'LDL-C' = LDL-C + Lp(a)-C: implications of achieved ultra-low LDL-C levels in the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 era of potent LDL-C lowering

Association between lipoprotein (a) and risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events among maintenance hemodialysis patients in Beijing, China: a single-center, retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Serum lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in the general population, its association with ASCVD incidence in Chinese maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between Lp(a) levels and ASCVD incidence among MHD patients in Beijing, China.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational cohort study included MHD patients at Beijing Tongren Hospital from January 1, 2013 to December 1, 2020, and followed until December 1,2023. The primary outcome was ASCVD occurrence. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to evaluate ASCVD-free survival in MHD patients, with stratification based on Lp(a) levels. Cox regression analyses were conducted to assess the association between Lp(a) levels and the occurrence of ASCVD.

RESULTS

A total of 265 patients were enrolled in the study. The median follow-up period were 71 months.78 (29.4%) participants experienced ASCVD events, and 118 (47%) patients died, with 58 (49.1%) deaths attributed to ASCVD. Spearman rank correlation analyses revealed positive correlations between serum Lp(a) levels and LDL-c levels, and negative correlations with hemoglobin, triglyceride, serum iron, serum creatinine, and albumin levels. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that Lp(a) levels ≥ 30 mg/L, increased age, decreased serum albumin levels, and a history of diabetes mellitus were significantly associated with ASCVD incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated an independent and positive association between serum Lp(a) levels and the risk of ASCVD in MHD patients, suggesting that serum Lp(a) could potentially serve as a clinical biomarker for estimating ASCVD risk in this population.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Lipoprotein (a) is a predictor of non-achievement of LDL-C goals in patients with chronic heart disease

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] concentration influences serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. How it influences the achievement of LDL-C targets established in the guidelines is not well studied. Our aim was to know the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) levels in patients with coronary artery disease, and to assess its influence on the achievement of LDL-C targets.

METHOD

We conducted a cross-sectional study in a cardiology department in Spain. A total of 870 patients with stable coronary artery disease had their lipid profile determined, including Lp(a). Patients were stratified into 2 groups according to Lp(a)>50mg/dL and Lp(a)≤50mg/dL. The association of Lp(a)>50mg/dL with achievement of LDL-C targets was assessed by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The prevalence of Lp(a)>50mg/dL was 30.8%. Patients with Lp(a)>50mg/dL had higher baseline (142.30±47.54 vs. 130.47±40.75mg/dL; p=0.0001) and current (72.91±26.44 vs. 64.72±25.30mg/dL; p=0.0001), despite the fact that they were treated with more high-potency statins (77.2 vs. 70.9%; p=0.058) and more combination lipid-lowering therapy (37.7 vs. 25.7%; p=0.001). The proportion of patients achieving target LDL-C was lower in those with Lp(a)>50mg/dL. Independent predictors of having elevated Lp(a) levels>50mg/dL were the use of high-potency statins (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.08-2.14), combination lipid-lowering therapy with ezetimibe (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.45-2.73) and failure to achieve a LDL-C ≤55mg/dL (OR 2.3; 95% CI 1.63-3.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated Lp(a) levels influence LDL-C levels and hinder the achievement of targets in patients at very high cardiovascular risk. New drugs that act directly on Lp(a) are needed in these patients.

Impact of High Lipoprotein(a) on Long-Term Survival Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) is a possible causal risk factor for atherosclerosis and related complications. The distribution and prognostic implication of lipoprotein(a) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting remain unknown. This study aimed to assess the impact of high lipoprotein(a) on the long-term prognosis of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with stable coronary artery disease who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting from January 2013 to December 2018 from a single-center cohort were included. The primary outcome was all-cause death. The secondary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Of the 18 544 patients, 4072 (22.0%) were identified as the high-lipoprotein(a) group (≥50 mg/dL). During a median follow-up of 3.2 years, primary outcomes occurred in 587 patients. High lipoprotein(a) was associated with increased risk of all-cause death (high lipoprotein(a) versus low lipoprotein(a): adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.09-1.59]; P=0.005; lipoprotein(a) per 1-mg/dL increase: aHR, 1.003 [95% CI, 1.001-1.006]; P=0.011) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (high lipoprotein(a) versus low lipoprotein(a): aHR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.06-1.33]; P=0.004; lipoprotein(a) per 1-mg/dL increase: aHR, 1.002 [95% CI, 1.001-1.004]; P=0.002). The lipoprotein(a)-related risk was greater in patients with European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation <3, and tended to attenuate in patients receiving arterial grafts.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 1 in 5 patients with stable coronary artery disease who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting were exposed to high lipoprotein(a), which is associated with higher risks of death and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. The adverse effects of lipoprotein(a) were more pronounced in patients with clinically low-risk profiles or not receiving arterial grafts.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02739984.

Epidemiology of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in polygenic hypercholesterolemia with or without high lipoprotein(a) levels

Background and aims

Epidemiology of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease might be different in patients with polygenic hypercholesterolemia plus high levels (≥30 mg/dl) of Lp(a) (H-Lpa) than in those with polygenic hypercholesterolemia alone (H-LDL). We compared the incidence of peripheral artery disease (PAD), coronary artery disease (CAD), and cerebrovascular disease (CVD) in patients with H-Lpa and in those with H-LDL.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of demographics, risk factors, vascular events, therapy, and lipid profile in outpatient clinical data. Inclusion criteria was adult age, diagnosis of polygenic hypercholesterolemia, and both indication and availability for Lp(a) measurement.

Results

Medical records of 258 patients with H-Lpa and 290 H-LDL were reviewed for occurrence of vascular events. The median duration of follow-up was 10 years (IQR 3-16). In spite of a similar reduction of LDL cholesterol, vascular events occurred more frequently, and approximately 7 years earlier (P = 0.024) in patients with H-Lpa than in H-LDL (HR 1.96 1.21-3.17, P = 0.006). The difference was around 10 years for acute events (TIA, Stroke, acute coronary events) and one year for chronic ones (P = 0.023 and 0.525, respectively). Occurrence of acute CAD was higher in H-Lpa men (HR 3.1, 95% CI 1.2-7.9, P = 0.007) while, among women, PAD was observed exclusively in H-Lpa subjects with smoking habits (P = 0.009).

Conclusions

Patients with high Lp(a) levels suffer from a larger and earlier burden of the disease compared to those with polygenic hypercholesterolemia alone. These patients are at higher risk of CAD if they are men, and of PAD if they are women.

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

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

Considerations for routinely testing for high lipoprotein(a)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Lipoprotein(a) and the Risk for Recurrent Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Events Among Adults With CKD: The Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study

Rationale & Objective

Many adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) have high lipoprotein(a) levels. It is unclear whether high lipoprotein(a) levels confer an increased risk for recurrent ASCVD events in this population. We estimated the risk for recurrent ASCVD events associated with lipoprotein(a) in adults with CKD and prevalent ASCVD.

