Lipoprotein(a): A Genetically Determined, Causal, and Prevalent Risk Factor for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Elevated lipoprotein(a) levels: A crucial determinant of cardiovascular disease risk and target for emerging therapies

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a significant global health challenge despite advancements in prevention and treatment. Elevated Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels have emerged as a crucial risk factor for CVD and aortic stenosis, affecting approximately 20 of the global population. Research over the last decade has established Lp(a) as an independent genetic contributor to CVD and aortic stenosis, beginning with Kare Berg's discovery in 1963. This has led to extensive exploration of its molecular structure and pathogenic roles. Despite the unknown physiological function of Lp(a), studies have shed light on its metabolism, genetics, and involvement in atherosclerosis, inflammation, and thrombosis. Epidemiological evidence highlights the link between high Lp(a) levels and increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Newly emerging therapies, including pelacarsen, zerlasiran, olpasiran, muvalaplin, and lepodisiran, show promise in significantly lowering Lp(a) levels, potentially transforming the management of cardiovascular disease. However, further research is essential to assess these novel therapies' long-term efficacy and safety, heralding a new era in cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment and providing hope for at-risk patients.

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.

Gastric Bypass vs Diet and Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

Importance

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is associated with reduced cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, morbidity, and mortality. Whether these effects are specifically induced by the surgical procedure or the weight loss is unclear.

Objective

To compare 6-week changes in CV risk factors in patients with obesity undergoing matching caloric restriction and weight loss by RYGB or a very low-energy diet (VLED).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This nonrandomized controlled study (Impact of Body Weight, Low Calorie Diet, and Gastric Bypass on Drug Bioavailability, Cardiovascular Risk Factors, and Metabolic Biomarkers [COCKTAIL]) was conducted at a tertiary care obesity center in Norway. Participants were individuals with severe obesity preparing for RYGB or a VLED. Recruitment began February 26, 2015; the first patient visit was on March 18, 2015, and the last patient visit (9-week follow-up) was on August 9, 2017. Data were analyzed from April 30, 2021, through June 29, 2023.

Interventions

VLED alone for 6 weeks or VLED for 6 weeks after RYGB; both interventions were preceded by 3-week LED.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Between-group comparisons of 6-week changes in CV risk factors.

Results

Among 78 patients included in the analyses, the mean (SD) age was 47.5 (9.7) years; 51 (65%) were women, and 27 (35%) were men. Except for a slightly higher mean (SD) body mass index of 44.5 (6.2) in the RYGB group (n = 41) vs 41.9 (5.4) in the VLED group (n = 37), baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between groups. Major atherogenic blood lipids (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, lipoprotein[a]) were reduced after RYGB in comparison with VLED despite a similar fat mass loss. Mean between-group differences were -17.7 mg/dL (95% CI, -27.9 to -7.5), -17.4 mg/dL (95% CI, -29.8 to -5.0) mg/dL, -9.94 mg/dL (95% CI, -15.75 to -4.14), and geometric mean ratio was 0.55 U/L (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.72), respectively. Changes in glycemic control and blood pressure were similar between groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that clinically meaningful reductions in major atherogenic blood lipids were demonstrated after RYGB, indicating that RYGB may reduce CV risk independent of weight loss.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02386917.

Olokizumab plus methotrexate: safety and efficacy over 106 weeks of treatment

OBJECTIVE

To report long-term safety and tolerability of olokizumab (OKZ) in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in subjects with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), using pooled data from three randomised clinical trials (RCT) followed by open-label extension (OLE) study.

METHODS

Cumulative data from three phase 3 core trials and their OLE were analysed. Safety variables assessed included treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), AEs of special interest and laboratory results. Efficacy assessments included ACR20/50/70 responses, Disease Activity Score 28 (C-reactive protein) <3.2, CDAI remission and low disease activity (LDA), SDAI remission and LDA, HAQ-DI decrease of 0.22 unit and Boolean 2.0 remission.

RESULTS

A total of 2304 patients received OKZ in combination with MTX either once every 2 weeks or once every 4 weeks. Event rates per 100 patient-years in OKZ every 2 weeks and OKZ every 4 weeks, respectively, were 9.57 and 9.13 for SAEs; 2.95 and 2.34 for serious infections; 0.09 and 0.05 for gastrointestinal perforations; 0.58 and 0.83 for major adverse cardiovascular events; and 0.45 and 0.50 for malignancies. No increase in the rate of any AE was observed over 106 weeks of treatment. The evaluation of laboratory variables demonstrated the expected changes, like neutropenia, elevation of liver enzymes and blood lipids. Clinical response rates remained stable during the OLE.

CONCLUSION

The long-term safety and tolerability of OKZ in combination with MTX remained stable. The efficacy of OKZ was maintained through week 106. These findings support OKZ as a treatment option for patients with active RA.

Comparative Analysis of Atherogenic Lipoproteins L5 and Lp(a) in Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) poses a risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). As LDL comprises various subtypes differing in charge, density, and size, understanding their specific impact on ASCVD is crucial. Two highly atherogenic LDL subtypes-electronegative LDL (L5) and Lp(a)-induce vascular cell apoptosis and atherosclerotic changes independent of plasma cholesterol levels, and their mechanisms warrant further investigation. Here, we have compared the roles of L5 and Lp(a) in the development of ASCVD.

RECENT FINDINGS

Lp(a) tends to accumulate in artery walls, promoting plaque formation and potentially triggering atherosclerosis progression through prothrombotic or antifibrinolytic effects. High Lp(a) levels correlate with calcific aortic stenosis and atherothrombosis risk. L5 can induce endothelial cell apoptosis and increase vascular permeability, inflammation, and atherogenesis, playing a key role in initiating atherosclerosis. Elevated L5 levels in certain high-risk populations may serve as a distinctive predictor of ASCVD. L5 and Lp(a) are both atherogenic lipoproteins contributing to ASCVD through distinct mechanisms. Lp(a) has garnered attention, but equal consideration should be given to L5.

Atherosclerotic plaque stabilization and regression: a review of clinical evidence

Atherosclerotic plaque results from a complex interplay between lipid deposition, inflammatory changes, cell migration and arterial wall injury. Over the past two decades, clinical trials utilizing invasive arterial imaging modalities, such as intravascular ultrasonography, have shown that reducing levels of atherogenic lipoproteins, mainly serum LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C), to very low levels can safely reduce overall atherosclerotic plaque burden and favourably modify plaque composition. Classically, this outcome has been achieved with intensive statin therapy. Since 2016, newer and potent lipid-lowering strategies, such as proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibition, have shown incremental effects on plaque regression and risk of clinical events. Despite maximal reduction in plasma LDL-C levels, considerable residual cardiovascular risk remains in some patients. Therefore, there is a need to study therapeutic approaches that address residual risk beyond LDL-C reduction to promote plaque stabilization or regression. Contemporary imaging modalities, such as coronary computed tomography angiography, enable non-invasive assessment of the overall atherosclerotic plaque burden as well as of certain local plaque characteristics. This technology could allow further study of plaque stabilization and regression using novel therapeutic approaches. Non-invasive plaque assessment might also offer the potential to guide personalized management strategies if validated for this purpose.

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.

A potentially underestimated predictor of coronary artery disease risk: The ApoB/ApoA1 ratio

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide, and statin therapy is the cornerstone of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, clinical practice is unsatisfactory, and there is significant interest in the risk of residual cardiovascular events. Traditional study methods make it difficult to exclude the crosstalk of confounding factors, and we investigated the impact of the ApoB/ApoA1 ratio on CVD using two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) and multivariate Mendelian randomization (MVMR) methods.

Methods

Two-sample MR and MVMR analyses were performed using pooled statistics from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of ApoB/ApoA1 ratio (BAR), lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)), and triglyceride (TG) in Europeans to assess the causal relationship between BAR, Lp(a), and TG with coronary artery disease (CAD).

