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

Is Lipoprotein(a) Clinically Actionable with Today's Evidence? The Answer is Yes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lipoprotein(a) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. We review the ongoing shifts in consensus guidelines for the testing and management of Lp(a) and provide insight into whether current evidence suggests that awareness and testing of Lp(a) is clinically actionable.

RECENT FINDINGS

GWAS and Mendelian randomization studies have established causal links between elevated Lp(a) and forms of CVD, including CAD and calcific aortic valve disease. Testing of Lp(a) identifies patients with similar risk to that of heterozygous FH, enhances risk stratification in patients with borderline/intermediate risk as determined through traditional factors, and facilitates the assessment of inherited CVD risk through cascade screening in patients with known family history of elevated Lp(a). Reductions in Lp(a) through non-targeted therapies including PCSK9 inhibition and lipoprotein apheresis have demonstrated reductions in ASCVD risk that are likely attributable to lowering Lp(a). Targeted therapies to potently lower Lp(a) are in clinical development. Lp(a) is actionable, and can be used to identify high risk patients for primary prevention and their family members through cascade screening, and to guide intensification of therapy in primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD.

Impact of Lipoprotein (a) on Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) is a complex circulating lipoprotein, and there is increasing evidence it is a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). This study aimed to investigate the influence of Lp(a) serum levels on long-term outcomes after acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Methods and Results: Between January 2015 and January 2018, we enrolled 262 patients with AMI who underwent coronary angiography within 24 h of the onset of chest pain and had available Lp(a) data enabling subdivision into 2 groups: high Lp(a) (≥32 mg/dL: n=76) and low Lp(a) (<32 mg/dL: n=186). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which was defined as a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal MI, and readmission for heart failure. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to identify the predictors of MACE. The incidence of MACE was significantly higher in the high Lp(a) group than in the low Lp(a) group (32.8% vs. 19.6%, P=0.004). Multivariate analysis showed that Lp(a) ≥32 mg/dL was an independent predictor of MACE (hazard ratio 2.84, 95% confidence interval 1.25-6.60, P=0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

High Lp(a) levels were associated with worse long-term outcomes after AMI, so Lp(a) may be useful for risk assessment.

Muvalaplin, an Oral Small Molecule Inhibitor of Lipoprotein(a) Formation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is associated with atherosclerotic disease and aortic stenosis. Lp(a) forms by bonding between apolipoprotein(a) (apo[a]) and apo B100. Muvalaplin is an orally administered small molecule that inhibits Lp(a) formation by blocking the apo(a)-apo B100 interaction while avoiding interaction with a homologous protein, plasminogen.

Objective

To determine the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamic effects of muvalaplin.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This phase 1 randomized, double-blind, parallel-design study enrolled 114 participants (55 assigned to a single-ascending dose; 59 assigned to a multiple-ascending dose group) at 1 site in the Netherlands.

Interventions

The single ascending dose treatment evaluated the effect of a single dose of muvalaplin ranging from 1 mg to 800 mg or placebo taken by healthy participants with any Lp(a) level. The multiple ascending dose treatment evaluated the effect of taking daily doses of muvalaplin (30 mg to 800 mg) or placebo for 14 days in patients with Lp(a) levels of 30 mg/dL or higher.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes included safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and exploratory pharmacodynamic biomarkers.

Results

Among 114 randomized (55 in the single ascending dose group: mean [SD] age, 29 [10] years, 35 females [64%], 2 American Indian or Alaska Native [4%], 50 White [91%], 3 multiracial [5%]; 59 in the multiple ascending dose group: mean [SD] age 32 [15] years; 34 females [58%]; 3 American Indian or Alaska Native [5%], 6 Black [10%], 47 White [80%], 3 multiracial [5%]), 105 completed the trial. Muvalaplin was not associated with tolerability concerns or clinically significant adverse effects. Oral doses of 30 mg to 800 mg for 14 days resulted in increasing muvalaplin plasma concentrations and half-life ranging from 70 to 414 hours. Muvalaplin lowered Lp(a) plasma levels within 24 hours after the first dose, with further Lp(a) reduction on repeated dosing. Maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, resulting in Lp(a) plasma levels less than 50 mg/dL in 93% of participants, with similar effects at daily doses of 100 mg or more. No clinically significant changes in plasminogen levels or activity were observed.

Conclusion

Muvalaplin, a selective small molecule inhibitor of Lp(a) formation, was not associated with tolerability concerns and lowered Lp(a) levels up to 65% following daily administration for 14 days. Longer and larger trials will be required to further evaluate safety, tolerability, and effect of muvalaplin on Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular outcomes.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04472676.

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design

Cross-sectional.

Setting

4 multinational population-based cohorts.

Participants

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

Exposures

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

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

KEY POINTS

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

Lipoprotein(a) Testing Trends in a Large Academic Health System in the United States

Background Despite its high prevalence and clinical significance, clinical measurement of lipoprotein(a) is rare but has not been systematically quantified. We assessed the prevalence of lipoprotein(a) testing overall, in those with various cardiovascular disease (CVD) conditions and in those undergoing cardiac testing across 6 academic medical centers associated with the University of California, in total and by year from 2012 to 2021. Methods and Results In this observational study, data from the University of California Health Data Warehouse on the number of individuals with unique lipoprotein(a) testing, unique CVD diagnoses (using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision [ICD-10], codes), and other unique cardiac testing were collected. The proportion of total individuals, the proportion of individuals with a given CVD diagnosis, and the proportion of individuals with a given cardiac test and lipoprotein(a) testing any time during the study period were calculated. From 2012 to 2021, there were 5 553 654 unique adults evaluated in the University of California health system, of whom 18 972 (0.3%) had lipoprotein(a) testing. In general, those with lipoprotein(a) testing were more likely to be older, men, and White race, with a greater burden of CVD. Lipoprotein(a) testing was performed in 6469 individuals with ischemic heart disease (2.9%), 836 with aortic stenosis (3.1%), 4623 with family history of CVD (3.3%), 1202 with stroke (1.7%), and 612 with coronary artery calcification (6.1%). For most conditions, the prevalence of testing in the same year as the diagnosis of CVD was relatively stable, with a small upward trend over time. Lipoprotein(a) testing was performed in 10 753 individuals (1.8%) who had lipid panels, with higher rates with more specialized testing, including coronary computed tomography angiography (6.8%) and apolipoprotein B (63.0%). Conclusions Lipoprotein(a) testing persists at low rates, even among those with diagnosed CVD, and remained relatively stable over the study period.

Is there a benefit of aspirin therapy for primary prevention to reduce the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in patients with elevated Lipoprotein (a)-A review of the evidence

Aspirin has long been recognized as a beneficial treatment for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) due to its antiplatelet effects. However, there is a need to more precisely identify individuals who would benefit from aspirin therapy for primary prevention in order to reduce the risk of ASCVD. Those with elevated lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] levels are at increased risk of ASCVD. In this article, we provide an overview of studies that have explored the use of aspirin therapy in individuals with elevated Lp(a). We discuss the potential mechanisms by which aspirin therapy may reduce ASCVD risk, and present a review of the data on the effectiveness of aspirin therapy in reducing ASCVD risk in individuals with elevated Lp(a). The presented evidence suggests that individuals with elevated Lp(a) benefit more from aspirin therapy for reduction of ASCVD events than the general population.

