Non-genetic influences on lipoprotein(a) concentrations

Initial decrease in the lipoprotein(a) level is a novel prognostic biomarker in patients with acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases; however, its role in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains unclear.

AIM

To investigate the hypothesis that the Lp(a) levels are altered by various conditions during the acute phase of ACS, resulting in subsequent cardiovascular events.

METHODS

From September 2009 to May 2016, 377 patients with ACS who underwent emergent coronary angiography, and 249 who completed ≥ 1000 d of follow-up were enrolled. Lp(a) levels were measured using an isoform-independent assay at each time point from before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to 48 h after PCI. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, other vascular death, ACS, and non-cardiac vascular events).

RESULTS

The mean circulating Lp(a) level decreased significantly from pre-PCI (0 h) to 12 h after (19.0 mg/dL to 17.8 mg/dL, P < 0.001), and then increased significantly up to 48 h after (19.3 mg/dL, P < 0.001). The changes from 0 to 12 h [Lp(a)Δ0-12] significantly correlated with the basal levels of creatinine [Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (SRCC): -0.181, P < 0.01] and Lp(a) (SRCC: -0.306, P < 0.05). Among the tertiles classified according to Lp(a)Δ0-12, MACE was significantly more frequent in the lowest Lp(a)Δ0-12 group than in the remaining two tertile groups (66.2% vs 53.6%, P = 0.034). A multivariate analysis revealed that Lp(a)Δ0-12 [hazard ratio (HR): 0.96, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.92-0.99] and basal creatinine (HR: 1.13, 95%CI: 1.05-1.22) were independent determinants of subsequent MACE.

CONCLUSION

Circulating Lp(a) levels in patients with ACS decreased significantly after emergent PCI, and a greater decrease was independently associated with a worse prognosis.

Genetics and Pathophysiological Mechanisms of Lipoprotein(a)-Associated Cardiovascular Risk

Elevated lipoprotein(a) is a genetically transmitted codominant trait that is an independent risk driver for cardiovascular disease. Lipoprotein(a) concentration is heavily influenced by genetic factors, including LPA kringle IV-2 domain size, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and interleukin-1 genotypes. Apolipoprotein(a) is encoded by the LPA gene and contains 10 subtypes with a variable number of copies of kringle -2, resulting in >40 different apolipoprotein(a) isoform sizes. Genetic loci beyond LPA, such as APOE and APOH, have been shown to impact lipoprotein(a) levels. Lipoprotein(a) concentrations are generally 5% to 10% higher in women than men, and there is up to a 3-fold difference in median lipoprotein(a) concentrations between racial and ethnic populations. Nongenetic factors, including menopause, diet, and renal function, may also impact lipoprotein(a) concentration. Lipoprotein(a) levels are also influenced by inflammation since the LPA promoter contains an interleukin-6 response element; interleukin-6 released during the inflammatory response results in transient increases in plasma lipoprotein(a) levels. Screening can identify elevated lipoprotein(a) levels and facilitate intensive risk factor management. Several investigational, RNA-targeted agents have shown promising lipoprotein(a)-lowering effects in clinical studies, and large-scale lipoprotein(a) testing will be fundamental to identifying eligible patients should these agents become available. Lipoprotein(a) testing requires routine, nonfasting blood draws, making it convenient for patients. Herein, we discuss the genetic determinants of lipoprotein(a) levels, explore the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the association between lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease, and provide practical guidance for lipoprotein(a) testing.

Sex and sex steroids as determinants of cardiovascular risk

There are considerable sex differences regarding the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), including arterial hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD) and stroke, as well as chronic renal disease. Women are largely protected from these conditions prior to menopause, and the risk increases following cessation of endogenous estrogen production or after surgical menopause. Cardiovascular diseases in women generally begin to occur at a later age than in men (on average with a delay of 10 years). Cessation of estrogen production also impacts metabolism, increasing the risk of developing obesity and diabetes. In middle-aged individuals, hypertension develops earlier and faster in women than in men, and smoking increases cardiovascular risk to a greater degree in women than it does in men. It is not only estrogen that affects female cardiovascular health and plays a protective role until menopause: other sex hormones such as progesterone and androgen hormones generate a complex balance that differentiates heart and blood vessel function in women compared to men. Estrogens improve vasodilation of epicardial coronary arteries and the coronary microvasculature by augmenting the release of vasodilating factors such as nitric oxide and prostacyclin, which are mechanisms of coronary vasodilatation that are more pronounced in women compared to men. Estrogens are also powerful inhibitors of inflammation, which in part explains their protective effects on CVD and chronic renal disease. Emerging evidence suggests that sex chromosomes also play a significant role in shaping cardiovascular risk. The cardiovascular protection conferred by endogenous estrogens may be extended by hormone therapy, especially using bioidentical hormones and starting treatment early after menopause.

