Screening and therapeutic management of lipoprotein(a) excess: review of the epidemiological evidence, guidelines and recommendations

Periodontitis, coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction: treat one, benefit all

: Periodontal disease is conventionally defined as an inflammatory condition affecting the tissues surrounding and supporting the teeth (i.e. gum and periodontium). Recent statistics show that the prevalence of this condition is continuously growing worldwide, thus raising severe healthcare concerns, not only for local problems emerging from poor oral health, but also for the potential risk of developing systemic complications. Therefore, this article aims to provide an update on the intriguing association between periodontitis, coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or myocardial infarction (MI). Taken together, the available published information seems to support the existence of a significant association between periodontitis and CHD, whilst the risk of acute ischemic cardiac events appears magnified in patients with preexisting coronary artery disease. This epidemiological link is supported by reliable biological evidence, showing that periodontal disease may unfavourably modulate the cardiovascular risk, whereby patients with periodontitis have increased frequency of overweight, hypertension, endothelial dysfunction, dyslipidaemia, platelet hyper-reactivity, and may also be characterized by a prothrombotic state. Apart from these critical atherogenic factors, translocation of periodontal microorganisms into the bloodstream, and their further accumulation within atherosclerotic plaques, would contribute to enhance plaque instability and the risk of developing acute ischemic coronary events. Interesting evidence is also emerging that local or systemic statins administration could be beneficial for safeguarding periodontal health, thus enlightening the intriguing relationship existing between CHD and periodontitis.

Looking at Lp(a) and Related Cardiovascular Risk: from Scientific Evidence and Clinical Practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A considerable body of data from genetic and epidemiological studies strongly support a causal relationship between high lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels, and the development of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease. This relationship is continuous, unrelated to Lp(a) threshold, and independent of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, the mechanism(s) through which Lp(a) promotes atherosclerosis are not clarified yet. Suggested hypotheses include: an increased Lp(a)-associated cholesterol entrapment in the arterial intima followed by inflammatory cell recruitment, abnormal upload of proinflammatory oxidized phospholipids, impaired fibrinolysis by inhibition of plasminogen activation, and enhanced coagulation, through inhibition of the tissue factor pathway inhibitor. This review is aimed at summarizing the available evidence on the topic.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are two clinical forms, isolated hyperlipidemia(a) [HyperLp(a)] with acceptable LDL-C levels (< 70 mg/dL), and combined elevation of Lp(a) and LDL-C in plasma. To date, no drugs that selectively decrease Lp(a) are available. Some novel lipid-lowering drugs can lower Lp(a) levels, but to a limited extent, as their main effect is aimed at decreasing LDL-C levels. Significant Lp(a) lowering effects were obtained with nicotinic acid at high doses. However, adverse effects apart, nicotinic acid is no longer prescribed and available in Europe for clinical use, after European Agency of Medicines (EMA) ban. The only effective therapeutic option for now is Lipoprotein Apheresis (LA), albeit with some limitations. Lastly, it is to be acknowledged that the body of evidence confirming that reducing plasma isolated elevation of Lp(a) brings cardiovascular benefit is still insufficient. However, the growing bulk of clinical, genetic, mechanistic, and epidemiological available evidence strongly suggests that Lp(a) is likely to be the smoking gun.

Dietary natural products as emerging lipoprotein(a)-lowering agents

Elevated plasma lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) levels are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Hitherto, niacin has been the drug of choice to reduce elevated Lp(a) levels in hyperlipidemic patients but its efficacy in reducing CVD outcomes has been seriously questioned by recent clinical trials. Additional drugs may reduce to some extent plasma Lp(a) levels but the lack of a specific therapeutic indication for Lp(a)-lowering limits profoundly reduce their use. An attractive therapeutic option is natural products. In several preclinical and clinical studies as well as meta-analyses, natural products, including l-carnitine, coenzyme Q ₁₀ , and xuezhikang were shown to significantly decrease Lp(a) levels in patients with Lp(a) hyperlipoproteinemia. Other natural products, such as pectin, Ginkgo biloba, flaxseed, red wine, resveratrol and curcuminoids can also reduce elevated Lp(a) concentrations but to a lesser degree. In conclusion, aforementioned natural products may represent promising therapeutic agents for Lp(a) lowering.

