Decreased urinary apolipoprotein (a) excretion in patients with impaired renal function

Changes of lipoprotein(a) levels with endogenous steroid hormones

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an LDL-like molecule that is likely causal for cardiovascular events and Lp(a) variability has been shown to be mostly of genetic origin. Exogenous hormones (hormone replacement therapy) seem to influence Lp(a) levels, but the impact of endogenous hormone levels on Lp(a) is still unknown. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of endogenous steroid hormone metabolites on Lp(a).

METHODS

Lipoprotein(a) levels were measured in 1,021 participants from the Swiss Kidney Project on Genes in Hypertension, a family-based, multicentre, population-based prospective cohort study. Endogenous levels of 28 steroid hormone precursors were measured in 24-h urine collections from 883 individuals. Of the participants with Lp(a) data, 1,011 participants had also genotypes available.

RESULTS

The participants had an average age of 51 years and 53% were female. Median Lp(a) levels were 62 mg/L, and the 90^th percentile was 616 mg/L. The prevalence of a Lp(a) elevation ≥700 mg/L was 3.2%. Forty-three per cent of Lp(a) variability was explained respectively by: age (2%, p < .001), LDL-C (1%, p = .001), and two SNPs (39%, p value<2⋅10^-16 ). Of the 28 endogenous steroid hormones assessed, androstenetriol, androsterone, 16α-OH-DHEA and estriol were nominatively associated with serum Lp(a) levels in univariable analyses and explained 0.4%-1% of Lp(a) variability, but none of them reached significance in multivariable models.

CONCLUSIONS

In this contemporary population-based study, the prevalence of a Lp(a) elevation ≥700 mg/L was 3.2%. The effect of endogenous steroid hormone levels of Lp(a) variability was small at best, suggesting a negligible impact on the wide range of Lp(a) variability.

Impact of Apolipoprotein(a) Isoform Size on Lipoprotein(a) Lowering in the HPS2-THRIVE Study

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

Genetic studies have shown lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) to be an important causal risk factor for coronary disease. Apolipoprotein(a) isoform size is the chief determinant of Lp(a) levels, but its impact on the benefits of therapies that lower Lp(a) remains unclear.

Methods:

HPS2-THRIVE (Heart Protection Study 2–Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events) is a randomized trial of niacin–laropiprant versus placebo on a background of simvastatin therapy. Plasma Lp(a) levels at baseline and 1 year post-randomization were measured in 3978 participants from the United Kingdom and China. Apolipoprotein(a) isoform size, estimated by the number of kringle IV domains, was measured by agarose gel electrophoresis and the predominantly expressed isoform identified.

Results:

Allocation to niacin–laropiprant reduced mean Lp(a) by 12 (SE, 1) nmol/L overall and 34 (6) nmol/L in the top quintile by baseline Lp(a) level (Lp[a] ≥128 nmol/L). The mean proportional reduction in Lp(a) with niacin–laropiprant was 31% but varied strongly with predominant apolipoprotein(a) isoform size (P_Trend=4×10⁻²⁹) and was only 18% in the quintile with the highest baseline Lp(a) level and low isoform size. Estimates from genetic studies suggest that these Lp(a) reductions during the short term of the trial might yield proportional reductions in coronary risk of ≈2% overall and 6% in the top quintile by Lp(a) levels.

Conclusions:

Proportional reductions in Lp(a) were dependent on apolipoprotein(a) isoform size. Taking this into account, the likely benefits of niacin–laropiprant on coronary risk through Lp(a) lowering are small. Novel therapies that reduce high Lp(a) levels by at least 80 nmol/L (≈40%) may be needed to produce worthwhile benefits in people at the highest risk because of Lp(a).

Clinical Trial Registration:

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00461630.

The role of lipoprotein (a) in chronic kidney disease

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] and its measurement, structure and function, the impact of ethnicity and environmental factors, epidemiological and genetic associations with vascular disease, and new prospects in drug development have been extensively examined throughout this Thematic Review Series on Lp(a). Studies suggest that the kidney has a role in Lp(a) catabolism, and that Lp(a) levels are increased in association with kidney disease only for people with large apo(a) isoforms. By contrast, in those patients with large protein losses, as in the nephrotic syndrome and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis, Lp(a) is increased irrespective of apo(a) isoform size. Such acquired abnormalities can be reversed by kidney transplantation or remission of nephrosis. In this Thematic Review, we focus on the relationship between Lp(a), chronic kidney disease, and risk of cardiovascular events.

Lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice: New perspectives from basic and translational science

Elevated plasma concentrations of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) are a causal risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD) and calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS). Genetic, epidemiological and in vitro data provide strong evidence for a pathogenic role for Lp(a) in the progression of atherothrombotic disease. Despite these advancements and a race to develop new Lp(a) lowering therapies, there are still many unanswered and emerging questions about the metabolism and pathophysiology of Lp(a). New studies have drawn attention to Lp(a) as a contributor to novel pathogenic processes, yet the mechanisms underlying the contribution of Lp(a) to CVD remain enigmatic. New therapeutics show promise in lowering plasma Lp(a) levels, although the complete mechanisms of Lp(a) lowering are not fully understood. Specific agents targeted to apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)), namely antisense oligonucleotide therapy, demonstrate potential to decrease Lp(a) to levels below the 30-50 mg/dL (75-150 nmol/L) CVD risk threshold. This therapeutic approach should aid in assessing the benefit of lowering Lp(a) in a clinical setting.

Lipoprotein(a)-clinical aspects and future challenges

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) was first described by K. Berg and is known for more than 50 years. It is an interesting particle and combines the atherogenic properties of low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol as well as the thrombogenic properties of plasminogen inactivation. However, due to technical problems and publication of negative trials the potential role of Lp(a) in atherosclerosis was severely underestimated. In recent years our understanding of the function and importance of Lp(a) improved. Interventional trials with niacin failed to demonstrate any benefit of lowering Lp(a); however, several studies confirmed the residual cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk of elevated Lp(a). LDL/Lp(a) apheresis is able to lower Lp(a) and some new drugs under development should help us to lower Lp(a) in the near future. It will be important to follow this with hard endpoint trials. Until then most clinicians recommend the use of an aggressive LDL-lowering approach in patients with high Lp(a). Since most of these patients with high Lp(a) might have manifested atherosclerosis anyway, we would also consider the use of acetylsalicylic acid.

Lipoprotein (a): gene genie

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite being both the longest known and the most prevalent genetic risk marker for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), little progress has been made in agreeing a role for lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] in clinical practice and developing therapies with specific Lp(a)-lowering activity. We review barriers to progress, and discuss areas of controversy which are important to future research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Epidemiological and genetic studies have supported a causal role for Lp(a) in accelerated atherosclerosis, independent of other risk factors. Progress continues to be made in the understanding of Lp(a) metabolism, and Lp(a) levels, rather than apolipoprotein (a) isoform size, have been shown to be more closely related to CVD risk. Selective Lp(a) apheresis has offered some evidence that Lp(a)-lowering can improve cardiovascular end-points.

SUMMARY

We have acquired a great deal of knowledge about Lp(a), but this has not yet led to reductions in CVD. This is at least partially due to disagreement over Lp(a) measurement methodologies, its physiological role and the importance of the elevations seen in renal diseases, diabetes mellitus and familial hypercholesterolaemia. Renewed focus is required to bring assays into clinical practice to accompany new classes of therapeutic agents with Lp(a)-lowering effects.

When should we measure lipoprotein (a)?