Study Design

Observational cohort study.

Setting & Participants

We included 1,439 adults with CKD and prevalent ASCVD not on dialysis enrolled in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort study between 2003 and 2008.

Exposure

Baseline lipoprotein(a) mass concentration, measured using a latex-enhanced immunoturbidimetric assay.

Outcomes

Recurrent ASCVD events (primary outcome), kidney failure, and death (exploratory outcomes) through 2019.

Analytical Approach

We used Cox proportional-hazards regression models to estimate adjusted HR (aHRs) and 95% CIs.

Results

Among participants included in the current analysis (mean age 61.6 years, median lipoprotein(a) 29.4 mg/dL [25th-75th percentiles 9.9-70.9 mg/dL]), 641 had a recurrent ASCVD event, 510 developed kidney failure, and 845 died over a median follow-up of 6.6 years. The aHR for ASCVD events associated with 1 standard deviation (SD) higher log-transformed lipoprotein(a) was 1.04 (95% CI, 0.95-1.15). In subgroup analyses, 1 SD higher log-lipoprotein(a) was associated with an increased risk for ASCVD events in participants without diabetes (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.48), but there was no evidence of an association among those with diabetes (aHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88-1.10, P comparing aHRs = 0.031). The aHR associated with 1 SD higher log-lipoprotein(a) in the overall study population was 1.16 (95% CI, 1.04-1.28) for kidney failure and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.94-1.11) for death.

Limitations

Lipoprotein(a) was not available in molar concentration.

Conclusions

Lipoprotein(a) was not associated with the risk for recurrent ASCVD events in adults with CKD, although it was associated with a risk for kidney failure.

Prognostic impact of lipoprotein(a) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention modified by low density lipoprotein cholesterol

BACKGROUND

It is well established that lipoprotein(a)[Lp(a)] and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) play a vital role in atherosclerosis. We investigated the prevalence and prognostic implications of increased Lp(a) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to different LDL-C concentrations.

METHODS

A total of 9,190 patients with CAD after PCI were consecutively enrolled in the study and subsequently divided into three groups according to baseline LDL-C at cut-off of 70 and 100 mg/dl. Increased Lp(a) was defined as > 30 mg/dl. The primary endpoint was all-cause death. Second endpoint was cardiac death. Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier and Sensitivity analysis were performed.

RESULTS

During an average of 5.0 y of follow-up, 354 (3.9 %) patients experienced all-cause death with 213(2.3 %) of whom from cardiac death. Increased Lp(a) was present in 25.7 %, 34.2 %, and 40.6 % across the LDL-C < 70, 70-100 and≧100 mg/dl groups, respectively. After multivariate adjustment, Lp(a) elevation remained significantly associated with 5-y all-cause death (adjusted HR, 1.243; 95 % CI 1.001-1.544; p = 0.048) in the total cohort and only in those with LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dl (adjusted HR, 1.642; 95 % CI 1.139-2.367; p = 0.008) when analyzed within each LDL-C category. Consistently with the results of associations between Lp(a) and cardiac death (adjusted HR, 1.534; 95 % CI 1.164-2.021; p = 0.002 for total cohort and adjusted HR, 2.404; 95 % CI 1.439-3.872; p < 0.001 for LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dl). And this relationship holds after adjusting for LDL-Ccorr additionally. These findings are confirmed again in sensitivity analyses that excluded patients with Lp(a) concentrations in the top or the bottom 5 %.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed that increased Lp(a) was associated with increased risk of long-term outcomes, and such an association was modified by the baseline LDL-C concentrations. Screening of high Lp(a) in individuals with elevations of LDL-C may enables risk stratification for poor prognosis.

High levels of lipoprotein(a) - assessment and treatment

Approximately 5 % of the population have highly elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), which is a genetically determined risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Measuring lipoprotein(a) can improve cardiovascular risk stratification and have consequences for preventive measures. Treatment is targeted at reducing modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, but Lp(a)-lowering drugs are being trialled. This article reviews the management of lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice.

Small Dense Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Ischemic Stroke

OBJECTIVE

For decades, it has been suggested that small dense low-density lipoprotein (sdLDL) may be particularly atherogenic. High levels of sdLDL are associated with an increased risk of ischemic heart disease; however, the association of sdLDL with ischemic stroke has not been explored in a large prospective study on the general population. We tested the hypothesis that high sdLDL cholesterol levels are associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke.

METHODS

This prospective study included 38,319 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study with fresh sample measurements of sdLDL cholesterol. Median follow-up time was 3.1 years. We observed 302 and 74 ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes from baseline in 2013 to 2017 to the end of follow-up in 2018. For comparison, we included estimates for large buoyant LDL cholesterol and total LDL cholesterol.

RESULTS

Higher levels of sdLDL cholesterol were log-linearly associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke. Compared with individuals with sdLDL cholesterol in the lowest tertile (≤0.60 mmol/l; ≤23 mg/dl) the multivariable adjusted hazard ratio for ischemic stroke was 1.79 (95% confidence interval = 1.31-2.43) for the highest tertile (≥0.86 mmol/l; ≥33 mg/dl). Multivariable adjusted hazard ratios for ischemic stroke per 1 mmol/l (38.7 mg/dl) higher levels were 1.69 (1.28-2.22) for sdLDL cholesterol, 0.95 (0.78-1.16) for large buoyant LDL cholesterol, and 1.08 (0.93-1.25) for total LDL cholesterol. Hazard ratios were similar when further adjusting for body mass index (BMI) and diabetes mellitus in the biological pathway in combination with related lipids and lipoproteins.

INTERPRETATION

Higher sdLDL cholesterol levels were robustly associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke. ANN NEUROL 2023.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Impact of Lipoprotein(a) on Macrovascular Complications of Diabetes in a Multiethnic Population in the French Amazon

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In French Guiana, the prevalence of diabetes is around 10%, and cardio and neurovascular pathologies are the first medical cause of early mortality. Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is described in the literature as a risk factor independent of other cardiovascular risk factors, but there are important interindividual differences, especially according to ethnicity. The objective of this study was to investigate the association of Lp(a) and macrovascular complications in a multiethnic population of patients with diabetes in the French Amazon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since May 2019, 1243 patients were screened 806 of whom had Lp(a) determination. We compared the prevalence of macrovascular complications in three groups according to Lp(a) concentration: between 0 and 75 mg/mL, between 76 and 300 mg/mL, and >300 mg/mL.

RESULTS

712 patients in the study had type 2 diabetes (88.34% of the sample). A history of hypertension was significantly associated with greater Lp(a) levels. Lp(a) concentration was greater among Creole ethnic groups. No association was found between Lp(a) levels and macrovascular complications in the Lp(a) > 300 mg/mL group.

