Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease: prediction, attributable risk fraction, and estimating benefits from novel interventions

Management of dyslipidemia in coronary artery disease: the present and the future

Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a leading cause of global morbidity and mortality, necessitating continuous refinement in the management of dyslipidemia, one of its major risk factors, to mitigate cardiovascular risks. Previous studies have proven the critical role of immediate and robust low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction in the aftermath of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Emphasizing the evidence supporting this approach, we delve into the impact of early intervention on cardiovascular outcomes and propose optimal strategies for achieving rapid LDL-C lowering, while also providing the rationale for early proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 inhibitor use after an ACS. Given the importance of the residual lipidemic risk, we present an overview of emerging therapeutic avenues poised to reshape dyslipidemia management, such as bempedoic acid, lipoprotein(a) inhibition, ApoC3 modulation, and angiopoietin-like protein 3 targeting. This comprehensive review amalgamates current evidence with future prospects, offering a holistic perspective on the management of dyslipidemia in CAD. By exploring both the urgency for immediate post-ACS LDL-C reduction and the exciting advancements on the horizon, this article provides a roadmap for clinicians navigating the intricate landscape of lipid-lowering therapies in CAD.

A Causal Model for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: The Health Economic Model for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to design and develop an open-source model capable of simulating interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) that incorporated the cumulative effects of risk factors (eg, cholesterol years or blood-pressure years) to enhance health economic modeling in settings which clinical trials are not possible.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature to design the model structure by selecting the most important causal risk factors for CVD-low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), systolic blood pressure (SBP), smoking, diabetes, and lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a))-and most common CVDs-myocardial infarction and stroke. The epidemiological basis of the model involves the simulation of risk factor trajectories, which are used to modify CVD risk via causal effect estimates derived from Mendelian randomization. LDL-C, SBP, Lp(a), and smoking all have cumulative impacts on CVD risk, which were incorporated into the health economic model. The data for the model were primarily sourced from the UK Biobank study. We calibrated the model using clinical trial data and validated the model against the observed UK Biobank data. Finally, we performed an example health economic analysis to demonstrate the utility of the model. The model is open source.

RESULTS

The model performed well in all validation tests. It was able to produce interpretable and plausible (consistent with expectations of the existing literature) results from an example health economic analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We have constructed an open-source health economic model capable of incorporating the cumulative effect of LDL-C (ie, cholesterol years), SBP (SBP-years), Lp(a), and smoking on lifetime CVD risk.

Lipoprotein(a): Emerging insights and therapeutics

The strong association between lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has led to considerations of Lp(a) being a potential target for mitigating residual cardiovascular risk. While approximately 20 % of the population has an Lp(a) level greater than 50 mg/dL, there are no currently available pharmacological lipid-lowering therapies that have demonstrated substantial reduction in Lp(a). Novel therapies to lower Lp(a) include antisense oligonucleotides and small-interfering ribonucleic acid molecules and have shown promising results in phase 2 trials. Phase 3 trials are currently underway and will test the causal relationship between Lp(a) and ASCVD and whether lowering Lp(a) reduces cardiovascular outcomes. In this review, we summarize emerging insights related to Lp(a)'s role as a risk-enhancing factor for ASCVD, association with calcific aortic stenosis, effects of existing therapies on Lp(a) levels, and variations amongst patient populations. The evolving therapeutic landscape of emerging therapeutics is further discussed.

Blood Lipids, Lipoproteins, and Apolipoproteins With Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: A Prospective Study Among Racially Diverse Populations

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive blood lipoprotein profiles and their association with incident coronary heart disease (CHD) among racially and geographically diverse populations remain understudied.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted nested case-control studies of CHD among 3438 individuals (1719 pairs), including 1084 White Americans (542 pairs), 1244 Black Americans (622 pairs), and 1110 Chinese adults (555 pairs). We examined 36 plasma lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins, measured by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, with incident CHD among all participants and subgroups by demographics, lifestyle, and metabolic health status using conditional or unconditional logistic regression adjusted for potential confounders. Conventionally measured blood lipids, that is, total cholesterol, triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, were each associated with incident CHD, with odds ratios (ORs) being 1.33, 1.32, 1.24, and 0.79 per 1-SD increase among all participants. Seventeen lipoprotein biomarkers showed numerically stronger associations than conventional lipids, with ORs per 1-SD among all participants ranging from 1.35 to 1.57 and a negative OR of 0.78 (all false discovery rate <0.05), including apolipoprotein B100 to apolipoprotein A1 ratio (OR, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.45-1.7]), low-density lipoprotein-triglycerides (OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.43-1.69]), and apolipoprotein B (OR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.37-1.62]). All these associations were significant and consistent across racial groups and other subgroups defined by age, sex, smoking, obesity, and metabolic health status, including individuals with normal levels of conventionally measured lipids.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlighted several lipoprotein biomarkers, including apolipoprotein B/ apolipoprotein A1 ratio, apolipoprotein B, and low-density lipoprotein-triglycerides, strongly and consistently associated with incident CHD. Our results suggest that comprehensive lipoprotein measures may complement the standard lipid panel to inform CHD risk among diverse populations.

Prognostic value of elevated lipoprotein (a) in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Elevated lipoprotein (a) level was recognized as an independent risk factor for significant adverse cardiovascular events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. Despite this recognition, the consensus in the literature regarding the prognostic significance of elevated lipoprotein (a) in ACS was also limited. Consequently, we conducted a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic relevance of elevated lipoprotein (a) level in individuals diagnosed with ACS.

Methods and results

A thorough literature review was conducted by systematically searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases until September 2023. This review specifically examined cohort studies exploring the prognostic implications of elevated lipoprotein (a) level in relation to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including death, stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and coronary revascularization, in patients with ACS. The meta-analysis utilized aggregated multivariable hazard ratios (HR) and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) to evaluate prognostic implications between high and low lipoprotein (a) levels [the cut-off of high lipoprotein (a) level varies from 12.5 to 60 mg/dl]. Among 18,168 patients in the identified studies, elevated lipoprotein (a) was independently associated with increased MACE risk (HR 1.26; 95% CI: 1.17-1.35, P < 0.00001) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.36; 95% CI: 1.05-1.76, P = 0.02) in ACS patients. In summary, elevated lipoprotein (a) levels independently forecast MACE and all-cause mortality in ACS patients. Assessing lipoprotein (a) levels appears promising for risk stratification in ACS, offering valuable insights for tailoring secondary prevention strategies.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42023476543).

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.

