Ancestry, Lipoprotein(a), and Cardiovascular Risk Thresholds: JACC Review Topic of the Week

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.

The prevalence, patients' characteristics, and hyper-Lp(a)-emia risk factors in the Polish population. The first results from the PMMHRI-Lp(a) Registry

BACKGROUND

The knowledge on the prevalence of elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), patients' characteristics, and nongenetic risk factors is scarce in some regions including Poland, the largest Central and Eastern European country. Thus, we aimed to present the results from the Lp(a) registry established in Poland's 2nd largest, supra-regional hospital - the Polish Mother's Memorial Hospital Research Institute (PMMHRI).

METHODS

The PMMHRI-Lp(a)-Registry was established in January 2022. Since that time all consecutive patients of the Departments of Cardiology, Endocrinology, and outpatient cardiology, diabetology and metabolic clinics have been included. The indications for Lp(a) measurement in the registry are based on the 2021 Polish Lipid Guidelines and new Polish recommendations on the management of elevated Lp(a) (2024). Lp(a) was determined using Sentinel's Lp(a) Ultra, an Immunoturbidimetric quantitative test (Sentinel, Milan, Italy), and the results are presented in mg/dL.

RESULTS

511 patients were included in the registry between Jan 2022 and 15th May 2024. The mean age of patients was 48.21 years. Female patients represented 53.42 % of the population. Elevated Lp(a) levels above 30 and 50 mg/dL were detected in 142 (27.79 %), and 101 (19.8 %) patients, respectively. The mean Lp(a) level was 30.45 ± 42.50 mg/dL, with no significant sex differences [mean for men: 28.80 mg/dL; women: 31.89 mg/dL]. There were also no significant differences between those with and without: coronary artery disease (CAD), dyslipidemia, stroke, heart failure, cancer, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and thyroid disease. The significant Lp(a) level difference was observed in those with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) vs those without (51.47 ± 55.16 vs 28.09 ± 37.51 mg/dL, p < 0.001). However, when we divided those with premature vs no premature MI, no significant difference in Lp(a) level was observed (51.43 ± 57.82 vs 51.52 ± 53.18 mg/dL, p = 0.95). Lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) at baseline did not significantly affect Lp(a) level, with only significant differences for the highest doses of rosuvastatin (p < 0.05) and in those treated with ezetimibe (as a part of the combination therapy; 44.73 ± 54.94 vs 26.84 ± 37.11 mg/dL, p < 0.001). For selected patients (n = 43; 8.42 %) with at least two Lp(a) measurements (mean time distance: 7 ± 5 months, range 1-20 months) we did not observe statistically significant visit-to-visit variability (mean difference: 3.25 mg/dL; r = 0.079, p = 0.616). While dividing the whole population into those with Lp(a) ≤30 mg/dL and > 30 mg/dL, the only hyper-Lp(a)-emia prevalence differences were seen for FH diagnosis (12.88 vs 21.43; p = 0.017), MI prevalence (6.52 vs 16.90 %; p < 0.001), thyroid disease diagnosis (18.14 vs 26.76 %; p = 0.033) and ezetimibe treatment (18.58 vs 30.77 %, p = 0.036). A similar pattern was observed while dividing the whole population on those with Lp(a) ≤50 mg/dL (125 nmol/L) and > 50 mg/dL (125 nmol/L) except for no statistical difference for thyroid disease.

CONCLUSIONS

These results strongly emphasize that Lp(a) should be measured commonly, as its high level is highly prevalent (even every 3rd patient) in patients at cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in primary and secondary prevention, requiring risk re-stratification and optimization of the treatment. This is especially important in the regions that characterize baseline high CVD risk, which refers to most CEE countries, including Poland.

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.

Exploring the Interplay between Diabetes and Lp(a): Implications for Cardiovascular Risk

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The objective of this manuscript is to review and describe the relationship between Lp(a) and diabetes, exploring both their association and synergy as cardiovascular risk factors, while also describing the current evidence regarding the potential connection between low levels of Lp(a) and the presence of diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Epidemiological studies suggest a potential relationship between low to very low levels of Lp(a) and diabetes. Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is an intriguing lipoprotein of genetic origin, yet its biological function remains unknown. Elevated levels of Lp(a) are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular atherosclerosis, and coexisting diabetes status confers an even higher risk. On the other hand, epidemiological and genetic studies have paradoxically suggested a potential relationship between low to very low levels of Lp(a) and diabetes. While new pharmacological strategies are being developed to reduce Lp(a) levels, the dual aspects of this lipoprotein's behavior need to be elucidated in the near future.

