.

The Effect of Bariatric Surgery on Circulating Levels of Lipoprotein (a): A Meta-analysis

Background

Obesity, especially severe obesity, is associated with a higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) morbidity and mortality. Bariatric surgery is a durable and effective weight loss therapy for patients with severe obesity and weight-related comorbidities. Elevated plasma levels of lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) are causally associated with ASCVD. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze whether bariatric surgery is associated with Lp(a) concentrations.

Methods

A literature search in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science was performed from inception to May 1st, 2021. A random-effects model and the generic inverse variance weighting method were used to compensate for the heterogeneity of studies in terms of study design, treatment duration, and the characteristics of the studied populations. A random-effects metaregression model was used to explore the association with an estimated effect size. Evaluation of funnel plot, Begg's rank correlation, and Egger's weighted regression tests were used to assess the presence of publication bias in the meta-analysis.

Results

Meta-analysis of 13 studies including 1551 patients showed a significant decrease of circulating Lp(a) after bariatric surgery (SMD: -0.438, 95% CI: -0.702, -0.174, p < 0.001, I²: 94.05%). The results of the metaregression did not indicate any significant association between the changes in Lp(a) and duration of follow-up after surgery, reduction in body mass index, or baseline Lp(a) concentration. The reduction in circulating Lp(a) was robust in the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis.

Conclusion

Bariatric surgery significantly decreases circulating Lp(a) concentrations. This decrease may have a positive effect on ASCVD in obese patients.

Lipoprotein(a) in the Korean Pediatric Population Visiting Local Clinics and Hospitals

In this paper we investigate serum lipoprotein(a), an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease in the Korean pediatric population. Visiting local clinics and hospitals, 600 lipoprotein(a) tests were performed on 416 Korean children and adolescents (124 boys and 292 girls), with a median age of 11.1 years (interquartile range, IQR, 9.8–13.9). The median lipoprotein(a) level was 21.5 nmol/L (IQR, 8.2–51.7). Among the 416 patients, the 90th percentile value of the initial lipoprotein(a) measurement was 107.8 nmol/L. The proportion of patients with lipoprotein(a) ≥ 100 nmol/L was 11.3%. The lipoprotein(a) level and the proportion of patients with lipoprotein(a) ≥ 100 nmol/L were not significantly different among sex, or age group. Among the 416 patients, 122 (29.3%, 21 boys and 101 girls) underwent at least two follow-up lipoprotein(a) measurements. The median follow-up period was 6.7 months (IQR, 5.5–11.8). The median lipoprotein(a) level across the 122 patients was 25 nmol/L (IQR 10.0–72.0). Among those patients, seven (5.7%) experienced an increase in serum lipoprotein(a) to ≥100 nmol/L during follow-up measurements. Further studies are needed in the Korean pediatric population in order to clarify the clinical significance of this change long-term.

Effect of a PCSK9 inhibitor and a statin on cholesterol efflux capacity: A limitation of current cholesterol-lowering treatments?

BACKGROUND

Cellular cholesterol efflux is a key step in reverse cholesterol transport that may impact on atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk. The process may be reliant on the availability of apolipoprotein (apo) B-100-containing lipoproteins to accept cholesterol from high-density lipoprotein. Evolocumab and atorvastatin are known to lower plasma apoB-100-containing lipoproteins that could impact on cholesterol efflux capacity (CEC).

METHODS

We conducted a 2-by-2 factorial trial of the effects of subcutaneous evolocumab (420 mg every 2 weeks) and atorvastatin (80 mg daily) for 8 weeks on CEC in 81 healthy, normolipidaemic men. The capacity of whole plasma and apoB-depleted plasma, including ATP-binding cassette transporter A1 (ABCA1)-mediated and passive diffusion, to efflux cholesterol, was measured.

RESULTS

Evolocumab and atorvastatin independently decreased whole plasma CEC (main effect p < .01 for both). However, there were no significant effects of evolocumab and atorvastatin on apoB-depleted plasma, ABCA1-mediated and passive diffusion-mediated CEC (p > .05 in all). In the three intervention groups combined, the reduction in whole plasma CEC was significantly correlated with the corresponding reduction in plasma apoB-100 concentration (r = .339, p < .01). In the evolocumab monotherapy group, the reduction in whole plasma CEC was also significantly correlated with the corresponding reduction in plasma lipoprotein(a) concentration (r = .487, p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In normolipidaemic men, evolocumab and atorvastatin decrease the capacity of whole plasma to efflux cellular cholesterol. These effects may be chiefly owing to a fall in the availability of apoB-100-containing lipoproteins. Reduction in circulating lipoprotein(a) may also contribute to the decrease in whole plasma cholesterol efflux with evolocumab monotherapy.

Lipoprotein(a) and Subclinical Vascular and Valvular Calcification on Cardiac Computed Tomography: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study

Background Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a potent causal risk factor for cardiovascular events and mortality. However, its relationship with subclinical atherosclerosis, as defined by arterial calcification, remains unclear. This study uses the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study) to evaluate the relationship between Lp(a) in middle age and measures of vascular and valvular calcification in older age. Methods and Results Lp(a) was measured at ARIC visit 4 (1996-1998), and coronary artery calcium (CAC), together with extracoronary calcification (including aortic valve calcium, aortic valve ring calcium, mitral valve calcification, and thoracic aortic calcification), was measured at visit 7 (2018-2019). Lp(a) was defined as elevated if >50 mg/dL and CAC/extracoronary calcification were defined as elevated if >100. Logistic and linear regression models were used to evaluate the association between Lp(a) and CAC/extracoronary calcification, with further stratification by race. The mean age of participants at visit 4 was 59.2 (SD 4.3) years, with 62.2% women. In multivariable adjusted analyses, elevated Lp(a) was associated with higher odds of elevated aortic valve calcium (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.34-2.47), CAC (aOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.08-1.81), aortic valve ring calcium (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.73), mitral valve calcification (aOR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.06-1.78), and thoracic aortic calcification (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.05-1.77). Similar results were obtained when Lp(a) and CAC/extracoronary calcification were examined on continuous logarithmic scales. There was no significant difference in the association between Lp(a) and each measure of calcification by race or sex. Conclusions Elevated Lp(a) at middle age is significantly associated with vascular and valvular calcification in older age, represented by elevated CAC, aortic valve calcium, aortic valve ring calcium, mitral valve calcification, thoracic aortic calcification. Our findings encourage assessing Lp(a) levels in individuals with increased cardiovascular disease risk, with subsequent comprehensive vascular and valvular assessment where elevated.

