Novel method for quantification of lipoprotein(a)-cholesterol: implications for improving accuracy of LDL-C measurements

Impact of Lipoprotein(a) Level on Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol- or Apolipoprotein B-Related Risk of Coronary Heart Disease

BACKGROUND

Conventional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) quantification includes cholesterol attributable to lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)-C) due to their overlapping densities.

OBJECTIVES

The purposes of this study were to compare the association between LDL-C and LDL-C corrected for Lp(a)-C (LDLLp(a)corr) with incident coronary heart disease (CHD) in the general population and to investigate whether concomitant Lp(a) values influence the association of LDL-C or apolipoprotein B (apoB) with coronary events.

METHODS

Among 68,748 CHD-free subjects at baseline LDLLp(a)corr was calculated as "LDL-C-Lp(a)-C," where Lp(a)-C was 30% or 17.3% of total Lp(a) mass. Fine and Gray competing risk-adjusted models were applied for the association between the outcome incident CHD and: 1) LDL-C and LDLLp(a)corr in the total sample; and 2) LDL-C and apoB after stratification by Lp(a) mass (≥/<90th percentile).

RESULTS

Similar risk estimates for incident CHD were found for LDL-C and LDL-CLp(a)corr30 or LDL-CLp(a)corr17.3 (subdistribution HR with 95% CI) were 2.73 (95% CI: 2.34-3.20) vs 2.51 (95% CI: 2.15-2.93) vs 2.64 (95% CI: 2.26-3.10), respectively (top vs bottom fifth; fully adjusted models). Categorization by Lp(a) mass resulted in higher subdistribution HRs for uncorrected LDL-C and incident CHD at Lp(a) ≥90th percentile (4.38 [95% CI: 2.08-9.22]) vs 2.60 [95% CI: 2.21-3.07]) at Lp(a) <90th percentile (top vs bottom fifth; Pinteraction0.39). In contrast, apoB risk estimates were lower in subjects with higher Lp(a) mass (2.43 [95% CI: 1.34-4.40]) than in Lp(a) <90th percentile (3.34 [95% CI: 2.78-4.01]) (Pinteraction0.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Correction of LDL-C for its Lp(a)-C content provided no meaningful information on CHD-risk estimation at the population level. Simple categorization of Lp(a) mass (≥/<90th percentile) influenced the association between LDL-C or apoB with future CHD mostly at higher Lp(a) levels.

Lipoprotein(a) and Diet: Consuming Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Lowers Lipoprotein(a) Levels in Obese and Overweight Adults

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. A size polymorphism in the apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] gene, determined by the number of Kringle (K) repeats, inversely regulates Lp(a) levels. Non-genetic 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. At the end of the 10-week intervention, Lp(a) level was reduced by an average (± SEM) of -13.2% ± 4.3% in all participants (p=0.005); by -15.3% ± 7.8% in the 15 participants who consumed glucose (p=0.07); and by -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. The relative changes in Lp(a) levels were similar across subgroups of lower vs higher baseline Lp(a) level or carrier vs non-carrier 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.

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

Importance

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

Objectives

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Interventions

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

Main Outcomes Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04606602.

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

Background and Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

AIMS

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A focused update to the 2019 NLA scientific statement on use of lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice

Since the 2019 National Lipid Association (NLA) Scientific Statement on Use of Lipoprotein(a) in Clinical Practice was issued, accumulating epidemiological data have clarified the relationship between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level and cardiovascular disease risk and risk reduction. Therefore, the NLA developed this focused update to guide clinicians in applying this emerging evidence in clinical practice. We now have sufficient evidence to support the recommendation to measure Lp(a) levels at least once in every adult for risk stratification. Individuals with Lp(a) levels <75 nmol/L (30 mg/dL) are considered low risk, individuals with Lp(a) levels ≥125 nmol/L (50 mg/dL) are considered high risk, and individuals with Lp(a) levels between 75 and 125 nmol/L (30-50 mg/dL) are at intermediate risk. Cascade screening of first-degree relatives of patients with elevated Lp(a) can identify additional individuals at risk who require intervention. Patients with elevated Lp(a) should receive early, more-intensive risk factor management, including lifestyle modification and lipid-lowering drug therapy in high-risk individuals, primarily to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an indication for lipoprotein apheresis (which reduces both Lp(a) and LDL-C) in high-risk patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and documented coronary or peripheral artery disease whose Lp(a) level remains ≥60 mg/dL [∼150 nmol/L)] and LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. Although Lp(a) is an established independent causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and despite the high prevalence of Lp(a) elevation (∼1 of 5 individuals), measurement rates are low, warranting improved screening strategies for cardiovascular disease prevention.

Clinical practice recommendations on lipoprotein apheresis for children with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: An expert consensus statement from ERKNet and ESPN

Homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia is a life-threatening genetic condition, which causes extremely elevated LDL-C levels and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease very early in life. It is vital to start effective lipid-lowering treatment from diagnosis onwards. Even with dietary and current multimodal pharmaceutical lipid-lowering therapies, LDL-C treatment goals cannot be achieved in many children. Lipoprotein apheresis is an extracorporeal lipid-lowering treatment, which is used for decades, lowering serum LDL-C levels by more than 70% directly after the treatment. Data on the use of lipoprotein apheresis in children with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia mainly consists of case-reports and case-series, precluding strong evidence-based guidelines. We present a consensus statement on lipoprotein apheresis in children based on the current available evidence and opinions from experts in lipoprotein apheresis from over the world. It comprises practical statements regarding the indication, methods, treatment goals and follow-up of lipoprotein apheresis in children with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia and on the role of lipoprotein(a) and liver transplantation.

