Lipoprotein(a) and coronary heart disease. Meta-analysis of prospective studies

Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease

One in five people are at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic valve stenosis due to high lipoprotein(a). Lipoprotein(a) concentrations are lowest in people from east Asia, Europe, and southeast Asia, intermediate in people from south Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, and highest in people from Africa. Concentrations are more than 90% genetically determined and 17% higher in post-menopausal women than in men. Individuals at a higher cardiovascular risk should have lipoprotein(a) concentrations measured once in their lifetime to inform those with high concentrations to adhere to a healthy lifestyle and receive medication to lower other cardiovascular risk factors. With no approved drugs to lower lipoprotein(a) concentrations, it is promising that at least five drugs in development lower concentrations by 65-98%, with three currently being tested in large cardiovascular endpoint trials. This Review covers historical perspectives, physiology and pathophysiology, genetic evidence of causality, epidemiology, role in familial hypercholesterolaemia and diabetes, management, screening, diagnosis, measurement, prevention, and future lipoprotein(a)-lowering drugs.

Reduction in Lp(a) after a medically supervised, prolonged water-only fast followed by a whole-plant-food diet free of added salt, oil, and sugar: a case report

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) associated with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. High Lp(a) levels are genetically determined and lack effective pharmacotherapy. This case report describes a 67-year-old, vegan male with elevated blood pressure (BP), total cholesterol (TC), LDL, and Lp(a) who underwent a 10-day, medically supervised water-only fast followed by a 6-week SOS-free diet (free of added salt, oil, and sugar). At the 6-week-follow-up visit, he experienced significant reductions in several CVD risk markers, including blood pressure, total cholesterol, LDL, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. He also experienced an unexpected decrease in Lp(a), from 236.3 nmol/L to 143.4 nmol/L (39%). This decrease is comparable to reductions achieved with proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. These findings suggest that prolonged water-only fasting and/or an SOS-free diet may be an effective alternative approach for managing high Lp(a) levels and reducing CVD risk in a vegan population, warranting further research.

The implications of measuring lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a well-recognized causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic valve stenosis. There are ongoing challenges with screening and management in primary and secondary prevention; however, future recommendations for clinical practice await the outcomes of clinical trials that are in progress.

Trends and findings of lipoprotein(a) testing and associated cardiovascular disease profiles: a large single-center study from the Middle East-Gulf region

Background

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a genetically determined risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD). Limited data are available on Lp(a) testing from the Middle-East region. Therefore, we aim to evaluate the utilization and yield of Lp(a) testing over time and characterize CVD profiles of patients with abnormal Lp(a) tasting at a single-quaternary-care center in the United Arab Emirates.

Methods

Unique Lp(a) tests conducted between 07/2017 and 10-2023 were included. Overtime trends in Lp(a) test utilization and abnormal Lp(a) [defined as Lp(a) > 125 nmol/L] test findings were described. CVD rates in patients with abnormal Lp(a) were compared to those with Lp(a) ≤ 125 nmol/L using appropriate methods.

Results

In our center, 0.95% of the patients (n = 5,677) had their Lp(a) measured, with a median level of 32 [11-82] nmol/L. Lp(a) was abnormal in 15.9% of the tests. Over the years 2018-2022, there was a 109% increase in Lp(a) testing, with concomitant up-trends in findings of abnormal Lp(a) (11.8% to 16.4%, P = 0.02). Compared to patients with Lp(a) ≤ 125 nmol/I, those with abnormal Lp(a) had higher rates of any prevalent CVD (34% vs. 25.1%, P < 0.001), CAD (25.6% vs. 17.7%, P < 0.001), HF (6.5% vs. 3.8%, P < 0.001), and stroke (7.1% vs. 4.4%, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Almost one in six patients tested for Lp(a) had abnormally elevated Lp(a), and CVD was prevalent in one-third of the patients who tested abnormal for Lp(a). The study highlights the growing awareness of the relevance of Lp(a) for CVD risk stratification and prevention.

Genetics and Pathophysiological Mechanisms of Lipoprotein(a)-Associated Cardiovascular Risk

Elevated lipoprotein(a) is a genetically transmitted codominant trait that is an independent risk driver for cardiovascular disease. Lipoprotein(a) concentration is heavily influenced by genetic factors, including LPA kringle IV-2 domain size, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and interleukin-1 genotypes. Apolipoprotein(a) is encoded by the LPA gene and contains 10 subtypes with a variable number of copies of kringle -2, resulting in >40 different apolipoprotein(a) isoform sizes. Genetic loci beyond LPA, such as APOE and APOH, have been shown to impact lipoprotein(a) levels. Lipoprotein(a) concentrations are generally 5% to 10% higher in women than men, and there is up to a 3-fold difference in median lipoprotein(a) concentrations between racial and ethnic populations. Nongenetic factors, including menopause, diet, and renal function, may also impact lipoprotein(a) concentration. Lipoprotein(a) levels are also influenced by inflammation since the LPA promoter contains an interleukin-6 response element; interleukin-6 released during the inflammatory response results in transient increases in plasma lipoprotein(a) levels. Screening can identify elevated lipoprotein(a) levels and facilitate intensive risk factor management. Several investigational, RNA-targeted agents have shown promising lipoprotein(a)-lowering effects in clinical studies, and large-scale lipoprotein(a) testing will be fundamental to identifying eligible patients should these agents become available. Lipoprotein(a) testing requires routine, nonfasting blood draws, making it convenient for patients. Herein, we discuss the genetic determinants of lipoprotein(a) levels, explore the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the association between lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease, and provide practical guidance for lipoprotein(a) testing.

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

Importance

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

Objectives

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Interventions

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

Main Outcomes Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04606602.

Lp(a) - an overlooked risk factor

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an increasingly discussed and studied risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic valve stenosis. Many genetic and epidemiological studies support the important causal role that Lp(a) plays in the incidence of cardiovascular disease. Although dependent upon the threshold and unit of measurement of Lp(a), most estimates suggest between 20 and 30% of the world's population have elevated serum levels of Lp(a). Lp(a) levels are predominantly mediated by genetics and are not significantly modified by lifestyle interventions. Efforts are ongoing to develop effective pharmacotherapies to lower Lp(a) and to determine if lowering Lp(a) with these medications ultimately decreases the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events. In this review, the genetics and pathophysiological properties of Lp(a) will be discussed as well as the epidemiological data demonstrating its impact on the incidence of cardiovascular disease. Recommendations for screening and how to currently approach patients with elevated Lp(a) are also noted. Finally, the spectrum of pharmacotherapies under development for Lp(a) lowering is detailed.

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.

The ins and outs of lipoprotein(a) assay methods

Pathophysiological, epidemiological and genetic studies convincingly showed lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) to be a causal mediator of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). This happens through a myriad of mechanisms including activation of innate immune cells, endothelial cells as well as platelets. Although these certainties whether or not Lp(a) is ready for prime-time clinical use remain debated. Thus, remit of the present review is to provide an overview of different methods that have been employed for the measurement of Lp(a). The methods include dynamic light scattering, multi-angle light scattering analysis, near-field imaging, sedimentation, gel filtration, and electron microscopy. The development of multiple Lp(a) detection methods is vital for improved prediction of ASCVD risk.

Lepodisiran, an Extended-Duration Short Interfering RNA Targeting Lipoprotein(a): A Randomized Dose-Ascending Clinical Trial

Importance

Epidemiological and genetic data have implicated lipoprotein(a) as a potentially modifiable risk factor for atherosclerotic disease and aortic stenosis, but there are no approved pharmacological treatments.