Results

The genetic prediction of BAR was significantly correlated with CAD (Inverse variance weighted (IVW) beta = 0.255; OR = 1.291; 95 % CI = 1.061-1.571; P = 0.011) in a two-sample MR analysis. MVMR studies showed that BAR (beta = 0.373; OR = 1.452; 95 % CI = 1.305-1.615; P = 7.217e-12), Lp (a) (beta = 0.238; OR = 1.269; 95 % CI = 1.216-1.323; P = 2.990e-28), and TG (beta = 0.155; OR = 1.168; 95 % CI = 1.074-1.270; P = 2.829e-04) were significantly associated with CAD. After further colinearity analyses of LASSO regressions, the results of multivariate analyses were similar for IVW, MR-Egger, MR-Lasso, and median methods.

Conclusion

BAR is causally related to coronary artery disease. BAR is an independent predictor of CAD risk, independent of routine lipid measurements and other risk factors. TG and Lp(a) may be causally related to CAD, subject to verification in clinical practice.

Associations of lipids and lipid-modifying drug target genes with atrial fibrillation risk based on genomic data

BACKGROUND

The causal associations of lipids and the drug target genes with atrial fibrillation (AF) risk remain obscure. We aimed to investigate the causal associations using genetic evidence.

METHODS

Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses were conducted using summary-level genome-wide association studies (GWASs) in European and East Asian populations. Lipid profiles (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and lipoprotein[a]) and lipid-modifying drug target genes (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9, NPC1-like intracellular cholesterol transporter 1, apolipoprotein C3, angiopoietin-like 3, and lipoprotein[a]) were used as exposures. AF was used as an outcome. The inverse variance weighted method was applied as the primary method. Summary-data-based Mendelian randomization analyses were performed for further validation using expression quantitative trait loci data. Mediation analyses were conducted to explore the indirect effect of coronary heart disease.

RESULTS

In the European population, MR analyses demonstrated that elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) increased AF risk. Moreover, analyses focusing on drug targets revealed that the genetically proxied target gene LPA, which simulates the effects of drug intervention by reducing lipoprotein(a), exhibited an association with AF risk. This association was validated in independent datasets. There were no consistent and significant associations observed for other traits when analyzed in different datasets. This finding was also corroborated by Summary-data-based Mendelian randomization analyses between LPA and AF. Mediation analyses revealed that coronary heart disease plays a mediating role in this association. However, in the East Asian population, no statistically significant evidence was observed to support these associations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided genetic evidence that Lp(a) may be a causal factor for AF and that LPA may represent a promising pharmacological target for preventing AF in the European population.

Serum Lipoprotein(a) Levels as a Predictor of Aortic Stiffness in Patients on Long-Term Peritoneal Dialysis

BACKGROUND Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is associated with atherosclerosis and cardiovascular mortality in patients with kidney failure. Aortic stiffness (AS), measured primarily by carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV), reflects vascular aging and precedes end-organ failure. This study aimed to evaluate the association between serum Lp(a) levels and cfPWV in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD). MATERIAL AND METHODS In this cross-sectional study, which included 148 patients with long-term PD for end-stage kidney failure, cfPWV was measured using a cuff-based method. AS was defined as a cfPWV exceeding 10 m/s, and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to determine serum Lp(a) levels. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify the clinical correlates of AS. RESULTS There were 32 (21.6%) patients diagnosed with AS. Based on the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the odds ratio for AS was 1.007 (95% confidence interval, 1.003-1.011; P=0.001) for every 1 mg/L increase in Lp(a) levels. Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that Lp(a) (P<0.001), age (P=0.003), waist circumference (P=0.008), systolic blood pressure (P=0.010), and diabetes mellitus (P<0.001) were positively associated with cfPWV. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for Lp(a) in differentiating AS from non-AS was 0.770 (95% confidence interval, 0.694-0.835; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Serum Lp(a) level was independently associated with cfPWV and AS in patients with PD.

The Role of Lipoprotein(a) in Peripheral Artery Disease

Lipoprotein(a) is a low-density-lipoprotein-like particle that consists of apolipoprotein(a) bound to apolipoprotein(b). It has emerged as an established causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, stroke, and aortic valve stenosis through multifactorial pathogenic mechanisms that include inflammation, atherogenesis, and thrombosis. Despite an estimated 20% of the global population having elevated lipoprotein(a) levels, testing remains underutilized due to poor awareness and a historical lack of effective and safe therapies. Although lipoprotein(a) has a strong association with coronary artery disease and cerebrovascular disease, its relationship with peripheral artery disease is less well established. In this article, we review the epidemiology, biology, and pathogenesis of lipoprotein(a) as it relates to peripheral artery disease. We also discuss emerging treatment options to help mitigate major adverse cardiac and limb events in this population.

Identifying People at High Risk for Severe Aortic Stenosis: Aortic Valve Calcium Versus Lipoprotein(a) and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve calcification (AVC), Lp(a) [lipoprotein(a)], and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) are associated with severe aortic stenosis (AS). We aimed to determine which of these risk factors were most strongly associated with the risk of incident severe AS.

METHODS

A total of 6792 participants from the MESA study (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) had computed tomography-quantified AVC, Lp(a), and LDL-C values at MESA visit 1 (2000-2002). We calculated the absolute event rate of incident adjudicated severe AS per 1000 person-years and performed multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

The mean age was 62 years old, and 47% were women. Over a median 16.7-year follow-up, the rate of incident severe AS increased exponentially with higher AVC, regardless of Lp(a) or LDL-C values. Participants with AVC=0 had a very low rate of severe AS even with elevated Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL (<0.1/1000 person-years) or LDL-C ≥130 mg/dL (0.1/1000 person-years). AVC >0 was strongly associated with severe AS when Lp(a) <50 mg/dL hazard ratio (HR) of 33.8 (95% CI, 16.4-70.0) or ≥50 mg/dL HR of 61.5 (95% CI, 7.7-494.2) and when LDL-C <130 mg/dL HR of 31.1 (95% CI, 14.4-67.1) or ≥130 mg/dL HR of 50.2 (95% CI, 13.2-191.9).

CONCLUSIONS

AVC better identifies people at high risk for severe AS compared with Lp(a) or LDL-C, and people with AVC=0 have a very low long-term rate of severe AS regardless of Lp(a) or LDL-C level. These results suggest AVC should be the preferred prognostic risk marker to identify patients at high risk for severe AS, which may help inform participant selection for future trials testing novel strategies to prevent severe AS.

Rationale and design of the FRENch CoHort of myocardial Infarction Evaluation (FRENCHIE) study

BACKGROUND

Despite major advances in prevention and treatment, cardiovascular diseases - particularly acute myocardial infarction - remain a leading cause of death worldwide and in France. Collecting contemporary data about the characteristics, management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction in France is important.

AIMS

The main objectives are to describe baseline characteristics, contemporary management, in-hospital and long-term outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction hospitalized in tertiary care centres in France; secondary objectives are to investigate determinants of prognosis (including periodontal disease and sleep-disordered breathing), to identify gaps between evidence-based recommendations and management and to assess medical care costs for the index hospitalization and during the follow-up period.

METHODS

FRENCHIE (FRENch CoHort of myocardial Infarction Evaluation) is an ongoing prospective multicentre observational study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04050956) enrolling more than 19,000 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction with onset of symptoms within 48hours in 35 participating centres in France since March 2019. Main exclusion criteria are age<18 years, lack of health coverage and procedure-related myocardial infarction (types 4a and 5). Detailed information was collected prospectively, starting at admission, including demographic data, risk factors, medical history and treatments, initial management, with prehospital care pathways and medication doses, and outcomes until hospital discharge. The follow-up period (up to 20 years for each patient) is ensured by linking with the French national health database (Système national des données de santé), and includes information on death, hospital admissions, major clinical events, healthcare consumption (including drug reimbursement) and total healthcare costs. FRENCHIE is also used as a platform for cohort-nested studies - currently three randomized trials and two observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide large contemporary cohort with very long-term follow-up will improve knowledge about acute myocardial infarction management and outcomes in France, and provide a useful platform for nested studies and trials.