Development and Validation of an Isoform Independent Monoclonal Antibody-Based ELISA for Measurement of Lipoprotein(a)

The study aims were to develop a new isoform-independent enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) for the measurement of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], validate its performance characteristics, and demonstrate its accuracy by comparison with the gold-standard ELISA method and an LC-MS/MS candidate reference method, both developed at the University of Washington. The principle of the new assay is the capture of Lp(a) with monoclonal antibody LPA4 primarily directed to an epitope in apolipoprotein(a) KIV₂ and its detection with monoclonal antibody LPA-KIV9 directed to a single antigenic site present on KIV₉. Validation studies were performed following the guidelines of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments and the College of American Pathologists. The analytical measuring range of the LPA4/LPA-KIV9 ELISA is 0.27–1,402 nmol/L, and the method meets stringent criteria for precision, linearity, spike and recovery, dilutability, comparison of plasma versus serum, and accuracy. Method comparison with both the gold-standard ELISA and the LC-MS/MS method performed in 64 samples with known apolipoprotein(a) isoforms resulted in excellent correlation with both methods (r=0.987 and r=0.976, respectively). Additionally, the variation in apolipoprotein(a) size accounted for only 0.2% and 2.2% of the bias variation, respectively, indicating that the LPA4/LPA-KIV9 ELISA is not affected by apolipoprotein(a) size polymorphism. Peptide mapping and competition experiments demonstrated that the measuring monoclonal antibodies used in the gold-standard ELISA (a-40) and in the newly developed ELISA (LPA-KIV9) are directed to the same epitope, ⁴⁰⁷⁶LETPTVV⁴⁰⁸², on KIV₉. In conclusion, no statistically or clinically significant bias was observed between Lp(a) measurements obtained by the LPA4/LPA-KIV9 ELISA and those obtained by the gold-standard ELISA or LC-MS/MS, and therefore, the methods are considered equivalent.

PCSK9 inhibition with alirocumab decreases plasma lipoprotein(a) concentration by a dual mechanism of action in statin-treated patients with very high apolipoprotein(a) concentration

BACKGROUND

Inhibition of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 with alirocumab decreases plasma lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels. The kinetic mechanism for lowering Lp(a) by alirocumab may differ according to pre-treatment apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] levels.

METHODS

The effect of 12-week alirocumab (150 mg subcutaneously fortnightly) on the kinetics of apo(a) was compared in statin-treated patients with high (n = 10) and very high Lp(a) concentrations (n = 11).

RESULTS

In patients with high apo(a) concentrations, alirocumab lowered plasma apo(a) pool size (-17%, p < 0.01) chiefly by increasing the fractional catabolic rate (FCR) of apo(a) (+27%, p < 0.001). By contrast in patients with very high apo(a) concentrations, alirocumab significantly lowered plasma apo(a) pool size (-32%, p < 0.001) by both increasing apo(a) FCR (+30%, p < 0.001) and lowering production rate (-11%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In statin-treated patients with very high apo(a) concentrations, alirocumab lowers plasma Lp(a) concentration by a dual mode of action that increases the clearance and decreases the production of Lp(a) particles.

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.

Elevated lipoprotein (a) levels and risk of peripheral artery disease outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite strong association of elevated lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) levels with incident coronary and cerebrovascular disease, data for incident peripheral artery disease (PAD) are less robust. The main objective of the present systematic review was to analyze the association between elevated Lp(a) levels and PAD outcomes.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. A literature search was performed to detect randomized clinical trials or observational studies with a cohort design that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels and PAD outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies including 493,650 subjects were identified and considered eligible for this systematic review. This systematic review showed that the vast majority of the studies reported a significant association between elevated Lp(a) levels and the risk of PAD outcomes. The elevated Lp(a) levels were associated with a higher risk of incident claudication (RR: 1.20), PAD progression (HR: 1.41), restenosis (HR: 6.10), death and hospitalization related to PAD (HR: 1.37), limb amputation (HR: 22.75), and lower limb revascularization (HR: 1.29 and 2.90). In addition, the presence of elevated Lp(a) values were associated with a higher risk of combined PAD outcomes, with HRs in a range between 1.14 and 2.80, despite adjusting for traditional risk factors. Heterogeneity of results can be explained by different patient populations studied and varying Lp(a) cut-off points of Lp(a) analyzed.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests that evidence is available to support an independent positive association between Lp(a) levels and the risk of future PAD outcomes. PROSPERO Registration No.: 289253.

Cascade testing for elevated lipoprotein(a) in relatives of probands with high lipoprotein(a)

•

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a common inherited condition associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

•

Elevated Lp(a) is not routinely tested in clinical practice and most cases remain undiagnosed in the community.

•

We identified 124 relatives with elevated Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL) from 83 affected adult probands who also had dyslipidemia.

•

We also demonstrate that follow-up management is effective in lowering low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels by 34% as a consequence of initiation of lipid-lowering therapy.

