Prediction of cardiovascular risk by Lp(a) concentrations or genetic variants within the LPA gene region

Ancestry specific distribution of LPA Kringle IV-Type-2 genetic variants highlight associations to apo(a) copy number, glucose, and hypertension

Background

High Lp(a) levels contribute to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and are tightly regulated by the LPA gene . Lp(a) levels have an inverse correlation with LPA Kringle IV Type-2 (KIV-2) copy number (CN). Black (B) and Hispanic (H) individuals exhibit higher levels of Lp(a), and rates of CVD compared to non-Hispanic Whites (NHW). Therefore, we investigated genetic variations in the LPA KIV-2 region across three ancestries and their associations with metabolic risk factors.

Methods

Using published pipelines, we analyzed a multi-ethnic whole exome dataset comprising 3,817 participants from the Washington Heights and Inwood Columbia Aging Project (WHICAP): 886 [NHW (23%), 1,811 Caribbean (C) H (47%), and 1,120 B individuals (29%). Rare and common variants (alternative allele carrier frequency, CF < 0.01 or > 0.99 and 0.01 < CF < 0.99, respectively) were identified and KIV-2 CN estimated. The associations of variants and CN with history of heart disease, hypertension (HTN), stroke, lipid levels and clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) was assessed. A small pilot provided in-silico validation of study findings.

Results

We report 1421 variants in the LPA KIV-2 repeat region, comprising 267 exonic and 1154 intronic variants. 61.4% of the exonic variants have not been previously described. Three novel exonic variants significantly increase the risk of HTN across all ethnic groups: 4785-C/A (frequency = 78%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.45, p = 0.032), 727-T/C (frequency = 96%, OR = 2.11, p = 0.032), and 723-A/G (frequency = 96%, OR = 1.97, p = 0.038). Additionally, six intronic variants showed associations with HTN: 166-G/A, 387-G/C, 402-G/A, 4527-A/T, 4541-G/A, and 4653-A/T. One intronic variant, 412-C/T, was associated with decreased blood glucose levels (frequency = 72%, β = -14.52, p = 0.02).Three of the associations were not affected after adjusting for LPA KIV-2 CN: 412-C/T (β = -14.2, p = 0.03), 166-G/A (OR = 1.41, p = 0.05), and 387-G/C (OR = 1.40, p = 0.05). KIV CN itself was significantly associated with 314 variants and was negatively correlated with plasma total cholesterol levels.

Conclusions

In three ancestry groups, we identify novel rare and common LPA KIV-2 region variants. We report new associations of variants with HTN and Glucose levels. These results underscore the genetic complexity of the LPA KIV-2 region in influencing cardiovascular and metabolic health, suggesting potential genetic regulation of pathways that can be studied for research and therapeutic interventions.

Coronary risk factor profiles according to different age categories in premature coronary artery disease patients who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention

Many studies have investigated the coronary risk factors (CRFs) among premature coronary artery disease (PCAD) patients. However, reports on the proportion and CRFs of PCAD according to different age cut-offs for PCAD is globally under-reported. This study aimed to determine the proportion of PCAD patients and analyse the significant CRFs according to different age cut-offs among percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-treated patients. Patients who underwent PCI between 2007 and 2018 in two cardiology centres were included (n = 29,241) and were grouped into four age cut-off groups that defines PCAD: (A) Males/females: < 45, (B) Males: < 50; Females: < 55, (C) Males: < 55; Females: < 60 and (D) Males: < 55; Females: < 65 years old. The average proportion of PCAD was 28%; 9.2% for group (A), 21.5% for group (B), 38.6% and 41.9% for group (C) and (D), respectively. The top three CRFs of PCAD were LDL-c level, TC level and hypertension (HTN). Malay ethnicity, smoking, obesity, family history of PCAD, TC level and history of MI were the independent predictors of PCAD across all age groups. The proportion of PCAD in Malaysia is higher compared to other studies. The most significant risk factors of PCAD are LDL-c, TC levels and HTN. Early prevention, detection and management of the modifiable risk factors are highly warranted to prevent PCAD.

