Elevated Lipoprotein(a) and Risk of Aortic Valve Stenosis in the General Population

Association Between Lipoprotein(a) and Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease and High-Risk Plaque: Insights From the PROMISE Trial

BACKGROUND

The role of lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a), in the development of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and high-risk plaque (HRP) among primary prevention patients with stable chest pain is unknown. We sought to evaluate the relationship of Lp(a), independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), with the presence of obstructive CAD and HRP in an attempt to improve understanding of the residual risk imparted by Lp(a) on CAD.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis among PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) Trial participants who had coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) performed and Lp(a) data available. Lp(a) concentration was analyzed as a binary variable with elevated Lp(a) defined as ≥50 mg/dL. "Stenosis ≥ 50%" was defined as ≥50% coronary artery stenosis in any epicardial vessel, and "Stenosis ≥ 70%" was defined as ≥70% coronary artery stenosis in any epicardial vessel and/or ≥50% left main coronary artery stenosis. HRP was defined as presence of plaque on CTA imaging with evidence of positive remodeling, low CT attenuation, or napkin ring sign. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate the association between Lp(a) and the outcomes of obstructive CAD and HRP stratified by LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL vs. <100 mg/dL.

RESULTS

Of the 1,815 patients who underwent CTA and had Lp(a) data available, those with elevated Lp(a) were more commonly female and Black than those with lower Lp(a). Elevated Lp(a) was associated with both Stenosis ≥ 50% (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.14-2.15, p=0.005) and Stenosis ≥ 70% (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.34-3.11, p=0.0008) in multivariate models, and this relationship was not modified by LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL vs. <100 mg/dL (interaction p>0.4). Elevated Lp(a) was not associated with HRP when adjusted for obstructive CAD.

CONCLUSIONS

This study of patients without known CAD found that elevated Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL was independently associated with the presence of obstructive CAD regardless of controlled vs. uncontrolled LDL-C, but was not independently associated with HRP when Stenosis ≥ 50% or ≥ 70% was accounted for. Further research is warranted to delineate the role of Lp(a) in the residual risk for ASCVD that patients may have despite optimal LDL-C lowering.

Lipoprotein(a): Are we ready for large-scale clinical trials?

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are currently the most important disease threatening human health, which may be due to the high incidence of risk factors including hyperlipidemia. With the deepening of research on lipoprotein, lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] has been shown to be an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases and calcified aortic valve stenosis and is now an unaddressed "residual risk" in current CVD management. Accurate measurement of Lp(a) concentration is the basis for diagnosis and treatment of high Lp(a). This review summarized the Lp(a) structure, discussed the current problems in clinical measurement of plasma Lp(a) concentration and the effects of existing lipid-lowering therapies on Lp(a).

Lipoprotein(a) and Calcific Aortic Valve Stenosis Progression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

There are currently no pharmacological treatments available to slow hemodynamic progression of aortic stenosis. Plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations predict incident aortic stenosis but its association with hemodynamic progression is controversial.

Objective

To determine the association between plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations and hemodynamic progression in patients with aortic stenosis.

Design, Settings and Participants

The study included patients with aortic stenosis from 5 longitudinal clinical studies conducted from March 2001 to March 2023 in Canada and the UK. Of 757 total patients, data on plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations and rates of hemodynamic progression assessed by echocardiography were available for 710, who were included in this analysis. Data were analyzed from March 2023 to April 2024.

Exposure

Cohort-specific plasma lipoprotein(a) concentration tertiles.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Hemodynamic aortic stenosis progression on echocardiography as assessed by annualized change in peak aortic jet velocity, mean transvalvular gradient, and aortic valve area.

Results

Among the included patients, 497 (70%) were male and 213 (30%) were female. The mean (SD) age was 65.2 (13.1) years. Patients in the top lipoprotein(a) tertile demonstrated 41% (estimate, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.13-1.75) faster progression of peak aortic jet velocity and 57% (estimate, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.18-2.10) faster progression of mean transvalvular gradient than patients in the bottom tertile. There was no evidence of heterogeneity across the individual cohorts. Progression of aortic valve area was comparable between groups (estimate, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.71-2.12). Similar results were observed when plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations were treated as a continuous variable.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, higher plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations were associated with faster rates of hemodynamic progression in patients with aortic stenosis. Lowering plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations warrants further investigation in the prevention and treatment of aortic stenosis.

Association between lipoprotein(a), LPA genetic risk score, aortic valve disease, and subsequent major adverse cardiovascular events

AIMS

Cohort studies have demonstrated associations between calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD) and Lp(a). As Lp(a) is almost entirely genetically determined, in this study, we aim to determine whether Lp(a), when predicted from genetic data, is associated with CAVD and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients undergoing coronary angiography between January 2012 and May 2013 were invited to participate in the study. Of 752 analysable participants, 446 had their Lp(a) measured and 703 had a calculable LPA genetic risk score (GRS). The primary outcomes were the presence of CAVD at baseline and MACE over a 7-year follow-up. The GRS explained 45% of variation in Lp(a). After adjustment for cardiac risk factors and coronary artery disease (CAD), the odds of CAVD increased with increasing Lp(a) [odds ratio (OR) 1.039 per 10-unit increase, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.022-1.057, P < 0.001] and GRS (OR 1.054 per 10-unit increase, 95% CI 1.024-1.086; P < 0.001). Lipoprotein(a) and the GRS as continuous variables were not associated with subsequent MACEs. A dichotomized GRS (>54) was associated with MACE, but this relationship became non-significant when CAD classification was added into the model (OR 1.333, 95% CI 0.927-1.912; P = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

An LPA GRS can explain 45% of variation in Lp(a) levels, and both Lp(a) and the GRS are associated with CAVD. An elevated GRS is associated with future cardiac events in a secondary risk setting, but, if the CAD status is known, it does not provide additional prognostic information.

Elevated lipoprotein(a) levels: A crucial determinant of cardiovascular disease risk and target for emerging therapies

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a significant global health challenge despite advancements in prevention and treatment. Elevated Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels have emerged as a crucial risk factor for CVD and aortic stenosis, affecting approximately 20 of the global population. Research over the last decade has established Lp(a) as an independent genetic contributor to CVD and aortic stenosis, beginning with Kare Berg's discovery in 1963. This has led to extensive exploration of its molecular structure and pathogenic roles. Despite the unknown physiological function of Lp(a), studies have shed light on its metabolism, genetics, and involvement in atherosclerosis, inflammation, and thrombosis. Epidemiological evidence highlights the link between high Lp(a) levels and increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Newly emerging therapies, including pelacarsen, zerlasiran, olpasiran, muvalaplin, and lepodisiran, show promise in significantly lowering Lp(a) levels, potentially transforming the management of cardiovascular disease. However, further research is essential to assess these novel therapies' long-term efficacy and safety, heralding a new era in cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment and providing hope for at-risk patients.

Lipoprotein(a) as a cardiovascular risk factor among patients with and without diabetes Mellitus: the Mass General Brigham Lp(a) Registry

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and Lp(a) are well-established predictors of coronary artery disease (CAD) outcomes. However, their combined association remains poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between elevated Lp(a) and DM with CAD outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the MGB Lp(a) Registry involving patients ≥ 18 years who underwent Lp(a) measurements between 2000 and 2019. Exclusion criteria were severe kidney dysfunction, malignant neoplasms, and prior atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The primary outcome was a combination of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (MI). Elevated Lp(a) was defined as > 90th percentile (≥ 216 nmol/L).