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

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

Cardiometabolic predictors of high-risk CCTA phenotype in a diverse patient population

Introduction

Low-attenuation non-calcified plaque (LAP) burden and vascular inflammation by pericoronary adipose tissue (PCAT) measured from coronary CT angiography (CCTA) have shown to be predictors of cardiovascular outcomes. We aimed to investigate the relationships of cardiometabolic risk factors including lipoprotein(a) and epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) with CCTA high-risk imaging biomarkers, LAP and vascular inflammation.

Methods

The patient population consisted of consecutive patients who underwent CCTA for stable chest pain and had a complete cardiometabolic panel including lipoprotein(a). Plaque, PCAT and EAT were measured from CT using semiautomated software. Elevated LAP burden and PCAT attenuation were defined as ≥4% and ≥70.5 HU, respectively. The primary clinical end-point was a composite of myocardial infarction, revascularization or cardiovascular death.

Results

A total of 364 consecutive patients were included (median age 56 years, 64% female); the majority of patients were of Hispanic (60%), and the rest were of non-Hispanic Black (21%), non-Hispanic White (6%) and non-Hispanic Asian (4%) race/ethnicity. The prevalence of elevated LAP burden and PCAT attenuation was 31 and 18%, respectively, while only 8% had obstructive stenosis. There were significant differences in plaque characteristics among different racial/ethnic groups (p<0.001). Lipoprotein(a) correlated with LAP burden in Hispanic patients. Patients with elevated LAP were older, more likely to be have diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and smoke with higher CAC and EAT volume (all P<0.05). Patients with elevated LAP were more likely to develop the primary clinical outcome (p<0.001) but those with elevated PCAT were not (p=0.797).

Conclusion

The prevalence of LAP and PCAT attenuation were 31 and 18%, respectively. Lipoprotein(a) levels correlated with LAP burden in Hispanic patients. Age, male sex, hypertension and hyperlipidemia increased the odds of elevated LAP, which showed prognostic significance.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

Silence Therapeutics.

Elevated Lipoprotein(a) Levels and Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review

Objective

The role of lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) as a possibly causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has been well established. However, the clinical evidence regarding the association between Lp(a) levels and atrial fibrillation (AF) remains limited and inconsistent. This study aimed to analyze the association between elevated Lp(a) levels or single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to high levels of Lp(a) and AF.

Methods

This systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A literature search was performed to identify studies that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels or SNPs related to high levels of Lp(a) and AF. Observational studies with a cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort design were included in this systematic review, without limitations according to language, country, or publication type.

Results

Eleven observational studies including 1,246,817 patients were eligible for this systematic review. Two cross-sectional studies, 5 prospective/retrospective cohort studies, and 4 Mendelian randomization studies were analyzed. Two cross-sectional studies that compared Lp(a) levels between patients with and without AF showed conflicting results. Cohort studies that evaluated the incidence of AF according to Lp(a) levels showed different results: no association (3 studies), a positive association (1 study), and an inverse relationship (1 study). Finally, Mendelian randomization studies also showed heterogeneous results (positive association: 2 studies; inverse association: 1 study; no association: 1 study).

Conclusion

Although there could be an association between Lp(a) levels and AF, the results of the studies published to date are contradictory and not yet definitive. Therefore, further research should clarify this issue.

Established and Emerging Lipid-Lowering Drugs for Primary and Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention

Despite treatment with statins, patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglycerides remain at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events. Consequently, novel pharmaceutical drugs have been developed to control and modify the composition of blood lipids to ultimately prevent fatal cardiovascular events in patients with dyslipidaemia. This article reviews established and emerging lipid-lowering drugs regarding their mechanism of action, development stage, ongoing clinical trials, side effects, effect on blood lipids and reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We conducted a keyword search to identify studies on established and emerging lipid modifying drugs. Results were summarized in a narrative overview. Established pharmaceutical treatment options include the Niemann-Pick-C1 like-1 protein (NPC1L1) inhibitor ezetimibe, the protein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors alirocumab and evolocumab, fibrates as peroxisome proliferator receptor alpha (PPAR-α) activators, and the omega-3 fatty acid icosapent ethyl. Statins are recommended as the first-line therapy for primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention in patients with hypercholesterinaemia and hypertriglyceridemia. For secondary prevention in hypercholesterinaemia, second-line options such as statin add-on or statin-intolerant treatments are ezetimibe, alirocumab and evolocumab. For secondary prevention in hypertriglyceridemia, second-line options such as statin add-on or statin-intolerant treatments are icosapent ethyl and fenofibrate. Robust data for these add-on therapeutics in primary cardiovascular prevention remains scarce. Recent biotechnological advances have led to the development of innovative small molecules (bempedoic acid, lomitapide, pemafibrate, docosapentaenoic and eicosapentaenoic acid), antibodies (evinacumab), antisense oligonucleotides (mipomersen, volanesorsen, pelcarsen, olezarsen), small interfering RNA (inclisiran, olpasiran), and gene therapies for patients with dyslipidemia. These molecules specifically target new cellular pathways, such as the adenosine triphosphate-citrate lyase (bempedoic acid), PCSK9 (inclisiran), angiopoietin-like 3 (ANGPTL3: evinacumab), microsomal triglyceride transfer protein (MTP: lomitapide), apolipoprotein B-100 (ApoB-100: mipomersen), apolipoprotein C-III (ApoC-III: volanesorsen, olezarsen), and lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a): pelcarsen, olpasiran). The authors are hopeful that the development of new treatment modalities alongside new therapeutic targets will further reduce patients' risk of adverse cardiovascular events. Apart from statins, data on new drugs' use in primary cardiovascular prevention remain scarce. For their swift adoption into clinical routine, these treatments must demonstrate safety and efficacy as well as cost-effectiveness in randomized cardiovascular outcome trials.

Associations of Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance Trajectories With Cardiovascular Disease Incidence and Mortality

BACKGROUND

Whether trends in insulin resistance changes are related to the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence and mortality remains unclear. We aimed to examine the association of homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) trajectories with CVD incidence and mortality.

METHODS

Data from 6755 adults aged 40 to 69 years in the Korea Epidemiology and Genome Study were analyzed. During the exposure period (2001-2006), participants were classified into the increasing HOMA-IR trajectory group and the stable HOMA-IR trajectory group using a latent class mixture model. During the event accrual period (2007-2018), information about CVD and mortality were collected.

RESULTS

During the median 9.83-year event accrual period, there were 379 (5.6%) new-onset CVD, 535 (7.9%) all-cause mortality, 102 (1.5%) CVD mortality, and 47 (0.7%) major adverse cardiovascular event mortality cases. Compared with the stable HOMA-IR trajectory group, the fully adjusted hazard ratios (95% CIs) for the increasing HOMA-IR trajectory group were 1.59 (1.04-2.44) for incident CVD, 1.87 (1.30-2.69) for all-cause mortality, 2.33 (1.11-4.89) for CVD mortality, and 3.67 (1.38-9.76) for major adverse cardiovascular event mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

An increasing HOMA-IR appears to be independently and positively related to incident CVD, all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular event mortality. Early lifestyle interventions for individuals with increasing HOMA-IR trend could be a practical strategy to prevent CVD and CVD mortality.