Consensus on lipoprotein(a) of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis. Literature review and recommendations for clinical practice

The irruption of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) in the study of cardiovascular risk factors is perhaps, together with the discovery and use of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (iPCSK9) inhibitor drugs, the greatest novelty in the field for decades. Lp(a) concentration (especially very high levels) has an undeniable association with certain cardiovascular complications, such as atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD) and aortic stenosis. However, there are several current limitations to both establishing epidemiological associations and specific pharmacological treatment. Firstly, the measurement of Lp(a) is highly dependent on the test used, mainly because of the characteristics of the molecule. Secondly, Lp(a) concentration is more than 80% genetically determined, so that, unlike other cardiovascular risk factors, it cannot be regulated by lifestyle changes. Finally, although there are many promising clinical trials with specific drugs to reduce Lp(a), currently only iPCSK9 (limited for use because of its cost) significantly reduces Lp(a). However, and in line with other scientific societies, the SEA considers that, with the aim of increasing knowledge about the contribution of Lp(a) to cardiovascular risk, it is relevant to produce a document containing the current status of the subject, recommendations for the control of global cardiovascular risk in people with elevated Lp(a) and recommendations on the therapeutic approach to patients with elevated Lp(a).

Discovery of potent small-molecule inhibitors of lipoprotein(a) formation

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), an independent, causal cardiovascular risk factor, is a lipoprotein particle that is formed by the interaction of a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle and apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a))1,2. Apo(a) first binds to lysine residues of apolipoprotein B-100 (apoB-100) on LDL through the Kringle IV (KIV) 7 and 8 domains, before a disulfide bond forms between apo(a) and apoB-100 to create Lp(a) (refs. 3-7). Here we show that the first step of Lp(a) formation can be inhibited through small-molecule interactions with apo(a) KIV7-8. We identify compounds that bind to apo(a) KIV7-8, and, through chemical optimization and further application of multivalency, we create compounds with subnanomolar potency that inhibit the formation of Lp(a). Oral doses of prototype compounds and a potent, multivalent disruptor, LY3473329 (muvalaplin), reduced the levels of Lp(a) in transgenic mice and in cynomolgus monkeys. Although multivalent molecules bind to the Kringle domains of rat plasminogen and reduce plasmin activity, species-selective differences in plasminogen sequences suggest that inhibitor molecules will reduce the levels of Lp(a), but not those of plasminogen, in humans. These data support the clinical development of LY3473329-which is already in phase 2 studies-as a potent and specific orally administered agent for reducing the levels of Lp(a).

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSION

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

Lipoprotein (a) as a Biomarker for Cardiovascular Diseases and Potential New Therapies to Mitigate Risk

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a molecule that induces inflammation of the blood vessels, atherogenesis, valvular calcification, and thrombosis.

METHODS

We review the available evidence that suggests that high Lp(a) levels are associated with a persisting risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases despite optimization of established risk factors, including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels.

OBSERVATIONS

Approximately a quarter of the world population have Lp(a) levels of >50 mg/dL (125 nmol/L), a level associated with elevated cardiovascular risk. Lifestyle modification, statins, and ezetimibe do not effectively lower Lp(a) levels, while proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK-9) inhibitors and niacin only lower Lp(a) levels modestly. We describe clinical studies suggesting that gene silencing therapeutics, such as small interfering RNA (siRNA) and antisense oligonucleotide targeting Lp(a), offer a targeted approach with the potential for safe and robust Lp(a)- lowering with only a few doses (3-4) per year. Prospective randomized phase 3 studies are ongoing to validate safety, effectiveness in improving hard clinical outcomes, and tolerability to assess these therapies.

CONCLUSION

Several emerging treatments with robust Lp(a)-lowering effects may significantly lower atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk.

Lipoprotein(a)-60 Years Later-What Do We Know?

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) molecule includes two protein components: apolipoprotein(a) and apoB100. The molecule is the main transporter of oxidized phospholipids (OxPL) in plasma. The concentration of this strongly atherogenic lipoprotein is predominantly regulated by the LPA gene expression. Lp(a) is regarded as a risk factor for several cardiovascular diseases. Numerous epidemiological, clinical and in vitro studies showed a strong association between increased Lp(a) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), calcific aortic valve disease/aortic stenosis (CAVD/AS), stroke, heart failure or peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Although there are acknowledged contributions of Lp(a) to the mentioned diseases, clinicians struggle with many inconveniences such as a lack of well-established treatment lowering Lp(a), and common guidelines for diagnosing or assessing cardiovascular risk among both adult and pediatric patients. Lp(a) levels are different with regard to a particular race or ethnicity and might fluctuate during childhood. Furthermore, the lack of standardization of assays is an additional impediment. The review presents the recent knowledge on Lp(a) based on clinical and scientific research, but also highlights relevant aspects of future study directions that would approach more suitable and effective managing risk associated with increased Lp(a), as well as control the Lp(a) levels.