The Role of Lipoprotein(a) in Peripheral Artery Disease

Lipoprotein(a) is a low-density-lipoprotein-like particle that consists of apolipoprotein(a) bound to apolipoprotein(b). It has emerged as an established causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, stroke, and aortic valve stenosis through multifactorial pathogenic mechanisms that include inflammation, atherogenesis, and thrombosis. Despite an estimated 20% of the global population having elevated lipoprotein(a) levels, testing remains underutilized due to poor awareness and a historical lack of effective and safe therapies. Although lipoprotein(a) has a strong association with coronary artery disease and cerebrovascular disease, its relationship with peripheral artery disease is less well established. In this article, we review the epidemiology, biology, and pathogenesis of lipoprotein(a) as it relates to peripheral artery disease. We also discuss emerging treatment options to help mitigate major adverse cardiac and limb events in this population.

High lipoprotein(a): Actionable strategies for risk assessment and mitigation

High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] are causal for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Lp(a) is the most prevalent inherited dyslipidemia and strongest genetic ASCVD risk factor. This risk persists in the presence of at target, guideline-recommended, LDL-C levels and adherence to lifestyle modifications. Epidemiological and genetic evidence supporting its causal role in ASCVD and calcific aortic stenosis continues to accumulate, although various facets regarding Lp(a) biology (genetics, pathophysiology, and expression across race/ethnic groups) are not yet fully understood. The evolving nature of clinical guidelines and consensus statements recommending universal measurements of Lp(a) and the scientific data supporting its role in multiple disease states reinforce the clinical merit to start population screening for Lp(a) now. There is a current gap in the implementation of recommendations for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in those with high Lp(a), in part due to a lack of protocols for management strategies. Importantly, targeted apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)]-lowering therapies that reduce Lp(a) levels in patients with high Lp(a) are in phase 3 clinical development. This review focuses on the identification and clinical management of patients with high Lp(a). Specifically, we highlight the clinical value of measuring Lp(a) and its use in determining Lp(a)-associated CVD risk by providing actionable guidance, based on scientific knowledge, that can be utilized now to mitigate risk caused by high Lp(a).

Lipoprotein(a): Emerging insights and therapeutics

The strong association between lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has led to considerations of Lp(a) being a potential target for mitigating residual cardiovascular risk. While approximately 20 % of the population has an Lp(a) level greater than 50 mg/dL, there are no currently available pharmacological lipid-lowering therapies that have demonstrated substantial reduction in Lp(a). Novel therapies to lower Lp(a) include antisense oligonucleotides and small-interfering ribonucleic acid molecules and have shown promising results in phase 2 trials. Phase 3 trials are currently underway and will test the causal relationship between Lp(a) and ASCVD and whether lowering Lp(a) reduces cardiovascular outcomes. In this review, we summarize emerging insights related to Lp(a)'s role as a risk-enhancing factor for ASCVD, association with calcific aortic stenosis, effects of existing therapies on Lp(a) levels, and variations amongst patient populations. The evolving therapeutic landscape of emerging therapeutics is further discussed.

A focused update to the 2019 NLA scientific statement on use of lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice

Since the 2019 National Lipid Association (NLA) Scientific Statement on Use of Lipoprotein(a) in Clinical Practice was issued, accumulating epidemiological data have clarified the relationship between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level and cardiovascular disease risk and risk reduction. Therefore, the NLA developed this focused update to guide clinicians in applying this emerging evidence in clinical practice. We now have sufficient evidence to support the recommendation to measure Lp(a) levels at least once in every adult for risk stratification. Individuals with Lp(a) levels <75 nmol/L (30 mg/dL) are considered low risk, individuals with Lp(a) levels ≥125 nmol/L (50 mg/dL) are considered high risk, and individuals with Lp(a) levels between 75 and 125 nmol/L (30-50 mg/dL) are at intermediate risk. Cascade screening of first-degree relatives of patients with elevated Lp(a) can identify additional individuals at risk who require intervention. Patients with elevated Lp(a) should receive early, more-intensive risk factor management, including lifestyle modification and lipid-lowering drug therapy in high-risk individuals, primarily to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an indication for lipoprotein apheresis (which reduces both Lp(a) and LDL-C) in high-risk patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and documented coronary or peripheral artery disease whose Lp(a) level remains ≥60 mg/dL [∼150 nmol/L)] and LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. Although Lp(a) is an established independent causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and despite the high prevalence of Lp(a) elevation (∼1 of 5 individuals), measurement rates are low, warranting improved screening strategies for cardiovascular disease prevention.

All we need to know about lipoprotein(a)

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], a genetically determined macromolecular complex, is independently and causally associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic stenosis via proposed proinflammatory, prothrombotic, and proatherogenic mechanisms. While Lp(a) measurement standardization issues are being resolved, several guidelines now support testing Lp(a) at least once in each adult's lifetime for ASCVD risk prediction which can foster implementation of more aggressive primary or secondary prevention therapies. Currently, there are several emerging targeted Lp(a) lowering therapies in active clinical investigation for safety and cardiovascular benefit among both primary and secondary prevention populations. First degree relatives of patients with high Lp(a) should be encouraged to undergo cascade screening. Primary prevention patients with high Lp(a) should consider obtaining a coronary calcium score for further risk estimation and to guide further ASCVD risk factor management including consideration of low dose aspirin therapy. Secondary prevention patients with high Lp(a) levels should consider adding PCSK9 inhibition to statin therapy.