Sex-Specific Differences in Lipoprotein Production and Clearance

Therapeutic approaches to reduce atherogenic lipid and lipoprotein levels remain the most effective and assessable strategies to prevent and treat cardiovascular disease. The discovery of novel research targets linked to pathways associated with cardiovascular disease development has enhanced our ability to decrease disease burden; however, residual cardiovascular disease risks remain. Advancements in genetics and personalized medicine are essential to understand some of the factors driving residual risk. Biological sex is among the most relevant factors affecting plasma lipid and lipoprotein profiles, playing a pivotal role in the development of cardiovascular disease. This minireview summarizes the most recent preclinical and clinical studies covering the effect of sex on plasma lipid and lipoprotein levels. We highlight the recent advances in the mechanisms regulating hepatic lipoprotein production and clearance as potential drivers of disease presentation. We focus on using sex as a biological variable in studying circulating lipid and lipoprotein levels.

Approach to the Patient With a Suboptimal Statin Response: Causes and Algorithm for Clinical Management

CONTEXT

Statins are the lipid-lowering therapy of choice for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) but their effectiveness in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) can substantially differ between individuals. In this mini-review, we describe the different causes for a suboptimal statin response and an algorithm for the diagnosis and clinical management of these patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A PubMed search using the terms "statin resistance," "statin sensitivity," "statin pharmacokinetics," "cardiovascular disease," and "lipid-lowering therapies" was performed. Published papers in the past 10 years that were relevant to the topic were examined to provide content for this mini-review.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Suboptimal lowering of LDL-C by statins is a major problem in the clinical management of patients and limits the value of this therapeutic approach. There are multiple causes of statin hyporesponsiveness with compliance being the most common explanation. Other causes, such as analytical issues with LDL-C measurement and the presence of common lipid disorders (familial hypercholesterolemia, elevated lipoprotein[a] and secondary dyslipidemias) should be excluded before considering primary statin resistance from rare genetic variants in lipoprotein-related or drug-metabolism genes. A wide variety of nonstatin lipid-lowering drugs are now available and can be added to statins to achieve more effective LDL-C lowering.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of statin hyporesponsiveness is a multistep process that can lead to the optimization of lipid-lowering therapy for the prevention of ASCVD. It may also lead to the identification of distinct types of dyslipidemias that require specific therapies and/or the genetic screening of family members.

From target discovery to clinical drug development with human genetics

The substantial investments in human genetics and genomics made over the past three decades were anticipated to result in many innovative therapies. Here we investigate the extent to which these expectations have been met, excluding cancer treatments. In our search, we identified 40 germline genetic observations that led directly to new targets and subsequently to novel approved therapies for 36 rare and 4 common conditions. The median time between genetic target discovery and drug approval was 25 years. Most of the genetically driven therapies for rare diseases compensate for disease-causing loss-of-function mutations. The therapies approved for common conditions are all inhibitors designed to pharmacologically mimic the natural, disease-protective effects of rare loss-of-function variants. Large biobank-based genetic studies have the power to identify and validate a large number of new drug targets. Genetics can also assist in the clinical development phase of drugs-for example, by selecting individuals who are most likely to respond to investigational therapies. This approach to drug development requires investments into large, diverse cohorts of deeply phenotyped individuals with appropriate consent for genetically assisted trials. A robust framework that facilitates responsible, sustainable benefit sharing will be required to capture the full potential of human genetics and genomics and bring effective and safe innovative therapies to patients quickly.

Lipoprotein(a) and risk of cognitive impairment in Black and White Americans: the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke cohort

Background

Cognitive impairment has a substantial vascular etiology. Higher lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with cardiovascular disease risk, but its association with cognitive function is uncertain. We hypothesized that Lp(a) is a risk factor for cognitive impairment, a relationship that would be modified by race and sex.

Objectives

To study the association of Lp(a) with cognitive impairment in a biracial cohort.

Methods

The Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study recruited 30,239 Black and White Americans aged >45 years from 2003 to 2007. After 3.4 years, among participants with normal baseline cognition, baseline Lp(a) was measured in 434 cases of incident cognitive impairment and 557 controls. Cognitive impairment was defined as scores below the sixth percentile based on age, sex, race, and education norms on 2 or 3 components of a 3-test battery administered every 2 years.

Results

Median Lp(a) was higher in Black than in White individuals. Among Black participants, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of cognitive impairment per SD higher increment Lp(a) was 1.39 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.84). The OR in White participants was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.87, 1.21; P for race difference = .03). The relationship of Lp(a) with cognitive trajectory differed by sex and race. Elevated Lp(a) was associated with worse baseline memory in Black men and a steeper trajectory of verbal fluency decline in Black men than in White men and women.

Conclusion

Higher Lp(a) was associated with increased risk of cognitive impairment in Black but not White individuals. Future studies should evaluate the biological and social mechanisms through which race and Lp(a) interact to increase risk of cognitive impairment.

Ancestral diversity in lipoprotein(a) studies helps address evidence gaps

INTRODUCTION

The independent and causal cardiovascular disease risk factor lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is elevated in >1.5 billion individuals worldwide, but studies have prioritised European populations.

METHODS

Here, we examined how ancestrally diverse studies could clarify Lp(a)'s genetic architecture, inform efforts examining application of Lp(a) polygenic risk scores (PRS), enable causal inference and identify unexpected Lp(a) phenotypic effects using data from African (n=25 208), East Asian (n=2895), European (n=362 558), South Asian (n=8192) and Hispanic/Latino (n=8946) populations.

RESULTS

Fourteen genome-wide significant loci with numerous population specific signals of large effect were identified that enabled construction of Lp(a) PRS of moderate (R2=15% in East Asians) to high (R2=50% in Europeans) accuracy. For all populations, PRS showed promise as a 'rule out' for elevated Lp(a) because certainty of assignment to the low-risk threshold was high (88.0%-99.9%) across PRS thresholds (80th-99th percentile). Causal effects of increased Lp(a) with increased glycated haemoglobin were estimated for Europeans (p value =1.4×10-6), although inverse effects in Africans and East Asians suggested the potential for heterogeneous causal effects. Finally, Hispanic/Latinos were the only population in which known associations with coronary atherosclerosis and ischaemic heart disease were identified in external testing of Lp(a) PRS phenotypic effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results emphasise the merits of prioritising ancestral diversity when addressing Lp(a) evidence gaps.

Heterogeneity of Lipoprotein(a) Levels Among Hispanic or Latino Individuals Residing in the US

Importance

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a genetically determined risk-enhancing factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The Lp(a) distribution among the diverse Hispanic or Latino community residing in the US has not been previously described, to the authors' knowledge.