Association between lipoprotein (a) and risk of heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization studies

BACKGROUND

Rising incidence of heart failure (HF) in the Western world despite advanced clinical care necessitate exploration of further preventive tools and strategies. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], recognized as one of the major cardiovascular risk factors has also been implicated as a risk factor for HF. However, existing evidence remains inconclusive and that has led us to perform this meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline, EMBASE and Scopus were systematically searched for studies evaluating an association of Lp(a) with occurrence of HF from inception-till November 2023. Random effects models and I2 statistics were used for pooled odds ratio (OR) and heterogeneity assessment. We performed leave one out sensitivity analyses by sequentially removing one study at a time and recalculating the pooled effect size.

RESULT

Our search rendered in total 360 studies and after final screening this resulted in 7 Mendelian randomization (MR) design. According to the MR analysis, increasing Lp(a) level were significantly associated with increased risk of HF (OR 1.064, 95 % CI: 1.043-1.086, I2= 97.59 %, P < 0.001). In addition, Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis showed that the effect size did not change substantially by removal of any particular study in MR studies and ORs ranged from 1.051 (when excluding Levin) to a maximum of 1.111 (when excluding Wang or Jiang), hereby confirming the association.

CONCLUSION

We were able to show that by meta-analysis of MR data, increasing lipoprotein (a) levels are associated with an increased risk of HF. Whether this is due to a direct effect on heart muscle contraction or whether this is due to an increased risk of ischemic cardiac disease remains to be elucidated.

Predictive value of lung function measures for cardiovascular risk: a large prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Although lung function measures are associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), the added predictive values of these measures remain unclear.

METHODS

From the UK Biobank, 308 415 participants free of CVD with spirometry parameters were included. The CVD outcomes included were defined by QRISK3, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the European Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) prediction models, respectively. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the associations of lung function measures with CVD outcomes. The predictive capability was determined by the decision curve analyses.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up of 12.5 years, 21 885 QRISK3 events, 12 843 ACC/AHA events and 2987 SCORE events were recorded. The associations of spirometry parameters with CVD outcomes were L-shaped. Restrictive and obstructive impairments were associated with adjusted HRs of 1.84 (95% CI: 1.65 to 2.06) and 1.72 (95% CI: 1.55 to 1.90) for SCORE CVD, respectively, compared with normal spirometry. Similar associations were seen for QRISK3 CVD (restrictive vs normal, adjusted HR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.25 to 1.36; obstructive vs normal, adjusted HR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.25) and ACC/AHA CVD (restrictive vs normal, adjusted HR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.31 to 1.47; obstructive vs normal, adjusted HR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.33). Using models that integrated non-linear forced expiratory volume in 1 s led to additional 10-year net benefits per 100 000 persons of 25, 43 and 5 for QRISK3 CVD at the threshold of 10%, ACC/AHA CVD at 7.5% and SCORE CVD at 5.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians could consider spirometry indicators in CVD risk assessment. Cost-effectiveness studies and clinical trials are needed to put new CVD risk assessment into practice.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LP(a): Structure, Genetics, Associated Cardiovascular Risk, and Emerging Therapeutics

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a molecule bound to apolipoprotein(a) with some similarity to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), which has been found to be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Lp(a) appears to induce inflammation, atherogenesis, and thrombosis. Approximately 20% of the world's population has increased Lp(a) levels, determined predominantly by genetics. Current clinical practices for the management of dyslipidemia are ineffective in lowering Lp(a) levels. Evolving RNA-based therapeutics, such as the antisense oligonucleotide pelacarsen and small interfering RNA olpasiran, have shown promising results in reducing Lp(a) levels. Phase III pivotal cardiovascular outcome trials [Lp(a)HORIZON and OCEAN(a)] are ongoing to evaluate their efficacy in secondary prevention of major cardiovascular events in patients with elevated Lp(a). The future of cardiovascular residual risk reduction may transition to a personalized approach where further lowering of either LDL-C, triglycerides, or Lp(a) is selected after high-intensity statin therapy based on the individual risk profile and preferences of each patient.

Development of machine learning-based models to predict 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Previous prediction algorithms for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) were established using risk factors retrieved largely based on empirical clinical knowledge. This study sought to identify predictors among a comprehensive variable space, and then employ machine learning (ML) algorithms to develop a novel CVD risk prediction model.

METHODS

From a longitudinal population-based cohort of UK Biobank, this study included 473 611 CVD-free participants aged between 37 and 73 years old. We implemented an ML-based data-driven pipeline to identify predictors from 645 candidate variables covering a comprehensive range of health-related factors and assessed multiple ML classifiers to establish a risk prediction model on 10-year incident CVD. The model was validated through a leave-one-center-out cross-validation.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 12.2 years, 31 466 participants developed CVD within 10 years after baseline visits. A novel UK Biobank CVD risk prediction (UKCRP) model was established that comprised 10 predictors including age, sex, medication of cholesterol and blood pressure, cholesterol ratio (total/high-density lipoprotein), systolic blood pressure, previous angina or heart disease, number of medications taken, cystatin C, chest pain and pack-years of smoking. Our model obtained satisfied discriminative performance with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.762±0.010 that outperformed multiple existing clinical models, and it was well-calibrated with a Brier Score of 0.057±0.006. Further, the UKCRP can obtain comparable performance for myocardial infarction (AUC 0.774±0.011) and ischaemic stroke (AUC 0.730±0.020), but inferior performance for haemorrhagic stroke (AUC 0.644±0.026).

CONCLUSION

ML-based classification models can learn expressive representations from potential high-risked CVD participants who may benefit from earlier clinical decisions.

Burden of elevated lipoprotein(a) among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: Evidence from a systematic literature review and feasibility assessment of meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level is an independent genetic risk factor that increases the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) by 2-4 fold. We aimed to report the burden of clinically relevant elevated Lp(a) in secondary prevention ASCVD population as the evaluation of such evidence is lacking.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted using Embase®, MEDLINE®, and MEDLINE® In-Process databases to identify studies reporting burden of elevated Lp(a) levels from January 1, 2010, to March 28, 2022. Full-text, English-language studies including ≥500 participants with ≥1 Lp(a) assessment were included.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies reported clinical burden of elevated Lp(a). Of these, 25 observational studies and one clinical trial reported clinical burden of clinically relevant elevated Lp(a) levels. Major clinical outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; n = 20), myocardial infarction (MI; n = 11), revascularization (n = 10), stroke (n = 10), cardiovascular (CV) mortality (n = 9), and all-cause mortality (n = 10). Elevated Lp(a) levels significantly increased the risk of MACE (n = 15) and revascularization (n = 8), while they demonstrated a trend for positive association with remaining CV outcomes. Meta-analysis was not feasible for included studies due to heterogeneity in Lp(a) thresholds, outcome definitions, and patient characteristics. Three studies reported humanistic burden. Patients with elevated Lp(a) levels had higher odds of manifesting cognitive impairment (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval; CI]: 1.62 [1.11-2.37]) and disability related to stroke (OR [95% CI]:1.46 [1.23-1.72)]) (n = 2). Elevated Lp(a) levels negatively correlated with health-related quality of life (R = -0.166, p = 0.014) (n = 1). A single study reported no association between elevated Lp(a) levels and economic burden.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR demonstrated a significant association of elevated Lp(a) levels with major CV outcomes and increased humanistic burden in secondary prevention ASCVD population. These results reinforce the need to quantify and manage Lp(a) for CV risk reduction and to perform further studies to characterize the economic burden.