High lipoprotein(a): Actionable strategies for risk assessment and mitigation

High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] are causal for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Lp(a) is the most prevalent inherited dyslipidemia and strongest genetic ASCVD risk factor. This risk persists in the presence of at target, guideline-recommended, LDL-C levels and adherence to lifestyle modifications. Epidemiological and genetic evidence supporting its causal role in ASCVD and calcific aortic stenosis continues to accumulate, although various facets regarding Lp(a) biology (genetics, pathophysiology, and expression across race/ethnic groups) are not yet fully understood. The evolving nature of clinical guidelines and consensus statements recommending universal measurements of Lp(a) and the scientific data supporting its role in multiple disease states reinforce the clinical merit to start population screening for Lp(a) now. There is a current gap in the implementation of recommendations for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in those with high Lp(a), in part due to a lack of protocols for management strategies. Importantly, targeted apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)]-lowering therapies that reduce Lp(a) levels in patients with high Lp(a) are in phase 3 clinical development. This review focuses on the identification and clinical management of patients with high Lp(a). Specifically, we highlight the clinical value of measuring Lp(a) and its use in determining Lp(a)-associated CVD risk by providing actionable guidance, based on scientific knowledge, that can be utilized now to mitigate risk caused by high Lp(a).

Lipoprotein(a): Emerging insights and therapeutics

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

Aspirin use for primary prevention among US adults with and without elevated Lipoprotein(a)

Objective

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an atherogenic and prothrombotic lipoprotein associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We assessed the association between regular aspirin use and ASCVD mortality among individuals with versus without elevated Lp(a) in a nationally representative US cohort.

Methods

Eligible participants were aged 40-70 years without clinical ASCVD, reported on aspirin use, and had Lp(a) measurements from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994), the only cycle of this nationally representative US cohort to measure Lp(a). Regular aspirin use was defined as taking aspirin ≥30 times in the previous month. Using NHANES III linked mortality records and weighted Cox proportional hazards regression, the association between regular aspirin use and ASCVD mortality was observed in those with and without elevated Lp(a) (≥50 versus <50 mg/dL) over a median 26-year follow-up.

Results

Among 2,990 persons meeting inclusion criteria (∼73 million US adults), the mean age was 50 years, 86% were non-Hispanic White, 9% were non-Hispanic Black, 53% were female, and 7% reported regular aspirin use. The median Lp(a) was 14 mg/dL and the proportion with elevated Lp(a) was similar among those with versus without regular aspirin use (15.1% versus 21.9%, p = 0.16). Among individuals with elevated Lp(a), the incidence of ASCVD mortality per 1,000 person-years was lower for those with versus without regular aspirin use (1.2, 95% CI: 0.1-2.3 versus 3.9, 95% CI: 2.8-4.9). In multivariable modeling, regular aspirin use was associated with a 52% lower risk of ASCVD mortality among individuals with elevated Lp(a) (HR=0.48, 95% CI: 0.28-0.83), but not for those without elevated Lp(a) (HR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.81-1.25; p-interaction=0.001).

Conclusion

Regular aspirin use was associated with significantly lower ASCVD mortality in adults without clinical ASCVD who had elevated Lp(a). These findings may have clinical and public health implications for aspirin utilization in primary prevention.

New insights into the therapeutic options to lower lipoprotein(a)

BACKGROUND

Elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] represent a risk factor for cardiovascular disease including aortic valve stenosis, myocardial infarction and stroke. While the patho-physiological mechanisms linking Lp(a) with atherosclerosis are not fully understood, from genetic studies that lower Lp(a) levels protect from CVD independently of other risk factors including lipids and lipoproteins. Hereby, Lp(a) has been considered an appealing pharmacological target.

RESULTS

However, approved lipid lowering therapies such as statins, ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors have a neutral to modest effect on Lp(a) levels, thus prompting the development of new strategies selectively targeting Lp(a). These include antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) directed towards apolipoprotein(a) [Apo(a)], which are in advanced phase of clinical development. More recently, additional approaches including inhibitors of Apo(a) and gene editing approaches via CRISPR-Cas9 technology entered early clinical development.

CONCLUSION

If the results from the cardiovascular outcome trials, designed to demonstrate whether the reduction of Lp(a) of more than 80% as observed with pelacarsen, olpasiran or lepodisiran translates into the decrease of cardiovascular mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events, will be positive, lowering Lp(a) will become a new additional target in the management of patients with elevated cardiovascular risk.

Synergistic effect of lipoprotein(a) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein on the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a large prospective cohort study

Objective

Although lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP) are closely associated with the mortality of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), their synergistic effect on the risk of death remains unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the combined effect of Lp(a) and Hs-CRP on the incidence of all-cause and cardiovascular death in AMI patients.

Methods

A comprehensive cohort study enrolled 912 AMI patients, categorizing them into four groups based on Lp(a) and Hs-CRP levels: Group 1 [Lp(a) < 30 mg/dL & Hs-CRP < 2 mg/L], Group 2 [Lp(a) < 30 mg/dL & Hs-CRP ≥ 2 mg/L], Group 3 [Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL & Hs-CRP < 2 mg/L], and Group 4 [Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL & Hs-CRP ≥ 2 mg/L]. Cox regression analysis, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and sensitivity analysis were employed to determine the combined effects of Lp(a) and Hs-CRP on the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death.

Results

Over a median observation period of 38.98 months, 217 patients passed away, with 137 deaths attributed to cardiovascular causes. The multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that in the comprehensively adjusted Model 3, only Lp(a) and the combination of Lp(a) and Hs-CRP exhibited a strong association with cardiovascular death risk. Specifically, for Lp(a) levels ≥ 30 mg/dL compared to < 30 mg/dL, the hazard ratio (HR) was 2.434 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.653-3.583 (P < 0.001); for log10(Lp(a)), the HR was 2.630 with a 95% CI of 1.530-4.523 (P < 0.001); for Group 4 versus Group 1, the HR was 2.346 with a 95% CI of 1.054-5.220 (P = 0.037); and for Group 4 versus Groups 1 + 2 + 3, the HR was 1.878 with a 95% CI of 1.284-2.748 (P = 0.001). Sensitivity analysis indicated that the synergy between Lp(a) and Hs-CRP continued to be independently associated with the risk of cardiovascular death. For Group 3 versus Group 1, the HR was 3.353 with a 95% CI of 1.133-9.917 (P = 0.029); for Group 4 versus Group 1, the HR was 3.710 with a 95% CI of 1.466-9.392 (P = 0.006); and for Group 4 versus Groups 1 + 2 + 3, the HR was 2.433 with a 95% CI of 1.620-3.656 (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Compared to elevated levels of either Lp(a) or Hs-CRP alone, the concurrent high levels of both significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular death in patients with AMI, underscoring the importance of considering their combined effects in the prognostic management of AMI patients.

Race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status affect the assessment of lipoprotein(a) levels in clinical practice

Background and Objective

High Lp(a) levels are a risk factor for ASCVD, however Lp(a) ordering in clinical practice is low. This study examines how race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status influence Lp(a) ordering.

Methods

This is a single center, retrospective study (2/1/2020-6/30/2023) using electronic medical records of adults with at least one ICD-10 diagnosis of ASCVD or resistant hyperlipidemia (LDL-C >160 mg/dL on statin therapy). We evaluated Lp(a) level differences among racial/ethnic groups and sexes. We also assessed associations between diagnosis type, diagnosis number, age at diagnosis, race, socioeconomic score (based on zip codes), public health coverage and presence of Lp(a) orders.