A comparative evaluation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol estimation: Machine learning algorithms versus various equations

BACKGROUND

Given the critical importance of Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in determining cardiovascular risk, it is essential to measure LDL-C accurately. Since the Friedewald formula generates incorrect predictions in many circumstances, new equations have been developed to overcome the Friedewald equations' shortcomings. This study aimed to compare estimated LDL-C with directly measured LDL-C (dLDL-C), as well as their performance in predicting LDL-C, utilizing Friedewald, extended Martin-Hopkins, Sampson, de Cordova, and Vujovic formulas and five machine learning (ML) algorithms.

METHODS

A total of 29,504 samples from the ISLAB-2 Core Laboratory were included in the study. All statistical analysis was performed using R version 4.1.2. Statistical Language.

RESULTS

Bayesian-Regularized Neural Network (BRNN) (r = 0.957) and Random Forest (RF) (r = 0.957) algorithms showed a higher correlation with dLDL-C than the other equations in all-testing dataset. All ML algorithms demonstrated less bias than pre-existing LDL-C equations with dLDL-C and outperformed the LDL-C estimation equations in terms of concordance in all-testing dataset.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our research indicate that when compared to conventional equations, ML algorithms are much more effective in predicting LDL-C. ML algorithms, aided by a vast dataset, could have the capability to predict LDL-C levels even in cases where triglyceride levels are high, unlike the limited usage of Friedewald formula.

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.

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.

Clot or Not? Reviewing the Reciprocal Regulation Between Lipids and Blood Clotting

Both hyperlipidemia and thrombosis contribute to the risks of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases, which are the leading cause of death and reduced quality of life in survivors worldwide. The accumulation of lipid-rich plaques on arterial walls eventually leads to the rupture or erosion of vulnerable lesions, triggering excessive blood clotting and leading to adverse thrombotic events. Lipoproteins are highly dynamic particles that circulate in blood, carry insoluble lipids, and are associated with proteins, many of which are involved in blood clotting. A growing body of evidence suggests a reciprocal regulatory relationship between blood clotting and lipid metabolism. In this review article, we summarize the observations that lipoproteins and lipids impact the hemostatic system, and the clotting-related proteins influence lipid metabolism. We also highlight the gaps that need to be filled in this area of research.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

IMPACT

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

Quantification of LDL-Cholesterol Corrected for Molar Concentration of Lipoprotein(a)

PURPOSE

Cholesterol in lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)-C] is commonly estimated as 30% of the measured Lp(a) mass. However, difficulties in the accurate measurement of Lp(a) mass, along with the inaccuracy of the 30% assumption, produce erroneous values when LDL-C is corrected for Lp(a) [LDL-CLp(a)corr]. Our aim was to develop a new formula for LDL-CLp(a)corr to reduce this error.

METHODS

We developed a new formula to calculate Lp(a)-C from the molar measurement of Lp(a), which is Lp(a) nmol/L × 0.077 = Lp(a)-C mg/dL. The calculated Lp(a)-C is subtracted from LDL-C to obtain LDL-CLp(a)corr. The results obtained with our novel formula versus the conventional formula were compared in 440 samples from 239 participants enrolled in the BANTING study.

RESULTS

With the conventional formula, approximately 7% of samples with low LDL-C resulted in negative LDL-CLp(a)corr values. With the new formula, no negative LDL-CLp(a)corr values occurred. Among groups with the highest Lp(a)/apoB ratio (p < 0.001) and smaller apolipoprotein(a) isoform size (p < 0.006), LDL-CLp(a)corr was significantly underestimated by the conventional formula, which may result in the undertreatment of some patients.

CONCLUSION

The new formula provides more reliable estimates of LDL-CLp(a)corr than the conventional formula.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02739984.

International Atherosclerosis Society guidance for implementing best practice in the care of familial hypercholesterolaemia

This contemporary, international, evidence-informed guidance aims to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people with familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) across different countries. FH, a family of monogenic defects in the hepatic LDL clearance pathway, is a preventable cause of premature coronary artery disease and death. Worldwide, 35 million people have FH, but most remain undiagnosed or undertreated. Current FH care is guided by a useful and diverse group of evidence-based guidelines, with some primarily directed at cholesterol management and some that are country-specific. However, none of these guidelines provides a comprehensive overview of FH care that includes both the lifelong components of clinical practice and strategies for implementation. Therefore, a group of international experts systematically developed this guidance to compile clinical strategies from existing evidence-based guidelines for the detection (screening, diagnosis, genetic testing and counselling) and management (risk stratification, treatment of adults or children with heterozygous or homozygous FH, therapy during pregnancy and use of apheresis) of patients with FH, update evidence-informed clinical recommendations, and develop and integrate consensus-based implementation strategies at the patient, provider and health-care system levels, with the aim of maximizing the potential benefit for at-risk patients and their families worldwide.

Clinical practice recommendations on lipoprotein apheresis for children with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia: an expert consensus statement from ERKNet and ESPN

Homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia is a life-threatening genetic condition, which causes extremely elevated LDL-C levels and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease very early in life. It is vital to start effective lipid-lowering treatment from diagnosis onwards. Even with dietary and current multimodal pharmaceutical lipid-lowering therapies, LDL-C treatment goals cannot be achieved in many children. Lipoprotein apheresis is an extracorporeal lipid-lowering treatment, which is well established since three decades, lowering serum LDL-C levels by more than 70% per session. Data on the use of lipoprotein apheresis in children with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia mainly consists of case-reports and case-series, precluding strong evidence-based guidelines. We present a consensus statement on lipoprotein apheresis in children based on the current available evidence and opinions from experts in lipoprotein apheresis from over the world. It comprises practical statements regarding the indication, methods, treatment targets and follow-up of lipoprotein apheresis in children with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia and on the role of lipoprotein(a) and liver transplantation.