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

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

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.

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.

Impact of genetic information on coronary disease risk in Madeira: The GENEMACOR study

INTRODUCTION

Coronary artery disease (CAD), characterized by an atherogenic process in the coronary arteries, is one of the leading causes of death in Madeira. The GENEMACOR (GENEs in MAdeira and CORonary Disease) study sought to investigate the main risk factors - environmental and genetic - and estimate whether a genetic risk score (GRS) improves CAD prediction, discrimination and reclassification.

METHODS

Traditional risk factors and 33 CAD genetic variants were considered in a case-control study with 3139 individuals (1723 patients and 1416 controls). The multivariate analysis assessed the likelihood of CAD. A multiplicative GRS (mGRS) was created, and two models (with and without mGRS) were prepared. Two areas under receiver operating characteristic curve (area under curve (AUC)) were analyzed and compared to discriminate CAD likelihood. Net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination index (IDI) were used to reclassify the population.

RESULTS

All traditional risk factors were strong and independent predictors of CAD, with smoking being the most significant (OR 3.25; p<0.0001). LPA rs3798220 showed a higher CAD likelihood (odds ratio 1.45; p<0.0001). Individuals in the fourth mGRS quartile had an increased CAD probability of 136% (p<0.0001). A traditional risk factor-based model estimated an AUC of 0.73, rising to 0.75 after mGRS inclusion (p<0.0001), revealing a better fit. Continuous NRI better reclassified 28.1% of the population, and categorical NRI mainly improved the reclassification of the intermediate risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

CAD likelihood was influenced by traditional risk factors and genetic variants. Incorporating GRS into the traditional model improved CAD predictive capacity, discrimination and reclassification. These approaches may provide helpful diagnostic and therapeutic advances, especially in the intermediate risk group.

Lipoprotein(a): Cardiovascular Disease, Aortic Stenosis and New Therapeutic Option

Atherosclerosis is a chronic and progressive inflammatory process beginning early in life with late clinical manifestation. This slow pathological trend underlines the importance to early identify high-risk patients and to treat intensively risk factors to prevent the onset and/or the progression of atherosclerotic lesions. In addition to the common Cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, new markers able to increase the risk of CV disease have been identified. Among them, high levels of Lipoprotein(a)-Lp(a)-lead to very high risk of future CV diseases; this relationship has been well demonstrated in epidemiological, mendelian randomization and genome-wide association studies as well as in meta-analyses. Recently, new aspects have been identified, such as its association with aortic stenosis. Although till recent years it has been considered an unmodifiable risk factor, specific drugs have been developed with a strong efficacy in reducing the circulating levels of Lp(a) and their capacity to reduce subsequent CV events is under testing in ongoing trials. In this paper we will review all these aspects: from the synthesis, clearance and measurement of Lp(a), through the findings that examine its association with CV diseases and aortic stenosis to the new therapeutic options that will be available in the next years.

Atherogenic Lipoproteins for the Statin Residual Cardiovascular Disease Risk

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that decreases in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by the use of statins cause a significant reduction in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, one of our previous studies showed that, among eight RCTs that investigated the effect of statins vs. a placebo on CVD development, 56–79% of patients had residual CVD risk after the trials. In three RCTs that investigated the effect of a high dose vs. a usual dose of statins on CVD development, 78–87% of patients in the high-dose statin arms still had residual CVD risk. The risk of CVD development remains even when statins are used to strongly reduce LDL-C, and this type of risk is now regarded as statin residual CVD risk. Our study shows that elevated triglyceride (TG) levels, reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and the existence of obesity/insulin resistance and diabetes may be important metabolic factors that determine statin residual CVD risk. Here, we discuss atherogenic lipoproteins that were not investigated in such RCTs, such as lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)), remnant lipoproteins, malondialdehyde-modified LDL (MDA-LDL), and small-dense LDL (Sd-LDL). Lp(a) is under strong genetic control by apolipoprotein (a), which is an LPA gene locus. Variations in the LPA gene account for 91% of the variability in the plasma concentration of Lp(a). A meta-analysis showed that genetic variations at the LPA locus are associated with CVD events during statin therapy, independent of the extent of LDL lowering, providing support for exploring strategies targeting circulating concentrations of Lp(a) to reduce CVD events in patients receiving statins. Remnant lipoproteins and small-dense LDL are highly associated with high TG levels, low HDL-C, and obesity/insulin resistance. MDA-LDL is a representative form of oxidized LDL and plays important roles in the formation and development of the primary lesions of atherosclerosis. MDA-LDL levels were higher in CVD patients and diabetic patients than in the control subjects. Furthermore, we demonstrated the atherogenic properties of such lipoproteins and their association with CVD as well as therapeutic approaches.

Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction in Patients with Disorders of Hemostasis: Perioperative Risks and Management

BACKGROUND

Surgical and technological advances have resulted in the widespread adoption of microsurgical breast reconstruction. Many comorbidities that potentially might impair vasculature and wound healing are no longer considered contraindications for these procedures. However, some uncertainty still prevails regarding the perioperative management of patients with disorders of hemostasis.

METHODS

The authors combined a literature review with a retrospective chart review of patients with disorders of hemostasis who had undergone microsurgical breast reconstruction at the senior author's (J.F.) center between 2015 to 2020. Several disorders associated with thrombotic and/or hemorrhagic complications were identified, and a standardized risk assessment and management strategy was developed in cooperation with a hematologist.

RESULTS

Overall, 10 studies were identified comprising 29 patients who had a defined disorder of hemostasis and underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction. Seventeen microsurgical breast reconstructions were performed on 11 patients at the senior author's (J.F.) center. High factor VIII levels, heterozygous factor V Leiden, and heterozygous prothrombin mutation G20210A were the most common genetic or mixed genetic/acquired thrombophilic conditions. As expected, hereditary antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiencies were rare. Among hemorrhagic disorders, thrombocytopenia, platelet dysfunction, and von Willebrand disease or low von Willebrand factor levels were those factors most frequently associated with increased perioperative bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients should be screened for elevated risk of thrombosis or bleeding before undergoing microsurgical breast reconstruction, and positive screening should prompt a complete hematologic evaluation. Interdisciplinary management of these disorders with a hematologist is essential to minimize risks and to obtain optimal reconstructive results.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, IV.

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

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

Lipoprotein(a) measurement issues: Are we making a mountain out of a molehill?

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] became besides LDL cholesterol one of the most attractive targets for intervention in cardiovascular disease. Strong genetic evidence supports the causal association between high Lp(a) concentrations and cardiovascular outcomes. Since specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies are under clinical investigation, the interest in measuring Lp(a) has markedly increased. However, the special structure of the lead protein component of Lp(a), named apolipoprotein(a), creates difficulties for an accurate measurement of Lp(a). A highly homologous repetitive structure, called kringle IV repeat with up to more the 40 repeats, causes a highly polymorphic protein. Antibodies raised against apolipoprotein(a) are mostly directed against the repetitive structure of this protein, which complicates the measurement of Lp(a) in molar terms. Both measurements in mass (mg/dL) and molar terms (nmol/L) are described and a conversion from one into the another unit is only approximately possible. Working groups for standardization of Lp(a) measurements are going to prepare widely available and improved reference materials, which will be a major step for the measurement of Lp(a). This review discusses many aspects of the difficulties in measuring Lp(a). It tries to distinguish between academic and practical concerns and warns to make a mountain out of a molehill, which does no longer allow to see the patient behind that mountain by simply staring at the laboratory issues. On the other hand, the calibration of some assays raises major concerns, which are anything else but a molehill. This should be kept in mind and we should start measuring Lp(a) with the aim of a better risk stratification for the patient and to identify those patients who might be in urgent need for a specific Lp(a)-lowering therapy as soon as it becomes available.

Lipoprotein(a) beyond the kringle IV repeat polymorphism: The complexity of genetic variation in the LPA gene

High lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentrations are one of the most important genetically determined risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Lp(a) concentrations are an enigmatic trait largely controlled by one single gene (LPA) that contains a complex interplay of several genetic elements with many surprising effects discussed in this review. A hypervariable coding copy number variation (the kringle IV type-2 repeat, KIV-2) generates >40 apolipoprotein(a) protein isoforms and determines the median Lp(a) concentrations. Carriers of small isoforms with up to 22 kringle IV domains have median Lp(a) concentrations up to 5 times higher than those with large isoforms (>22 kringle IV domains). The effect of the apo(a) isoforms are, however, modified by many functional single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) distributed over the complete range of allele frequencies (<0.1% to >20%) with very pronounced effects on Lp(a) concentrations. A complex interaction is present between the apo (a) isoforms and LPA SNPs, with isoforms partially masking the effect of functional SNPs and, vice versa, SNPs lowering the Lp(a) concentrations of affected isoforms. This picture is further complicated by SNP-SNP interactions, a poorly understood role of other polymorphisms such as short tandem repeats and linkage structures that are poorly captured by common R² values. A further layer of complexity derives from recent findings that several functional SNPs are located in the KIV-2 repeat and are thus not accessible to conventional sequencing and genotyping technologies. A critical impact of the ancestry on correlation structures and baseline Lp(a) values becomes increasingly evident.

This review provides a comprehensive overview on the complex genetic architecture of the Lp(a) concentrations in plasma, a field that has made tremendous progress with the introduction of new technologies. Understanding the genetics of Lp(a) might be a key to many mysteries of Lp(a) and booster new ideas on the metabolism of Lp(a) and possible interventional targets.

Genome-Wide Characterization of a Highly Penetrant Form of Hyperlipoprotein(a)emia Associated With Genetically Elevated Cardiovascular Risk

Lp(a) (lipoprotein [a]) is a highly atherogenic lipoprotein strongly associated with coronary artery disease (CAD). Lp(a) concentrations are chiefly determined genetically. Investigation of large pedigrees with extreme Lp(a) using modern whole-genome approaches may unravel the genetic determinants underpinning this pathological phenotype.

Cis-epistasis at the LPA locus and risk of cardiovascular diseases

AIMS

Coronary artery disease (CAD) has a strong genetic predisposition. However, despite substantial discoveries made by genome-wide association studies (GWAS), a large proportion of heritability awaits identification. Non-additive genetic effects might be responsible for part of the unaccounted genetic variance. Here, we attempted a proof-of-concept study to identify non-additive genetic effects, namely epistatic interactions, associated with CAD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We tested for epistatic interactions in 10 CAD case-control studies and UK Biobank with focus on 8068 SNPs at 56 loci with known associations with CAD risk. We identified a SNP pair located in cis at the LPA locus, rs1800769 and rs9458001, to be jointly associated with risk for CAD [odds ratio (OR) = 1.37, P = 1.07 × 10-11], peripheral arterial disease (OR = 1.22, P = 2.32 × 10-4), aortic stenosis (OR = 1.47, P = 6.95 × 10-7), hepatic lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) transcript levels (beta = 0.39, P = 1.41 × 10-8), and Lp(a) serum levels (beta = 0.58, P = 8.7 × 10-32), while individual SNPs displayed no association. Further exploration of the LPA locus revealed a strong dependency of these associations on a rare variant, rs140570886, that was previously associated with Lp(a) levels. We confirmed increased CAD risk for heterozygous (relative OR = 1.46, P = 9.97 × 10-32) and individuals homozygous for the minor allele (relative OR = 1.77, P = 0.09) of rs140570886. Using forward model selection, we also show that epistatic interactions between rs140570886, rs9458001, and rs1800769 modulate the effects of the rs140570886 risk allele.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate the feasibility of a large-scale knowledge-based epistasis scan and provide rare evidence of an epistatic interaction in a complex human disease. We were directed to a variant (rs140570886) influencing risk through additive genetic as well as epistatic effects. In summary, this study provides deeper insights into the genetic architecture of a locus important for cardiovascular diseases.

Low Molecular Weight Apolipoprotein(a) Phenotype Rather Than Lipoprotein(a) Is Associated With Coronary Atherosclerosis and Myocardial Infarction

Background and Aims

Current evidence suggests that lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level above 50 mg/dL is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Our study aim was to determine the relationship of apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] phenotypes and Lp(a) concentration below and above 50 mg/dL with coronary atherosclerosis severity and myocardial infarction (MI).

Material and Methods

The study population consisted of 540 patients (mean age 54.0 ± 8.8 years, 82% men) who passed through coronary angiography. The number of diseased major coronary arteries assessed atherosclerosis severity. Lipids, glucose, Lp(a) levels and apo(a) phenotypes were determined in all patients. All patients were divided into four groups: with Lp(a) &lt;50 mg/dL [ “normal” Lp(a)] or ≥50 mg/dL [hyperLp(a)], and with low-molecular (LMW) or high-molecular weight (HMW) apo(a) phenotypes.

