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

Worldwide Increasing Use of Nonfasting Rather Than Fasting Lipid Profiles

BACKGROUND

Historically, lipids and lipoproteins were measured in the fasting state for cardiovascular risk prediction; however, since 2009 use of nonfasting lipid profiles has increased substantially worldwide. For patients, nonfasting lipid profiles are convenient and avoid any risk of hypoglycemia. For laboratories, blood sampling in the morning and extra visits for patients who have not fasted are avoided. For patients, clinicians, hospitals, and society, nonfasting sampling allows same-day visits with first blood sampling followed by a short wait for test results before clinical consultation. Therefore, nonfasting compared to fasting lipid profiles will save money and time and may improve patient compliance with cardiovascular prevention programs.

CONTENT

We report on the progression of endorsement and implementation of nonfasting lipid profiles for cardiovascular risk prediction worldwide and summarize the recommendations from major medical societies and health authorities in different countries. We also describe practical advantages and disadvantages for using nonfasting lipid profiles. Further, we include a description of why fasting has been the standard historically, the barriers against implementation of nonfasting lipid profiles, and finally we suggest the optimal content of a nonfasting lipid profile.

SUMMARY

Lipid, lipoprotein, and apolipoprotein concentrations vary minimally in response to normal food intake and nonfasting lipid profiles are equal or superior to fasting profiles for cardiovascular risk prediction. Major guidelines and consensus statements in Europe, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Japan, India, and Australia now endorse use of nonfasting lipid profiles in some or all patients; however, there are still gaps in endorsement and implementation of nonfasting lipid profiles worldwide.

Hyperlipidaemia in diabetes: are there particular considerations for next-generation therapies?

Dyslipidaemias are major cardiovascular risk factors, especially in people with diabetes. In this area, next-generation therapies targeting circulating lipoparticle metabolism (LDL, VLDL, chylomicrons, HDL) have recently been approved by the European and US medical agencies, including anti- proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) antibodies; an siRNA targeting PCSK9; bempedoic acid, which targets ATP citrate lyase; an antisense oligonucleotide targeting apolipoprotein C-III; an anti-angiopoietin-like 3 antibody; and a purified omega-3 fatty acid, icosapent ethyl. Other therapies are in different phases of development. There are several important considerations concerning the link between these new lipid-lowering therapies and diabetes. First, since concerns were first raised in 2008 about an increased risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM) with intensive statin treatment, each new lipid-lowering therapy is being evaluated for its associated risk of NODM, particularly in individuals with prediabetes (impaired fasting glucose and/or impaired glucose tolerance). Second, people with diabetes represent a large proportion of those at high or very high cardiovascular risk in whom these lipid-lowering drugs are currently, or will be, prescribed. Thus, the efficacy of these drugs in subgroups with diabetes should also be closely considered, as well as any potential effects on glycaemic control. In this review, we describe the efficacy of next-generation therapies targeting lipoprotein metabolism in subgroups of people with diabetes and their effects on glycaemic control in individuals with diabetes and prediabetes and in normoglycaemic individuals.

Elevated lipoprotein(a) increases risk of subsequent major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and coronary revascularisation in incident ASCVD patients: A cohort study from the UK Biobank

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a genetic driver for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We aimed to provide novel insights into the associated risk of elevated versus normal Lp(a) levels on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in an incident ASCVD cohort.

METHODS

This was an observational cohort study of incident ASCVD patients. MACE counts and incidence rates (IRs) per 100-person-years were reported for patients with normal (<65 nmol/L) and elevated (>150 nmol/L) Lp(a) within the first year after incident ASCVD diagnosis and overall follow-up. Cox proportional hazard models quantified the risk of MACE associated with a 100 nmol/L increase in Lp(a).

RESULTS

The study cohort included 32,537 incident ASCVD patients; 5204 with elevated and 22,257 with normal Lp(a). Of those with elevated Lp(a), 41.2% had a subsequent MACE, versus 35.61% with normal Lp(a). Within the first year of follow-up, the IRs of composite MACE and coronary revascularisation were significantly higher (p < 0.001) in patients with elevated versus normal Lp(a) (IR difference 6.79 and 4.66). This trend was also observed in the overall follow-up (median 4.7 years). Using time to first subsequent MACE, a 100 nmol/L increase in Lp(a) was associated with an 8.0% increased risk of composite MACE, and 18.6% increased risk of coronary revascularisation during the overall follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of elevated Lp(a) with increased risk of subsequent MACE and coronary revascularisation highlights a population who may benefit from earlier and more targeted intervention for cardiovascular risk including Lp(a), particularly within the first year after ASCVD diagnosis. Proactive Lp(a) testing as part of routine clinical practice can help identify and better manage these higher-risk individuals.