•

Cascade testing families for elevated Lp(a) from affected probands with dyslipidemia is an effective and acceptable approach for identifying new cases of elevated Lp(a) who will require management of modifiable risk factors, particularly hypercholesterolemia.

Objective

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a common inherited condition associated with cardiovascular disease. This study investigated whether cascade testing for Lp(a) was effective in detecting new cases of elevated Lp(a) in families.

Methods

Relatives from adult probands with Lp(a) concentration ≥100 mg/dL were tested for elevated Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL) via a cascade testing program in a tertiary hospital setting. The prevalence and yield of detecting new cases of elevated Lp(a) among the relatives were assessed.

Results

Of the 83 probands, 43.4% had familial combined hyperlipidemia (FCHL) and 34.9% common hypercholesterolemia (CH). Among 182 relatives tested (151 adults and 31 children), elevated Lp(a) was found in 68.1%, with 32.9% having Lp(a) between 50 and 99 mg/dL and 35.2% having Lp(a) ≥100 mg/dL. One new case of elevated Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL was identified for every 1.5 relatives tested and 1 new case of elevated Lp(a) ≥100 mg/dL for every 2.8 relatives tested. The proportion of relatives detected with elevated Lp(a) was significantly higher when tested from probands with Lp(a) >150 mg/dL compared with those with Lp(a) between 100 and 150 mg/dL (81.1% vs. 55.5%; P = 0.001). The concordance rates (kappa coefficient) for the detection of elevated Lp(a) with FCHL and CH were 34.8% (0.026) and 53.2% (0.099), respectively.

Conclusion

Cascade testing for elevated Lp(a) from affected probands with phenotypic dyslipidemia is highly effective in identifying new cases of high Lp(a) in families. The yield of detecting elevated Lp(a) is greater when probands have higher levels of Lp(a) and exceeds the detection of relatives with FCHL and CH.

Prevalence and Predictors of Insufficient Plasma Vitamin C in a Subtropical Region and Its Associations with Risk Factors of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study

Background: to evaluate the prevalence and predictors of insufficient plasma vitamin C among adults in a subtropical region and its associations with cardiovascular disease risk factors including dyslipidemia and lipid-independent markers, namely homocysteine, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and lipoprotein(a). Methods: Data of this retrospective cross-sectional study were extracted from electronic medical database of a Medical Center. Based on plasma vitamin C status, subjects were split into two groups—subjects with sufficient and insufficient plasma vitamin C levels (<50 µmol/L, ≤8.8 mg/L). Results: Prevalence of insufficient plasma vitamin C in 3899 adults was 39%. Multivariate logistic regression identified male gender, high body mass index, age 20−39, and winter/spring as independent predictors of insufficient vitamin C among all subjects. Greater proportions of subjects with insufficient plasma vitamin C had lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and elevated levels of triglyceride, homocysteine and hs-CRP (all p < 0.001). There were no differences in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lipoprotein(a) between groups. Conclusions: There was a high prevalence of insufficient plasma vitamin C in the subtropical region, which indicates that insufficient plasma vitamin C remains a public health issue. Further study is needed to confirm these findings and to determine the underlying mechanisms.

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.

Value of repeated measurements of lipoprotein (a) to assess cardiovascular risk: a retrospective study

Background: High plasma concentrations of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] are associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Current guidelines recommend measurement of only a single Lp(a) in an individual's lifetime under specific circumstances to improve cardiovascular risk prediction. Accordingly, the question raised is the number of false positives and negatives missed through only a single measurement.Methods: All Lp(a) measurements between 2004 and March 2021 were retrieved from the laboratory database of the Erasme hospital. Only patients with repeated measurement were included. The first and subsequent Lp(a) measurement were compared. Two different cohorts were studied as a result of a change in Lp(a) determination methodology (n = 2049 and n = 309, respectively). The effects of a third Lp(a) measurement were assessed through binary analyses (n = 678). The 180 mg/dl (430 nmol/L) threshold recommended in the ESC guidelines was assessed first. Analysis was repeated for 100, 70 and 50 mg/dl thresholds of raised Lp(a) levels.Results: A low rate of false negatives (0.8%-1%) and false positives (0.6-0.3%) were revealed with two Lp(a) measurements. There was no difference in regards to the divergent Lp(a) thresholds nor the measurement of Lp(a) on two or three occasions.Conclusion: The present study showed Lp(a) determination to be reproducible. A single measurement is sufficient to assess if a patient exceeds various cut-off values of elevated Lp(a) 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.

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.

A Novel Predictive Nomogram including Serum Lipoprotein a Level for Nonsentinel Lymph Node Metastases in Chinese Breast Cancer Patients with Positive Sentinel Lymph Node Metastases

Background

We developed a new nomogram combining serum biomarkers with clinicopathological features to improve the accuracy of prediction of nonsentinel lymph node (SLN) metastases in Chinese breast cancer patients.

Methods

We enrolled 209 patients with breast cancer who underwent SLN biopsy and axillary lymph node dissection. We evaluated the relationships between non-SLN metastases and clinicopathologic features, as well as preoperative routine tests of blood indexes, tumor markers, and serum lipids, including lipoprotein a (Lp(a)). Risk factors for non-SLN metastases were identified by logistic regression analysis. The nomogram was created using the R program to predict the risk of non-SLN metastases in the training set. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was applied to assess the predictive value of the nomogram model in the validation set.

Results

Lp(a) was significantly associated with non-SLN metastasis status. Compared with the MSKCC model, the predictive ability of our new nomogram that combined Lp(a) level and clinical variables (pathologic tumor size, lymphovascular invasion, multifocality, and positive/negative SLN numbers) was significantly greater (AUC: 0.732, 95% CI: 0.643–0.821) (C-index: 0.703, 95% CI: 0.656–0.791) in the training cohorts and also performed well in the validation cohorts (C-index: 0.773, 95% CI: 0.681–0.865). Moreover, the new nomogram with Lp(a) improved the accuracy (12.10%) of identification of patients with non-SLN metastases (NRI: 0.121; 95% CI: 0.081–0.202; P = 0.011).