Lipoproteins, Cholesterol, and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in East Asians and Europeans

One fifth of the world population live in East Asia comprising Japan, Korea, and China where ischemic heart disease, a major component of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), is the second most frequent cause of death. Each of low-density lipoproteins (LDL), remnant lipoproteins, and lipoprotein(a), summarized as non-high-density lipoproteins (non-HDL) or apolipoprotein B (apoB) containing lipoproteins, causes ASCVD. However, a significant proportion of the evidence on lipoproteins and lipoprotein cholesterol with risk of ASCVD came from White people mainly living in Europe and North America and not from people living in East Asia or of East Asian descent. With a unique biological, geohistorical, and social background in this world region, East Asians have distinctive characteristics that might have potential impact on the association of lipoproteins and lipoprotein cholesterol with risk of ASCVD. Considering the movement across national borders in the World, understanding of lipoprotein and lipoprotein cholesterol evidence on ASCVD in East Asia is important for both East Asian and non-East Asian populations wherever they live in the World.In this review, we introduce the biological features of lipoproteins and lipoprotein cholesterol and the evidence for their association with risk of ASCVD in East Asian and European populations. We also provide an overview of guideline recommendations for prevention of ASCVD in these two different world regions. Finally, specific preventive strategies and future perspectives are touched upon.

Contribution of Lipoprotein(a) to Polygenic Risk Prediction of Coronary Artery Disease: A Prospective UK Biobank Analysis

BACKGROUND

Lp(a) (lipoprotein[a]) is a highly atherogenic lipoprotein subfraction that may contribute to polygenic risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), but the extent of this contribution is unknown. Our objective was to estimate the contribution of Lp(a) to polygenic risk of CAD and to evaluate the respective contributions of Lp(a) and a CAD polygenic risk score (PRS) to CAD.

METHODS

A total of 372 385 UK Biobank participants of European ancestry free of CAD at baseline were included. Plasma Lp(a) levels were measured and a CAD-PRS was calculated using the LDpred2 algorithm. Over the median follow-up of 12.6 years, 13 538 participants had incident CAD (myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, or coronary angioplasty).

RESULTS

The LPA region contribution to the CAD-PRS-mediated CAD risk was modest (7.2% [95% CI, 6.1-8.3]). Lp(a) levels significantly increased the predictive performance of a CAD-PRS including age and sex in Cox regression (C statistic 0.751 versus 0.746, difference, 0.005 [95% CI, 0.004-0.006]). Compared with participants in the bottom CAD-PRS quintile with Lp(a) levels <25 nmol/L (CAD event rate, 1.4%), the hazard ratio for incident CAD in participants in the top CAD-PRS quintile with Lp(a) levels ≥125 nmol/L was 5.45 (95% CI, 4.93-6.03; P=9.35×10-242, CAD event rate 6.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with individuals with a low genetic risk of CAD (low CAD-PRS and low Lp[a] levels), those with a high genetic risk (high CAD-PRS and high Lp[a] levels) had a 5-fold higher CAD risk. These results highlight a substantial contribution of genetic risk factors to CAD and that accurate estimation of genetic risk of CAD may need to consider blood levels of Lp(a).

Non-HDL-cholesterol in dyslipidemia: Review of the state-of-the-art literature and outlook

Dyslipidemia refers to unhealthy changes in blood lipid composition and is a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD). Usually, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) is the primary goal for dyslipidemia management. However, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) has gained attention as an alternative, reliable goal. It encompasses all plasma lipoproteins like LDL, triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRL), TRL-remnants, and lipoprotein a [Lp(a)] except high-density lipoproteins (HDL). In addition to LDL-C, several other constituents of non-HDL-C have been reported to be atherogenic, aiding the pathophysiology of atherosclerosis. They are acknowledged as contributors to residual ASCVD risk that exists in patients on statin therapy with controlled LDL-C levels. Therefore, non-HDL-C is now considered an independent risk factor or predictor for CVD. The popularity of non-HDL-C is attributed to its ease of estimation and non-dependency on fasting status. It is also better at predicting ASCVD risk in patients on statin therapy, and/or in those with obesity, diabetes, and metabolic disorders. In addition, large follow-up studies have reported that individuals with higher baseline non-HDL-C at a younger age (<45 years) were more prone to adverse CVD events at an older age, suggesting a predictive ability of non-HDL-C over the long term. Consequently, non-HDL-C is recommended as a secondary goal for dyslipidemia management by most international guidelines. Intriguingly, geographical patterns in recent epidemiological studies showed remarkably high non-HDL-C attributable mortality in high-risk countries. This review highlights the independent role of non-HDL-C in ASCVD pathogenesis and prognosis. In addition, the need for a country-specific approach to dyslipidemia management at the community/population level is discussed. Overall, non-HDL-C can become a co-primary or primary goal in dyslipidemia management.

Daring to dream: Targeting lipoprotein(a) as a causal and risk-enhancing factor

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], a distinct lipoprotein class, has become a major focus for cardiovascular research. This review is written in light of the recent guideline and consensus statements on Lp(a) and focuses on 1) the causal association between Lp(a) and cardiovascular outcomes, 2) the potential mechanisms by which elevated Lp(a) contributes to cardiovascular diseases, 3) the metabolic insights on the production and clearance of Lp(a) and 4) the current and future therapeutic approaches to lower Lp(a) concentrations. The concentrations of Lp(a) are under strict genetic control. There exists a continuous relationship between the Lp(a) concentrations and risk for various endpoints of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). One in five people in the Caucasian population is considered to have increased Lp(a) concentrations; the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) is even higher in black populations. This makes Lp(a) a cardiovascular risk factor of major public health relevance. Besides the association between Lp(a) and myocardial infarction, the relationship with aortic valve stenosis has become a major focus of research during the last decade. Genetic studies provided strong support for a causal association between Lp(a) and cardiovascular outcomes: carriers of genetic variants associated with lifelong increased Lp(a) concentration are significantly more frequent in patients with ASCVD. This has triggered the development of drugs that can specifically lower Lp(a) concentrations: mRNA-targeting therapies such as anti-sense oligonucleotide (ASO) therapies and short interfering RNA (siRNA) therapies have opened new avenues to lower Lp(a) concentrations more than 95%. Ongoing Phase II and III clinical trials of these compounds are discussed in this review.