Recently published epidemiological and genetic studies strongly suggest a causal relationship of elevated concentrations of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] with cardiovascular disease (CVD), independent of low-density lipoproteins (LDLs), reduced high density lipoproteins (HDL), and other traditional CVD risk factors. The atherogenicity of Lp(a) at a molecular and cellular level is caused by interference with the fibrinolytic system, the affinity to secretory phospholipase A2, the interaction with extracellular matrix glycoproteins, and the binding to scavenger receptors on macrophages. Lipoprotein (a) plasma concentrations correlate significantly with the synthetic rate of apo(a) and recent studies demonstrate that apo(a) expression is inhibited by ligands for farnesoid X receptor. Numerous gaps in our knowledge on Lp(a) function, biosynthesis, and the site of catabolism still exist. Nevertheless, new classes of therapeutic agents that have a significant Lp(a)-lowering effect such as apoB antisense oligonucleotides, microsomal triglyceride transfer protein inhibitors, cholesterol ester transfer protein inhibitors, and PCSK-9 inhibitors are currently in trials. Consensus reports of scientific societies are still prudent in recommending the measurement of Lp(a) routinely for assessing CVD risk. This is mainly caused by the lack of definite intervention studies demonstrating that lowering Lp(a) reduces hard CVD endpoints, a lack of effective medications for lowering Lp(a), the highly variable Lp(a) concentrations among different ethnic groups and the challenges associated with Lp(a) measurement. Here, we present our view on when to measure Lp(a) and how to deal with elevated Lp(a) levels in moderate and high-risk individuals.

Lipoprotein(a): resurrected by genetics

Plasma lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a quantitative genetic trait with a very broad and skewed distribution, which is largely controlled by genetic variants at the LPA locus on chromosome 6q27. Based on genetic evidence provided by studies conducted over the last two decades, Lp(a) is currently considered to be the strongest genetic risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD). The copy number variation of kringle IV in the LPA gene has been strongly associated with both Lp(a) levels in plasma and risk of CHD, thereby fulfilling the main criterion for causality in a Mendelian randomization approach. Alleles with a low kringle IV copy number that together have a population frequency of 25-35% are associated with a doubling of the relative risk for outcomes, which is exceptional in the field of complex genetic phenotypes. The recently identified binding of oxidized phospholipids to Lp(a) is considered as one of the possible mechanisms that may explain the pathogenicity of Lp(a). Drugs that have been shown to lower Lp(a) have pleiotropic effects on other CHD risk factors, and an improvement of cardiovascular endpoints is up to now lacking. However, it has been established in a proof of principle study that lowering of very high Lp(a) by apheresis in high-risk patients with already maximally reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels can dramatically reduce major coronary events.

Evidence mounts for a role of the kidney in lipoprotein(a) catabolism

Numerous studies have suggested a role of the kidney in lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) catabolism, but direct evidence is still lacking. Frischmann et al. demonstrate that the marked elevation of Lp(a) observed in hemodialysis patients results from a decrease in Lp(a) clearance rather than an increase in Lp(a) production, consistent with the notion that the kidney degrades Lp(a). More studies are needed to prove the biological relevance.

Influence and interaction of diabetes and lipoprotein (a) serum levels on mortality of patients with peripheral artery disease

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for early complications and mortality in patients with peripheral artery disease. Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is also suggested to be a marker of increased cardiovascular risk. We investigated the association and interaction between diabetes mellitus, lipoprotein(a) and mortality in high risk patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD).

METHODS

We studied 700 consecutive patients [median age 73 years, interquartile range (IQR) 62-80, 393 male (56%)] with PAD from a registry database. Atherothrombotic risk factors (diabetes, smoking, hyperlipidaemia, arterial hypertension) and Lp(a) serum levels were recorded. We used stratified multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses to assess the mortality risk at a given patient's age with respect to the presence of diabetes and Lp(a) serum levels (in tertiles).

RESULTS

Patients with Lp(a) levels above 36 mg dL(-1) (highest tertile) and insulin-dependent type II diabetes had a 3.01-fold increased adjusted risk for death (95% confidence interval 1.28-6.64, P = 0.011) compared to patients without diabetes or patients with non-insulin-dependent type II diabetes. In patients with Lp(a) serum levels below 36 mg dL(-1) (lower and middle tertile), diabetes mellitus was not associated with an increased risk for death.

CONCLUSION

Insulin-dependent type II diabetes mellitus seems to be associated with an increased risk for mortality in PAD patients with Lp(a) serum levels above 36 mg dL(-1). PAD patients with non-insulin-dependent type II diabetes, and patients with diabetes and Lp(a) levels below 36 mg dL(-1) showed survival rates comparable to PAD patients without diabetes.