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.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Lipoprotein(a) Levels in Disaggregated Racial and Ethnic Subgroups Across Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Levels

Background

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Objectives

The authors assessed differences in Lp(a) testing and levels by disaggregated race, ethnicity, and ASCVD risk.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients from a large California health care system from 2010 to 2021. Eligible individuals were ≥18 years old, with ≥2 primary care visits, and complete race and ethnicity data who underwent Lp(a) testing. Race and ethnicity were self-reported and categorized as follows: non-Hispanic (NH) White, NH-Black, Hispanic (Mexican, Puerto Rican, other), NH-Asian (Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, other). Logistic regression models tested associations between elevated Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL) and race, ethnicity, and ASCVD risk.

Results

13,689 (0.9%) individuals underwent Lp(a) testing with a mean age of 54.6 ± 13.8 years, 49% female, 28.8% NH Asian. Over one-third of those tested had Lp(a) levels ≥50 mg/dL, ranging from 30.7% of Mexican patients to 62.6% of NH-Black patients. The ASCVD risk of those tested varied by race: 73.6% of Asian Indian individuals had <5% 10-year risk, whereas 27.2% of NH-Black had established ASCVD. Lp(a) prevalence ≥50 mg/dL increased across the ASCVD risk spectrum. After adjustment, Hispanic (OR: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.66-0.88]) and Asian (OR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.81-0.96]) had lower odds of Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL, whereas Black individuals had higher odds (OR: 2.46 [95% CI: 1.97-3.07]).

Conclusions

Lp(a) testing is performed infrequently. Of those tested, Lp(a) levels were frequently elevated and differed significantly across disaggregated race and ethnicity groups. The prevalence of elevated Lp(a) increased with increasing ASCVD risk, with significant variation by race and ethnicity.

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), 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.

Lipoprotein(a) and Long-Term Cardiovascular Risk in a Multi-Ethnic Pooled Prospective Cohort

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a causal genetic risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). There are limited long-term follow-up data from large U.S. population cohorts.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the relationship of Lp(a) with ASCVD outcomes in a large, pooled, multi-ethnic U.S.

COHORT

METHODS

The study included data on Lp(a) and ASCVD outcomes from 5 U.S.

PROSPECTIVE STUDIES

MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), CARDIA (Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults), JHS (Jackson Heart Study), FHS-OS (Framingham Heart Study-Offspring), and ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities). Lp(a) levels were classified on the basis of cohort-specific percentiles. Multivariable Cox regression related Lp(a) with composite incident ASCVD events by risk group and diabetes status.

RESULTS

The study included 27,756 persons without previous ASCVD who were aged 20 to 79 years, including 55.0% women, 35.6% Black participants, and 7.6% patients with diabetes, with mean follow-up of 21.1 years. Compared with Lp(a) levels <50th percentile, Lp(a) levels in the 50th to <75th, 75th to <90th, and ≥90th percentiles had adjusted HRs of 1.06 (95% CI: 0.99-1.14), 1.18 (95% CI: 1.09-1.28), and 1.46 (95% CI: 1.33-1.59), respectively for ASCVD events. Elevated Lp(a) predicted incident ASCVD events similarly by risk group, sex, and race or ethnic groups, but more strongly in patients with vs without diabetes (interaction P = 0.0056), with HRs for Lp(a) levels ≥90th percentile of 1.92 (95% CI: 1.50-2.45) and 1.41 (95% CI: 1.28-1.55), respectively. Lp(a) also individually predicted myocardial infarction, revascularization, stroke, and coronary heart disease death, but not total mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows, in a large U.S. pooled cohort, that higher Lp(a) levels are associated with an increased ASCVD risk, including in patients with diabetes.