RESULTS

Among 6,238 patients who met the eligibility criteria, the median age was 54, 45% were women, and 12% had DM. Patients with DM were older, more frequently male, and had a higher prevalence of additional cardiovascular risk factors. Over a median follow-up of 12.9 years, patients with either DM or elevated Lp(a) experienced higher rates of the primary outcome. Notably, those with elevated Lp(a) had a higher incidence of the primary outcome regardless of their DM status. The annual event rates were as follows: No-DM and Lp(a) < 90th% - 0.6%; No-DM and Lp(a) > 90th% - 1.3%; DM and Lp(a) < 90th% - 1.9%; DM and Lp(a) > 90th% - 4.7% (p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, elevated Lp(a) remained independently associated with the primary outcome among both patients with DM (HR = 2.66 [95%CI: 1.55-4.58], p < 0.001) and those without DM (HR = 2.01 [95%CI: 1.48-2.74], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated Lp(a) constitutes an independent and incremental risk factor for CAD outcomes in patients with and without DM.

Lipoprotein(a) and Lung Function Are Associated in Older Adults: Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Analyses

While numerous studies have confirmed a causal association between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and cardiovascular diseases, only a few studies have assessed the relationship between Lp(a) and pulmonary health, with inconsistent findings regarding this topic. This study's aim was to examine whether levels of serum Lp(a) are associated with lung function in a dataset of relatively healthy older adults. We used longitudinal data collected at two time points 7.4 ± 1.5 years apart from 679 participants (52% women, 68 [65-71] years old) from the Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II). Multiple linear regression models adjusting for covariates were applied to examine the association between Lp(a) and lung function. The forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and the forced vital capacity (FVC) were higher in both men and women with higher Lp(a) levels. However, since this association between lung function parameters and Lp(a) was not supported by Mendelian randomization analyses using recent genome-wide association study data, these relationships should be investigated in future work, as the observed differences are, in part, considerable and potentially clinically relevant.

Consensus on lipoprotein(a) of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis. Literature review and recommendations for clinical practice

The irruption of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) in the study of cardiovascular risk factors is perhaps, together with the discovery and use of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (iPCSK9) inhibitor drugs, the greatest novelty in the field for decades. Lp(a) concentration (especially very high levels) has an undeniable association with certain cardiovascular complications, such as atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD) and aortic stenosis. However, there are several current limitations to both establishing epidemiological associations and specific pharmacological treatment. Firstly, the measurement of Lp(a) is highly dependent on the test used, mainly because of the characteristics of the molecule. Secondly, Lp(a) concentration is more than 80% genetically determined, so that, unlike other cardiovascular risk factors, it cannot be regulated by lifestyle changes. Finally, although there are many promising clinical trials with specific drugs to reduce Lp(a), currently only iPCSK9 (limited for use because of its cost) significantly reduces Lp(a). However, and in line with other scientific societies, the SEA considers that, with the aim of increasing knowledge about the contribution of Lp(a) to cardiovascular risk, it is relevant to produce a document containing the current status of the subject, recommendations for the control of global cardiovascular risk in people with elevated Lp(a) and recommendations on the therapeutic approach to patients with elevated Lp(a).

Relationship Between Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease and Lipoprotein (a) and Other Biomarkers

BACKGROUND

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) primarily affects the adult population and is closely related to obesity. The most severe form of MASLD, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), can progress to liver fibrosis. While lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is known to be associated with cardiovascular disease, its relationship with MASLD remains unclear. This study aims to determine the prevalence of MASLD in ambulatory patients and to explore the association between Lp(a) levels and advanced liver damage.

METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study included 130 patients older than 18 years seen in a healthcare center in Medellin, Colombia, between April 2023 and May 2024. Sociodemographic, clinical, and specific biomarker data were collected. Patients with cirrhosis, previous liver disease, frequent alcohol consumption, cancer, and other severe conditions were excluded. Continuous variables were analyzed using Student's t-tests or Mann-Whitney tests according to their distribution, and categorical variables were analyzed using contingency tables and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Of the 130 patients, 57.9% (n=73) had MASLD, with a higher prevalence in patients with obesity (80%, n=32). Lp(a) levels were abnormally high in 43.1% (n=31) of patients; however, a weak but significant inverse correlation was found between Lp(a) levels and the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score, which is used to assess the severity of liver fibrosis. Patients with MASLD had significantly lower high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and vitamin D levels, and higher levels of gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the significant prevalence of MASLD in outpatients and its relationship with various biomarkers, including Lp(a), HDL, vitamin D, and GGT. Although the findings suggest a possible utility of Lp(a) as a biomarker in MASLD, longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these associations and clarify their role in liver disease progression. The study's limitations include its cross-sectional nature and potential selection bias, indicating the need for further research to validate these results.

Therapeutic Potential of Lipoprotein(a) Inhibitors

Increasing evidence has implicated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the causality of atherosclerosis and calcific aortic stenosis. This has stimulated immense interest in developing novel approaches to integrating Lp(a) into the setting of cardiovascular prevention. Current guidelines advocate universal measurement of Lp(a) levels, with the potential to influence cardiovascular risk assessment and triage of higher-risk patients to use of more intensive preventive therapies. In parallel, considerable activity has been undertaken to develop novel therapeutics with the potential to achieve selective and substantial reductions in Lp(a) levels. Early studies of antisense oligonucleotides (e.g., mipomersen, pelacarsen), RNA interference (e.g., olpasiran, zerlasiran, lepodisiran) and small molecule inhibitors (e.g., muvalaplin) have demonstrated effective Lp(a) lowering and good tolerability. These agents are moving forward in clinical development, in order to determine whether Lp(a) lowering reduces cardiovascular risk. The results of these studies have the potential to transform our approach to the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

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.

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).

Association of Lipoprotein (a) and Standard Modifiable Cardiovascular Risk Factors With Incident Myocardial Infarction: The Mass General Brigham Lp(a) Registry

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a robust predictor of coronary heart disease outcomes, with targeted therapies currently under investigation. We aimed to evaluate the association of high Lp(a) with standard modifiable risk factors (SMuRFs) for incident first acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective study used the Mass General Brigham Lp(a) Registry, which included patients aged ≥18 years with an Lp(a) measurement between 2000 and 2019. Exclusion criteria were severe kidney dysfunction, malignant neoplasm, and prior known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking were considered SMuRFs. High Lp(a) was defined as >90th percentile, and low Lp(a) was defined as <50th percentile. The primary outcome was fatal or nonfatal AMI. A combination of natural language processing algorithms, International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, and laboratory data was used to identify the outcome and covariates. A total of 6238 patients met the eligibility criteria. The median age was 54 (interquartile range, 43-65) years, and 45% were women. Overall, 23.7% had no SMuRFs, and 17.8% had ≥3 SMuRFs. Over a median follow-up of 8.8 (interquartile range, 4.2-12.8) years, the incidence of AMI increased gradually, with higher number of SMuRFs among patients with high (log-rank P=0.031) and low Lp(a) (log-rank P<0.001). Across all SMuRF subgroups, the incidence of AMI was significantly higher for patients with high Lp(a) versus low Lp(a). The risk of high Lp(a) was similar to having 2 SMuRFs. Following adjustment for confounders and number of SMuRFs, high Lp(a) remained significantly associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 2.9 [95% CI, 2.0-4.3]; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with no prior atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, high Lp(a) is associated with significantly higher risk for first AMI regardless of the number of SMuRFs.

Single Ascending and Multiple-Dose Trial of Zerlasiran, a Short Interfering RNA Targeting Lipoprotein(a): A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Lipoprotein(a) is a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic stenosis, with no pharmacological treatments approved by regulatory authorities.

