NHLBI Working Group Recommendations to Reduce Lipoprotein(a)-Mediated Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Aortic Stenosis

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).

Testing practices and clinical management of lipoprotein(a) levels: A 5-year retrospective analysis from the Johns Hopkins Hospital

Objective

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an independent, genetically determined risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We evaluated the frequency of testing for elevated Lp(a) and subsequent management at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, a large academic medical center, over a 5-year period.

Methods

The Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) electronic medical record was queried to identify patients with an encounter between 2017 and 2021, either with established ASCVD or at increased risk, defined as being on any lipid lowering medication or having LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL. The frequency of Lp(a) testing and of elevated levels were identified for each year.

Results

Among 111,350 unique adult patients, 2,785 (2.5 %) had at least one Lp(a) test. Patients with Lp(a) testing, compared to those without testing, were younger (mean age 56 years vs. 66 years), more often female (49 % vs. 44 %), Black (24.7 % vs. 24.6 %) or "other" race/ethnicity (12 % vs 10 %), and had higher LDL-C levels (median 118 vs. 91 mg/dL; p < 0.001). The number and frequency of Lp(a) testing increased from 167 (0.57 %) in 2017 to 1155 (5.67 %) in 2021. Lp(a) levels were abnormal in 43.4 % of patients (moderate [75-125 nmol/L]: 10.3 %, high [126-600 nmol/L]: 32.2 %, severe [>600 nmol/L]: 0.9 %). Among 920 patients with high or severe Lp(a) levels, 200 (22 %) had a subsequent referral to cardiology or lipid specialist, and 180 (20 %) had a new lipid-lowering medication prescribed in the subsequent 18 months.

Conclusion

Based on a single-center experience, the frequency of incident Lp(a) testing among increased-risk patients was low but increased significantly over 5-years, likely due to Lipid Clinic referrals with reflex Lp(a) testing and greater awareness about this risk factor. Future work should target appropriate population based Lp(a) testing strategies and clinical decision-making regarding risk management once Lp(a) elevation is diagnosed.

Lipoprotein(a) in children and adolescents with genetically confirmed familial hypercholesterolemia followed up at a specialized lipid clinic

Background and aim

Many children with an FH mutation also exhibit elevated lipoprotein(a) levels, which is an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Studies have reported higher levels of lipoprotein(a) in adult and middle-aged women than men. There is limited knowledge on the concentration and change of lipoprotein(a) levels in children with genetic FH, and therefore we investigated sex-differences in lipoprotein(a) level and change in lipoprotein(a) in girls and boys with genetically confirmed FH.

Methods

Medical records were reviewed retrospectively in 438 subjects with heterozygous FH that started follow-up below the age of 19 years at the Lipid Clinic, Oslo University Hospital in Norway, and of these we included 386 subjects with at least one Lp(a) measurement.

Results

Mean (SD) age at baseline was 13.8 (7.3) years and the age was similar between sexes. Girls had a higher lipoprotein(a) level than boys at baseline: median (25-75 percentile) 223 (108-487) vs. 154 (78-360) mg/L, respectively (p < 0.01). From baseline to follow-up measurement (mean [SD] 8.9 [6.1] years apart), the mean (95 % CI) absolute and percentage change in Lp(a) level in girls was 151.4 (54.9-247.8) mg/L and 44.8 (16.4-73.1) %, respectively, and in boys it was 66.8 (22.9-110.8) mg/L and 50.5 (8.8-92.3) %, respectively (both p > 0.05).

Conclusions

We found an increase in Lp(a) levels in children with genetic FH with age, and higher levels in girls than boys, which could impact risk assessment and future ASCVD. Further research is needed to elucidate whether subjects with FH could benefit from lipoprotein(a)-lowering therapies that are under current investigations.

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.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Lipoprotein(a) and diet: consuming sugar-sweetened beverages lowers lipoprotein(a) levels in obese and overweight adults

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] contributes to cardiovascular disease risk. A genetically determined size polymorphism in apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)], determined by the number of Kringle (K) repeats, inversely regulates Lp(a) levels. Nongenetic factors including dietary saturated fat influence Lp(a) levels. However, less is known about the effects of carbohydrates including dietary sugars. In this double-blind, parallel arm study among 32 overweight/obese adults, we investigated the effect of consuming glucose- or fructose-sweetened beverages providing 25% of energy requirements for 10 weeks on Lp(a) level and assessed the role of the apo(a) size polymorphism. The mean (±SD) age of participants was 54 ± 8 years, 50% were women, and 75% were of European descent. Following the 10-week intervention, Lp(a) level was reduced by an average (±SEM) of -13.2% ± 4.3% in all participants (P = 0.005); -15.3% ± 7.8% in the 15 participants who consumed glucose (P = 0.07); and -11.3% ± 4.5% in the 17 participants who consumed fructose (P = 0.02), without any significant difference in the effect between the two sugar groups. Relative changes in Lp(a) levels were similar across subgroups of lower versus higher baseline Lp(a) level or carrier versus noncarrier of an atherogenic small (≤22K) apo(a) size. In contrast, LDL-C increased. In conclusion, in older, overweight/obese adults, consuming sugar-sweetened beverages reduced Lp(a) levels by ∼13% independently of apo(a) size variability and the type of sugar consumed. The Lp(a) response was opposite to that of LDL-C and triglyceride concentrations. These findings suggest that metabolic pathways might impact Lp(a) levels.