Results

4% of our cohort (N=56,833) had an Lp(a) order (17.3% Hispanic, 8.7% non-Hispanic Black, 47.5% non-Hispanic White and, 27% Asian/others). Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients had lower rates of Lp(a) orders (0.17%, 0.28%, respectively) when compared to non-Hispanic White patients (2.35%), p<0.001, however, their median Lp(a) levels were higher. Individuals belonging to deprived socioeconomic groups or on Medicaid, were less likely to have an Lp(a) order (RR=0.39, p<0.001 and RR=0.40, p<0.001 respectively). Certain diagnoses (carotid stenosis, family history of ASCVD and FH) and multiple diagnoses (>2) resulted in more Lp(a) orders compared to those with only one diagnosis (p<0.001).

Conclusions

Lp(a) ordering is low in patients with ASCVD. Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients at risk are less likely to have an Lp(a) order. Individuals residing in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods and on Medicaid are also less like have Lp(a) order. Lp(a) orders depend on the type and number of patients' diagnoses.

Functional interrogation of cellular Lp(a) uptake by genome-scale CRISPR screening

An elevated level of lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), in the bloodstream has been causally linked to the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and calcific aortic valve stenosis. Steady state levels of circulating lipoproteins are modulated by their rate of clearance, but the identity of the Lp(a) uptake receptor(s) has been controversial. In this study, we performed a genome-scale CRISPR screen to functionally interrogate all potential Lp(a) uptake regulators in HuH7 cells. Strikingly, the top positive and negative regulators of Lp(a) uptake in our screen were LDLR and MYLIP, encoding the LDL receptor and its ubiquitin ligase IDOL, respectively. We also found a significant correlation for other genes with established roles in LDLR regulation. No other gene products, including those previously proposed as Lp(a) receptors, exhibited a significant effect on Lp(a) uptake in our screen. We validated the functional influence of LDLR expression on HuH7 Lp(a) uptake, confirmed in vitro binding between the LDLR extracellular domain and purified Lp(a), and detected an association between loss-of-function LDLR variants and increased circulating Lp(a) levels in the UK Biobank cohort. Together, our findings support a central role for the LDL receptor in mediating Lp(a) uptake by hepatocytes.

Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease: sifting the evidence to guide future research

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a genetically determined causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease including coronary heart disease, peripheral arterial disease, ischaemic stroke, and calcific aortic valve stenosis. Clinical trials of specific and potent Lp(a)-lowering drugs are currently underway. However, in clinical practice, widespread assessment of Lp(a) is still lacking despite several guideline recommendations to measure Lp(a) at least once in a lifetime in all adults to identify those at high or very high risk due to elevated levels. The present review provides an overview of key findings from observational and genetic Lp(a) studies, highlights the main challenges in observational Lp(a) studies, and proposes a minimum set of requirements to enhance the quality and harmonize the collection of Lp(a)-related data. Adherence to the recommendations set forth in the present manuscript is intended to enhance the quality of future observational Lp(a) studies, to better define thresholds for increased risk, and to better inform clinical trial design. The recommendations can also potentially assist in the interpretation and generalization of clinical trial findings, to improve care of patients with elevated Lp(a) and optimize treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease.

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

Background

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

Methods and results

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

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42023476543).

The Association of High Lipoprotein(a) Concentration and Risk of Ischaemic Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation Patients

Background

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a well-established risk factor for ischaemic stroke (IS). It is unclear whether Lp(a) is associated with IS in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study is to explore the association between the concentration of Lp(a) and the risk of IS in AF patients, hope to find the potential risk factor for the IS in AF patients.

Methods

This study is a retrospective cohort study. The screened AF patients between January 2017 and July 2021 were matched at 1:1 by the propensity score matching (PSM) method in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University. Associations between Lp(a) and ischaemic stroke were analysed using logistic regression models, stratified analysis and sensitivity analysis. Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS software.

Results

The number of enrolled participates is 2258, which contains 1129 non-AF patients and 1129 AF patients. Among IS patients, the median Lp(a) concentration was higher than that of controls (17.03 vs. 15.36 mg/dL, P = 0.032). The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients revealed significant positive relationships between IS and Lp(a) (P = 0.032). In addition, a significant increase in IS risk was associated with Lp(a) levels >30.00 mg/dL in unadjusted model [OR:1.263, 95% CI(1.046-1.523), P = 0.015], model 1 [OR:1.284, 95% CI(1.062,1.552), P = 0.010], model 2 [OR: 1.297, 95% CI(1.07,1.573). P = 0.008], and model 3 [OR: 1.290, 95% CI (1.064, 1.562). P = 0.009]. The stratified analysis indicated that this correlation was not affected by female sex [1.484 (1.117, 1.972), P = 0.006], age ≤ 60 [1.864 (1.067-3.254), P=0.029], hypertension [1.359 (1.074, 1.721), P = 0.011], or non-coronary heart disease (CHD) [1.388 (1.108, 1.738), P = 0.004].

Conclusion

High levels of Lp(a) were significantly related to IS in AF patients and may be a potential risk factor in the onset of an IS in AF patients.

Independent Relationship of Lipoprotein(a) and Carotid Atherosclerosis With Long-Term Risk of Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is considered to be a causal risk factor of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether there is an independent or joint association of Lp(a) and atherosclerotic plaque with ASCVD risk remains uncertain. This study aims to assess ASCVD risk independently or jointly conferred by Lp(a) and carotid atherosclerotic plaque.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 5471 participants with no history of cardiovascular disease at baseline were recruited and followed up for ASCVD events (all fatal and nonfatal acute coronary and ischemic stroke events) over a median of 11.5 years. Independent association of Lp(a), or the joint association of Lp(a) and carotid plaque with ASCVD risk, was explored using Cox proportional hazards models. Overall, 7.6% of the participants (60.0±7.9 years of age; 2649 [48.4%] men) had Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL, and 539 (8.4/1000 person-years) incident ASCVD events occurred. Lp(a) concentrations were independently associated with long-term risk of total ASCVD events, as well as coronary events and ischemic stroke events. Participants with Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL had a 62% higher risk of ASCVD incidence (95% CI, 1.19-2.21) than those with Lp(a) <10 mg/dL, and they exhibited a 10-year ASCVD incidence of 11.7%. This association exists even after adjusting for prevalent plaque. Moreover, participants with Lp(a) ≥30 mg/dL and prevalent plaque had a significant 4.18 times higher ASCVD risk than those with Lp(a) <30 mg/dL and no plaque.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher Lp(a) concentrations are independently associated with long-term ASCVD risk and may exaggerate cardiovascular risk when concomitant with atherosclerotic plaque.

Plasma Biomarker Profiles for Premature and Nonpremature Coronary Heart Disease in Women

BACKGROUND

Premature coronary heart disease (CHD) is a major cause of death in women. We aimed to characterize biomarker profiles of women who developed CHD before and after age 65 years.

METHODS

In the Women's Health Study (median follow-up 21.5 years), women were grouped by age and timing of incident CHD: baseline age <65 years with premature CHD by age 65 years (25 042 women; 447 events) and baseline age ≥65 years with nonpremature CHD (2982 women; 351 events). Associations of 44 baseline plasma biomarkers measured using standard assays and a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-metabolomics assay were analyzed using Cox models adjusted for clinical risk factors.

RESULTS

Twelve biomarkers showed associations only with premature CHD and included lipoprotein(a), which was associated with premature CHD [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) per SD: 1.29 (95% CI 1.17-1.42)] but not with nonpremature CHD [1.09(0.98-1.22)](Pinteraction = 0.02). NMR-measured lipoprotein insulin resistance was associated with the highest risk of premature CHD [1.92 (1.52-2.42)] but was not associated with nonpremature CHD (Pinteraction <0.001). Eleven biomarkers showed stronger associations with premature vs nonpremature CHD, including apolipoprotein B. Nine NMR biomarkers showed no association with premature or nonpremature CHD, whereas 12 biomarkers showed similar significant associations with premature and nonpremature CHD, respectively, including low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol [1.30(1.20-1.45) and 1.22(1.10-1.35)] and C-reactive protein [1.34(1.19-1.50) and 1.25(1.08-1.44)].