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.

[Laboratory diagnostics of lipid metabolism disorders]

Clinically, disorders of lipid metabolism often remain without symptoms. Typical skin lesions, however, can be indicative. Secondary hyperlipoproteinemias (HLP) are more common than primary hyperlipoproteinemias; they can (partially) be improved by treating the underlying disease. Basic diagnostics consist of the determination of cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol. To exclude secondary HLP, glucose, HbA1C, TSH, transaminases, creatinine, urea, protein and protein in the urine are useful. Since virtually all routine methods for LDL-C are biased by high triglycerides, lipoprotein electrophoresis is indicated for triglycerides above 400 mg/dl (4.7 mmol/l). Primary HLPs have known or yet unknown genetic causes. Primary hyperlipidemias should be taken into consideration especially in young patients with an LDL cholesterol concentration are above 190 mg/dl (4.9 mmol/l) and/or triglycerides above 400 mg/dl (10 mmol/l) and secondary HLP (obesity, alcohol, diabetes mellitus, kidney disease) is excluded. The basic diagnostics is meaningfully extended by the measurement of lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)). It is indicated in moderate and high risk of vascular disease, progression of atherosclerosis in "well-controlled" LDL cholesterol, familial clustering of atherosclerosis or high Lp(a), evidence for elevated Lp(a) coming from lipoprotein electrophoresis, aortic stenosis and in patients in whom statins have a poor effect. Genetic diagnostics needs to be considered if primary HLP is suspected. It is most frequently conducted for suspected familial hypercholesterolemia and has already been recommended in guidelines.

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.

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.

Lipoprotein(a) and carotid intima-media thickness in children with familial hypercholesterolaemia in the Netherlands: a 20-year follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Elevated lipoprotein(a) and familial hypercholesterolaemia are both independent risk conditions for cardiovascular disease. Although signs of atherosclerosis can be observed in children with familial hypercholesterolaemia, it is unknown whether elevated lipoprotein(a) is an additional risk factor for atherosclerosis in these young patients. Therefore, we aimed to assess the contribution of lipoprotein(a) concentrations to arterial wall thickening (as measured by carotid intima-media thickness) in children with familial hypercholesterolaemia who were followed up into adulthood.

METHODS

We conducted a 20-year follow-up study of 214 children (aged 8-18 years) with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia who were randomly assigned in a statin trial in Amsterdam (Netherlands) between Dec 7, 1997, and Oct 4, 1999. At baseline, and at 2, 10, and 20 years thereafter, blood samples were taken and carotid intima-media thickness was measured. Linear mixed-effects models were used to evaluate the association between lipoprotein(a) and carotid intima-media thickness during follow-up. We adjusted for sex, age, corrected LDL-cholesterol, statin use, and BMI.

FINDINGS

Our study population comprised 200 children who had a carotid intima-media thickness measurement and a measured lipoprotein(a) concentration from at least one visit available. Mean age at baseline was 13·0 years (SD 2·9), 106 (53%) children were male, and 94 (47%) were female. At baseline, median lipoprotein(a) concentration was 18·5 nmol/L (IQR 8·7-35·5) and mean carotid intima-media thickness was 0·4465 mm (SD 0·0496). During follow-up, higher lipoprotein(a) concentrations contributed significantly to progression of carotid intima-media thickness (β adjusted 0·0073 mm per 50 nmol/L increase in lipoprotein(a) [95% CI 0·0013-0·0132]; p=0·017).

INTERPRETATION

Our findings suggest that lipoprotein(a) concentrations contribute significantly to arterial wall thickening in children with familial hypercholesterolaemia who were followed-up until adulthood, suggesting that lipoprotein(a) is an independent and additional risk factor for early atherosclerosis in those already at increased risk. Lipoprotein(a) measurement in young patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia is crucial to identify those at potentially highest risk for cardiovascular disease.

FUNDING

Silence Therapeutics.

Considerations for routinely testing for high lipoprotein(a)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Lipoprotein(a) and diet-a challenge for a role of saturated fat in cardiovascular disease risk reduction?

In this perspective, we discuss new evidence relating to current dietary recommendations to reduce SFA intake to modulate an individual's global risk of CVD. Although it is well established that lowering dietary SFA intake has a beneficial effect on LDL cholesterol concentrations, findings increasingly indicate an opposite effect on lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentrations. In recent years, many studies have firmly established a role for an elevated Lp(a) concentration as a genetically regulated, causal, and prevalent risk factor for CVD. However, there is less awareness of the effect of dietary SFA intake on Lp(a) concentrations. This study discusses this issue and highlights the contrasting effect of reducing dietary SFA intake on LDL cholesterol and Lp(a), 2 highly atherogenic lipoproteins. This calls attention to the need for precision nutrition approaches that move beyond a "one-size-fits-all" approach. To illustrate the contrast, we describe the dynamic contributions of Lp(a) and LDL cholesterol concentrations to CVD risk during interventions with a low-SFA diet, with the hope that this will stimulate further studies and discussions regarding dietary management of CVD risk.

Frequent questions and responses on the 2022 lipoprotein(a) consensus statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society

In 2022, the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) published a new consensus statement on lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], summarizing current knowledge about its causal association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic stenosis. One of the novelties of this statement is a new risk calculator showing how Lp(a) influences lifetime risk for ASCVD and that global risk may be underestimated substantially in individuals with high or very high Lp(a) concentration. The statement also provides practical advice on how knowledge about Lp(a) concentration can be used to modulate risk factor management, given that specific and highly effective mRNA-targeted Lp(a)-lowering therapies are still in clinical development. This advice counters the attitude: "Why should I measure Lp(a) if I can't lower it?". Subsequent to publication, questions have arisen relating to how the recommendations of this statement impact everyday clinical practice and ASCVD management. This review addresses 30 of the most frequently asked questions about Lp(a) epidemiology, its contribution to cardiovascular risk, Lp(a) measurement, risk factor management and existing therapeutic options.