Objectives

To assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and effects of lepodisiran on lipoprotein(a) concentrations after single doses of the drug; lepodisiran is a short interfering RNA directed at hepatic synthesis of apolipoprotein(a), an essential component necessary for assembly of lipoprotein(a) particles.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A single ascending-dose trial conducted at 5 clinical research sites in the US and Singapore that enrolled 48 adults without cardiovascular disease and with lipoprotein(a) serum concentrations of 75 nmol/L or greater (or ≥30 mg/dL) between November 18, 2020, and December 7, 2021; the last follow-up visit occurred on November 9, 2022.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to receive placebo or a single dose of lepodisiran (4 mg, 12 mg, 32 mg, 96 mg, 304 mg, or 608 mg) administered subcutaneously.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the safety and tolerability of the single ascending doses of lepodisiran. The secondary outcomes included plasma levels of lepodisiran for 168 days after dose administration and changes in fasting lipoprotein(a) serum concentrations through a maximum follow-up of 336 days (48 weeks).

Results

Of the 48 participants enrolled (mean age, 46.8 [SD, 11.6] years; 35% were women), 1 serious adverse event occurred. The plasma concentrations of lepodisiran reached peak levels within 10.5 hours and were undetectable by 48 hours. The median baseline lipoprotein(a) concentration was 111 nmol/L (IQR, 78 to 134 nmol/L) in the placebo group, 78 nmol/L (IQR, 50 to 152 nmol/L) in the 4 mg of lepodisiran group, 97 nmol/L (IQR, 86 to 107 nmol/L) in the 12-mg dose group, 120 nmol/L (IQR, 110 to 188 nmol/L) in the 32-mg dose group, 167 nmol/L (IQR, 124 to 189 nmol/L) in the 96-mg dose group, 96 nmol/L (IQR, 72 to 132 nmol/L) in the 304-mg dose group, and 130 nmol/L (IQR, 87 to 151 nmol/L) in the 608-mg dose group. The maximal median change in lipoprotein(a) concentration was -5% (IQR, -16% to 11%) in the placebo group, -41% (IQR, -47% to -20%) in the 4 mg of lepodisiran group, -59% (IQR, -66% to -53%) in the 12-mg dose group, -76% (IQR, -76% to -75%) in the 32-mg dose group, -90% (IQR, -94% to -85%) in the 96-mg dose group, -96% (IQR, -98% to -95%) in the 304-mg dose group, and -97% (IQR, -98% to -96%) in the 608-mg dose group. At day 337, the median change in lipoprotein(a) concentration was -94% (IQR, -94% to -85%) in the 608 mg of lepodisiran group.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this phase 1 study of 48 participants with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels, lepodisiran was well tolerated and produced dose-dependent, long-duration reductions in serum lipoprotein(a) concentrations. The findings support further study of lepodisiran.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04914546.

Lipoprotein(a): a genetically determined risk factor for Cardiovascular disease

Lipoprotein(a) is a complex lipoprotein with unique characteristics distinguishing it from all the other apolipoprotein B-containing lipoprotein particles. Its lipid composition and the presence of a single molecule of apolipoprotein B per particle, render lipoprotein(a) similar to low-density lipoproteins. However, the presence of a unique, carbohydrate-rich protein termed apolipoprotein(a), linked by a covalent bond to apolipoprotein B imparts unique characteristics to lipoprotein(a) distinguishing it from all the other lipoproteins. Apolipoprotein(a) is highly polymorphic in size ranging in molecular weight from <300 KDa to >800 kDa. Both the size polymorphism and the concentration of lipoprotein(a) in plasma are genetically determined and unlike other lipoproteins, plasma concentration is minimally impacted by lifestyle modifications or lipid-lowering drugs. Many studies involving hundreds of thousands of individuals have provided strong evidence that elevated lipoprotein(a) is genetically determined and a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The concentration attained in adulthood is already present in children at around 5 years of age and therefore, those with elevated lipoprotein(a) are prematurely exposed to a high risk of cardiovascular disease. Despite the large number of guidelines and consensus statements on the management of lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease published in the last decade, lipoprotein(a) is still seldom measured in clinical settings. In this review, we provide an overview of the most important features that characterize lipoprotein(a), its role in cardiovascular disease, and the importance of adding the measurement of lipoprotein(a) for screening adults and youths to identify those at increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease due to their elevated plasma concentration of lipoprotein(a).

Lipoprotein(a) as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Diseases: Pathophysiology and Treatment Perspectives

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is still a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, despite all the progress achieved as regards to both prevention and treatment. Having high levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease that operates independently. It can increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease even when LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels are within the recommended range, which is referred to as residual cardiovascular risk. Lp(a) is an LDL-like particle present in human plasma, in which a large plasminogen-like glycoprotein, apolipoprotein(a) [Apo(a)], is covalently bound to Apo B100 via one disulfide bridge. Apo(a) contains one plasminogen-like kringle V structure, a variable number of plasminogen-like kringle IV structures (types 1-10), and one inactive protease region. There is a large inter-individual variation of plasma concentrations of Lp(a), mainly ascribable to genetic variants in the Lp(a) gene: in the general po-pulation, Lp(a) levels can range from <1 mg/dL to >1000 mg/dL. Concentrations also vary between different ethnicities. Lp(a) has been established as one of the risk factors that play an important role in the development of atherosclerotic plaque. Indeed, high concentrations of Lp(a) have been related to a greater risk of ischemic CVD, aortic valve stenosis, and heart failure. The threshold value has been set at 50 mg/dL, but the risk may increase already at levels above 30 mg/dL. Although there is a well-established and strong link between high Lp(a) levels and coronary as well as cerebrovascular disease, the evidence regarding incident peripheral arterial disease and carotid atherosclerosis is not as conclusive. Because lifestyle changes and standard lipid-lowering treatments, such as statins, niacin, and cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors, are not highly effective in reducing Lp(a) levels, there is increased interest in developing new drugs that can address this issue. PCSK9 inhibitors seem to be capable of reducing Lp(a) levels by 25-30%. Mipomersen decreases Lp(a) levels by 25-40%, but its use is burdened with important side effects. At the current time, the most effective and tolerated treatment for patients with a high Lp(a) plasma level is apheresis, while antisense oligonucleotides, small interfering RNAs, and microRNAs, which reduce Lp(a) levels by targeting RNA molecules and regulating gene expression as well as protein production levels, are the most widely explored and promising perspectives. The aim of this review is to provide an update on the current state of the art with regard to Lp(a) pathophysiological mechanisms, focusing on the most effective strategies for lowering Lp(a), including new emerging alternative therapies. The purpose of this manuscript is to improve the management of hyperlipoproteinemia(a) in order to achieve better control of the residual cardiovascular risk, which remains unacceptably high.

Lipoprotein(a): Just an Innocent Bystander in Arterial Hypertension?