CONCLUSIONS

In women, a profile of 12 biomarkers was selectively associated with premature CHD, driven by lipoprotein(a) and insulin-resistant atherogenic dyslipoproteinemia. This has implications for the development of biomarker panels to screen for premature CHD.

Discovery of potent small-molecule inhibitors of lipoprotein(a) formation

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), an independent, causal cardiovascular risk factor, is a lipoprotein particle that is formed by the interaction of a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle and apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a))1,2. Apo(a) first binds to lysine residues of apolipoprotein B-100 (apoB-100) on LDL through the Kringle IV (KIV) 7 and 8 domains, before a disulfide bond forms between apo(a) and apoB-100 to create Lp(a) (refs. 3-7). Here we show that the first step of Lp(a) formation can be inhibited through small-molecule interactions with apo(a) KIV7-8. We identify compounds that bind to apo(a) KIV7-8, and, through chemical optimization and further application of multivalency, we create compounds with subnanomolar potency that inhibit the formation of Lp(a). Oral doses of prototype compounds and a potent, multivalent disruptor, LY3473329 (muvalaplin), reduced the levels of Lp(a) in transgenic mice and in cynomolgus monkeys. Although multivalent molecules bind to the Kringle domains of rat plasminogen and reduce plasmin activity, species-selective differences in plasminogen sequences suggest that inhibitor molecules will reduce the levels of Lp(a), but not those of plasminogen, in humans. These data support the clinical development of LY3473329-which is already in phase 2 studies-as a potent and specific orally administered agent for reducing the levels of Lp(a).

Clinical impact of genetic testing for lipid disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Genetic testing is increasingly becoming a common consideration in the clinical approach of dyslipidemia patients. Advances in research in last decade and increased recognition of genetics in biological pathways modulating blood lipid levels created a gap between theoretical knowledge and its applicability in clinical practice. Therefore, it is very important to define the clinical justification of genetic testing in dyslipidemia patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Clinical indications for genetic testing for most dyslipidemias are not precisely defined and there are no clearly established guideline recommendations. In patients with severe low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, the genetic analysis can be used to guide diagnostic and therapeutic approach, while in severe hypertriglyceridemia (HTG), clinicians can rely on triglyceride level rather than a genotype along the treatment pathway. Genetic testing increases diagnostic accuracy and risk stratification, access and adherence to specialty therapies, and cost-effectiveness of cascade testing. A shared decision-making model between the provider and the patient is essential as patient values, preferences and clinical characteristics play a very strong role.

SUMMARY

Genetic testing for lipid disorders is currently underutilized in clinical practice. However, it should be selectively used, according to the type of dyslipidemia and when the benefits overcome costs.

A focused update to the 2019 NLA scientific statement on use of lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice

Since the 2019 National Lipid Association (NLA) Scientific Statement on Use of Lipoprotein(a) in Clinical Practice was issued, accumulating epidemiological data have clarified the relationship between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level and cardiovascular disease risk and risk reduction. Therefore, the NLA developed this focused update to guide clinicians in applying this emerging evidence in clinical practice. We now have sufficient evidence to support the recommendation to measure Lp(a) levels at least once in every adult for risk stratification. Individuals with Lp(a) levels <75 nmol/L (30 mg/dL) are considered low risk, individuals with Lp(a) levels ≥125 nmol/L (50 mg/dL) are considered high risk, and individuals with Lp(a) levels between 75 and 125 nmol/L (30-50 mg/dL) are at intermediate risk. Cascade screening of first-degree relatives of patients with elevated Lp(a) can identify additional individuals at risk who require intervention. Patients with elevated Lp(a) should receive early, more-intensive risk factor management, including lifestyle modification and lipid-lowering drug therapy in high-risk individuals, primarily to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an indication for lipoprotein apheresis (which reduces both Lp(a) and LDL-C) in high-risk patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and documented coronary or peripheral artery disease whose Lp(a) level remains ≥60 mg/dL [∼150 nmol/L)] and LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. Although Lp(a) is an established independent causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and despite the high prevalence of Lp(a) elevation (∼1 of 5 individuals), measurement rates are low, warranting improved screening strategies for cardiovascular disease prevention.

All we need to know about lipoprotein(a)

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], a genetically determined macromolecular complex, is independently and causally associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic stenosis via proposed proinflammatory, prothrombotic, and proatherogenic mechanisms. While Lp(a) measurement standardization issues are being resolved, several guidelines now support testing Lp(a) at least once in each adult's lifetime for ASCVD risk prediction which can foster implementation of more aggressive primary or secondary prevention therapies. Currently, there are several emerging targeted Lp(a) lowering therapies in active clinical investigation for safety and cardiovascular benefit among both primary and secondary prevention populations. First degree relatives of patients with high Lp(a) should be encouraged to undergo cascade screening. Primary prevention patients with high Lp(a) should consider obtaining a coronary calcium score for further risk estimation and to guide further ASCVD risk factor management including consideration of low dose aspirin therapy. Secondary prevention patients with high Lp(a) levels should consider adding PCSK9 inhibition to statin therapy.

Clinical practice recommendations on lipoprotein apheresis for children with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: An expert consensus statement from ERKNet and ESPN

Homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia is a life-threatening genetic condition, which causes extremely elevated LDL-C levels and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease very early in life. It is vital to start effective lipid-lowering treatment from diagnosis onwards. Even with dietary and current multimodal pharmaceutical lipid-lowering therapies, LDL-C treatment goals cannot be achieved in many children. Lipoprotein apheresis is an extracorporeal lipid-lowering treatment, which is used for decades, lowering serum LDL-C levels by more than 70% directly after the treatment. Data on the use of lipoprotein apheresis in children with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia mainly consists of case-reports and case-series, precluding strong evidence-based guidelines. We present a consensus statement on lipoprotein apheresis in children based on the current available evidence and opinions from experts in lipoprotein apheresis from over the world. It comprises practical statements regarding the indication, methods, treatment goals and follow-up of lipoprotein apheresis in children with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia and on the role of lipoprotein(a) and liver transplantation.

Lipoprotein(a) and Long-Term Cardiovascular Risk in a Multi-Ethnic Pooled Prospective Cohort

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a causal genetic risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). There are limited long-term follow-up data from large U.S. population cohorts.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the relationship of Lp(a) with ASCVD outcomes in a large, pooled, multi-ethnic U.S.

COHORT

METHODS

The study included data on Lp(a) and ASCVD outcomes from 5 U.S.

PROSPECTIVE STUDIES

MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), CARDIA (Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults), JHS (Jackson Heart Study), FHS-OS (Framingham Heart Study-Offspring), and ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities). Lp(a) levels were classified on the basis of cohort-specific percentiles. Multivariable Cox regression related Lp(a) with composite incident ASCVD events by risk group and diabetes status.

RESULTS

The study included 27,756 persons without previous ASCVD who were aged 20 to 79 years, including 55.0% women, 35.6% Black participants, and 7.6% patients with diabetes, with mean follow-up of 21.1 years. Compared with Lp(a) levels <50th percentile, Lp(a) levels in the 50th to <75th, 75th to <90th, and ≥90th percentiles had adjusted HRs of 1.06 (95% CI: 0.99-1.14), 1.18 (95% CI: 1.09-1.28), and 1.46 (95% CI: 1.33-1.59), respectively for ASCVD events. Elevated Lp(a) predicted incident ASCVD events similarly by risk group, sex, and race or ethnic groups, but more strongly in patients with vs without diabetes (interaction P = 0.0056), with HRs for Lp(a) levels ≥90th percentile of 1.92 (95% CI: 1.50-2.45) and 1.41 (95% CI: 1.28-1.55), respectively. Lp(a) also individually predicted myocardial infarction, revascularization, stroke, and coronary heart disease death, but not total mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows, in a large U.S. pooled cohort, that higher Lp(a) levels are associated with an increased ASCVD risk, including in patients with diabetes.