Objective

To determine the distribution of Lp(a) levels across a large cohort of diverse Hispanic or Latino adults living in the US and by key demographic groups.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) is a prospective, population-based, cohort study of diverse Hispanic or Latino adults living in the US. At screening, participants aged 18 to 74 years were recruited between 2008 and 2011 from 4 US metropolitan areas (Bronx, New York; Chicago, Illinois; Miami, Florida; San Diego, California). HCHS/SOL included 16 415 noninstitutionalized adults recruited through probability sampling of randomly selected households. The study population represents Hispanic or Latino participants from diverse self-identified geographic and cultural backgrounds: Central American, Cuban, Dominican, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and South American. This study evaluated a subset of HCHS/SOL participants who underwent Lp(a) measurement. Sampling weights and surveys methods were used to account for HCHS/SOL sampling design. Data for this study were analyzed from April 2021 to April 2023.

Exposure

Lp(a) molar concentration was measured by a particle-enhanced turbidimetric assay with minimized sensitivity to apolipoprotein(a) size variation.

Main Outcome and Measure

Lp(a) quintiles were compared using analysis of variance among key demographic groups, including self-identified Hispanic or Latino background. Median percentage genetic ancestry (Amerindian, European, West African) were compared across Lp(a) quintiles.

Results

Lp(a) molar concentration was measured in 16 117 participants (mean [SD] age, 41 [14.8] years; 9680 female [52%]; 1704 Central American [7.7%], 2313 Cuban [21.1%], 1436 Dominican [10.3%], 6395 Mexican [39.1%], 2652 Puerto Rican [16.6%], 1051 South American [5.1%]). Median (IQR) Lp(a) level was 19.7 (7.4-59.7) nmol/L. Across Hispanic or Latino background groups, there was significant heterogeneity in median Lp(a) levels ranging from 12 to 41 nmol/L in those reporting a Mexican vs Dominican background. Median (IQR) West African genetic ancestry was lowest in the first quintile of Lp(a) level and highest in the fifth quintile (5.5% [3.4%-12.9%] and 12.1% [5.0%-32.5%]; respectively; P < .001), whereas the converse was seen for Amerindian ancestry (32.8% [9.9%-53.2%] and 10.7% [4.9%-30.7%], respectively; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cohort study suggest that differences in Lp(a) level distribution across the diverse US Hispanic or Latino population may carry important implications for the use of Lp(a) level in ASCVD risk assessment for this group. Cardiovascular outcomes data are needed to better understand the clinical impact of differences in Lp(a) levels by Hispanic or Latino background.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Incident CHD and ischemic stroke associated with lipoprotein(a) by levels of Factor VIII and inflammation

BACKGROUND

Inflammation and coagulation may contribute to the increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) associated with high lipoprotein(a). The association of lipoprotein(a) with ASCVD is stronger in individuals with high versus low high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), a marker of inflammation.

OBJECTIVES

Determine the association of lipoprotein(a) with incident ASCVD by levels of coagulation Factor VIII controlling for hs-CRP.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 6,495 men and women 45 to 84 years of age in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) without prevalent ASCVD at baseline (2000-2002). Lipoprotein(a) mass concentration, Factor VIII coagulant activity, and hs-CRP were measured at baseline and categorized as high or low (≥75th or <75th percentile of the distribution). Participants were followed for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) and ischemic stroke through 2015.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up of 13.9 years, there were 390 CHD and 247 ischemic stroke events. The hazard ratio (95%CI) for CHD associated with high lipoprotein(a) (≥40.1 versus <40.1 mg/dL) including adjustment for hs-CRP among participants with low and high Factor VIII was 1.07 (0.80-1.44) and 2.00 (1.33-3.01), respectively (p-value for interaction 0.016). The hazard ratio (95%CI) for CHD associated with high lipoprotein(a) including adjustment for Factor VIII was 1.16 (0.87-1.54) and 2.00 (1.29-3.09) among participants with low and high hs-CRP, respectively (p-value for interaction 0.042). Lp(a) was not associated with ischemic stroke regardless of Factor VIII or hs-CRP levels.

CONCLUSION

High lipoprotein(a) is a risk factor for CHD in adults with high levels of hemostatic or inflammatory markers.

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

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

Nutrition interventions for adults with dyslipidemia: A Clinical Perspective from the National Lipid Association

Lifestyle habits can have a profound impact on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. The National Lipid Association previously published recommendations for lifestyle therapies to manage dyslipidemia. This Clinical Perspective provides an update with a focus on nutrition interventions for the three most common dyslipidemias in adults: 1) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) elevation; 2) triglyceride (TG) elevation, including severe hypertriglyceridemia with chylomicronemia; and 3) combined dyslipidemia, with elevations in both LDL-C and TG levels. Lowering LDL-C and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol are the primary objectives for reducing ASCVD risk. With severe TG elevation (≥500 mg/dL), the primary objective is to prevent pancreatitis and ASCVD risk reduction is secondary. Nutrition interventions that lower LDL-C levels include reducing cholesterol-raising fatty acids and dietary cholesterol, as well as increasing intakes of unsaturated fatty acids, plant proteins, viscous fibers, and reducing adiposity for patients with overweight or obesity. Selected dietary supplements may be employed as dietary adjuncts. Nutrition interventions for all patients with elevated TG levels include restricting intakes of alcohol, added sugars, and refined starches. Additional lifestyle factors that reduce TG levels are participating in daily physical activity and reducing adiposity in patients with overweight or obesity. For patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia, an individualized approach is essential. Nutrition interventions for addressing concurrent elevations in LDL-C and TG include a combination of the strategies described for lowering LDL-C and TG. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended to facilitate success in making and sustaining dietary changes and the assistance of a registered dietitian nutritionist is highly recommended.

Discordance between lipoprotein (a) and LDL-cholesterol levels in cardiovascular risk assessment in apparently healthy subjects

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) is a recognized independent cardiovascular risk factor and apolipoprotein B (apoB) level better reflects the risk than LDL-cholesterol. Despite this cardiovascular prediction mostly relies on traditional risk factors. We evaluated the association between Lp(a) and lipid biomarkers of cardiovascular risk in relation to age and sex in apparently healthy individuals.

METHODS AND RESULTS

422 presumably healthy subjects aged 19-84 were included. Lipid profile, Lp(a), apoB and small dense low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (sdLDL-C) were assayed. Subjects were divided at desirable cut-points of apoB and LDL-C. A group with elevated apoB (≥100 mg/dL) at low LDL-C (≤115 mg/dL) was appointed as high-risk and a group with low apoB but elevated LDL-C as low-risk. Significantly elevated triglycerides, TG/HDL-C and sdLDL-C were found in high risk group, but Lp(a) levels were comparable. TG/HDL-C was the best predictor of high risk with a very good diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.85), whereas Lp(a) had no discriminatory power. Women aged ≤40 with low LDL-C ≤ 100 mg/dL and elevated Lp(a) ≥ 40 mg/dL had higher levels of apoB and sdLDL-C (p = 0.002; p = 0.07) than those with Lp(a) < 40 mg/dL, which was not observed in men. In young females increase of LDL-C and apoB significantly raised the risk of elevated Lp(a).

