Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular death in oldest-old (≥80 years) patients with acute myocardial infarction: A prospective cohort study

Independent Relationship of Lipoprotein(a) and Carotid Atherosclerosis With Long-Term Risk of Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is considered to be a causal risk factor of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether there is an independent or joint association of Lp(a) and atherosclerotic plaque with ASCVD risk remains uncertain. This study aims to assess ASCVD risk independently or jointly conferred by Lp(a) and carotid atherosclerotic plaque.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 5471 participants with no history of cardiovascular disease at baseline were recruited and followed up for ASCVD events (all fatal and nonfatal acute coronary and ischemic stroke events) over a median of 11.5 years. Independent association of Lp(a), or the joint association of Lp(a) and carotid plaque with ASCVD risk, was explored using Cox proportional hazards models. Overall, 7.6% of the participants (60.0±7.9 years of age; 2649 [48.4%] men) had Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL, and 539 (8.4/1000 person-years) incident ASCVD events occurred. Lp(a) concentrations were independently associated with long-term risk of total ASCVD events, as well as coronary events and ischemic stroke events. Participants with Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL had a 62% higher risk of ASCVD incidence (95% CI, 1.19-2.21) than those with Lp(a) <10 mg/dL, and they exhibited a 10-year ASCVD incidence of 11.7%. This association exists even after adjusting for prevalent plaque. Moreover, participants with Lp(a) ≥30 mg/dL and prevalent plaque had a significant 4.18 times higher ASCVD risk than those with Lp(a) <30 mg/dL and no plaque.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher Lp(a) concentrations are independently associated with long-term ASCVD risk and may exaggerate cardiovascular risk when concomitant with atherosclerotic plaque.

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.

Burden of elevated lipoprotein(a) among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: Evidence from a systematic literature review and feasibility assessment of meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level is an independent genetic risk factor that increases the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) by 2-4 fold. We aimed to report the burden of clinically relevant elevated Lp(a) in secondary prevention ASCVD population as the evaluation of such evidence is lacking.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted using Embase®, MEDLINE®, and MEDLINE® In-Process databases to identify studies reporting burden of elevated Lp(a) levels from January 1, 2010, to March 28, 2022. Full-text, English-language studies including ≥500 participants with ≥1 Lp(a) assessment were included.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies reported clinical burden of elevated Lp(a). Of these, 25 observational studies and one clinical trial reported clinical burden of clinically relevant elevated Lp(a) levels. Major clinical outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; n = 20), myocardial infarction (MI; n = 11), revascularization (n = 10), stroke (n = 10), cardiovascular (CV) mortality (n = 9), and all-cause mortality (n = 10). Elevated Lp(a) levels significantly increased the risk of MACE (n = 15) and revascularization (n = 8), while they demonstrated a trend for positive association with remaining CV outcomes. Meta-analysis was not feasible for included studies due to heterogeneity in Lp(a) thresholds, outcome definitions, and patient characteristics. Three studies reported humanistic burden. Patients with elevated Lp(a) levels had higher odds of manifesting cognitive impairment (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval; CI]: 1.62 [1.11-2.37]) and disability related to stroke (OR [95% CI]:1.46 [1.23-1.72)]) (n = 2). Elevated Lp(a) levels negatively correlated with health-related quality of life (R = -0.166, p = 0.014) (n = 1). A single study reported no association between elevated Lp(a) levels and economic burden.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR demonstrated a significant association of elevated Lp(a) levels with major CV outcomes and increased humanistic burden in secondary prevention ASCVD population. These results reinforce the need to quantify and manage Lp(a) for CV risk reduction and to perform further studies to characterize the economic burden.

Baseline Lipoprotein(a) Levels and Long-Term Cardiovascular Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) is a known independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, the prognostic impact of the baseline lipoprotein(a) levels on long-term clinical outcomes among patients with acute myocardial infarction remain unclear.

METHODS

We analyzed 1,908 patients with acute myocardial infarction from November 2011 to October 2015 from a single center in Korea. They were divided into 3 groups according to their baseline lipoprotein(a) levels: groups I (< 30 mg/dL, n = 1,388), II (30-49 mg/dL, n = 263), and III (≥50 mg/dL, n = 257). Three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiac death) at 3 years were compared among the 3 groups.

RESULTS

The patients were followed for 1094.0 (interquartile range, 1,033.8-1,095.0) days, during which a total of 326 (17.1%) three-point major adverse cardiovascular events occurred. Group III had higher rates of three-point major adverse cardiovascular events compared with Group I (23.0% vs. 15.7%; log-rank P = 0.009). In the subgroup analysis, group III had higher rates of three-point major adverse cardiovascular events compared with group I in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (27.0% vs. 17.1%; log-rank P = 0.006), but not in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (14.4% vs. 13.3%; log-rank P = 0.597). However, in multivariable Cox time-to-event models, baseline lipoprotein(a) levels were not associated with an increased incidence of three-point major adverse cardiovascular events, regardless of the type of acute myocardial infarction. Sensitivity analyses in diverse subgroups showed similar findings to those of the main analysis.

CONCLUSION

Baseline lipoprotein(a) levels in Korean patients with acute myocardial infarction were not independently associated with increased major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years.