Incident CHD and ischemic stroke associated with lipoprotein(a) by levels of Factor VIII and inflammation

BACKGROUND

Inflammation and coagulation may contribute to the increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) associated with high lipoprotein(a). The association of lipoprotein(a) with ASCVD is stronger in individuals with high versus low high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), a marker of inflammation.

OBJECTIVES

Determine the association of lipoprotein(a) with incident ASCVD by levels of coagulation Factor VIII controlling for hs-CRP.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 6,495 men and women 45 to 84 years of age in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) without prevalent ASCVD at baseline (2000-2002). Lipoprotein(a) mass concentration, Factor VIII coagulant activity, and hs-CRP were measured at baseline and categorized as high or low (≥75th or <75th percentile of the distribution). Participants were followed for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) and ischemic stroke through 2015.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up of 13.9 years, there were 390 CHD and 247 ischemic stroke events. The hazard ratio (95%CI) for CHD associated with high lipoprotein(a) (≥40.1 versus <40.1 mg/dL) including adjustment for hs-CRP among participants with low and high Factor VIII was 1.07 (0.80-1.44) and 2.00 (1.33-3.01), respectively (p-value for interaction 0.016). The hazard ratio (95%CI) for CHD associated with high lipoprotein(a) including adjustment for Factor VIII was 1.16 (0.87-1.54) and 2.00 (1.29-3.09) among participants with low and high hs-CRP, respectively (p-value for interaction 0.042). Lp(a) was not associated with ischemic stroke regardless of Factor VIII or hs-CRP levels.

CONCLUSION

High lipoprotein(a) is a risk factor for CHD in adults with high levels of hemostatic or inflammatory markers.

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.

Effect of Different Types and Dosages of Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9 Inhibitors on Lipoprotein(a) Levels: A Network Meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has become an important component of the residual risk of cardiovascular diseases. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors display promising effects in controlling Lp(a) levels. However, the effects of different types and dosages of PCSK9 inhibitors on Lp(a) have not been studied in detail. These include 2 monoclonal antibodies, alirocumab and evolocumab, and inclisiran, a small interfering RNA. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials to investigate the efficacy of PCSK9 inhibitors at the Lp(a) level. Although changes in Lp(a) levels were not the primary endpoint in any of these studies, they all described these valuable data. Forty-one randomized controlled trials with 17,601 participants were included, involving 23 unduplicated interventions. Most PCSK9 inhibitors significantly reduced Lp(a) levels compared with placebo. The pairwise comparison demonstrated no significant difference among most PCSK9 inhibitors. However, in the comparison among different dosages of alirocumab, the dosage of 150 mg Q2W showed a significant reduction in Lp(a) levels compared with the dosages of 150, 200, and 300 mg Q4W. In addition, the comparison results demonstrated the significant efficacy of evolocumab 140 mg Q2W compared with alirocumab at a dosage of 150 mg Q4W. The cumulative rank probabilities demonstrated that evolocumab 140 mg Q2W showed the highest efficacy. This study showed that PCSK9 inhibitors reduced Lp(a) levels by up to 25.1%. A biweekly dose of either 140 mg evolocumab or 150 mg alirocumab was the best treatment option. However, the reduction in Lp(a) levels with a single kind of PCSK9 inhibitor alone did not demonstrate sufficient clinical benefit. Therefore, for patients with very high Lp(a) levels who remain at high residual risk in the context of statin administration, it may be acceptable to use a kind of PCSK9 inhibitor, but the clinical benefit needs further investigation.

Serum lipoprotein(a) and bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration

AIMS

Bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration demonstrates pathological similarities to aortic stenosis. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a well-recognized risk factor for incident aortic stenosis and disease progression. The aim of this study is to investigate whether serum Lp(a) concentrations are associated with bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a post hoc analysis of a prospective multimodality imaging study (NCT02304276), serum Lp(a) concentrations, echocardiography, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) angiography, and 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) positron emission tomography (PET) were assessed in patients with bioprosthetic aortic valves. Patients were also followed up for 2 years with serial echocardiography. Serum Lp(a) concentrations [median 19.9 (8.4-76.4) mg/dL] were available in 97 participants (mean age 75 ± 7 years, 54% men). There were no baseline differences across the tertiles of serum Lp(a) concentrations for disease severity assessed by echocardiography [median peak aortic valve velocity: highest tertile 2.5 (2.3-2.9) m/s vs. lower tertiles 2.7 (2.4-3.0) m/s, P = 0.204], or valve degeneration on CT angiography (highest tertile n = 8 vs. lower tertiles n = 12, P = 0.552) and 18F-NaF PET (median tissue-to-background ratio: highest tertile 1.13 (1.05-1.41) vs. lower tertiles 1.17 (1.06-1.53), P = 0.889]. After 2 years of follow-up, there were no differences in annualized change in bioprosthetic hemodynamic progression [change in peak aortic valve velocity: highest tertile [0.0 (-0.1-0.2) m/s/year vs. lower tertiles 0.1 (0.0-0.2) m/s/year, P = 0.528] or the development of structural valve degeneration.

CONCLUSION

Serum lipoprotein(a) concentrations do not appear to be a major determinant or mediator of bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration.

