Inhibition of pericellular plasminogen activation by apolipoprotein(a): Roles of urokinase plasminogen activator receptor and integrins αMβ2 and αVβ3

Lipoprotein (a): Does It Play a Role in Pediatric Ischemic Stroke and Thrombosis?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this paper is to describe the current understanding of lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)), clinical practice guidelines, and the potential pathophysiological mechanisms that appear to increase the risk of cardiovascular and thromboembolic events, specifically within the pediatric population.

RECENT FINDINGS

The proatherogenic and pro-thrombotic properties of Lp(a) may increase the risk of atherothrombotic disease. In adults, atherosclerotic plaques increase thrombotic risk, but antifibrinolytic and proinflammatory properties appear to have an important role in children. Although it is not well established in neonates, recent studies indicate the risk of incident thrombosis and ischemic stroke are approximately fourfold higher in children with elevated Lp(a) which also increases their risk of recurrent events. Despite this higher risk, Pediatric Lp(a) screening guidelines continue to vary among different medical societies and countries. The inconsistency is likely related to inconclusive evidence outside of observational studies and the lack of specific therapies for children with elevated levels. Additional research is needed to improve understanding of the pro-thrombotic mechanisms of Lp(a), appropriate screening guidelines for Lp(a) in the pediatric population, and to elucidate the short and long term effects of elevated Lp(a) on the risk of pediatric thrombosis and stroke.

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.

Phylogenic Determinants of Cardiovascular Frailty, Focus on Hemodynamics and Arterial Smooth Muscle Cells

The evolution of the circulatory system from invertebrates to mammals has involved the passage from an open system to a closed in-parallel system via a closed in-series system, accompanying the increasing complexity and efficiency of life’s biological functions. The archaic heart enables pulsatile motion waves of hemolymph in invertebrates, and the in-series circulation in fish occurs with only an endothelium, whereas mural smooth muscle cells appear later. The present review focuses on evolution of the circulatory system. In particular, we address how and why this evolution took place from a closed, flowing, longitudinal conductance at low pressure to a flowing, highly pressurized and bifurcating arterial compartment. However, although arterial pressure was the latest acquired hemodynamic variable, the general teleonomy of the evolution of species is the differentiation of individual organ function, supported by specific fueling allowing and favoring partial metabolic autonomy. This was achieved via the establishment of an active contractile tone in resistance arteries, which permitted the regulation of blood supply to specific organ activities via its localized function-dependent inhibition (active vasodilation). The global resistance to viscous blood flow is the peripheral increase in frictional forces caused by the tonic change in arterial and arteriolar radius, which backscatter as systemic arterial blood pressure. Consequently, the arterial pressure gradient from circulating blood to the adventitial interstitium generates the unidirectional outward radial advective conductance of plasma solutes across the wall of conductance arteries. This hemodynamic evolution was accompanied by important changes in arterial wall structure, supported by smooth muscle cell functional plasticity, including contractility, matrix synthesis and proliferation, endocytosis and phagocytosis, etc. These adaptive phenotypic shifts are due to epigenetic regulation, mainly related to mechanotransduction. These paradigms actively participate in cardio-arterial pathologies such as atheroma, valve disease, heart failure, aneurysms, hypertension, and physiological aging.