CONCLUSIONS

These results do not replicate findings in mostly Caucasian populations suggesting that the Lp(a) threshold for, or the link with, cardiovascular risk may be different given the predominantly African origin of the French Guianese population. Further studies should study genetic polymorphisms in our population.

The development of lipoprotein apheresis in Saxony in the last years

METHODS

Three hundred thirty-nine patients (230 men, 109 women) treated with lipoprotein apheresis in Saxony, Germany, in 2018 are described in terms of age, lipid pattern, risk factors, cardiovascular events, medication, and number of new admissions since 2014, and the data are compared with figures from 2010 to 2013.

RESULTS

Patients were treated by 45.5 physicians in 16 lipoprotein apheresis centers. With about 10 patients per 100 000 inhabitants, the number of patients treated with lipoprotein apheresis in Saxony is twice as high as in Germany as a whole. The median treatment time was 3 years. Almost all patients had hypertension; type 2 diabetes mellitus was seen significantly more often in patients with low Lipoprotein(a). Cardiovascular events occurred in almost all patients before initiation of lipoprotein apheresis, under apheresis therapy the cardiovascular events rate was very low in this high-risk group. For some cardiovascular regions even no events could be observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The importance of lipoprotein apheresis in Saxony had been increasing from 2010 to 2018.

Association of lipoprotein(a) with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

A growing number of studies have demonstrated a causal association between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVDs), but its association with all-cause and cause-specific mortality remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the association of Lp(a) with all-cause and cause-specific mortality.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 8,525 participants from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Lp(a) was considered an exposure variable, all-cause and cause-specific mortality were used as outcome variables, and all participants were followed from the interview date until death or December 31, 2015. COX proportional hazards regression models, stratified analysis, sensitivity analysis, restricted cubic spline plots and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to analyze the association of Lp(a) with all-cause and cause-specific mortality.

RESULTS

After adjusting for traditional cardiovascular risk factors, Lp(a) remained strongly associated with all-cause and CVDs-related mortality (P for trend = 0.007 and < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed that higher Lp(a) remained associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality in those > 60 years of age, with a BMI < 30 kg/m², and without diabetes, whereas the association between Lp(a) and CVDs-related mortality remained stable in participants ≤ 60 years of age, male, with a BMI < 30 kg/m², with hypertension, without diabetes, or without CVDs (P < 0.05). In sensitivity analyses, we found that the association of Lp(a) with all-cause and CVDs-related mortality remained robust after excluding individuals who died within one year of follow-up (P for trend = 0.041 and 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) was associated with the risk of all-cause and CVDs-related mortality.

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

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

Lipoprotein(a) levels in children with suspected familial hypercholesterolaemia: a cross-sectional study

AIMS

Familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) predisposes children to the early initiation of atherosclerosis and is preferably diagnosed by DNA analysis. Yet, in many children with a clinical presentation of FH, no mutation is found. Adult data show that high levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] may underlie a clinical presentation of FH, as the cholesterol content of Lp(a) is included in conventional LDL cholesterol measurements. As this is limited to adult data, Lp(a) levels in children with and without (clinical) FH were evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Children were eligible if they visited the paediatric lipid clinic (1989-2020) and if Lp(a) measurement and DNA analysis were performed. In total, 2721 children (mean age: 10.3 years) were included and divided into four groups: 1931 children with definite FH (mutation detected), 290 unaffected siblings/normolipidaemic controls (mutation excluded), 108 children with probable FH (clinical presentation, mutation not detected), and 392 children with probable non-FH (no clinical presentation, mutation not excluded). In children with probable FH, 32% were found to have high Lp(a) [geometric mean (95% confidence interval) of 15.9 (12.3-20.6) mg/dL] compared with 10 and 10% [geometric means (95% confidence interval) of 11.5 (10.9-12.1) mg/dL and 9.8 (8.4-11.3) mg/dL] in children with definite FH (P = 0.017) and unaffected siblings (P = 0.002), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Lp(a) was significantly higher and more frequently elevated in children with probable FH compared with children with definite FH and unaffected siblings, suggesting that high Lp(a) may underlie the clinical presentation of FH when no FH-causing mutation is found. Performing both DNA analysis and measuring Lp(a) in all children suspected of FH is recommended to assess possible LDL cholesterol overestimation related to increased Lp(a).

The effects of coconut oil on the cardiometabolic profile: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

Despite having a 92% concentration of saturated fatty acid composition, leading to an apparently unfavorable lipid profile, body weight and glycemic effect, coconut oil is consumed worldwide. Thus, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to analyze the effect of coconut oil intake on different cardiometabolic outcomes.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, and LILACS for RCTs conducted prior to April 2022. We included RCTs that compared effects of coconut oil intake with other substances on anthropometric and metabolic profiles in adults published in all languages, and excluded non-randomized trials and short follow-up studies. Risk of bias was assessed with the RoB 2 tool and certainty of evidence with GRADE. Where possible, we performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model.

Results

We included seven studies in the meta-analysis (n = 515; 50% females, follow up from 4 weeks to 2 years). The amount of coconut oil consumed varied and is expressed differently among studies: 12 to 30 ml of coconut oil/day (n = 5), as part of the amount of SFAs or total daily consumed fat (n = 1), a variation of 6 to 54.4 g/day (n = 5), or as part of the total caloric energy intake (15 to 21%) (n = 6). Coconut oil intake did not significantly decrease body weight (MD -0.24 kg, 95% CI -0.83 kg to 0.34 kg), waist circumference (MD -0.64 cm, 95% CI -1.69 cm to 0.41 cm), and % body fat (-0.10%, 95% CI -0.56% to 0.36%), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (MD -1.67 mg/dL, 95% CI -6.93 to 3.59 mg/dL), and triglyceride (TG) levels (MD -0.24 mg/dL, 95% CI -5.52 to 5.04 mg/dL). However, coconut oil intake was associated with a small increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (MD 3.28 mg/dL, 95% CI 0.66 to 5.90 mg/dL). Overall risk of bias was high, and certainty of evidence was very-low. Study limitations include the heterogeneity of intervention methods, in addition to small samples and short follow-ups, which undermine the effects of dietary intervention in metabolic parameters.

Conclusions

Coconut oil intake revealed no clinically relevant improvement in lipid profile and body composition compared to other oils/fats. Strategies to advise the public on the consumption of other oils, not coconut oil, due to proven cardiometabolic benefits should be implemented.

Registration

PROSPERO CRD42018081461.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12944-022-01685-z.

Serum lipoprotein(a) and 3-year outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We aimed at addressing the association between serum lipoprotein (a) levels and clinical outcomes of consecutive patients undergoing PCI.