CONCLUSIONS

Women younger than 40 with low LDL-C may be at increased cardiovascular risk associated with elevated Lp(a) and apolipoprotein B levels. Inclusion of Lp(a) and apoB in the routine lipid testing providing information on an individual level may improve the prediction of cardiovascular risk in primary prevention.

Lipoprotein(a) and diet-a challenge for a role of saturated fat in cardiovascular disease risk reduction?

In this perspective, we discuss new evidence relating to current dietary recommendations to reduce SFA intake to modulate an individual's global risk of CVD. Although it is well established that lowering dietary SFA intake has a beneficial effect on LDL cholesterol concentrations, findings increasingly indicate an opposite effect on lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentrations. In recent years, many studies have firmly established a role for an elevated Lp(a) concentration as a genetically regulated, causal, and prevalent risk factor for CVD. However, there is less awareness of the effect of dietary SFA intake on Lp(a) concentrations. This study discusses this issue and highlights the contrasting effect of reducing dietary SFA intake on LDL cholesterol and Lp(a), 2 highly atherogenic lipoproteins. This calls attention to the need for precision nutrition approaches that move beyond a "one-size-fits-all" approach. To illustrate the contrast, we describe the dynamic contributions of Lp(a) and LDL cholesterol concentrations to CVD risk during interventions with a low-SFA diet, with the hope that this will stimulate further studies and discussions regarding dietary management of CVD risk.

Painful and recurring injection site reaction to alirocumab and evolocumab in a young woman with familial hypercholesterolemia and effective therapeutic alternative based on inclisiran: a case report

A 28-year-old woman with autosomal dominant familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) with a probable coexistent polygenic contribution causing very high low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, started therapy with the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9-inhibitor (PCSK9i) alirocumab, in addition to high-intensity statin plus ezetimibe. Forty-eight hours after the second injection of alirocumab, the patient developed a painful palpable injection site reaction (ISR) that recurred after the third administration of the drug. Treatment was then switched to evolocumab, another PCSK9i, but the patient had an ISR with similar features. The most conceivable cause of the ISR was a cell-mediated hypersensitivity reaction to polysorbate, an excipient contained in both drugs. Although ISR after PCSK9i administration is usually transient and does not compromise the continuation of treatment, in this case the recurrence of such side effect in an exacerbated way led to treatment withdrawal, with a subsequent re-exposure to increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. As soon as it became available in clinical practice, the patient started treatment with inclisiran, a small interfering RNA targeting hepatic PCSK9 synthesis. No adverse events were reported after inclisiran administration and LDL-C levels decreased significantly, confirming the evidence that this innovative approach to hypercholesterolemia is a safe and effective resource in patients at high CV risk who cannot achieve LDL-C goal with conventional lipid-lowering therapies and antibody-based PCSK9i.

Consensus document for lipid profile testing and reporting in Spanish clinical laboratories: what parameters should a basic lipid profile include?

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) continue to be the main cause of death in our country. Adequate control of lipid metabolism disorders is a key challenge in cardiovascular prevention that is far from being achieved in real clinical practice. There is a great heterogeneity in the reports of lipid metabolism from Spanish clinical laboratories, which may contribute to its poor control. For this reason, a working group of the main scientific societies involved in the care of patients at vascular risk, has prepared this document with a consensus proposal on the determination of the basic lipid profile in cardiovascular prevention, recommendations for its realization and unification of criteria to incorporate the lipid control goals appropriate to the vascular risk of the patients in the laboratory reports.

Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, remnant-cholesterol, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite indisputable role of LDL-C lowering, a considerable residual risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) persists. The precise mechanism(s) underlying this phenomenon remain unclear. Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRL) appear to be one of the main mediators, based on the genetic and epidemiologic data. However, whether this is caused by direct effects of Triglycerides or other components of TRL remains uncertain. The cholesterol component of TRL remnants (Rem-C) has been proposed as a more pertinent mediator of the increased risk associated with high triglycerides.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several long-term observational studies have shown a significant relationship between Rem-C and ASCVD events, compared with other triglyceride-related parameters. Recent trials have shown that lowering of triglyceride levels by various agents, including fibrates and omega-3 fatty acids, in statin-treated subjects, did not explain the reduction in ASCVD events. In a large clinical trial with pemafibrate, a highly selective PPAR-α agonist, in type 2 diabetes and elevated triglycerides, the reduction in triglycerides was accompanied by a significant increase in LDL-C and Apo-B levels, despite a reduction in Rem-C, and no effect on ASCVD events.

SUMMARY

Elevated Rem-C as a risk determinant, with LDL-C at goal, requires additional studies in clinical trials. Standardization and accuracy of Rem-C assays (calculated versus direct method) is also needed.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Characteristics and lipid lowering treatment patterns in patients tested for lipoprotein(a): A real-world US study

Objective

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and has no approved pharmacotherapies. Limited real-world data exists on the proportion of patients with available Lp(a) test results, characteristics of these patients, and their use of lipid lowering therapies (LLTs) for secondary prevention (SP) and primary prevention (PP) of ASCVD.

Methods

Patients with measured Lp(a) receiving LLTs for SP or PP of ASCVD were identified in the Optum Clinformatics® Data Mart database. Lp(a) distribution and LLT utilization including persistence and adherence were assessed. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between Lp(a) levels and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels after index LLT, adjusting for baseline characteristics.

Results

Overall, 2154 SP and 7179 PP patients met eligibility criteria. Of patients with available laboratory data, only 0.7% (SP) and 0.6% (PP) had Lp(a) test results. In the SP cohort, Lp(a) levels ≥125 nmol/L and ≥175 nmol/L were 26.4% and 17.6%, respectively, and the mean (SD) Lp(a) levels (overall SP cohort 90.4 [97.9] nmol/L) were highest in Black patients (123.4 [117.4]; p<0.001). Statin monotherapy was the most frequently prescribed LLT in SP patients overall (89.4%). Median (interquartile range [IQR]) persistence of LLTs was 227 (91, 649) days and 33.6% achieved ≥80% proportion of days covered (PDC). Patients with Lp(a) ≥175 nmol/L had 2.1 times greater odds of having elevated LDL-C (≥70 mg/dL) post-LLT than those with Lp(a) <175 nmol/L (p = 0.031). Similar findings were observed in the PP population.

Conclusions

Lp(a) screening was rare. Elevated Lp(a) was observed in more than one-quarter of patients receiving LLTs, with the highest mean Lp(a) levels observed in Black patients. Low adherence to LLTs was prevalent and at least half of patients failed to achieve their respective LDL-C target thresholds despite treatment. Finally, high Lp(a) levels were associated with worse LDL-C control.

Lipoprotein(a) and stroke: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study

Background

To evaluate the causal relationship between lipoprotein(a) Lp(a) and stroke risk.

Method

Adopting two grand scale genome-wide association study (GWAS) databases, the instrumental variables were selected on the basis that the genetic loci met the criteria of being independent of each other and closely related to Lp(a). Summary-level data for outcomes, ischemic stroke and its subtypes were acquired from the UK Biobank and MEGASTROKE consortium databases. Two-sample MR analyses were achieved using inverse variance-weighted (IVW) meta-analysis (primary analysis), weighted median analysis, and the MR Egger regression method. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression models were also used for observational analysis.

