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

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

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

Association of Lipoprotein (a) with peri-coronary inflammation in persons with and without HIV infection

BACKGROUND

Persons with HIV (PWH) have an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared to persons without HIV (PWoH). Lipoprotein a (Lp(a)) is a known atherosclerotic risk factor in PWoH, but there are no studies investigating Lp(a) and peri-coronary inflammation.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether Lp(a) is associated with peri-coronary inflammation as assessed by the fat attenuation index (FAI) and activated monocytes and T lymphocytes in PWH and PWoH.

METHODS

We measured plasma levels of Lp(a) at study entry in 58 PWH and 21 PWoH without CVD and who had FAI measurements. Associations of Lp(a) with FAI values of the right coronary artery (RCA) and left anterior descending artery (LAD) were evaluated using multivariable regression models adjusted for potential confounders. Correlations between Lp(a) levels and systemic inflammatory markers and immune cell subsets were examined.

RESULTS

Lp(a) was associated with greater peri-coronary inflammation among PWH compared to PWoH (β=1.73, P=0.019) in the RCA, in adjusted models. Significant correlations were observed with certain inflammatory markers (TNFR-I, b=0.295, P<0.001; TNFR-II, b=0.270, P=0.002; hs-CRP, b=0.195, P=0.028). Significant correlations were found between Lp(a) levels and several markers of monocyte activation: CD16 -CD163+ (b= -0.199, P=0.024), and CD16 -DR+ MFI (b= -0.179, P=0.042) and T cell subset CD38+CD4+ TEMRA (b= 0.177, P= 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) was associated with greater peri-coronary inflammation in the RCA in PWH compared to PWoH, as well as with select systemic inflammatory markers and specific subsets of immune cells in peripheral circulation.

Residual cardiovascular risk: When should we treat it?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) still being the most common cause of death in worldwide. In spite of development of new lipid-lowering therapies which optimize low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) levels, recurrence of CVD events implies addressing factors related with residual cardiovascular (CV) risk. The key determinants of residual CV risk include triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRLs) and remnant cholesterol (RC), lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and inflammation including its biochemical markers such as high sensitivity C reactive protein (hs-CRP). On the other hand, unhealthy lifestyle habits, environmental pollution, residual thrombotic risk and the residual metabolic risk determined by obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) have a specific weight in the residual CV risk. New pharmacologic therapies and pathways are being explored such as inhibition of apolipoprotein C-III (apoC-III) and angiopoietin-related protein 3 (ANGPTL3) in order to explore if a reduction in TRLs and RC reduce CVD events. Therapeutic target of inflammation plays an attractive way to reduce the atherosclerotic process and to date, approved therapies as colchicine plays a beneficial effect in chronic inflammation and residual CV risk. Lp(a) constitutes one of the most residual CV risk factor due to linkage with CVD and aortic valve stenosis. New and hopeful treatments including antisense oligonucleotides (ASO) and small-interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) which interfere in LP(a) codification have been developed to achieve an adequate control in Lp(a) levels. This review points out the paradigms of residual CV risk, discus how we should manage their features and summarize the different therapies targeting each residual CV risk factor.

Recommendations of the Experts of the Polish Cardiac Society (PCS) and the Polish Lipid Association (PoLA) on the diagnosis and management of elevated lipoprotein(a) levels

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is made up of a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle and a specific apolipoprotein(a). The blood concentration of Lp(a) is approximately 90% genetically determined, and the main genetic factor determining Lp(a) levels is the size of the apo(a) isoform, which is determined by the number of KIV2 domain repeats. The size of the apo(a) isoform is inversely proportional to the blood concentration of Lp(a). Lp(a) is a strong and independent cardiovascular risk factor. Elevated Lp(a) levels ≥ 50 mg/dl (≥ 125 nmol/l) are estimated to occur in more than 1.5 billion people worldwide. However, determination of Lp(a) levels is performed far too rarely, including Poland, where, in fact, it is only since the 2021 guidelines of the Polish Lipid Association (PoLA) and five other scientific societies that Lp(a) measurements have begun to be performed. Determination of Lp(a) concentrations is not easy due to, among other things, the different sizes of the apo(a) isoforms; however, the currently available certified tests make it possible to distinguish between people with low and high cardiovascular risk with a high degree of precision. In 2022, the first guidelines for the management of patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels were published by the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the American Heart Association (AHA). The first Polish guidelines are the result of the work of experts from the two scientific societies and their aim is to provide clear, practical recommendations for the determination and management of elevated Lp(a) levels.

Lifestyle and Lipoprotein(a) Levels: Does a Specific Counseling Make Sense?

Lipoprotein(Lp)(a) is a variant of low-density lipoprotein (LDL), bound to apolipoprotein B100, whose levels are associated with a significant increase in the risk of atherosclerosis-related cardiovascular events, but also to aortic stenosis and atrial fibrillation. Since plasma levels of Lp(a) are commonly considered resistant to lifestyle changes, we critically reviewed the available evidence on the effect of weight loss, dietary supplements, and physical activity on this risk factor. In our review, we observed that relevant body weight loss, a relatively high intake of saturated fatty acids, the consumption of red wine, and intense physical exercise seems to be associated with significantly lower plasma Lp(a) levels. On the contrary, foods rich in trans-unsaturated fatty acids are associated with increased Lp(a) levels. With regard to dietary supplements, coenzyme Q10, L-Carnitine, and flaxseed exert a mild but significant lowering effect on plasma Lp(a).

