A Test in Context: Lipoprotein(a): Diagnosis, Prognosis, Controversies, and Emerging Therapies

Causal effect of lipoprotein(a) level on chronic kidney disease of European ancestry: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study

INTRODUCTION

Chronic kidney disease is a growing health issue, and the options of prevention and therapy remain limited. Although a number of observational studies have linked higher Lp(a) [lipoprotein(a)] levels to the kidney impairment, the causal relationship remains to be determined. The purpose of this study was to assess the causal association between Lp(a) levels and CKD.

METHODS

We selected eight single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) significantly associated with Lp(a) levels as instrumental variables. Genome-wide association study (GWAS) from CKDGen consortium yielded the summary data information for CKD. We designed the bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses. The estimates were computed using inverse-variance weighted (IVW), simple median, weighted median, and maximum likelihood. MR-Egger regression was used to detect pleiotropy.

RESULTS

Fixed-effect IVW analysis indicated that genetically predicted Lp(a) levels were associated with CKD significantly (odds ratio, 1.039; 95% CI, 1.009-1.069; p = 0.010). The SNPs showed no pleiotropy according to result of MR-Egger test. Results from sensitivity analyses were consistent. In the inverse MR analysis, random-effect IVW method showed CKD had no causal effect on the elevated Lp(a) (odds ratio, 1.154; 95% CI, 0.845-1.576; p = 0.367).

CONCLUSION

In this bidirectional two-sample MR analysis, the causal deteriorating effects of genetically predicted plasma Lp(a) levels on the risk of CKD were identified. On the contrary, there is no evidence to support a causal effect of CKD on Lp(a) levels.

Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin-type 9 inhibitors

High plasma lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) levels increase the cardiovascular risk in populations with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Apolipoprotein (a) [apo(a)], a unique protein component of Lp(a), plays an important role in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. Statins, the primary medication in managing ASCVD, lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) but concurrently elevate plasma Lp(a) levels, contributing to an increased residual cardiovascular risk. In turn, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin-type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, a novel class of LDL-C lowering drugs, effectively reduce plasma Lp(a) levels, which is believed to decrease residual cardiovascular risk. However, the mechanism by which PCSK9 inhibitors reduce Lp(a) levels remains unknown. In addition, there are some clinical limitations of PCSK9 inhibitors. Here, we systematically review the past, present, and prospects of studies pertaining to Lp(a), PCSK9 inhibitors, and ASCVD.

Lipoprotein(a) Levels in Severe Aortic Stenosis Referred for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Compared to Controls

Background

Limited observational reports link elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels to aortic stenosis (AS) or to disease progression. Data on large cohorts of verified severe AS patients are lacking.

Objectives

The purpose of the study was to characterize Lp(a) levels of severe AS patients referred to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and compare them to a large cohort of Lp(a) samples derived from the general population.

Methods

Lp(a) levels obtained from frozen serum samples of TAVI patients between 2012 and 2017 were compared to a control group for whom Lp(a) levels were obtained for any reason and stratified by gender. Multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate associations between younger age at TAVI and an Lp(a) cutoff of 50 mg/dL.

Results

Lp(a) levels of 503 TAVI were compared to 25,343 controls. Patients in the AS group had mildly higher median Lp(a) levels compared to controls (20.5 vs 18.7 mg/dL, P = 0.04). Lp(a) levels in males with severe AS were higher than controls (19.9 vs 16.6 mg/dL, P = 0.04). Females had a nonsignificant difference (22.1 vs 21.3 mg/dL, P = 0.87). In multivariable analysis, an Lp(a) cutoff of above 50 mg/dL was not associated with an earlier age at TAVI (beta: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.42-2.57; P = 0.94).

Conclusions

Median Lp(a) levels were only mildly higher in severe AS patients undergoing TAVI in comparison to a large control group, mainly driven by higher Lp(a) levels in males. Higher Lp(a) levels were not associated with an earlier age at TAVI, rejecting its association with an accelerated disease progression.

Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease

One in five people are at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic valve stenosis due to high lipoprotein(a). Lipoprotein(a) concentrations are lowest in people from east Asia, Europe, and southeast Asia, intermediate in people from south Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, and highest in people from Africa. Concentrations are more than 90% genetically determined and 17% higher in post-menopausal women than in men. Individuals at a higher cardiovascular risk should have lipoprotein(a) concentrations measured once in their lifetime to inform those with high concentrations to adhere to a healthy lifestyle and receive medication to lower other cardiovascular risk factors. With no approved drugs to lower lipoprotein(a) concentrations, it is promising that at least five drugs in development lower concentrations by 65-98%, with three currently being tested in large cardiovascular endpoint trials. This Review covers historical perspectives, physiology and pathophysiology, genetic evidence of causality, epidemiology, role in familial hypercholesterolaemia and diabetes, management, screening, diagnosis, measurement, prevention, and future lipoprotein(a)-lowering drugs.

The Relationship between Lipoprotein A and the Prevalence of Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease in Young Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: An Observational Study

Introduction: Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of mortality worldwide, with a significant impact on socioeconomic aspects. Various biomarkers have been studied in relation to the diagnosis, progression, and prognosis of atherosclerotic disease, with lipoprotein (a) [Lp (a)] standing out as an important predictor of cardiovascular risk. This observational study aimed to clarify the association between Lp (a) levels and the severity of significant multivessel coronary lesions in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients. Materials and Methods: Conducted at the Clinical Emergency County Hospital of Craiova, Romania, the study involved 256 young patients divided into two groups based on Lp (a) levels: Group A (Lp (a) < 30 mg/dL) and Group B (Lp (a) ≥ 30 mg/dL). Patients included young adults up to 55 years for males and 60 years for females, excluding those with familial hypercholesterolemia. Results: The study revealed a significant association between elevated Lp (a) levels and the presence of multivessel coronary lesions. Patients with Lp (a) concentrations ≥ 30 mg/dL exhibited a higher prevalence of multivessel disease compared to those with lower levels. Discussion: The findings suggest that elevated Lp (a) levels are a crucial biomarker for the risk of coronary artery disease, particularly in young patients with AMI. The study emphasizes the need for aggressive lipid management strategies and personalized treatment approaches, considering the significant role of Lp (a) in atherosclerosis and AMI. Conclusions: Lipoprotein A levels above 30 mg/dL are associated with a higher prevalence of multivessel coronary lesions. Multivariate analysis revealed that higher Lp (a) levels and lower HDL levels are linked to an increased risk of multivessel coronary lesions.

Association between elevated lipoprotein(a) levels and vulnerability of carotid atherosclerotic plaque: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The role of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] as a potential risk factor for atherosclerotic arterial disease has been extensively studied. However, the available data regarding its association with the vulnerability of carotid atherosclerotic plaque is limited. The main objective of the present systematic review was to assess the association between elevated Lp(a) levels and carotid vulnerable plaque features.

METHODS

This systematic review adhered to PRISMA guidelines, conducting a comprehensive literature search to identify studies examining the association between Lp(a) levels and vulnerability of carotid atherosclerotic plaque. Experimental or observational studies were eligible, without language, country, or publication type restrictions.