Result

Genetically predicted Lp(a) was marginally related with higher odds of total stroke (odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence intervals (CI)]: 1.003 [1.001-1.006], p = 0.010), ischemic stroke (OR [95% CI]: 1.004[1.001-1.007], p = 0.004), and large-artery atherosclerotic stroke (OR [95% CI]: 1.012 [1.004-1.019], p = 0.002) when the IVW estimator was used on the MEGASTROKE data. The associations of Lp(a) with stroke and ischemic stroke were also remarkable in the primary analysis using the UK Biobank data. Higher Lp(a) levels were also related with increased total stroke and ischemic stroke risk in the observational research data in the UK Biobank database.

Conclusion

Genetically predicted higher Lp(a) perhaps rise the risk of total stroke, ischemic stroke, and large-artery atherosclerotic stroke.

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.

High lipoprotein(a) levels and mitral valve disease: A systematic review

AIMS

The role of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] as a possibly causal risk factor for atherosclerotic artery disease and aortic valve stenosis has been well established. However, the information available on the association between Lp(a) levels and mitral valve disease is limited and controversial. The main objective of the present study was to assess the association between Lp(a) levels and mitral valve disease.

DATA SYNTHESIS

This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42022379044). A literature search was performed to detect studies that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels or single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to high levels of Lp(a) and mitral valve disease, including mitral valve calcification and valve dysfunction. Eight studies including 1,011,520 individuals were considered eligible for this research. The studies that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels and prevalent mitral valve calcification found predominantly positive results. Similar findings were reported in two studies that evaluated the SNPs related to high levels of Lp(a). Only two studies evaluated the association of Lp(a) and mitral valve dysfunction, showing contradictory results.

CONCLUSIONS

This research showed disparate results regarding the association between Lp(a) levels and mitral valve disease. The association between Lp(a) levels and mitral valve calcification seems more robust and is in line with the findings already demonstrated in aortic valve disease. New studies should be developed to clarify this topic.

Lipoprotein(a) Is Associated With the Progression and Vulnerability of New-Onset Carotid Atherosclerotic Plaque

BACKGROUND

Although important progress has been made in understanding Lp(a) (lipoprotein[a])-mediated stroke risk, the contribution of Lp(a) to the progression of vulnerable plaque features associated with stroke risk remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate whether Lp(a) is associated with carotid plaque progression, new-onset plaque features, and plaque vulnerability in a prospective community-based cohort study.

METHODS

Baseline Lp(a) levels were measured using latex-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay among 804 participants aged 45 to 74 years and free of cardiovascular disease in the Chinese Multi-provincial Cohort Study-Beijing project. Carotid atherosclerosis was measured twice by B-mode ultrasonography over a 10-year interval during the 2002 and 2012 surveys to assess the progression of total, vulnerable and stable plaques, and plaque vulnerability. The total plaque area and plaque vulnerability score were calculated.

RESULTS

The median baseline Lp(a) level was 10.20 mg/dL (interquartile range, 6.20 to 17.18 mg/dL). Modified Poisson regression analysis showed that Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL was significantly associated with 10-year progression of total carotid plaque (relative risk [RR], 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.64]; E-value=2.17), vulnerable plaque (RR, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.54-2.41]), and stable plaque (RR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.11-2.07]) compared with Lp(a) <50 mg/dL. Moreover, among participants without plaque at baseline, Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL was related to an increased total plaque area (β=0.36 [95% CI, 0.06-0.65]; P=0.018) and increased plaque vulnerability score (β=0.30 [95% CI, 0.01-0.60]; P=0.045) in multivariable linear regression.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated Lp(a) levels were associated with 10-year carotid plaque progression and plaque vulnerability, providing a basis for Lp(a) as a treatment target for stroke prevention.

Thrombophilia screening in the routine clinical care of children with arterial ischemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend thrombophilia evaluation in childhood arterial ischemic stroke, but the impact of screening on management is unknown. The objective of the current study is to report the incidence of thrombophilia identified as part of routine clinical care in the context of available literature reports, and to describe the impact of a diagnosis of thrombophilia on patient management.

METHODS

We conducted a single-institution retrospective chart review for all children with arterial ischemic stroke occurring between January 1, 2009 and January 1, 2021. We collected thrombophilia screening results, stroke etiology, and management. We also reviewed the literature of thrombophilia testing in childhood arterial ischemic stroke published prior to June 30, 2022. Meta-analysis methods were used to assess prevalence rates.

RESULTS

Among children with thrombophilia testing performed, 5% (six of 122 patients) were factor V Leiden heterozygous, 1% (one of 102 patients) were prothrombin gene mutation heterozygous, 1% (one of 122) had protein S deficiency, 20% (23/116 patients) had elevated lipoprotein(a), 3% (three of 110 patients) had elevated homocysteine levels, and 9% (10/112) had elevated antiphospholipid antibodies, only two of whom had persistently elevated levels. There was no change in stroke therapy due to these results. Literature review revealed a wide range of prevalence for most thrombophilia traits, with high cross-study heterogeneity in most cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of thrombophilia in our cohort were consistent with that expected in the general population. The identification of thrombophilia did not alter stroke care. However, some of the results were actionable, prompting evaluation for lipid disorders and patient-specific counseling on cardiovascular risk and risk for venous thrombosis.

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.

Association of aortic valve calcification and high levels of lipoprotein (a): Systematic review and Meta-analysis

AIM

This study aimed to assess the association between aortic valve calcification and lipoprotein (a).

METHODS

We searched PUBMED, WOS, and SCOPUS databases. Inclusion criteria were any controlled clinical trials or observational studies that reported the level of Lipoprotein A in patients with aortic valve calcifications, excluding case reports, editorials and animal studies. RevMan software (5.4) was used to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

After complete screening, 7 studies were included with a total number of 446179 patients included in the analysis. The pooled analysis showed a statistically significant association between the incidence of aortic valve calcium and increased levels of lipoprotein (a) compared with controls (SMD = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.04 to 2.38, p-value < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed a statistically significant association between the incidence of aortic valve calcium and increased levels of lipoprotein (a) compared with controls. Patients with high levels of lipoprotein (a) are at increased risk of developing aortic valve calcification. Medications targeting lipoprotein (a) in future clinical trials may be useful in primary prevention of aortic valve calcification in high risk patients.

A human iPSC-derived hepatocyte screen identifies compounds that inhibit production of Apolipoprotein B

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) patients suffer from excessively high levels of Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C), which can cause severe cardiovascular disease. Statins, bile acid sequestrants, PCSK9 inhibitors, and cholesterol absorption inhibitors are all inefficient at treating FH patients with homozygous LDLR gene mutations (hoFH). Drugs approved for hoFH treatment control lipoprotein production by regulating steady-state Apolipoprotein B (apoB) levels. Unfortunately, these drugs have side effects including accumulation of liver triglycerides, hepatic steatosis, and elevated liver enzyme levels. To identify safer compounds, we used an iPSC-derived hepatocyte platform to screen a structurally representative set of 10,000 small molecules from a proprietary library of 130,000 compounds. The screen revealed molecules that could reduce the secretion of apoB from cultured hepatocytes and from humanized livers in mice. These small molecules are highly effective, do not cause abnormal lipid accumulation, and share a chemical structure that is distinct from any known cholesterol lowering drug.