Dietary n-3 alpha-linolenic and n-6 linoleic acids modestly lower serum lipoprotein(a) concentration but differentially influence other atherogenic lipoprotein traits: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a causal, genetically determined cardiovascular risk factor. Limited evidence suggests that dietary unsaturated fat may increase serum Lp(a) concentration by 10-15 %. Linoleic acid may increase Lp(a) concentration through its endogenous conversion to arachidonic acid, a process regulated by the fatty acid desaturase (FADS) gene cluster. We aimed to compare the Lp(a) and other lipoprotein trait-modulating effects of dietary alpha-linolenic (ALA) and linoleic acids (LA). Additionally, we examined whether FADS1 rs174550 genotype modifies Lp(a) responses.

METHODS

A genotype-based randomized trial was performed in 118 men homozygous for FADS1 rs174550 SNP (TT or CC). After a 4-week run-in period, the participants were randomized to 8-week intervention diets enriched with either Camelina sativa oil (ALA diet) or sunflower oil (LA diet) 30-50 mL/day based on their BMI. Serum lipid profile was measured at baseline and at the end of the intervention.

RESULTS

ALA diet lowered serum Lp(a) concentration by 7.3 % (p = 0.003) and LA diet by 9.5 % (p < 0.001) (p = 0.089 for between-diet difference). Both diets led to greater absolute decreases in individuals with higher baseline Lp(a) concentration (p < 0.001). Concentrations of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), non-HDL-C, remnant-C, and apolipoprotein B were lowered more by the ALA diet (p < 0.01). Lipid or lipoprotein responses were not modified by the FADS1 rs174550 genotype.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable increase in either dietary ALA or LA from vegetable oils has a similar Lp(a)-lowering effect, whereas ALA may lower other major atherogenic lipids and lipoproteins to a greater extent than LA. Genetic differences in endogenous PUFA conversion may not influence serum Lp(a) concentration.

Discrimination and net-reclassification of cardiovascular disease risk with Lipoprotein(a) levels: The ATTICA study (2002-2022)

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a recognized as risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, its influence on clinical risk evaluations remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether Lp(a) improves CVD risk prediction among apparently healthy adults from the general population.

METHODS

In 2002, n = 3,042 adults free of CVD, residing in Athens metropolitan area, in Greece, were recruited. A 20-year follow-up was conducted in 2022, comprising n = 2,169 participants, of which n = 1,988 had complete data for CVD incidence.

RESULTS

Lp(a) levels were significantly associated with 20-year ASCVD incidence in the crude model (Hazard Ratio per 1 mg/dL: 1.004, p = 0.048), but not in multi-adjusted models considering demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors. Adding Lp(a) to the Reynolds Risk Score (RRS) and Framingham Risk Score (FRS) variables resulted in positive Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI) values (0.159 and 0.160 respectively), indicating improved risk classification. Mediation analysis suggested that C-reactive protein, Interleukin-6, and Fibrinogen mediate the relationship between Lp(a) and ASCVD. No significant interaction was observed between Lp(a) and potential moderators.

CONCLUSION

Lp(a) levels can predict 20-year CVD outcomes and improve CVD risk prediction within the general population, possibly via the intricate relationship between Lp(a), systemic inflammation, atherothrombosis.

Oxidized phospholipids in cardiovascular disease

Prolonged or excessive exposure to oxidized phospholipids (OxPLs) generates chronic inflammation. OxPLs are present in atherosclerotic lesions and can be detected in plasma on apolipoprotein B (apoB)-containing lipoproteins. When initially conceptualized, OxPL-apoB measurement in plasma was expected to reflect the concentration of minimally oxidized LDL, but, surprisingly, it correlated more strongly with plasma lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) levels. Indeed, experimental and clinical studies show that Lp(a) particles carry the largest fraction of OxPLs among apoB-containing lipoproteins. Plasma OxPL-apoB levels provide diagnostic information on the presence and extent of atherosclerosis and improve the prognostication of peripheral artery disease and first and recurrent myocardial infarction and stroke. The addition of OxPL-apoB measurements to traditional cardiovascular risk factors improves risk reclassification, particularly in patients in intermediate risk categories, for whom improving decision-making is most impactful. Moreover, plasma OxPL-apoB levels predict cardiovascular events with similar or greater accuracy than plasma Lp(a) levels, probably because this measurement reflects both the genetics of elevated Lp(a) levels and the generalized or localized oxidation that modifies apoB-containing lipoproteins and leads to inflammation. Plasma OxPL-apoB levels are reduced by Lp(a)-lowering therapy with antisense oligonucleotides and by lipoprotein apheresis, niacin therapy and bariatric surgery. In this Review, we discuss the role of role OxPLs in the pathophysiology of atherosclerosis and Lp(a) atherogenicity, and the use of OxPL-apoB measurement for improving prognosis, risk reclassification and therapeutic interventions.