Elevated plasma lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a relatively common and highly heritable trait conferring individuals time-dependent risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD). Following its first description, Lp(a) triggered enormous scientific interest in the late 1980s, subsequently dampened in the mid-1990s by controversial findings of some prospective studies. It was only in the last decade that a large body of evidence has provided strong arguments for a causal and independent association between elevated Lp(a) levels and CVD, causing renewed interest in this lipoprotein as an emerging risk factor with a likely contribution to cardiovascular residual risk. Accordingly, the 2022 consensus statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society has suggested inclusion of Lp(a) measurement in global risk estimation. The development of highly effective Lp(a)-lowering drugs (e.g., antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering RNA, both blocking LPA gene expression) which are still under assessment in phase 3 trials, will provide a unique opportunity to reduce "residual cardiovascular risk" in high-risk populations, including patients with arterial hypertension. The current evidence in support of a specific role of Lp(a) in hypertension is somehow controversial and this narrative review aims to overview the general mechanisms relating Lp(a) to blood pressure regulation and hypertension-related cardiovascular and renal damage.

Molecular Biomarkers for Cardiometabolic Disease: Risk Assessment in Young Individuals

Cardiometabolic diseases, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes, are major causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite progress in prevention and treatment, recent trends show a stalling in the reduction of cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality, paralleled by increasing rates of cardiometabolic disease risk factors in young adults, underscoring the importance of risk assessments in this population. This review highlights the evidence for molecular biomarkers for early risk assessment in young individuals. We examine the utility of traditional biomarkers in young individuals and discuss novel, nontraditional biomarkers specific to pathways contributing to early cardiometabolic disease risk. Additionally, we explore emerging omic technologies and analytical approaches that could enhance risk assessment for cardiometabolic disease.

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 (Pnonlinearity > 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.

Pharmacotherapy in familial hypercholesterolemia - Current state and emerging paradigms

Familial hypercholesterolemia is a highly prevalent but underdiagnosed disease marked by increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Aggressive reduction of LDL-cholesterol is a hallmark of cardiovascular risk mitigation in familial hypercholesterolemia. More recently, we have witnessed an expanded repertoire of pharmacologic agents that directly target LDL-cholesterol and/or reduce heart disease burden. In this state-of-the-art review, we explore the development, clinical efficacy and limitations of existing and potential future therapeutics in familial hypercholesterolemia.

Predictive value of lipoprotein(a) for assessing the prevalence and severity of lower-extremity peripheral artery disease among patients with acute coronary syndrome

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a reliable lipid marker for atherosclerosis. However, the clinical relevance of Lp(a) to lower-extremity peripheral artery disease (LE-PAD) and coronary artery disease (CAD) in the same patient has not been investigated. Patients who received primary percutaneous coronary intervention for the acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were enrolled. Patients who received hemodialysis, required multidisciplinary treatments, or had incomplete medical history were excluded. A total of 175 patients were divided into two groups according to whether they had LE-PAD (n = 21) or did not (n = 154), and three multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess if Lp(a) level is associated with LE-PAD prevalence. In addition, serum Lp(a) levels were compared among three groups according to the severity of LE-PAD (none, unilateral, or bilateral) and CAD. Serum Lp(a) levels were significantly higher in patients with LE-PAD than in those without (31.0 mg/dL vs. 13.5 mg/dL, p = 0.002). After adjusting for confounding factors, higher Lp(a) levels were independently associated with the prevalence of LE-PAD in all three models (p < 0.001 for all). With respect to LE-PAD severity, serum Lp(a) levels were significantly higher in the bilateral LE-PAD groups than in the group with no LE-PAD (p = 0.005 for all), whereas Lp(a) was not associated with CAD severity. Though Lp(a) levels are associated with the prevalence and severity of LE-PAD, are not associated with the severity of CAD among patients with ACS.

Trends and consequences of lipoprotein(a) testing: Cross-sectional and longitudinal health insurance claims database analyses

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is associated with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Our goal was to characterize patients undergoing Lp(a) testing and to assess the impact of Lp(a) testing on treatment changes and subsequent ASCVD events.

METHODS

A cross-sectional and a longitudinal claims data analysis were performed on 4 million patient records in Germany. Patients were followed up for a maximum of 4 years.

RESULTS

In 2015 and 2018, 0.25% and 0.34% of patients were tested, respectively. Testing was more frequent in younger women in the overall population, and in men in the ASCVD population. Patients tested for Lp(a) had more comorbidities and higher ASCVD risk compared to matched control patients. ASCVD hospitalizations were more frequent prior to the first Lp(a) test (5.55 vs 1.42 per 100/person-years). The mortality rate of the Lp(a)-tested cohort and the control group was similar. Mortality was lower in patients with prior ASCVD and Lp(a) testing compared to matched controls with prior ASCVD and no Lp(a) test (2.30 vs 3.64 per 100/person-years, p <0.001). Patients with Lp(a) test received more laboratory examinations and cardiovascular medications and had more visits with specialized physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) testing is rarely performed even in patients with very high cardiovascular risk. Patients tested for Lp(a) have more comorbidities and a higher ASCVD risk. Lp(a) testing is associated with more intensive preventive treatment and with positive effects on clinical outcomes and survival. The data support the value of Lp(a) measurements to characterize ASCVD risk and to improve ASCVD prevention.

Impact of lipoprotein(a) levels on primary patency after endovascular therapy for femoropopliteal lesions

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a risk factor for peripheral artery disease (PAD). However, the relationship between Lp(a) levels and clinical events after endovascular therapy (EVT) for the femoropopliteal artery in PAD patients remains unclear. Thus, this study aimed to assess the impact of Lp(a) levels on primary patency after EVT for de novo femoropopliteal lesions in PAD patients. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 109 patients who underwent EVT for de novo femoropopliteal lesions, and Lp(a) levels were measured before EVT between June 2016 and December 2019. Patients were divided into low Lp(a) [Lp(a) < 30 mg/dL; 78 patients] and high Lp(a) [Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL; 31 patients] groups. The main outcome was primary patency following EVT. Loss of primary patency was defined as a peak systolic velocity ratio > 2.4 on a duplex scan or > 50% stenosis on angiography. Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to determine whether high Lp(a) levels were independently associated with loss of primary patency. The mean follow-up duration was 28 months. The rates of primary patency were 83 and 76% at 1 year and 75 and 58% at 2 years in the low and high Lp(a) groups, respectively (P = 0.02). After multivariate analysis, High Lp(a)[Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL] (hazard ratio 2.44; 95% CI 1.10-5.44; P = 0.03) and female sex (hazard ratio 2.65; 95% CI 1.27-5.51; P < 0.01) were independent predictors of loss of primary patency. Lp(a) levels might be associated with primary patency after EVT for de novo femoropopliteal lesions.

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.

Familial Hypercholesterolemia and Lipoprotein(a): A Gordian Knot in Cardiovascular Prevention

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is the most frequent genetic disorder resulting in increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels from childhood, leading to premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) if left untreated. FH diagnosis is based on clinical criteria and/or genetic testing and its prevalence is estimated as being up to 1:300,000−400,000 for the homozygous and ~1:200−300 for the heterozygous form. Apart from its late diagnosis, FH is also undertreated, despite the available lipid-lowering therapies. In addition, elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) (>50 mg/dL; 120 nmol/L), mostly genetically determined, has been identified as an important cardiovascular risk factor with prevalence rate of ~20% in the general population. Novel Lp(a)-lowering therapies have been recently developed and their cardiovascular efficacy is currently investigated. Although a considerable proportion of FH patients is also diagnosed with high Lp(a) levels, there is a debate whether these two entities are associated. Nevertheless, Lp(a), particularly among patients with FH, has been established as a significant cardiovascular risk factor. In this narrative review, we present up-to-date evidence on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of both FH and elevated Lp(a) with a special focus on their association and joint effect on ASCVD risk.