Circulating lipoprotein (a) and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis

AIMS

To investigate the association between circulating lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality in the general population and in patients with chronic diseases, and to elucidate the dose-response relations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched literature to find prospective studies reporting adjusted risk estimates on the association of Lp(a) and mortality outcomes. Forty-three publications, reporting on 75 studies (957,253 participants), were included. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI ) for the top versus bottom tertile of Lp(a) levels and risk of all-cause mortality were 1.09 (95%CI: 1.01-1.18, I²: 75.34%, n = 19) in the general population and 1.18 (95%CI: 1.04-1.34, I²: 52.5%, n = 12) in patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVD). The HRs for CVD mortality were 1.33 (95%CI: 1.11-1.58, I²: 82.8%, n = 31) in the general population, 1.25 (95%CI: 1.10-1.43, I²: 54.3%, n = 17) in patients with CVD and 2.53 (95%CI: 1.13-5.64, I²: 66%, n = 4) in patients with diabetes mellitus. Linear dose-response analyses revealed that each 50 mg/dL increase in Lp(a) levels was associated with 31% and 15% greater risk of CVD death in the general population and in patients with CVD. No non-linear dose-response association was observed between Lp(a) levels and risk of all-cause or CVD mortality in the general population or in patients with CVD (P_nonlinearity > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study provides further evidence that higher Lp(a) levels are associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and CVD-death in the general population and in patients with CVD. These findings support the ESC/EAS Guidelines that recommend Lp(a) should be measured at least once in each adult person's lifetime, since our study suggests those with higher Lp(a) might also have higher risk of mortality.

Screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia in primary school children: protocol for a cross-sectional, feasibility study in Luxembourg city (EARLIE)

INTRODUCTION

Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is a frequent (1:300) autosomal dominantly inherited condition which causes premature (women <60 years, men <55 years) cardio-cerebrovascular disease (CVD). Early detection and initiation of treatment can prevent the development of CVD and premature death. Our pilot study aims to investigate the prevalence of FH, the feasibility and efficacy of a screening based on a capillary blood test performed during a school medicine visit in primary school children.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this cross-sectional study, all children (n=3200) between 7 and 12 years, attending primary school in the city of Luxembourg and invited for their mandatory medical school examinations between 2021 and 2023 are invited to participate. A study nurse performs a capillary blood test to analyse the lipid profile. Families receive the result including an interpretation and invitation to seek medical advice if indicated. If FH is confirmed, a reverse cascade screening in that family will be proposed. The child will receive standard care. Primary outcome is the occurrence of confirmed FH in the study population. Secondary outcomes include the percentage of children screened, percentage of children with abnormal lipid values, percentage of families screened and percentage of families with additionally identified members suffering from hypercholesterolaemia. A health economic analysis will be performed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval (reference number 202108/01) has been obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee (CNER (Luxembourg)) and was authorised by the ministry of health in Luxembourg. Families receive written information with an informed consent form. Participation requires an informed consent form signed by the parents. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and by public media to the general public.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05271305.

Consensus and guidelines on lipoprotein(a) - seeing the forest through the trees

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Over the past decade, lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] made it to several consensus and guideline documents. This review aims to summarize the literature which underlies the various recommendations and compares recent European and North American consensus and guideline documents of the recent 3-4 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple large epidemiological and genetic studies have provided strong evidence for a causal association between Lp(a) concentrations and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve stenosis. There is a dose-dependent linear relationship between Lp(a) and ASCVD risk advocating to consider Lp(a) on a continuous scale rather than using thresholds. The best way to implement this in the clinic is by individualizing the Lp(a)-related risk using tools such as the 'Lp(a) risk calculator' ( http://www.lpaclinicalguidance.com ) that takes into account the Lp(a) level in the context of an individual's traditional risk factors and global risk for ASCVD. There is growing agreement across the guidelines regarding the clinical utility of measuring Lp(a) and more recent expert groups advocate for a general screening approach applied to all adults. As long as the cardiovascular outcomes trials for specific Lp(a)-lowering drugs are in progress, the current management of patients with high Lp(a) should focus on the comprehensive management of all other modifiable ASCVD risk factors which can be therapeutically addressed as per guideline recommendations.

SUMMARY

Since the contribution of high Lp(a) concentrations to global ASCVD risk has been underestimated in the past, a clear recommendation to measure Lp(a) at least once in a person's lifetime is imperative. Recent expert consensus recommendations provide clinicians with direction on how to manage the excess risk associated with elevated Lp(a) concentration by comprehensive and individualized management of modifiable ASCVD risk factors while awaiting the results of clinical trials of Lp(a) targeted therapies.

Kommentar zu den neuen Leitlinien (2021) der Europäischen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie (ESC) zur kardiovaskulären Prävention

Die bedeutendste Veränderung in den neuen ESC-Leitlinien zur kardiovaskulären Prävention von 2021 betrifft die Risikoevaluation gesunder Menschen: Durch die Einführung von SCORE2 wird eine neue epidemiologische Studienbasis für die Risikoeinschätzung eingeführt, die erstmals die Berechnung der kardiovaskulären Erkrankungswahrscheinlichkeit und der kardiovaskulären Mortalität erlaubt. Zudem ermöglicht SCORE2 OP nun auch eine zuverlässige Risikobestimmung bei Menschen oberhalb des 65. Lebensjahres bis in die 9. Lebensdekade. Die Altersdynamisierung der Risikoschwellen für hohes und sehr hohes kardiovaskuläres Risiko trägt dem Gedanken der Lebenszeitexposition Rechnung, führt aber evtl. zu einer höheren Zahl behandlungspflichtiger Patienten. Mit dem 2‑Step-Approach empfiehlt die ESC eine pragmatische Herangehensweise an die Risikofaktoreinstellung: Während in Step 1 basale Präventionsziele für alle Patienten vorgegeben werden, soll der Arzt im Gespräch mit dem Patienten in Abhängigkeit von 10-Jahres-Risiko, Lebenszeitnutzen, Begleiterkrankungen und Patientenwunsch die optimalen Präventionsziele besprechen und anschließend anstreben. Leider werden in den Leitlinien die Kriterien, wer für die optimalen Präventionsziele geeignet ist, nicht klar definiert. Damit besteht die Gefahr einer subjektiven Fehleinschätzung seitens der behandelnden Ärzte, die möglicherweise vielen Patienten den Nutzen einer optimalen kardiovaskulären Prävention vorenthält. Der von den Autoren der Leitlinie hervorgehobene Gedanke des „Freedom of Choice“ könnte insofern zum Bumerang werden und zur Verwässerung der Implementierung einer optimalen Prävention führen. Hierzu und zu möglichen Verschiebungen beim Anteil behandlungsbedürftiger Patienten in der Primär- und Sekundärprävention sind in den nächsten Jahren Längsschnittstudien erforderlich, um Umsetzungsqualität und Prognosewirksamkeit zu objektivieren.

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.