Quo vadis haemapheresis. Current developments in haemapheresis

The techniques of haemapheresis originated in the development of centrifugal devices separating cells from plasma and later on plasma from cells. Subsequently membrane filtration was developed allowing for plasma-cell separation. The unspecificity of therapeutic plasma exchange led to the development of secondary plasma separation technologies being specific, semi-selective or selective such as adsorption, filtration or precipitation. In contrast on-line differential separation of cells is still under development. Whereas erythrocytapheresis, granulocytapheresis, lymphocytapheresis and stem cell apheresis are technically advanced, monocytapheresis may need further improvement. Also, indications such as erythrocytapheresis for the treatment of polycythaemia vera or photopheresis though being clinically effective and of considerable importance for an appropriate disease control are to some extent under debate as being either too costly or without sufficient understanding of the mechanism. Other forms of cell therapy are under development. Rheohaemapheresis as the most advanced technology of extracorporeal haemorheotherapy is a rapidly developing approach contributing to the treatment of microcirculatory diseases and tissue repair. Whereas the control of a considerable number of (auto-) antibody mediated diseases is beyond discussion, the indication of apheresis therapy for immune complex mediated diseases is quite often still under debate. Detoxification for artificial liver support advanced considerably during the last years, whereas conclusions on the efficacy of septicaemia treatment are debatable indeed. LDL-apheresis initiated in 1981 as immune apheresis is well established since 24 years, other semi-selective or unspecific procedures, allowing for the elimination of LDL-cholesterol among other plasma components are also being used. Correspondingly Lp(a) apheresis is available as a specific, highly efficient elimination procedure superior to techniques which also eliminate Lp(a). Quality control systems, more economical technologies as for instance by increasing automation, influencing the over-interpretation of evidence based medicine especially in patients with rare diseases without treatment alternative, more insight into the need of controlled clinical trials or alternatively improved diagnostic procedures are among others tools ways to expand the application of haemapheresis so far applied in cardiology, dermatology, haematology, immunology, nephrology, neurology, ophthalmology, otology, paediatrics, rheumatology, surgery and transfusion medicine.

Lipoprotein [a] is cleared from the plasma primarily by the liver in a process mediated by apolipoprotein [a]

The cellular and molecular mechanisms responsible for lipoprotein [a] (Lp[a]) catabolism are unknown. We examined the plasma clearance of Lp[a] and LDL in mice using lipoproteins isolated from human plasma coupled to radiolabeled tyramine cellobiose. Lipoproteins were injected into wild-type, LDL receptor-deficient (Ldlr-/-), and apolipoprotein E-deficient (Apoe-/-) mice. The fractional catabolic rate of LDL was greatly slowed in Ldlr-/- mice and greatly accelerated in Apoe-/- mice compared with wild-type mice. In contrast, the plasma clearance of Lp[a] in Ldlr-/- mice was similar to that in wild-type mice and was only slightly accelerated in Apoe-/- mice. Hepatic uptake of Lp[a] in wild-type mice was 34.6% of the injected dose over a 24 h period. The kidney accounted for only a small fraction of tissue uptake (1.3%). To test whether apolipoprotein [a] (apo[a]) mediates the clearance of Lp[a] from plasma, we coinjected excess apo[a] with labeled Lp[a]. Apo[a] acted as a potent inhibitor of Lp[a] plasma clearance. Asialofetuin, a ligand of the asialoglycoprotein receptor, did not inhibit Lp[a] clearance. In summary, the liver is the major organ accounting for the clearance of Lp[a] in mice, with the LDL receptor and apolipoprotein E having no major roles. Our studies indicate that apo[a] is the primary ligand that mediates Lp[a] uptake and plasma clearance.

Does Lipoprotein(a) Inhibit Elastolysis in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms?

PURPOSE

to test the hypothesis that there is a negative association between serum levels of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and elastin-derived peptides (EDP) as well as matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-9 activation in the aneurysm wall in patients with asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

from 30 patients operated for asymptomatic AAAs, preoperative serum samples and AAA biopsies were collected. Lp(a) (mg/L) and EDP (ng/ml) in serum were measured by enzyme linked immunosorbent assays. MMP-9 activity (arbitrary units) in the AAA wall was measured by gelatin zymography and the ratio: active MMP-9/total MMP-9 were calculated.