Conclusions

This novel nomogram based on preoperative serum indexes combined with clinicopathologic features facilitates accurate prediction of risk of non-SLN metastases in Chinese patients with breast cancer.

Lipoprotein(a): Pathophysiology, measurement, indication and treatment in cardiovascular disease. A consensus statement from the Nouvelle Société Francophone d'Athérosclérose (NSFA)

Lipoprotein(a) is an apolipoprotein B100-containing low-density lipoprotein-like particle that is rich in cholesterol, and is associated with a second major protein, apolipoprotein(a). Apolipoprotein(a) possesses structural similarity to plasminogen but lacks fibrinolytic activity. As a consequence of its composite structure, lipoprotein(a) may: (1) elicit a prothrombotic/antifibrinolytic action favouring clot stability; and (2) enhance atherosclerosis progression via its propensity for retention in the arterial intima, with deposition of its cholesterol load at sites of plaque formation. Equally, lipoprotein(a) may induce inflammation and calcification in the aortic leaflet valve interstitium, leading to calcific aortic valve stenosis. Experimental, epidemiological and genetic evidence support the contention that elevated concentrations of lipoprotein(a) are causally related to atherothrombotic risk and equally to calcific aortic valve stenosis. The plasma concentration of lipoprotein(a) is principally determined by genetic factors, is not influenced by dietary habits, remains essentially constant over the lifetime of a given individual and is the most powerful variable for prediction of lipoprotein(a)-associated cardiovascular risk. However, major interindividual variations (up to 1000-fold) are characteristic of lipoprotein(a) concentrations. In this context, lipoprotein(a) assays, although currently insufficiently standardized, are of considerable interest, not only in stratifying cardiovascular risk, but equally in the clinical follow-up of patients treated with novel lipid-lowering therapies targeted at lipoprotein(a) (e.g. antiapolipoprotein(a) antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering ribonucleic acids) that markedly reduce circulating lipoprotein(a) concentrations. We recommend that lipoprotein(a) be measured once in subjects at high cardiovascular risk with premature coronary heart disease, in familial hypercholesterolaemia, in those with a family history of coronary heart disease and in those with recurrent coronary heart disease despite lipid-lowering treatment. Because of its clinical relevance, the cost of lipoprotein(a) testing should be covered by social security and health authorities.

Lipoprotein(a) as predictor of coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction in a multi-ethnic Asian population

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The role of Lp(a) in multi-ethnic Asian populations with coronary artery disease (CAD) has not been well established. The aims of this study were (i) to investigate whether Lp(a) is a predictor of CAD, and (ii) amongst patients with CAD, to ascertain whether Lp(a) is a predictor of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and severity of CAD.

METHODS

We compared three cardiovascular phenotypes from patients recruited at coronary angiography. CAD was defined as ≥50% coronary artery stenosis and subdivided into a group with AMI history (CAD+AMI+) and a group without (CAD+AMI-). Minimal CAD group (CAD-) was defined as normal or <30% coronary artery stenosis and no AMI. The severity of CAD was defined using the modified Gensini score.

RESULTS

We studied 2025 patients comprising 94.5% men and 61.4% of Chinese ethnicity. The median Lp(a) level was highest in CAD+AMI+, followed by CAD+AMI- and CAD- (26.2, 20.1, and 15.8 nmol/L respectively). Similarly, the frequency of patients with Lp(a) ≥120 nmol/L were in the same order (11.8%, 9.1% and 2.4%). Lp(a) levels were highest among Asian Indians, followed by Malays and Chinese patients (p < 0.001). Lp(a) levels and Lp(a) ≥120 nmol/L were significant predictors of CAD (Odds ratio (OR) = 1.12 per 10 nmol/L increment, p < 0.001, and OR = 5.41 p = 0.004 respectively). Among patients with CAD, higher Lp(a) levels were associated with increased AMI risk (OR = 1.02 per 10 nmol/L increment, p = 0.024). Lp(a) ≥120 nmol/L was positively associated with CAD severity (p = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

Plasma Lp(a) concentration is a positive predictor of CAD and AMI in a mostly male South East Asian population.

PoLA/CFPiP/PCS/PSLD/PSD/PSH guidelines on diagnosis and therapy of lipid disorders in Poland 2021

In Poland there are still nearly 20 million individuals with hypercholesterolaemia, most of them are unaware of their condition; that is also why only ca. 5% of patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia have been diagnosed; that is why other rare cholesterol metabolism disorders are so rarely diagnosed in Poland. Let us hope that these guidelines, being an effect of work of experts representing 6 main scientific societies, as well as the network of PoLA lipid centers being a part of the EAS lipid centers, certification of lipidologists by PoLA, or the growing number of centers for rare diseases, with a network planned by the Ministry of Health, improvements in coordinated care for patients after myocardial infarction (KOS-Zawał), reimbursement of innovative agents, as well as introduction in Poland of an effective primary prevention program, will make improvement in relation to these unmet needs in diagnostics and treatment of lipid disorders possible.