Lipoprotein(a) Blood Levels and Cardiovascular Risk Reduction With Icosapent Ethyl

BACKGROUND

Elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) concentrations are associated with increased cardiovascular event risk even in the presence of well-controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, but few treatments are documented to reduce this residual risk.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this post hoc analysis of REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial) was to explore the cardiovascular benefit of icosapent ethyl (IPE) across a range of Lp(a) levels.

METHODS

A total of 8,179 participants receiving statin therapy with established cardiovascular disease or age ≥50 years with diabetes and ≥1 additional risk factor, fasting triglyceride 1.69 to 5.63 mmol/L, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 1.06 to 2.59 mmol/L were randomized to receive 2 g twice daily of IPE or matching placebo. Relationships between continuous baseline Lp(a) mass concentration and risk for first and total (first and subsequent) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were analyzed, along with the effects of IPE on first MACE among those with Lp(a) concentrations ≥50 or <50 mg/dL.

RESULTS

Among 7,026 participants (86% of those randomized) with baseline Lp(a) assessments, the median concentration was 11.6 mg/dL (Q1-Q3: 5.0-37.4 mg/dL). Lp(a) had significant relationships with first and total MACE (P < 0.0001), while event reductions with IPE did not vary across the range of Lp(a) (interaction P > 0.10). IPE significantly reduced first MACE in subgroups with concentrations ≥50 and <50 mg/dL.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline Lp(a) concentration was prognostic for MACE among participants with elevated triglyceride levels receiving statin therapy. Importantly, IPE consistently reduced MACE across a range of Lp(a) levels, including among those with clinically relevant elevations.

Dietary n-3 alpha-linolenic and n-6 linoleic acids modestly lower serum lipoprotein(a) concentration but differentially influence other atherogenic lipoprotein traits: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a causal, genetically determined cardiovascular risk factor. Limited evidence suggests that dietary unsaturated fat may increase serum Lp(a) concentration by 10-15 %. Linoleic acid may increase Lp(a) concentration through its endogenous conversion to arachidonic acid, a process regulated by the fatty acid desaturase (FADS) gene cluster. We aimed to compare the Lp(a) and other lipoprotein trait-modulating effects of dietary alpha-linolenic (ALA) and linoleic acids (LA). Additionally, we examined whether FADS1 rs174550 genotype modifies Lp(a) responses.

METHODS

A genotype-based randomized trial was performed in 118 men homozygous for FADS1 rs174550 SNP (TT or CC). After a 4-week run-in period, the participants were randomized to 8-week intervention diets enriched with either Camelina sativa oil (ALA diet) or sunflower oil (LA diet) 30-50 mL/day based on their BMI. Serum lipid profile was measured at baseline and at the end of the intervention.

RESULTS

ALA diet lowered serum Lp(a) concentration by 7.3 % (p = 0.003) and LA diet by 9.5 % (p < 0.001) (p = 0.089 for between-diet difference). Both diets led to greater absolute decreases in individuals with higher baseline Lp(a) concentration (p < 0.001). Concentrations of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), non-HDL-C, remnant-C, and apolipoprotein B were lowered more by the ALA diet (p < 0.01). Lipid or lipoprotein responses were not modified by the FADS1 rs174550 genotype.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable increase in either dietary ALA or LA from vegetable oils has a similar Lp(a)-lowering effect, whereas ALA may lower other major atherogenic lipids and lipoproteins to a greater extent than LA. Genetic differences in endogenous PUFA conversion may not influence serum Lp(a) concentration.

Worldwide Increasing Use of Nonfasting Rather Than Fasting Lipid Profiles

BACKGROUND

Historically, lipids and lipoproteins were measured in the fasting state for cardiovascular risk prediction; however, since 2009 use of nonfasting lipid profiles has increased substantially worldwide. For patients, nonfasting lipid profiles are convenient and avoid any risk of hypoglycemia. For laboratories, blood sampling in the morning and extra visits for patients who have not fasted are avoided. For patients, clinicians, hospitals, and society, nonfasting sampling allows same-day visits with first blood sampling followed by a short wait for test results before clinical consultation. Therefore, nonfasting compared to fasting lipid profiles will save money and time and may improve patient compliance with cardiovascular prevention programs.

CONTENT

We report on the progression of endorsement and implementation of nonfasting lipid profiles for cardiovascular risk prediction worldwide and summarize the recommendations from major medical societies and health authorities in different countries. We also describe practical advantages and disadvantages for using nonfasting lipid profiles. Further, we include a description of why fasting has been the standard historically, the barriers against implementation of nonfasting lipid profiles, and finally we suggest the optimal content of a nonfasting lipid profile.

SUMMARY

Lipid, lipoprotein, and apolipoprotein concentrations vary minimally in response to normal food intake and nonfasting lipid profiles are equal or superior to fasting profiles for cardiovascular risk prediction. Major guidelines and consensus statements in Europe, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Japan, India, and Australia now endorse use of nonfasting lipid profiles in some or all patients; however, there are still gaps in endorsement and implementation of nonfasting lipid profiles worldwide.

Discrimination and net-reclassification of cardiovascular disease risk with Lipoprotein(a) levels: The ATTICA study (2002-2022)

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a recognized as risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, its influence on clinical risk evaluations remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether Lp(a) improves CVD risk prediction among apparently healthy adults from the general population.

METHODS

In 2002, n = 3,042 adults free of CVD, residing in Athens metropolitan area, in Greece, were recruited. A 20-year follow-up was conducted in 2022, comprising n = 2,169 participants, of which n = 1,988 had complete data for CVD incidence.

RESULTS

Lp(a) levels were significantly associated with 20-year ASCVD incidence in the crude model (Hazard Ratio per 1 mg/dL: 1.004, p = 0.048), but not in multi-adjusted models considering demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors. Adding Lp(a) to the Reynolds Risk Score (RRS) and Framingham Risk Score (FRS) variables resulted in positive Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI) values (0.159 and 0.160 respectively), indicating improved risk classification. Mediation analysis suggested that C-reactive protein, Interleukin-6, and Fibrinogen mediate the relationship between Lp(a) and ASCVD. No significant interaction was observed between Lp(a) and potential moderators.

CONCLUSION

Lp(a) levels can predict 20-year CVD outcomes and improve CVD risk prediction within the general population, possibly via the intricate relationship between Lp(a), systemic inflammation, atherothrombosis.

Consensus on lipoprotein(a) of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis. Literature review and recommendations for clinical practice

The irruption of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) in the study of cardiovascular risk factors is perhaps, together with the discovery and use of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (iPCSK9) inhibitor drugs, the greatest novelty in the field for decades. Lp(a) concentration (especially very high levels) has an undeniable association with certain cardiovascular complications, such as atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD) and aortic stenosis. However, there are several current limitations to both establishing epidemiological associations and specific pharmacological treatment. Firstly, the measurement of Lp(a) is highly dependent on the test used, mainly because of the characteristics of the molecule. Secondly, Lp(a) concentration is more than 80% genetically determined, so that, unlike other cardiovascular risk factors, it cannot be regulated by lifestyle changes. Finally, although there are many promising clinical trials with specific drugs to reduce Lp(a), currently only iPCSK9 (limited for use because of its cost) significantly reduces Lp(a). However, and in line with other scientific societies, the SEA considers that, with the aim of increasing knowledge about the contribution of Lp(a) to cardiovascular risk, it is relevant to produce a document containing the current status of the subject, recommendations for the control of global cardiovascular risk in people with elevated Lp(a) and recommendations on the therapeutic approach to patients with elevated Lp(a).