METHODS

We used consecutive patients undergoing PCI at the Heart Center University of Freiburg, Bad Krozingen in Germany between January 2005 and November 2013. A total of 6679 patients [men (n = 5391) and women (n = 1288)] mean aged 67.5 (± 11.1) years were assessed at baseline and prospectively followed for 3 years. Lp(a) measurement were performed at hospital admission as a routine laboratory parameter.

RESULTS

Approximately 30% of PCI patients show an elevated Lp(a) value of more than 50mg/dL. In total, 736 Patients died during the follow-up, thereof 189 (11.3%) in the first quartile, 186 (10.7%) in the second quartile, 183 (11.5%) in the third quartile and 178 (10.7%) in the last quartile (p value 0.843 from LogRank test). The MACE rate showed consistent results with 409 (24.4%), 385 (22.1%), 395 (24.7%) and 419 (25.3%) in the different respective quartiles (p value 0.125 from LogRank test).

CONCLUSION

In this large non-selected cohort of patients undergoing PCI followed by moderate intensity statin therapy, higher Lp(a) levels were not associated with worse clinical outcomes during a follow-up of 3 years.

Impact of Lipoprotein(a) concentrations on long-term cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A large cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Till now, the prognostic value of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. We therefore conducted this study to evaluate the effect of Lp(a) levels on clinical outcomes in this population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 10,059 CAD patients who underwent PCI were prospectively enrolled in this cohort study, of which 6564 patients had Lp(a) ≤30 mg/dl and 3495 patients had Lp(a) > 30 mg/dl. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned revascularization. Multivariate Cox regression analysis and propensity-score matching analysis were performed. After propensity-score matching, 3449 pairs of patients were identified, and post-matching absolute standardized differences were <10% for all the covariates. At 2.4 years, the risk of MACCE was significantly higher in patients with elevated Lp(a) levels than those with normal Lp(a) levels in both overall population (13.0% vs. 11.4%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.142, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.009-1.293; P = 0.040) and propensity-matched cohorts (13.0% vs. 11.2%; HR 1.167, 95%CI 1.019-1.337; P = 0.026). Of note, the predictive value of Lp(a) levels on MACCE tended to be more evident in individuals >65 years or those with left main and/or three-vessel disease. On the contrary, elevated Lp(a) levels had almost no effect on clinical outcomes in patients ≤65 years (P _interaction = 0.021) as well as those who had one- or two-vessel coronary artery disease (P _interaction = 0.086).

CONCLUSION

In CAD patients who underwent PCI, elevated Lp(a) levels were positively related to higher risk of MACCE at 2.4-year follow-up, especially in patients >65 years and those with left main and/or three-vessel disease.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

not applicable.

Considerations for routinely testing for high Lp(a)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

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

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

2022 Prevention of chronic non-communicable diseases in Of the Russian Federation. National guidelines

.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

Elevated Lipoprotein(a) Level Influences Familial Hypercholesterolemia Diagnosis

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level are the most common inherited disorders of lipid metabolism. This study evaluated the impact of high Lp(a) level on accuracy Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) criteria of heterozygous FH diagnosis. A group of 206 individuals not receiving lipid-lowering medication with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >4.9 mmol/L was chosen from the Russian FH Registry. LDL-C corrected for Lp(a)-cholesterol was calculated as LDL-C − 0.3 × Lp(a). DLCN criteria were applied before and after adjusting LDL-C concentration. Of the 206 patients with potential FH, a total of 34 subjects (17%) were reclassified to less severe FH diagnosis, 13 subjects of them (6%) were reclassified to “unlike” FH. In accordance with Receiver Operating Characteristic curve, Lp(a) level ≥40 mg/dL was associated with FH re-diagnosing with sensitivity of 63% and specificity of 78% (area under curve = 0.7, 95% CI 0.7−0.8, p < 0.001). The reclassification was mainly observed in FH patients with Lp(a) level above 40 mg/dL, i.e., 33 (51%) with reclassified DLCN criteria points and 22 (34%) with reclassified diagnosis, compared with 21 (15%) and 15 (11%), respectively, in patients with Lp(a) level less than 40 mg/dL. Thus, LDL-C corrected for Lp(a)-cholesterol should be considered in all FH patients with Lp(a) level above 40 mg/dL for recalculating points in accordance with DLCN criteria.

Baseline Low-Density-Lipoprotein Cholesterol Modifies the Risk of All-Cause Death Associated With Elevated Lipoprotein(a) in Coronary Artery Disease Patients

Background: The prognostic value of elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients is inconsistent in previous studies, and whether such value changes at different low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels is unclear. Methods and Findings: CAD patients treated with statin therapy from January 2007 to December 2018 in the Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (NCT04407936) were consecutively enrolled. Individuals were categorized according to the baseline LDL-C at cut-off of 70 and 100 mg/dL. The primary outcome was 5-year all-cause death. Multivariate Cox proportional models and penalized spline analyses were used to evaluate the association between Lp(a) and all-cause mortality. Among 30,908 patients, the mean age was 63.1 ± 10.7 years, and 76.7% were men. A total of 2,383 (7.7%) patients died at 5-year follow-up. Compared with Lp(a) <50 mg/dL, Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL predicted higher all-cause mortality (multivariable adjusted HR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.07-1.31) in the total cohort. However, when analyzed within each LDL-C category, there was no significant association between Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL and higher all-cause mortality unless the baseline LDL-C was ≥ 100 mg/dL (HR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.36). The results from penalized spline analyses were robust. Conclusions: In statin-treated CAD patients, elevated Lp(a) was associated with increased risks of all-cause death, and such an association was modified by the baseline LDL-C levels. Patients with Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL had higher long-term risks of all-cause death compared with those with Lp(a) <50 mg/dL only when their baseline LDL-C was ≥ 100 mg/dL.

Preclinical development and phase 1 trial of a novel siRNA targeting lipoprotein(a)

Compelling evidence supports a causal role for lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) in cardiovascular disease. No pharmacotherapies directly targeting Lp(a) are currently available for clinical use. Here we report the discovery and development of olpasiran, a first-in-class, synthetic, double-stranded, N-acetylgalactosamine-conjugated small interfering RNA (siRNA) designed to directly inhibit LPA messenger RNA translation in hepatocytes and potently reduce plasma Lp(a) concentration. Olpasiran reduced Lp(a) concentrations in transgenic mice and cynomolgus monkeys in a dose-responsive manner, achieving up to over 80% reduction from baseline for 5-8 weeks after administration of a single dose. In a phase 1 dose-escalation trial of olpasiran (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03626662 ), the primary outcome was safety and tolerability, and the secondary outcomes were the change in Lp(a) concentrations and olpasiran pharmacokinetic parameters. Participants tolerated single doses of olpasiran well and experienced a 71-97% reduction in Lp(a) concentration with effects persisting for several months after administration of doses of 9 mg or higher. Serum concentrations of olpasiran increased approximately dose proportionally. Collectively, these results validate the approach of using hepatocyte-targeted siRNA to potently lower Lp(a) in individuals with elevated plasma Lp(a) concentration.