Lipoprotein(a) in the Year 2024: A Look Back and a Look Ahead

In fitting with the American Heart Association’s 100th anniversary of its founding and Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology organizing a Centennial Collection to celebrate this event, lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] celebrates its 61st birthday in November 2024. There has been substantial progress in understanding the biology and pathophysiology of Lp(a) in the last 6 decades, including its discovery as a unique β-lipoprotein containing the pathognomonic apolipoprotein(a) moiety covalently bound to apolipoprotein B-100, its independent monogenetic association with cardiovascular disease and calcific aortic valve disease, its increased content of pro-atherogenic and pro-inflammatory of oxidized phospholipids relative to other lipoproteins and the development of RNA therapeutics to lower plasma Lp(a) levels. The validation or refutation of the “Lp(a) hypothesis”, namely that lowering plasma Lp(a) will lead to clinical benefit, is ongoing in 3 clinical outcomes trials. This essay reviews the discovery of Lp(a), summarizes the seminal pathophysiological findings since its discovery, discusses ongoing clinical trials with novel drugs and approaches, and provides a look ahead to unanswered questions.

The role of natural products as PCSK9 modulators: A review

A variety of mechanisms and drugs have been shown to attenuate cardiovascular disease (CVD) onset and/or progression. Recent researchers have identified a potential role of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) in modulating lipid metabolism and reducing plasma low density lipoprotein (LDL) levels. PCSK9 is the central protein in the metabolism of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) owing to its major function in LDL receptor (LDLR) degradation. Due to the close correlation of cardiovascular disease with lipid levels, many in vivo and in vitro investigations are currently underway studying the physiological role of PCSK9. Furthermore, many studies are actively investigating the mechanisms of various compounds that influence lipid associated-disorders and their associated cardiovascular diseases. PCSK9 inhibitors have been shown to have significant impact in the prevention of emerging cardiovascular diseases. Natural products can effectively be used as PCSK9 inhibitors to control lipid levels through various mechanisms. In this review, we evaluate the role of phytochemicals and natural products in the regulation of PCSK9, and their ability to prevent cardiovascular diseases. Moreover, we describe their mechanisms of action, which have not to date been delineated.

Development of a PCSK9-targeted nanoparticle vaccine to effectively decrease the hypercholesterolemia

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) binds to the low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR) and mediates its internalization and degradation, resulting in an increase in LDL cholesterol levels. Recently, PCSK9 emerged as a therapeutic target for hypercholesterolemia and atherosclerosis. In this study, we develop a PCSK9 nanoparticle (NP) vaccine by covalently conjugating the catalytic domain (aa 153-aa 454, D374Y) of PCSK9 to self-assembled 24-mer ferritin NPs. We demonstrate that the PCSK9 NP vaccine effectively induces interfering antibodies against PCSK9 and reduces serum lipids levels in both a high-fat diet-induced hypercholesterolemia model and an adeno-associated virus-hPCSK9D374Y-induced hypercholesterolemia model. Additionally, the vaccine significantly reduces plaque lesion areas in the aorta and macrophages infiltration in an atherosclerosis mouse model. Furthermore, we discover that the vaccine's efficacy relied on T follicular help cells and LDLR. Overall, these findings suggest that the PCSK9 NP vaccine holds promise as an effective treatment for hypercholesterolemia and atherosclerosis.

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.

The Role of Lipoprotein(a) in Peripheral Artery Disease

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

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

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

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.

Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease: sifting the evidence to guide future research

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a genetically determined causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease including coronary heart disease, peripheral arterial disease, ischaemic stroke, and calcific aortic valve stenosis. Clinical trials of specific and potent Lp(a)-lowering drugs are currently underway. However, in clinical practice, widespread assessment of Lp(a) is still lacking despite several guideline recommendations to measure Lp(a) at least once in a lifetime in all adults to identify those at high or very high risk due to elevated levels. The present review provides an overview of key findings from observational and genetic Lp(a) studies, highlights the main challenges in observational Lp(a) studies, and proposes a minimum set of requirements to enhance the quality and harmonize the collection of Lp(a)-related data. Adherence to the recommendations set forth in the present manuscript is intended to enhance the quality of future observational Lp(a) studies, to better define thresholds for increased risk, and to better inform clinical trial design. The recommendations can also potentially assist in the interpretation and generalization of clinical trial findings, to improve care of patients with elevated Lp(a) and optimize treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Association of Lipoprotein(a) with arterial stiffness: A Mendelian randomization study

BACKGROUND

In this study we used Mendelian randomization (MR) to investigate the potential causal association of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] levels with pulse wave velocity (PWV).

METHODS

Genetic variants associated with Lp(a) were retrieved from the UK Biobank GWAS (N = 290,497). A non- overlapping GWAS based on a European cohort (N = 7,000) was used to obtain genetic associations with PWV (outcome) and utilized two different measures for the same trait, brachial-ankle (baPWV) and carotid-femoral (cfPWV) PWV. We applied a two-sample MR using the inverse variance weighting method (IVW) and a series of sensitivity analyses for 170 SNPs that were selected as instrumental variables (IVs).