Elevated Lipoprotein(a): Background, Current Insights and Future Potential Therapies

Lipoprotein(a) forms a subfraction of the lipid profile and is characterized by the addition of apolipprotein(a) (apo(a)) to apoB100 derived particles. Its levels are mostly genetically determined inversely related to the number of protein domain (kringle) repeats in apo(a). In epidemiological studies, it shows consistent association with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and most recently with extent of aortic stenosis. Issues with standardizing the measurement of Lp(a) are being resolved and consensus statements favor its measurement in patients at high risk of, or with family histories of CVD events. Major lipid-lowering therapies such as statin, fibrates, and ezetimibe have little effect on Lp(a) levels. Therapies such as niacin or cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitors lower Lp(a) as well as reducing other lipid-related risk factors but have failed to clearly reduce CVD events. Proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin-9 (PCSK9) inhibitors reduce cholesterol and Lp(a) as well as reducing CVD events. New antisense therapies specifically targeting apo(a) and hence Lp(a) have greater and more specific effects and will help clarify the extent to which intervention in Lp(a) levels will reduce CVD events.

Lipoprotein(a): Knowns, unknowns and uncertainties

Over the last 10 years, there have been advances on several aspects of lipoprotein(a) which are reviewed in the present article. Since the standard immunoassays for measuring lipoprotein(a) are not fully apo(a) isoform-insensitive, the application of an LC-MS/MS method for assaying molar concentrations of lipoprotein(a) has been advocated. Genome wide association, epidemiological, and clinical studies have established high lipoprotein(a) as a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD). However, the relative importance of molar concentration, apo(a) isoform size or variants within the LPA gene is still controversial. Lipoprotein(a)-raising single nucleotide polymorphisms has not been shown to add on value in predicting ASCVD beyond lipoprotein(a) concentrations. Although hyperlipoproteinemia(a) represents an important confounder in the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), it enhances the risk of ASCVD in these patients. Thus, identification of new cases of hyperlipoproteinemia(a) during cascade testing can increase the identification of high-risk individuals. However, it remains unclear whether FH itself increases lipoprotein(a). The ASCVD risk associated with lipoprotein(a) seems to follow a linear gradient across the distribution, regardless of racial subgroups and other risk factors. The inverse association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes needs consideration as effective lipoprotein(a) lowering therapies are progressing towards the market. Considering that Mendelian randomization analyses have identified the degree of lipoprotein(a)-lowering that is required to achieve ASCVD benefit, the findings of the ongoing outcome trial with pelacarsen will clarify whether dramatically lowering lipoprotein(a) levels can reduce the risk of ASCVD.

Lipoprotein(a) in hereditary hypercholesterolemia: Influence of the genetic cause, defective gene and type of mutation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentration in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (heFH) is not well established. Whether the genetic defect responsible for heFH plays a role in Lp(a) concentration is unknown. We aimed to compare Lp(a) in controls from a healthy population, in genetically diagnosed heFH and mutation-negative hypercholesterolemia subjects, and to assess the influence on Lp(a) of the genetic defect responsible for heFH.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study, performed in a lipid clinic in Spain. We studied adults with suspected heFH and a genetic study of FH genes (LDLR, APOB, APOE and PCSK9) and controls from de Aragon Workers' Health Study. HeFH patients from the Dyslipidemia Registry of the Spanish Atherosclerosis Society (SEA) were used as validation cohort.

RESULTS

Adjusted geometric means (95% confidence interval) of Lp(a) in controls (n = 1059), heFH (n = 500), and mutation-negative subjects (n = 860) were 14.9 mg/dL (13.6, 16.4), 21.9 mg/dL (18.1, 25.6) and 37.4 mg/dL (33.3, 42.1), p < 0.001 in all comparisons. Among heFH subjects, APOB-dependent FH showed the highest Lp(a), 36.5 mg/dL (22.0, 60.8), followed by LDLR-dependent FH, 21.7 mg/dL (17.9, 26.4). These differences were also observed in heFH from the SEA cohort. The number of plasminogen-like kringle IV type-2 repeats of LPA, the hypercholesterolemia polygenic score or LDLc concentration did not explain these differences. In LDLR-dependent FH, Lp(a) levels were not different depending on the affected protein domain.

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) is elevated in mutation-negative subjects and in heFH. The concentration of Lp(a) in heFH varies in relation to the responsible gene. Higher Lp(a) in heFH is not explained by their higher LDLc.

Lipoprotein (a) as a treatment target for cardiovascular disease prevention and related therapeutic strategies: a critical overview

Advances in several fields of cardiovascular (CV) medicine have produced new treatments (e.g. to treat dyslipidaemia) that have proven efficacy in terms of reducing deaths and providing a better quality of life. However, the burden of CV disease (CVD) remains high. Thus, there is a need to search for new treatment targets. Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] has emerged as a potential novel target since there is evidence that it contributes to CVD events. In this narrative review, we present the current evidence of the potential causal relationship between Lp(a) and CVD and discuss the likely magnitude of Lp(a) lowering required to produce a clinical benefit. We also consider current and investigational treatments targeting Lp(a), along with the potential cost of these interventions.

Lipids and Lipoproteins in Health and Disease: Focus on Targeting Atherosclerosis

Despite advances in pharmacotherapy, intervention devices and techniques, residual cardiovascular risks still cause a large burden on public health. Whilst most guidelines encourage achieving target levels of specific lipids and lipoproteins to reduce these risks, increasing evidence has shown that molecular modification of these lipoproteins also has a critical impact on their atherogenicity. Modification of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) by oxidation, glycation, peroxidation, apolipoprotein C-III adhesion, and the small dense subtype largely augment its atherogenicity. Post-translational modification by oxidation, carbamylation, glycation, and imbalance of molecular components can reduce the capacity of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) for reverse cholesterol transport. Elevated levels of triglycerides (TGs), apolipoprotein C-III and lipoprotein(a), and a decreased level of apolipoprotein A-I are closely associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Pharmacotherapies aimed at reducing TGs, lipoprotein(a), and apolipoprotein C-III, and enhancing apolipoprotein A-1 are undergoing trials, and promising preliminary results have been reported. In this review, we aim to update the evidence on modifications of major lipid and lipoprotein components, including LDL, HDL, TG, apolipoprotein, and lipoprotein(a). We also discuss examples of translating findings from basic research to potential therapeutic targets for drug development.