Transformation or replacement - Effects of hormone therapy on cardiovascular risk

Hormone therapy (HT) is important and frequently used both regarding replacement therapy (HRT) and gender affirming therapy (GAHT). While HRT has been effective in addressing symptoms related to hormone shortage, several side effects have been described. In this context, there are some studies that show increased cardiovascular risk. However, there are also studies reporting protective aspects of HT. Nevertheless, the exact impact of HT on cardiovascular risk and the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. This article explores the relationship between diverse types of HT and cardiovascular risk, focusing on mechanistic insights of the underlying hormones on platelet and leukocyte function as well as on effects on endothelial and adipose tissue cells.

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.

Is inverse association between lipoprotein(a) and diabetes mellitus another paradox in cardiometabolic medicine?

INTRODUCTION

The impact of Type II Diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on cardiovascular disease (CVD) is well-established, while lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has recently emerged as a recognized CVD risk factor. The rising prevalence of T2DM resulting from modern lifestyles and the development of specific Lp(a)-lowering agents brought the association between T2DM and Lp(a) in the forefront.

AREAS COVERED

Despite advancements in T2DM treatment, diabetic patients remain at very-high risk of CVD. Lp(a) may, to some extent, contribute to the persistent CVD risk seen in diabetic patients, and the coexistence of T2DM and elevated Lp(a) levels appears to synergistically amplify overall CVD risk. The relationship between T2DM and Lp(a) is paradoxical. On one hand, high Lp(a) plasma concentrations elevate the risk of diabetic microvascular and macrovascular complications. On the other hand, low Lp(a) plasma concentrations have been linked to an increased risk of developing T2DM.

EXPERT OPINION

Comprehending the association between T2DM and Lp(a) is critical due to the pivotal roles both entities play in overall CVD risk, as well as the unique aspects of their relationship. The mechanisms underlying the inverse association between T2DM and Lp(a) remain incompletely understood, necessitating further meticulous research.

Association between hepatic steatosis and lipoprotein(a) levels in non-alcoholic patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

It is well known that lipid abnormalities exist in the context of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The association between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels and NAFLD is poorly understood. The main objective of the present study was to assess the association between Lp(a) levels and NAFLD.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42023392526). A literature search was performed to detect studies that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels, NAFLD and steatohepatitis (NASH).

RESULTS

Ten observational studies, including 40,045 patients, were identified and considered eligible for this systematic review. There were 9266 subjects in the NAFLD groups and 30,779 individuals in the respective control groups. Five studies evaluated patients with NAFLD (hepatic steatosis was associated with lower Lp(a) levels in four studies, while the remaining showed opposite results). Two studies evaluating NASH patients showed that Lp(a) levels were not different compared to controls. However, the increment of Lp(a) levels was correlated with liver fibrosis in one of them. In addition, one study analyzed simultaneously patients with NAFLD and NASH, showing a neutral result in NAFLD patients and a positive relationship in NASH patients. Two studies that included patients with the new definition of metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) also showed neutral results.

CONCLUSION

Although there could be an association between Lp(a) levels and hepatic steatosis, the results of the studies published to date are contradictory and not definitive.

Novel lipid biomarkers and ratios as risk predictors for premature coronary artery disease: A retrospective analysis of 2952 patients

This study examined the associations between emerging lipid biomarkers (small dense low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [sdLDL-C), lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], and free fatty acids [FFA]), two ratios (sdLDL-C/LDL-C and the triglyceride-glucose [TyG) index), and the Gensini score (GS) in patients with premature coronary artery disease (PCAD) in relation to the extent of coronary stenosis. The authors evaluated a cohort of 2952 individuals undergoing coronary angiography (CAG), encompassing those with PCAD (n = 1749), late-onset coronary artery disease (LCAD; n = 328), and non-coronary artery disease (non-CAD; n = 575). Noteworthy differences were observed in the levels of the novel lipid biomarkers and ratio indexes among the PCAD, LCAD, and non-CAD groups (p < .05). Multiple logistic regression analyses pinpointed Lp(a) (OR = 2.62, 95% CI 1.22-5.63, p = .014) and the TyG index (OR = 2.53, 95% CI 1.08-5.93, p = .033) as independent risk factors for PCAD. Furthermore, these biomarkers and ratio indexes discerned substantial distinctions among PCAD patients with varying GS (p < .05). Consequently, these markers can proficiently anticipate the gravity of coronary artery stenosis (GS > 40) in PCAD patients, as evidenced by the ROC analysis. In conclusion, sdLDL-C, Lp(a), FFA, and the sdLDL-C/LDL-C and TyG indexes have considerable potential as risk and diagnostic markers for coronary artery stenosis in individuals afflicted with PCAD.