Elevated Lp(a): Guidance for Identifying and Managing Patients

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a unique low-density lipoprotein-like lipoprotein that is considered an independent and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic valve stenosis. The Lp(a) molecule also contains apolipoprotein A and apolipoprotein B, which collectively promote atherosclerosis, thrombosis, and inflammation. Lp(a) is highly genetic and minimally responsive to nonpharmacological measures. Lp(a) serum levels ≥125 nmol/L are associated with increased ASCVD risk, but this threshold has not been accepted universally. Elevated Lp(a) is the most common genetic dyslipidemia affecting approximately 20% of the general population. Certain currently available lipid-lowering drugs, including the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 therapies, produce moderate reductions in Lp(a); however, none are indicated for the treatment of elevated Lp(a). There are currently four investigational RNA-based therapeutic agents that reduce Lp(a) by 70% to 100%. Two of these agents are being evaluated for ASCVD risk reduction in adequately powered outcomes trials, with results expected in 2 to 3 years. Until such therapies become available and demonstrate favorable clinical outcomes, strategies for elevated Lp(a) primarily involve early and intensive ASCVD risk factor management.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Lipoprotein(a): 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.

Lipoprotein(a) Is Markedly More Atherogenic Than LDL: An Apolipoprotein B-Based Genetic Analysis

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is recognized as a causal factor for coronary heart disease (CHD) but its atherogenicity relative to that of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) on a per-particle basis is indeterminate.

OBJECTIVES

The authors addressed this issue in a genetic analysis based on the fact that Lp(a) and LDL both contain 1 apolipoprotein B (apoB) per particle.

METHODS

Genome-wide association studies using the UK Biobank population identified 2 clusters of single nucleotide polymorphisms: one comprising 107 variants linked to Lp(a) mass concentration, the other with 143 variants linked to LDL concentration. In these Lp(a) and LDL clusters, the relationship of genetically predicted variation in apoB with CHD risk was assessed.

RESULTS

The Mendelian randomization-derived OR for CHD for a 50 nmol/L higher Lp(a)-apoB was 1.28 (95% CI: 1.24-1.33) compared with 1.04 (95% CI: 1.03-1.05) for the same increment in LDL-apoB. Likewise, use of polygenic scores to rank subjects according to difference in Lp(a)-apoB vs difference in LDL-apoB revealed a greater HR for CHD per 50 nmol/L apoB for the Lp(a) cluster (1.47; 95% CI: 1.36-1.58) compared with the LDL cluster (1.04; 95% CI: 1.02-1.05). From these data, we estimate that the atherogenicity of Lp(a) is approximately 6-fold (point estimate of 6.6; 95% CI: 5.1-8.8) greater than that of LDL on a per-particle basis.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the atherogenicity of Lp(a) (CHD risk quotient per unit increase in particle number) is substantially greater than that of LDL. Therefore, Lp(a) represents a key target for drug-based intervention in a significant proportion of the at-risk population.

Healthy lifestyle, lipoprotein (a) levels and the risk of coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is associated with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the role of healthy lifestyle against the risk of CAD with consideration of high Lp(a) levels remains unclear.

METHODS

This study examined 4512 participants who underwent serum Lp(a) level assessment at Kanazawa University Hospital from 2008 to March 2016. Their lifestyle habits were examined based on four questionnaires regarding dietary pattern, exercise habits, smoking status and body weight. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the association between healthy lifestyle and CAD independent of Lp(a) levels.

RESULTS

The Lp(a) levels were significantly associated with CAD (odds ratio [OR]: 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-1.17, p = 1.3 × 10-7 per 10 mg/dL). Under these circumstances, the lifestyle risk score was also significantly associated with CAD (OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.12-1.36, p = 2.4 × 10-8 ). Compared with patients with a favourable lifestyle who have Lp(a) levels of <30 mg/dL, those with an intermediate or unfavourable lifestyle were at higher risk for CAD (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.02-1.20, p = 0.003 and OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.16-1.54, p = 3.6 × 10-5 , respectively). Further, patients with a favourable, intermediate or unfavourable lifestyle who have Lp(a) levels of ≥30 mg/dL were at high risk for CAD (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.08-1.34, p = 0.0014; OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.14-1.48, p = 1.2 × 10-4 ; and OR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.44-2.18, p = 2.2 × 10-7 , respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Healthy lifestyle was associated with a lower risk of CAD regardless of Lp(a) levels.