Plasma lipoprotein(a) measured in the routine clinical care is associated to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease during a 14-year follow-up

AIMS

To investigate plasma lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels measured in routine clinical care and their association with mortality and cardiovascular disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective registry-based observational cohort study includes all individuals with plasma Lp(a) results measured at the Karolinska University Laboratory 2003-17. Outcome data were captured in national outcome registries. Levels of Lp(a) expressed in mass or molar units were examined separately. In adjusted Cox regression models, association between deciles of plasma Lp(a) concentrations, mortality, and cardiovascular outcomes were assessed. A total of 23 398 individuals [52% females, mean (standard deviation) age 55.5 (17.2) years, median Lp(a) levels 17 mg/dL or 19.5 nmol/L] were included. Individuals with an Lp(a) level >90th decile (>90 mg/dL or >180 nmol/L) had hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of 1.25 (1.05-1.50) for major adverse cardiovascular events (P = 0.013), 1.37 (1.14-1.64) for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (P = 0.001), and 1.62 (1.28-2.05) for coronary artery disease (P ≤ 0.001), compared to individuals with Lp(a) ≤50th decile. No association between Lp(a) and mortality, peripheral artery disease, or ischaemic stroke was observed.

CONCLUSION

High Lp(a) levels are associated with adverse cardiovascular disease outcomes also in individuals with Lp(a) measured in routine clinical care. This supports the 2019 ESC/EAS recommendation to measure Lp(a) at least once during lifetime to assess cardiovascular risk and implies the need for intensive preventive therapy in patients with elevated Lp(a).

Lipoprotein(a) Where Do We Stand? From the Physiopathology to Innovative Terapy

A number of epidemiologic studies have demonstrated a strong association between increasing lipoprotein a [Lp(a)] and cardiovascular disease. This correlation was demonstrated independent of other known cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. Screening for Lp(a) in the general population is not recommended, although Lp(a) levels are predominantly genetically determined so a single assessment is needed to identify patients at risk. In 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines recommend Lp(a) measurement at least once a lifetime, fo subjects at very high and high CV risk and those with a family history of premature cardiovascular disease, to reclassify patients with borderline risk. As concerning medications, statins play a key role in lipid lowering therapy, but present poor efficacy on Lp(a) levels. Actually, treatment options for elevated serum levels of Lp(a) are very limited. Apheresis is the most effective and well tolerated treatment in patients with high levels of Lp(a). However, promising new therapies, in particular antisense oligonucleotides have showed to be able to significantly reduce Lp(a) in phase II RCT. This review provides an overview of the biology and epidemiology of Lp(a), with a view to future therapies.

Lipoprotein (a): When to Measure and How to Treat?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to review current evidence for lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) as a risk factor for multiple cardiovascular (CV) disease phenotypes, provide a rationale for Lp(a) lowering to reduce CV risk, identify therapies that lower Lp(a) levels that are available clinically and under investigation, and discuss future directions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mendelian randomization and epidemiological studies have shown that elevated Lp(a) is an independent and causal risk factor for atherosclerosis and major CV events. Lp(a) is also associated with non-atherosclerotic endpoints such as venous thromboembolism and calcific aortic valve disease. It contributes to residual CV risk in patients receiving standard-of-care LDL-lowering therapy. Plasma Lp(a) levels present a skewed distribution towards higher values and vary widely between individuals and according to ethnic background due to genetic variants in the LPA gene, but remain relatively constant throughout a person's life. Thus, elevated Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL) is a prevalent condition affecting >20% of the population but is still underdiagnosed. Treatment guidelines have begun to advocate measurement of Lp(a) to identify patients with very high levels that have a family history of premature CVD or elevated Lp(a). Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) efficiently lowers Lp(a) and was recently associated with a reduction of incident CV events. Statins have neutral or detrimental effects on Lp(a), while PCSK9 inhibitors significantly reduce its level by up to 30%. Specific lowering of Lp(a) with antisense oligonucleotides (ASO) shows good safety and strong efficacy with up to 90% reductions. The ongoing CV outcomes study Lp(a)HORIZON will provide a first answer as to whether selective Lp(a) lowering with ASO reduces the risk of major CV events. Given the recently established association between Lp(a) level and CV risk, guidelines now recommend Lp(a) measurement in specific clinical conditions. Accordingly, Lp(a) is a current target for drug development to reduce CV risk in patients with elevated levels, and lowering Lp(a) with ASO represents a promising avenue.

Lipoprotein(a) and Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

High lipoprotein(a) concentrations present in 10%-20% of the population have long been linked to increased risk of ischemic cardiovascular disease. It is unclear whether high concentrations represent an unmet medical need. Lipoprotein(a) is currently not a target for treatment to prevent cardiovascular disease.

CONTENT

The present review summarizes evidence of causality for high lipoprotein(a) concentrations gained from large genetic epidemiologic studies and discusses measurements of lipoprotein(a) and future treatment options for high values found in an estimated >1 billion individuals worldwide.

SUMMARY

Evidence from mechanistic, observational, and genetic studies support a causal role of lipoprotein(a) in the development of cardiovascular disease, including coronary heart disease and peripheral arterial disease, as well as aortic valve stenosis, and likely also ischemic stroke. Effect sizes are most pronounced for myocardial infarction, peripheral arterial disease, and aortic valve stenosis where high lipoprotein(a) concentrations predict 2- to 3-fold increases in risk. Lipoprotein(a) measurements should be performed using well-validated assays with traceability to a recognized calibrator to ensure common cut-offs for high concentrations and risk assessment. Randomized cardiovascular outcome trials are needed to provide final evidence of causality and to assess the potential clinical benefit of novel, potent lipoprotein(a) lowering therapies.