RESULTS

there was a significant negative correlation (Spearman's rho) between serum levels of Lp(a) and EDP (r= -0.707, p<0.001), as well as the share of activated MMP-9 (r= -0.461, p=0.01) in the AAA wall.

CONCLUSION

this preliminary study indicate that Lp(a) inhibit elastolysis in asymptomatic AAA.

Serum Lipoprotein(a) Concentration and Apo(a) Isoform under The Condition of Renal Dysfunction

A serum lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an independent risk factor for cardiac events. It is well known that the patients with chronic renal failure (CRF) have a high concentration of serum Lp(a). The purpose of this study was to indicate the relationship between serum Lp(a) concentration and apoprotein(a) (apo(a)) isoforms under the condition of renal dysfunction. One-hundred thirty patients having hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus and/or CRF were selected in this study. All patients were divided into two groups according to the level of serum creatinine. Serum Lp(a) concentration in the CRF patients (Cr > 2.0 mg/dl) was significantly higher than that in the controls (Cr < 1.2 mg/dl). Many CRF patients had high molecular weight (HMW)-apo(a). This study showed that the increase in HMW-apo(a) was closely accompanied by the increase in serum creatinine levels, and the serum Lp(a) concentration with HMW-apo(a) was higher according to their creatinine levels.

Lipoprotein(a): still an enigma?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lipoprotein(a) belongs to the class of the most atherogenic lipoproteins. Despite intensive research - in the last year more than 80 papers have been published on this topic - information is still lacking on the physiological function of lipoprotein(a) and the site of its catabolism. Important advances have been made in the knowledge of these points, which may have some therapeutic implications.

RECENT FINDINGS

The association of high lipoprotein(a) values with an increase in risk for coronary events has been documented in further prospective studies. This increased risk may relate to recent findings that apolipoprotein(a) is produced in situ within the vessel wall. In addition, lipoprotein(a) binds and inactivates the tissue factor pathway inhibitor and induces plasminogen activator inhibitor type 2 expression in monocytes. A new antisense oligonucleotide strategy has been proposed which efficiently inhibits apolipoprotein(a) expression in vitro and in vivo. Apolipoprotein(a), however, suppresses angiogenesis and thus may interfere with the infiltration of tumor cells. Finally, the enzymatic activity leading to the formation of apolipoprotein(a) fragments in plasma and their catabolism have been further elucidated.

SUMMARY

We are still far away from understanding the pathways involved in lipoprotein(a) catabolism, and the physiological function of this lipoprotein. Recent findings, however, provide new insight into pathomechanisms in patients with increased lipoprotein(a) related to hemostasis, which may serve as a basis for designing new treatment strategies.

Renal handling of human apolipoprotein(a) and its fragments in the rat

The sites and mechanisms of the catabolism of atherogenic lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) are not well understood. Lp(a) is increased in patients with end-stage renal disease, suggesting a renal catabolism of Lp(a). To gain a better insight into renal handling of Lp(a), we established a heterologous rat model to study the renal catabolism of human Lp(a). Pure human Lp(a) was injected into Wistar rats, and animals were sacrificed at different time points (30 minutes to 24 hours). Intact Lp(a) was cleared from the circulation of injected rats with a half-life time of 14.5 hours. Strong intracellular immunostaining for apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) was observed in the cytoplasm of proximal tubular cells after 4, 8, and 24 hours. Apolipoprotein B (apoB) was colocalized with glomerular apo(a) 1 to 8 hours after Lp(a) injection, but renal capillaries and tubules remained negative. No relevant amounts of apo(a) fragments were found in the plasma of rats after injection of Lp(a). During all urine collection periods, apo(a) fragments with molecular weights of 50 to 160 kd were detected in the urine, however. Our results show that human Lp(a) injected into rats accumulates intracellularly in the rat kidney, and apo(a) fragments are excreted in the urine. The kidney apparently plays a major role in fragmentation of Lp(a). Despite the fact that rodents lack endogenous Lp(a), rats injected with human Lp(a) may provide a useful heterologous animal model to study the renal metabolism of Lp(a) further.