Lipoprotein(a) Genotype Influences the Clinical Diagnosis of Familial Hypercholesterolemia

Background Evidence suggests that LPA risk genotypes are a possible contributor to the clinical diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). This study aimed at determining the prevalence of LPA risk variants in adult individuals with FH enrolled in the Italian LIPIGEN (Lipid Transport Disorders Italian Genetic Network) study, with (FH/M+) or without (FH/M-) a causative genetic variant. Methods and Results An lp(a) [lipoprotein(a)] genetic score was calculated by summing the number risk-increasing alleles inherited at rs3798220 and rs10455872 variants. Overall, in the 4.6% of 1695 patients with clinically diagnosed FH, the phenotype was not explained by a monogenic or polygenic cause but by genotype associated with high lp(a) levels. Among 765 subjects with FH/M- and 930 subjects with FH/M+, 133 (17.4%) and 95 (10.2%) were characterized by 1 copy of either rs10455872 or rs3798220 or 2 copies of either rs10455872 or rs3798220 (lp(a) score ≥1). Subjects with FH/M- also had lower mean levels of pretreatment low-density lipoprotein cholesterol than individuals with FH/M+ (t test for difference in means between FH/M- and FH/M+ groups <0.0001); however, subjects with FH/M- and lp(a) score ≥1 had higher mean (SD) pretreatment low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (223.47 [50.40] mg/dL) compared with subjects with FH/M- and lp(a) score=0 (219.38 [54.54] mg/dL for), although not statistically significant. The adjustment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels based on lp(a) concentration reduced from 68% to 42% the proportion of subjects with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level ≥190 mg/dL (or from 68% to 50%, considering a more conservative formula). Conclusions Our study supports the importance of measuring lp(a) to perform the diagnosis of FH appropriately and to exclude that the observed phenotype is driven by elevated levels of lp(a) before performing the genetic test for FH.

The Link between Magnesium Supplements and Statin Medication in Dyslipidemic Patients

Many investigations have discovered a connection between statins and magnesium supplements. On one hand, increasing research suggests that chronic hypomagnesemia may be an important factor in the etiology of some metabolic illnesses, including obesity and overweight, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, alterations in lipid metabolism, and low-grade inflammation. Chronic metabolic problems seem to be prevented by a high Mg intake combined with diet and/or supplements. On the other hand, it is known that statins lower the frequency of cardiac events, stroke, and mortality, not by lowering LDL-C, but by the capacity to reduce mevalonate formation. That will enhance endothelial function, inhibit vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration and encourage macrophages to promote plaque stability and regression while reducing inflammation. Taking these factors into consideration, we did an extensive analysis of the relevant literature, comparing the effects of Mg² and statin medications on lipoproteins and, implicitly, on the key enzymes involved in cholesterol metabolism.

The effect of adjusting LDL-cholesterol for Lp(a)-cholesterol on the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia

BACKGROUND

Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) diagnostic tools help prioritise patients for genetic testing and include LDL-C estimates commonly calculated using the Friedewald equation. However, cholesterol contributions from lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) can overestimate 'true' LDL-C, leading to potentially inappropriate clinical FH diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

To assess how adjusting LDL-C for Lp(a)-cholesterol affects FH diagnoses using Simon Broome (SB) and Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) criteria.

METHODS

Adults referred to a tertiary lipid clinic in London, UK were included if they had undergone FH genetic testing based on SB or DLCN criteria. LDL-C was adjusted for Lp(a)-cholesterol using estimated cholesterol contents of 17.3%, 30% and 45%, and the effects of these adjustments on reclassification to 'unlikely' FH and diagnostic accuracy were determined.

RESULTS

Depending on the estimated cholesterol content applied, LDL-C adjustment reclassified 8-23% and 6-17% of patients to 'unlikely' FH using SB and DLCN criteria, respectively. The highest reclassification rates were observed following 45% adjustment in mutation-negative patients with higher Lp(a) levels. This led to an improvement in diagnostic accuracy (46% to 57% with SB, and 32% to 44% with DLCN following 45% adjustment) through increased specificity. However all adjustment factors led to erroneous reclassification of mutation-positive patients to 'unlikely' FH.

CONCLUSION

LDL-C adjustment for Lp(a)-cholesterol improves the accuracy of clinical FH diagnostic tools. Adopting this approach would reduce unnecessary genetic testing but also incorrectly reclassify mutation-positive patients. Health economic analysis is needed to balance the risks of over- and under-diagnosis before LDL-C adjustments for Lp(a) can be recommended.

Lipoprotein(a) in Youth and Prediction of Major Cardiovascular Outcomes in Adulthood

BACKGROUND

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a common risk factor for cardiovascular disease outcomes with unknown mechanisms. We examined its potential role in identifying youths who are at increased risk of developing adult atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

METHODS

Lp(a) levels measured in youth 9 to 24 years of age were linked to adult ASCVD and carotid intima-media thickness in the YFS (Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study), in which 95 of the original 3596 participants (2.7%) recruited as children have been diagnosed with ASCVD at a median of 47 years of age. Results observed in YFS were replicated with the use of data for White participants from the BHS (Bogalusa Heart Study). In BHS, 587 White individuals had data on youth Lp(a) (measured at 8-17 years of age) and information on adult events, including 15 cases and 572 noncases. Analyses were performed with the use of Cox proportional hazard regression.