Elevated lipoprotein(a) as a predictor for coronary events in older men

Elevated circulating lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is associated with an increased risk of first and recurrent cardiovascular events; however, the effect of baseline Lp(a) levels on long-term outcomes in an elderly population is not well understood. The current single-center prospective study evaluated the association of Lp(a) levels with incident acute coronary syndrome to identify populations at risk of future events. Lp(a) concentration was assessed in 755 individuals (mean age of 71.9 years) within the community and followed for up to 8 years (median time to event, 4.5 years; interquartile range, 2.5–6.5 years). Participants with clinically relevant high levels of Lp(a) (>50 mg/dl) had an increased absolute incidence rate of ASC of 2.00 (95% CI, 1.0041) over 8 years (P = 0.04). Moreover, Kaplan-Meier cumulative event analyses demonstrated the risk of ASC increased when compared with patients with low (<30 mg/dl) and elevated (30–50 mg/dl) levels of Lp(a) over 8 years (Gray’s test; P = 0.16). Within analyses adjusted for age and BMI, the hazard ratio was 2.04 (95% CI, 1.0–4.2; P = 0.05) in the high versus low Lp(a) groups. Overall, this study adds support for recent guidelines recommending a one-time measurement of Lp(a) levels in cardiovascular risk assessment to identify subpopulations at risk and underscores the potential utility of this marker even among older individuals at a time when potent Lp(a)-lowering agents are undergoing evaluation for clinical use.

Lipoprotein(a) and the Risk for Coronary Heart Disease and Ischemic Stroke Events Among Black and White Adults With Cardiovascular Disease

Background

It is unclear whether lipoprotein(a) is associated with coronary heart disease (CHD) and ischemic stroke events in White and Black adults with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Methods and Results

We conducted a case‐cohort analysis, including Black and White REGARDS (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) study participants ≥45 years of age with prevalent ASCVD (ie, CHD or stroke) at baseline between 2003 and 2007. Baseline lipoprotein(a) molar concentration was measured in participants with ASCVD who experienced a CHD event by December 2017 (n=1166) or an ischemic stroke by September 2019 (n=492) and in a random subcohort of participants with prevalent ASCVD (n=1948). The hazard ratio (HR) for CHD events per 1 SD (1.5 units) higher log‐transformed lipoprotein(a) was 1.26 (95% CI, 1.02–1.56) among Black participants and 1.16 (95% CI, 1.02–1.31) among White participants (P value comparing HRs, 0.485). The HR for CHD events per 1 SD higher log‐lipoprotein(a) within subgroups with hs‐CRP (high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein) ≥2 and <2 mg/L was 1.31 (95% CI, 0.99–1.73) and 1.23 (95% CI, 0.85–1.80), respectively (P value comparing HRs, 0.836), among Black participants, and 1.07 (95% CI, 0.91–1.27) and 1.36 (95% CI, 1.10–1.70), respectively (P value comparing HRs, 0.088), among White participants. There was no evidence that the association between lipoprotein(a) and CHD events differed by statin use. There was no evidence of an association between lipoprotein(a) and ischemic stroke events among Black or White participants.

Conclusions

Higher lipoprotein(a) levels were associated with an increased risk for CHD events in Black and White adults with ASCVD.

Elevated lipoprotein (a) levels and risk of peripheral artery disease outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite strong association of elevated lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) levels with incident coronary and cerebrovascular disease, data for incident peripheral artery disease (PAD) are less robust. The main objective of the present systematic review was to analyze the association between elevated Lp(a) levels and PAD outcomes.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. A literature search was performed to detect randomized clinical trials or observational studies with a cohort design that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels and PAD outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies including 493,650 subjects were identified and considered eligible for this systematic review. This systematic review showed that the vast majority of the studies reported a significant association between elevated Lp(a) levels and the risk of PAD outcomes. The elevated Lp(a) levels were associated with a higher risk of incident claudication (RR: 1.20), PAD progression (HR: 1.41), restenosis (HR: 6.10), death and hospitalization related to PAD (HR: 1.37), limb amputation (HR: 22.75), and lower limb revascularization (HR: 1.29 and 2.90). In addition, the presence of elevated Lp(a) values were associated with a higher risk of combined PAD outcomes, with HRs in a range between 1.14 and 2.80, despite adjusting for traditional risk factors. Heterogeneity of results can be explained by different patient populations studied and varying Lp(a) cut-off points of Lp(a) analyzed.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests that evidence is available to support an independent positive association between Lp(a) levels and the risk of future PAD outcomes. PROSPERO Registration No.: 289253.

Association Between Lipoprotein(a) and Calcific Aortic Valve Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Preliminary studies indicated that enhanced plasma levels of lipoprotein(a) [lp(a)] might link with the risk of calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD), but the clinical association between them remained inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis were aimed to determine this association.

Methods

We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for studies reporting the incidence of CAVD and their plasma lp(a) concentrations. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated to evaluate the effect of lp(a) on CAVD using the random-effects model. Subgroup analyses by study types, countries, and the level of adjustment were also conducted. Funnel plots, Egger's test and Begg's test were conducted to evaluate the publication bias.

Results

Eight eligible studies with 52,931 participants were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Of these, four were cohort studies and four were case-control studies. Five studies were rated as high quality, three as moderate quality. The pooled results showed that plasma lp(a) levels ≥50 mg/dL were associated with a 1.76-fold increased risk of CAVD (RR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.47–2.11), but lp(a) levels ≥30 mg/dL were not observed to be significantly related with CAVD (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.98–1.68). We performed subgroup analyses by study type, the RRs of cohort studies revealed lp(a) levels ≥50 mg/dL and lp(a) levels ≥30 mg/dL have positive association with CAVD (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.39–2.07; RR 1.38; 95% CI, 1.19–1.61).

Conclusion

High plasma lp(a) levels (≥50 mg/dL) are significantly associated with increased risk of CAVD.