Rare thrombophilic conditions

Thrombophilia, either acquired or inherited, can be defined as a predisposition to developing thromboembolic complications. Since the discovery of antithrombin deficiency in the 1965, many other conditions have been described so far, which have then allowed to currently detect an inherited or acquired predisposition in approximately 60-70% of patients with thromboembolic disorders. These prothrombotic risk factors mainly include qualitative or quantitative defects of endogenous coagulation factor inhibitors, increased concentration or function of clotting proteins, defects in the fibrinolytic system, impaired platelet function, and hyperhomocysteinemia. In this review article, we aim to provide an overview on epidemiologic, clinic and laboratory aspects of both acquired and inherited rare thrombophilic risk factors, especially including dysfibrinogenemia, heparin cofactor II, thrombomodulin, lipoprotein(a), sticky platelet syndrome, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 apolipoprotein E, tissue factor pathway inhibitor, paroxysmal nocturnal haemoglobinuria and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.

Low LPA gene kringle IV-2 repeat copy number association with elevated lipoprotein (a) concentration as an independent risk factor of coronary atherosclerotic heart disease in the Chinese Han population

Background

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)], which is genetically determined by the LPA gene kringle IV type 2 (KIV-2) repeat copy number, has previously been reported in different populations. However, it is uncertain if the same occurs in the Chinese Han population. This study explored the correlation of Lp(a) mass or particle concentration with KIV-2 repeat copy number and application for coronary atherosclerotic heart disease (CAHD) risk assessment.

Methods

A cross-sectional study including 884 subjects was conducted. The Lp(a) level and routine risk factors of CAHD were compared. The KIV-2 copy number distribution, relationship with Lp(a), and assessment for CAHD risk were explored.

Results

The mean of Lp(a) mass or particle concentration in the CAHD group was higher than that in the non-CAHD group, while the KIV-2 copy number in the CAHD group was lower. Lp(a) had auxiliary values in gauging the type of plaque and was significantly higher in the soft-plaque group than that in the other two groups (200 mg/L [21.5 nmol/L], 166 mg/L [18.6 nmol/L], 149 mg/L [17.1 nmol/L], respectively, P < 0.05). Kappa test indicated divergence for the same individual using two Lp(a) concentrations (kappa value was 0.536 [< 0.75]). Elevated Lp(a) was an independent CAHD risk factor, whatever mass or particle concentration, and large KIV-2 copy number was a protective factor.

Conclusion

Lp(a) level and small KIV-2 copy number are risk factors for CAHD in the Chinese Han population; furthermore, elevated Lp(a) may gauge the type of coronary plaque.

Update on the laboratory investigation of dyslipidemias

The role of the clinical laboratory is evolving to provide more information to clinicians to assess cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and target therapy more effectively. Current routine methods to measure LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C), the Friedewald calculation, ultracentrifugation, electrophoresis and homogeneous direct methods have established limitations. Studies suggest that LDL and HDL size or particle concentration are alternative methods to predict future CVD risk. At this time there is no consensus role for lipoprotein particle or subclasses in CVD risk assessment. LDL and HDL particle concentration are measured by several methods, namely gradient gel electrophoresis, ultracentrifugation-vertical auto profile, nuclear magnetic resonance and ion mobility. It has been suggested that HDL functional assays may be better predictors of CVD risk. To assess the issue of lipoprotein subclasses/particles and HDL function as potential CVD risk markers robust, simple, validated analytical methods are required. In patients with small dense LDL particles, even a perfect measure of LDL-C will not reflect LDL particle concentration. Non-HDL-C is an alternative measurement and includes VLDL and CM remnant cholesterol and LDL-C. However, apolipoprotein B measurement may more accurately reflect LDL particle numbers. Non-fasting lipid measurements have many practical advantages. Defining thresholds for treatment with new measurements of CVD risk remain a challenge. In families with genetic variants, ApoCIII and lipoprotein (a) may be additional risk factors. Recognition of familial causes of dyslipidemias and diagnosis in childhood will result in early treatment. This review discusses the limitations in current laboratory technologies to predict CVD risk and reviews the evidence for emergent approaches using newer biomarkers in clinical practice.