Exploring the role of lipoprotein(a) in cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in Chinese population

A high level of lipoprotein (a) in the plasma has been associated with a variety of cardiovascular diseases and is considered to be an independent predictor of some other diseases. Based on recent studies, the concentration levels of Lp(a) in the Chinese population exhibit a distinctive variation from other populations. In the Chinese population, a high level of Lp(a) indicates a higher incidence of revascularization, platelet aggregation, and thrombogenicity following PCI. Increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in Chinese population has been linked to higher levels of Lp(a), according to studies. More specifically, it has been found that in Chinese populations, higher levels of Lp(a) were linked to an increased risk of coronary heart disease, severe aortic valve stenosis, deep vein thrombosis in patients with spinal cord injuries, central vein thrombosis in patients receiving hemodialysis, and stroke. Furthermore, new and consistent data retrieved from several clinical trials also suggest that Lp (a) might also play an essential role in some other conditions, including metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and cancers. This review explores the clinical and epidemiological relationships among Lp(a), cardiovascular diseases and diabetes in the Chinese population as well as potential Lp(a) underlying mechanisms in these diseases. However, further research is needed to better understand the role of Lp(a) in cardiovascular diseases and especially diabetes in the Chinese population.

Lipoprotein(a) and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Diseases: Evidence from Chinese Population

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Multiple factors are involved in CVD, and emerging data indicate that lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) may be associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) independent of other traditional risk factors. Lp(a) has been identified as a novel therapeutic target. Previous studies on the influence of Lp(a) in CVD have mainly used in western populations. In this review, the association of plasma Lp(a) concentration with ASCVD was summarized, with regards to epidemiological, population-based observational, and pathological studies in Chinese populations. Lp(a) mutations and copy number variations in Chinese populations are also explored. Finally, the impact of plasma Lp(a) levels on patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, cancer, and familial hypercholesterolemia are discussed.

Association of lipoprotein(a) with coronary severity in patients with new-onset acute myocardial infarction: A large cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Although current evidence suggests a causal association between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and cardiovascular disease, there is still no consensus on its association with coronary severity in new-onset acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We explored the association of Lp(a) with coronary severity.

METHODS

In this large cross-sectional study, we enrolled 2,740 patients with new-onset AMI from the Zhongda Hospital affiliated to Southeast University. Lp(a) was considered as an exposure variable. Gensini score, left main disease and three-vessel disease were used to assess coronary severity. Multivariate logistic regression, restricted cubic spline (RCS) models and threshold effects were used to analyze the association of Lp(a) with coronary severity.

RESULTS

Multivariate adjusted models showed that Lp(a) was independently associated with Gensini score (≥100), left main disease and three-vessel disease [Q4 vs Q1, OR (95 % CI), P value: 2.301 (1.770, 2.992), P < 0.001; 1.743 (1.174, 2.587), P = 0.006; 1.431 (1.128, 1.816), P = 0.003; respectively], and the associations persisted in sensitivity analyses and most subgroups (P < 0.05). Additionally, the RCS showed that Lp(a) was nonlinearly associated with Gensini score (continuous variable), Gensini score (≥100) and three-vessel disease (P for nonlinearity < 0.05). Threshold effects analysis showed that Lp(a) above the inflection point was positively associated with Gensini score (continuous variable) as well as the risk of Gensini score (≥100) and three-vessel disease.

CONCLUSION

Lp(a) was closely associated with coronary severity represented by Gensini score, left main disease and three-vessel disease in patients with new-onset AMI.

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

AIMS

To investigate the association between circulating lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the general population and in patients with chronic diseases, and to elucidate the dose-response relations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched literature to find prospective studies reporting adjusted risk estimates on the association of Lp(a) and mortality outcomes. Forty-three publications, reporting on 75 studies (957,253 participants), were included. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI ) for the top versus bottom tertile of Lp(a) levels and risk of all-cause mortality were 1.09 (95%CI: 1.01-1.18, I²: 75.34%, n = 19) in the general population and 1.18 (95%CI: 1.04-1.34, I²: 52.5%, n = 12) in patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVD). The HRs for CVD mortality were 1.33 (95%CI: 1.11-1.58, I²: 82.8%, n = 31) in the general population, 1.25 (95%CI: 1.10-1.43, I²: 54.3%, n = 17) in patients with CVD and 2.53 (95%CI: 1.13-5.64, I²: 66%, n = 4) in patients with diabetes mellitus. Linear dose-response analyses revealed that each 50 mg/dL increase in Lp(a) levels was associated with 31% and 15% greater risk of CVD death in the general population and in patients with CVD. No non-linear dose-response association was observed between Lp(a) levels and risk of all-cause or CVD mortality in the general population or in patients with CVD (P_nonlinearity > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study provides further evidence that higher Lp(a) levels are associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and CVD-death in the general population and in patients with CVD. These findings support the ESC/EAS Guidelines that recommend Lp(a) should be measured at least once in each adult person's lifetime, since our study suggests those with higher Lp(a) might also have higher risk of mortality.

Association of lipoprotein(a) with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

A growing number of studies have demonstrated a causal association between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVDs), but its association with all-cause and cause-specific mortality remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the association of Lp(a) with all-cause and cause-specific mortality.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 8,525 participants from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Lp(a) was considered an exposure variable, all-cause and cause-specific mortality were used as outcome variables, and all participants were followed from the interview date until death or December 31, 2015. COX proportional hazards regression models, stratified analysis, sensitivity analysis, restricted cubic spline plots and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to analyze the association of Lp(a) with all-cause and cause-specific mortality.

RESULTS

After adjusting for traditional cardiovascular risk factors, Lp(a) remained strongly associated with all-cause and CVDs-related mortality (P for trend = 0.007 and < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed that higher Lp(a) remained associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality in those > 60 years of age, with a BMI < 30 kg/m², and without diabetes, whereas the association between Lp(a) and CVDs-related mortality remained stable in participants ≤ 60 years of age, male, with a BMI < 30 kg/m², with hypertension, without diabetes, or without CVDs (P < 0.05). In sensitivity analyses, we found that the association of Lp(a) with all-cause and CVDs-related mortality remained robust after excluding individuals who died within one year of follow-up (P for trend = 0.041 and 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) was associated with the risk of all-cause and CVDs-related mortality.