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).

Lipoprotein(a) and heart failure: a systematic review

The role of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] as a possible causal risk factor for atherosclerotic artery disease and aortic valve stenosis has been well established. However, the information on the association between Lp(a) levels and heart failure (HF) is limited and controversial. The main objective of the present study was to assess the association between Lp(a) levels and HF. This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. A literature search was performed to detect studies that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels and HF. Eight studies, including 73,410 patients, were eligible for this research. Seven prospective or retrospective cohorts and one cross-sectional study were analyzed. Five studies analyzed populations without HF; another three included patients with HF or left ventricular dysfunction. The endpoints evaluated varied according to the study analyzed, including incident HF, HF hospitalizations, and decreased left ventricular ejection fraction. Lp(a) levels were also analyzed in different ways, including analysis of Lp(a) as a continuous or categorical variable (distinct cut-off points or percentiles). Globally, the studies included in this review found predominantly positive results. Data on some relevant subgroups, such as HF of ischemic or non-ischemic etiology or HF with or without left ventricular dysfunction, was poorly reported. This systematic review suggests that there would be a positive relationship between Lp(a) levels and HF. Given the complexity and heterogeneity of HF, new studies should be developed to clarify this topic.

Elevated Lipoprotein(a) Levels and Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review

Objective

The role of lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) as a possibly causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has been well established. However, the clinical evidence regarding the association between Lp(a) levels and atrial fibrillation (AF) remains limited and inconsistent. This study aimed to analyze the association between elevated Lp(a) levels or single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to high levels of Lp(a) and AF.

Methods

This systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A literature search was performed to identify studies that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels or SNPs related to high levels of Lp(a) and AF. Observational studies with a cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort design were included in this systematic review, without limitations according to language, country, or publication type.

Results

Eleven observational studies including 1,246,817 patients were eligible for this systematic review. Two cross-sectional studies, 5 prospective/retrospective cohort studies, and 4 Mendelian randomization studies were analyzed. Two cross-sectional studies that compared Lp(a) levels between patients with and without AF showed conflicting results. Cohort studies that evaluated the incidence of AF according to Lp(a) levels showed different results: no association (3 studies), a positive association (1 study), and an inverse relationship (1 study). Finally, Mendelian randomization studies also showed heterogeneous results (positive association: 2 studies; inverse association: 1 study; no association: 1 study).

Conclusion

Although there could be an association between Lp(a) levels and AF, the results of the studies published to date are contradictory and not yet definitive. Therefore, further research should clarify this issue.

Heterogeneity of Lipoprotein(a) Levels Among Hispanic or Latino Individuals Residing in the US

Importance

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a genetically determined risk-enhancing factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The Lp(a) distribution among the diverse Hispanic or Latino community residing in the US has not been previously described, to the authors' knowledge.

Objective

To determine the distribution of Lp(a) levels across a large cohort of diverse Hispanic or Latino adults living in the US and by key demographic groups.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) is a prospective, population-based, cohort study of diverse Hispanic or Latino adults living in the US. At screening, participants aged 18 to 74 years were recruited between 2008 and 2011 from 4 US metropolitan areas (Bronx, New York; Chicago, Illinois; Miami, Florida; San Diego, California). HCHS/SOL included 16 415 noninstitutionalized adults recruited through probability sampling of randomly selected households. The study population represents Hispanic or Latino participants from diverse self-identified geographic and cultural backgrounds: Central American, Cuban, Dominican, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and South American. This study evaluated a subset of HCHS/SOL participants who underwent Lp(a) measurement. Sampling weights and surveys methods were used to account for HCHS/SOL sampling design. Data for this study were analyzed from April 2021 to April 2023.

Exposure

Lp(a) molar concentration was measured by a particle-enhanced turbidimetric assay with minimized sensitivity to apolipoprotein(a) size variation.

Main Outcome and Measure

Lp(a) quintiles were compared using analysis of variance among key demographic groups, including self-identified Hispanic or Latino background. Median percentage genetic ancestry (Amerindian, European, West African) were compared across Lp(a) quintiles.