Real-world utilization of bempedoic acid in an academic preventive cardiology practice

BACKGROUND

Lipid management for prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease remains insufficient for many with currently available therapies.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate real-world use of bempedoic acid.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients in our Center for Preventive Cardiology who were prescribed bempedoic acid between February 2020 and July 2021. Patients were managed according to clinical standards of care, with lipid assessments at months ≤3, 6, and 12 post-bempedoic acid initiation.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients were prescribed bempedoic acid, with 64 initiating therapy. The majority had atherosclerosis (89%), familial hypercholesterolemia (64%), and statin intolerance (74%), with baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) 120 mg/dL. Prior authorization requests and appeals of denials were required in 90% and 19% of cases, respectively. Cost-mitigating strategies reduced median monthly drug costs from $432 pre-insurance approval to $80 post-insurance approval, to $10 after financial assistance intervention. Bempedoic acid reduced LDL-C by -36.7%, -31%, and -20.3% at ≤3, 6, and 12, respectively, with >20% achieving LDL-C <70 mg/dL. There was substantial inter-individual heterogeneity in LDL-C lowering. We observed high rates of drug discontinuation (35.9%), mostly related to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) (32.8%), primarily musculoskeletal complaints. Use of reduced dose bempedoic acid (<180 mg) was associated similar LDL-C lowering but TEAE and drug discontinuation were still common.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world use of bempedoic acid was limited by insurance and cost barriers requiring substantial post-prescription interventions. In patients at heightened risk for atherosclerotic events and statin intolerance, bempedoic acid was associated with clinically meaningful LDL-C lowering, but high rates of TEAEs and drug discontinuations.

Lipoprotein(a): Pathophysiology, measurement, indication and treatment in cardiovascular disease. A consensus statement from the Nouvelle Société Francophone d'Athérosclérose (NSFA)

Lipoprotein(a) is an apolipoprotein B100-containing low-density lipoprotein-like particle that is rich in cholesterol, and is associated with a second major protein, apolipoprotein(a). Apolipoprotein(a) possesses structural similarity to plasminogen but lacks fibrinolytic activity. As a consequence of its composite structure, lipoprotein(a) may: (1) elicit a prothrombotic/antifibrinolytic action favouring clot stability; and (2) enhance atherosclerosis progression via its propensity for retention in the arterial intima, with deposition of its cholesterol load at sites of plaque formation. Equally, lipoprotein(a) may induce inflammation and calcification in the aortic leaflet valve interstitium, leading to calcific aortic valve stenosis. Experimental, epidemiological and genetic evidence support the contention that elevated concentrations of lipoprotein(a) are causally related to atherothrombotic risk and equally to calcific aortic valve stenosis. The plasma concentration of lipoprotein(a) is principally determined by genetic factors, is not influenced by dietary habits, remains essentially constant over the lifetime of a given individual and is the most powerful variable for prediction of lipoprotein(a)-associated cardiovascular risk. However, major interindividual variations (up to 1000-fold) are characteristic of lipoprotein(a) concentrations. In this context, lipoprotein(a) assays, although currently insufficiently standardized, are of considerable interest, not only in stratifying cardiovascular risk, but equally in the clinical follow-up of patients treated with novel lipid-lowering therapies targeted at lipoprotein(a) (e.g. antiapolipoprotein(a) antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering ribonucleic acids) that markedly reduce circulating lipoprotein(a) concentrations. We recommend that lipoprotein(a) be measured once in subjects at high cardiovascular risk with premature coronary heart disease, in familial hypercholesterolaemia, in those with a family history of coronary heart disease and in those with recurrent coronary heart disease despite lipid-lowering treatment. Because of its clinical relevance, the cost of lipoprotein(a) testing should be covered by social security and health authorities.

Plasma lipoprotein(a) measured in the routine clinical care is associated to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease during a 14-year follow-up

AIMS

To investigate plasma lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels measured in routine clinical care and their association with mortality and cardiovascular disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective registry-based observational cohort study includes all individuals with plasma Lp(a) results measured at the Karolinska University Laboratory 2003-17. Outcome data were captured in national outcome registries. Levels of Lp(a) expressed in mass or molar units were examined separately. In adjusted Cox regression models, association between deciles of plasma Lp(a) concentrations, mortality, and cardiovascular outcomes were assessed. A total of 23 398 individuals [52% females, mean (standard deviation) age 55.5 (17.2) years, median Lp(a) levels 17 mg/dL or 19.5 nmol/L] were included. Individuals with an Lp(a) level >90th decile (>90 mg/dL or >180 nmol/L) had hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of 1.25 (1.05-1.50) for major adverse cardiovascular events (P = 0.013), 1.37 (1.14-1.64) for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (P = 0.001), and 1.62 (1.28-2.05) for coronary artery disease (P ≤ 0.001), compared to individuals with Lp(a) ≤50th decile. No association between Lp(a) and mortality, peripheral artery disease, or ischaemic stroke was observed.

CONCLUSION

High Lp(a) levels are associated with adverse cardiovascular disease outcomes also in individuals with Lp(a) measured in routine clinical care. This supports the 2019 ESC/EAS recommendation to measure Lp(a) at least once during lifetime to assess cardiovascular risk and implies the need for intensive preventive therapy in patients with elevated Lp(a).

Particles and corrected particles of LDL and non-HDL are stronger predicters of coronary lesion in postmenopausal women

Background

The optimum lipid indexes, predicting the coronary lesion in postmenopausal women are not clear.

Objective

To evaluate the optimum lipid predicter for coronary lesion in routine and advanced lipid tests.

Method

300 postmenopausal women were enrolled and assigned into coronary heart disease (CHD) Group (242), and non-CHD Group (58). Routine and advanced lipid indexes were measured with standard laboratory test and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. The correlation and predictivities for CHD of routine and advanced lipid indexes were performed with Logistic regression, Spearman correlation analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC).

Results

Age (hazard ratio (HR) 2.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08–5.86, P = 0.03), apolipoprotein B (ApoB) (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.15–1.59, P < 0.001), corrected particles of low-density lipoprotein (LDL-p-corr) (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03–1.06, P < 0.001) and corrected particles of non-high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL-p-corr) (HR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.03, P < 0.001) were the risk factors of CHD. LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), LDL-p, LDL-p-corr, HDL cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDL-C), non-HDL-p and non-HDL-p-corr were in linear correlation with Gensini score. Advanced lipid indexes LDL-p (area under curve (AUC) = 0.750, P = 0.02), LDL-p-corr (AUC = 0.759, P = 0.02), non-HDL-p (AUC = 0.693, P = 0.03) and non-HDL-p-corr (AUC = 0.699, P = 0.03) were more predictive for CHD than the routine ones (LDL-C and non-HDL-C).