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.

Aspirin and lipoprotein(a) in primary prevention

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is causally associated with cardiovascular diseases, and elevated levels are highly prevalent. However, there is a lack of available therapies to address Lp(a)-mediated risk. Though aspirin has progressively fallen out of favor for primary prevention, individuals with high Lp(a) may represent a high-risk group that derives a net benefit.

RECENT FINDINGS

Aspirin has been demonstrated to have a clear benefit in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, but recent primary prevention trials have at best demonstrated a small benefit. However, individuals with elevated Lp(a) may be of high risk enough to benefit, particularly given interactions between Lp(a) and the fibrinolytic system / platelets, and the lack of available targeted medical therapies. In secondary analyses of the Women's Health Study (WHS) and the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, aspirin use was associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in carriers of genetic polymorphisms associated with elevated Lp(a) levels. Further studies are needed, however, as these studies focused on narrower subsets of the overall population and genetic markers.

SUMMARY

Individuals with elevated Lp(a) may benefit from aspirin therapy in primary prevention, but further study with plasma Lp(a) levels, broader populations, and randomization of aspirin are needed.

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.

Reducing saturated fat intake lowers LDL-C but increases Lp(a) levels in African Americans: the GET-READI feeding trial

Reducing dietary saturated fatty acids (SFA) intake results in a clinically significant lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) across ethnicities. In contrast, dietary SFA's role in modulating emerging cardiovascular risk factors in different ethnicities remains poorly understood. Elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], an independent cardiovascular risk factor, disproportionally affect individuals of African descent. Here, we assessed the responses in Lp(a) levels to dietary SFA reduction in 166 African Americans enrolled in GET-READI (The Gene-Environment Trial on Response in African Americans to Dietary Intervention), a randomized controlled feeding trial. Participants were fed two diets in random order for 5 weeks each: 1) an average American diet (AAD) (37% total fat: 16% SFA), and 2) a diet similar to the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet (25% total fat: 6% SFA). The participants' mean age was 35 years, 70% were women, the mean BMI was 28 kg/m2, and the mean LDL-C was 116 mg/dl. Compared to the AAD diet, LDL-C was reduced by the DASH-type diet (mean change: -12 mg/dl) as were total cholesterol (-16 mg/dl), HDL-C (-5 mg/dl), apoA-1 (-9 mg/dl) and apoB-100 (-5 mg/dl) (all P < 0.0001). In contrast, Lp(a) levels increased following the DASH-type diet compared with AAD (median: 58 vs. 44 mg/dl, P < 0.0001). In conclusion, in a large cohort of African Americans, reductions in SFA intake significantly increased Lp(a) levels while reducing LDL-C. Future studies are warranted to elucidate the mechanism(s) underlying the SFA reduction-induced increase in Lp(a) levels and its role in cardiovascular risk across populations.

Daring to dream: Targeting lipoprotein(a) as a causal and risk-enhancing factor

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], a distinct lipoprotein class, has become a major focus for cardiovascular research. This review is written in light of the recent guideline and consensus statements on Lp(a) and focuses on 1) the causal association between Lp(a) and cardiovascular outcomes, 2) the potential mechanisms by which elevated Lp(a) contributes to cardiovascular diseases, 3) the metabolic insights on the production and clearance of Lp(a) and 4) the current and future therapeutic approaches to lower Lp(a) concentrations. The concentrations of Lp(a) are under strict genetic control. There exists a continuous relationship between the Lp(a) concentrations and risk for various endpoints of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). One in five people in the Caucasian population is considered to have increased Lp(a) concentrations; the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) is even higher in black populations. This makes Lp(a) a cardiovascular risk factor of major public health relevance. Besides the association between Lp(a) and myocardial infarction, the relationship with aortic valve stenosis has become a major focus of research during the last decade. Genetic studies provided strong support for a causal association between Lp(a) and cardiovascular outcomes: carriers of genetic variants associated with lifelong increased Lp(a) concentration are significantly more frequent in patients with ASCVD. This has triggered the development of drugs that can specifically lower Lp(a) concentrations: mRNA-targeting therapies such as anti-sense oligonucleotide (ASO) therapies and short interfering RNA (siRNA) therapies have opened new avenues to lower Lp(a) concentrations more than 95%. Ongoing Phase II and III clinical trials of these compounds are discussed in this review.

Lipoprotein(a) and diet-a challenge for a role of saturated fat in cardiovascular disease risk reduction?