Lipoprotein(a) Levels in Patients With Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Circulating markers relevant to the development of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are currently required. Lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), is considered a candidate marker associated with the presence of AAA. The present meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between circulating Lp(a) levels and the presence of AAA. The PubMed-based search was conducted up to April 30, 2015, to identify the studies focusing on Lp(a) levels in patients with AAA and controls. Quantitative data synthesis was performed using a random effects model, with standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) as summary statistics. Overall, 9 studies were identified. After a combined analysis, patients with AAA were found to have a significantly higher level of Lp(a) compared to the controls (SMD: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.41-1.33, P < .001). This result remained robust in the sensitivity analysis, and its significance was not influenced after omitting each of the included studies from the meta-analysis. The present meta-analysis confirmed a higher level of circulating Lp(a) in patients with AAA compared to controls. High Lp(a) levels can be associated with the presence of AAA, and Lp(a) may be a marker in screening for AAA. Further studies are needed to establish the clinical utility of measuring Lp(a) in the prevention and management of AAA.

Evidence-based assessment of lipoprotein(a) as a risk biomarker for cardiovascular diseases - Some answers and still many questions

The present article is aimed at outlining the current state of knowledge regarding the clinical value of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) as a marker of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk by summarizing the results of recent clinical studies, meta-analyses and systematic reviews. The literature supports the predictive value of Lp(a) on CVD outcomes, although the effect size is modest. Lp(a) would also appear to have an effect on cerebrovascular outcomes, however the effect appears even smaller than that for CVD outcomes. Consideration of apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) isoforms and LPA genetics in relation to the simple assessment of Lp(a) concentration may enhance clinical practice in vascular medicine. We also describe recent advances in Lp(a) research (including therapies) and highlight areas where further research is needed such as the measurement of Lp(a) and its involvement in additional pathophysiological processes.

Impact of L-carnitine on plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

We aimed to assess the impact of L-carnitine on plasma Lp(a) concentrations through systematic review and meta-analysis of available RCTs. The literature search included selected databases up to 31^st January 2015. Meta-analysis was performed using fixed-effects or random-effect model according to I² statistic. Effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The meta-analysis showed a significant reduction of Lp(a) levels following L-carnitine supplementation (WMD: −8.82 mg/dL, 95% CI: −10.09, −7.55, p < 0.001). When the studies were categorized according to the route of administration, a significant reduction in plasma Lp(a) concentration was observed with oral (WMD: −9.00 mg/dL, 95% CI: −10.29, −7.72, p < 0.001) but not intravenous L-carnitine (WMD: −2.91 mg/dL, 95% CI: −10.22, 4.41, p = 0.436). The results of the meta-regression analysis showed that the pooled estimate is independent of L-carnitine dose (slope: −0.30; 95% CI: −4.19, 3.59; p = 0.878) and duration of therapy (slope: 0.18; 95% CI: −0.22, 0.59; p = 0.374). In conclusion, the meta-analysis suggests a significant Lp(a) lowering by oral L-carnitine supplementation. Taking into account the limited number of available Lp(a)-targeted drugs, L-carnitine might be an effective alternative to effectively reduce Lp(a). Prospective outcome trials will be required to fully elucidate the clinical value and safety of oral L-carnitine supplementation.