Results

Lp(a) molar concentration was measured in 16 117 participants (mean [SD] age, 41 [14.8] years; 9680 female [52%]; 1704 Central American [7.7%], 2313 Cuban [21.1%], 1436 Dominican [10.3%], 6395 Mexican [39.1%], 2652 Puerto Rican [16.6%], 1051 South American [5.1%]). Median (IQR) Lp(a) level was 19.7 (7.4-59.7) nmol/L. Across Hispanic or Latino background groups, there was significant heterogeneity in median Lp(a) levels ranging from 12 to 41 nmol/L in those reporting a Mexican vs Dominican background. Median (IQR) West African genetic ancestry was lowest in the first quintile of Lp(a) level and highest in the fifth quintile (5.5% [3.4%-12.9%] and 12.1% [5.0%-32.5%]; respectively; P < .001), whereas the converse was seen for Amerindian ancestry (32.8% [9.9%-53.2%] and 10.7% [4.9%-30.7%], respectively; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cohort study suggest that differences in Lp(a) level distribution across the diverse US Hispanic or Latino population may carry important implications for the use of Lp(a) level in ASCVD risk assessment for this group. Cardiovascular outcomes data are needed to better understand the clinical impact of differences in Lp(a) levels by Hispanic or Latino background.

High lipoprotein(a) levels and mitral valve disease: A systematic review

AIMS

The role of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] as a possibly causal risk factor for atherosclerotic artery disease and aortic valve stenosis has been well established. However, the information available on the association between Lp(a) levels and mitral valve disease is limited and controversial. The main objective of the present study was to assess the association between Lp(a) levels and mitral valve disease.

DATA SYNTHESIS

This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42022379044). A literature search was performed to detect studies that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels or single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to high levels of Lp(a) and mitral valve disease, including mitral valve calcification and valve dysfunction. Eight studies including 1,011,520 individuals were considered eligible for this research. The studies that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels and prevalent mitral valve calcification found predominantly positive results. Similar findings were reported in two studies that evaluated the SNPs related to high levels of Lp(a). Only two studies evaluated the association of Lp(a) and mitral valve dysfunction, showing contradictory results.

CONCLUSIONS

This research showed disparate results regarding the association between Lp(a) levels and mitral valve disease. The association between Lp(a) levels and mitral valve calcification seems more robust and is in line with the findings already demonstrated in aortic valve disease. New studies should be developed to clarify this topic.

Clinical Trial Design for Lipoprotein(a)-Lowering Therapies: JACC Focus Seminar 2/3

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a source of residual risk in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Clinical trials of fully human monoclonal antibodies targeting proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9 have shown that reductions in Lp(a) concentrations may be a predictor of event reduction with this class of cholesterol-lowering therapy. With the advent of selective therapies targeting Lp(a) such as antisense oligonucleotides, small-interfering RNA-based therapies, and gene editing, lowering of Lp(a) may lead to reduction in ASCVD. The phase 3 Lp(a)HORIZON (Assessing the Impact of Lipoprotein(a) Lowering with TQJ230 on Major Cardiovascular Events in Patients With CVD) outcomes trial is currently testing the effect of pelacarsen, an antisense oligonucleotide, on ASCVD risk. Olpasiran is a small-interfering RNA that is in a phase 3 clinical trial. As these therapies enter clinical trials, challenges in trial design will have to be addressed to optimize patient selection and outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of pelacarsen in lowering Lp(a) in healthy Japanese subjects

BACKGROUND

Pelacarsen is a liver-targeted antisense oligonucleotide that potently lowers lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels. Its safety and efficacy in diverse populations has not been extensively studied.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of pelacarsen, including monthly dosing of 80 mg, in subjects of Japanese ancestry.

METHODS

A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, study was performed in 29 healthy Japanese subjects treated with single ascending doses (SAD) of pelacarsen 20, 40 and 80 mg subcutaneously or multiple doses (MD) of pelacarsen 80 mg monthly for 4 doses. The primary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability in healthy Japanese subjects; secondary objectives to assess the pharmacokinetics of pelacarsen; and exploratory objective to determine the effect of pelacarsen on plasma Lp(a) levels.