The Riskier Lipid: What Is on the HORIZON for Lipoprotein (a) and Should There Be Lp(a) Screening for All?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite widespread targeting of cardiovascular risk factors, many patients continue to experience clinical events. This residual risk has stimulated efforts to develop novel therapeutic approaches to target additional factors underscoring cardiovascular disease. This review aimed to summarize existing evidence supporting targeting of Lp(a) as a novel cardioprotective strategy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing evidence has implicated lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] in the pathogenesis of both atherosclerotic and calcific aortic valve disease. Therapeutic advances have produced novel agents that selectively lower Lp(a) levels, which have now progressed to evaluate their impact on cardiovascular events in large clinical outcome trials. Evidence continues to accumulate suggesting that targeting Lp(a) may be effective in reducing cardiovascular risk. With advances in Lp(a) targeted therapeutics, clinical trials now have the opportunity to determine whether this strategy will be effective for high-risk patients.

Lipoprotein(a) is associated with large artery atherosclerosis stroke aetiology and stroke recurrence among patients below the age of 60 years: results from the BIOSIGNAL study

AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a recognized causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease but its role for acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) is controversial. In this study, we evaluated the association of Lp(a) with large artery atherosclerosis (LAA) stroke and risk of recurrent cerebrovascular events in AIS patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

For this analysis of the prospective, observational, multicentre BIOSIGNAL cohort study we measured Lp(a) levels in plasma samples of 1733 primarily Caucasian (98.6%) AIS patients, collected within 24 h after symptom onset. Primary outcomes were LAA stroke aetiology and recurrent cerebrovascular events (ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack) within 1 year. We showed that Lp(a) levels are independently associated with LAA stroke aetiology [adjusted odds ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14-1.90, per unit log10Lp(a) increase] and identified age as a potent effect modifier (Pinteraction =0.031) of this association. The adjusted odds ratio for LAA stroke in patients aged <60 years was 3.64 (95% CI 1.76-7.52) per unit log10Lp(a) increase and 4.04 (95% CI 1.73-9.43) using the established cut-off ≥100 nmol/l. For 152 recurrent cerebrovascular events, we did not find a significant association in the whole cohort. However, Lp(a) levels ≥100 nmol/l were associated with an increased risk for recurrent events among patients who were either <60 years [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.40, 95% CI 1.05-5.47], had evident LAA stroke aetiology (adjusted HR 2.18, 95% CI 1.08-4.40), or had no known atrial fibrillation (adjusted HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.03-2.48).

CONCLUSION

Elevated Lp(a) was independently associated with LAA stroke aetiology and risk of recurrent cerebrovascular events among primarily Caucasian individuals aged <60 years or with evident arteriosclerotic disease.

Lipoprotein (a), hypertension, and cardiovascular outcomes: a prospective study of patients with stable coronary artery disease

Although emerging data suggest that circulating lipoprotein (a) [Lp (a)] could predict cardiovascular events (CVEs) in patients with cardiovascular disease, no study is currently available regarding the prognostic linkage of Lp (a) and hypertension in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). This study sought to evaluate the association of Lp (a), hypertension and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable CAD. A total of 8668 patients with stable CAD were consecutively enrolled. Baseline Lp (a) concentrations were measured. All subjects were categorized according to Lp (a) levels of <10 (low), 10-30 (medium) and ≥30 mg/dL (high) and were further stratified by hypertension status. They were regularly followed-up for the occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke. Over an average of 54.81 ± 18.60 months of follow-up, 584 (6.7%) CVEs occurred. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression analyses showed that elevated Lp (a) levels had a significant association with CVEs in hypertensive patients, regardless of the control status of blood pressure, but not in normotensive subjects. Moreover, when analyzed by subgroups according to both Lp (a) category and hypertension status, the risk of CVEs was only significantly elevated in the high Lp (a) plus hypertension group compared with the reference group with low Lp (a) levels and normotension (hazard ratio: 1.80, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-2.91). Elevated Lp (a) was associated with an increased risk of CVEs in stable CAD patients with hypertension. Moreover, the coexistence of high Lp (a) concentrations and hypertension greatly worsened the clinical prognosis in patients with CAD, which may suggest a prognostic correlation between Lp (a) and hypertension.

Emerging Pharmacotherapy to Reduce Elevated Lipoprotein(a) Plasma Levels

Lipoprotein(a) is a unique form of low-density lipoprotein. It is associated with a high incidence of premature atherosclerotic disease such as coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Plasma levels of this lipoprotein and its activities are highly variable. This is because of a wide variability in the size of the apolipoprotein A moiety, which is determined by the number of repeats of cysteine-rich domains known as "kringles." Although the exact mechanism of lipoprotein(a)-induced atherogenicity is unknown, the lipoprotein has been found in the arterial walls of atherosclerotic plaques. It has been implicated in the formation of foam cells and lipid deposition in these plaques. Pharmacologic management of elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) with statins, fibrates, or bile acid sequestrants is ineffective. The newer and emerging lipid-lowering agents, such as the second-generation antisense oligonucleotides, cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors, and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors offer the most effective pharmacologic therapy.

Contemporary perspectives on the genetics and clinical use of lipoprotein(a) in preventive cardiology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The pathogenicity of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] as a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is well evidenced and recognized by international consensus-based guidelines. However, the measurement of Lp(a) is not routine clinical practice. Therapeutic agents targeting Lp(a) are now progressing through randomised clinical trials, and it is timely for clinicians to familiarize themselves with this complex and enigmatic lipoprotein particle.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent developments in the understanding of genetic influences on the structure, plasma concentration and atherogenicity of Lp(a) have contextualized its clinical relevance. Mendelian randomization studies have enabled estimation of the contribution of Lp(a) to ASCVD risk. Genotyping individual patients with respect to Lp(a)-raising single nucleotide polymorphisms predicts ASCVD, but has not yet been shown to add value beyond the measurement of Lp(a) plasma concentrations, which should be done by Lp(a) isoform-independent assays capable of reporting in molar concentrations. Contemporary gene-silencing technology underpins small interfering RNA and antisense oligonucleotides, which are emerging as the leading Lp(a)-lowering therapeutic agents. The degree of Lp(a)-lowering required to achieve meaningful reductions in ASCVD risk has been estimated by Mendelian randomization, providing conceptual support.