Lipoprotein(a) predicts the development of diabetic retinopathy in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has mainly been considered to be a predictor of the incidence of cardiovascular disease. In addition, previous studies have shown potential linkage between Lp(a) and diabetic microvascular complications.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the incidence and risk factors for the development of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A total of 787 patients with type 2 diabetes without DR were consecutively enrolled and followed up prospectively. Retinopathy evaluation was annually performed by ophthalmologists. The main outcome was new onset of DR.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time was 11.1 years. Patients in the DR group had a longer duration of diabetes (P < .001), higher baseline HbA1c (P < .001), higher albuminuria level (P = .033), and higher level of Lp(a) (P = .005). After adjusting for sex, age, diabetes duration, presence of hypertension, renal function, LDL cholesterol, mean HbA1c, and medications, the development of DR was significantly associated with the serum Lp(a) level (HR 1.57, 95% confidence interval [1.11-2.24]; P = .012, comparing the 4th vs 1st quartile of Lp(a)). The patient group with the highest quartile range of Lp(a) and mean HbA1c levels ≥7.0% had an HR of 5.09 (95% confidence interval [2.63-9.84]; P < .001) for developing DR compared with patients with lower levels of both factors.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective cohort study, we demonstrated that the DR was independently associated with the serum Lp(a) level in patients with type 2 diabetes.

A Systematic Literature Review of the Association of Lipoprotein(a) and Autoimmune Diseases and Atherosclerosis

Objective. To investigate the association of lipoprotein(a) and atherosclerosis-related autoimmune diseases, to provide information on possible pathophysiologic mechanisms, and to give recommendations for Lp(a) determination and therapeutic options. Methods. We performed a systematic review of English language citations referring to the keywords "Lp(a)" AND "autoimmune disease" AND "atherosclerosis," "Lp(a)" AND "immune system" OR "antiphospholipid (Hughes) syndrome (APS)" OR "rheumatoid arthritis" OR "Sjögren's syndrome" OR "systemic lupus erythematosus" OR "systemic sclerosis" OR "systemic vasculitis" published between 1991 and 2011 using Medline database. Results. 22 out of 65 found articles were identified as relevant. Lp(a) association was highest in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), moderate in APS and lowest in systemic sclerosis (SSc). There was no association found between Lp(a) and systemic vasculitis or Sjögren's syndrome. Conclusion. Immune reactions are highly relevant in the pathophysiology of atherosclerosis, and patients with specific autoimmune diseases are at high risk for CVD. Elevated Lp(a) is an important risk factor for premature atherosclerosis and high Lp(a) levels are also associated with autoimmune diseases. Anti-Lp(a)-antibodies might be a possible explanation. Therapeutic approaches thus far include niacin, Lp(a)-apheresis, farnesoid x-receptor-agonists, and CETP-inhibitors being currently under investigation.

Antisense therapy in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia

Cardiovascular disease, the leading causes of death worldwide, is a "preventable" pathology, so that accessible and affordable interventions should be established to target the leading risk factors, including hypercholesterolemia. Although statin based therapy is commonplace in primary and secondary prevention, several economical, clinical and safety issues have been raised, so that there is ongoing research into new, safer and more effective agents to be used alone or in combination with existing cardiovascular drugs. Antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) are a class of short, single-stranded synthetic analogs of nucleic acids that bind to a target mRNA, preventing its translation and thereby inhibiting protein synthesis. Apolipoprotein B-100 (apoB-100) is the major protein moiety of the atherogenic lipoproteins LDL and Lp(a), thus representing the ideal target for antisense therapy. Two anti-apoB100 (i.e., ISIS 301012 and ISIS 147764) and one anti-apolipoprotein(a) (i.e., ASO 144367) have already been developed and tested in some animal and human trials, providing promising results in terms of significant reduction of both LDL and Lp(a). Nevertheless, some safety issues - especially injection-site reactions and potential hepatotoxicity - have also emerged, thereby slowing down the large clinical diffusion of these agents. The present article provides an update on clinical data regarding antisense therapy targeting human apolipoproteins, highlighting the benefits and the potential risks of this innovative therapeutic approach for hypercholesterolemia and hyperlipoproteinemia(a).