RESULTS

No serious adverse events or clinically relevant abnormalities in any laboratory parameters were noted. In the MD cohort, mean plasma concentrations of pelacarsen peaked at ∼4 hours and declined in a bi-exponential manner thereafter. In the SAD cohorts, the placebo-corrected least-square mean (PCLSM) percent changes in Lp(a) at Day 30 were: -55.4% (p=0.0008), -58.9% (p=0.0003) and -73.7% (p<0.0001) for the 20 mg, 40 mg, and 80 mg pelacarsen-treated groups, respectively. In the MD cohort, the PCLSM at Days 29, 85, 113, 176 and 204 were -84.0% (p=0.0003), -106.2% (p<0.0001), -70.0 (p<0.0001), -80.0% (p=0.0104) and -55.8% (p=0.0707), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelacarsen demonstrates an acceptable safety and tolerability profile and potently lowers plasma levels of Lp(a) in healthy Japanese subjects, including with the 80 mg monthly dose being evaluated in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial.

Cardiovascular risk-enhancing factors and coronary artery calcium in South Asian American adults: The MASALA study

Objectives

The 2018 and 2019 U.S. guidelines for the management of cholesterol and primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) recommend consideration of cardiovascular risk-enhancing factors (REFs), including South Asian ancestry, to refine ASCVD risk estimation. However, the associations of REFs with atherosclerosis are unclear in South Asian American adults, who have a disproportionately elevated premature coronary heart disease risk. In the Mediators of Atherosclerosis in South Asians Living in America (MASALA) cohort, we investigated associations of individual REFs, or the number of REFs, with coronary artery calcium (CAC).

Methods

Using baseline and follow-up data from MASALA, we evaluated the association of REFs (family history of ASCVD, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥160 mg/dL, triglycerides ≥175 mg/dL, lipoprotein(a) >50 mg/dL, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hsCRP] ≥2.0 mg/dL, ankle-brachial index <0.9, chronic kidney disease, metabolic syndrome), individually and combined, with baseline prevalent CAC, any CAC progression (including incident CAC and CAC progression), and annual CAC progression rates using multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear models.

Results

Among 866 adults, mean age was 55 [SD 9] years and 47% were female. There were no significant associations of REFs with baseline prevalent CAC or any CAC progression (incident CAC and CAC progression at Exam 2) after adjustment. Among the 56% of participants who had any CAC progression, having 3+ REFs was associated with a significantly higher annual CAC progression rate (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 1.94, 95% CI 1.39-2.72) vs. having 0 REFs. The annual CAC progression rate was 20% higher per additional REF (aRR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09-1.32). Findings were similar after excluding statin users, and among those with low 10-year ASCVD risk (<5%).

Conclusions

Among South Asian American adults, we found no association of REFs with prevalent CAC at baseline or having any CAC progression. Among those with any CAC progression, a higher number of REFs was associated with higher annual CAC progression rates.

Association of Lipoprotein (a) With Coronary-Computed Tomography Angiography-Assessed High-Risk Coronary Disease Attributes and Cardiovascular Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a risk factor for cardiovascular events. This study evaluated the relationship between Lp(a) and high-risk attributes by coronary computed tomography angiography as well as their prognostic value.

METHODS

Lp(a) and coronary computed tomography angiography from 377 consecutive patients at Zhongshan Hospital (Shanghai, China) were evaluated. High-risk attributes were defined as high-risk morphological attributes (low attenuation plaque, positive remodeling, napkin-ring sign, spotty calcification, minimum lumen area <4 mm², or plaque burden [ratio between cross-sectional plaque area at the site of maximum stenosis and cross-sectional vessel area] ≥70%); inflammatory attribute represented by fat attenuation index; high-risk physiological attributes [lesion-specific ischemia defined by fractional flow reserve by coronary computed tomography angiography ≤0.8, physiologic diffuseness defined by fractional flow reserve by coronary computed tomography angiography pullback pressure gradient]. Total plaque volume in mm³ was also quantified. Quintiles or binary classification of Lp(a) levels were used to evaluate its relationships with plaque features and clinical outcomes with ANOVA, Cox models, and log-rank tests, as appropriate. The major adverse cardiovascular event included cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