Objectives

To assess the safety and tolerability of zerlasiran, a short interfering RNA targeting hepatic synthesis of apolipoprotein(a), and effects on serum concentrations of lipoprotein(a).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Single- and multiple-dose study in healthy participants and patients with stable ASCVD, respectively, with lipoprotein(a) serum concentrations greater than 150 nmol/L, conducted at 7 research sites in the US, the Netherlands, UK, and Australia between November 18, 2020, and February 8, 2023, with last follow-up on August 23, 2023.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to receive (1) a single subcutaneous dose of placebo (n = 8), zerlasiran 300 mg (n = 6) or 600 mg (n = 6); or (2) 2 doses of placebo (n = 9), zerlasiran 200 mg (n = 9) at a 4-week interval or 300 mg (n = 9) or 450 mg (n = 9) at an 8-week interval.

Main Outcomes Measures

The primary outcome was safety and tolerability. Secondary outcomes included serum levels of zerlasiran and effects on lipoprotein(a) serum concentrations.

Results

Among 37 patients in the multiple-dose group (mean age, 56 [SD, 10.4] years; 15 [42%] women), 36 completed the trial. Among 14 participants with extended follow-up after single doses, 13 completed the trial. There were no serious adverse events. Median baseline lipoprotein(a) concentrations in the multiple-dose group were 288 (IQR, 199-352) nmol/L. Median changes in lipoprotein(a) concentration at 365 days after single doses were 14% (IQR, 13% to 15%) for the placebo group, -30% (IQR, -51% to -18%) for the 300 mg of zerlasiran group, and -29% (IQR, -39% to -7%) for the 600-mg dose group. After 2 doses, maximal median changes in lipoprotein(a) concentration were 19 (IQR, -17 to 28) nmol/L for the placebo group, -258 (IQR, -289 to -188) nmol/L for the 200 mg of zerlasiran group, -310 (IQR, -368 to -274) nmol/L for the 300-mg dose group, and -242 (IQR, -343 to -182) nmol/L for the 450-mg dose group, with maximal median percent change of 7% (IQR, -4% to 21%), -97% (IQR, -98% to -95%), -98% (IQR, -99% to -97%), and -99% (IQR, -99% to -98%), respectively, attenuating to 0.3% (IQR, -2% to 21%), -60% (IQR, -71% to -40%), -90% (IQR, -91% to -74%), and -89% (IQR, -91% to -76%) 201 days after administration.

Conclusions

Zerlasiran was well tolerated and reduced lipoprotein(a) concentrations with infrequent administration.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04606602.

Functional interrogation of cellular Lp(a) uptake by genome-scale CRISPR screening

An elevated level of lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), in the bloodstream has been causally linked to the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and calcific aortic valve stenosis. Steady state levels of circulating lipoproteins are modulated by their rate of clearance, but the identity of the Lp(a) uptake receptor(s) has been controversial. In this study, we performed a genome-scale CRISPR screen to functionally interrogate all potential Lp(a) uptake regulators in HuH7 cells. Strikingly, the top positive and negative regulators of Lp(a) uptake in our screen were LDLR and MYLIP, encoding the LDL receptor and its ubiquitin ligase IDOL, respectively. We also found a significant correlation for other genes with established roles in LDLR regulation. No other gene products, including those previously proposed as Lp(a) receptors, exhibited a significant effect on Lp(a) uptake in our screen. We validated the functional influence of LDLR expression on HuH7 Lp(a) uptake, confirmed in vitro binding between the LDLR extracellular domain and purified Lp(a), and detected an association between loss-of-function LDLR variants and increased circulating Lp(a) levels in the UK Biobank cohort. Together, our findings support a central role for the LDL receptor in mediating Lp(a) uptake by hepatocytes.

Clinical-epidemiological analysis of patients with elevated lipoprotein A in a third level hospital

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to describe the clinical and epidemiological characteristics of our patients with elevated Lp(a).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted on 316 patients with elevated Lp(a) (>125 nmol/L) in a random sample between January and August 2022. We measured epidemiological, anthropometric, clinical and laboratory variables (lipid metabolism parameters, carbohydrates and hormones).

RESULTS

Mean age of our sample subject's was 59 ± 15 years with 56% males. The average BMI was 27.6 kg/m2 (71% with elevated BMI). Elevated waist circumference was observed in 54.1% of men and 77.8% of women. 48% had hypertension, 30.7% had diabetes mellitus and 91.5% dyslipidemia. Only 39.7% of the patients had never smoked. The mean values of total cholesterol were 158 ± 45 mg/dl, LDL was 81 ± 39 mg/dl, HDL was 53 ± 17 mg/dl, Triglycerides were 127 ± 61 mg/dl, and Lp(a) was 260 ± 129 nmol/L. Regarding lipid lowering treatment, 89% were on statins, 68.6% on ezetimibe, and 13.7% on PCSK9 inhibitors. 177 patients (57,7%) had established cardiovascular disease (CVD), 16.3% had polyvascular disease, 11.7% had subclinical CVD, and 30.6% had no known CVD. Among patients with established CVD, 174 (98.3%) were on lipid-lowering treatment (97.2% on statins) and 86.4% were on antiplatelet therapy. The mean age of cardiovascular events was 55 ± 12 years in males and 60 ± 11 years in females. 65,1% of female and 56,2% of male patients suffered an early cardiovascular event.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with elevated Lp(a) are at very high cardiovascular risk, particularly for early cardiovascular disease.

Long-term lipoprotein apheresis reduces cardiovascular events in high-risk patients with isolated lipoprotein(a) elevation

BACKGROUND

Elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an established risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). To date, the only approved treatment to lower Lp(a) is lipoprotein apheresis (LA). Previous studies have demonstrated that LA is effective in reducing cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and/or Lp(a). Here we report our long-term experience with LA and its effectiveness in reducing CVD events in patients with elevated Lp(a).

METHODS

This retrospective open-label, single-center study included 25 individuals with Lp(a) elevation >60 mg/dL and LDL-C < 2.59 mmol/L who had indication for LA. The primary endpoint of this study was the incidence of any CV event (determined by medical records) after initiation of LA.

RESULTS

Mean LA treatment duration was 7.1 years (min-max: 1-19 years). Median Lp(a) was reduced from 95.0 to 31.1 mg/dL after LA (-67.3 %, p < 0.0001). Mean LDL-C was reduced from 1.85 to 0.76 mmol/L after LA (-58.9 %, p < 0.0001). Prior LA, 81 CV events occurred in total (0.87 events/patient/year). During LA, 49 CV events occurred in total (0.24 events/patient/year; -0.63, p = 0.001). Yearly major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate was reduced from 0.34 to 0.006 (-0.33, p = 0.0002). Similar results were obtained when considering only individuals with baseline LDL-C below 1.42 mmol/L.

CONCLUSION

In this observational study of a heterogeneous CV high-risk cohort with elevated Lp(a), LA reduced Lp(a) levels and was paralleled by a decrease in CV events and MACE. We recommend LA for patients with high Lp(a) who still have CV events despite optimal lipid-lowering medication and lifestyle changes.

Prevalence of elevated lipoprotein(a) in cardiac rehabilitation patients - results from a large-scale multicentre registry in Germany

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an independent risk factor for myocardial infarction and aortic valve stenosis. European guidelines recommend assessing it at least once in a lifetime, particularly in premature atherosclerotic heart disease.

METHODS

A non-interventional registry was conducted at MEDIAN rehabilitation facilities in Germany to assess the frequency of Lp(a) testing in referring acute care hospitals and the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) levels in aortic valve stenosis or premature myocardial infarction. All consecutive patients referred after coronary intervention or aortic valve surgery were included in four cohorts: aortic valve intervention (cohort 1), current/previous myocardial infarction at < 60 years of age (cohorts 2a/2b), and myocardial infarction at ≥ 60 years of age (control).