RESULTS

Our analyses do not support a causal association between Lp(a) and PWV for neither measurement [βiwv(baPWV) = -.0005, p = .8 and βiwv(cfPWV) = -.006, p = .16]. The above findings were consistent across sensitivity analyses including weighted median, mode-based estimation, MR-Egger regression and MR-PRESSO.

CONCLUSION

We did not find evidence indicating that Lp(a) is causally associated with PWV, the gold standard marker of arterial stiffness.

Apolipoprotein(a) production and clearance are associated with plasma IL-6 and IL-18 levels, dependent on ethnicity

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High plasma lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] levels are associated with increased atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), in part attributed to elevated inflammation. High plasma Lp(a) levels inversely correlate with apolipoprotein (a) [(APO(a)] isoform size. APO(a) isoform size is negatively associated with APO(a) production rate (PR) and positively associated with APO(a) fractional catabolic rate (FCR). We asked whether APO(a) PR and FCR (kinetics) are associated with plasma levels of interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-18, pro-inflammatory interleukins that promote ASCVD.

METHODS

We used samples from existing data of APO(a) kinetic studies from an ethnically diverse cohort (n = 25: 10 Black, 9 Hispanic, and 6 White subjects) and assessed IL-6 and IL-18 plasma levels. We performed multivariate linear regression analyses to examine the relationships between predictors APO(a) PR or APO(a) FCR, and outcome variables IL-6 or IL-18. In these analyses, we adjusted for parameters known to affect Lp(a) levels and APO(a) PR and FCR, including race/ethnicity and APO(a) isoform size.

RESULTS

APO(a) PR and FCR were positively associated with plasma IL-6, independent of isoform size, and dependent on race/ethnicity. APO(a) PR was positively associated with plasma IL-18, independent of isoform size and race/ethnicity. APO(a) FCR was not associated with plasma IL-18.

CONCLUSIONS

Our studies demonstrate a relationship between APO(a) PR and FCR and plasma IL-6 or IL-18, interleukins that promote ASCVD. These studies provide new insights into Lp(a) pro-inflammatory properties and are especially relevant in view of therapies targeting APO(a) to decrease cardiovascular risk.

Lipoprotein(a), C-Reactive Protein, and Cardiovascular Risk in Primary and Secondary Prevention Populations

Importance

Elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a putative causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). There are conflicting data as to whether Lp(a) may increase cardiovascular risk only in the presence of concomitant inflammation.

Objective

To investigate whether Lp(a) is associated with cardiovascular risk independent of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) in both primary and secondary prevention populations.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study uses data from 3 distinct cohorts, 1 population-based cohort and 2 randomized clinical trials. Participants included individuals from the UK Biobank (data from 2006-2010) without prevalent ASCVD, participants in the FOURIER (TIMI 59) trial (data from 2013-2017) who had baseline Lp(a) and hs-CRP data, and participants in the SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial (data from 2010-2013) who had prevalent ASCVD and baseline values for Lp(a) and hs-CRP. The data analysis took place from November 2022 to November 2023.

Exposure

Baseline plasma Lp(a), considered either as a continuous variable or dichotomized at 125 nmol/L.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemic stroke), the individual MACE components, and peripheral artery disease (PAD).

Results

Among 357 220 individuals in the UK Biobank without prevalent ASCVD, 232 699 (65%) had low hs-CRP (<2 mg/L), and 124 521 (35%) had high hs-CRP (≥2 mg/L) values. In a Cox proportional hazard model adjusted for ASCVD risk factors, higher Lp(a) was associated with increased cardiovascular risk regardless of baseline hs-CRP value for MACE (hs-CRP ≥2 mg/L: hazard ratio [HR] per 50-nmol/L higher Lp[a], 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07; P < .001; for hs-CRP <2 mg/L: HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.04-1.07; P < .001; P = .80 for interaction), as well as MI, ischemic stroke, and PAD individually. Among 34 020 individuals in the FOURIER and SAVOR trials with baseline cardiometabolic disease, there were 17 643 (52%) with low and 16 377 (48%) with high baseline hs-CRP values. In Cox proportional hazard models using aggregated data from FOURIER and SAVOR, higher baseline Lp(a) was associated with increased cardiovascular risk regardless of baseline hs-CRP for MACE (hs-CRP ≥2 mg/L: HR per 50-nmol/L higher Lp[a], 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.05; P = .04; hs-CRP <2 mg/L: HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08; P < .001; P = .16 for interaction), MI, and PAD.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, higher levels of Lp(a) were associated with MACE, MI, and PAD in both primary and secondary prevention populations regardless of baseline hs-CRP value.

Lp(a) - an overlooked risk factor

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an increasingly discussed and studied risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic valve stenosis. Many genetic and epidemiological studies support the important causal role that Lp(a) plays in the incidence of cardiovascular disease. Although dependent upon the threshold and unit of measurement of Lp(a), most estimates suggest between 20 and 30% of the world's population have elevated serum levels of Lp(a). Lp(a) levels are predominantly mediated by genetics and are not significantly modified by lifestyle interventions. Efforts are ongoing to develop effective pharmacotherapies to lower Lp(a) and to determine if lowering Lp(a) with these medications ultimately decreases the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events. In this review, the genetics and pathophysiological properties of Lp(a) will be discussed as well as the epidemiological data demonstrating its impact on the incidence of cardiovascular disease. Recommendations for screening and how to currently approach patients with elevated Lp(a) are also noted. Finally, the spectrum of pharmacotherapies under development for Lp(a) lowering is detailed.