Estimating the Prevalence and Characteristics of Patients Potentially Eligible for Lipoprotein(a)-Lowering Therapies in a Real-World Setting

High lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) plasma levels are significantly associated with an increased risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD). The aim of this analysis was to estimate the prevalence and characteristics of patients potentially eligible for Lp(a)-lowering therapies in a real-world setting (i.e., patients with ASCVD and Lp(a) levels > 70 mg/dL). For this reason, we pooled data from a large cohort of Italian outpatients (N = 5961; men: 2879, women: 3982) with dyslipidemia. A binary logistic regression analysis was used to determine the significant predictors of ASCVD in the cohort, which were age (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.158, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.114 to 1.203, p < 0.001), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol at entry (OR: 1.989, 95% CI: 1.080 to 1.198, p = 0.020) and Lp(a) (OR: 1.090, 95% CI: 1.074 to 1.107, p < 0.001). In our cohort, almost half of patients with ASCVD (44.7%) may be eligible to be treated with Lp(a)-lowering agents. Interestingly, patients who do not meet the treatment criteria despite high Lp(a) (50-70 mg/dL), respectively, account for 4.7% and 7.3% of those in primary and secondary ASCVD prevention. In conclusion, in our large cohort of outpatients with dyslipidemia, the prevalence of individuals with ASCVD and very high Lp(a) plasma levels is quite high, even with a conservative estimation.

Sex X Time Interactions in Lp(a) and LDL-C Response to Evolocumab

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there were significant sex x time interactions in lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) response to treatment with the Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin type 9 inhibitor (PCSK9i) Evolocumab, in a real-life clinical setting. For this purpose, we pooled data from 176 outpatients (Men: 93; Women: 83) clinically evaluated at baseline and every six months after starting Evolocumab. Individuals who had been on PCSK9i for less than 30 months and nonadherent patients were excluded from the analysis. Over time, absolute values of Lp(a) plasma concentrations significantly decreased in the entire cohort (p-value < 0.001) and by sex (p-value < 0.001 in men and p-value = 0.002 in and women). However, there were no sex-related significant differences. Absolute plasma concentrations of LDL-C significantly decreased over time in the entire cohort and by sex (p-value < 0.001 always), with greater improvements in men compared to women. The sex x time interaction was statistically significant in LDL-C (all p-values < 0.05), while absolute changes in Lp(a) were not influenced by either sex or time (all p-value > 0.05). Our data partially reinforce the presence of differences in response to treatment to PCSK9i between men and women and are essential to gain a better understanding of the relationship between LDL-C and Lp(a) lowering in response to PCSK9i. Further research will clarify whether these sex-related significant differences translate into a meaningful difference in the long-term risk of ASCVD.

Prediction of 10-Year Cardiovascular Disease Risk, by Diabetes status and Lipoprotein-a levels; the HellenicSCORE II

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to develop an updated model to predict10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk for Greek adults, i.e., the HellenicSCORE II+, based on smoking, systolic blood pressure (SBP), total and High-Density-Lipoprotein-(HDL) cholesterol levels, and stratified by age group, sex, history of diabetes, and Lipoprotein (Lp)-a levels.

METHODS

Individual CVD risk scores were calculated through logit-function models, using the beta-coefficients derived from SCORE2. The Attica Study data were used for the calibration (3,042 participants, aged 45(14) years; 49.1% men). Discrimination ability of the HellenicSCORE II+ was assessed using C-index (range 0-1), adjusted for competing risks.

RESULTS

The mean HellenicSCORE II+ score was 6.3% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 5.9% to 6.6%) for men and 3.7% (95% CI 3.5% to 4.0%) for women (p<0.001), and were higher compared to the relevant SCORE2; 23.5% of men were classified as low risk, 40.2% as moderate and 36.3% as high risk, whereas the corresponding percentages for women were 56.2%, 18.6% and 25.2%. C-statistic index was 0.88 for women and 0.79 for men, when the HellenicSCORE II+ was applied to the ATTICA Study data, suggesting very good accuracy. Stratified analysis by Lp(a) levels led to a 4% improvement in correct classification among participants with high Lp(a).

CONCLUSION

HellenicSCORE II+ values were higher than SCORE2, confirming that the Greek population is at moderate-to-high CVD risk. Stratification by Lp(a) levels may assist to better identify individuals at high CVD risk.

Assessment of Apolipoprotein(a) Isoform Size Using Phenotypic and Genotypic Methods

Apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) is the protein component that defines lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) particles and is encoded by the LPA gene. The apo(a) is extremely heterogeneous in size due to the copy number variations in the kringle-IV type 2 (KIV2) domains. In this review, we aim to discuss the role of genetics in establishing Lp(a) as a risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD) by examining a series of molecular biology techniques aimed at identifying the best strategy for a possible application in clinical research and practice, according to the current gold standard.

The role of atherogenic lipoproteins in diabetes: Molecular aspects and clinical significance

Dyslipidaemia plays a prominent role in the genesis of atherosclerotic plaque and the increased cardiovascular risk in diabetes. Macrophages readily take up atherogenic lipoproteins, transforming into foam cells and amplifying vascular damage in the presence of endothelial dysfunction. We discuss the importance of distinct lipoprotein subclasses in atherogenic diabetic dyslipidaemia as well as the effects of novel anti-diabetic agents on lipoprotein fractions and ultimately on cardiovascular risk prevention. In patients with diabetes, lipid abnormalities should be aggressively identified and treated in conjunction with therapeutical agents used to prevent cardiovascular disease. The use of drugs that improve diabetic dyslipidaemia plays a prominent role in conferring cardiovascular benefit in individuals with diabetes.

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

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