RESULTS

Nine studies including 2058 patients were eligible for this systematic review. Five cross-sectional studies, 3 prospective/retrospective cohorts, and 1 subanalysis of a randomized controlled trial were analyzed. Two cross-sectional studies that compared Lp(a) levels between patients with and without vulnerable carotid plaque showed discordant results. Nevertheless, all the studies that evaluated the prevalence or incidence of vulnerable carotid plaque according to Lp(a) levels showed a positive association. Similarly, one study found a significant correlation between vulnerability of carotid plaque and Lp(a) levels.

CONCLUSION

Almost all studies analyzed in the present review showed a positive association between elevated Lp(a) levels and carotid vulnerable plaque features. However, further research is needed to clarify this issue.

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

The role of lipoprotein (a) (Lp[a]) in the development of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and high-risk plaque (HRP) in primary prevention patients with stable chest pain is unknown. We sought to evaluate the relation of Lp(a), independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), with the presence of obstructive CAD and HRP to improve understanding of the residual risk imparted by Lp(a) on CAD. We performed a secondary analysis in Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain (PROMISE) 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/100 ml. "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 computed tomography 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 versus <100 mg/100 ml. Of the 1,815 patients who underwent CTA and had Lp(a) data available, those with elevated Lp(a) were more commonly women and Black than those with lower Lp(a). Elevated Lp(a) was associated with stenosis ≥50% (odds ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 2.15, p = 0.005) and stenosis ≥70% (odds ratio 2.05, 95% confidence interval 1.34 to 3.11, p = 0.0008) in the multivariate models, and this relation was not modified by LDL-C ≥100 versus <100 mg/100 ml (interaction p >0.4). Elevated Lp(a) was not associated with HRP when adjusted for obstructive CAD. This study of patients without known CAD found that elevated Lp(a) ≥50 mg/100 ml was independently associated with the presence of obstructive CAD regardless of controlled versus 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 atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease that patients may have despite optimal LDL-C lowering.

Joint Association of Lipoprotein(a) and a Family History of Coronary Artery Disease with the Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Coronary Syndrome

AIM

No data are currently available regarding the association between Lp(a) and the cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) according to their family history (FHx) of CAD. This study aimed to evaluate the significance of Lp(a) in predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) with or without FHx.

METHODS

A total of 6056 patients with CCS were enrolled. Information on FHx was collected, and the plasma Lp(a) levels were measured. All patients were followed up regularly. The independent and joint associations of Lp(a) and FHx with the risk of MACEs, including cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke, were analyzed.

RESULTS

With over an average of 50.35±18.58 months follow-up, 378 MACEs were recorded. A Cox regression analysis showed an elevated Lp(a) level to be an independent predictor for MACEs in patients with [hazard ratio (HR): 2.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-5.54] or without FHx (HR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.02-1.77). In comparison to subjects with non-elevated Lp(a) and negative FHx, patients with elevated Lp(a) alone were at a nominally higher risk of MACEs (HR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.96-1.67), while those with both had the highest risk (HR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.14-3.28). Moreover, adding Lp(a) to the original model increased the C-statistic by 0.048 in subjects with FHx (p=0.004) and by 0.004 in those without FHx (p=0.391).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study is the first to suggest that Lp(a) could be used to predict MACEs in CCS patients with or without FHx; however, its prognostic significance was more noteworthy in patients with FHx.

Real-world impact of transitioning from one lipoprotein(a) assay to another in a clinical setting

Background and aims

Different lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] assays may affect risk stratification of individuals and thus clinical decision-making. We aimed to investigate how transitioning between Lp(a) assays at a large central laboratory affected the proportion of individuals with Lp(a) result above clinical thresholds.

Methods

We studied nationwide clinical laboratory data including 185,493 unique individuals (47.7 % women) aged 18-50 years with 272,463 Lp(a) measurements using Roche (2000-2009) and Siemens Lp(a) assay (2009-2019).

Results

While the majority of individuals (66-75 %) had low levels of Lp(a) (<30 mg/dL) independent of the assay used, the Roche assay detected 20 % more individuals with Lp(a) >50 mg/dL, 40 % more individuals with Lp(a) >100 mg/dL and 80 % more individuals with Lp(a) > 180 mg/dL than the currently used Siemens assay, likely due to calibration differences.

Conclusion

Transitioning from one Lp(a) immunoassay to another had significant impact on Lp(a) results, particularly in individuals approaching clinically relevant Lp(a) thresholds.

Lipoprotein (a) is a predictor of non-achievement of LDL-C goals in patients with chronic heart disease

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] concentration influences serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. How it influences the achievement of LDL-C targets established in the guidelines is not well studied. Our aim was to know the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) levels in patients with coronary artery disease, and to assess its influence on the achievement of LDL-C targets.

METHOD

We conducted a cross-sectional study in a cardiology department in Spain. A total of 870 patients with stable coronary artery disease had their lipid profile determined, including Lp(a). Patients were stratified into 2 groups according to Lp(a)>50mg/dL and Lp(a)≤50mg/dL. The association of Lp(a)>50mg/dL with achievement of LDL-C targets was assessed by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The prevalence of Lp(a)>50mg/dL was 30.8%. Patients with Lp(a)>50mg/dL had higher baseline (142.30±47.54 vs. 130.47±40.75mg/dL; p=0.0001) and current (72.91±26.44 vs. 64.72±25.30mg/dL; p=0.0001), despite the fact that they were treated with more high-potency statins (77.2 vs. 70.9%; p=0.058) and more combination lipid-lowering therapy (37.7 vs. 25.7%; p=0.001). The proportion of patients achieving target LDL-C was lower in those with Lp(a)>50mg/dL. Independent predictors of having elevated Lp(a) levels>50mg/dL were the use of high-potency statins (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.08-2.14), combination lipid-lowering therapy with ezetimibe (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.45-2.73) and failure to achieve a LDL-C ≤55mg/dL (OR 2.3; 95% CI 1.63-3.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated Lp(a) levels influence LDL-C levels and hinder the achievement of targets in patients at very high cardiovascular risk. New drugs that act directly on Lp(a) are needed in these patients.

Effects of saturated fatty acid consumption on lipoprotein (a): a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

An inverse relationship between saturated fatty acid (SFA) intake and Lp(a) concentration has been observed; however, there has been no quantification of this effect.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to determine whether SFA consumption alters Lp(a) concentrations among adults without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials contrasting a lower SFA diet(s) with a higher SFA diet(s) among adults without ASCVD was conducted. PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, clinicaltrials.gov, and Web of Science databases and registers were searched through October 2023. The standardized mean difference (SMD) in Lp(a) between diets lower and higher in SFA [percentage of energy (%E)] was determined using random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were also conducted to examine the effect of replacing SFA with carbohydrates (CHO), monounsaturated (MUFAs), polyunsaturated (PUFAs), or trans fatty acids (TFAs).