Atherogenic Lipoproteins for the Statin Residual Cardiovascular Disease Risk

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that decreases in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by the use of statins cause a significant reduction in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, one of our previous studies showed that, among eight RCTs that investigated the effect of statins vs. a placebo on CVD development, 56–79% of patients had residual CVD risk after the trials. In three RCTs that investigated the effect of a high dose vs. a usual dose of statins on CVD development, 78–87% of patients in the high-dose statin arms still had residual CVD risk. The risk of CVD development remains even when statins are used to strongly reduce LDL-C, and this type of risk is now regarded as statin residual CVD risk. Our study shows that elevated triglyceride (TG) levels, reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and the existence of obesity/insulin resistance and diabetes may be important metabolic factors that determine statin residual CVD risk. Here, we discuss atherogenic lipoproteins that were not investigated in such RCTs, such as lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)), remnant lipoproteins, malondialdehyde-modified LDL (MDA-LDL), and small-dense LDL (Sd-LDL). Lp(a) is under strong genetic control by apolipoprotein (a), which is an LPA gene locus. Variations in the LPA gene account for 91% of the variability in the plasma concentration of Lp(a). A meta-analysis showed that genetic variations at the LPA locus are associated with CVD events during statin therapy, independent of the extent of LDL lowering, providing support for exploring strategies targeting circulating concentrations of Lp(a) to reduce CVD events in patients receiving statins. Remnant lipoproteins and small-dense LDL are highly associated with high TG levels, low HDL-C, and obesity/insulin resistance. MDA-LDL is a representative form of oxidized LDL and plays important roles in the formation and development of the primary lesions of atherosclerosis. MDA-LDL levels were higher in CVD patients and diabetic patients than in the control subjects. Furthermore, we demonstrated the atherogenic properties of such lipoproteins and their association with CVD as well as therapeutic approaches.

Use of Lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice: A biomarker whose time has come. A scientific statement from the National Lipid Association

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a well-recognized, independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with elevated levels estimated to be prevalent in 20% of the population. Observational and genetic evidence strongly support a causal relationship between high plasma concentrations of Lp(a) and increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events, such as myocardial infarction and stroke, and valvular aortic stenosis. In this scientific statement, we review an array of evidence-based considerations for testing of Lp(a) in clinical practice and the utilization of Lp(a) levels to inform treatment strategies in primary and secondary prevention.

Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Tolerability of Olpasiran in Healthy Japanese and Non-Japanese Participants: Results from a Phase I, Single-dose, Open-label Study

PURPOSE

Olpasiran, an N-acetyl galactosamine-conjugated, hepatocyte-targeted, small interfering RNA, is being developed to reduce plasma lipoprotein (Lp)-(a) concentration by directly targeting the LPA gene. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and tolerability of a single SC injection of olpasiran in healthy, Japanese and non-Japanese participants.

METHODS

In this Phase I, open-label, parallel-design study, Japanese participants were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive a single 3, 9, 75, or 225 mg dose of olpasiran. Non-Japanese participants received a single 75 mg dose of olpasiran. The primary end points were pharmacokinetic parameters, including C_max, AUC_inf, t_max, and t_1/2. Tolerability and change in Lp(a) concentration were also assessed.

FINDINGS

A total of 27 enrolled participants had a mean (SD) age of 48.0 (12.5) years. Olpasiran C_max and AUC_inf were increased in an approximately dose-proportional manner in the Japanese groups. Mean (SD) C_max values were 242 (121.0) and 144 (71.3) ng/mL, and mean (SD) AUC_inf values were 3550 (592.0) and 2620 (917.0) h·ng/mL, in the Japanese and non-Japanese groups, respectively, given 75 mg of olpasiran. Median t_max ranged from 3.0 to 9.0 hours and mean (SD) t_1/2 ranged from 4.0 (0.3) to 6.9 (1.6) hours across all groups. The maximal Lp(a) reduction occurred at day 57, with mean (SD) Lp(a) percentage reductions from baseline ranging from 56.0% (21.0%) to 99.0% (0.2%). A reductions in Lp(a) was observed as early as day 4. All adverse events were mild in severity, with no serious or fatal adverse events. No clinically important changes in tolerability-related laboratory analytes or vital signs were observed.

IMPLICATIONS

In this population of healthy Japanese participants, dose-proportional increases in exposure and reduced Lp(a) in a dose-dependent manner were found with single 3, 9, 75, and 225 mg doses of olpasiran. The magnitude and durability of Lp(a) reductions were similar between the Japanese and non-Japanese groups. Olpasiran was well tolerated, with no clinically important adverse events or laboratory or vital sign abnormalities.

Smoking and diabetes attenuate beneficial effects of PSCK9 inhibitors on arterial wall properties in patients with very high lipoprotein (a) levels

Background and aims

Elevated lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (LDL-C) are significant residual risk factors for cardiovascular events. Treatment with protein convertase subtilisin kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors reduces the levels of both. Less is known about effects of PCSK9 inhibitors on functional and morphological properties of the arterial wall. The aim of the present study was to determine whether other factors besides decreased LDL-C and Lp(a) are associated with functional (flow-mediated dilation [FMD]) and morphological (carotid intima-media thickness [c-IMT], pulse-wave velocity [PWV]) changes of the arterial wall properties in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) treated with alirocumab and evolocumab.

Methods

One hundred patients with CAD after myocardial infarction before 55 years and with high Lp(a) were randomised to lipid-lowering therapies without PCSK9 inhibitors (control; N = 31), or with alirocumab 150 mg SC (N = 35) or evolocumab 140 mg SC (N = 34), every 2 weeks. All patients underwent blood sampling for biochemical analyses and ultrasound measurements for FMD, c-IMT and PWV.

Results

There were no significant changes in FMD for the control (10.7% ± 6.6%-11.1% ± 4.4%, p = 0.716) and alirocumab (10.7% ± 5.9%-11.2% ± 5.3%, p = 0.547) groups, while evolocumab promoted significant increase (11.2% ± 6.8%-14.1% ± 6.6%, p < 0.0001). Only in non-smokers and non-diabetics significant improvements in FMD (p < 0.0001) after treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors were observed.

Conclusion

These data show that for patients with CAD and high Lp(a) levels, beneficial effects of PCSK9 inhibitors on the arterial wall properties can be attenuated by specific risk factors, such as smoking and diabetes.

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.

How Do Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations Affect Clinical Outcomes for Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease Who Underwent Different Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?

Background Lp(a) (lipoprotein[a]) plays an important role in predicting cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease through its proatherogenic and prothrombotic effects. We hypothesized that prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) might be beneficial for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention who had elevated Lp(a) levels. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of Lp(a) on the efficacy and safety of prolonged DAPT versus shortened DAPT in stable patients with coronary artery disease who were treated with a drug-eluting stent. Methods and Results We selected 3201 stable patients with CAD from the prospective Fuwai Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Registry, of which 2124 patients had Lp(a) ≤30 mg/dL, and 1077 patients had Lp(a) >30 mg/dL. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to Lp(a) levels and the duration of DAPT therapy (≤1 year versus >1 year). The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event, defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The median follow-up time was 2.5 years. Among patients with elevated Lp(a) levels, DAPT >1 year presented lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event and definite/probable stent thrombosis compared with DAPT ≤1 year. In contrast, in patients with normal Lp(a) levels, the risks of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event and definite/probable stent thrombosis were not significantly different between the DAPT >1 year and DAPT ≤1 year groups. Prolonged DAPT had 2.4-times higher risk of clinically relevant bleeding than shortened DAPT in patients with normal Lp(a) levels, although without statistical difference. Conclusions In stable patients with coronary artery disease, who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-eluting stent, prolonged DAPT was associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular events among those with elevated Lp(a) levels, whereas it did not show statistically significant evidence of benefit for reducing ischemic events and tended to increase clinically relevant bleeding among those with normal Lp(a) levels.

