Plasma Lipoprotein(a) Concentration Predicts Future Coronary and Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Stable Coronary Heart Disease

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.

Impact of lipoprotein(a) and fibrinogen on prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Despite the considerable progress made in preventative methods, medication, and interventional therapies, it remains evident that cardiovascular events (CVEs) continue to be the primary cause of both death and morbidity among individuals diagnosed with coronary artery disease (CAD).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the connection between lipoprotein a (Lp[a]), fibrinogen (Fib), and both parameters combined with all-cause mortality to detect their value as prognostic biomarkers.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study. Patients diagnosed with CAD between January 2007 and December 2020 at the Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (China) were involved in the study. 43,367 patients met the eligibility criteria. The Lp(a) and Fib levels were distributed into three tertile groups (low, medium, and high). All of the patients included in the study were followed up for all-cause mortality. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression were performed to determine the relationship between Lp(a), Fib, and all-cause mortality. A concordance statistics model was developed to detect the impact of Fib and Lp(a) in terms of anticipating poor outcomes in patients with CAD.

RESULTS

Throughout a median follow-up of 67.0 months, 6,883 (15.9%) patients died. Participants with high Lp(a) (above 27.60 mg/dL) levels had a significantly higher risk for all-cause mortality than individuals with low Lp(a) levels (below 11.13 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.219, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.141-1.304, p< 0.001). Similarly, patients with high Fib levels (above 4.32 g/L) had a significantly greater risk of developing all-cause mortality compared with those with reduced Fib levels (below 3.41 g/L; aHR 1.415, 95% CI: 1.323-1.514, p< 0.001). Patients with raised Lp(a) and Fib levels had the maximum risk for all-cause mortality (aHR 1.702; 95% CI: 1.558-1.859, p< 0.001). When considered together, Lp(a) and Fib caused a significant elevation of the concordance statistic by 0.009 (p< 0.05), suggesting a higher value for predicting mortality when combining the two indicators.

CONCLUSION

High Lp(a) and Fib levels could be used as predictive biomarkers for all-cause mortality in individuals with CAD. The prediction accuracy for all-cause mortality improved after combining the two parameters.

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).

Joint Association of Lipoprotein(a) and a Family History of Coronary Artery Disease with the Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Coronary Syndrome

AIM

No data are currently available regarding the association between Lp(a) and the cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) according to their family history (FHx) of CAD. This study aimed to evaluate the significance of Lp(a) in predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) with or without FHx.

METHODS

A total of 6056 patients with CCS were enrolled. Information on FHx was collected, and the plasma Lp(a) levels were measured. All patients were followed up regularly. The independent and joint associations of Lp(a) and FHx with the risk of MACEs, including cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke, were analyzed.

RESULTS

With over an average of 50.35±18.58 months follow-up, 378 MACEs were recorded. A Cox regression analysis showed an elevated Lp(a) level to be an independent predictor for MACEs in patients with [hazard ratio (HR): 2.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-5.54] or without FHx (HR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.02-1.77). In comparison to subjects with non-elevated Lp(a) and negative FHx, patients with elevated Lp(a) alone were at a nominally higher risk of MACEs (HR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.96-1.67), while those with both had the highest risk (HR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.14-3.28). Moreover, adding Lp(a) to the original model increased the C-statistic by 0.048 in subjects with FHx (p=0.004) and by 0.004 in those without FHx (p=0.391).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study is the first to suggest that Lp(a) could be used to predict MACEs in CCS patients with or without FHx; however, its prognostic significance was more noteworthy in patients with FHx.

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.

Elevated lipoprotein(a) increases risk of subsequent major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and coronary revascularisation in incident ASCVD patients: A cohort study from the UK Biobank

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a genetic driver for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We aimed to provide novel insights into the associated risk of elevated versus normal Lp(a) levels on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in an incident ASCVD cohort.

METHODS

This was an observational cohort study of incident ASCVD patients. MACE counts and incidence rates (IRs) per 100-person-years were reported for patients with normal (<65 nmol/L) and elevated (>150 nmol/L) Lp(a) within the first year after incident ASCVD diagnosis and overall follow-up. Cox proportional hazard models quantified the risk of MACE associated with a 100 nmol/L increase in Lp(a).