In this perspective, we discuss new evidence relating to current dietary recommendations to reduce SFA intake to modulate an individual's global risk of CVD. Although it is well established that lowering dietary SFA intake has a beneficial effect on LDL cholesterol concentrations, findings increasingly indicate an opposite effect on lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentrations. In recent years, many studies have firmly established a role for an elevated Lp(a) concentration as a genetically regulated, causal, and prevalent risk factor for CVD. However, there is less awareness of the effect of dietary SFA intake on Lp(a) concentrations. This study discusses this issue and highlights the contrasting effect of reducing dietary SFA intake on LDL cholesterol and Lp(a), 2 highly atherogenic lipoproteins. This calls attention to the need for precision nutrition approaches that move beyond a "one-size-fits-all" approach. To illustrate the contrast, we describe the dynamic contributions of Lp(a) and LDL cholesterol concentrations to CVD risk during interventions with a low-SFA diet, with the hope that this will stimulate further studies and discussions regarding dietary management of CVD risk.

Plasma Lipoprotein(a) Levels in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) may represent an important model of lipid alterations. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has emerged as a new marker of cardiovascular risk.

AIM

The main objective of this meta-analysis was to analyze the available evidence on Lp(a) levels in patients with PCOS compared to a control group.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. A literature search was performed to detect studies that have quantified Lp(a) levels in women with PCOS compared to a control group. The primary outcome was Lp(a) levels expressed in mg/dL. Random effects models were used.

RESULTS

Twenty-three observational studies including 2,337 patients were identified and considered eligible for this meta-analysis. In the overall analysis, the quantitative analysis showed that patients with PCOS have a higher Lp(a) levels (SMD: 1.1 [95% CI: 0.7 to 1.4]; I²=93%) compared to the control group. The results were similar in the analysis of the subgroups of patients according to body mass index (normal weight group: SMD: 1.2 [95% CI: 0.5 to 1.9], I²=95%; overweight group: SMD: 1.2 [95% CI: 0.5 to 1.8], I²=89%). Sensitivity analysis showed that the results were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis shows that women with PCOS had higher levels of Lp(a) compared to healthy women used as a control group. These findings were observed in both overweight and non-overweight women.

Frequent questions and responses on the 2022 lipoprotein(a) consensus statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society

In 2022, the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) published a new consensus statement on lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], summarizing current knowledge about its causal association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic stenosis. One of the novelties of this statement is a new risk calculator showing how Lp(a) influences lifetime risk for ASCVD and that global risk may be underestimated substantially in individuals with high or very high Lp(a) concentration. The statement also provides practical advice on how knowledge about Lp(a) concentration can be used to modulate risk factor management, given that specific and highly effective mRNA-targeted Lp(a)-lowering therapies are still in clinical development. This advice counters the attitude: "Why should I measure Lp(a) if I can't lower it?". Subsequent to publication, questions have arisen relating to how the recommendations of this statement impact everyday clinical practice and ASCVD management. This review addresses 30 of the most frequently asked questions about Lp(a) epidemiology, its contribution to cardiovascular risk, Lp(a) measurement, risk factor management and existing therapeutic options.

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.

Relationship Between Lipoprotein(a) Levels and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels are independently associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, although this association is less explored in postmenopausal women. The main objective of this systematic review was to analyze the association between elevated Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular outcomes in posmenopausal women. Studies that evaluated this association were searched in the current literature. Ten studies including 157.690 women were considered eligible for this study. In total, 4 prospective cohorts, 3 cross-sectional studies, 2 nested case-control studies, and one post-hoc analysis from a randomized clinical trial were analyzed. The included studies showed different results regarding the association between Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular outcomes: a positive association (4 studies), no association (2 studies), or different results depending on the subgroups or outcomes evaluated (4 studies). The results were robust when evaluating coronary events. The reduction in coronary events attributed to a hormone replacement therapy-associated decrease in Lp(a) levels was controversial.

Lipoprotein(a) distribution and its association with carotid arteriopathy in the Chinese population

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The distribution of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has not been well-studied in a large population in China. The relationship between Lp(a) and carotid atherosclerosis remains undefined. In this study, we aimed to investigate the distribution of Lp(a) levels and to assess their association with carotid arteriopathy in China.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 411,634 adults with Lp(a) measurements from 22 health check-up centers were used to investigate Lp(a) distribution in China. Among participants with Lp(a) data, carotid ultrasound was performed routinely at seven health check-up centers covering 75,305 subjects. Carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) and carotid plaque were used as surrogate biomarkers of carotid arteriopathy. The multivariate logistic regression model was applied to evaluate the association of increased Lp(a) levels with carotid arteriopathy.

RESULTS

The distribution of Lp(a) concentrations was right-skewed, with a median concentration of 10.60 mg/dL. The proportions of Lp(a) levels ≥30 mg/dL and ≥50 mg/dL were 16.75% and 7.10%, respectively. The median Lp(a) level was higher in females individuals in northern China, and increased with age. Spearman's analysis revealed weak correlations between the Lp(a) concentration as a continuous variable and other lipid profiles. The multiple logistic regression analysis showed that participants with Lp(a) levels ≥50 mg/dL had an increased risk of cIMT ≥1.0 mm (OR = 1.138, 95% CI, 1.071-1.208) and carotid plaque (OR = 1.296, 95% CI, 1.219-1.377) compared with those with Lp(a) levels <50 mg/dL.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study of the Lp(a) distribution in a large population in China. Our findings revealed a positive association between elevated Lp(a) levels (≥50 mg/dL) and increased prevalence of carotid atherosclerosis, which implies an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in the future.