RESULTS

In YFS, those who had been exposed to high Lp(a) level in youth [defined as Lp(a) ≥30 mg/dL] had ≈2 times greater risk of developing adult ASCVD compared with nonexposed individuals (hazard ratio, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.4-2.6]). Youth risk factors, including Lp(a), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, body mass index, and smoking, were all independently associated with higher risk. In BHS, in an age- and sex-adjusted model, White individuals who had been exposed to high Lp(a) had 2.5 times greater risk (95% CI, 0.9-6.8) of developing adult ASCVD compared with nonexposed individuals. When also adjusted for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and body mass index, the risk associated with high Lp(a) remained unchanged (hazard ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 0.8-7.3]). In a multivariable model for pooled data, individuals exposed to high Lp(a) had 2.0 times greater risk (95% CI, 1.0-3.7) of developing adult ASCVD compared with nonexposed individuals. No association was detected between youth Lp(a) and adult carotid artery thickness in either cohort or pooled data.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated Lp(a) level identified in youth is a risk factor for adult atherosclerotic cardiovascular outcomes but not for increased carotid intima-media thickness.

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.

Use of Lipoprotein(a) to improve diagnosis and management in clinical familial hypercholesterolemia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an LDL-like particle whose plasma levels are largely genetically determined. The impact of measuring Lp(a) in patients with clinical familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) referred for genetic testing is largely unknown. We set out to evaluate the contribution of (genetically estimated) Lp(a) in a large nation-wide referral population of clinical FH.

METHODS

In 1504 patients referred for FH genotyping, we used an LPA genetic instrument (rs10455872 and rs3798220) as a proxy for plasma Lp(a) levels. The genetic Lp(a) proxy was used to correct LDL-cholesterol and reclassify patients with clinical FH based on Dutch Lipid Criteria Network (DLCN) scoring. Finally, we used estimated Lp(a) levels to reclassify ASCVD risk using the SCORE and SMART risk scores.

RESULTS

LPA SNPs were more prevalent among mutation-negative compared with mutation-positive patients (296/1280 (23.1%) vs 35/224 (15.6%), p = 0.016). Among patients with genetically defined high Lp(a) levels, 9% were reclassified to the DLCN category 'unlikely FH' using Lp(a)-corrected LDL-cholesterol (LDL-Ccor) and all but one of these patients indeed carried no FH variant. Furthermore, elevated Lp(a) reclassified predicted ASCVD risk into a higher category in up to 18% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients referred for FH molecular testing, we show that taking into account (genetically estimated) Lp(a) levels not only results in reclassification of probability of genetic FH, but also has an impact on individual cardiovascular risk evaluation. However, to avoid missing the diagnosis of an FH variant, clear thresholds for the use of Lp(a)-cholesterol adjusted LDL-cholesterol levels in patients referred for genetic testing of FH must be established.

New Horizons: Revival of Lipoprotein (a) as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Disease

The status of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] as a cardiovascular risk factor has been resurrected by advances in genetics. Mendelian randomization studies show a causal link of Lp(a) with coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral artery disease (PAD), and calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS). The genetics of Lp(a) is complex and extends beyond the kringle-IV type 2, as it is also dependent on ancestry. The plasma concentration of Lp(a) is determined by the hepatic production of apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] component of Lp(a), supporting the use of nucleic acids that inhibit the messenger RNA (mRNA) gene transcript for apo(a). Analytical barriers to measurement of Lp(a) are being addressed using isoform independent assays and a traceable standard. The association of Lp(a) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is higher for myocardial infarction than PAD and CAVS. Increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus associated with low Lp(a) levels is perplexing and requires further investigation. The greatest advancement in Lp(a)-lowering therapies is based on using RNA therapeutics that are now being investigated in clinical trials. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibition lowers Lp(a) modestly, but whether cardiovascular benefit is independent of low-density lipoprotein lowering remains unclear. Opportunistic and selective testing for Lp(a) is supported by moderate evidence, with the case for universal screening premature. Modification of behavioral and clinical risk factors may be targeted to mitigate Lp(a)-mediated risk of cardiovascular disease. Clinical practice guidelines have been developed to address gaps in care of high Lp(a), but full implementation awaits the findings of clinical outcome trials using RNA-directed therapies currently underway.

Effect of lipoprotein (a) on the analytical determination of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc) and its influence on pharmacological treatment with atorvastatin

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc) is an important risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of Lp(a) concentration both on the indirect analytical measurement of LDLc and on the efficacy of dyslipidaemia treatment using the atorvastatin statin. Two retrospective studies were conducted, one with 340 patients and another with 107 patients treated with atorvastatin. Lp(a) concentrations were measured by turbidimetry with an assay independent of the size of the apo(a) isoform. LDLc was calculated using the Friedewald equation and the corrected LDLc was calculated using the Dahlén equation. A strong positive correlation was observed between the serum Lp(a) concentration and the LDLc-overestimation percentage (r = 0.960, p < .001). It was also observed that as the Lp(a) concentration rose there was no significant variation in the percentage decrease in corrected LDLc during atorvastatin treatment (r = 0.186, p > .05). The concentration of LDLc obtained by using the Friedewald equation included Lp(a) cholesterol. The lowering of LDLc in patients treated with atorvastatin depended solely on accessible LDL cholesterol and not on Lp(a) cholesterol.