Urinary excretion of apolipoprotein(a): relation to other plasma proteins

The atherogenic lipoprotein Lp(a) consists of an LDL-like core and apo(a), linked to apoB via a thiol bridge. Apo(a) fragments ranging in size from 60 to 220 kDa are excreted into urine and the excretion rate correlates significantly with the plasma levels of Lp(a). In order to study the interrelationship of apo(a) secretion with that of other plasma proteins, urinary apo(a) and protein secretion of five probands were followed for 24 h at different urinary densities. The excretion rate of apo(a) fragments, despite their high molecular weight, was highest, followed by apoD, orosomucoid, albumin and beta(2)-glycoprotein-I (beta2-GI) and plasminogen (1.58, 0.87, 0.095, 0.027, 0.013 and <0.001%/day, respectively). There was a highly significant correlation between apo(a), apoD and beta2-GI concentrations but not with albumin and orosomucoid concentrations in urine. The only protein that was fragmented in urine was apo(a) while the other proteins had molecular weights comparable to those in plasma. We conclude that a previously suggested fragmentation of apo(a) by the kidney is not a rate-limiting step in its excretion. Since plasminogen, another kringle-IV-containing plasma compound, and fragments thereof, are undetectable in urine under identical experimental conditions, it is very unlikely that the characteristic kringle structure is responsible for the high excretion rate of apo(a).

Lipoprotein(a) and apolipoprotein(a) isoforms and proteinuria in patients with moderate renal failure

BACKGROUND

Atherosclerotic diseases are a major cause of death in patients with renal failure. Increased serum concentrations of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] have been established as a genetically controlled risk factor for these diseases and have been demonstrated in patients with moderate renal failure, suggesting that this lipoprotein contributes to the increased cardiovascular risk seen in these patients. Variable alleles at the apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] gene locus are the main determinants of the serum Lp(a) level in the general population. The purpose of this study was to investigate apo(a) isoforms in patients with moderate renal failure and mild proteinuria (less than 1.0 g/day).

METHODS

In 250 consecutive subjects recruited at a hypertension clinic, we assessed the renal function by 24-hour creatinine clearance, proteinuria, and microalbuminuria, as well as the prevalence of atherosclerotic disease, and we also measured apo(a) isoforms, serum albumin, and Lp(a) concentrations.

RESULTS

Moderate impairment of renal function (creatinine clearance, 30 to 89 ml/min per 1.73 m2 of body surface area) was found in 97 patients. Lp(a) levels were significantly greater in patients with moderate renal failure (21.7+/-23.9 mg/dl) as compared with patients with normal renal function (15.6+/-16.4 mg/dl, P<0.001), and an inverse correlation was observed between log Lp(a) and creatinine clearance (r = -0.181, P <0.01). However, no difference was found in the frequency of low molecular weight apo(a) isoforms between patients with normal (25.5%) and impaired (27.8%) renal function. Only patients with the smallest size apo(a) isoforms exhibited significantly elevated levels of Lp(a), whereas the large-size isoforms had similar concentrations in patients with normal and impaired renal function. No significant relationship was found between serum Lp(a) and proteinuria. Clinical and laboratory evidence of one or more events attributed to atherosclerosis was found in 9.8% of patients with normal renal function and 25.8% of patients with moderate renal failure (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that renal failure per se or other genes beside the apo(a) gene locus are responsible for the elevation of serum Lp(a) levels in patients with moderate impairment of renal function. The elevation of Lp(a) levels occurs independently of the level of proteinuria and may contribute to the risk for atherosclerotic disease in these patients.

Dietary and genetic interactions in the regulation of plasma lipoprotein(a)

Lipoprotein(a) is a plasma particle which is considered to be a risk factor for the development of coronary heart disease. Plasma levels of lipoprotein(a) are affected by different types of dietary fat and steroid hormones. Two regions upstream of the apolipoprotein(a) promoter have been isolated which could be the site of regulation of apolipoprotein(a) gene transcription.