Lipoprotein(a), Cardiovascular Events and Sex Differences: A Single Cardiological Unit Experience

Lipoprotein(a)-Lp(a), which retains proatherogenic and prothrombotic properties, may be modified by hormonal and metabolic factors. However, few studies have focused on differences related to sex and cardiometabolic risk factors in the relationship between Lp(a) and cardiovascular disease, especially in terms of prognosis. This study aimed at evaluating the predictive value of Lp(a) (cut-off 30 mg/dL) for hard events (HEs: mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction) according to sex and cardiometabolic risk factors in 2110 patients (1501 males, mean age: 68 ± 9 years) undergoing coronary angiography for known or suspected coronary artery disease. There were 211 events over a median follow-up period of 33 months. Lp(a) > 30 mg/dL did not confer a worse prognosis on the overall population. However, Kaplan-Meier subgroup analysis evidenced a worse prognosis in type 2 diabetes (T2D) females with elevated Lp(a) (log-rank test: p = 0.03) vs. T2D males and no-T2D patients, but not in other high-risk cardiovascular states (e.g., smoking, hypertension, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or obesity). After Cox multivariate adjustment, Lp(a) remained an independent determinant for HEs in the T2D female subgroup, conferring an HR of 2.9 (95% CI 1.1-7.7, p < 0.05). Lp(a) is therefore a strong independent predictor of HR in T2D women, but not in T2D men, or in noT2D patients.

Severe hypercholesterolemia in a patient with very low albumin and normal renal function

A 20-year-old male presented with severe elevation in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Initial genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolemia was negative. Patient also had low albumin, and further genetic testing showed homozygous variants in the ALB gene, suggesting congenital analbuminemia (CAA) causing severe hyperlipidemia. CAA is an autosomal recessive disorder with incidence of about 1:1,000,000. The gene for albumin is a single autosomal gene, and pathological variants that affect splicing lead to premature stop, nonsense variants, and deletions that result in a defect in albumin synthesis with CAA. CAA can be fatal in the prenatal period and cause infections in early childhood. CAA is tolerated better in adulthood because of compensatory increase in other plasma proteins. Plasma lipoproteins also increase, and CAA can cause gross hyperlipidemia with severe elevations in LDL-C and hypercholesterolemia. Genetic examination of ALB is mandatory to establish the diagnosis. Early diagnosis may be important to initiate lipid-lowering treatments to avoid premature coronary artery disease.

Use of Lipoprotein(a) to improve diagnosis and management in clinical familial hypercholesterolemia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an LDL-like particle whose plasma levels are largely genetically determined. The impact of measuring Lp(a) in patients with clinical familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) referred for genetic testing is largely unknown. We set out to evaluate the contribution of (genetically estimated) Lp(a) in a large nation-wide referral population of clinical FH.

METHODS

In 1504 patients referred for FH genotyping, we used an LPA genetic instrument (rs10455872 and rs3798220) as a proxy for plasma Lp(a) levels. The genetic Lp(a) proxy was used to correct LDL-cholesterol and reclassify patients with clinical FH based on Dutch Lipid Criteria Network (DLCN) scoring. Finally, we used estimated Lp(a) levels to reclassify ASCVD risk using the SCORE and SMART risk scores.

RESULTS

LPA SNPs were more prevalent among mutation-negative compared with mutation-positive patients (296/1280 (23.1%) vs 35/224 (15.6%), p = 0.016). Among patients with genetically defined high Lp(a) levels, 9% were reclassified to the DLCN category 'unlikely FH' using Lp(a)-corrected LDL-cholesterol (LDL-Ccor) and all but one of these patients indeed carried no FH variant. Furthermore, elevated Lp(a) reclassified predicted ASCVD risk into a higher category in up to 18% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients referred for FH molecular testing, we show that taking into account (genetically estimated) Lp(a) levels not only results in reclassification of probability of genetic FH, but also has an impact on individual cardiovascular risk evaluation. However, to avoid missing the diagnosis of an FH variant, clear thresholds for the use of Lp(a)-cholesterol adjusted LDL-cholesterol levels in patients referred for genetic testing of FH must be established.