Lipoprotein(a): Evidence for Role as a Causal Risk Factor in Cardiovascular Disease and Emerging Therapies

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an established risk factor for multiple cardiovascular diseases. Several lines of evidence including mechanistic, epidemiologic, and genetic studies support the role of Lp(a) as a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic stenosis/calcific aortic valve disease (AS/CAVD). Limited therapies currently exist for the management of risk associated with elevated Lp(a), but several targeted therapies are currently in various stages of clinical development. In this review, we detail evidence supporting Lp(a) as a causal risk factor for ASCVD and AS/CAVD, and discuss approaches to managing Lp(a)-associated risk.

Lipoprotein(a) levels in a global population with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

OBJECTIVE

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an important genetically determined risk factor for atherosclerotic vascular disease (ASCVD). With the development of Lp(a)-lowering therapies, this study sought to characterise patterns of Lp(a) levels in a global ASCVD population and identify racial, ethnic, regional and gender differences.

METHODS

A multicentre cross-sectional epidemiological study to estimate the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) in patients with a history of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke or peripheral artery disease conducted at 949 sites in 48 countries in North America, Europe, Asia, South America, South Africa and Australia between April 2019 and July 2021. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and Lp(a) levels were measured either as mass (mg/dL) or molar concentration (nmol/L).

RESULTS

Of 48 135 enrolled patients, 13.9% had prior measurements of Lp(a). Mean age was 62.6 (SD 10.1) years and 25.9% were female. Median Lp(a) was 18.0 mg/dL (IQR 7.9-57.1) or 42.0 nmol/L (IQR 15.0-155.4). Median LDL-C was 77 mg/dL (IQR 58.4-101.0). Lp(a) in women was higher, 22.8 (IQR 9.0-73.0) mg/dL, than in men, 17.0 (IQR 7.1-52.2) mg/dL, p<0.001. Black patients had Lp(a) levels approximately threefold higher than white, Hispanic or Asian patients. Younger patients also had higher levels. 27.9% of patients had Lp(a) levels >50 mg/dL, 20.7% had levels >70 mg/dL, 12.9% were >90 mg/dL and 26.0% of patients exceeded 150 nmol/L.

CONCLUSIONS

Globally, Lp(a) is measured in a small minority of patients with ASCVD and is highest in black, younger and female patients. More than 25% of patients had levels exceeding the established threshold for increased cardiovascular risk, approximately 50 mg/dL or 125 nmol/L.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The Inherited Hypercholesterolemias

Inherited hypercholesterolemias include monogenic and polygenic disorders, which can be very rare (eg, cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis (CTX)) or relatively common (eg, familial combined hyperlipidemia [FCH]). In this review, we discuss familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), FH-mimics (eg, polygenic hypercholesterolemia [PH], FCH, sitosterolemia), and other inherited forms of hypercholesterolemia (eg, hyper-lipoprotein(a) levels [hyper-Lp(a)]). The prevalence, genetics, and management of inherited hypercholesterolemias are described and selected guidelines summarized.

Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis: a European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement

This 2022 European Atherosclerosis Society lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] consensus statement updates evidence for the role of Lp(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve stenosis, provides clinical guidance for testing and treating elevated Lp(a) levels, and considers its inclusion in global risk estimation. Epidemiologic and genetic studies involving hundreds of thousands of individuals strongly support a causal and continuous association between Lp(a) concentration and cardiovascular outcomes in different ethnicities; elevated Lp(a) is a risk factor even at very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. High Lp(a) is associated with both microcalcification and macrocalcification of the aortic valve. Current findings do not support Lp(a) as a risk factor for venous thrombotic events and impaired fibrinolysis. Very low Lp(a) levels may associate with increased risk of diabetes mellitus meriting further study. Lp(a) has pro-inflammatory and pro-atherosclerotic properties, which may partly relate to the oxidized phospholipids carried by Lp(a). This panel recommends testing Lp(a) concentration at least once in adults; cascade testing has potential value in familial hypercholesterolaemia, or with family or personal history of (very) high Lp(a) or premature ASCVD. Without specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies, early intensive risk factor management is recommended, targeted according to global cardiovascular risk and Lp(a) level. Lipoprotein apheresis is an option for very high Lp(a) with progressive cardiovascular disease despite optimal management of risk factors. In conclusion, this statement reinforces evidence for Lp(a) as a causal risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes. Trials of specific Lp(a)-lowering treatments are critical to confirm clinical benefit for cardiovascular disease and aortic valve stenosis.

Plasma lipoprotein (a) and tissue plasminogen activator are associated with increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the most common cause of mortality. Lipoprotein a (Lp(a)) is a low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-like particle with a similar structure to tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) and it competes with plasminogen for its binding site leading to reduced fibrinolysis. The aim of this study was to assess association of Lp(a) and t-PA levels with risk of ASCVD and whether they are dependent on LDL levels. Patients who presented to the catheterization lab for assessment of coronary artery disease were included and stratified by their risk of ASCVD into low, moderate, high, and very high risk. Plasma levels of Lp(a) and t-PA levels were measured before catheterization. Consecutive patients (n = 362) were included. The mean age±sem was 52.28 ± 0.60 years. Plasma Lp(a) and t-PA levels were higher in very-high and high-risk patients relative to low-risk patients. Serum levels of triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein but not LDL were correlated with risk of ASCVD. Plasma Lp(a) and t-PA were not correlated or modified with LDL level. Plasma Lp(a) and t-PA levels were higher in patients undergoing coronary revascularization relative to patients having no intervention. Plasma t-PA level was higher in patients presented with myocardial infarction compared to those with angina. Multivariate analysis documented independent association of Lp(a) and t-PA with ASCVD risk. Plasma Lp(a) and t-PA levels are associated with increased ASCVDASCVD risk independent of LDL and could be used as predictors of atherosclerosis risk and in selecting patients who may benefit from coronary revascularization.