Elevated lipoprotein(a) and genetic polymorphisms in the LPA gene may predict cardiovascular events

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD), but there are few studies on the prediction of future cardiovascular events by Lp(a) and its LPA single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The aim of this study was to investigate whether elevated Lp(a) and its SNPs can predict cardiovascular events. We evaluated whether Lp(a) and LPA SNPs rs6415084 and rs12194138 were associated with the incidence rate and severity of CHD. All participants were followed up for 5 years. Elevated Lp(a) is an independent risk factor for the risk and severity of CHD (CHD group vs. control group: OR = 1.793, 95% CI: 1.053–2.882, p = 0.043; multiple-vessel disease group vs. single-vessel disease group: OR = 1.941, 95% CI: 1.113–3.242, p = 0.027; high GS group vs. low GS group: OR = 2.641, 95% CI: 1.102–7.436, p = 0.040). Both LPA SNPs were risk factors for CHD, and were positively associated with the severity of CHD (LPA SNPs rs6415084: CHD group vs. control group: OR = 1.577, 95% CI: 1.105–1.989, p = 0.004; multiple-vessel disease group vs. single-vessel disease group: OR = 1.613, 95% CI: 1.076–2.641, p = 0.030; high GS group vs. low GS group: OR = 1.580, 95% CI: 1.088–2.429, p = 0.024; LPA SNPs rs12194138: CHD group vs. control group: OR = 1.475, 95% CI: 1.040–3.002, p = 0.035; multiple-vessel disease group vs. single-vessel disease group: OR = 2.274, 95% CI: 1.060–5.148, p = 0.038; high GS group vs. low GS group: OR = 2.067, 95% CI: 1.101–4.647, p = 0.021). After 5 years of follow-up, elevated Lp(a) and LPA SNPs rs6415084 and rs12194138 can independently predict cardiovascular events. The increase of serum Lp(a) and LPA SNPs rs6415084 and rs12194138 are associated with increased prevalence and severity of CHD, and can independently predict cardiovascular events.

Low Lipoprotein(a) Levels Predict Hepatic Fibrosis in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease

Dyslipidemia and cardiovascular complications are comorbidities of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which ranges from simple steatosis to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, fibrosis, and cirrhosis up to hepatocellular carcinoma. Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) has been associated with cardiovascular risk and metabolic abnormalities, but its impact on the severity of liver damage in patients with NAFLD remains to be clarified. Circulating Lp(a) levels were assessed in 600 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD. The association of Lp(a) with liver damage was explored by categorizing serum Lp(a) into quartiles. The receiver operating characteristic curve was used to analyze the accuracy of serum Lp(a) in hepatic fibrosis prediction. Hepatic expression of lipoprotein A (LPA) and of genes involved in lipid metabolism and fibrogenic processes were evaluated by RNA sequencing in a subset of patients with NAFLD for whom Lp(a) dosage was available (n = 183). In patients with NAFLD, elevated Lp(a) levels were modestly associated with circulating lipids, carotid plaques, and hypertension (P < 0.05). Conversely, patients with low serum Lp(a) displayed insulin resistance (P < 0.05), transaminase elevation (P < 0.05), and increased risk of developing severe fibrosis (P = 0.007) and cirrhosis (P = 0.002). In addition, the diagnostic accuracy of Lp(a) in predicting fibrosis increased by combining it with transaminases (area under the curve fibrosis stage 4, 0.87; P < 0.0001). Hepatic LPA expression reflected serum Lp(a) levels (P = 0.018), and both were reduced with the progression of NAFLD (P < 0.05). Hepatic LPA messenger RNA levels correlated with those of genes involved in lipoprotein release, lipid synthesis, and fibrogenesis (P < 0.05). Finally, transmembrane 6 superfamily member 2 (TM6SF2) rs58542926, apolipoprotein E (ApoE) rs445925, and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) rs7552841, known variants that modulate circulating lipids, may influence serum Lp(a) levels (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Circulating Lp(a) combined with transaminases may represent a novel noninvasive biomarker to predict advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD.

Calcific aortic valve disease: from molecular and cellular mechanisms to medical therapy

Calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD) is a highly prevalent condition that comprises a disease continuum, ranging from microscopic changes to profound fibro-calcific leaflet remodelling, culminating in aortic stenosis, heart failure, and ultimately premature death. Traditional risk factors, such as hypercholesterolaemia and (systolic) hypertension, are shared among atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and CAVD, yet the molecular and cellular mechanisms differ markedly. Statin-induced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering, a remedy highly effective for secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, consistently failed to impact CAVD progression or to improve patient outcomes. However, recently completed phase II trials provide hope that pharmaceutical tactics directed at other targets implicated in CAVD pathogenesis offer an avenue to alter the course of the disease non-invasively. Herein, we delineate key players of CAVD pathobiology, outline mechanisms that entail compromised endothelial barrier function, and promote lipid homing, immune-cell infiltration, and deranged phospho-calcium metabolism that collectively perpetuate a pro-inflammatory/pro-osteogenic milieu in which valvular interstitial cells increasingly adopt myofibro-/osteoblast-like properties, thereby fostering fibro-calcific leaflet remodelling and eventually resulting in left ventricular outflow obstruction. We provide a glimpse into the most promising targets on the horizon, including lipoprotein(a), mineral-binding matrix Gla protein, soluble guanylate cyclase, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 as well as candidates involved in regulating phospho-calcium metabolism and valvular angiotensin II synthesis and ultimately discuss their potential for a future therapy of this insidious disease.

Statin therapy and lipoprotein(a) levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS 

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a causal and independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). People with elevated Lp(a) are often prescribed statins as they also often show elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. While statins are well-established in lowering LDL-C, their effect on Lp(a) remains unclear. We evaluated the effect of statins compared to placebo on Lp(a) and the effects of different types and intensities of statin therapy on Lp(a).

METHODS AND RESULTS 

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials with a statin and placebo arm. Medline and EMBASE were searched until August 2019. Quality assessment of studies was done using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). Mean difference of absolute and percentage changes of Lp(a) in the statin vs. the placebo arms were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. We compared effects of different types and intensities of statin therapy using subgroup- and network meta-analyses. Certainty of the evidence was determined using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Overall, 39 studies (24 448 participants) were included. Mean differences (95% confidence interval) of absolute and percentage changes in the statin vs. the placebo arms were 1.1 mg/dL (0.5-1.6, P < 0.0001) and 0.1% (-3.6% to 4.0%, P = 0.95), respectively (moderate-certainty evidence). None of the types of statins changed Lp(a) significantly compared to placebo (very low- to high-certainty evidence), as well as intensities of statin therapy (low- to moderate-certainty evidence).

CONCLUSION 

Statin therapy does not lead to clinically important differences in Lp(a) compared to placebo in patients at risk for CVD. Our findings suggest that in these patients, statin therapy will not change Lp(a)-associated CVD risk.