RESULTS

In total, 6255 publications were identified in the systematic search. Twenty-six publications reporting 27 randomized controlled trials, including 1325 participants and 49 diet comparisons, were included. The mean difference in SFA between lower and higher SFA diets was 7.6%E (3.7%-17.8%E). After lower SFA diets, Lp(a) concentration was higher (SMD: 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03, 0.24) than after higher SFA diets. Subgroup analyses showed higher Lp(a) following diets where SFA was replaced by CHO (trials = 8; n = 539; SMD: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.40) or TFAs (trials = 8; n = 300; SMD: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.48). No differences in Lp(a) were observed when MUFA (trials = 16; n = 641; SMD: 0.04; 95% CI: -0.08, 0.16) or PUFA (trials = 8; n = 415; SMD: 0.09; 95% CI: -0.04, 0.22) replaced SFA.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower SFA diets modestly increase Lp(a) compared to higher SFA diets among individuals without ASCVD. This effect appeared to be driven by replacement of SFA with CHO or TFA. Research investigating the atherogenicity of diet-induced Lp(a) changes is needed to inform dietary management of lipid/lipoprotein disorders. This trial was registered with PROSPERO as CRD42020154169.

Association of elevated lipoprotein(a) levels with ischemic stroke in young patients - a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an established independent causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease and atherosclerosis. However, its association with young-onset ischemic stroke is not well-established. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate the association of elevated Lp(a) with young ischemic stroke.

METHODS

Four electronic databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Library were systematically searched, profiling studies from inception till 6 Mar 2024. We included studies investigating the relationship between stratified Lp(a) levels and young ischemic stroke. We compared the odds of young stroke patients (age <65 years) having elevated Lp(a) compared to age-matched controls without stroke or transient ischemic attack.

RESULTS

Five case-control studies comprising a total of 1345 patients were included; 57.7 % (776/1345) were females, with a mean age of 41.5 years. Among them, 22.5 % (264/1171) were smokers. Additionally, 16.8 % (197/1171) had hypertension, 5.9 % (69/1171) had diabetes, and 29.2 % (284/971) had hyperlipidemia. Young stroke patients were more likely to have high Lp(a) level than age-matched controls (OR 1.61, 95 %CI 1.24-2.10). Four studies defined a high Lp(a) level as ≥30mg/dL, whilst one study used a Lp(a) level of >23.2mg/dL as the cut-off. A sensitivity analysis excluding this study showed that young stroke patients were still more likely to have Lp(a) ≥30mg/dL than controls (OR 1.43, 95 %CI 1.08-1.88).

CONCLUSION

Young stroke patients are more likely to have elevated Lp(a) compared to age-matched controls, suggesting an association between elevated Lp(a) and young stroke. Further research is warranted to evaluate the causal relationships between Lp(a) and young-onset ischemic stroke, as well as to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of Lp(a) screening in young adults as part of a primary prevention strategy.

Attitudes and barriers to lipoprotein(a) testing: A survey of providers at the University of Pennsylvania Health System

Guidelines recommend checking lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels in patients at high-risk for cardiovascular disease, with more recent recommendations advocating for universal screening in all adults. A brief electronic survey was distributed to select groups of University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) providers, including Internal Medicine and Cardiology physicians and advance practice providers, to understand the current attitudes and barriers to testing for Lp(a). Of the 126 survey respondents, only 31 % answered that they test for Lp(a) regularly in their practice. Presence of ASCVD and a family history of ASCVD were the most common reasons for testing. Most survey respondents (69 %) replied that they do not currently check Lp(a) levels in patients. The most common reasons provided included lack of familiarity with Lp(a), insurance/ billing concerns, lack of clinical trial outcomes data, and lack of available pharmaceutical interventions. Results from ongoing clinical trials of novel Lp(a)-lowering therapies, if successful, may address provider hesitation toward Lp(a)-testing, but there remains a large gap to fill in awareness of Lp(a).

Lipoprotein(a): Levels and Reference Intervals Among People in Saudi Arabia

Purpose

Blood Lp(a) concentration is recognized as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Population-based lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) research in Saudi Arabia is rare. Thus, the primary goal of this pilot study was to identify age- and sex-specific reference ranges for Lp(a) levels, in addition to the associations between Lp(a) levels and other atherosclerotic markers in Saudi individuals.

Patients and methods

A five-year retrospective study of Lp(a) and lipid markers in Saudi patients was conducted using the Al-Borg diagnostics database (2015-2020). The population sample consisted of 361 Saudi individuals aged 18-93 years (162 males, 199 females). An immunoturbidimetric technique was used to determine Lp(a) concentration.

Results

The mean and median Lp(a) levels in the study population were 35 nmol/L and 50 nmol/L, respectively. Sex and age did not influence Lp(a) values. Lp(a) values showed a minor correlation with other atherosclerotic markers when the Pearson correlation coefficient was used. In Saudi Arabia, the distribution of Lp(a) concentrations is skewed to the left, favoring lower values.

Conclusion

Lp(a) levels in individuals residing in Saudi Arabia were comparable to those observed in other ethnic groups. Additionally, standardizing Lp(a) measurements according to sex and age may enhance broader applicability and facilitate comparisons across different populations. However, larger studies are required to provide more comprehensive data for comparison.

Vascular Health in Adults Born After Using Assisted Reproductive Technologies

An increasing number of children are conceived by assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Several studies indicated vascular alterations in ART children. However, limited data is available within the adult ART population. Therefore, this study investigated the overall vascular health of young ART adults in comparison to spontaneously conceived peers. In total, 16 ART subjects and 22 spontaneously conceived peers (22.06 ± 2.21 years vs. 22.00 ± 2.14 years, p = 0.194) were enrolled for the assessment of endothelial function, brachial blood pressure, central blood pressure, pulse wave velocity, carotid intima-media thickness, and blood lipids. No significant differences in vascular function were detected between the in vitro fertilization subgroup (n = 9), the intracytoplasmic sperm injection subgroup (n = 7) and spontaneously conceived peers. This pilot study suggests an unimpaired vascular function in young ART adults. In the future, multi-centric studies with a greater sample size are required to confirm the results of the current study and enable precise cardiovascular risk stratification of the adult ART population.

Lipoprotein (a)-Related Inflammatory Imbalance: A Novel Horizon for the Development of Atherosclerosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The primary objective of this review is to explore the pathophysiological roles and clinical implications of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the context of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We seek to understand how Lp(a) contributes to inflammation and arteriosclerosis, aiming to provide new insights into the mechanisms of ASCVD progression.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent research highlights Lp(a) as an independent risk factor for ASCVD. Studies show that Lp(a) not only promotes the inflammatory processes but also interacts with various cellular components, leading to endothelial dysfunction and smooth muscle cell proliferation. The dual role of Lp(a) in both instigating and, under certain conditions, mitigating inflammation is particularly noteworthy. This review finds that Lp(a) plays a complex role in the development of ASCVD through its involvement in inflammatory pathways. The interplay between Lp(a) levels and inflammatory responses highlights its potential as a target for therapeutic intervention. These insights could pave the way for novel approaches in managing and preventing ASCVD, urging further investigation into Lp(a) as a therapeutic target.

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.

Frequency of lipoprotein(a) testing and its levels in Pakistani population

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a highly atherogenic particle identified as an independent risk factor for the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). This study aimed to investigate the frequency of Lp(a) testing and the incidence of elevated Lp(a) levels in the Pakistani population.