RESULTS

The study cohort included 32,537 incident ASCVD patients; 5204 with elevated and 22,257 with normal Lp(a). Of those with elevated Lp(a), 41.2% had a subsequent MACE, versus 35.61% with normal Lp(a). Within the first year of follow-up, the IRs of composite MACE and coronary revascularisation were significantly higher (p < 0.001) in patients with elevated versus normal Lp(a) (IR difference 6.79 and 4.66). This trend was also observed in the overall follow-up (median 4.7 years). Using time to first subsequent MACE, a 100 nmol/L increase in Lp(a) was associated with an 8.0% increased risk of composite MACE, and 18.6% increased risk of coronary revascularisation during the overall follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of elevated Lp(a) with increased risk of subsequent MACE and coronary revascularisation highlights a population who may benefit from earlier and more targeted intervention for cardiovascular risk including Lp(a), particularly within the first year after ASCVD diagnosis. Proactive Lp(a) testing as part of routine clinical practice can help identify and better manage these higher-risk individuals.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Consensus document on Lipoprotein(a) from the Italian Society for the Study of Atherosclerosis (SISA)

AIMS

In view of the consolidating evidence on the causal role of Lp(a) in cardiovascular disease, the Italian Society for the Study of Atherosclerosis (SISA) has assembled a consensus on Lp(a) genetics and epidemiology, together with recommendations for its measurement and current and emerging therapeutic approaches to reduce its plasma levels. Data on the Italian population are also provided.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Lp(a) is constituted by one apo(a) molecule and a lipoprotein closely resembling to a low-density lipoprotein (LDL). Its similarity with an LDL, together with its ability to carry oxidized phospholipids are considered the two main features making Lp(a) harmful for cardiovascular health. Plasma Lp(a) concentrations vary over about 1000 folds in humans and are genetically determined, thus they are quite stable in any individual. Mendelian Randomization studies have suggested a causal role of Lp(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve stenosis and observational studies indicate a linear direct correlation between cardiovascular disease and Lp(a) plasma levels. Lp(a) measurement is strongly recommended once in a patient's lifetime, particularly in FH subjects, but also as part of the initial lipid screening to assess cardiovascular risk. The apo(a) size polymorphism represents a challenge for Lp(a) measurement in plasma, but new strategies are overcoming these difficulties. A reduction of Lp(a) levels can be currently attained only by plasma apheresis and, moderately, with PCSK9 inhibitor treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Awaiting the approval of selective Lp(a)-lowering drugs, an intensive management of the other risk factors for individuals with elevated Lp(a) levels is strongly recommended.

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.

Lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice: A guide for the clinician

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. Serum lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) has been shown to be an independent and causative risk factor for atherosclerotic CVD and calcific aortic valvular disease. Lp(a) continues to be studied, with emerging insights into the epidemiology of CVD with respect to Lp(a), pathogenic mechanisms of Lp(a) and strategies to mitigate disease. There have been novel insights into genetic polymorphisms of the LPA gene, interactions between concomitant risk factors and Lp(a) based on real-world data, and metabolic pathway targets for Lp(a) reduction. This review highlights these recent advances in our understanding of Lp(a) and discusses management strategies as recommended by cardiovascular professional societies, emerging therapies for lowering Lp(a), and future directions in targeting Lp(a) to reduce CVD.

The role of atherogenic lipoproteins in diabetes: Molecular aspects and clinical significance

Dyslipidaemia plays a prominent role in the genesis of atherosclerotic plaque and the increased cardiovascular risk in diabetes. Macrophages readily take up atherogenic lipoproteins, transforming into foam cells and amplifying vascular damage in the presence of endothelial dysfunction. We discuss the importance of distinct lipoprotein subclasses in atherogenic diabetic dyslipidaemia as well as the effects of novel anti-diabetic agents on lipoprotein fractions and ultimately on cardiovascular risk prevention. In patients with diabetes, lipid abnormalities should be aggressively identified and treated in conjunction with therapeutical agents used to prevent cardiovascular disease. The use of drugs that improve diabetic dyslipidaemia plays a prominent role in conferring cardiovascular benefit in individuals with diabetes.

Detection strategies for elevated lipoprotein(a): will implementation let the genie out of the bottle?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Elevated Lp(a) level is an important causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), principally coronary artery disease. Selective testing for Lp(a) is highly recommended in patients at intermediate and high risk for ASCVD. Lp(a) levels are predominantly genetically determined, and this has implications for cascade testing.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies show that cascade testing is effective in identifying elevated Lp(a) in close relatives of probands with high Lp(a). Apart from selective testing and cascade testing as detection strategies, some recent guidelines recommend testing of Lp(a) in all adults at least once in their lifetime and various implementation strategies have been suggested.