Conclusion

In postmenopausal women, age, ApoB, LDL-p-corr and non-HDL-p-corr were risk factors of CHD. Compared with traditional lipid items, LDL-p, LDL-p-corr, non-HDL-p and non-HDL-p-corr may be better lipid indexes for CHD in postmenopausal women.

Quantifying atherogenic lipoproteins for lipid-lowering strategies: consensus-based recommendations from EAS and EFLM

The joint consensus panel of the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) recently addressed present and future challenges in the laboratory diagnostics of atherogenic lipoproteins. Total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), LDL cholesterol (LDLC), and calculated non-HDLC (=total - HDLC) constitute the primary lipid panel for estimating risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and can be measured in the nonfasting state. LDLC is the primary target of lipid-lowering therapies. For on-treatment follow-up, LDLC shall be measured or calculated by the same method to attenuate errors in treatment decisions due to marked between-method variations. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]-cholesterol is part of measured or calculated LDLC and should be estimated at least once in all patients at risk of ASCVD, especially in those whose LDLC declines poorly upon statin treatment. Residual risk of ASCVD even under optimal LDL-lowering treatment should be also assessed by non-HDLC or apolipoprotein B (apoB), especially in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (2-10 mmol/L). Non-HDLC includes the assessment of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol and shall be reported in all standard lipid panels. Additional apoB measurement can detect elevated LDL particle (LDLP) numbers often unidentified on the basis of LDLC alone. Reference intervals of lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins are reported for European men and women aged 20-100 years. However, laboratories shall flag abnormal lipid values with reference to therapeutic decision thresholds.

Lipoprotein(a) lowering by alirocumab reduces the total burden of cardiovascular events independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering: ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial

Aims

Lipoprotein(a) concentration is associated with first cardiovascular events in clinical trials. It is unknown if this relationship holds for total (first and subsequent) events. In the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor alirocumab reduced lipoprotein(a), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and cardiovascular events compared with placebo. This post hoc analysis determined whether baseline levels and alirocumab-induced changes in lipoprotein(a) and LDL-C [corrected for lipoprotein(a) cholesterol] independently predicted total cardiovascular events.

Methods and results

Cardiovascular events included cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina or heart failure, ischaemia-driven coronary revascularization, peripheral artery disease events, and venous thromboembolism. Proportional hazards models estimated relationships between baseline lipoprotein(a) and total cardiovascular events in the placebo group, effects of alirocumab treatment on total cardiovascular events by baseline lipoprotein(a), and relationships between lipoprotein(a) reduction with alirocumab and subsequent risk of total cardiovascular events. Baseline lipoprotein(a) predicted total cardiovascular events with placebo, while higher baseline lipoprotein(a) levels were associated with greater reduction in total cardiovascular events with alirocumab (hazard ratio P  _trend = 0.045). Alirocumab-induced reductions in lipoprotein(a) (median −5.0 [−13.6, 0] mg/dL) and corrected LDL-C (median −51.3 [−67.1, −34.0] mg/dL) independently predicted lower risk of total cardiovascular events. Each 5-mg/dL reduction in lipoprotein(a) predicted a 2.5% relative reduction in cardiovascular events.

Conclusion

Baseline lipoprotein(a) predicted the risk of total cardiovascular events and risk reduction by alirocumab. Lipoprotein(a) lowering contributed independently to cardiovascular event reduction, supporting the concept of lipoprotein(a) as a treatment target after ACS.

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

Current methods for determining "LDL-C" in clinical practice measure the cholesterol content of both LDL and lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)-C]. We developed a high-throughput, sensitive, and rapid method to quantitate Lp(a)-C and improve the accuracy of LDL-C by subtracting for Lp(a)-C (LDL-Ccorr). Lp(a)-C is determined following isolation of the Lp(a) on magnetic beads linked to monoclonal antibody LPA4 recognizing apolipoprotein(a). This Lp(a)-C assay does not detect cholesterol in plasma samples lacking Lp(a) and is linear up to 747 nM Lp(a). To validate this method clinically over a wide range of Lp(a) (9.0-822.8 nM), Lp(a)-C and LDL-Ccorr were determined in 21 participants receiving an Lp(a)-specific lowering antisense oligonucleotide and in eight participants receiving placebo at baseline, at 13 weeks during peak drug effect, and off drug. In the groups combined, Lp(a)-C ranged from 0.6 to 35.0 mg/dl and correlated with Lp(a) molar concentration (r = 0.76; P < 0.001). However, the percent Lp(a)-C relative to Lp(a) mass varied from 5.8% to 57.3%. Baseline LDL-Ccorr was lower than LDL-C [mean (SD), 102.2 (31.8) vs. 119.2 (32.4) mg/dl; P < 0.001] and did not correlate with Lp(a)-C. It was demonstrated that three commercially available "direct LDL-C" assays also include measures of Lp(a)-C. In conclusion, we have developed a novel and sensitive method to quantitate Lp(a)-C that provides insights into the Lp(a) mass/cholesterol relationship and may be used to more accurately report LDL-C and reassess its role in clinical medicine.

The correlation between lipoprotein(a) and coronary atherosclerotic lesion is stronger than LDL-C, when LDL-C is less than 104 mg/dL

Background

Lp(a) and LDL-C are both risk factors of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). But there was a contradiction point in LDL-C and Lp(a) control. The appropriate level of LDL-C and Lp(a) in the prevention of ASCVD is still pending.

Objective

To investigate the correlation of Lp(a) and coronary atherosclerotic lesion, and find out the balance point in LDL-C and Lp(a) control.

Method

3449 patients were divided to coronary atherosclerotic heart disease (CAHD) Group and Non-CAHD Group based on the result of coronary angiography. The clinical characteristics were compared, and Logistic regressions were applied to find the CAHD risk factors in total, High-LDL-C Group (LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL) and Low-LDL-C Group (LDL-C < 100 mg/dL) patients. Spearman correlation analysis of Lp(a), LDL-C and Gensini Score was performed in patients with different LDL-C concentration.

Results

Except male and diabetes, the traditional CAHD risk factors were well matched between two groups. But triglyceride, LDL-C and Lp(a) were higher, HDL-C and Apo-A1 were lower in CAHD group (2771). In the Logistic regression analysis, diabetes, LDL-C and Lp(a) are risk factors of CAHD in all patients, while in High-LDL-C Group, they were age, LDL-C, non-HDL-C and ApoB, in Low-LDL-C Group, they were age, Lp(a) and ApoB. Lp(a) correlated with Gensini with coefficient r = 0.41 in all patients, 0.67 in Low-LDL-C Group and 0.32 in High-LDL-C Group. The coefficient r for Lp(a) and Gensini decreased, while the r for LDL-C and Gensini increased with LDL-C concentration increasing. The two fitted lines of rs crossed at LDL-C = 2.7 mmol/L (104 mg/dL).