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

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

Supporting evidence for lipoprotein(a) measurements in clinical practice

High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] are causal for development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and highly regulated by genetics. Levels are higher in Blacks compared to Whites, and in women compared to men. Lp(a)'s main protein components are apolipoprotein (apo) (a) and apoB100, the latter being the main component of Low-Density Lipoprotein (LDL) particles. Studies have identified Lp(a) to be associated with inflammatory, coagulation and wound healing pathways. Lack of validated and accepted assays to measure Lp(a), risk cutoff values, guidelines for diagnosis, and targeted therapies have added challenges to the field. Scientific efforts are ongoing to address these, including studies evaluating the cardiovascular benefits of decreasing Lp(a) levels with targeted apo(a) lowering treatments. This review will provide a synopsis of evidence-based effects of high Lp(a) on disease presentation, highlight available guidelines and discuss promising therapies in development. We will conclude with current clinical information and future research needs in the field.

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.

Impact of Lipoprotein(a) on Macrovascular Complications of Diabetes in a Multiethnic Population in the French Amazon

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In French Guiana, the prevalence of diabetes is around 10%, and cardio and neurovascular pathologies are the first medical cause of early mortality. Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is described in the literature as a risk factor independent of other cardiovascular risk factors, but there are important interindividual differences, especially according to ethnicity. The objective of this study was to investigate the association of Lp(a) and macrovascular complications in a multiethnic population of patients with diabetes in the French Amazon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since May 2019, 1243 patients were screened 806 of whom had Lp(a) determination. We compared the prevalence of macrovascular complications in three groups according to Lp(a) concentration: between 0 and 75 mg/mL, between 76 and 300 mg/mL, and >300 mg/mL.

RESULTS

712 patients in the study had type 2 diabetes (88.34% of the sample). A history of hypertension was significantly associated with greater Lp(a) levels. Lp(a) concentration was greater among Creole ethnic groups. No association was found between Lp(a) levels and macrovascular complications in the Lp(a) > 300 mg/mL group.

CONCLUSIONS

These results do not replicate findings in mostly Caucasian populations suggesting that the Lp(a) threshold for, or the link with, cardiovascular risk may be different given the predominantly African origin of the French Guianese population. Further studies should study genetic polymorphisms in our population.

Lipoprotein(a) and residual vascular risk in statin-treated patients with first acute ischemic stroke: A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Statins either barely affect or increase lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels. This study aimed to explore the factors correlated to the change of Lp(a) levels as well as the relationship between Lp(a) and the recurrent vascular events in statin-treated patients with first acute ischemic stroke (AIS).

METHODS

Patients who were admitted to the hospital with first AIS from October 2018 to September 2020 were eligible for inclusion. Correlation between the change of Lp(a) levels and potential influencing factors was assessed by linear regression analysis. Cox proportional regression models were used to estimate the association between Lp(a) and recurrent vascular events including AIS, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization.

RESULTS

In total, 303 patients, 69.6% males with mean age 64.26 ± 11.38 years, completed the follow-up. During the follow-up period, Lp(a) levels increased in 50.5% of statin-treated patients and the mean percent change of Lp(a) levels were 14.48% (95% CI 6.35-22.61%). Creatinine (β = 0.152, 95% CI 0.125-0.791, P = 0.007) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (β = 0.160, 95% CI 0.175-0.949, P = 0.005) were positively associated with the percent change of Lp(a) levels. During a median follow-up of 26 months, 66 (21.8%) patients had a recurrent vascular event. The median time period between AIS onset and vascular events recurrence was 9.5 months (IQR 2.0-16.3 months). The on-statin Lp(a) level ≥70 mg/dL (HR 2.539, 95% CI 1.076-5.990, P = 0.033) and the change of Lp(a) levels (HR 1.003, 95% CI 1.000-1.005, P = 0.033) were associated with the recurrent vascular events in statin-treated patients with first AIS. Furthermore, the on-statin Lp(a) levels ≥70 mg/dL (HR 3.612, 95% CI 1.018-12.815, P = 0.047) increased the risk of recurrent vascular events in patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels < 1.8 mmol/L.

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) levels increased in half of statin-treated patients with first AIS. Creatinine and AST were positively associated with the percent change of Lp(a) levels. Lp(a) is a determinant of residual vascular risk and the change of Lp(a) is positively associated with the risk of recurrent vascular events in these patients.