Closing the gaps in patient management of dyslipidemia: stepping into cardiovascular precision diagnostics with apolipoprotein profiling

In persons with dyslipidemia, a high residual risk of cardiovascular disease remains despite lipid lowering therapy. Current cardiovascular risk prediction mainly focuses on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) levels, neglecting other contributing risk factors. Moreover, the efficacy of LDL-c lowering by statins resulting in reduced cardiovascular risk is only partially effective. Secondly, from a metrological viewpoint LDL-c falls short as a reliable measurand. Both direct and calculated LDL-c tests produce inaccurate test results at the low end under aggressive lipid lowering therapy. As LDL-c tests underperform both clinically and metrologically, there is an urging need for molecularly defined biomarkers. Over the years, apolipoproteins have emerged as promising biomarkers in the context of cardiovascular disease as they are the functional workhorses in lipid metabolism. Among these, apolipoprotein B (ApoB), present on all atherogenic lipoprotein particles, has demonstrated to clinically outperform LDL-c. Other apolipoproteins, such as Apo(a) - the characteristic apolipoprotein of the emerging risk factor lipoprotein(a) -, and ApoC-III - an inhibitor of triglyceride-rich lipoprotein clearance -, have attracted attention as well. To support personalized medicine, we need to move to molecularly defined risk markers, like the apolipoproteins. Molecularly defined diagnosis and molecularly targeted therapy require molecularly measured biomarkers. This review provides a summary of the scientific validity and (patho)physiological role of nine serum apolipoproteins, Apo(a), ApoB, ApoC-I, ApoC-II, ApoC-III, ApoE and its phenotypes, ApoA-I, ApoA-II, and ApoA-IV, in lipid metabolism, their association with cardiovascular disease, and their potential as cardiovascular risk markers when measured in a multiplex apolipoprotein panel.

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.

Lipoprotein(a): A Review of Risk Factors, Measurements, and Novel Treatment Modalities

The study of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has long been a source of interest as a possible independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The results of large sample observational studies, genome-wide association studies, and Mendelian randomization studies have been strong indicators supporting the link between ASCVD and Lp(a) despite early studies, with less sensitive assays, failing to show a connection. The recommendations for the indications and frequency of testing Lp(a) levels vary between US, Canadian, and European organizations due to the uncertain role of Lp(a) in ASCVD. The innovation of recent therapies, such as antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering RNA, designed to specifically target and reduce Lp(a) levels by targeting mRNA translation have once more thrust LP(a) into the spotlight of inquiry. These emerging modalities serve the dual purpose of definitively elucidating the connection between elevated Lp(a) levels and atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk, as well as the possibility of providing clinicians with the tools necessary to manage elevated Lp(a) levels in vulnerable populations. This review seeks to examine the mechanisms of atherogenicity of Lp(a) and explore the most current pharmacologic therapies currently in development.

Causal association between lipoproteins and risk of coronary artery disease-a systematic review and meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization studies

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the causal effect of lipoproteins to the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) by systematic review and meta-analysis of the associated Mendelian randomization (MR) studies.

METHODS

This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42023465430). Searches from the databases (e.g., PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science) and non-database sources to collect MR studies. The search time frame was from the database inception to August 2023. After data extraction, quality evaluation was performed, and the meta-analysis with bias evaluation was carried out with RevMan software.

RESULTS

A total of 5,828,409 participants from 21 records were included. Quality and bias assessment was performed by evaluating the internal three assumptions of MR studies. Meta-analysis for the causal association between non-HDL lipoproteins and CAD showed a significantly positive association between LDL and CAD (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.26-1.49; P < 0.001, I2 = 95%), apoB and CAD (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11-1.71; P = 0.003, I2 = 98%), and Lp(a) and CAD (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12-1.31; P < 0.001, I2 = 99%). Interestingly, although there was no statistical significance in the association between VLDL/apoA1 and CAD (both P > 0.05), the pooled non-HDL lipoproteins showed a significantly positive association with CAD (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.22-1.34; P < 0.001, I2 = 99%). For the HDL lipoproteins, the pooled OR showed a significantly negative association with CAD (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.98; P = 0.002, I2 = 72%). However, the protective effect of HDL on CAD diminished when analyzed together with apoA1 and/or apoB (both P > 0.05). The funnel plot did not show serious publication bias, and sensitivity analysis performed relatively well robustness of the causal association of LDL, apoB, Lp(a), and total cholesterol with CAD.

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis suggests an overall effect of causal association between lipoproteins and CAD. Most of the non-HDL lipoproteins (LDL, apoB, Lp(a)) promote CAD, while the protective effect of HDL in CAD still needs to be verified in the future.