RESULTS

The analysis included 3393 patient records (cohort 1, n = 1063; cohort 2a, n = 1351; cohort 2b, n = 381; control, n = 598). Lp(a) had been determined at the referring hospital in 0.19% (cohort 1), 4.96% (cohort 2a), 2.36% (cohort 2b), and 2.01% (control) of patients. Lp(a) levels were > 50 mg/dL or > 125 nmol/L in 28.79% (cohort 1), 29.90% (cohort 2a), and 36.48% (cohort 2b; p < 0.001) compared to 24.25% (control). Family history of premature cardiovascular disease was reported in 13.45% (cohort 1), 38.56% (cohort 2a), and 32.81% (cohort 2b) compared to 17.89% (control; p < 0.05 for each comparison).

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) had been rarely assessed in acute management of aortic valve stenosis or premature myocardial infarction despite expanding scientific evidence and guideline recommendation. Given the above-average incidence of elevated Lp(a) levels, awareness for Lp(a) has to increase substantially to better identify and manage high-risk patients.

Novel Therapies for Lipoprotein(a): Update in Cardiovascular Risk Estimation and Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lipoprotein(a) is an important causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease but currently no available medication effectively reduces lipoprotein(a). This review discusses recent findings regarding lipoprotein(a) as a causal risk factor and therapeutic target in cardiovascular disease, it reviews current clinical recommendations, and summarizes new lipoprotein(a) lowering drugs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Epidemiological and genetic studies have established lipoprotein(a) as a causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease and mortality. Guidelines worldwide now recommend lipoprotein(a) to be measured once in a lifetime, to offer patients with high lipoprotein(a) lifestyle advise and initiate other cardiovascular medications. Clinical trials including antisense oligonucleotides, small interfering RNAs, and an oral lipoprotein(a) inhibitor have shown great effect on lowering lipoprotein(a) with reductions up to 106%, without any major adverse effects. Recent clinical phase 1 and 2 trials show encouraging results and ongoing phase 3 trials will hopefully result in the introduction of specific lipoprotein(a) lowering drugs to lower the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Prevalence and impact of diabetes in patients with valvular heart disease

This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of diabetes in valvular heart disease (VHD), as well as the relationship of diabetes with severity of valvular lesions and clinical outcome. A total of 11,862 patients with significant (≥moderate) VHD from the China Valvular Heart Disease study were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for heart failure, and myocardial infarction during two-year follow-up. The prevalence of diabetes was 14.5% (1,721/11,862) in VHD. After adjusting for patients' demographics, diabetes was associated with a significantly lower risk of severe valvular lesion in aortic regurgitation and mitral regurgitation (MR). In multivariable analysis, diabetes was identified as an independent predictor of two-year outcome in patients with MR (hazard ratio: 1.345, 95% confidence interval: 1.069-1.692, p = 0.011). More efforts should be made to enhance our understanding and improve outcomes of concomitant VHD and diabetes.

Lipoprotein(a) and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients With or Without Baseline Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, whether the optimal Lp(a) threshold for risk assessment should differ based on baseline ASCVD status is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the association between Lp(a) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among patients with and without baseline ASCVD.

METHODS

We studied a retrospective cohort of patients with Lp(a) measured at 2 medical centers in Boston, Massachusetts, from 2000 to 2019. To assess the association of Lp(a) with incident MACE (nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI], nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular mortality), Lp(a) percentile groups were generated with the reference group set at the first to 50th Lp(a) percentiles. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to assess the association of Lp(a) percentile group with MACE.

RESULTS

Overall, 16,419 individuals were analyzed with a median follow-up of 11.9 years. Among the 10,181 (62%) patients with baseline ASCVD, individuals in the 71st to 90th percentile group had a 21% increased hazard of MACE (adjusted HR: 1.21; P < 0.001), which was similar to that of individuals in the 91st to 100th group (adjusted HR: 1.26; P < 0.001). Among the 6,238 individuals without established ASCVD, there was a continuously higher hazard of MACE with increasing Lp(a), and individuals in the 91st to 100th Lp(a) percentile group had the highest relative risk with an adjusted HR of 1.93 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large, contemporary U.S. cohort, elevated Lp(a) is independently associated with long-term MACE among individuals with and without baseline ASCVD. Our results suggest that the threshold for risk assessment may be different in primary vs secondary prevention cohorts.

Lipoprotein a - Lp(a)

Lp(a) is a genetically determined, heritable, independent and causal risk factor for ASCVD. About 1 in 5 people worldwide have elevated Lp(a) (>50 mg/dL or >125 nmol/L) whereas in Indians it is 25 %. Epidemiological, genome-wide association and mendelian randomization studies have demonstrated an association between elevated Lp(a) levels and increased incidence of myocardial infarction, aortic valve stenosis, ischemic stroke, heart failure, CV and all-cause mortality. The increased Lp(a)-mediated CV risk is mediated by pro-inflammatory, pro-thrombotic and pro-atherogenic processes, leading to progression of atherosclerosis and increased risk of thrombosis. Lp(a) level reaches peak by 5 years of age and remains stable over time. Levels are not much influenced by dietary and environmental factors but it can vary in certain clinical situations like thyroid diseases, chronic kidney disease, inflammation and sepsis. It should be measured at least once in life time. Cascade testing for high Lp(a) is recommended in the settings of FH, family history of (very) high Lp(a), and personal or family history of ASCVD. In the absence of specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies, comprehensive risk factor management is recommended as per guidelines for individuals with elevated Lp(a). PCSK9 inhibitors and Inclisiran reduce Lp(a) by 25%. Pelacarsen is an antisense oligonucleotide and is found to reduce Lp(a) by 80%. In a recent Indian study of 1,021 CAD patients, presence of elevated Lp(a) (>50 mg/dL) correlated with severe angiographic disease. 37% of ACS patients exhibited elevated Lp(a) and it was higher in young CAD patients with FH (43%).

Consideration and Application of Lipoprotein(a) in the Risk Assessment of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Adults

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is an low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-like particle in which apolipoprotein (apo) B is covalently bound to a plasminogen-like molecule called apo(a). A High level of Lp(a) has been demonstrated to be an independent, causal, and prevalent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), as well as aortic valve disease, through mechanisms that promote atherogenesis, inflammation, and thrombosis. With reliable and accessible assays, Lp(a) level has been established to be associated linearly with the risk for ASCVD. The 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Dyslipidemia Guidelines recommend measuring an Lp(a) level once in a person's lifetime as part of the initial lipid screening. The aim of this review is to provide an update and overview of the utility and application of Lp(a) level in the assessment and treatment of adults at risk for ASCVD, consistent with this guideline recommendation.

Digital droplet PCR versus quantitative PCR for lipoprotein (a) kringle IV type 2 repeat polymorphism genetic characterization

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level variability, related to atherothrombotic risk increase, is mainly attributed to LPA gene, encoding apolipoprotein(a), with kringle IV type 2 (KIV2) copy number variation (CNV) acting as the primary genetic determinant. Genetic characterization of Lp(a) is in continuous growth; nevertheless, the peculiar structural characteristics of this variant constitute a significant challenge to the development of effective detection methods. The aim of the study was to compare quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) and digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) in the evaluation of KIV2 repeat polymorphism.

METHODS

We analysed 100 subjects tested for cardiovascular risk in which Lp(a) plasma levels were assessed.