Considerations for routinely testing for high Lp(a)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Lipoprotein(a) measurement issues: Are we making a mountain out of a molehill?

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] became besides LDL cholesterol one of the most attractive targets for intervention in cardiovascular disease. Strong genetic evidence supports the causal association between high Lp(a) concentrations and cardiovascular outcomes. Since specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies are under clinical investigation, the interest in measuring Lp(a) has markedly increased. However, the special structure of the lead protein component of Lp(a), named apolipoprotein(a), creates difficulties for an accurate measurement of Lp(a). A highly homologous repetitive structure, called kringle IV repeat with up to more the 40 repeats, causes a highly polymorphic protein. Antibodies raised against apolipoprotein(a) are mostly directed against the repetitive structure of this protein, which complicates the measurement of Lp(a) in molar terms. Both measurements in mass (mg/dL) and molar terms (nmol/L) are described and a conversion from one into the another unit is only approximately possible. Working groups for standardization of Lp(a) measurements are going to prepare widely available and improved reference materials, which will be a major step for the measurement of Lp(a). This review discusses many aspects of the difficulties in measuring Lp(a). It tries to distinguish between academic and practical concerns and warns to make a mountain out of a molehill, which does no longer allow to see the patient behind that mountain by simply staring at the laboratory issues. On the other hand, the calibration of some assays raises major concerns, which are anything else but a molehill. This should be kept in mind and we should start measuring Lp(a) with the aim of a better risk stratification for the patient and to identify those patients who might be in urgent need for a specific Lp(a)-lowering therapy as soon as it becomes available.

Familial Hypercholesterolemia and Elevated Lipoprotein(a): Cascade Testing and Other Implications for Contextual Models of Care

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], a predominantly genetic disorder, is a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic valvular disease, particularly in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), a Tier I genomic condition. The combination from birth of the cumulative exposure to elevated plasma concentrations of both Lp(a) and low-density lipoprotein is particularly detrimental and explains the enhanced morbidity and mortality risk observed in patients with both conditions. An excellent opportunity to identify at-risk patients with hyper-Lp(a) at increased risk of ASCVD is to test for hyper-Lp(a) during cascade testing for FH. With probands having FH and hyper-Lp(a), the yield of detection of hyper-Lp(a) is 1 individual for every 2.1-2.4 relatives tested, whereas the yield of detection of both conditions is 1 individual for every 3-3.4 relatives tested. In this article, we discuss the incorporation of assessment of Lp(a) in the cascade testing in FH as a feasible and crucial part of models of care for FH. We also propose a simple management tool to help physicians identify and manage elevated Lp(a) in FH, with implications for the care of Lp(a) beyond FH, noting that the clinical use of RNA therapeutics for specifically targeting the overproduction of Lp(a) in at risk patients is still under investigation.

Single Ascending Dose Study of a Short Interfering RNA Targeting Lipoprotein(a) Production in Individuals With Elevated Plasma Lipoprotein(a) Levels

IMPORTANCE

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is an important risk factor for atherothrombotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis, for which there are no treatments approved by regulatory authorities.

OBJECTIVES

To assess adverse events and tolerability of a short interfering RNA (siRNA) designed to reduce hepatic production of apolipoprotein(a) and to assess associated changes in plasma concentrations of Lp(a) at different doses.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A single ascending dose study of SLN360, an siRNA targeting apolipoprotein(a) synthesis conducted at 5 clinical research unit sites located in the US, United Kingdom, and Australia. The study enrolled adults with Lp(a) plasma concentrations of 150 nmol/L or greater at screening and no known clinically overt cardiovascular disease. Participants were enrolled between November 18, 2020, and July 21, 2021, with last follow-up on December 29, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to receive placebo (n = 8) or single doses of SLN360 at 30 mg (n = 6), 100 mg (n = 6), 300 mg (n = 6), or 600 mg (n = 6), administered subcutaneously.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was evaluation of safety and tolerability. Secondary outcomes included change in plasma concentrations of Lp(a) to a maximum follow-up of 150 days.

RESULTS

Among 32 participants who were randomized and received the study intervention (mean age, 50 [SD, 13.5] years; 17 women [53%]), 32 (100%) completed the trial. One participant experienced 2 serious adverse event episodes: admission to the hospital for headache following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and later for complications of cholecystitis, both of which were judged to be unrelated to study drug. Median baseline Lp(a) concentrations were as follows: placebo, 238 (IQR, 203-308) nmol/L; 30-mg SLN360, 171 (IQR, 142-219) nmol/L; 100-mg SLN360, 217 (IQR, 202-274) nmol/L; 300-mg SLN360, 285 (IQR, 195-338) nmol/L; and 600-mg SLN360, 231 (IQR, 179-276) nmol/L. Maximal median changes in Lp(a) were -20 (IQR, -61 to 3) nmol/L, -89 (IQR, -119 to -61) nmol/L, -185 (IQR, -226 to -163) nmol/L, -268 (IQR, -292 to -189) nmol/L, and -227 (IQR, -270 to -174) nmol/L, with maximal median percentage changes of -10% (IQR, -16% to 1%), -46% (IQR, -64% to -40%), -86% (IQR, -92% to -82%), -96% (IQR, -98% to -89%), and -98% (IQR, -98% to -97%), for the placebo group and the 30-mg, 100-mg, 300-mg, and 600-mg SLN360 groups, respectively. The duration of Lp(a) lowering was dose dependent, persisting for at least 150 days after administration.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this phase 1 study of 32 participants with elevated Lp(a) levels and no known cardiovascular disease, the siRNA SLN360 was well tolerated, and a dose-dependent lowering of plasma Lp(a) concentrations was observed. The findings support further study to determine the safety and efficacy of this siRNA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04606602; EudraCT Identifier: 2020-002471-35.