Vascular Health of Females with History of Assisted Reproductive Technology

The use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) for the treatment of infertility is gaining popularity. Limited data on the overall vascular health of females with history of ART are available. This pilot study aimed to investigate the overall vascular health of females with history of ART compared to individuals who conceived spontaneously. The assessment of overall vascular health included the measurement of brachial blood pressure, central blood pressure, and pulse wave velocity, as well as the evaluation of the arterial stiffness and carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) of the common carotid arteries. Conventional blood lipids including lipoprotein a (Lp(a)) were also determined. In total, 45 females with history of ART and 52 females who conceived spontaneously were included (mean age: 47.72 ± 5.96 years vs. 46.84 ± 7.43 years, p = 0.525). An initial comparison revealed a significantly higher prevalence of elevated Lp(a) in ART females (p = 0.011). However, after multiple comparison correction, the significant result disappeared (p = 0.132). Within the cohort of ART females, no significantly higher cardiovascular risk was detected regarding vascular function. The potentially higher prevalence of elevated Lp(a) in ART females must be further investigated in future studies, as it might contribute to the impaired reproductive process in this cohort.

Elevated lipoprotein(a) increases risk of subsequent major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and coronary revascularisation in incident ASCVD patients: A cohort study from the UK Biobank

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a genetic driver for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We aimed to provide novel insights into the associated risk of elevated versus normal Lp(a) levels on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in an incident ASCVD cohort.

METHODS

This was an observational cohort study of incident ASCVD patients. MACE counts and incidence rates (IRs) per 100-person-years were reported for patients with normal (<65 nmol/L) and elevated (>150 nmol/L) Lp(a) within the first year after incident ASCVD diagnosis and overall follow-up. Cox proportional hazard models quantified the risk of MACE associated with a 100 nmol/L increase in Lp(a).

RESULTS

The study cohort included 32,537 incident ASCVD patients; 5204 with elevated and 22,257 with normal Lp(a). Of those with elevated Lp(a), 41.2% had a subsequent MACE, versus 35.61% with normal Lp(a). Within the first year of follow-up, the IRs of composite MACE and coronary revascularisation were significantly higher (p < 0.001) in patients with elevated versus normal Lp(a) (IR difference 6.79 and 4.66). This trend was also observed in the overall follow-up (median 4.7 years). Using time to first subsequent MACE, a 100 nmol/L increase in Lp(a) was associated with an 8.0% increased risk of composite MACE, and 18.6% increased risk of coronary revascularisation during the overall follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of elevated Lp(a) with increased risk of subsequent MACE and coronary revascularisation highlights a population who may benefit from earlier and more targeted intervention for cardiovascular risk including Lp(a), particularly within the first year after ASCVD diagnosis. Proactive Lp(a) testing as part of routine clinical practice can help identify and better manage these higher-risk individuals.

Serum Lipoprotein(a) Is Not Associated with Graves' Ophthalmopathy

Aim: To investigate the relationship of serum lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and other serum lipids with presence of Graves' ophthalmopathy (GO). Methods: A total of 99 consecutive patients diagnosed with Graves' disease (GD), aged 18-65 years, who had not received prior treatment for GO, thyroid surgery, or radioactive iodine therapy, were recruited between June 2020 and July 2022. In addition, 56 healthy controls (HCs) were included as the control group. All patients underwent an ophthalmological examination, and were classified based on the presence of GO into the GO group (n = 45) and no GO group (n = 54). Fasting blood samples were collected from all participants to analyze serum lipid parameters, including Lp(a), total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and triglycerides. Results: The median serum levels of Lp(a) were 5.7 [4.3-9.2] in the GO group, 6.7 [3.7-9.9] in the no GO group, and 4.7 [3-7.6] in the HC group. The intergroup comparisons of serum Lp(a) levels showed no significant result. The serum levels of total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides were also similar between the groups (P > 0.05 for all). However, when analyzing only euthyroid GD patients and the control group, the serum LDL cholesterol levels were found to be significantly higher in the euthyroid GO group [median: 132 interquartile range (IQR) (110-148) mg/dL] than in the HCs [median: 96 IQR (94-118) mg/dL] (P = 0.002). Conclusion: The findings of our study did not support the association between serum Lp(a) levels and GO.

Lipoprotein(a): An important piece of the ASCVD risk factor puzzle across diverse populations

Elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is an independent, genetic risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) that impacts ~1.4 billion people globally. Generally, Lp(a) levels remain stable over time; thus, most individuals need only undergo Lp(a) testing through a non-fasting blood draw once in their lifetime, unless elevated Lp(a) is identified. Despite the convenience of the test for clinicians and patients, routine Lp(a) testing has not been widely adopted. This review provides a guide to the benefits of Lp(a) testing and solutions for overcoming common barriers in practice, including access to testing and lack of awareness. Lp(a) testing provides the opportunity to reclassify ASCVD risk and drive intensive cardiovascular risk factor management in individuals with elevated Lp(a), and to identify patients potentially less likely to respond to statins. Moreover, cascade screening can help to identify elevated Lp(a) in relatives of individuals with a personal or family history of premature ASCVD. Overall, given the profound impact of elevated Lp(a) on cardiovascular risk, Lp(a) testing should be an essential component of risk assessment by primary and specialty care providers.