METHODS

For this observational study, Lp(a) and lipid profile data from five years (June 2015 to October 2020) were acquired from the electronic patient records of a diagnostic laboratory with a countrywide network. The association of age and total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non-HDL, and triglyceride (TG) levels with two thresholds for Lp(a), that is, <30 mg/dL and ≥30 mg/dL, was calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis test, while the association between Lp(a) levels and lipid variables was calculated using Spearman correlation.

RESULTS

For five years, 1060 tests were conducted, averaging 212 tests per year. Of these, 37.2% showed Lp(a) levels above 30 mg/dL. No significant differences were observed in the results between males and females. However, younger individuals displayed significantly higher Lp(a) levels. Additionally, there was only a weak correlation between the Lp(a) levels and other lipid variables.

CONCLUSION

Despite being recognized as a risk factor for ASCVD in the Pakistani population, only a small proportion of the large population underwent Lp(a) testing. Moreover, a significant proportion of the population exceeded this threshold.

Advancements in risk stratification and management strategies in primary cardiovascular prevention

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, highlighting the urgent need for advancements in risk assessment and management strategies. Although significant progress has been made recently, identifying and managing apparently healthy individuals at a higher risk of developing atherosclerosis and those with subclinical atherosclerosis still poses significant challenges. Traditional risk assessment tools have limitations in accurately predicting future events and fail to encompass the complexity of the atherosclerosis trajectory. In this review, we describe novel approaches in biomarkers, genetics, advanced imaging techniques, and artificial intelligence that have emerged to address this gap. Moreover, polygenic risk scores and imaging modalities such as coronary artery calcium scoring, and coronary computed tomography angiography offer promising avenues for enhancing primary cardiovascular risk stratification and personalised intervention strategies. On the other hand, interventions aiming against atherosclerosis development or promoting plaque regression have gained attention in primary ASCVD prevention. Therefore, the potential role of drugs like statins, ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, omega-3 fatty acids, antihypertensive agents, as well as glucose-lowering and anti-inflammatory drugs are also discussed. Since findings regarding the efficacy of these interventions vary, further research is still required to elucidate their mechanisms of action, optimize treatment regimens, and determine their long-term effects on ASCVD outcomes. In conclusion, advancements in strategies addressing atherosclerosis prevention and plaque regression present promising avenues for enhancing primary ASCVD prevention through personalised approaches tailored to individual risk profiles. Nevertheless, ongoing research efforts are imperative to refine these strategies further and maximise their effectiveness in safeguarding cardiovascular health.

Association between lipoprotein (a) and risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events among maintenance hemodialysis patients in Beijing, China: a single-center, retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Serum lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in the general population, its association with ASCVD incidence in Chinese maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between Lp(a) levels and ASCVD incidence among MHD patients in Beijing, China.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational cohort study included MHD patients at Beijing Tongren Hospital from January 1, 2013 to December 1, 2020, and followed until December 1,2023. The primary outcome was ASCVD occurrence. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to evaluate ASCVD-free survival in MHD patients, with stratification based on Lp(a) levels. Cox regression analyses were conducted to assess the association between Lp(a) levels and the occurrence of ASCVD.

RESULTS

A total of 265 patients were enrolled in the study. The median follow-up period were 71 months.78 (29.4%) participants experienced ASCVD events, and 118 (47%) patients died, with 58 (49.1%) deaths attributed to ASCVD. Spearman rank correlation analyses revealed positive correlations between serum Lp(a) levels and LDL-c levels, and negative correlations with hemoglobin, triglyceride, serum iron, serum creatinine, and albumin levels. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that Lp(a) levels ≥ 30 mg/L, increased age, decreased serum albumin levels, and a history of diabetes mellitus were significantly associated with ASCVD incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated an independent and positive association between serum Lp(a) levels and the risk of ASCVD in MHD patients, suggesting that serum Lp(a) could potentially serve as a clinical biomarker for estimating ASCVD risk in this population.

Elderly patients with very high plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations and few cardiovascular consequences: a case series

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an atherogenic low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-like particle that is currently regarded as a non-modifiable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The number of patients detected with elevated Lp(a) concentrations has been increasing in recent years, although the implication of this finding is unclear for patients and physicians. We screened our lipid clinic database for patients aged >65 years with very high Lp(a) concentrations, which were defined as >230 nmol/L, and cardiovascular outcomes were assessed. The patients' (n = 16) mean (±standard deviation) age was 72.2 ± 7.1 years and the mean Lp(a) concentration was 313 ± 68 nmol/L. After a cumulative 129.0 patient-year follow-up (mean: 8.1 ± 4.2 years), the mean age was 80.3 ± 7.0 years. We observed a low baseline prevalence of cardiovascular events, with only two patients having a history of cardiovascular events. Furthermore, zero incident adverse cardiovascular events were recorded over the follow-up. Therefore, very high Lp(a) concentrations and disease-free old age are not mutually exclusive. Our aggregated clinical experience is that there is only a modest association between elevated Lp(a) concentrations and adverse outcomes. Nonetheless, we still advise treating modifiable risk factors in these patients.

Race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status affect the assessment of lipoprotein(a) levels in clinical practice

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

High Lp(a) levels are a risk factor for ASCVD, however Lp(a) ordering in clinical practice is low. This study examines how race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status influence Lp(a) ordering.

METHODS

This is a single center, retrospective study (2/1/2020-6/30/2023) using electronic medical records of adults with at least one personal ICD-10 diagnosis of ASCVD, aortic valve stenosis, resistant hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C >160 mg/dL on statin therapy), and family history of ASCVD or high Lp(a). We evaluated Lp(a) level differences among racial/ethnic groups and sexes. We also assessed associations between diagnosis type, diagnosis number, age at diagnosis, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic score (based on zip codes), public health coverage and the presence of Lp(a) orders.

RESULTS

4 % of our cohort (N=2,249 in 56,833) had an Lp(a) order (17.3 % of whom identified as Hispanic, 8.7 % non-Hispanic Black, 47.5 % non-Hispanic White, and 27 % Asian/other). Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients had lower rates of Lp(a) orders (0.17 % and 0.28 %, respectively) when compared to non-Hispanic White patients (2.35 %), p < 0.001, however, their median Lp(a) levels were higher, p < 0.001. Individuals on Medicaid or belonging to deprived socioeconomic groups were less likely to have an Lp(a) order (IRR = 0.40, p < 0.001 and IRR = 0.39, p < 0.001 respectively). Certain diagnosis (carotid stenosis, family history of ASCVD and FH) and multiple diagnoses (>2) resulted in more Lp(a) orders compared to only one diagnosis (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) ordering is low in patients with or at risk for ASCVD. Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients are less likely to have an Lp(a) order. Individuals on Medicaid and residing in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods are less like have an Lp(a) order. Lp(a) orders depend on the type and number of patients' diagnoses.