SUMMARY

Hyper-Lp(a) is an important global health problem that can be easily detected. Hyper-Lp(a) meets all the criteria for universal screening except that there is not yet supportive evidence from clinical interventional trials showing a reduction of ASCVD events. The cost-effectiveness of the various detection and implementation strategies need to be further evaluated.

Australian Atherosclerosis Society Position Statement on Lipoprotein(a): Clinical and Implementation Recommendations

This position statement provides guidance to cardiologists and related specialists on the management of adult patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]. Elevated Lp(a) is an independent and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD). While circulating Lp(a) levels are largely determined by ancestry, they are also influenced by ethnicity, hormones, renal function, and acute inflammatory events, such that measurement should be done after accounting for these factors. Further, circulating Lp(a) concentrations should be estimated using an apo(a)-isoform independent assay that employs appropriate calibrators and reports the results in molar units (nmol/L). Selective screening strategies of high-risk patients are recommended, but universal screening of the population is currently not advised. Testing for elevated Lp(a) is recommended in all patients with premature ASCVD and those considered to be at intermediate-to-high risk of ASCVD. Elevated Lp(a) should be employed to assess and stratify risk and to enable a decision on initiation or intensification of preventative treatments, such as cholesterol lowering therapy. In adult patients with elevated Lp(a) at intermediate-to-high risk of ASCVD, absolute risk should be reduced by addressing all modifiable behavioural, lifestyle, psychosocial and clinical risk factors, including maximising cholesterol-lowering with statin and ezetimibe and, where appropriate, PCSK9 inhibitors. Apheresis should be considered in patients with progressive ASCVD. New ribonucleic acid (RNA)-based therapies which directly lower Lp(a) are undergoing clinical trials.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Lipoprotein(a) and residual vascular risk in statin-treated patients with first acute ischemic stroke: A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Statins either barely affect or increase lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels. This study aimed to explore the factors correlated to the change of Lp(a) levels as well as the relationship between Lp(a) and the recurrent vascular events in statin-treated patients with first acute ischemic stroke (AIS).

METHODS

Patients who were admitted to the hospital with first AIS from October 2018 to September 2020 were eligible for inclusion. Correlation between the change of Lp(a) levels and potential influencing factors was assessed by linear regression analysis. Cox proportional regression models were used to estimate the association between Lp(a) and recurrent vascular events including AIS, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization.

RESULTS

In total, 303 patients, 69.6% males with mean age 64.26 ± 11.38 years, completed the follow-up. During the follow-up period, Lp(a) levels increased in 50.5% of statin-treated patients and the mean percent change of Lp(a) levels were 14.48% (95% CI 6.35-22.61%). Creatinine (β = 0.152, 95% CI 0.125-0.791, P = 0.007) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (β = 0.160, 95% CI 0.175-0.949, P = 0.005) were positively associated with the percent change of Lp(a) levels. During a median follow-up of 26 months, 66 (21.8%) patients had a recurrent vascular event. The median time period between AIS onset and vascular events recurrence was 9.5 months (IQR 2.0-16.3 months). The on-statin Lp(a) level ≥70 mg/dL (HR 2.539, 95% CI 1.076-5.990, P = 0.033) and the change of Lp(a) levels (HR 1.003, 95% CI 1.000-1.005, P = 0.033) were associated with the recurrent vascular events in statin-treated patients with first AIS. Furthermore, the on-statin Lp(a) levels ≥70 mg/dL (HR 3.612, 95% CI 1.018-12.815, P = 0.047) increased the risk of recurrent vascular events in patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels < 1.8 mmol/L.

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) levels increased in half of statin-treated patients with first AIS. Creatinine and AST were positively associated with the percent change of Lp(a) levels. Lp(a) is a determinant of residual vascular risk and the change of Lp(a) is positively associated with the risk of recurrent vascular events in these patients.

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.

The Effect of Bariatric Surgery on Circulating Levels of Lipoprotein (a): A Meta-analysis

Background

Obesity, especially severe obesity, is associated with a higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) morbidity and mortality. Bariatric surgery is a durable and effective weight loss therapy for patients with severe obesity and weight-related comorbidities. Elevated plasma levels of lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) are causally associated with ASCVD. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze whether bariatric surgery is associated with Lp(a) concentrations.