Recommendations of the Experts of the Polish Cardiac Society (PCS) and the Polish Lipid Association (PoLA) on the diagnosis and management of elevated lipoprotein(a) levels

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is made up of a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle and a specific apolipoprotein(a). The blood concentration of Lp(a) is approximately 90% genetically determined, and the main genetic factor determining Lp(a) levels is the size of the apo(a) isoform, which is determined by the number of KIV2 domain repeats. The size of the apo(a) isoform is inversely proportional to the blood concentration of Lp(a). Lp(a) is a strong and independent cardiovascular risk factor. Elevated Lp(a) levels ≥ 50 mg/dl (≥ 125 nmol/l) are estimated to occur in more than 1.5 billion people worldwide. However, determination of Lp(a) levels is performed far too rarely, including Poland, where, in fact, it is only since the 2021 guidelines of the Polish Lipid Association (PoLA) and five other scientific societies that Lp(a) measurements have begun to be performed. Determination of Lp(a) concentrations is not easy due to, among other things, the different sizes of the apo(a) isoforms; however, the currently available certified tests make it possible to distinguish between people with low and high cardiovascular risk with a high degree of precision. In 2022, the first guidelines for the management of patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels were published by the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the American Heart Association (AHA). The first Polish guidelines are the result of the work of experts from the two scientific societies and their aim is to provide clear, practical recommendations for the determination and management of elevated Lp(a) levels.

An LC-MS-based designated comparison method with similar performance to the Lp(a) reference measurement procedure to guide molar Lp(a) standardization

BACKGROUND

The 2022 consensus statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) on lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) recognizes the role of Lp(a) as a relevant genetically determined risk factor and recommends its measurement at least once in an individual's lifetime. It also strongly urges that Lp(a) test results are expressed as apolipoprotein (a) (apo(a)) amount of substance in molar units and no longer in confounded Lp(a) mass units (mg/dL or mg/L). Therefore, IVD manufacturers should transition to molar units. A prerequisite for this transition is the availability of an Lp(a) Reference Measurement Procedure (RMP) that allows unequivocal molecular detection and quantification of apo(a) in Lp(a). To that end an ISO 17511:2020 compliant LC-MS based and IFCC-endorsed RMP has been established that targets proteotypic peptides of apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) in Lp(a). The RMP is laborious and requires highly skilled operators. To guide IVD-manufacturers of immunoassay-based Lp(a) test kits in the transition from mass to molar units, a Designated Comparison Method (DCM) has been developed and evaluated.

METHODS

To assess whether the DCM provides equivalent results compared to the RMP, the procedural designs were compared and the analytical performance of DCM and RMP were first evaluated in a head-to-head comparison. Subsequently, apo(a) was quantified in 153 human clinical serum samples. Both DCM and RMP were calibrated using external native calibrators that produce results traceable to SRM2B. Measurement uncertainty (MU) was checked against predefined allowable MU.

RESULTS

The major difference in the design of the DCM for apo(a) is the use of only one enzymatic digestion step. The analytical performance of the DCM and RMP for apo(a) is highly similar. In a direct method comparison, equivalent results were obtained with a median regression slope 0.997 of and a median bias of - 0.2 nmol/L (- 0.2%); the intermediate imprecision of the test results was within total allowable error (TEa) (CVa of 10.2% at 90 nmol/L).

CONCLUSIONS

The semi-automated, higher throughput, LC-MS-based method for Lp(a) meets the predefined analytical performance specifications and allowable MU and is hence applicable as a higher order Designated Comparison Method, which is ideally suited to guide IVD manufacturers in the transition from Lp(a) mass to molar units.

Lipoprotein(a) and calcific aortic valve disease: current evidence and future directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD), the most common cause of aortic stenosis (AS), is characterized by slowly progressive fibrocalcific remodelling of the valve cusps. Once symptomatic, severe AS is associated with poor survival unless surgical or transcatheter valve replacement is performed. Unfortunately, no pharmacological interventions have been demonstrated to alter the natural history of CAVD. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], a low-density lipoprotein-like particle, has been implicated in the pathophysiology of CAVD.

RECENT FINDINGS

The mechanisms by which Lp(a) results in CAVD are not well understood. However, the oxidized phospholipids carried by Lp(a) are considered a crucial mediator of the disease process. An increasing number of studies demonstrate a causal association between plasma Lp(a) levels and frequency of AS and need for aortic valve replacement, which is independent of inflammation, as measured by plasma C-reactive protein levels. However, not all studies show an association between Lp(a) and increased progression of calcification in individuals with established CAVD.

SUMMARY

Epidemiologic, genetic, and Mendelian randomization studies have collectively suggested that Lp(a) is a causal risk factor for CAVD. Whether Lp(a)-lowering can prevent initiation or slow progression of CAVD remains to be demonstrated.

Association of Renal Function and Statin Therapy with Lipoprotein(a) in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

AIM

A high level of serum lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with kidney disease development in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Recent studies have suggested that statins may affect serum levels of Lp(a). However, the statin effect is not well-defined in patients with T2DM with kidney dysfunction. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the relevance of kidney dysfunction and statin therapy to Lp(a) in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

Japanese patients with T2DM (n=149, 96 men and 53 women) were divided into two groups: statin users (n=79) and non-statin users (n=70). Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed with Lp(a) as the objective variable and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), hemoglobin A1c, age, gender, and body mass index as the explanatory variables.