RESULTS

Correlation analysis between CNV values obtained with the two methods was slightly significant (R = 0.413, p = 0.00002), because of the wider data dispersion in qPCR compared with ddPCR. Internal controls C1, C2 and C3 measurements throughout different experimental sessions revealed the superior stability of ddPCR, which was supported by a reduced intra/inter-assay coefficient of variation determined in this method compared to qPCR. A significant inverse correlation between Lp(a) levels and CNV values was confirmed for both techniques, but it was higher when evaluated by ddPCR than qPCR (R = -0.393, p = 0.000053 vs R = -0.220, p = 0.028, respectively). When dividing subjects into two groups according to 500 mg/L Lp(a) cut-off value, a significantly lower number of KIV2 repeats emerged among subjects with greater Lp(a) levels, with stronger evidence in ddPCR than in qPCR (p = 0.000013 and p = 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Data obtained support a better performance of ddPCR in the evaluation of KIV2 repeat polymorphism.

Role of lipoprotein(a) concentrations in bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration

OBJECTIVES

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is associated with an increased incidence of native aortic stenosis, which shares similar pathological mechanisms with bioprosthetic aortic valve (bAV) degeneration. However, evidence regarding the role of Lp(a) concentrations in bAV degeneration is lacking. This study aims to evaluate the association between Lp(a) concentrations and bAV degeneration.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicentre study, patients who underwent a bAV replacement between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020 and had a Lp(a) measurement were included. Echocardiography follow-up was performed to determine the presence of bioprosthetic valve degeneration, which was defined as an increase >10 mm Hg in mean gradient from baseline with concomitant decrease in effective orifice area and Doppler Velocity Index, or new moderate/severe prosthetic regurgitation. Levels of Lp(a) were compared between patients with and without degeneration and Cox regression analysis was performed to investigate the association between Lp(a) levels and bioprosthetic valve degeneration.

RESULTS

In total, 210 cases were included (mean age 74.1±9.4 years, 72.4% males). Median time between baseline and follow-up echocardiography was 4.4 (IQR 3.7) years. Bioprostheses degeneration was observed in 33 (15.7%) patients at follow-up. Median serum levels of Lp(a) were significantly higher in patients affected by degeneration versus non-affected cases: 50.0 (IQR 72.0) vs 15.6 (IQR 48.6) mg/dL, p=0.002. In the regression analysis, high Lp(a) levels (≥30 mg/dL) were associated with degeneration both in a univariable analysis (HR 3.6, 95% CI 1.7 to 7.6, p=0.001) and multivariable analysis adjusted by other risk factors for bioprostheses degeneration (HR 4.4, 95% CI 1.9 to 10.4, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

High serum Lp(a) is associated with bAV degeneration. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings and to investigate whether lowering Lp(a) levels could slow bioprostheses degradation.

LP(a): Structure, Genetics, Associated Cardiovascular Risk, and Emerging Therapeutics

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a molecule bound to apolipoprotein(a) with some similarity to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), which has been found to be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Lp(a) appears to induce inflammation, atherogenesis, and thrombosis. Approximately 20% of the world's population has increased Lp(a) levels, determined predominantly by genetics. Current clinical practices for the management of dyslipidemia are ineffective in lowering Lp(a) levels. Evolving RNA-based therapeutics, such as the antisense oligonucleotide pelacarsen and small interfering RNA olpasiran, have shown promising results in reducing Lp(a) levels. Phase III pivotal cardiovascular outcome trials [Lp(a)HORIZON and OCEAN(a)] are ongoing to evaluate their efficacy in secondary prevention of major cardiovascular events in patients with elevated Lp(a). The future of cardiovascular residual risk reduction may transition to a personalized approach where further lowering of either LDL-C, triglycerides, or Lp(a) is selected after high-intensity statin therapy based on the individual risk profile and preferences of each patient.

Remnant cholesterol and the risk of aortic valve calcium progression: insights from the MESA study

BACKGROUND

Remnant cholesterol (RC) is implicated in the risk of cardiovascular disease. However, comprehensive population-based studies elucidating its association with aortic valve calcium (AVC) progression are limited, rendering its precise role in AVC ambiguous.

METHODS

From the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis database, we included 5597 individuals (61.8 ± 10.1 years and 47.5% men) without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at baseline for analysis. RC was calculated as total cholesterol minus high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), as estimated by the Martin/Hopkins equation. Using the adjusted Cox regression analyses, we examined the relationships between RC levels and AVC progression. Furthermore, we conducted discordance analyses to evaluate the relative AVC risk in RC versus LDL-C discordant/concordant groups.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 2.4 ± 0.9 years, 568 (10.1%) participants exhibited AVC progression. After adjusting for traditional cardiovascular risk factors, the HRs (95% CIs) for AVC progression comparing the second, third, and fourth quartiles of RC levels with the first quartile were 1.195 (0.925-1.545), 1.322 (1.028-1.701) and 1.546 (1.188-2.012), respectively. Notably, the discordant high RC/low LDL-C group demonstrated a significantly elevated risk of AVC progression compared to the concordant low RC/LDL-C group based on their medians (HR, 1.528 [95% CI 1.201-1.943]). This pattern persisted when clinical LDL-C threshold was set at 100 and 130 mg/dL. The association was consistently observed across various sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-free individuals, elevated RC is identified as a residual risk for AVC progression, independent of traditional cardiovascular risk factors. The causal relationship of RC to AVC and the potential for targeted RC reduction in primary prevention require deeper exploration.

Mendelian Randomization as a Tool for Cardiovascular Research: A Review

Importance

Mendelian randomization (MR) is a statistical approach that has become increasingly popular in the field of cardiovascular disease research. It offers a way to infer potentially causal relationships between risk factors and outcomes using observational data, which is particularly important in cases where randomized clinical trials are not feasible or ethical. With the growing availability of large genetic data sets, MR has become a powerful and accessible tool for studying the risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

Observations

MR uses genetic variation associated with modifiable exposures or risk factors to mitigate biases that affect traditional observational study designs. The approach uses genetic variants that are randomly assigned at conception as proxies for exposure to a risk factor, mimicking a randomized clinical trial. By comparing the outcomes of individuals with different genetic variants, researchers may draw causal inferences about the effects of specific risk factors on cardiovascular disease, provided assumptions are met that address (1) the association between each genetic variant and risk factor and (2) the association of the genetic variants with confounders and (3) that the association between each genetic variant and the outcome only occurs through the risk factor. Like other observational designs, MR has limitations, which include weak instruments that are not strongly associated with the exposure of interest, linkage disequilibrium where genetic instruments influence the outcome via correlated rather than direct effects, overestimated genetic associations, and selection and survival biases. In addition, many genetic databases and MR studies primarily include populations genetically similar to European reference populations; improved diversity of participants in these databases and studies is critically needed.

Conclusions and Relevance

This review provides an overview of MR methodology, including assumptions, strengths, and limitations. Several important applications of MR in cardiovascular disease research are highlighted, including the identification of drug targets, evaluation of potential cardiovascular risk factors, as well as emerging methodology. Overall, while MR alone can never prove a causal relationship beyond reasonable doubt, MR offers a rigorous approach for investigating possible causal relationships in observational data and has the potential to transform our understanding of the etiology and treatment of cardiovascular disease.

Lp(a) and risk of cardiovascular disease - A review of existing evidence and emerging concepts

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death among adults in the United States. There has been significant advancement in the diagnosis and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and its underlying risk factors. In certain populations, there remains a significant residual risk despite adequate lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and control of traditional risk factors. This has led to an interest in research to identify additional risk factors that contribute to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Elevated lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] has been identified as an independent risk factor contributing to an increased risk for CVD. There are also ethnic and racial disparities in Lp(a) inheritance that need to be understood. This paper reviews the current literature on lipoprotein a, proposed mechanisms of actions for cardiovascular disease, recommendations for testing, and the current and emerging therapies for lowering Lp(a).