Cascade testing for elevated lipoprotein(a) in relatives of probands with high lipoprotein(a)

•

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a common inherited condition associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

•

Elevated Lp(a) is not routinely tested in clinical practice and most cases remain undiagnosed in the community.

•

We identified 124 relatives with elevated Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL) from 83 affected adult probands who also had dyslipidemia.

•

We also demonstrate that follow-up management is effective in lowering low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels by 34% as a consequence of initiation of lipid-lowering therapy.

•

Cascade testing families for elevated Lp(a) from affected probands with dyslipidemia is an effective and acceptable approach for identifying new cases of elevated Lp(a) who will require management of modifiable risk factors, particularly hypercholesterolemia.

Objective

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a common inherited condition associated with cardiovascular disease. This study investigated whether cascade testing for Lp(a) was effective in detecting new cases of elevated Lp(a) in families.

Methods

Relatives from adult probands with Lp(a) concentration ≥100 mg/dL were tested for elevated Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL) via a cascade testing program in a tertiary hospital setting. The prevalence and yield of detecting new cases of elevated Lp(a) among the relatives were assessed.

Results

Of the 83 probands, 43.4% had familial combined hyperlipidemia (FCHL) and 34.9% common hypercholesterolemia (CH). Among 182 relatives tested (151 adults and 31 children), elevated Lp(a) was found in 68.1%, with 32.9% having Lp(a) between 50 and 99 mg/dL and 35.2% having Lp(a) ≥100 mg/dL. One new case of elevated Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL was identified for every 1.5 relatives tested and 1 new case of elevated Lp(a) ≥100 mg/dL for every 2.8 relatives tested. The proportion of relatives detected with elevated Lp(a) was significantly higher when tested from probands with Lp(a) >150 mg/dL compared with those with Lp(a) between 100 and 150 mg/dL (81.1% vs. 55.5%; P = 0.001). The concordance rates (kappa coefficient) for the detection of elevated Lp(a) with FCHL and CH were 34.8% (0.026) and 53.2% (0.099), respectively.

Conclusion

Cascade testing for elevated Lp(a) from affected probands with phenotypic dyslipidemia is highly effective in identifying new cases of high Lp(a) in families. The yield of detecting elevated Lp(a) is greater when probands have higher levels of Lp(a) and exceeds the detection of relatives with FCHL and CH.

Effect of Pelacarsen on Lipoprotein(a) Cholesterol and Corrected Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

BACKGROUND

Laboratory methods that report low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) include both LDL-C and lipoprotein(a) cholesterol [Lp(a)-C] content.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of pelacarsen on directly measured Lp(a)-C and LDL-C corrected for its Lp(a)-C content.

METHODS

The authors evaluated subjects with a history of cardiovascular disease and elevated Lp(a) randomized to 5 groups of cumulative monthly doses of 20-80 mg pelacarsen vs placebo. Direct Lp(a)-C was measured on isolated Lp(a) using LPA4-magnetic beads directed to apolipoprotein(a). LDL-C was reported as: 1) LDL-C as reported by the clinical laboratory; 2) LDL-C_corr = laboratory-reported LDL-C - direct Lp(a)-C; and 3) LDL-C_corrDahlén = laboratory LDL-C - [Lp(a) mass × 0.30] estimated by the Dahlén formula.

RESULTS

The baseline median Lp(a)-C values in the groups ranged from 11.9 to 15.6 mg/dL. Compared with placebo, pelacarsen resulted in dose-dependent decreases in Lp(a)-C (2% vs -29% to -67%; P = 0.001-<0.0001). Baseline laboratory-reported mean LDL-C ranged from 68.5 to 89.5 mg/dL, whereas LDL-C_corr ranged from 55 to 74 mg/dL. Pelacarsen resulted in mean percent/absolute changes of -2% to -19%/-0.7 to -8.0 mg/dL (P = 0.95-0.05) in LDL-C_corr, -7% to -26%/-5.4 to -9.4 mg/dL (P = 0.44-<0.0001) in laboratory-reported LDL-C, and 3.1% to 28.3%/0.1 to 9.5 mg/dL (P = 0.006-0.50) increases in LDL-C_corrDahlén. Total apoB declined by 3%-16% (P = 0.40-<0.0001), but non-Lp(a) apoB was not significantly changed.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelacarsen significantly lowers direct Lp(a)-C and has neutral to mild lowering of LDL-C_corr. In patients with elevated Lp(a), LDL-C_corr provides a more accurate reflection of changes in LDL-C than either laboratory-reported LDL-C or the Dahlén formula.

Remnants, LDL, and the Quantification of Lipoprotein-Associated Risk in Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

Purpose of Review

Implementation of intensive LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering strategies and recognition of the role of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRL) in atherosclerosis has prompted re-evaluation of the suitability of current lipid profile measurements for future clinical practice.

Recent Findings

At low concentrations of LDL-C (< 1.8 mmol/l/70 mg/dl), the Friedewald equation yields estimates with substantial negative bias. New equations provide a more accurate means of calculating LDL-C. Recent reports indicate that the increase in risk per unit increment in TRL/remnant cholesterol may be greater than that of LDL-C. Hence, specific measurement of TRL/remnant cholesterol may be of importance in determining risk. Non-HDL cholesterol and plasma apolipoprotein B have been shown in discordancy analyses to identify individuals at high risk even when LDL-C is low.

Summary

There is a need to adopt updated methods for determining LDL-C and to develop better biomarkers that more accurately reflect the abundance of TRL remnant particles.