Association between lipoprotein(a), fibrinogen and their combination with all-cause, cardiovascular disease and cancer-related mortality: findings from the NHANES

BACKGROUND

There is evidence indicating that both lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and fibrinogen (FIB) are associated with mortality, However, the impact of their combination on mortality has not been determined. Thus, the aim of this study was to examine the association between the combination of Lp(a) and FIB with all-cause and cause-specific mortality.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study enrolled 4,730 participants from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The exposure variables included Lp(a), FIB and their combination, while the outcome variables consisted of all-cause, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer-related mortality. Multivariate COX regression, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and restricted cubic spline (RCS) were used to investigate the association between Lp(a), FIB and their combination with all-cause, CVD and cancer-related mortality.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up period of 235 months, 2,668 individuals died, including 1,051 deaths attributed to CVD and 549 deaths due to cancer. Multivariate Cox regression analyses revealed independent associations between both Lp(a) and FIB with all-cause, CVD, and cancer-related mortality. Compared to participants in the 1st to 50th percentiles of both Lp(a) and FIB, those in the 90th to 100th percentiles exhibited multivariable adjusted HRs of 1.813 (95% CI: 1.419-2.317, P < 0.001), 2.147 (95% CI: 1.483-3.109, P < 0.001) and 2.355 (95% CI: 1.396, 3.973, P = 0.001) for all-cause, CVD and cancer-related mortality, respectively. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not substantially attenuate the association between the combination of high Lp(a) and high FIB with the risk of all-cause and CVD-related mortality. Additionally, the RCS analysis showed that the relationship between Lp(a) and the risk of all-cause and cancer-related mortality, as well as the relationship between FIB and the risk of cancer-related mortality, were linear (P for nonlinearity > 0.05). Conversely, the relationship between Lp(a) and the risk of CVD-related mortality, as well as the relationship between FIB and the risk of all-cause and CVD-related mortality, were nonlinear (P for nonlinearity < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

High levels of Lp(a) and FIB together conferred a greater risk of mortality from all-cause, CVD and cancer.

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.

Effects of Inclisiran in Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Pooled Analysis of the ORION-10 and ORION-11 Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of inclisiran in participants with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) from ORION-10 and ORION-11 stratified by key patient characteristics.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive 300 mg inclisiran sodium (284 mg inclisiran) or placebo on days 1, 90, 270, and 450, alongside background lipid-lowering therapy. This pooled, post hoc analysis stratified participants with ASCVD by sex, age, race, kidney function, body mass index, and glycemic status. Co-primary endpoints were percentage changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from baseline to day 510, and after day 90 and up to day 540 (time-adjusted). LDL-C goal attainment and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

This analysis of 2975 participants included: female, n=827; Black, n=213; 75 years of age or older, n=458; obese, n=1474; diabetes, n=1182; and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease, n=538. Mean baseline LDL-C levels in the total ASCVD population were balanced between treatment arms (inclisiran, 103.4 mg/dL; placebo, 102.0 mg/dL). With inclisiran, mean placebo-corrected percentage changes in LDL-C from baseline were -51.5% (95% CI, -54.0% to -49.0%) and -52.1% (95% CI, -53.9% to -50.4%) to day 510 and day 540 (time-adjusted), respectively; this was consistent across subgroups. LDL-C less than 55 mg/dL at 1 or more visits was reached by 87.6% of participants receiving inclisiran. The inclisiran safety profile was consistent across subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Twice-yearly inclisiran (after initial and 3-month doses) was well-tolerated and provided significant, consistent LDL-C reductions for up to 18 months in participants with ASCVD independent of key patient characteristics (ORION-10 [Inclisiran for Participants With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease and Elevated Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol]; NCT03399370 and ORION-11 [Inclisiran for Subjects With ASCVD or ASCVD-Risk Equivalents and Elevated Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol]; NCT03400800).

Impact of Social Determinants of Health and Lifestyle on Association Between Lipoprotein(a) and Cardiovascular Events

Background

In European cohorts, healthier lifestyle either attenuated or associated with lower cardiovascular risk despite elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)].

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to test if social determinants of health (SDOH) and Life's Simple 7 (LS7) scores impact the association of Lp(a) with cardiovascular events in U.S. cohorts.

Methods

We performed a sequential multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis using the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities) and MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) cohorts. We first adjusted for age, gender, non-high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, race, and ethnicity, then sequentially added SDOH and LS7 scores. The primary outcomes were time until first myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Results

ARIC (n = 15,072; median Lp(a) = 17.3 mg/dL) had 16.2 years and MESA (n = 6,822; median Lp(a) = 18.3 mg/dL) had 12.3 years of average follow-up. In age, gender, race, and ethnicity, and non-high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol adjusted analyses, Lp(a) was associated with MI in ARIC (HR: 1.10, P < 0.001) and MESA (HR: 1.11, P = 0.001), and stroke in ARIC (HR: 1.07, P < 0.001) but not MESA (HR: 0.97, P = 0.53). In models with SDOH and LS7, associations of Lp(a) remained similar with MI (ARIC, HR: 1.08, P < 0.001; MESA, HR: 1.10, P = 0.001) and stroke (ARIC, HR: 1.06, P = 0.002; MESA, HR: 0.96, P = 0.37). Each additional SDOH correlated positively with MI (ARIC, HR: 1.04, P = 0.01; MESA, HR: 1.08, P = 0.003) and stroke in ARIC (HR: 1.08, P = 0.00) but not MESA (HR: 1.03, P = 0.41). Each additional LS7 point correlated negatively with MI (ARIC, HR: 0.88, P < 0.001; MESA, HR: 0.85, P < 0.001) and stroke (ARIC, HR: 0.91, P < 0.001; MESA, HR: 0.86, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

SDOH and lifestyle factors associated with risk for MI and stroke but did not largely impact the association between Lp(a) and cardiovascular events.

Impact of Lipoprotein(a) Levels on Cardiovascular Risk Estimation

INTRODUCTION

A new cardiovascular risk (CVR) calculator that incorporates Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels has recently been designed.

AIMS

To estimate CVR using the new score and to identify the reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) or systolic blood pressure (SBP) necessary to balance the risk attributable to Lp(a).

METHODS

CVR throughout life and at 10 years was estimated with the new score in patients in primary prevention, both considering and not considering the value of Lp(a). When the estimated risk considering Lp(a) levels exceeded the baseline risk, the reduction in LDL-C levels or SBP necessary to balance the risk attributable to Lp(a) was calculated.

RESULTS

In total, 671 patients (mean age 54.2 years, 47.2% women) were included. Globally, 22.7% of the population had high Lp(a) values (> 50 mg/dL or > 125 nmol/L). When calculating CVR throughout life and considering the Lp(a) value, the global risk increased in 66.7% of cases (median 19.3%). Similar results were observed when we assessed the 10-year risk. The risk associated with Lp(a) could be completely compensated by decreasing LDL-C (average 21 mg/dL) or SBP (average 6.3 mmHg) in 79.2% and 74.7% of cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

When calculating the CVR with the new score, two-thirds and one-third of the population were bidirectionally recategorized as 'up' or 'down,' respectively. The decrease in LDL-C or SBP mitigated the increased risk caused by Lp(a) levels across a substantial proportion of patients.