Results

Baseline clinical and biochemical characteristics were similar between the groups. In groups with LMW apo(a) phenotypes, the odds ratio (OR; 95% confidence interval) of multivessel disease was higher [10.1; 3.1–33.5, p &lt; 0.005 for hyperLp(a) and 2.2; 1.0–4.9, p = 0.056 for normal Lp(a)], but not in the group with HMW apo(a) and hyperLp(a) [1.1; 0.3–3.3, p = 0.92] compared with the reference group with HMW apo(a) and normal Lp(a). Similarly, MI was observed more often in patients with LMW apo(a) phenotype and hyperLp(a) and normal Lp(a) than in groups with HMW apo(a) phenotype.

Conclusion

The LMW apo(a) phenotype is associated with the severity of coronary atherosclerosis and MI even when Lp(a) level is below 50 mg/dL. The combination of Lp(a) level above 50 mg/dL and LMW apo(a) phenotype increases the risk of severe coronary atherosclerosis, regardless of other risk factors.

Lipoprotein (a) and Hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

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

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

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

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

Lipoprotein(a)

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an atherogenic lipoprotein with a strong genetic regulation. Up to 90% of the concentrations are explained by a single gene, the LPA gene. The concentrations show a several-hundred-fold interindividual variability ranging from less than 0.1 mg/dL to more than 300 mg/dL. Lp(a) plasma concentrations above 30 mg/dL and even more above 50 mg/dL are associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease including myocardial infarction, stroke, aortic valve stenosis, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, and all-cause mortality. Since concentrations above 50 mg/dL are observed in roughly 20% of the Caucasian population and in an even higher frequency in African-American and Asian-Indian ethnicities, it can be assumed that Lp(a) is one of the most important genetically determined risk factors for cardiovascular disease.Carriers of genetic variants that are associated with high Lp(a) concentrations have a markedly increased risk for cardiovascular events. Studies that used these genetic variants as a genetic instrument to support a causal role for Lp(a) as a cardiovascular risk factor are called Mendelian randomization studies. The principle of this type of studies has been introduced and tested for the first time ever with Lp(a) and its genetic determinants.There are currently no approved pharmacologic therapies that specifically target Lp(a) concentrations. However, some therapies that target primarily LDL cholesterol have also an influence on Lp(a) concentrations. These are mainly PCSK9 inhibitors that lower LDL cholesterol by 60% and Lp(a) by 25-30%. Furthermore, lipoprotein apheresis lowers both, Lp(a) and LDL cholesterol, by about 60-70%. Some sophisticated study designs and statistical analyses provided support that lowering Lp(a) by these therapies also lowers cardiovascular events on top of the effect caused by lowering LDL cholesterol, although this was not the main target of the therapy. Currently, new therapies targeting RNA such as antisense oligonucleotides (ASO) or small interfering RNA (siRNA) against apolipoprotein(a), the main protein of the Lp(a) particle, are under examination and lower Lp(a) concentrations up to 90%. Since these therapies specifically lower Lp(a) concentrations without influencing other lipoproteins, they will serve the last piece of the puzzle whether a decrease of Lp(a) results also in a decrease of cardiovascular events.

Genome-Wide Association Study and Identification of a Protective Missense Variant on Lipoprotein(a) Concentration: Protective Missense Variant on Lipoprotein(a) Concentration-Brief Report

[Figure: see text].

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Treatment and prevention of lipoprotein(a)-mediated cardiovascular disease: the emerging potential of RNA interference therapeutics

Lipid- and lipoprotein-modifying therapies have expanded substantially in the last 25 years, resulting in reduction in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events. However, no specific lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]-targeting therapy has yet been shown to reduce cardiovascular disease risk. Many epidemiological and genetic studies have demonstrated that Lp(a) is an important genetically determined causal risk factor for coronary heart disease, aortic valve disease, stroke, heart failure, and peripheral vascular disease. Accordingly, the need for specific Lp(a)-lowering therapy has become a major public health priority. Approximately 20% of the global population (1.4 billion people) have elevated levels of Lp(a) associated with higher cardiovascular risk, though the threshold for determining ‘high risk’ is debated. Traditional lifestyle approaches to cardiovascular risk reduction are ineffective at lowering Lp(a). To address a lifelong risk factor unmodifiable by non-pharmacological means, Lp(a)-lowering therapy needs to be safe, highly effective, and tolerable for a patient population who will likely require several decades of treatment. N-acetylgalactosamine-conjugated gene silencing therapeutics, such as small interfering RNA (siRNA) and antisense oligonucleotide targeting LPA, are ideally suited for this application, offering a highly tissue- and target transcript-specific approach with the potential for safe and durable Lp(a) lowering with as few as three or four doses per year. In this review, we evaluate the causal role of Lp(a) across the cardiovascular disease spectrum, examine the role of established lipid-modifying therapies in lowering Lp(a), and focus on the anticipated role for siRNA therapeutics in treating and preventing Lp(a)-related disease.