Lepodisiran, an Extended-Duration Short Interfering RNA Targeting Lipoprotein(a): A Randomized Dose-Ascending Clinical Trial

Importance

Epidemiological and genetic data have implicated lipoprotein(a) as a potentially modifiable risk factor for atherosclerotic disease and aortic stenosis, but there are no approved pharmacological treatments.

Objectives

To assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and effects of lepodisiran on lipoprotein(a) concentrations after single doses of the drug; lepodisiran is a short interfering RNA directed at hepatic synthesis of apolipoprotein(a), an essential component necessary for assembly of lipoprotein(a) particles.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A single ascending-dose trial conducted at 5 clinical research sites in the US and Singapore that enrolled 48 adults without cardiovascular disease and with lipoprotein(a) serum concentrations of 75 nmol/L or greater (or ≥30 mg/dL) between November 18, 2020, and December 7, 2021; the last follow-up visit occurred on November 9, 2022.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to receive placebo or a single dose of lepodisiran (4 mg, 12 mg, 32 mg, 96 mg, 304 mg, or 608 mg) administered subcutaneously.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the safety and tolerability of the single ascending doses of lepodisiran. The secondary outcomes included plasma levels of lepodisiran for 168 days after dose administration and changes in fasting lipoprotein(a) serum concentrations through a maximum follow-up of 336 days (48 weeks).

Results

Of the 48 participants enrolled (mean age, 46.8 [SD, 11.6] years; 35% were women), 1 serious adverse event occurred. The plasma concentrations of lepodisiran reached peak levels within 10.5 hours and were undetectable by 48 hours. The median baseline lipoprotein(a) concentration was 111 nmol/L (IQR, 78 to 134 nmol/L) in the placebo group, 78 nmol/L (IQR, 50 to 152 nmol/L) in the 4 mg of lepodisiran group, 97 nmol/L (IQR, 86 to 107 nmol/L) in the 12-mg dose group, 120 nmol/L (IQR, 110 to 188 nmol/L) in the 32-mg dose group, 167 nmol/L (IQR, 124 to 189 nmol/L) in the 96-mg dose group, 96 nmol/L (IQR, 72 to 132 nmol/L) in the 304-mg dose group, and 130 nmol/L (IQR, 87 to 151 nmol/L) in the 608-mg dose group. The maximal median change in lipoprotein(a) concentration was -5% (IQR, -16% to 11%) in the placebo group, -41% (IQR, -47% to -20%) in the 4 mg of lepodisiran group, -59% (IQR, -66% to -53%) in the 12-mg dose group, -76% (IQR, -76% to -75%) in the 32-mg dose group, -90% (IQR, -94% to -85%) in the 96-mg dose group, -96% (IQR, -98% to -95%) in the 304-mg dose group, and -97% (IQR, -98% to -96%) in the 608-mg dose group. At day 337, the median change in lipoprotein(a) concentration was -94% (IQR, -94% to -85%) in the 608 mg of lepodisiran group.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this phase 1 study of 48 participants with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels, lepodisiran was well tolerated and produced dose-dependent, long-duration reductions in serum lipoprotein(a) concentrations. The findings support further study of lepodisiran.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04914546.

Relationship between lipoprotein(a) and whole blood reducing viscosity: A cross-sectional study

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has been confirmed as a causal risk factor of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but its role on circulation is not completely clear and is still being explored. Therefore, this study attempts to explore the relationship between Lp(a) and whole blood reducing viscosity (WBRV), to better understand the role of Lp(a) in circulatory and cardiovascular diseases. We retrospectively analyzed the data of consecutive subjects in the physical examination center of the Affiliated Hospital of Ningbo University Medical College from January 2022 to May 2022. Pearson or spearman correlation analysis was used to test the statistical relationship between 2 continuous variables according to whether they are normal; 131 participants were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The low-density lipoprotein concentration was associated with whole blood viscosity at low-shear (R = 0.220, P = .012), middle-shear (R = 0.226, P = .01), and high-shear viscosity (R = 0.212, P = .015), as well as plasma viscosity (RS = 0.207, P = .018). Lp(a) was not associated with whole blood viscosity at low, middle, and high shear rates, but was associated with WBRV at low shear (RS = 0.204, P = .019) and middle shear rates (RS = 0.197, P = .024). Lp(a) is associated with high WBRV, which may impart more insights into the role of Lp(a) in cardiovascular disease.

Lipoprotein(a): a genetically determined risk factor for Cardiovascular disease

Lipoprotein(a) is a complex lipoprotein with unique characteristics distinguishing it from all the other apolipoprotein B-containing lipoprotein particles. Its lipid composition and the presence of a single molecule of apolipoprotein B per particle, render lipoprotein(a) similar to low-density lipoproteins. However, the presence of a unique, carbohydrate-rich protein termed apolipoprotein(a), linked by a covalent bond to apolipoprotein B imparts unique characteristics to lipoprotein(a) distinguishing it from all the other lipoproteins. Apolipoprotein(a) is highly polymorphic in size ranging in molecular weight from <300 KDa to >800 kDa. Both the size polymorphism and the concentration of lipoprotein(a) in plasma are genetically determined and unlike other lipoproteins, plasma concentration is minimally impacted by lifestyle modifications or lipid-lowering drugs. Many studies involving hundreds of thousands of individuals have provided strong evidence that elevated lipoprotein(a) is genetically determined and a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The concentration attained in adulthood is already present in children at around 5 years of age and therefore, those with elevated lipoprotein(a) are prematurely exposed to a high risk of cardiovascular disease. Despite the large number of guidelines and consensus statements on the management of lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease published in the last decade, lipoprotein(a) is still seldom measured in clinical settings. In this review, we provide an overview of the most important features that characterize lipoprotein(a), its role in cardiovascular disease, and the importance of adding the measurement of lipoprotein(a) for screening adults and youths to identify those at increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease due to their elevated plasma concentration of lipoprotein(a).

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.

Prevalence of lipoprotein(a) measurement in patients with or at risk of cardiovascular disease

INTRODUCTION

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a genetically determined independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic valve disease. Despite recommendations from professional societies in the cardiovascular field, the awareness of elevated Lp(a) as a risk factor and screening for Lp(a) are suspected to be low.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, observational case control study of patient charts from January 1, 2017 to June 19, 2022. The primary aims were 1) to describe the proportion of patients at the healthcare network's primary care and cardiology clinics that met Lp(a) screening criteria and were tested; and 2) to describe the proportion of patients throughout the entire healthcare network that had Lp(a) measured.

RESULTS

Of the 2,412,020 patient charts in the health network, only 5,942 (0.25 %) had Lp(a) measured. Of the 84,581 patients in primary care or cardiology clinics who met screening criteria, only 1,311 (1.55 %) had Lp(a) measured. Patients with Lp(a) measured were more likely to be younger, non-Hispanic/Latinx, had a lipid panel measured, a cardiac computed tomography (CT) imaging study, and higher low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol. Patients with ASCVD, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, aortic stenosis, peripheral vascular disease, or a stroke did not feature highly among patients who received Lp(a) testing. Having an abnormal or risk-enhancing Lp(a) level was associated with being female and/or being Black/African American.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increased awareness of Lp(a) and its contribution to cardiovascular disease there exists a paucity of testing. Increased Lp(a) testing can identify patients who have an increased cardiovascular risk underestimated by other metrics.