Lipoprotein (a) and cerebrovascular disease

The role of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] in cerebrovascular disease is a topic of importance. In this narrative review, pertinent studies have been leveraged to comprehensively examine this relationship from diverse perspectives.Lp(a) shares structural traits with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Lp(a) is synthesized by hepatocytes, and its plasma levels are genetically determined by the LPA gene, which produces apolipoprotein (a).Numerous epidemiological studies have confirmed the positive correlation between elevated serum Lp(a) levels and the occurrence or recurrence of cerebrovascular events, especially ischemic strokes, in adults. It should be noted that the correlation strength varies among studies and is marginal in Mendelian randomization studies.Regarding pediatric patients, screening is currently limited to those with a relevant medical history. Lp(a) seems to play a significant role in the pathogenesis of arterial ischemic stroke in children because environmental thrombotic and atherogenic factors are generally not present.Phase 3 trials of novel Lp(a) targeting agents, such as pelacarsen and olpasiran, are anticipated to demonstrate their efficacy in reducing the incidence of stroke. Given the richness of the literature, new guidelines regarding Lp(a) screening and management in targeted populations are warranted to provide more effective primary and secondary prevention.

Lipoprotein(a) serum concentrations in children in relation to body mass index, age and sex

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an inherited risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Limited data exist on Lp(a) values in children. We aimed to evaluate whether Lp(a) concentrations in youth are influenced by BMI.

METHODS

756 blood samples of 248 children with obesity and 264 matched healthy children aged 5 and 18 years, enrolled in the population-based LIFE Child (German civilization diseases cohort) study, were analyzed. Repeat measurements were available in 154 children (1-4 follow ups, ~1 year apart).

RESULTS

The median Lp(a) concentration in the total cohort (n = 512) at first visit was 9.7 mg/dL (IQR 4.0-28.3). Lp(a) concentrations between 30-50 mg/dL were observed in 11.5%, while 12.5% exhibited Lp(a) ≧50 mg/dL. There was no association of Lp(a) with body mass index (BMI) (ß = 0.004, P = 0.49). Lp(a) levels did not correlate with age or sex, while Lp(a) was associated positively with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (ß = 0.05, P < 0.0001). The Lp(a) risk category remained stable in 94% of all children in repeated measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The data showed no association of Lp(a) levels in children with BMI, age or sex. Measurement of Lp(a) in youth may be useful to identify children at increased lifetime risk for ASCVD.

IMPACT

In youth, Lp(a) levels are not affected by age, sex and BMI. Lp(a) risk categories remain stable over time in repeated measurements in children. Measurement of Lp(a) in children may be useful as an additional factor to identify children at increased lifetime risk for ASCVD and for reverse family screening.

Low Concentration of Lipoprotein(a) is an Independent Predictor of Incident Type 2 Diabetes

The aim of the study was to assess the association between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentration and incident type 2 diabetes. A meta-analysis of qualified studies on the relationship of low levels of Lp(a) concentration with incident type 2 diabetes was conducted. PubMed and Cochrane libraries were searched for randomized controlled trials containing data on events. Seven randomized trials with 227178 subjects were included in this analysis. We found an inverse association of the levels of Lp(a) concentration with risk of type 2 diabetes with approximately 37% lower relative risk in the group with the highest concentration compared with group with the lowest concentration. The current available evidence from prospective studies suggests that there is an inverse association between the levels of Lp(a) concentration and risk of type 2 diabetes, with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes at low levels of Lp(a) concentration. Therefore, we believe that the low levels of Lp(a) concentration is an independent predictor of incident type 2 diabetes.

Lipoprotein(a) and Coronary Plaque in Asymptomatic Individuals: The Miami Heart Study at Baptist Health South Florida

BACKGROUND

Elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) are independently associated with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events. However, the mechanisms driving this association are poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the association between Lp(a) and coronary plaque characteristics in a contemporary US cohort without clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography, the noninvasive gold standard for the assessment of coronary atherosclerosis.

METHODS

We used baseline data from the Miami Heart Study-a community-based, prospective cohort study-which included asymptomatic adults aged 40 to 65 years evaluated using coronary computed tomography angiography. Those taking any lipid-lowering therapies were excluded. Elevated Lp(a) was defined as ≥125 nmol/L. Outcomes included any plaque, coronary artery calcium score >0, maximal stenosis ≥50%, presence of any high-risk plaque feature (positive remodeling, spotty calcification, low-attenuation plaque, napkin ring), and the presence of ≥2 high-risk plaque features.

RESULTS

Among 1795 participants (median age, 52 years; 54.3% women; 49.6% Hispanic), 291 (16.2%) had Lp(a) ≥125 nmol/L. In unadjusted analyses, individuals with Lp(a) ≥125 nmol/L had a higher prevalence of all outcomes compared with Lp(a) <125 nmol/L, although differences were only statistically significant for the presence of any coronary plaque and ≥2 high-risk features. In multivariable models, elevated Lp(a) was independently associated with the presence of any coronary plaque (odds ratio, 1.40, [95% CI, 1.05-1.86]) and with ≥2 high-risk features (odds ratio, 3.94, [95% CI, 1.82-8.52]), although only 35 participants had this finding. Among participants with a coronary artery calcium score of 0 (n=1200), those with Lp(a) ≥125 nmol/L had a significantly higher percentage of any plaque compared with those with Lp(a) <125 nmol/L (24.2% versus 14.2%; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this contemporary analysis, elevated Lp(a) was independently associated with the presence of coronary plaque. Larger studies are needed to confirm the strong association observed with the presence of multiple high-risk coronary plaque features.

Associations between lipoprotein(a), oxidized phospholipids, and extracoronary vascular disease

The roles of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and related oxidized phospholipids (OxPLs) in the development and progression of coronary disease is known, but their influence on extracoronary vascular disease is not well-established. We sought to evaluate associations between Lp(a), OxPL apolipoprotein B (OxPL-apoB), and apolipoprotein(a) (OxPL-apo(a)) with angiographic extracoronary vascular disease and incident major adverse limb events (MALEs). Four hundred forty-six participants who underwent coronary and/or peripheral angiography were followed up for a median of 3.7 years. Lp(a) and OxPLs were measured before angiography. Elevated Lp(a) was defined as ≥150 nmol/L. Elevated OxPL-apoB and OxPL-apo(a) were defined as greater than or equal to the 75th percentile (OxPL-apoB ≥8.2 nmol/L and OxPL-apo(a) ≥35.8 nmol/L, respectively). Elevated Lp(a) had a stronger association with the presence of extracoronary vascular disease compared to OxPLs and was minimally improved with the addition of OxPLs in multivariable models. Compared to participants with normal Lp(a) and OxPL concentrations, participants with elevated Lp(a) levels were twice as likely to experience a MALE (odds ratio: 2.14, 95% confidence interval: 1.03, 4.44), and the strength of the association as well as the C statistic of 0.82 was largely unchanged with the addition of OxPL-apoB and OxPL-apo(a). Elevated Lp(a) and OxPLs are risk factors for progression and complications of extracoronary vascular disease. However, the addition of OxPLs to Lp(a) does not provide additional information about risk of extracoronary vascular disease. Therefore, Lp(a) alone captures the risk profile of Lp(a), OxPL-apoB, and OxPL-apo(a) in the development and progression of atherosclerotic plaque in peripheral arteries.