Conclusion

Lp(a) was the risk factor of CAHD in patients with LDL-C < 100 mg/dL. The correlation between Lp(a) and Gensini was influenced by LDL-C concentration, and the correlation was stronger than LDL-C when LDL-C < 104 mg/dl.

The interconnection between lipoprotein(a), lipoprotein(a) cholesterol and true LDL-cholesterol in the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] are present in 30-50% of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia. The contribution of Lp(a) towards risk stratification of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia has been recently recognized, with studies showing a significantly worse prognosis if Lp(a) is elevated. However, the role of elevated Lp(a) in diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia is less well defined or accepted.

RECENT FINDINGS

An important confounder in the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia is the significant contribution of the cholesterol content on Lp(a) (Lp(a)-C) in individuals with elevated Lp(a). Because Lp(a)-C is incorporated into all clinical LDL-C measurements, it can contribute significantly to the cholesterol threshold diagnostic criteria for familial hypercholesterolemia used in most clinical algorithms.

SUMMARY

In this review, we discuss the interrelationship of Lp(a), Lp(a)-C and correct LDL-C in the diagnosis and prognosis of familial hypercholesterolemia. Future studies of accurately measuring correct LDL-C or in using apoB-100 and Lp(a) criteria may overcome the limitations of using estimated LDL-C in the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia in individuals with concomitant elevation of Lp(a).

Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Corrected for Lipoprotein(a) Cholesterol, Risk Thresholds, and Cardiovascular Events

Background Conventional "low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)" assays measure cholesterol content in both low-density lipoprotein and lipoprotein(a) particles. To clarify the consequences of this methodological limitation for clinical care, our study aimed to compare associations of "LDL-C" and corrected LDL-C with risk of cardiovascular disease and to assess the impact of this correction on the classification of patients into guideline-recommended LDL-C categories. Methods and Results Lipoprotein(a) cholesterol content was estimated as 30% of lipoprotein(a) mass and subtracted from "LDL-C" to obtain corrected LDL-C values (LDL-Ccorr30). Hazard ratios for cardiovascular disease (defined as coronary heart disease, stroke, or coronary revascularization) were quantified by individual-patient-data meta-analysis of 5 statin landmark trials from the Lipoprotein(a) Studies Collaboration (18 043 patients; 5390 events; 4.7 years median follow-up). When comparing top versus bottom quartiles, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio for cardiovascular disease was significant for "LDL-C" (1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.31; P=0.005) but not for LDL-Ccorr30 (1.07; 95% CI, 0.93-1.22; P=0.362). In a routine laboratory database involving 531 144 patients, reclassification of patients across guideline-recommended LDL-C categories when using LDL-Ccorr30 was assessed. In "LDL-C" categories of 70 to <100, 100 to <130, 130 to <190, and ≥190 mg/dL, significant proportions (95% CI) of participants were reassigned to lower LDL-C categories when LDL-Ccorr30 was used: 30.2% (30.0%-30.4%), 35.1% (34.9%-35.4%), 32.9% (32.6%-33.1%), and 41.1% (40.0%-42.2%), respectively. Conclusions "LDL-C" was associated with incident cardiovascular disease only when lipoprotein(a) cholesterol content was included in its measurement. Refinement in techniques to accurately measure LDL-C, particularly in patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels, is warranted to assign risk to the responsible lipoproteins.

Association of Serum Lipoprotein (a) Levels and Coronary Atheroma Volume by Intravascular Ultrasound

Background

Lp(a) (lipoprotein (a)) is a risk factor for cardiovascular events, but the mechanism of increased risk is uncertain. This study evaluated the relationship between Lp(a) and coronary atheroma volume by intravascular ultrasound.

Methods and Results

This was a post hoc analysis of 6 randomized trials of coronary atheroma by intravascular ultrasound. The population was stratified into high (≥60 mg/dL) and low (<60 mg/dL) baseline serum Lp(a). The primary outcome was baseline coronary percent atheroma volume. A mixed model adjusted for baseline low density lipoprotein, ApoB (apoliporotein B100), non‐high density lipoprotein, sex, age, race, history of myocardial infarction, statin use, and intravascular ultrasound study was used to provide estimates of baseline plaque burden. Of 3943 patients, 17.3% (683) had Lp(a) ≥ 60 mg/dL and 82.7% (3260) had Lp(a) < 60 mg/dL. At baseline, uncorrected low density lipoprotein level (107.7 ± 32.0 versus 99.1 ± 31.5) and statin therapy (99.0% versus 97.0%) were higher in patients with high Lp(a) levels, but low density lipoprotein corrected for Lp(a) was lower (80.6 ± 32.0 versus 94.0 ± 31.4) in patients with high Lp(a) levels. Percent atheroma volume was significantly higher in the high Lp(a) group in unadjusted (38.2% [32.8, 43.6] versus 37.1% [31.4, 43.1], P=0.01) and risk‐adjusted analyses (38.7%±0.5 versus 37.5%±0.5, P<0.001). There was a significant association of increasing risk‐adjusted percent atheroma volume across quintiles of Lp(a) (Lp(a) quintiles 1‐5; 37.3 ± 0.5%, 37.2 ± 0.5%, 37.3 ± 0.5%, 38.0 ± 0.5%, 38.5 ± 0.5%, P=0.002).

Conclusions

Elevated Lp(a) is independently associated with increased percent atheroma volume. Further work is needed to clarify the relationship of Lp(a)‐lowering treatment with cardiovascular outcomes.

Lipoprotein(a) and Familial Hypercholesterolemia: A Short Review Including the Laboratory Viewpoint

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) are risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Individuals with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) have a risk for CVD due to a high LDL-C value. Lp(a) also increases the CVD risk in FH individuals; thus, the Lp(a) value should be carefully managed. The LDL-C value may partly include Lp(a)-cholesterol (Lp(a)-C) in the measurement. Based on the LDL-C value, some individuals are likely misclassified as having FH and/or the status of treatment of FH can be monitored. The present review describes about Lp(a) in FH individuals in terms of the measurement issue of Lp(a) and the related management of FH.

Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Targets in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease in Extremadura (Spain): LYNX Registry

BACKGROUND

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) contributes decisively to the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In the LYNX registry we determined the rate of achievement of the target value of LDL-C, the use of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) and the predictive factors of not reaching the target in patients with stable coronary heart disease (CHD).