Women, lipids, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a call to action from the European Atherosclerosis Society

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in women and men globally, with most due to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Despite progress during the last 30 years, ASCVD mortality is now increasing, with the fastest relative increase in middle-aged women. Missed or delayed diagnosis and undertreatment do not fully explain this burden of disease. Sex-specific factors, such as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, premature menopause (especially primary ovarian insufficiency), and polycystic ovary syndrome are also relevant, with good evidence that these are associated with greater cardiovascular risk. This position statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society focuses on these factors, as well as sex-specific effects on lipids, including lipoprotein(a), over the life course in women which impact ASCVD risk. Women are also disproportionately impacted (in relative terms) by diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and auto-immune inflammatory disease. All these effects are compounded by sociocultural components related to gender. This panel stresses the need to identify and treat modifiable cardiovascular risk factors earlier in women, especially for those at risk due to sex-specific conditions, to reduce the unacceptably high burden of ASCVD in women.

Role of lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A review of current and emerging therapies

Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is structurally like low-density lipoprotein (LDL) but differs in that it contains glycoprotein apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)]. Due to its prothrombotic and proinflammatory properties, Lp(a) is an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve stenosis. Lp(a) levels are genetically determined, and it is estimated that 20%-25% of the global population has an Lp(a) level ≥50 mg/dL (or ≥125 nmol/L). Diet and lifestyle interventions have little to no effect on Lp(a) levels. Lipoprotein apheresis is the only approved treatment for elevated Lp(a) but is time-intensive for the patient and only modestly effective. Pharmacological approaches to reduce Lp(a) levels and its associated risks are of significant interest; however, currently available lipid-lowering therapies have limited effectiveness in reducing Lp(a) levels. Although statins are first-line agents to reduce LDL cholesterol levels, they modestly increase Lp(a) levels and have not been shown to change Lp(a)-mediated ASCVD risk. Alirocumab, evolocumab, and inclisiran reduce Lp(a) levels by 20-25%, yet the clinical implications of this reduction for Lp(a)-mediated ASCVD risk are uncertain. Niacin also lowers Lp(a) levels; however, its effectiveness in mitigating Lp(a)-mediated ASCVD risk remains unclear, and its side effects have limited its utilization. Recommendations for when to screen and how to manage individuals with elevated Lp(a) vary widely between national and international guidelines and scientific statements. Three investigational compounds targeting Lp(a), including small interfering RNA (siRNA) agents (olpasiran, SLN360) and an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen), are in various stages of development. These compounds block the translation of messenger RNA (mRNA) into apo(a), a key structural component of Lp(a), thereby substantially reducing Lp(a) synthesis in the liver. The purpose of this review is to describe current recommendations for screening and managing elevated Lp(a), describe the effects of currently available lipid-lowering therapies on Lp(a) levels, and provide insight into emerging therapies targeting Lp(a).

Treatment of Lp(a): Is It the Future or Are We Ready Today?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this review is to present the pharmacodynamic effectiveness as well as the clinical efficacy and safety of investigational antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) and small interference RNAs (siRNAs) drugs that specifically target lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)). The review will discuss whether the existing lipid-lowering therapies are adequate to treat high Lp(a) levels or whether it is necessary to use the emerging new therapeutic approaches which are based on the current RNA technologies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), independent of other conventional risk factors. High Lp(a) levels are also independently associated with an increased risk of aortic stenosis progression rate. Plasma Lp(a) levels are primarily genetically determined by variation in the LPA gene coding for apo(a). All secondary prevention trials have demonstrated that the existing hypolipidemic therapies are not adequate to reduce Lp(a) levels to such an extent that could lead to a substantial reduction of ASCVD risk. This has led to the development of new drugs that target the mRNA transcript of LPA and efficiently inhibit Lp(a) synthesis leading to potent Lp(a) reduction. These new drugs are the ASO pelacarsen and the siRNAs olpasiran and SLN360. Recent pharmacodynamic studies showed that all these drugs potently reduce Lp(a) up to 98%, in a dose-dependent manner. Ongoing clinical trials will determine the Lp(a)-lowering efficacy, tolerability, and safety of these drugs as well as their potential effectiveness in reducing the ASCVD risk attributed to high plasma Lp(a) levels. We are not ready today to significantly reduce plasma Lp(a). Emerging therapies potently decrease Lp(a) and ongoing clinical trials will determine their effectiveness in reducing ASCVD risk in subjects with high Lp(a) levels.

Consensus document on Lipoprotein(a) from the Italian Society for the Study of Atherosclerosis (SISA)

AIMS

In view of the consolidating evidence on the causal role of Lp(a) in cardiovascular disease, the Italian Society for the Study of Atherosclerosis (SISA) has assembled a consensus on Lp(a) genetics and epidemiology, together with recommendations for its measurement and current and emerging therapeutic approaches to reduce its plasma levels. Data on the Italian population are also provided.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Lp(a) is constituted by one apo(a) molecule and a lipoprotein closely resembling to a low-density lipoprotein (LDL). Its similarity with an LDL, together with its ability to carry oxidized phospholipids are considered the two main features making Lp(a) harmful for cardiovascular health. Plasma Lp(a) concentrations vary over about 1000 folds in humans and are genetically determined, thus they are quite stable in any individual. Mendelian Randomization studies have suggested a causal role of Lp(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve stenosis and observational studies indicate a linear direct correlation between cardiovascular disease and Lp(a) plasma levels. Lp(a) measurement is strongly recommended once in a patient's lifetime, particularly in FH subjects, but also as part of the initial lipid screening to assess cardiovascular risk. The apo(a) size polymorphism represents a challenge for Lp(a) measurement in plasma, but new strategies are overcoming these difficulties. A reduction of Lp(a) levels can be currently attained only by plasma apheresis and, moderately, with PCSK9 inhibitor treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Awaiting the approval of selective Lp(a)-lowering drugs, an intensive management of the other risk factors for individuals with elevated Lp(a) levels is strongly recommended.

Assessment of Apolipoprotein(a) Isoform Size Using Phenotypic and Genotypic Methods

Apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) is the protein component that defines lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) particles and is encoded by the LPA gene. The apo(a) is extremely heterogeneous in size due to the copy number variations in the kringle-IV type 2 (KIV2) domains. In this review, we aim to discuss the role of genetics in establishing Lp(a) as a risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD) by examining a series of molecular biology techniques aimed at identifying the best strategy for a possible application in clinical research and practice, according to the current gold standard.

Lipoprotein(a): Just an Innocent Bystander in Arterial Hypertension?

Elevated plasma lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a relatively common and highly heritable trait conferring individuals time-dependent risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD). Following its first description, Lp(a) triggered enormous scientific interest in the late 1980s, subsequently dampened in the mid-1990s by controversial findings of some prospective studies. It was only in the last decade that a large body of evidence has provided strong arguments for a causal and independent association between elevated Lp(a) levels and CVD, causing renewed interest in this lipoprotein as an emerging risk factor with a likely contribution to cardiovascular residual risk. Accordingly, the 2022 consensus statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society has suggested inclusion of Lp(a) measurement in global risk estimation. The development of highly effective Lp(a)-lowering drugs (e.g., antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering RNA, both blocking LPA gene expression) which are still under assessment in phase 3 trials, will provide a unique opportunity to reduce "residual cardiovascular risk" in high-risk populations, including patients with arterial hypertension. The current evidence in support of a specific role of Lp(a) in hypertension is somehow controversial and this narrative review aims to overview the general mechanisms relating Lp(a) to blood pressure regulation and hypertension-related cardiovascular and renal damage.