RESULTS

Lp(a) serum levels were higher in statin users than in non-statin users (P=0.022). Multivariate regression analysis results showed an inverse correlation of eGFR to log Lp(a) in all patients (P=0.009) and in non-statin users (P=0.025), but not in statin users. In a multiple logistic regression analysis for median Lp(a), there was an inverse association between eGFR and Lp(a) level (odds ratio, 0.965; 95% confidence interval, 0.935-0.997; P=0.030) in non-statin users as well as in all participants, but not in statin users.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests that a high Lp(a) level in patients with T2DM, except in statin users, is significantly associated with decreased eGFR, indicating that the increased Lp(a) levels under statin therapy might diminish the relationship between Lp(a) and eGFR.

The association of lipoprotein (a) with coronary artery calcification: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Coronary artery calcification (CAC) is a crucial pathophysiological characteristic of atherosclerosis. The association between lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] and CAC is inconsistent. We aimed to assess the relationship between Lp(a) and CAC by exploring the association between elevated Lp(a) and CAC prevalence, the relationship between Lp(a) level and CAC prevalence, and the correlation between elevated Lp(a) and CAC progression.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases up to November 01, 2023. Studies exploring the association between serum Lp(a) and CAC (quantified using the Agatston score) were included. Association between Lp(a) level or elevated Lp(a) (higher than the cutoff values of 30 mg/dL, 50 mg/dL, or the highest quartile ranging from 33 to 38.64 mg/dL) and prevalence [CAC score >0 or >100, log (CAC score+1) >0] or progression (an increase in CAC score >0 or ≥100) of CAC were analysed. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

40,073 individuals from 17 studies were included. Elevated Lp(a) was associated with a higher prevalence of CAC (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.61; p = 0.01). As a continuous variable, Lp(a) level was positively correlated with the prevalence of CAC (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.08; p = 0.003). Furthermore, elevated Lp(a) was associated with greater CAC progression (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.92; p = 0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggested that Lp(a) is associated with prevalence and progression of CAC. Further studies are required to explore whether Lp(a)-lowering therapy could prevent or inhibit CAC, ultimately reducing coronary artery disease risk.

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).

Concordance of a High Lipoprotein(a) Concentration Among Relatives

Importance

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) concentrations are a highly heritable and potential causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Recent consensus statements by the European Atherosclerosis Society and American Heart Association recommend screening of relatives of individuals with high Lp(a) concentrations, but the expected yield of this approach has not been quantified in large populations.

Objective

To measure the prevalence of high Lp(a) concentrations among first- and second-degree relatives of individuals with high Lp(a) concentrations compared with unrelated participants.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional analysis, pairs of first-degree (n = 19 899) and second-degree (n = 9715) relatives with measured Lp(a) levels from the UK Biobank study and random pairs of unrelated individuals (n = 184 764) were compared. Data for this study were collected from March 2006 to August 2010 and analyzed from December 2021 to August 2023.

Exposure

Serum Lp(a) levels, with a high Lp(a) level defined as at least 125 nmol/L.

Main Outcome and Measure

Concordance of clinically relevant high Lp(a) levels in first- and second-degree relatives of index participants with high Lp(a) levels.

Results

A total of 52 418 participants were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 57.3 [8.0] years; 29 825 [56.9%] women). Levels of Lp(a) were correlated among pairs of first-degree (Spearman ρ = 0.45; P < .001) and second-degree (Spearman ρ = 0.22; P < .001) relatives. A total of 1607 of 3420 (47.0% [95% CI, 45.3%-48.7%]) first-degree and 514 of 1614 (31.8% [95% CI, 29.6%-34.2%]) second-degree relatives of index participants with high Lp(a) levels also had elevated concentrations compared with 4974 of 30 258 (16.4% [95% CI, 16.0%-16.9%]) pairs of unrelated individuals. The concordance in high Lp(a) levels was generally consistent among subgroups (eg, those with prior ASCVD, postmenopausal women, and statin users). The odds ratios for relatives to have high Lp(a) levels if their index relative had a high Lp(a) level compared with those whose index relatives did not have high Lp(a) levels were 7.4 (95% CI, 6.8-8.1) for first-degree relatives and 3.0 (95% CI, 2.7-3.4) for second-degree relatives.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that the yield of cascade screening of first-degree relatives of individuals with high Lp(a) levels is over 40%. These findings support recent recommendations to use this approach to identify additional individuals at ASCVD risk based on Lp(a) concentrations.

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

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

Lipoprotein(a): 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.