Analysis of 61 SNPs from the CAD specific genomic loci reveals unique set of SNPs as significant markers in the Southern Indian population of Hyderabad

Background

The present study is a part of the major project on coronary artery disease (CAD) carried out at Indian Statistical Institute, Hyderabad to investigate the pattern of association of SNPs selected from the CAD specific genomic loci. The study is expected to portray the genetic susceptibility profile of CAD specifically in the Southern Indian population of Hyderabad.

Methods

The study was conducted in a cohort of 830 subjects comprising 350 CAD cases and 480 controls from Hyderabad. A prioritized set of 61 SNPs selected from the NHGRI GWAS catalogue were genotyped using FluidigmNanofluidic SNP Genotyping System and appropriate statistical analyses were used in interpreting the results.

Results

After data pruning, out of 45 SNPs qualified for the association analysis, four SNPs were found to be highly significantly associated with increased risk for CAD even after Bonferroni correction for multiple testing (p < 0.001). These results were also replicated in the random subsets of the pooled cohort (70, 50 and 30%) suggesting internal consistency. The ROC analysis of the risk scores of the significant SNPs suggested highly significant area under curve (AUC = 0.749; p < 0.0001) implying predictive utility of these risk variants.

Conclusions

The rs10455872 of LP(A) gene in particular showed profound risk for CAD (OR 35.9; CI 16.7–77.2) in this regional Indian population. The other significant SNP associations observed with respect to the pooled CAD cohort and in different anatomical and phenotypic severity categories reflected on the role of genetic heterogeneity in the clinical heterogeneity of CAD. The SNP rs7582720 of WDR12 gene, albeit not individually associated with CAD, was found to be conferring significant risk through epistatic interaction with two SNPs (rs6589566, rs1263163 in ZPR1, APOA5-APOA4 genes) of the 11q23.3 region.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-022-02562-4.

ATHEROSCLEROTIC CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE RISK ASSESSMENT: An American Society for Preventive Cardiology Clinical Practice Statement

Risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) shows considerable heterogeneity both in generally healthy persons and in those with known ASCVD. The foundation of preventive cardiology begins with assessing baseline ASCVD risk using global risk scores based on standard office-based measures. Persons at low risk are generally recommended for lifestyle management only and those at highest risk are recommended for both lifestyle and pharmacologic therapy. Additional “risk enhancing” factors, including both traditional risk factors and novel biomarkers and inflammatory factors can be used to further assess ASCVD risk, especially in those at borderline or intermediate risk. There are also female-specific risk enhancers, social determinants of health, and considerations for high-risk ethnic groups. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis, especially with the use of coronary calcium screening, can further inform the treatment decision if uncertain based on the above strategies. Persons with pre-existing ASCVD also have variable risk, affected by the number of major ASCVD events, whether recurrent events have occurred recently, and the presence of other major risk factors or high-risk conditions. Current guidelines define high to very high risk ASCVD accordingly. Accurate ASCVD risk assessment is crucial for the appropriate targeting of preventive therapies to reduce ASCVD risk. Finally, the clinician-patient risk discussion focusing on lifestyle management and the risks and benefits of evidence-based pharmacologic therapies to best lower ASCVD risk is central to this process. This clinical practice statement provides the preventive cardiology specialist with guidance and tools for assessment of ASCVD risk with the goal of appropriately targeting treatment approaches for prevention of ASCVD events.

Therapeutic RNA-silencing oligonucleotides in metabolic diseases

Recent years have seen unprecedented activity in the development of RNA-silencing oligonucleotide therapeutics for metabolic diseases. Improved oligonucleotide design and optimization of synthetic nucleic acid chemistry, in combination with the development of highly selective and efficient conjugate delivery technology platforms, have established and validated oligonucleotides as a new class of drugs. To date, there are five marketed oligonucleotide therapies, with many more in clinical studies, for both rare and common liver-driven metabolic diseases. Here, we provide an overview of recent developments in the field of oligonucleotide therapeutics in metabolism, review past and current clinical trials, and discuss ongoing challenges and possible future developments.

Lipoprotein(a) as Part of the Diagnosis of Clinical Familial Hypercholesterolemia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Individuals with familial hypercholesterolemia have very high risk of cardiovascular disease due to lifelong elevations in LDL cholesterol. Elevated lipoprotein(a) is a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases such as myocardial infarction and aortic valve stenosis. It has been proposed to include elevated lipoprotein(a) in the diagnosis of clinical familial hypercholesterolemia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Lipoprotein(a) is co-measured in LDL cholesterol, and up to one-quarter of all diagnoses of clinical familial hypercholesterolemia are due to high levels of lipoprotein(a). Further, individuals with both familial hypercholesterolemia and elevated lipoprotein(a) have an extremely high risk of myocardial infarction. We discuss the background for familial hypercholesterolemia and elevated lipoprotein(a) as risk factors for cardiovascular disease and the consequences of the fact that LDL cholesterol measurements/calculations include the cholesterol present in lipoprotein(a). Finally, we discuss the potential of including lipoprotein(a) as part of the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia and in consequence possible treatments.

Lipoprotein(a) Levels at Birth and in Early Childhood: The COMPARE Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

High lipoprotein(a) is a genetically determined causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and 20% of the adult population has high levels (ie, >42 mg/dL, >88 nmol/L). We investigated whether early life lipoprotein(a) levels measured in cord blood may serve as a proxy for neonatal venous blood levels, whether lipoprotein(a) birth levels (ie, cord or venous) predict levels later in life, and whether early life and parental levels correlate.

METHODS

The Compare study is a prospective cohort study of newborns (N = 450) from Copenhagen, Denmark, including blood sampling of parents. Plasma lipoprotein(a) was measured in cord blood (N = 402), neonatal venous blood (N = 356), and at 2 (N = 320) and 15 months follow-up (N = 148) of infants, and in parents (N = 705).

RESULTS

Mean lipoprotein(a) levels were 2.2 (95% CI, 1.9-2.5), 2.4 (2.0-2.7), 4.1 (3.4-4.9), and 14.6 (11.4-17.9) mg/dL in cord, neonatal venous, and 2- and 15-month venous samples, respectively. Lipoprotein(a) levels in cord blood correlated strongly with neonatal venous blood levels (R2 = 0.95, P < 0.001) and neonatal levels correlated moderately with 2- and 15-month levels (R2 = 0.68 and 0.67, both P < 0.001). Birth levels ≥ 90th percentile predicted lipoprotein(a) > 42 mg/dL at 15 months with positive predictive values of 89% and 85% for neonatal venous and cord blood. Neonatal and infant levels correlated weakly with parental levels, most pronounced at 15 months (R2 = 0.22, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Lipoprotein(a) levels are low in early life, cord blood may serve as a proxy for neonatal venous blood, and birth levels ≥ 90th percentile can identify newborns at risk of developing high levels.

