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

Introduction to the Theme "Pharmacological Individuality: New Insights and Strategies for Personalized and Precise Drug Treatment"

The reviews in Volume 64 of the Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology cover diverse topics. A common theme in many of the reviews is the interindividual variability in the clinical response to drugs. Highlighted areas include emerging developments in pharmacogenomics that can predict the personal risk for drug inefficacy and/or adverse drug reactions. Other reviews focus on the use of circulating biomarkers to define drug metabolism phenotypes and the effect of circadian regulation on drug response. Another emerging technology, digital twins that model individual patients, is used to generate computational simulations of drug effects and identify optimal personalized treatments. Another variable that may affect clinical outcomes, the nocebo response (an adverse reaction to a placebo), complicates clinical trials. These reviews further document that pharmacological individuality is an essential component of the concepts of personalized medicine and precision medicine and will likely have an important impact on patient care.

Estimating the Prevalence and Characteristics of Patients Potentially Eligible for Lipoprotein(a)-Lowering Therapies in a Real-World Setting

High lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) plasma levels are significantly associated with an increased risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD). The aim of this analysis was to estimate the prevalence and characteristics of patients potentially eligible for Lp(a)-lowering therapies in a real-world setting (i.e., patients with ASCVD and Lp(a) levels > 70 mg/dL). For this reason, we pooled data from a large cohort of Italian outpatients (N = 5961; men: 2879, women: 3982) with dyslipidemia. A binary logistic regression analysis was used to determine the significant predictors of ASCVD in the cohort, which were age (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.158, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.114 to 1.203, p < 0.001), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol at entry (OR: 1.989, 95% CI: 1.080 to 1.198, p = 0.020) and Lp(a) (OR: 1.090, 95% CI: 1.074 to 1.107, p < 0.001). In our cohort, almost half of patients with ASCVD (44.7%) may be eligible to be treated with Lp(a)-lowering agents. Interestingly, patients who do not meet the treatment criteria despite high Lp(a) (50-70 mg/dL), respectively, account for 4.7% and 7.3% of those in primary and secondary ASCVD prevention. In conclusion, in our large cohort of outpatients with dyslipidemia, the prevalence of individuals with ASCVD and very high Lp(a) plasma levels is quite high, even with a conservative estimation.