Considerations for routinely testing for high lipoprotein(a)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a likely causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve disease, confirmed by Mendelian randomization. With reliable assays, it has been established that Lp(a) is linearly associated with ASCVD. Current low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering therapies do not or minimally lower Lp(a). This review focuses on the clinical importance and therapeutic consequences of Lp(a) measurement.

RECENT FINDINGS

Development of RNA-based Lp(a) lowering therapeutics has positioned Lp(a) as one of the principal residual risk factors to target in the battle against lipid-driven ASCVD risk. Pelacarsen, which is a liver-specific antisense oligonucleotide, has shown Lp(a) reductions up to 90% and its phase 3 trial is currently underway. Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA targeting LPA messenger RNA, which is being investigated in phase 2 and has already shown dose-dependent Lp(a) reductions up to 90%.

SUMMARY

Lp(a) should be measured in every patient at least once to identify patients with very high Lp(a) levels. These patients could benefit from Lp(a) lowering therapies when approved. In the meantime, therapy in high Lp(a) patients should focus on further reducing LDL-C and other ASCVD risk factors.

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): a Case for Universal Screening in Youth

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lipoprotein(a) has emerged as a strong independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Targeted screening recommendations for Lp(a) measurement exist for adults and youth known to be at high-risk. However, Lp(a) measurements are not included in universal screening guidelines in the US; hence, most families in the US with high Lp(a) levels who are at risk of future atherosclerotic heart disease, stroke, or aortic stenosis are not recognized. Lp(a) measurement included as part of routine universal lipid screening in youth would identify those children at risk of ASCVD and enable family cascade screening with identification and early intervention for affected family members.

RECENT FINDINGS

Lp(a) levels can be reliably measured in children as young as two years of age. Lp(a) levels are genetically determined. The Lp(a) gene is inherited in a co-dominant fashion. Serum Lp(a) attains adult levels by two years of age and is stable for the lifetime of the individual. Novel therapies that aim to specifically target Lp(a) are in the pipeline, including nucleic acid-based molecules such as antisense oligonucleotides and siRNAs. Inclusion of a single Lp(a) measurement performed as part of routine universal lipid screening in youth (ages 9-11; or at ages 17-21) is feasible and cost effective. Lp(a) screening would identify youth at-risk of ASCVD and enable family cascade screening with identification and early intervention for affected family members.

Lipoprotein(a) and calcific aortic valve disease initiation and progression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Although evidence indicates the association of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] with atherosclerosis, the link with calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD) is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis explores the connection between Lp(a) and aortic valve calcification and stenosis (AVS). We included all relevant studies, indexed in eight databases, up to February 2023. A total of 44 studies (163 139 subjects) were included, with 16 of them being further meta-analysed. Despite considerable heterogeneity, most studies support the relationship between Lp(a) and CAVD, especially in younger populations, with evidence of early aortic valve micro-calcification in elevated-Lp(a) populations. The quantitative synthesis showed higher Lp(a) levels, by 22.63 nmol/L (95% CI: 9.98-35.27), for patients with AVS, while meta-regressing the data revealed smaller Lp(a) differences for older populations with a higher proportion of females. The meta-analysis of eight studies providing genetic data, revealed that the minor alleles of both rs10455872 and rs3798220 LPA gene loci were associated with higher risk for AVS (pooled odds ratio 1.42; 95% CI: 1.34-1.50 and 1.27; 95% CI: 1.09-1.48, respectively). Importantly, high-Lp(a) individuals displayed not only faster AVS progression, by a mean difference of 0.09 m/s/year (95% CI: 0.09-0.09), but also a higher risk of serious adverse outcomes, including death (pooled hazard ratio 1.39; 95% CI: 1.01-1.90). These summary findings highlight the effect of Lp(a) on CAVD initiation, progression and outcomes, and support the early onset of Lp(a)-related subclinical lesions before clinical evidence.

The common pathobiology between coronary artery disease and calcific aortic stenosis: Evidence and clinical implications

Calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAS), the most prevalent valvular disease worldwide, has been demonstrated to frequently occur in conjunction with coronary artery disease (CAD), the third leading cause of death worldwide. Atherosclerosis has been proven to be the main mechanism involved in CAS and CAD. Evidence also exists that obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome (among others), along with specific genes involved in lipid metabolism, are important risk factors for CAS and CAD, leading to common pathological processes of atherosclerosis in both diseases. Therefore, it has been suggested that CAS could also be used as a marker of CAD. An understanding of the commonalities between the two conditions may improve therapeutic strategies for treating both CAD and CAS. This review explores the common pathogenesis and disparities between CAS and CAD, alongside their etiology. It also discusses clinical implications and provides evidence-based recommendations for the clinical management of both diseases.

[Update lipidology : Evidence-based treatment of dyslipidemia]

The treatment of elevated plasma lipid levels plays an important role in prevention of atherosclerosis. Lowering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with statins and if required with additional ezetimibe, bempedoic acid and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors is of utmost importance. While lifestyle modification can strongly influence the cardiovascular risk, it only plays a minor role in lowering LDL cholesterol values. The overall (absolute) cardiovascular risk determines if and in what intensity lipid-lowering treatment should be implemented. Based on new results from interventional studies the LDL cholesterol target values have been reduced in recent years. Thus, in patients with a very high risk (for example patients with established atherosclerotic disease) an LDL cholesterol level of < 55 mg/dl (< 1.4 mmol/l, conversion mg/dl×0.02586=mmol/l) and at least a 50% reduction from baseline should be strived for. With respect to elevated triglyceride levels, either alone or simultaneously with elevated LDL cholesterol levels, the treatment goals are less clearly defined, despite the fact that elevated triglyceride levels are causally linked to atherosclerotic events. Lifestyle modifications can significantly reduce triglyceride levels and are often more effective than specific triglyceride-lowering medications, such as fibrates and omega‑3 fatty acids. New lipid-lowering drugs for the treatment of patients with severely elevated triglyceride levels and elevated lipoprotein(a) levels are being developed but their clinical benefits still have to be confirmed in endpoint studies.

Lipoprotein(a) As a Potential Predictive Factor for Earlier Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Bicuspid Aortic Valve

Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) affects 0.5-2% of the general population and constitutes the major cause of severe aortic valve stenosis (AVS) in individuals ≤70 years. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the parameters that may provide information about the risk of AVS developing in BAV patients, with particular emphasis on lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), which is a well-recognized risk factor for stenosis in the general population. We also analyzed the impact of autotaxin (ATX) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) as parameters potentially related to the pathomechanism of Lp(a) action. We found that high Lp(a) levels (>50 mg/dL) occurred significantly more frequently in patients with AVS than in patients without AVS, both in the group below and above 45 years of age (p = 0.036 and p = 0.033, respectively). Elevated Lp(a) levels were also strictly associated with the need for aortic valve replacement (AVR) at a younger age (p = 0.016). However, the Lp(a) concentration did not differ significantly between patients with and without AVS. Similarly, we observed no differences in ATX between the analyzed patient groups, and both ATX activity and concentration correlated significantly with Lp(a) level (R = 0.465, p < 0.001 and R = 0.599, p < 0.001, respectively). We revealed a significantly higher concentration of IL-6 in young patients with AVS. However, this observation was not confirmed in the group of patients over 45 years of age. We also did not observe a significant correlation between IL-6 and Lp(a) or between CRP and Lp(a) in any of the analyzed groups of BAV patients. Our results demonstrate that a high level of Lp(a), greater than 50 mg/dL, may be a significant predictive factor for earlier AVR. Lp(a)-related parameters, such as ATX and IL-6, may be valuable in providing information about the additional cardiovascular risks associated with developing AVS.

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.