Assessing the Accuracy of Estimated Lipoprotein(a) Cholesterol and Lipoprotein(a)-Free Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

Background

Accurate measurement of the cholesterol within lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]‐C) and its contribution to low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) has important implications for risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, as well as in familial hypercholesterolemia. A method for estimating Lp(a)‐C from particle number using fixed conversion factors has been proposed (Lp[a]‐C from particle number divided by 2.4 for Lp(a) mass, multiplied by 30% for Lp[a]‐C). The accuracy of this method, which theoretically can isolate “Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C,” has not been validated.

Methods and Results

In 177 875 patients from the VLDbL (Very Large Database of Lipids), we compared estimated Lp(a)‐C and Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C with measured values and quantified absolute and percent error. We compared findings with an analogous data set from the Mayo Clinic Laboratory. Error in estimated Lp(a)‐C and Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C increased with higher Lp(a)‐C values. Median error for estimated Lp(a)‐C <10 mg/dL was −1.9 mg/dL (interquartile range, −4.0 to 0.2); this error increased linearly, overestimating by +30.8 mg/dL (interquartile range, 26.1–36.5) for estimated Lp(a)‐C ≥50 mg/dL. This error relationship persisted after stratification by overall high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol subtypes. Similar findings were observed in the Mayo cohort. Absolute error for Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C was +2.4 (interquartile range, −0.6 to 5.3) for Lp(a)‐C<10 mg/dL and −31.8 (interquartile range, −37.8 to −26.5) mg/dL for Lp(a)‐C≥50 mg/dL.

Conclusions

Lp(a)‐C estimations using fixed conversion factors overestimated Lp(a)‐C and subsequently underestimated Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C, especially at clinically relevant Lp(a) values. Application of inaccurate Lp(a)‐C estimations to correct LDL‐C may lead to undertreatment of high‐risk patients.

Osteonecrosis of the Jaws in Patients with Hereditary Thrombophilia/Hypofibrinolysis-From Pathophysiology to Therapeutic Implications

Osteonecrosis of the jaws (ONJ) usually has a clear etiology. Local infection or trauma, radiotherapy and drugs that disrupt the vascular supply or bone turnover in the jaws are its major contributors. The thrombotic occlusion of the bone’s venous outflow that occurs in individuals with hereditary thrombophilia and/or hypofibrinolysis has a less known impact on jaw health and healing capability. Our research provides the most comprehensive, up-to-date and systematized information on the prevalence and significance of hereditary thrombophilia and/or hypofibrinolysis states in ONJ. We found that hereditary prothrombotic abnormalities are common in patients with ONJ refractory to conventional medical and dental treatments. Thrombophilia traits usually coexist with hypofibrinolysis traits. We also found that frequently acquired prothrombotic abnormalities coexist with hereditary ones and enhance their negative effect on the bone. Therefore, we recommend a personalized therapeutic approach that addresses, in particular, the modifiable risk factors of ONJ. Patients will have clear benefits, as they will be relieved of persistent pain and repeated dental procedures.

Exploring the association of fibrinogen and CRP with the clinical spectrum of CAD and periprocedural outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions

BACKGROUND

The pathophysiology of an atherosclerotic plaque is mediated by the mechanisms involving thrombus formation and systemic inflammation. While C-reactive protein (CRP) levels are useful in predicting a cardiovascular event in intermediate risk population, the usefulness of routinely measuring fibrinogen in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is debatable. Also, data on the association of these markers with periprocedural outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is scarce.

AIMS

The study aimed to determine whether the levels of fibrinogen and CRP vary across the different spectra of CAD and whether they have any correlation with cardiac Troponin I levels.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 284 patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were included in the study. Complete blood count, serum lipid profile, serum CRP, fibrinogen, and troponin I were measured for all patients.

RESULTS

Patients with STEMI had significantly higher levels of CRP as compared to those with unstable angina (USA) and chronic stable angina (CSA). Patients presenting with ACS had significantly higher baseline fibrinogen as compared to those with CSA. A significant positive correlation between CRP and admission Troponin I (r = 0.50; P < 0.05) as well as fibrinogen and admission troponin I (r = 0.30; P < 0.05) was observed. The CRP levels were significantly higher in 15 patients with periprocedural MI as compared to those who did not develop periprocedural MI.

CONCLUSIONS

: The levels of the markers of inflammation and atherothrombosis vary with presentation across varied spectra of CAD with generally higher levels in acute presentation and in those who develop periprocedural MI.

Benefit and Risk of Prolonged Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Elevated Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations

Background: Lipoprotein(a) is positively related to cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Given that lipoprotein(a) has a prothrombotic effect, prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) might have a beneficial effect on reducing ischemic events in patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We performed this study to assess the efficacy and safety of prolonged DAPT (>1 year) in this population.

Methods: We evaluated a total of 3,025 CAD patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels who were event-free at 1 year after PCI from the prospective Fuwai PCI Registry, of which 913 received DAPT ≤ 1 year and 2,112 received DAPT>1 year. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction or stroke.

Results: After a median follow-up of 2.4 years, patients who received DAPT>1 year were associated with lower risks of MACCE compared with DAPT ≤ 1 year (1.6 vs. 3.8%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.383, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.238–0.616), which was primarily driven by the lower all-cause mortality (0.2 vs. 2.3%; HR 0.078, 95% CI 0.027–0.227). In addition, DAPT>1 year was also associated with lower risks of cardiac death, and definite/probable stent thrombosis than those who received DAPT ≤ 1 year (P < 0.05). Conversely, no difference was found between the two groups in terms of clinically relevant bleeding. Similar results were observed in multivariate Cox regression analysis and inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.

Conclusions: In patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) concentrations after PCI, prolonged DAPT (>1 year) reduced ischemic cardiovascular events, including MACCE, all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and definite/probable stent thrombosis, without increase in clinically relevant bleeding risk compared with ≤ 1-year DAPT. Lipoprotein(a) levels might be a new important consideration when deciding the duration of DAPT after PCI.

Lipoprotein(a) as predictor of coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction in a multi-ethnic Asian population

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The role of Lp(a) in multi-ethnic Asian populations with coronary artery disease (CAD) has not been well established. The aims of this study were (i) to investigate whether Lp(a) is a predictor of CAD, and (ii) amongst patients with CAD, to ascertain whether Lp(a) is a predictor of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and severity of CAD.

METHODS

We compared three cardiovascular phenotypes from patients recruited at coronary angiography. CAD was defined as ≥50% coronary artery stenosis and subdivided into a group with AMI history (CAD+AMI+) and a group without (CAD+AMI-). Minimal CAD group (CAD-) was defined as normal or <30% coronary artery stenosis and no AMI. The severity of CAD was defined using the modified Gensini score.

RESULTS

We studied 2025 patients comprising 94.5% men and 61.4% of Chinese ethnicity. The median Lp(a) level was highest in CAD+AMI+, followed by CAD+AMI- and CAD- (26.2, 20.1, and 15.8 nmol/L respectively). Similarly, the frequency of patients with Lp(a) ≥120 nmol/L were in the same order (11.8%, 9.1% and 2.4%). Lp(a) levels were highest among Asian Indians, followed by Malays and Chinese patients (p < 0.001). Lp(a) levels and Lp(a) ≥120 nmol/L were significant predictors of CAD (Odds ratio (OR) = 1.12 per 10 nmol/L increment, p < 0.001, and OR = 5.41 p = 0.004 respectively). Among patients with CAD, higher Lp(a) levels were associated with increased AMI risk (OR = 1.02 per 10 nmol/L increment, p = 0.024). Lp(a) ≥120 nmol/L was positively associated with CAD severity (p = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

Plasma Lp(a) concentration is a positive predictor of CAD and AMI in a mostly male South East Asian population.