Emerging clinical role of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition-Part two: Current and emerging concepts in the clinical use of PCSK9 inhibition

BACKGROUND

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors have emerged as a novel class of drugs with cardioprotective effects through their lipid-lowering effects.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to discuss existing and novel strategies of PCSK9 inhibition, providing an overview of established randomized controlled trials and ongoing outcome trials that assess the efficacy and long-term safety of PCSK9 inhibitors. It also explores the evolving role of PCSK9 beyond lipid metabolism and outlines the pleiotropic actions of PCSK9 inhibition in various disorders and future directions including novel strategies to target PCSK9.

CONCLUSION

PCSK9 inhibition shows promise not only in lipid metabolism but also in other disease processes, including atherosclerotic plaque remodeling, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, inflammation, and immune response.

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

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

Small apolipoprotein(a) isoforms may predict primary patency following peripheral arterial revascularization

Background

High lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is associated with adverse limb events in patients undergoing lower extremity revascularization. Lp(a) levels are genetically pre-determined, with LPA gene encoding for two apolipoprotein (a) [apo(a)] isoforms. Isoform size variations are driven by the number of kringle IV type 2 (KIV-2) repeats. Lp(a) levels are inversely correlated with isoform size. In this study, we examined the role of Lp(a) levels, apo(a) size, and inflammatory markers with lower extremity revascularization outcomes.

Methods

Twenty-five subjects with chronic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) underwent open or endovascular lower extremity revascularization (mean age, 66.7 ± 9.7 years; Female = 12; Male = 13; Black = 8; Hispanic = 5; and White = 12). Pre- and postoperative medical history, self-reported symptoms, ankle-brachial indices (ABIs), and lower extremity duplex ultrasounds were obtained. Plasma Lp(a), apoB100, lipid panel, and pro-inflammatory markers (IL-6, IL-18, hs-CRP, TNFα) were assayed preoperatively. Isoform size was estimated using gel electrophoresis and weighted isoform size (wIS) calculated based on % isoform expression. Firth logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between Lp(a) levels and wIS with procedural outcomes: symptoms (better/worse), early primary patency at 2 to 4 weeks, ABIs, and reintervention within 3 to 6 months. We controlled for age, sex, history of diabetes, smoking, statin, antiplatelet, and anticoagulation use.

Results

Median plasma Lp(a) level was 108 (interrquartile range, 44-301) nmol/L. The mean apoB100 level was 168.0 ± 65.8 mg/dL. These values were not statistically different among races. We found no association between Lp(a) levels and wIS with measured plasma pro-inflammatory markers. However, smaller apo(a) wIS was associated with occlusion of the treated lesion(s) in the postoperative period (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-3.86; P < .05). The relationship of smaller apo(a) wIS with reintervention was not as strong (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.56; P = .07). We observed no association between wIS with patient reported symptoms or change in ABIs.

Conclusions

In this small study, subjects with smaller apo(a) isoform size undergoing peripheral arterial revascularization were more likely to experience occlusion in the postoperative period and/or require reintervention. Larger cohort studies identifying the mechanism and validating these preliminary data are needed to improve understanding of long-term peripheral vascular outcomes.

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.

The importance of LDL-C lowering in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention: Lower for longer is better

Cumulative exposure to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a key driver of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. An armamentarium of therapies to achieve robust and sustained reduction in LDL-C can reduce ASCVD risk. The gold standard for LDL-C assessment is ultracentrifugation but in routine clinical practice LDL-C is usually calculated and the most accurate calculation is the Martin/Hopkins equation. For primary prevention, consideration of estimated ASCVD risk frames decision making regarding use of statins and other therapies, and tools such as risk enhancing factors and coronary artery calcium enable tailoring of risk assessment and decision making. In patients with diabetes, lipid lowering therapy is recommended in most patients to reduce ASCVD risk with an opportunity to tailor therapy based on other risk factors. Patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) with baseline LDL-C greater than or equal to 190 mg/dL are at elevated risk, and LDL-C lowering with high-intensity statin therapy is often combined with non-statin therapies to prevent ASCVD. Secondary prevention of ASCVD, including in patients with prior myocardial infarction or stroke, requires intensive lipid lowering therapy and lifestyle modification approaches. There is no established LDL-C level below which benefit ceases or safety concerns arise. When further LDL-C lowering is required beyond lifestyle modifications and statin therapy, additional medications include oral ezetimibe and bempedoic acid, or injectables such as PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies or siRNA therapy. A novel agent that acts independently of hepatic LDL receptors is evinacumab, which is approved for patients with homozygous FH. Other emerging agents are targeted at Lp(a) and CETP. In light of the expanding lipid treatment landscape, this manuscript reviews the importance of early, intensive, and sustained LDL-C-lowering for primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD.

Synergetic impact of lipoprotein(a) and fibrinogen on stroke in coronary artery disease patients

BACKGROUND

Emerging data suggested that lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Previous studies indicated fibrinogen (Fib) had synergetic effect on Lp(a)-induced events. However, combined impact of Fib and Lp(a) on ischemic stroke has not been elucidated.

METHODS

In this prospective study, we consecutively enrolled 8263 patients with stable coronary artery diseases (CAD) from 2011 to 2017. Patients were categorized into three groups according to tertiles of Lp(a) levels [Lp(a)-low, Lp(a)-medium, and Lp(a)-high] and further divided into nine groups by Lp(a) and Fib levels. All subjects were followed up for the occurrence of ischemic stroke.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 37.7 months, 157 (1.9%) ischemic strokes occurred. Stroke incidence increased by Lp(a) (1.1 vs. 2.1 vs. 2.5%, Cochran-Armitage p < .001) and Fib (1.1 vs. 2.0 vs. 2.6%, Cochran-Armitage p < .001) categories. When further classified into nine groups by Lp(a) and Fib levels, the incidence of ischemic stroke in group 9 [Lp(a)-high and Fib-high] was significantly higher than that in group 1 [Lp(a)-low and Fib-low] (3.1 vs. 6%, p < .001). The group 9 was associated with a highest risk for ischemic stroke (adjusted HR 4.907, 95% CI: 2.154-11.18, p < .001), compared with individuals in the Lp(a)-high (adjusted HR 2.290, 95% CI: 1.483-3.537, p < .001) or Fib-high (adjusted HR 1.184, 95% CI: 1.399-3.410, p = .001). Furthermore, combining Lp(a) with Fib increased C-statistics by .045 (p = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Current study first demonstrated that elevated Lp(a) combining with Fib evaluation enhanced the risk of ischemic stroke in patients with CAD beyond Lp(a) or Fib alone.