SUMMARY

Measurement of Lp(a) in the clinical setting contributes to the assessment of ASCVD risk, and will become more important with the advent of specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies. Knowledge of an individual patient's genetic predisposition to increased Lp(a) appears to impart little or not additional clinical value beyond Lp(a) particle concentration.

Lipid Profile and Vascular Remodelling in Young Dyslipidemic Subjects Treated with Nutraceuticals Derived from Red Yeast Rice

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A relevant role is emerging for functional foods in cardiovascular prevention. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of a nutraceutical multitargeted approach on lipid profile and inflammatory markers along with vascular remodelling in a cohort of dyslipidemic subjects without history of cardiovascular (CV) disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We enrolled 25 subjects (mean age 48.2 years) with low to moderate CV risk profile and total cholesterol (TC) levels between 150 and 250 mg/dl. The patients were assigned to receive for one year a tablet/die of a nutraceutical combination containing red yeast rice (RYR) extract (Monacolin 3 mg/tablet) and coenzyme Q10 (30 mg/tablet). Treatment with the nutraceutical compounds led to a significant reduction of TC (from 227 to 201 mg/dl, p < 0.001), LDL-c (from 150 to 130 mg/dl, p = 0.001), triglycerides (from 121 to 109 mg/dl, p = 0.013), non-HDL-cholesterol (from 168 to 141 mg/dl, p < 0.001), hs-CRP (from 1.74 to 1.20 mg/l, p = 0.015), and osteoprotegerin (from 1488 to 1328 pg/ml, p = 0.045). Levels of HDL-c, Lp(a), glucose, liver enzyme, CPK, or creatinine did not change over time. An ultrasound study was performed to assess changes in mean carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and maximum IMT (M-MAX) as well as modification in local carotid stiffness by means of determining the carotid compliance coefficient (CC) and distensibility coefficient (DC). At the end of the treatment, we observed small but significant reductions in both mean-IMT (from 0.62 to 0.57 mm, p = 0.022) and M-MAX (from 0.79 to 0.73 mm, p = 0.002), and an improvement in carotid elasticity (DC from 22.4 to 24.3 × 10-3/kPa, p = 0.006 and CC from 0.77 to 0.85 mm2/kPa, p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

A long-term treatment with a combination of RYR and coenzyme Q10 showed lipid-lowering activity along with a reduction of inflammatory mediators and an improvement of vascular properties in young subjects with a low-to-moderate CV risk profile.

Relation of First and Total Recurrent Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Events to Increased Lipoprotein(a) Levels Among Statin Treated Adults With Cardiovascular Disease

The relation between elevated lipoprotein(a) and total atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) residual risk in persons with known cardiovascular disease on statin therapy is not well-established. We examined first and total recurrent ASCVD event risk in statin-treated adults with prior ASCVD. We studied 3,359 adults (mean age 63.6 years, 85.1% male) with prior ASCVD on statin therapy from the AIM-HIGH clinical trial cohort. The first and total ASCVD event rates were calculated by lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] categories. Cox regression and Prentice, Williams and Peterson (PWP) models provided hazard ratios (HRs) for ASCVD events over a mean follow-up of 3.3 years, adjusted for age, gender, trial treatment, LDL-C, and other risk factors. A total of 747 events occurred during follow-up, among which 544 were first events. First and total ASCVD event rates were greater with higher Lp(a) levels. Compared with Lp(a)<15 mg/dL, HRs (95% CIs) for subsequent total ASCVD events among Lp(a) levels of 15-<30, 30-<50, 50-<70, and ≥70 mg/dL were 1.04 (0.82 to 1.32), 1.15 (0.88 to 1.49), 1.27 (1.00 to 1.63) and 1.51 (1.25 to 1.84). Moreover, a continuous relation for total events was observed (HR=1.08 [1.04 to 1.12] per 20 mg/dL greater Lp(a). Findings for first ASCVD events and in those with LDL-C ≥70 mg/dL versus <70 mg/dL and with and without diabetes were similar. The risk of first and total ASCVD events is increased with Lp(a) levels of ≥70 mg/dL and ≥50 mg/dL, respectively, among adults with known CVD on statin therapy.

Novel behavioural approaches and implementation science for mitigating genetic risk of cardiovascular disease due to elevated lipoprotein(a)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a genetic trait that indicates higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We review novel strategies to mitigate behavioural risk-factors in this genetic condition.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pharmacological and biological interventions are available for lowering Lp(a). However, the acceptability and feasibility of these approaches are questionable due to cost and lack of clinical evidence for their efficacy. A number of low-cost, minimal patient contact interventions are available for modifying behavioural risk-factors that are associated with increased risk of ASCVD familial hypercholesterolaemia and diabetes. These include lifestyle interventions designed to improve diet and physical activity. These interventions may be particularly important among individuals with elevated Lp(a) to manage their higher risk of diabetes and ASCVD. The following article outlines recent research that has examined such low-cost, minimal patient contact interventions.

SUMMARY

The current research indicated that such interventions, which are grounded in psychological theory, can assist individuals to improve their diet and physical activity. These findings have implications for developing and implementing similar interventions for individuals with elevated Lp(a), so as to assist in reducing behavioural risk-factors associated with ASCVD.