Association of PCSK9 Variants With the Risk of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease and Variable Responses to PCSK9 Inhibitor Therapy

Genetic polymorphisms or variations, randomly distributed in a population, may cause drug-gene response variations. Investigation into these polymorphisms may identify novel mechanisms contributing to a specific disease process. Such investigation necessitates the use of Mendelian randomization, an analytical method that uses genetic variants as instrumental variables for modifiable risk factors that affect population health.¹ In the past decade, advances in our understanding of genetic polymorphisms have enabled the identification of genetic variants in candidate genes that impact low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) regulating pathways and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes. A specific candidate gene of interest is that of the LDL receptor degrading protein, PCSK9. In fact, loss-of-function genetic variants for the PCSK9 gene are what first highlighted this pathway as a candidate for pharmacologic inhibition. PCSK9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) are a class of cholesterol-lowering medications that provide significant reductions in LDL by inhibiting the degradation of LDL receptors (LDLR). These inhibitors have also been found to reduce production and enhance clearance of lipoprotein A (Lp[a]), an LDL-like particle currently under study as a separate risk factor for atherosclerotic CVD. Here, we discuss the promise of personalized medicine in developing a more efficacious and individualized pharmacogenomics-based approach for the use of PCSK9i that considers genetic variation and targets different patient populations. This review explores the pharmacogenomics of PCSK9i in the context of PCSK9 allele variants related to drug-metabolizing enzymes and responses since more studies are demonstrating that some patients are hyporesponsive or non-responsive to PCSK9i.² In summary, the pharmacogenomics of PCSK9 are a promising therapeutic target and genetic information from prospective randomized clinical trials is warranted to gain a full understanding of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of such allele and/or gene-guided PCSK9i therapy.

Can biomarkers be used to improve diagnosis and prediction of metabolic syndrome in childhood cancer survivors? A systematic review

Childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at increased risk to develop metabolic syndrome (MetS), diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Common criteria underestimate adiposity and possibly underdiagnose MetS, particularly after abdominal radiotherapy. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the diagnostic and predictive value of nine newer MetS related biomarkers (adiponectin, leptin, uric acid, hsCRP, TNF-alpha, IL-1, IL-6, apolipoprotein B (apoB), and lipoprotein(a) [lp(a)]) in survivors and adult non-cancer survivors was performed by searching PubMed and Embase. Evidence was summarized with GRADE after risk of bias evaluation (QUADAS-2/QUIPS). Eligible studies on promising biomarkers were pooled. We identified 175 general population and five CCS studies. In the general population, valuable predictive biomarkers are uric acid, adiponectin, hsCRP and apoB (high level of evidence), and leptin (moderate level of evidence). Valuable diagnostic biomarkers are hsCRP, adiponectin, uric acid, and leptin (low, low, moderate, and high level of evidence, respectively). Meta-analysis showed OR for hyperuricemia of 2.94 (age-/sex-adjusted), OR per unit uric acid increase of 1.086 (unadjusted), and AUC for hsCRP of 0.71 (unadjusted). Uric acid, adiponectin, hsCRP, leptin, and apoB can be alternative biomarkers in the screening setting for MetS in survivors, to enhance early identification of those at high risk of subsequent complications.

Plasma Lipoprotein(a) Levels as Determinants of Arterial Stiffening in Hypertension

Previous studies have shown that plasma lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) plays an important role in the development of hypertensive organ damage. The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship of Lp(a) with markers of arterial stiffening in hypertension. In 138 essential hypertensive patients free of diabetes, renal failure and cardiovascular complications, we measured plasma lipids and assessed vascular stiffness through the use of pulse wave analysis and calculation of the brachial augmentation index (AIx), and measured the pulse wave velocity (PWV). Plasma Lp(a) levels were significantly and directly related to both AIx (r = 0.490; p < 0.001) and PWV (r = 0.212; p = 0.013). Multiple regression analysis showed that AIx was independently correlated with age, C-reactive protein, and plasma Lp(a) (beta 0.326; p < 0.001), while PWV was independently and directly correlated with age, and inversely with HDL, but not with plasma Lp(a). Logistic regression indicated that plasma Lp(a) could predict an AIx value above the median for the distribution (p = 0.026). Thus, in a highly selective group of patients with hypertension, plasma Lp(a) levels were significantly and directly related to markers of vascular stiffening. Because of the relevance of vascular stiffening to cardiovascular risk, the reduction of Lp(a) levels might be beneficial for cardiovascular protection in patients with hypertension.

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.

Novel insights on the role of spexin as a biomarker of obesity and related cardiometabolic disease

Spexin (SPX) is a 14-amino acid neuropeptide, discovered recently using bioinformatic techniques. It is encoded by the Ch12:orf39 gene that is widely expressed in different body tissues/organs across species, and secreted into systemic circulation. Recent reports have highlighted a potentially important regulatory role of SPX in obesity and related comorbidities. SPX is also ubiquitously expressed in human tissues, including white adipose tissue. The circulating concentration of SPX is significantly lower in individuals with obesity compared to normal weight counterparts. SPX's role in obesity appears to be related to various factors, such as the regulation of energy expenditure, appetite, and eating behaviors, increasing locomotion, and inhibiting long-chain fatty acid uptake into adipocytes. Recent reports have also suggested SPX's relationship with novel biomarkers of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and glucose metabolism and evoked the potential role of SPX as a key biomarker/player in the early loss of cardiometabolic health and development of CVD and diabetes later in life. Data on age-related changes in SPX and SPX's response to various interventions are also emerging. The current review focuses on the role of SPX in obesity and related comorbidities across the life span, and its response to interventions in these conditions. It is expected that this article will provide new ideas for future research on SPX and its metabolic regulation, particularly related to cardiometabolic diseases.

The Use of Blood Biomarkers in Precision Medicine for the Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: a Review

Introduction

A biomarker is a substance, structure, or process that indicates the presence of a disease, infection, or environmental exposure. Clinically useful biomarkers are measurable, improve diagnostic or prognostic performance, and ultimately aid clinicians in determining the initiation, duration, or magnitude of therapy.

Areas Covered

The purpose of this review is to explore the roles of various blood biomarkers of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and how their use may improve the precision with which clinicians can identify, treat, and ultimately prevent ASCVD. Our review will include lipid biomarkers, markers of cardiac injury and wall stress, markers of inflammation, and a few others.

Expert Opinion

Several biomarkers have recently been highlighted as "risk-enhancing factors" in the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline for the Primary Prevention of ASCVD, which can help guide shared decision-making. These included elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, lipoprotein(a), apolipoprotein B, or high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. However, some other biomarkers mentioned in this review are not commonly used despite showing initial promise as prognostic of ASCVD risk, as it is not clear how treatment decisions should be changed after their measurement among asymptomatic individuals. Future studies should focus on whether biomarker-directed management strategies can improve clinical outcomes.

Hypolipidemic, Antioxidant and Cardioprotective Effects of the Aqueous Extract from Scorzanera Undulata Tubers in Streptozotocin-Induced Diabetic Rats

AIMS

This study aimed to assess the effect of Scorzanera undulata on plasma lipid profile.