Subclinical Atherosclerosis to Guide Treatment in Dyslipidemia and Diabetes Mellitus

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus are two common conditions that are associated with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). In this review, we aimed to provide an in-depth and contemporary review of non-invasive approaches to assess subclinical atherosclerotic burden, predict cardiovascular risk, and guide appropriate treatment strategies. We focused this paper on two main imaging modalities: coronary artery calcium (CAC) score and computed tomography coronary angiography.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent longitudinal studies have provided stronger evidence on the relationship between increased CAC, thoracic aorta calcification, and risk of cardiovascular events among those with primary hypercholesterolemia, highlighting the beneficial role of statin therapy. Interestingly, resilient profiles of individuals not exhibiting atherosclerosis despite dyslipidemia have been described. Non-conventional markers of dyslipidemia have also been associated with increased subclinical atherosclerosis presence and burden, highlighting the contribution of apolipoprotein B-100 (apoB)-rich lipoprotein particles, such as remnant cholesterol and lipoprotein(a), to the residual risk of individuals on-target for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. Regarding type 2 diabetes mellitus, variability in atherosclerotic burden has also been found, and CAC testing has shown significant predictive value in stratifying cardiovascular risk. Non-invasive assessment of subclinical atherosclerosis can help reveal the continuum of ASCVD risk in those with dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus and can inform personalized strategies for cardiovascular disease prevention in the primary prevention setting.

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.

Race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status affect the assessment of lipoprotein(a) levels in clinical practice

Background and Objective

High Lp(a) levels are a risk factor for ASCVD, however Lp(a) ordering in clinical practice is low. This study examines how race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status influence Lp(a) ordering.

Methods

This is a single center, retrospective study (2/1/2020-6/30/2023) using electronic medical records of adults with at least one ICD-10 diagnosis of ASCVD or resistant hyperlipidemia (LDL-C >160 mg/dL on statin therapy). We evaluated Lp(a) level differences among racial/ethnic groups and sexes. We also assessed associations between diagnosis type, diagnosis number, age at diagnosis, race, socioeconomic score (based on zip codes), public health coverage and presence of Lp(a) orders.

Results

4% of our cohort (N=56,833) had an Lp(a) order (17.3% Hispanic, 8.7% non-Hispanic Black, 47.5% non-Hispanic White and, 27% Asian/others). Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients had lower rates of Lp(a) orders (0.17%, 0.28%, respectively) when compared to non-Hispanic White patients (2.35%), p<0.001, however, their median Lp(a) levels were higher. Individuals belonging to deprived socioeconomic groups or on Medicaid, were less likely to have an Lp(a) order (RR=0.39, p<0.001 and RR=0.40, p<0.001 respectively). Certain diagnoses (carotid stenosis, family history of ASCVD and FH) and multiple diagnoses (>2) resulted in more Lp(a) orders compared to those with only one diagnosis (p<0.001).

Conclusions

Lp(a) ordering is low in patients with ASCVD. Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients at risk are less likely to have an Lp(a) order. Individuals residing in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods and on Medicaid are also less like have Lp(a) order. Lp(a) orders depend on the type and number of patients' diagnoses.

Impact of elevated lipoprotein(a) on coronary artery disease phenotype and severity

AIMS

A thorough characterization of the relationship between elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and coronary artery disease (CAD) is lacking. This study aimed to quantitatively assess the association of increasing Lp(a) levels and CAD severity in a real-world population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This non-interventional, cross-sectional, LipidCardio study included patients aged ≥21 years undergoing angiography (October 2016-March 2018) at a tertiary cardiology centre, who have at least one Lp(a) measurement. The association between Lp(a) and CAD severity was determined by synergy between PCI with taxus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX)-I and Gensini scores and angiographic characteristics. Overall, 975 patients (mean age: 69.5 years) were included; 70.1% were male, 97.5% had Caucasian ancestry, and 33.2% had a family history of premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Median baseline Lp(a) level was 19.3 nmol/L. Patients were stratified by baseline Lp(a): 72.9% had < 65 nmol/L, 21.0% had ≥100 nmol/L, 17.2% had ≥125 nmol/L, and 12.9% had ≥150 nmol/L. Compared with the normal (Lp(a) < 65 nmol/L) group, elevated Lp(a) groups (e.g. ≥ 150 nmol/L) had a higher proportion of patients with prior CAD (48.4% vs. 62.7%; P < 0.01), prior coronary revascularization (39.1% vs. 51.6%; P = 0.01), prior coronary artery bypass graft (6.0% vs. 15.1%; P < 0.01), vessel(s) with lesions (68.5% vs. 81.3%; P = 0.03), diffusely narrowed vessels (10.9% vs. 16.5%; P = 0.01) or chronic total occlusion lesions (14.3% vs. 25.2%; P < 0.01), and higher median SYNTAX-I (3.0 vs. 5.5; P = 0.01) and Gensini (10.0 vs. 16.0; P < 0.01) scores.

CONCLUSION

Elevated Lp(a) was associated with a more severe presentation of CAD. Awareness of Lp(a) levels in patients with CAD may have implications in their clinical management.

Association of Lipoprotein(a) Levels With Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Low-Attenuation Plaque

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI). However, the mechanism underlying this association has yet to be fully elucidated.

OBJECTIVES

This multicenter study aimed to investigate whether association between Lp(a) and MI risk is reinforced by the presence of low-attenuation plaque (LAP) identified by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA).

METHODS

In a derivation cohort, a total of 5,607 patients with stable chest pain suspected of coronary artery disease who underwent CCTA and Lp(a) measurement were prospectively enrolled. In validation cohort, 1,122 patients were retrospectively collected during the same period. High Lp(a) was defined as Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL. The primary endpoint was a composite of time to fatal or nonfatal MI. Associations were estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 8.2 years (Q1-Q3: 7.2-9.3 years), the elevated Lp(a) levels were associated with MI risk (adjusted HR [aHR]: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.46-2.49; P < 0.001). There was a significant interaction between Lp(a) and LAP (Pinteraction <0.001) in relation to MI risk. When stratified by the presence or absence of LAP, Lp(a) was associated with MI in patients with LAP (aHR: 3.03; 95% CI: 1.92-4.76; P < 0.001). Mediation analysis revealed that LAP mediated 73.3% (P < 0.001) for the relationship between Lp(a) and MI. The principal findings remained unchanged in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated Lp(a) augmented the risk of MI during 8 years of follow-up, especially in patients with LAP identified by CCTA. The presence of LAP could reinforce the relationship between Lp(a) and future MI occurrence.

Lipoprotein(a), platelet function and cardiovascular disease

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is associated with atherothrombosis through several mechanisms, including putative antifibrinolytic properties. However, genetic association studies have not demonstrated an association between high plasma levels of Lp(a) and the risk of venous thromboembolism, and studies in patients with highly elevated Lp(a) levels have shown that Lp(a) lowering does not modify the clotting properties of plasma ex vivo. Lp(a) can interact with several platelet receptors, providing biological plausibility for a pro-aggregatory effect. Observational clinical studies suggest that elevated plasma Lp(a) concentrations are associated with worse long-term outcomes in patients undergoing revascularization. Furthermore, in these patients, those with elevated plasma Lp(a) levels derive more benefit from prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy than those with normal Lp(a) levels. The ASPREE trial in healthy older individuals treated with aspirin showed a reduction in ischaemic events in those who had a single-nucleotide polymorphism in LPA that is associated with elevated Lp(a) levels in plasma, without an increase in bleeding events. In this Review, we re-examine the role of Lp(a) in the regulation of platelet function and suggest areas of research to define further the clinical relevance to cardiovascular disease of the observed associations between Lp(a) and platelet function.

All we need to know about lipoprotein(a)

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