Advancements in Omics and Breakthrough Gene Therapies: A Glimpse into the Future of Peripheral Artery Disease

Peripheral artery disease (PAD), a highly prevalent global disease, associates with significant morbidity and mortality in affected patients. Despite progress in endovascular and open revascularization techniques for advanced PAD, these interventions grapple with elevated rates of arterial restenosis and vein graft failure attributed to intimal hyperplasia (IH). Novel multiomics technologies, coupled with sophisticated analyses tools recently powered by advances in artificial intelligence, have enabled the study of atherosclerosis and IH with unprecedented single-cell and spatial precision. Numerous studies have pinpointed gene hubs regulating pivotal atherogenic and atheroprotective signaling pathways as potential therapeutic candidates. Leveraging advancements in viral and nonviral gene therapy (GT) platforms, gene editing technologies, and cutting-edge biomaterial reservoirs for delivery uniquely positions us to develop safe, efficient, and targeted GTs for PAD-related diseases. Gene therapies appear particularly fitting for ex vivo genetic engineering of IH-resistant vein grafts. This manuscript highlights currently available state-of-the-art multiomics approaches, explores promising GT-based candidates, and details GT delivery modalities employed by our laboratory and others to thwart mid-term vein graft failure caused by IH, as well as other PAD-related conditions. The potential clinical translation of these targeted GTs holds the promise to revolutionize PAD treatment, thereby enhancing patients' quality of life and life expectancy.

Apolipoprotein(a) production and clearance are associated with plasma IL-6 and IL-18 levels, dependent on ethnicity

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High plasma lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] levels are associated with increased atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), in part attributed to elevated inflammation. High plasma Lp(a) levels inversely correlate with apolipoprotein (a) [(APO(a)] isoform size. APO(a) isoform size is negatively associated with APO(a) production rate (PR) and positively associated with APO(a) fractional catabolic rate (FCR). We asked whether APO(a) PR and FCR (kinetics) are associated with plasma levels of interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-18, pro-inflammatory interleukins that promote ASCVD.

METHODS

We used samples from existing data of APO(a) kinetic studies from an ethnically diverse cohort (n = 25: 10 Black, 9 Hispanic, and 6 White subjects) and assessed IL-6 and IL-18 plasma levels. We performed multivariate linear regression analyses to examine the relationships between predictors APO(a) PR or APO(a) FCR, and outcome variables IL-6 or IL-18. In these analyses, we adjusted for parameters known to affect Lp(a) levels and APO(a) PR and FCR, including race/ethnicity and APO(a) isoform size.

RESULTS

APO(a) PR and FCR were positively associated with plasma IL-6, independent of isoform size, and dependent on race/ethnicity. APO(a) PR was positively associated with plasma IL-18, independent of isoform size and race/ethnicity. APO(a) FCR was not associated with plasma IL-18.

CONCLUSIONS

Our studies demonstrate a relationship between APO(a) PR and FCR and plasma IL-6 or IL-18, interleukins that promote ASCVD. These studies provide new insights into Lp(a) pro-inflammatory properties and are especially relevant in view of therapies targeting APO(a) to decrease cardiovascular risk.

Lipoprotein(a) is associated with recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease and prediabetes or diabetes

PURPOSE

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and diabetes mellitus (DM) are both associated with adverse events in high-risk patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD). Currently, the association between Lp(a) levels and recurrent cardiovascular (CV) events (CVEs) remained undetermined in patients with different glucose status. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the prognostic significance of Lp(a) levels for recurrent CVEs in high-risk CAD patients who suffered from first CVEs according to different glycemic metabolism.

METHODS

We recruited 5257 consecutive patients with prior CVEs and followed up for recurrent CVEs, including CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and non-fatal stroke. Patients were assigned to low, medium, and high groups according to Lp(a) levels and further stratified by glucose status.

RESULTS

During a median 37-month follow-up, 225 (4.28%) recurrent CVEs occurred. High Lp(a) was independently associated with recurrent CVEs [adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR), 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-2.19; P = 0.008]. When participants were classified according to Lp(a) levels and glycemic status, high Lp(a) levels were associated with an increased risk of recurrent CVEs in pre-DM (adjusted HR, 2.96; 95% CI 1.24-7.05; P = 0.014). Meanwhile, medium and high Lp(a) levels were both associated with an increased risk for recurrent CVEs in DM (adjusted HR, 3.09; 95% CI 1.30-7.34; P = 0.010 and adjusted HR, 3.13, 95% CI 1.30-7.53; P = 0.011, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that elevated Lp(a) levels were associated with an increased recurrent CVE risk in patients with CAD, particularly among those with pre-DM and DM, indicating that Lp(a) may provide incremental value in risk stratification in this population.

Associations between lipid abnormalities and diabetic retinopathy across a large United States national database

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

While dyslipidaemia has been suggested as a potential risk factor for diabetic retinopathy (DR), previous studies have reported conflicting findings. This study aimed to better characterize the relationship between abnormal serum levels of various lipid markers and the risk of the development and progression of DR.

SUBJECTS/METHODS

This retrospective cohort study utilized a United States national database of electronic medical records. Adults with a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus without type 1 diabetes mellitus were divided into cohorts based on the presence of abnormal serum levels of various lipid markers. Propensity score matching was performed to match cohorts with abnormal lipid levels to those with normal lipid levels on covariates. The cohorts were then compared to evaluate the hazard ratios (HR) of receiving a new DR diagnosis, pars plana vitrectomy, panretinal photocoagulation, vitreous haemorrhage, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular oedema (DMO), and traction retinal detachment.

RESULTS

The database contained 1,126,231 eligible patients (mean age: 60.8 [14.2] years; 46.0% female). Among patients without prior DR, low HDL (HR = 0.94, CI = 0.90-0.98), total cholesterol (HR = 0.88, CI = 0.85-0.91), and high triglyceride (HR = 0.91, CI = 0.86-0.97) levels were associated with a decreased risk of receiving a DR diagnosis. Among patients with preexisting DR, high LDL levels was associated with an increased risk of DMO (HR = 1.42, CI = 1.15-1.75), whereas low HDL levels was associated with a marginally decreased risk (HR = 0.92, CI = 0.85-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated levels of markers of dyslipidaemia are inversely associated with the risk of receiving a DR diagnosis, but this relationship is blunted after the onset of DR.

Small apolipoprotein(a) isoforms may predict primary patency following peripheral arterial revascularization

Background

High lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is associated with adverse limb events in patients undergoing lower extremity revascularization. Lp(a) levels are genetically pre-determined, with LPA gene encoding for two apolipoprotein (a) [apo(a)] isoforms. Isoform size variations are driven by the number of kringle IV type 2 (KIV-2) repeats. Lp(a) levels are inversely correlated with isoform size. In this study, we examined the role of Lp(a) levels, apo(a) size and inflammatory markers with lower extremity revascularization outcomes.

Methods

25 subjects with chronic peripheral arterial disease (PAD), underwent open or endovascular lower extremity revascularization (mean age of 66.7±9.7 years; F=12, M=13; Black=8, Hispanic=5, and White=12). Pre- and post-operative medical history, self-reported symptoms, ankle brachial indices (ABIs), and lower extremity duplex ultrasounds were obtained. Plasma Lp(a), apoB100, lipid panel, and pro-inflammatory markers (IL-6, IL-18, hs-CRP, TNFα) were assayed preoperatively. Isoform size was estimated using gel electrophoresis and weighted isoform size ( wIS ) calculated based on % isoform expression. Firth logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between Lp(a) levels, and wIS with procedural outcomes: symptoms (better/worse), primary patency at 2-4 weeks, ABIs, and re-intervention within 3-6 months. We controlled for age, sex, history of diabetes, smoking, statin, antiplatelet and anticoagulation use.

Results

Median plasma Lp(a) level was 108 (44, 301) nmol/L. The mean apoB100 level was 168.0 ± 65.8 mg/dL. These values were not statistically different among races. We found no association between Lp(a) levels and w IS with measured plasma pro-inflammatory markers. However, smaller apo(a) wIS was associated with occlusion of the treated lesion(s) in the postoperative period [OR=1.97 (95% CI 1.01 - 3.86, p<0.05)]. The relationship of smaller apo(a) wIS with re-intervention was not as strong [OR=1.57 (95% CI 0.96 - 2.56), p=0.07]. We observed no association between wIS with patient reported symptoms or change in ABIs.