Relationship between lipoprotein(a) levels, cardiovascular outcomes and death in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review of prospective studies

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

In the general population, high levels of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) are an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases. However, the information available in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is less robust. The main objective of this updated systematic review of prospective studies was to analyze the association between elevated Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular outcomes or death in patients with CKD.

METHODS

The PRISMA guidelines were used to carry out this systematic review. Randomized clinical trials or prospective observational studies that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular outcomes or death in CKD patients were searched in the current literature.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies including 12,260 individuals were identified and considered eligible for this systematic review. In total, 14 prospective cohorts and one post-hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial were analyzed. Eight studies evaluated hemodialysis patients, one study analyzed patients on peritoneal dialysis, while six studies evaluated subjects with different stages of CKD. Median follow-up duration ranged from 1 to 8.6 years. Our findings showed that elevated Lp(a) values were associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events or death in most studies, despite adjusting for traditional risk factors.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this systematic review show that there is a positive association between Lp(a) levels and fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events in patients with CKD.

Detection strategies for elevated lipoprotein(a): will implementation let the genie out of the bottle?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Elevated Lp(a) level is an important causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), principally coronary artery disease. Selective testing for Lp(a) is highly recommended in patients at intermediate and high risk for ASCVD. Lp(a) levels are predominantly genetically determined, and this has implications for cascade testing.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies show that cascade testing is effective in identifying elevated Lp(a) in close relatives of probands with high Lp(a). Apart from selective testing and cascade testing as detection strategies, some recent guidelines recommend testing of Lp(a) in all adults at least once in their lifetime and various implementation strategies have been suggested.

SUMMARY

Hyper-Lp(a) is an important global health problem that can be easily detected. Hyper-Lp(a) meets all the criteria for universal screening except that there is not yet supportive evidence from clinical interventional trials showing a reduction of ASCVD events. The cost-effectiveness of the various detection and implementation strategies need to be further evaluated.

Relationship Between Lipoprotein(a) Levels and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels are independently associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, although this association is less explored in postmenopausal women. The main objective of this systematic review was to analyze the association between elevated Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular outcomes in posmenopausal women. Studies that evaluated this association were searched in the current literature. Ten studies including 157.690 women were considered eligible for this study. In total, 4 prospective cohorts, 3 cross-sectional studies, 2 nested case-control studies, and one post-hoc analysis from a randomized clinical trial were analyzed. The included studies showed different results regarding the association between Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular outcomes: a positive association (4 studies), no association (2 studies), or different results depending on the subgroups or outcomes evaluated (4 studies). The results were robust when evaluating coronary events. The reduction in coronary events attributed to a hormone replacement therapy-associated decrease in Lp(a) levels was controversial.

Evaluation of lipoprotein(a) in the prevention and management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A survey among the Lipid Clinics Network

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) Lipid Clinics Network promoted a survey in order to identify and understand how and when lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is tested and clinically evaluated in lipid clinics throughout Europe, and the challenges that may prevent evaluation from being carried out.

METHODS

This survey was divided into three areas of inquiry: background and clinical setting information of clinicians, questions for doctors who claimed not to measure Lp(a), in order to understand what were the reasons for not ordering the test, and questions for doctors who measure Lp(a), to investigate the use of this value in the management of patients.

RESULTS

A total of 151 centres clinicians filled in the survey, out of 226 invited. The proportion of clinicians who declare to routinely measure Lp(a) in clinical practice was 75.5%. The most common reasons for not ordering the Lp(a) test were the lack of reimbursement or of treatment options, the non-availability of Lp(a) test, and the high cost of performing the laboratory test. The availability of therapies targeting this lipoprotein would result in a greater propensity of clinicians to start testing Lp(a). Among those who declared to routinely measure Lp(a), the Lp(a) measurement is mostly requested to further stratify patients' cardiovascular risk, and half of them recognized 50 mg/dL (approx. 110 nmol/L) as the threshold for increased cardiovascular risk due.

CONCLUSIONS

These results warrant for a great deal of effort from scientific societies to address the barriers that limit the routine use of the measurement of Lp(a) concentration and to recognise the importance of Lp(a) as a risk factor.

Gene editing for dyslipidemias: New tools to "cut" lipids

Effective lipid lowering therapies are essential for the prevention of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease. Available treatments have evolved in both their efficacy and their frequency of administration, and currently include monoclonal antibodies, antisense oligonucleotides and siRNA approaches. However, an unmet need remains for more effective and long-lasting therapeutics. Gene editing permanently alters endogenous gene expression and has the potential to revolutionize disease treatment. Despite the existence of several gene editing approaches, the CRISPR/Cas9 system has emerged as the preferred technology because of its high efficiency and relative simplicity. This review provides a general overview of this promising technology and an update on the progress made towards the development of treatments of dyslipidemia. The recently started phase 1b gene editing clinical trial targeting PCSK9 in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and cardiovascular disease highlights how gene editing may become available to treat not only patients affected by rare disorders of lipid metabolism, but also patients that are difficult-to-treat or at high risk. Other targets like ANGPTL3, LDLR, and APOC3 are on track for further pre-clinical development. The identification of novel targets using electronic health record-linked biobanks and human sequencing studies will continue to expand the potential target pool, and clinical assessment of treated patients will provide essential efficacy and safety information on current strategies. Gene editing of genes regulating lipid metabolism holds promise as an exciting new therapeutic approach. However, since gene editing permanently alters a patient's genome, its therapeutic application in humans will require careful safety assessment and ethical considerations.

Treatment of hypertriglyceridaemia with icosapent ethyl in patients with high/very high cardiovascular risk. Consensus document of the Sociedad Española de Cardiología [Spanish Society of Cardiology] and the Sociedad Española de Diabetes [Spanish Diabetes Society]

The Working Groups of Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy of the Sociedad Española de Cardiología and Cardiovascular Disease of the Sociedad Española de Diabetes have prepared a consensus document on the treatment of hypertriglyceridaemia in patients with high/very-high-cardiovascular risk with icosapent ethyl, a highly purified and stable eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester. This document is necessary since there are differences among the three main omega-3 fatty acids and there is large-scale clinical evidence with icosapent ethyl that demonstrates that in addition to its efficacy in lowering triglyceridaemia, it reduces the risk of cardiovascular events in both patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and in those with type 2 diabetes, with a good safety profile. The number needed to treat to avoid a major cardiovascular event is analysed, comparing it with other pivotal studies of pharmacological intervention in cardiovascular prevention, and an estimate of the Spanish population likely to be treated with ethyl icosapent is carried out. These recommendations are of interest to all clinicians who manage patients with lipid metabolism disorders, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

Relationship of apolipoprotein(a) isoform size with clearance and production of lipoprotein(a) in a diverse cohort