Lp(a) was significantly associated with total plaque volume (P=0.004), fat attenuation index (P=0.031), and fractional flow reserve by coronary computed tomography angiography pullback pressure gradient (P=0.038). Patients with a high Lp(a) level had a higher total plaque volume (393.3 mm³ versus 293.9 mm³, P<0.001), lower pullback pressure gradient (0.62 versus 0.69, P=0.023), higher fat attenuation index (-70.5HU versus -73.9HU, P=0.004), and higher incidence of major adverse cardiovascular event (14.5% versus 6.3%, adjusted hazard ratio: 2.52, 95% CI: 1.12-5.63, P=0.025). In a 4-group classification according to Lp(a) and high-risk attributes, patients with high Lp(a) and ≥3 high-risk attributes had the highest risk of major adverse cardiovascular event (25.9%; overall P<0.001). Causal mediation analysis revealed that around 40% of the prognostic effect of Lp(a) was mediated by high-risk attributes.

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) level is associated with coronary computed tomography angiography high-risk characteristics, including morphologic, physiologic, and inflammatory attributes as well as major adverse cardiovascular event. This effect is partly mediated by inflammation and vulnerable plaque.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT05323227.

Small Interfering RNA to Reduce Lipoprotein(a) in Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) is a presumed risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA that reduces lipoprotein(a) synthesis in the liver.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding trial involving patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and a lipoprotein(a) concentration of more than 150 nmol per liter. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg every 12 weeks, 75 mg every 12 weeks, 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously. The primary end point was the percent change in the lipoprotein(a) concentration from baseline to week 36 (reported as the placebo-adjusted mean percent change). Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

Among the 281 enrolled patients, the median concentration of lipoprotein(a) at baseline was 260.3 nmol per liter, and the median concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 67.5 mg per deciliter. At baseline, 88% of the patients were taking statin therapy, 52% were taking ezetimibe, and 23% were taking a proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor. At 36 weeks, the lipoprotein(a) concentration had increased by a mean of 3.6% in the placebo group, whereas olpasiran therapy had significantly and substantially reduced the lipoprotein(a) concentration in a dose-dependent manner, resulting in placebo-adjusted mean percent changes of -70.5% with the 10-mg dose, -97.4% with the 75-mg dose, -101.1% with the 225-mg dose administered every 12 weeks, and -100.5% with the 225-mg dose administered every 24 weeks (P&lt;0.001 for all comparisons with baseline). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar across the trial groups. The most common olpasiran-related adverse events were injection-site reactions, primarily pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Olpasiran therapy significantly reduced lipoprotein(a) concentrations in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Longer and larger trials will be necessary to determine the effect of olpasiran therapy on cardiovascular disease. (Funded by Amgen; OCEAN[a]-DOSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04270760.).

Lp(a), oxidized phospholipids and oxidation-specific epitopes are increased in subjects with keloid formation

BACKGROUND

Keloid formation following trauma or surgery is common among darkly pigmented individuals. Since lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has been postulated to have a putative role in wound healing, and also mediates atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, it was assessed whether Lp(a), its associated oxidized phospholipids and other oxidation-specific biomarkers were associated with keloid formation.

METHODS

This case-control study included darkly pigmented individuals of African ancestry, 100 with keloid scarring and 100 non-keloid controls. The lipid panel, hsCRP, Lp(a), oxidized phospholipids on apolipoprotein B-100 (OxPL-apoB), IgG and IgM apoB-immune complexes and IgG and IgM autoantibodies to a malondialdehyde mimotope (MDA-mimotope) were measured. Immunohistochemistry of keloid specimens was performed for both Lp(a) and OxPL staining.

RESULTS

Cases and controls were well matched for age, sex and lipid profile. Mean Lp(a) (57.8 vs. 44.2 mg/dL; P = 0.01, OxPL-apoB 17.4 vs. 15.7 nmol/L; P = 0.009) and IgG and IgM apoB-immune complexes and IgG and IgM MDA-mimotope levels were significantly higher in keloid cases. Keloid tissue stained strongly for OxPL.

CONCLUSION

Darkly pigmented individuals of African ancestry with keloids have higher plasma levels of Lp(a), OxPL-apoB and oxidation-specific epitopes. The commonality of excessive wound healing in keloids and chronic complications from coronary revascularization suggests avenues of investigation to define a common mechanism driven by Lp(a) and the innate response to oxidized lipids.