Conclusions

In this small study, subjects with smaller apo(a) isoform size undergoing peripheral arterial revascularization were more likely to experience occlusion in the perioperative period and/or require re-intervention. Larger cohort studies identifying the mechanism and validating these preliminary data are needed to improve understanding of long-term peripheral vascular outcomes.

Key Findings

25 subjects with symptomatic PAD underwent open or endovascular lower extremity revascularization in a small cohort. Smaller apo(a) isoforms were associated with occlusion of the treated lesion(s) within 2-4 weeks [OR=1.97 (95% CI 1.01 - 3.86, p<0.05)], suggesting apo(a) isoform size as a predictor of primary patency in the early period after lower extremity intervention.

Take Home Message

Subjects with high Lp(a) levels, generally have smaller apo(a) isoform sizes. We find that, in this small cohort, patients undergoing peripheral arterial revascularization subjects with small isoforms are at an increased risk of treated vessel occlusion in the perioperative period.

Table of Contents Summary

Subjects with symptomatic PAD requiring lower extremity revascularization have high median Lp(a) levels. Individuals with smaller apo(a) weighted isoform size (wIS) have lower primary patency rates and/or require re-intervention.

Influence of triglyceride concentration in lipoprotein (a) as a function of dyslipidemia

BACKGROUND

Recently, an inverse relationship between the blood concentration of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and triglycerides (TG) has been demonstrated. The larger the VLDL particle size, the greater the presence of VLDL rich in apoliprotein E and in subjects with the apoE2/E2 genotype, the lower Lp(a) concentration. The mechanism of this inverse association is unknown. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the Lp(a)-TG association in patients treated at the lipid units included in the registry of the Spanish Society of Atherosclerosis (SEA) by comparing the different dyslipidemias.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Five thousand two hundred and seventy-five subjects ≥18 years of age registered in the registry before March 31, 2023, with Lp(a) concentration data and complete lipid profile information without treatment were included.

RESULTS

The mean age was 53.0 ± 14.0 years, with 48% women. The 9.5% of subjects (n = 502) had diabetes and the 22.4% (n = 1184) were obese. The median TG level was 130 mg/dL (IQR 88.0-210) and Lp(a) 55.0 nmol/L (IQR 17.9-156). Lp(a) concentration showed a negative association with TG concentration when TG values exceeded 300 mg/dL. Subjects with TG > 1000 mg/dL showed the lowest level of Lp(a), 17.9 nmol/L, and subjects with TG < 300 mg/dL had a mean Lp(a) concentration of 60.1 nmol/L. In subjects without diabetes or obesity, the inverse association of Lp(a)-TG was especially important (p < 0.001). The median Lp(a) was 58.3 nmol/L in those with TG < 300 mg/dL and 22.0 nmol/L if TG > 1000 mg/dL. No association was found between TG and Lp(a) in subjects with diabetes and obesity, nor in subjects with familial hypercholesterolemia. In subjects with multifactorial combined hyperlipemia with TG < 300 mg/dL, Lp(a) was 64.6 nmol/L; in the range of 300-399 mg/dL of TG, Lp(a) decreased to 38. 8 nmol/L, and up to 22.3 nmol/L when TG > 1000 mg/dL.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show an inverse Lp(a)-TG relationship in TG concentrations > 300 mg/dL in subjects without diabetes, obesity and without familial hypercholesterolemia. Our results suggest that, in those hypertriglyceridemias due to hepatic overproduction of VLDL, the formation of Lp(a) is reduced, unlike those in which the peripheral catabolism of TG-rich lipoproteins is reduced.

Lipoprotein(a) levels and carotid intima-media thickness in children: A 20-year follow-up study

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is independently associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD). In a recent long-term follow-up study involving children with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), Lp(a) levels contributed significantly to early atherosclerosis, as measured by carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT). To determine if this holds true for children without FH, we conducted a 20-year follow-up study, examining 88 unaffected siblings (mean age: 12.9 years) of children with FH. No significant association was found between Lp(a) and cIMT during follow-up (ß-adjusted [95% confidence interval] = 0.0001 [-0.008 to 0.008] mm per 50 nmol/L increase Lp(a), p = 0.97). In conclusion, our findings suggest that elevated levels of Lp(a) do not play a significant role in arterial wall thickening among children without FH during the 20-year follow-up period. This leads us to consider the possibility that cIMT may not be a suitable marker for detecting potential subtle changes in the arterial wall mediated by Lp(a) in the young, general population. However, it could also be that elevated Lp(a) is only a significant risk factor for atherosclerosis in the presence of other risk factors such as FH.

Connecting impaired fibrinolysis and dyslipidemia

A State of the Art lecture entitled "Connecting Fibrinolysis and Dyslipidemia" was presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress 2023. Hemostasis balances the consequences of blood clotting and bleeding. This balance relies on the proper formation of blood clots, as well as the breakdown of blood clots. The primary mechanism that breaks down blood clots is fibrinolysis, where the fibrin net becomes lysed and the blood clot dissolves. Dyslipidemia is a condition where blood lipid and lipoprotein levels are abnormal. Here, we review studies that observed connections between impaired fibrinolysis and dyslipidemia. We also summarize the different correlations between thrombosis and dyslipidemia in different racial and ethnic groups. Finally, we summarize relevant and new findings on this topic presented during the 2023 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress. More studies are needed to investigate the mechanistic connections between impaired fibrinolysis and dyslipidemia and whether these mechanisms differ in racially and ethnically diverse populations.

Renal function alters the association of lipoprotein(a) with cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a prospective cohort study

Background and hypothesis

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and renal dysfunction are both independent risk factors for cardiovascular disease. However, it remains unclear whether renal function mediates the association between Lp(a) and cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

From a large prospective cohort study, 10 435 eligible patients undergoing PCI from January 2013 to December 2013 were included in our analysis. Patients were stratified into three renal function groups according to their baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (<60; 60-90; ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m2). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, and unplanned revascularization [major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE)].

Results

Over a median follow-up of 5.1 years, a total of 2144 MACCE events occurred. After multivariable adjustment, either eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 or elevated Lp(a) conferred a significantly higher MACCE risk. Higher Lp(a) was significantly associated with an increased risk of MACCE in patients with eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2. However, this association was weakened in subjects with only mild renal impairment and diminished in those with normal renal function. A significant interaction for MACCE between renal categories and Lp(a) was observed (P = 0.026). Patients with concomitant Lp(a) ≥30 mg/dl and eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 experienced worse cardiovascular outcomes compared with those without.

Conclusion

The significant association between Lp(a) and cardiovascular outcomes was mediated by renal function in patients undergoing PCI. Lp(a)-associated risk was more pronounced in patients with worse renal function, suggesting close monitoring and aggressive management are needed in this population.

Lipoprotein(a): A Review of Risk Factors, Measurements, and Novel Treatment Modalities

The study of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has long been a source of interest as a possible independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The results of large sample observational studies, genome-wide association studies, and Mendelian randomization studies have been strong indicators supporting the link between ASCVD and Lp(a) despite early studies, with less sensitive assays, failing to show a connection. The recommendations for the indications and frequency of testing Lp(a) levels vary between US, Canadian, and European organizations due to the uncertain role of Lp(a) in ASCVD. The innovation of recent therapies, such as antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering RNA, designed to specifically target and reduce Lp(a) levels by targeting mRNA translation have once more thrust LP(a) into the spotlight of inquiry. These emerging modalities serve the dual purpose of definitively elucidating the connection between elevated Lp(a) levels and atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk, as well as the possibility of providing clinicians with the tools necessary to manage elevated Lp(a) levels in vulnerable populations. This review seeks to examine the mechanisms of atherogenicity of Lp(a) and explore the most current pharmacologic therapies currently in development.