Lipoprotein (a) and Cardiovascular Disease: A Missing Link for Premature Atherosclerotic Heart Disease and/or Residual Risk

ABSTRACT

Lipoprotein(a) or lipoprotein "little a" is an under-recognized causal risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD), including coronary atherosclerosis, aortic valvular stenosis, ischemic stroke, heart failure and peripheral arterial disease. Elevated plasma Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL or ≥100 nmol/L) is commonly encountered in almost 1 in 5 individuals and confers a higher CV risk compared to those with normal Lp(a) levels, although such normal levels have not been generally agreed upon. Elevated Lp(a) is considered a cause of premature and accelerated atherosclerotic CVD. Thus, in patients with a positive family or personal history of premature coronary artery disease (CAD), Lp(a) should be measured. However, elevated Lp(a) may confer increased risk for incident CAD even in the absence of a family history of CAD, and even in those who have guideline-lowered LDL-cholesterol (<70 mg/dl) and continue to have a persisting CV residual risk. Thus, measurement of Lp(a) will have a significant clinical impact on the assessment of atherosclerotic CVD risk, and will assume a more important role in managing patients with CVD with the advent and clinical application of specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies. Conventional therapeutic approaches like lifestyle modification and statin therapy remain ineffective at lowering Lp(a). Newer treatment modalities, such as gene silencing via RNA interference with use of antisense oligonucleotide(s) or small interfering RNA molecules targeting Lp(a) seem very promising. These issues are herein reviewed, accumulated data are scrutinized, meta-analyses and current guidelines are tabulated and Lp(a)-related CVDs and newer therapeutic modalities are pictorially illustrated.

Elevated Lipoprotein(a): Background, Current Insights and Future Potential Therapies

Lipoprotein(a) forms a subfraction of the lipid profile and is characterized by the addition of apolipprotein(a) (apo(a)) to apoB100 derived particles. Its levels are mostly genetically determined inversely related to the number of protein domain (kringle) repeats in apo(a). In epidemiological studies, it shows consistent association with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and most recently with extent of aortic stenosis. Issues with standardizing the measurement of Lp(a) are being resolved and consensus statements favor its measurement in patients at high risk of, or with family histories of CVD events. Major lipid-lowering therapies such as statin, fibrates, and ezetimibe have little effect on Lp(a) levels. Therapies such as niacin or cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitors lower Lp(a) as well as reducing other lipid-related risk factors but have failed to clearly reduce CVD events. Proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin-9 (PCSK9) inhibitors reduce cholesterol and Lp(a) as well as reducing CVD events. New antisense therapies specifically targeting apo(a) and hence Lp(a) have greater and more specific effects and will help clarify the extent to which intervention in Lp(a) levels will reduce CVD events.

Lipoprotein(a): Knowns, unknowns and uncertainties

Over the last 10 years, there have been advances on several aspects of lipoprotein(a) which are reviewed in the present article. Since the standard immunoassays for measuring lipoprotein(a) are not fully apo(a) isoform-insensitive, the application of an LC-MS/MS method for assaying molar concentrations of lipoprotein(a) has been advocated. Genome wide association, epidemiological, and clinical studies have established high lipoprotein(a) as a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD). However, the relative importance of molar concentration, apo(a) isoform size or variants within the LPA gene is still controversial. Lipoprotein(a)-raising single nucleotide polymorphisms has not been shown to add on value in predicting ASCVD beyond lipoprotein(a) concentrations. Although hyperlipoproteinemia(a) represents an important confounder in the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), it enhances the risk of ASCVD in these patients. Thus, identification of new cases of hyperlipoproteinemia(a) during cascade testing can increase the identification of high-risk individuals. However, it remains unclear whether FH itself increases lipoprotein(a). The ASCVD risk associated with lipoprotein(a) seems to follow a linear gradient across the distribution, regardless of racial subgroups and other risk factors. The inverse association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes needs consideration as effective lipoprotein(a) lowering therapies are progressing towards the market. Considering that Mendelian randomization analyses have identified the degree of lipoprotein(a)-lowering that is required to achieve ASCVD benefit, the findings of the ongoing outcome trial with pelacarsen will clarify whether dramatically lowering lipoprotein(a) levels can reduce the risk of ASCVD.

Erectile Dysfunction Is a Hallmark of Cardiovascular Disease: Unavoidable Matter of Fact or Opportunity to Improve Men's Health?

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is an early manifestation of cardiovascular (CV) disease. For this reason, men with ED should be carefully assessed for CV risk factors in order to prevent future major adverse CV events (MACE). Traditional risk factors are not found in all subjects at high CV risk. In fact, a relevant proportion of MACE occurs in men who are apparently risk factor free. In men with ED, it is important to take into account not only traditional risk factors but also unconventional ones. Several parameters that derive from good clinical assessment of subjects with ED have proven to be valuable predictors of MACE. These include family history of cardiometabolic events, alcohol abuse, fatherhood, decreased partner’s sexual interest, severe impairment in erection during intercourse or during masturbation, impaired fasting glucose, increased triglycerides, obesity even without metabolic complications, decreased penile blood flows or impaired response to an intra-cavernosal injection test. Recognizing these risk factors may help in identifying, among subjects with ED, those who merit stricter lifestyle or pharmacological interventions to minimize their CV risk. Effective correction of risk factors in ED men considered as high risk, besides reducing CV risk, is also able to improve erectile function.

β-Cell Dysfunction, Hepatic Lipid Metabolism, and Cardiovascular Health in Type 2 Diabetes: New Directions of Research and Novel Therapeutic Strategies

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a major problem for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and dyslipidemia is one of the main drivers for both metabolic diseases. In this review, the major pathophysiological and molecular mechanisms of β-cell dysfunction and recovery in T2DM are discussed in the context of abnormal hepatic lipid metabolism and cardiovascular health. (i) In normal health, continuous exposure of the pancreas to nutrient stimulus increases the demand on β-cells. In the long term, this will not only stress β-cells and decrease their insulin secretory capacity, but also will blunt the cellular response to insulin. (ii) At the pre-diabetes stage, β-cells compensate for insulin resistance through hypersecretion of insulin. This increases the metabolic burden on the stressed β-cells and changes hepatic lipoprotein metabolism and adipose tissue function. (iii) If this lipotoxic hyperinsulinemic environment is not removed, β-cells start to lose function, and CVD risk rises due to lower lipoprotein clearance. (iv) Once developed, T2DM can be reversed by weight loss, a process described recently as remission. However, the precise mechanism(s) by which calorie restriction causes normalization of lipoprotein metabolism and restores β-cell function are not fully established. Understanding the pathophysiological and molecular basis of β-cell failure and recovery during remission is critical to reduce β-cell burden and loss of function. The aim of this review is to highlight the link between lipoprotein export and lipid-driven β-cell dysfunction in T2DM and how this is related to cardiovascular health. A second aim is to understand the mechanisms of β-cell recovery after weight loss, and to explore new areas of research for developing more targeted future therapies to prevent T2DM and the associated CVD events.