The brave new world of genetic testing in the management of the dyslipidaemias

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the exception of familial hypercholesterolaemia, the value of genetic testing for managing dyslipidaemias is not established. We review the genetics of major dyslipidaemias in context of clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia is valuable to enhance diagnostic precision, cascade testing, risk prediction and the use of new medications. Hypertriglyceridaemia may be caused by rare recessive monogenic, or by polygenic, gene variants; genetic testing may be useful in the former, for which antisense therapy targeting apoC-III has been approved. Familial high-density lipoprotein deficiency is caused by specific genetic mutations, but there is no effective therapy. Familial combined hyperlipidaemia (FCHL) is caused by polygenic variants for which there is no specific gene testing panel. Familial dysbetalipoproteinaemia is less frequent and commonly caused by APOE ε2ε2 homozygosity; as with FCHL, it is responsive to lifestyle modifications and statins or/and fibrates. Elevated lipoprotein(a) is a quantitative genetic trait whose value in risk prediction over-rides genetic testing; treatment relies on RNA therapeutics.

SUMMARY

Genetic testing is not at present commonly available for managing dyslipidaemias. Rapidly advancing technology may presage wider use, but its worth will require demonstration of cost-effectiveness and a healthcare workforce trained in genomic medicine.

Molecular, Population, and Clinical Aspects of Lipoprotein(a): A Bridge Too Far?

There is now significant evidence to support an independent causal role for lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) as a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Plasma Lp(a) concentrations are predominantly determined by genetic factors. However, research into Lp(a) has been hampered by incomplete understanding of its metabolism and proatherogeneic properties and by a lack of suitable animal models. Furthermore, a lack of standardized assays to measure Lp(a) and no universal consensus on optimal plasma levels remain significant obstacles. In addition, there are currently no approved specific therapies that target and lower elevated plasma Lp(a), although there are recent but limited clinical outcome data suggesting benefits of such reduction. Despite this, international guidelines now recognize elevated Lp(a) as a risk enhancing factor for risk reclassification. This review summarises the current literature on Lp(a), including its discovery and recognition as an atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factor, attempts to standardise analytical measurement, interpopulation studies, and emerging therapies for lowering elevated Lp(a) levels.

Small size apolipoprotein(a) isoforms enhance inflammatory and proteolytic potential of collagen-primed monocytes

Background

Atherosclerosis is an inflammatory process involving activation of monocytes recruited by various chemoattractant factors, among which lipoprotein(a) and its specific apolipoprotein apo(a). Lp(a) contains a specific apolipoprotein apo(a) which size is determined by a variable number of repeats of a specific structural domain, the kringle IV type 2 (IV-2). Lp(a) plasma concentration and apo(a) size is inversely correlated, and smaller apo(a) are major risk factors for coronary heart disease.

Design and methods

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of recombinant apo(a) isoforms (containing 10, 18 or 34 kringles) on monocytes interacting with type I collagen.

Results

Apo(a) isoforms stimulated reactive oxygen species (ROS) and matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) production by monocytes, and not modified monocytes adhesion on type I collagen. This effect was specific of apo(a) since no effect was observed in the presence of plasminogen and was inversely related to apo(a) size. The lysine analogue 6-aminohexanoic acid which blocks the lysine binding sites (LBS), and carboxypeptidase B (CpB) which cleaves carboxy-terminal lysine residues, abolished apo(a)-induced ROS and MMP-9 production, highlighting an effect mediated by apo(a) lysing-binding sites.

Conclusions

These results indicate that activation of collagen-primed monocytes stimulated with apo(a) is a Kringle number-dependent effect and reinforce the hypothesis of a role for small size apo(a) isoforms in atherothrombosis.