New Horizons: Revival of Lipoprotein (a) as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Disease

The status of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] as a cardiovascular risk factor has been resurrected by advances in genetics. Mendelian randomization studies show a causal link of Lp(a) with coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral artery disease (PAD), and calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS). The genetics of Lp(a) is complex and extends beyond the kringle-IV type 2, as it is also dependent on ancestry. The plasma concentration of Lp(a) is determined by the hepatic production of apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] component of Lp(a), supporting the use of nucleic acids that inhibit the messenger RNA (mRNA) gene transcript for apo(a). Analytical barriers to measurement of Lp(a) are being addressed using isoform independent assays and a traceable standard. The association of Lp(a) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is higher for myocardial infarction than PAD and CAVS. Increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus associated with low Lp(a) levels is perplexing and requires further investigation. The greatest advancement in Lp(a)-lowering therapies is based on using RNA therapeutics that are now being investigated in clinical trials. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibition lowers Lp(a) modestly, but whether cardiovascular benefit is independent of low-density lipoprotein lowering remains unclear. Opportunistic and selective testing for Lp(a) is supported by moderate evidence, with the case for universal screening premature. Modification of behavioral and clinical risk factors may be targeted to mitigate Lp(a)-mediated risk of cardiovascular disease. Clinical practice guidelines have been developed to address gaps in care of high Lp(a), but full implementation awaits the findings of clinical outcome trials using RNA-directed therapies currently underway.

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.

The kringle IV type 2 domain variant 4925G>A causes the elusive association signal of the LPA pentanucleotide repeat

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentrations are regulated by the LPA gene mainly via the large kringle IV-type 2 (KIV-2) copy number variation and multiple causal variants. Early studies suggested an effect of long pentanucleotide repeat (PNR) alleles (10 and 11 repeats, PNR10 and PNR11) in the LPA promoter on gene transcription and found an association with lower Lp(a). Subsequent in vitro studies showed no effects on mRNA transcription, but the association with strongly decreased Lp(a) remained consistent. We investigated the isolated and combined effect of PNR10, PNR11, and the frequent splice site variant KIV-2 4925G>A on Lp(a) concentrations in the Cooperative Health Research in the Region of Augsburg F4 study by multiple quantile regression in single-SNP and joint models. Data on Lp(a), apolipoprotein(a) Western blot isoforms, and variant genotypes were available for 2,858 individuals. We found a considerable linkage disequilibrium between KIV-2 4925G>A and the alleles PNR10 and PNR11. In single-variant analysis adjusted for age, sex, and the shorter apo(a) isoform, we determined that both PNR alleles were associated with a highly significant Lp(a) decrease (PNR10: β = -14.43 mg/dl, 95% CI: -15.84, -13.02, P = 3.33e-84; PNR11: β = -17.21 mg/dl, 95% CI: -20.19, -14.23, P = 4.01e-29). However, a joint model, adjusting the PNR alleles additionally for 4925G>A, abolished the effect on Lp(a) (PNR10: β = +0.44 mg/dl, 95% CI: -1.73, 2.60, P = 0.69; PNR11: β = -1.52 mg/dl, 95% CI: -6.05, 3.00, P = 0.51). Collectively, we conclude that the previously reported Lp(a) decrease observed in pentanucleotide alleles PNR10 or PNR11 carriers results from a linkage disequilibrium with the frequent splicing mutation KIV-2 4925G>A.

Lipoprotein(a): Evidence for Role as a Causal Risk Factor in Cardiovascular Disease and Emerging Therapies

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an established risk factor for multiple cardiovascular diseases. Several lines of evidence including mechanistic, epidemiologic, and genetic studies support the role of Lp(a) as a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic stenosis/calcific aortic valve disease (AS/CAVD). Limited therapies currently exist for the management of risk associated with elevated Lp(a), but several targeted therapies are currently in various stages of clinical development. In this review, we detail evidence supporting Lp(a) as a causal risk factor for ASCVD and AS/CAVD, and discuss approaches to managing Lp(a)-associated risk.

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) in the Korean Pediatric Population Visiting Local Clinics and Hospitals

In this paper we investigate serum lipoprotein(a), an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease in the Korean pediatric population. Visiting local clinics and hospitals, 600 lipoprotein(a) tests were performed on 416 Korean children and adolescents (124 boys and 292 girls), with a median age of 11.1 years (interquartile range, IQR, 9.8–13.9). The median lipoprotein(a) level was 21.5 nmol/L (IQR, 8.2–51.7). Among the 416 patients, the 90th percentile value of the initial lipoprotein(a) measurement was 107.8 nmol/L. The proportion of patients with lipoprotein(a) ≥ 100 nmol/L was 11.3%. The lipoprotein(a) level and the proportion of patients with lipoprotein(a) ≥ 100 nmol/L were not significantly different among sex, or age group. Among the 416 patients, 122 (29.3%, 21 boys and 101 girls) underwent at least two follow-up lipoprotein(a) measurements. The median follow-up period was 6.7 months (IQR, 5.5–11.8). The median lipoprotein(a) level across the 122 patients was 25 nmol/L (IQR 10.0–72.0). Among those patients, seven (5.7%) experienced an increase in serum lipoprotein(a) to ≥100 nmol/L during follow-up measurements. Further studies are needed in the Korean pediatric population in order to clarify the clinical significance of this change long-term.

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.