Developing an SI-traceable Lp(a) reference measurement system: a pilgrimage to selective and accurate apo(a) quantification

In the past decade a remarkable rebirth of serum/plasma lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) as an independent risk factor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) occurred. Updated evidence for a causal continuous association in different ethnic groups between Lp(a) concentrations and cardiovascular outcomes has been published in the latest European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) Lp(a) consensus statement. Interest in measuring Lp(a) at least once in a person's lifetime moreover originates from the development of promising new Lp(a) lowering drugs. Accurate and clinically effective Lp(a) tests are of key importance for the timely detection of high-risk individuals and for future evaluation of the therapeutic effects of Lp(a) lowering medication. To this end, it is necessary to improve the performance and standardization of existing Lp(a) tests, as is also noted in the Lp(a) consensus statement. Consequently, a state-of-the-art internationally endorsed reference measurement system (RMS) must be in place that allows for performance evaluation of Lp(a) field tests in order to certify their validity and accuracy. An ELISA-based RMS from Northwest Lipid Research Laboratory (University of Washington, Seattle, USA) has been available since the 1990s. A next-generation apo(a)/Lp(a) RMS is now being developed by a working group from the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). The envisioned apo(a) RMS is based on the direct measurement of selected proteotypic fragments generated after proteolytic digestion using quantitative protein mass spectrometry (MS). The choice for an MS-based RMS enables selective measurement of the proteotypic peptides and is by design apo(a) isoform insensitive. Clearly, the equimolar conversion of apo(a) into the surrogate peptide measurands is required to obtain accurate Lp(a) results. The completeness of proteolysis under reaction conditions from the candidate reference measurement procedure (RMP) has been demonstrated for the quantifying apo(a) peptides. Currently, the candidate apo(a) RMP is endorsed by the IFCC and recommendations for suitable secondary reference materials have been made in a recent commutability study paper. Ongoing efforts toward a complete apo(a) RMS that is listed by the Joint Committee on Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM) are focused on the peptide-based calibration and the establishment of a network of calibration laboratories running the apo(a) RMS in a harmonized way. Once completed, it will be the holy grail for evaluation and certification of Lp(a) field methods.

Is Lipoprotein(a) Clinically Actionable with Today's Evidence? The Answer is Yes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lipoprotein(a) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. We review the ongoing shifts in consensus guidelines for the testing and management of Lp(a) and provide insight into whether current evidence suggests that awareness and testing of Lp(a) is clinically actionable.

RECENT FINDINGS

GWAS and Mendelian randomization studies have established causal links between elevated Lp(a) and forms of CVD, including CAD and calcific aortic valve disease. Testing of Lp(a) identifies patients with similar risk to that of heterozygous FH, enhances risk stratification in patients with borderline/intermediate risk as determined through traditional factors, and facilitates the assessment of inherited CVD risk through cascade screening in patients with known family history of elevated Lp(a). Reductions in Lp(a) through non-targeted therapies including PCSK9 inhibition and lipoprotein apheresis have demonstrated reductions in ASCVD risk that are likely attributable to lowering Lp(a). Targeted therapies to potently lower Lp(a) are in clinical development. Lp(a) is actionable, and can be used to identify high risk patients for primary prevention and their family members through cascade screening, and to guide intensification of therapy in primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD.

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.

Lipoprotein(a) and the Effect of Alirocumab on Revascularization After Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Many patients require revascularization after index acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Lipoprotein(a) is thought to play a pathogenic role in atherothrombosis. In ODYSSEY OUTCOMES, alirocumab reduced major adverse cardiovascular events after ACS, with greater reduction among those with higher lipoprotein(a) levels. We explored whether risk of revascularization after ACS was modified by the level of lipoprotein(a) and treatment with alirocumab or placebo.

METHODS

In ODYSSEY OUTCOMES alirocumab was compared with placebo in 18,924 patients with ACS and elevated atherogenic lipoprotein levels despite optimized statin treatment. In this post hoc analysis, treatment effects are summarized using competing risks proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

A total of 1559 (8.2%) patients had coronary, 204 (1.1%) had limb, and 40 (0.2%) had carotid revascularization. Alirocumab reduced coronary revascularization (2.8 vs 3.2 events per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.80-0.97]; P = 0.01) and any revascularization (3.2 vs 3.7 events per 100 patient-years; HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.78-0.94]; P = 0.001). Baseline lipoprotein(a) quartile was directly associated with risk of coronary or any revascularization in the placebo arm and inversely related to treatment HRs (all P for trend < 0.01). Alirocumab produced the greatest reduction of coronary revascularization in patients with baseline lipoprotein(a) in the top quartile (≥ 59.6 mg/dL; HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.57-0.84]), but no apparent reduction in the bottom quartile (HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.82-1.22]). Findings were similar for the effect of alirocumab on any revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

Alirocumab reduced revascularization rates after ACS. The risk of revascularization and reduction in that risk with alirocumab were greatest in patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) at baseline.

Impact of Lipoprotein (a) on Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) is a complex circulating lipoprotein, and there is increasing evidence it is a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). This study aimed to investigate the influence of Lp(a) serum levels on long-term outcomes after acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Methods and Results: Between January 2015 and January 2018, we enrolled 262 patients with AMI who underwent coronary angiography within 24 h of the onset of chest pain and had available Lp(a) data enabling subdivision into 2 groups: high Lp(a) (≥32 mg/dL: n=76) and low Lp(a) (<32 mg/dL: n=186). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which was defined as a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal MI, and readmission for heart failure. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to identify the predictors of MACE. The incidence of MACE was significantly higher in the high Lp(a) group than in the low Lp(a) group (32.8% vs. 19.6%, P=0.004). Multivariate analysis showed that Lp(a) ≥32 mg/dL was an independent predictor of MACE (hazard ratio 2.84, 95% confidence interval 1.25-6.60, P=0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

High Lp(a) levels were associated with worse long-term outcomes after AMI, so Lp(a) may be useful for risk assessment.