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has two main proteins, apoB100 and apo(a). High levels of Lp(a) confer an increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Most people have two circulating isoforms of apo(a) differing in their molecular mass, determined by the number of Kringle IV Type 2 repeats. Previous studies report a strong inverse relationship between Lp(a) levels and apo(a) isoform sizes. The roles of Lp(a) production and fractional clearance and how ancestry affects this relationship remain incompletely defined. We therefore examined the relationships of apo(a) size with Lp(a) levels and both apo(a) fractional clearance rates (FCR) and production rates (PR) in 32 individuals not on lipid-lowering treatment. We determined plasma Lp(a) levels and apo(a) isoform sizes, and used the relative expression of the two isoforms to calculate a "weighted isoform size" (wIS). Stable isotope studies were performed, using D3-leucine, to determine the apo(a) FCR and PR. As expected, plasma Lp(a) concentrations were inversely correlated with wIS (R2 = 0.27; P = 0.002). The wIS had a modest positive correlation with apo(a) FCR (R2 = 0.10, P = 0.08), and a negative correlation with apo(a) PR (R2 = 0.11; P = 0.06). The relationship between wIS and PR became significant when we controlled for self-reported race and ethnicity (SRRE) (R2 = 0.24, P = 0.03); controlling for SRRE did not affect the relationship between wIS and FCR. Apo(a) wIS plays a role in both FCR and PR; however, adjusting for SRRE strengthens the correlation between wIS and PR, suggesting an effect of ancestry.

Australian Atherosclerosis Society Position Statement on Lipoprotein(a): Clinical and Implementation Recommendations

This position statement provides guidance to cardiologists and related specialists on the management of adult patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]. Elevated Lp(a) is an independent and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD). While circulating Lp(a) levels are largely determined by ancestry, they are also influenced by ethnicity, hormones, renal function, and acute inflammatory events, such that measurement should be done after accounting for these factors. Further, circulating Lp(a) concentrations should be estimated using an apo(a)-isoform independent assay that employs appropriate calibrators and reports the results in molar units (nmol/L). Selective screening strategies of high-risk patients are recommended, but universal screening of the population is currently not advised. Testing for elevated Lp(a) is recommended in all patients with premature ASCVD and those considered to be at intermediate-to-high risk of ASCVD. Elevated Lp(a) should be employed to assess and stratify risk and to enable a decision on initiation or intensification of preventative treatments, such as cholesterol lowering therapy. In adult patients with elevated Lp(a) at intermediate-to-high risk of ASCVD, absolute risk should be reduced by addressing all modifiable behavioural, lifestyle, psychosocial and clinical risk factors, including maximising cholesterol-lowering with statin and ezetimibe and, where appropriate, PCSK9 inhibitors. Apheresis should be considered in patients with progressive ASCVD. New ribonucleic acid (RNA)-based therapies which directly lower Lp(a) are undergoing clinical trials.

Effect of Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation on the Postprandial Metabolism of Apolipoprotein(a) in Familial Hypercholesterolemia

AIM

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a low-density lipoprotein-like particle containing apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) that increases the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). Postprandial redistribution of apo(a) protein from Lp(a) to triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRLs) may also increase the atherogenicity of TRL particles. Omega-3 fatty acid (ω3FA) supplementation improves postprandial TRL metabolism in FH subjects. However, its effect on postprandial apo(a) metabolism has yet to be investigated.

METHODS

We carried out an 8-week open-label, randomized, crossover trial to test the effect of ω3FA supplementation (4 g/day) on postprandial apo(a) responses in FH patients following ingestion of an oral fat load. Postprandial plasma total and TRL-apo(a) concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry, and the corresponding areas under the curve (AUCs) (0-10h) were determined using the trapezium rule.

RESULTS

Compared with no ω3FA treatment, ω3FA supplementation significantly lowered the concentrations of postprandial TRL-apo(a) at 0.5 (-17.9%), 1 (-18.7%), 2 (-32.6%), and 3 h (-19.2%) (P＜0.05 for all). Postprandial TRL-apo(a) AUC was significantly reduced with ω3FA by 14.8% (P＜0.05). By contrast, ω3FA had no significant effect on the total AUCs of apo(a), apoC-III, and apoE (P＞0.05 for all). The decrease in postprandial TRL-apo(a) AUC was significantly associated with changes in the AUC of triglycerides (r=0.600; P＜0.01) and apoB-48 (r=0.616; P＜0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Supplementation with ω3FA reduces postprandial TRL-apo(a) response to a fat meal in FH patients; this novel metabolic effect of ω3FA may have implications on decreasing the risk of ASCVD in patients with FH, especially in those with elevated plasma triglyceride and Lp(a) concentrations. However, the clinical implications of these metabolic findings require further evaluation in outcome or surrogate endpoint trials.

Lipoprotein(a) concentrations in acute myocardial infarction patients are not indicative of levels at six month follow-up

Aims

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels are generally constant throughout an individual's lifetime, and current guidelines recommend that a single measurement is sufficient to assess the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). However, it is unclear whether a single measurement of Lp(a) in individuals with acute myocardial infarction (MI) is indicative of the Lp(a) level six months following the event.

Methods and results

Lp(a) levels were obtained from individuals with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n = 99) within 24 h of hospital admission and after six months, who were enrolled in two randomized trials of evolocumab and placebo, and in individuals with NSTEMI or STEMI (n = 9) who enrolled in a small observation arm of the two protocols and did not receive study drug, but whose levels were obtained at the same time points. Median Lp(a) levels increased from 53.5 nmol/L (19, 165) during hospital admission to 58.0 nmol/L (14.8, 176.8) six months after the acute infarction (P = 0.02). Subgroup analysis demonstrated no difference in the baseline, six-month, or change between the baseline and six-month Lp(a) values between the STEMI and NSTEMI groups and between the group which received evolocumab and the group that did not.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that Lp(a) levels in individuals with acute MI are significantly higher six months after the initial event. Therefore, a single measurement of Lp(a) in the peri-infarction setting is not sufficient to predict the Lp(a)-associated CAD risk in the post-infarction period.

Registration

Evolocumab in Acute Coronary Syndrome Trial [EVACS I] NCT03515304, Evolocumab in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction [EVACS II], NCT04082442.

Documento de consenso para la determinación e informe del perfil lipídico en laboratorios clínicos españoles

Las enfermedades cardiovasculares (ECV) siguen siendo la principal causa de muerte en nuestro país. El control adecuado de las alteraciones del metabolismo lipídico es un reto clave en prevención cardiovascular que está lejos de alcanzarse en la práctica clínica real. Existe una gran heterogeneidad en los informes del metabolismo lipídico de los laboratorios clínicos españoles, lo que puede contribuir al mal control del mismo. Por ello, un grupo de trabajo de las principales sociedades científicas implicadas en la atención de los pacientes de riesgo vascular, hemos elaborado este documento con una propuesta básica de consenso sobre la determinación del perfil lipídico básico en prevención cardiovascular, recomendaciones para su realización y unificación de criterios para incorporar los objetivos de control lipídico adecuados al riesgo vascular de los pacientes en los informes de laboratorio. Palabras clave: consenso, panel de lípidos, enfermedades cardiovasculares, bioquímica, colesterol, lípidos, triglicéridos, lipoproteína (a).