METHODS

LYNX included consecutive patients with stable CHD treated at the University Hospital of Caceres, Extremadura (Spain) from September 2016 to September 2018, and those who must have an LDL-C target below 70 mg/dL according to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2016 guidelines. The variables independently associated with the breach of the LDL-C objective were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 674 patients with stable CHD were included. The average LDL-C levels were 68.3 ± 24.5 mg/dL, with 56.7% showing a level below 70 mg/dL. LLT was used by 96.7% of patients, 71.7% were treated with high-powered statins and 30.1% with ezetimibe. The risk of not reaching the target value of LDL-C was higher in women, in active smokers, and in those who had multivessel CHD or had atrial fibrillation. Patients with diabetes mellitus, those who took potent statins or co-administration treatment with ezetimibe were more likely to reach the target level of LDL-C.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of dyslipidemia in patients with chronic CHD remains suboptimal; however, an increasing number of very high-risk patients achieve the LDL-C objective, although there is still enormous potential to improve cardiovascular outcome through the use of more intensive LLT.

Effect of Alirocumab on Lipoprotein(a) and Cardiovascular Risk After Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) concentration is associated with cardiovascular events. Alirocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor, lowers lipoprotein(a) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).

OBJECTIVES

A pre-specified analysis of the placebo-controlled ODYSSEY Outcomes trial in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) determined whether alirocumab-induced changes in lipoprotein(a) and LDL-C independently predicted major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

METHODS

One to 12 months after ACS, 18,924 patients on high-intensity statin therapy were randomized to alirocumab or placebo and followed for 2.8 years (median). Lipoprotein(a) was measured at randomization and 4 and 12 months thereafter. The primary MACE outcome was coronary heart disease death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina.

RESULTS

Baseline lipoprotein(a) levels (median: 21.2 mg/dl; interquartile range [IQR]: 6.7 to 59.6 mg/dl) and LDL-C [corrected for cholesterol content in lipoprotein(a)] predicted MACE. Alirocumab reduced lipoprotein(a) by 5.0 mg/dl (IQR: 0 to 13.5 mg/dl), corrected LDL-C by 51.1 mg/dl (IQR: 33.7 to 67.2 mg/dl), and reduced the risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78 to 0.93). Alirocumab-induced reductions of lipoprotein(a) and corrected LDL-C independently predicted lower risk of MACE, after adjustment for baseline concentrations of both lipoproteins and demographic and clinical characteristics. A 1-mg/dl reduction in lipoprotein(a) with alirocumab was associated with a HR of 0.994 (95% CI: 0.990 to 0.999; p = 0.0081).

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline lipoprotein(a) and corrected LDL-C levels and their reductions by alirocumab predicted the risk of MACE after recent ACS. Lipoprotein(a) lowering by alirocumab is an independent contributor to MACE reduction, which suggests that lipoprotein(a) should be an independent treatment target after ACS. (ODYSSEY Outcomes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab; NCT01663402).

Non-HDL or LDL cholesterol in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: findings of the Simon Broome Register

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The role of non-HDL-C in the identification and management of lipid disorders is not clearly defined, although UK guidelines recommend its wider use in assessing the need for lipid-lowering therapy and as a treatment target.

RECENT FINDINGS

We examined the implications of the use of non-HDL-C as opposed to LDL-C in 253 people with hypercholesterolaemia before treatment and 573 after treatment in whom fasting total serum cholesterol, HDL-C and LDL-C had been recorded and the diagnosis of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (heFH) was investigated by genetic testing. The difference and the limits of agreement between non-HDL-C and LDL-C calculated using the Friedewald formula were assessed in those with and without heFH-causing mutations.

SUMMARY

There were 147 mutation-positive and 106 mutation-negative pretreatment participants and 395 mutation-positive and 178 mutation-negative patients receiving treatment. The difference between non-HDL-C and LDL-C pretreatment in mutation-positive people (mean LDL-C 7.73 mmol/l) was 0.67 mmol/l (95% CI 0.62-0.73) and posttreatment (mean LDL-C 4.71 mmol/l) was 0.62 mmol/l (95% CI 0.59-0.65) with wide limits of agreement of -0.02 to 1.37 and 0.07-1.18 mmol/l, respectively. Among patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, use of estimated LDL-C derived from non-HDL-C in place of calculated LDL-C may result in diagnostic misclassification and difficulty in assessing the true reduction in LDL-C with treatment, because of the wide inter-individual limits of agreement around the mean difference between non-HDL-C and LDL-C.

Lipoprotein (a) as a residual risk factor for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis in hypertensive patients: a hospital-based cross-sectional study

Background

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) has been proven to be a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), while lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) is a residual risk factor for CVD, even though LDL-c is well controlled by statin use. Importantly, the role of Lp(a) in atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) is still unknown.

Methods

For this hospital-based cross-sectional study, patients who simultaneously underwent coronary and renal angiography were examined. ARAS was defined as a 50% reduction in the cross-sectional (two-dimensional plane) area of the renal artery. Data were collected and compared between ARAS and non-ARAS groups, including clinical history and metabolite profiles. Univariate analysis, three tertile LDL-c-based stratified analysis, and multivariate-adjusted logistic analysis were conducted, revealing a correlation between Lp(a) and ARAS.

Results

A total of 170 hypertensive patients were included in this study, 85 with ARAS and 85 with non-RAS. Baseline information indicated comparability between the two groups. In the univariate and multivariate analysis, common risk factors for atherosclerosis were not significantly different. Stratified analysis of LDL-c revealed a significant increase in the incidence of ARAS in patients who had high Lp(a) concentrations at low LDL-c levels (odds ratio (OR): 4.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04–21.79, P = 0.044). Further logistic analysis with adjusted covariates also confirmed the result, indicating that high Lp(a) levels were independently associated with ARAS (adjusted OR (aOR): 6.14, 95%CI: 1.03–36.47, P = 0.046). This relationship increased with increasing Lp(a) concentration based on a curve fitting graph. These results were not present in the low and intermediate LDL-c-level groups.

Conclusion

In hypertensive patients who present low LDL-c, high Lp(a) was significantly associated with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis and thus is a residual risk factor.

Why Some Patients Undergoing Lipoprotein Apheresis Therapy Develop New Cardiovascular Events?

Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) is an effective tool to reduce cardiovascular events (CVEs) in high-risk patients with elevations of low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) and/or Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)). All patients included into this retrospective analysis had experienced CVEs before the start of the LA therapy. We compared personal and lab data in two groups: CVEx/0 (n 60) with no new events during LA therapy, CVEx/1+ (n 48) with at least one new event. Patients of Group CVEx/1+ were about 5 years older when they had started the extracorporeal therapy, and they experienced more CVEs prior to that timepoint. There was a positive correlation between the number of CVEs before and during LA therapy. No differences were seen with respect to lipid concentrations, even after a correction of LDL-C concentrations for the LDL-C transported with Lp(a) particles. LA sessions effectively reduced both LDL-C and Lp(a). Lp(a) levels measured before LA sessions were lower than those measured initially. It appeared difficult to reach the target values for LDL-C published in the ESC/EAS Guideline in 2019, although all patients were maximally treated including drugs when tolerated. In conclusion, it will be important to initiate an LA therapy earlier, at least after a second CVE and at a younger age.