BACKGROUND

Scorzanera undulata (S. undulata) is a medicinal plant popularly used in the Moroccan pharmacopeia as traditional medicine, particularly to treat diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of aqueous extract of Scorzanera undulata tubers (AERSU) on lipid profile and atherogenic indices in Wistar rats. Biochemical parameters such as Total Cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), and low-and high-density lipoproteins-cholesterol (LDL and HDL) were assessed. Furthermore, the in vitro antioxidant activity of AERSU was also evaluated.

METHODS

The effect of tubers aqueous extract (AERSU) of S. undulata (20 mg/kg) on plasma lipid profile was investigated in normal and streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetic rats. The aqueous extract was tested for its in vitro antioxidant activity. Besides, cardiovascular parameters were estimated.

RESULTS

Treatment with AERSU significantly improved the weight in diabetic rats and decreased plasma cholesterol, triglycerides, and LDL lipoproteins levels. Furthermore, the extract had a favorable impact on the Atherogenic Index (AI) and Coronary Risk Index (CRI). In addition, AERSU seems to possess a potent in vitro antioxidant activity.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates that aqueous Scorzanera undulate extract exhibits antidyslipidemic and antioxidant activities.

Genetics of Lipoprotein(a): Cardiovascular Disease and Future Therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lipoprotein(a) levels are determined 80-90% by genetics and differ by up to 1000-fold between individuals. This review discusses the most recent literature on lipoprotein(a) as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, as well as future lipoprotein(a)lowering therapies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the past few decades, numerous studies have observed that high lipoprotein(a) levels are associated observationally and causally through human genetics with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Also, the development of safe and effective therapies to lower lipoprotein(a) is ongoing, most importantly using antisense oligonucleotides to prevent production of lipoprotein(a). Finally, both observational and genetic studies have estimated the extent to which lowering of lipoprotein(a) is needed to obtain a clinically meaningful reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease. Lipoprotein(a) is a causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease; however, currently no approved safe and effective therapy is available to lower lipoprotein(a) levels. That said, promising randomized studies using antisense oligonucleotides show up to 80% reductions in lipoprotein(a), reductions that hopefully will result in lowering the risk of cardiovascular disease as presently tested in the ongoing HORIZON phase 3 trial.

A novel deletion mutation in the LPA gene in a middle-aged woman with ischaemic stroke

BACKGROUND

Genetic diversity of the human LPA gene locus is associated with high plasma concentrations of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]. High Lp(a) concentrations are strongly associated with a high incidence rate of ischaemic stroke.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 46-year-old female Chinese patient suffered from ischaemic stroke. Upon admission to the hospital, the patient was diagnosed with an elevated level of plasma Lp(a). The patient's clinical symptoms were alleviated by administration of basilar artery stent thrombectomy, mannitol, and aspirin. A novel compound heterozygous deletion of the region containing exons 3-16 covering kringle IV copy number variation (KIV CNV) domains in the LPA gene was observed in genetic analysis by next-generation sequencing and confirmed by qPCR.

CONCLUSIONS

In the current study, we reported a case of a 46-year-old female patient diagnosed with ischaemic stroke. This novel heterozygous deletion mutation in the LPA gene expands the spectrum of LPA mutations. Further study is required to understand the mechanism of LPA mutations in ischaemic stroke.

Relationship Between Lipoprotein(a) and Angiographic Severity of Femoropopliteal Lesions

AIM

High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] are a risk factor for peripheral artery disease (PAD). However, the relationship between Lp(a) levels and the severity of femoropopliteal lesions in patients with PAD has not been systematically studied. This study aimed to assess the impact of Lp(a) levels on angiographic severity of femoropopliteal lesions in patients with PAD.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed a single-center database including 108 patients who underwent endovascular therapy for de novo femoropopliteal lesions and measured the Lp(a) levels before therapy between June 2016 and September 2019. Patients were divided into low Lp(a) [Lp(a) ＜30 mg/dL; 77 patients] and high Lp(a) [Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL; 31 patients] groups. Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC) II classification, calcification [referring to the peripheral arterial calcium scoring system (PACSS) classification], and lesion length were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The prevalence of TASC II class D (13% vs 38%, P＜0.01) and severe calcification (PACSS 4) (6% vs 23%, P=0.02) was significantly higher and the lesion length longer (123±88 mm vs 175±102 mm, P＜0.01) in the high Lp(a) group than in the low Lp(a) group. In multivariate analysis, Lp(a) ≥ 30 was an independent predictor for the prevalence of TASC II class D (HR=3.67, 95% CI 1.27-10.6, P=0.02) and PACSS 4 (HR=4.97, 95% CI 1.27-19.4, P=0.02).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of TASC II class D and severe calcification of femoropopliteal lesions was higher in patients with high Lp(a) than those with low Lp(a).

Contemporary perspectives on the genetics and clinical use of lipoprotein(a) in preventive cardiology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The pathogenicity of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] as a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is well evidenced and recognized by international consensus-based guidelines. However, the measurement of Lp(a) is not routine clinical practice. Therapeutic agents targeting Lp(a) are now progressing through randomised clinical trials, and it is timely for clinicians to familiarize themselves with this complex and enigmatic lipoprotein particle.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent developments in the understanding of genetic influences on the structure, plasma concentration and atherogenicity of Lp(a) have contextualized its clinical relevance. Mendelian randomization studies have enabled estimation of the contribution of Lp(a) to ASCVD risk. Genotyping individual patients with respect to Lp(a)-raising single nucleotide polymorphisms predicts ASCVD, but has not yet been shown to add value beyond the measurement of Lp(a) plasma concentrations, which should be done by Lp(a) isoform-independent assays capable of reporting in molar concentrations. Contemporary gene-silencing technology underpins small interfering RNA and antisense oligonucleotides, which are emerging as the leading Lp(a)-lowering therapeutic agents. The degree of Lp(a)-lowering required to achieve meaningful reductions in ASCVD risk has been estimated by Mendelian randomization, providing conceptual support.

SUMMARY

Measurement of Lp(a) in the clinical setting contributes to the assessment of ASCVD risk, and will become more important with the advent of specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies. Knowledge of an individual patient's genetic predisposition to increased Lp(a) appears to impart little or not additional clinical value beyond Lp(a) particle concentration.

Role of endometriosis in defining cardiovascular risk: a gender medicine approach for women's health

The relationship between endometriosis and subclinical atherosclerosis represents an emerging topic in women's health, as women with endometriosis are at higher risk of cardiovascular disease later in life. We investigated metabolic parameters and indirect endothelial markers related to atherosclerosis, in women suffering from stage III/IV of endometriosis compared with women without endometriosis. The study population comprised 643 women: 92 women (14.3%) with stage III/IV of endometriosis and 551 (85.7%) without endometriosis. By analyzing biohumoral parameters we observed a significant increased total cholesterol (p = 0.01), LDL-C (p = 0.01), triglycerides (p = 0.05) and homocysteinaemia (p = 0.04), lower vitamin B6 and folate (p = 0.07 and p = 0.03, respectively) values, and higher high-sensitive C reactive protein (p = 0.05) concentrations in stage III/IV in comparison to those observed in women without endometriosis. After adjustment for traditional cardiovascular risk factors, the poorer lipid profile (total cholesterol, LDL-C), as well as Lipoprotein (a), remained significantly associated with severity of endometriosis (p = 0.01 and p = 0.03, respectively). Our findings highlight the role of endometriosis as a gender-specific cardiovascular risk factor. The clinical relevance of our study lies in identifying women with stage III/IV of endometriosis at higher risk of atherosclerotic disease, who could benefit from an early cardiovascular screening to control future cardiovascular risk.