Methods

A literature search in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science was performed from inception to May 1st, 2021. A random-effects model and the generic inverse variance weighting method were used to compensate for the heterogeneity of studies in terms of study design, treatment duration, and the characteristics of the studied populations. A random-effects metaregression model was used to explore the association with an estimated effect size. Evaluation of funnel plot, Begg's rank correlation, and Egger's weighted regression tests were used to assess the presence of publication bias in the meta-analysis.

Results

Meta-analysis of 13 studies including 1551 patients showed a significant decrease of circulating Lp(a) after bariatric surgery (SMD: -0.438, 95% CI: -0.702, -0.174, p < 0.001, I²: 94.05%). The results of the metaregression did not indicate any significant association between the changes in Lp(a) and duration of follow-up after surgery, reduction in body mass index, or baseline Lp(a) concentration. The reduction in circulating Lp(a) was robust in the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis.

Conclusion

Bariatric surgery significantly decreases circulating Lp(a) concentrations. This decrease may have a positive effect on ASCVD in obese patients.

Elevated lipoprotein(a) levels as an independent predictor of long-term recurrent events in patients with acute coronary syndrome: an observational, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Whether lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with recurrent cardiovascular events (RCVEs) still remains controversial. The present study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of Lp(a) for long-term RCVEs and each component of it in people with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHODS

This multicenter, observational and retrospective study enrolled 765 ACS patients at 11 hospitals in Chengdu from January 2014 to June 2019. Patients were assigned to low-Lp(a) group [Lp(a) < 30 mg/dl] and high-Lp(a) group [Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dl]. The primary and secondary endpoints were defined as RCVEs and their elements, including all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke and unplanned revascularization.

RESULTS

Over a median 17-month follow-up, 113 (14.8%) patients presented with RCVEs were reported, among which we observed 57 (7.5%) all-cause deaths, 22 (2.9%) cases of nonfatal stroke, 13 (1.7%) cases of nonfatal MI and 33 (4.3%) cases of unplanned revascularization. The incidences of RCVEs and revascularization in the high-Lp(a) group were significantly higher than those in the low-Lp(a) group ( P < 0.05), whereas rates of all-cause death, nonfatal stroke and nonfatal MI were not statistically different ( P > 0.05). Kaplan-Meier analysis also revealed the same trend. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that 1-SD increase of Lp(a) was independently associated with both the primary endpoint event [hazard ratio (HR), 1.285 per 1-SD; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.112-1.484; P < 0.001] and revascularization (HR, 1.588 per 1-SD; 95% CI, 1.305-1.932; P < 0.001), but not with the other secondary events.

CONCLUSION

Increased Lp(a) is an independent predictor of RCVEs and unplanned revascularization in patients with ACS.

A method for lipoprotein (a) Isolation from a small volume of plasma with applications for clinical research

High levels of circulating Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] are an independent risk factor for CVD. One of the major limitations to investigating Lp(a) biology is the need for large volumes of plasma (4–10 mL) for its isolation. We developed an isolation technique requiring only 0.4 mL of plasma yielding an enriched Lp(a) fraction suitable for compositional and functional studies. We collected plasma from patients (n = 9) in EDTA presenting to our Center for Preventive Cardiology for CVD risk management and with circulating Lp(a) > 66 mg/dL. 0.4 mL of plasma was added to 90 µL of potassium bromide (1.33 g/mL) and subjected to our two-step density-gradient ultracentrifugation method. The first step separates VLDL and LDL from the Lp(a) and HDL fractions and the second step further separates VLDL from LDL and Lp(a) from HDL. Lp(a) is then dialyzed for up to 24 h in potassium phosphate buffer. We performed cholesterol gel electrophoresis, immunoblotting and LC-MS/MS proteomics on isolated lipoprotein fractions to confirm fraction enrichment. Functional studies including Lp(a)-dependent induction of macrophage gene expression and cholesterol efflux inhibition were performed on isolated Lp(a) to confirm its preserved bioactivity. Lp(a) yields (264 ± 82.3 µg/mL on average) correlated with Lp(a) plasma concentrations (r² = 0.75; p < 0.01) and represented the relative distribution of circulating apo(a) isoforms. Proteomic analyses confirm lipoprotein fraction separation. Functional integrity was confirmed by the findings that isolated Lp(a) inhibited plasminogen-dependent cholesterol efflux in HEK293T cells expressing ABCA1 and increased expressions of Il1b, Nos2 and Ccl2. We developed a small-volume isolation technique for Lp(a) suited for a range of applications used in biomedical research. The use of this technique circumvents volume-dependent limitations and expands our ability to investigate the mysteries of this deleterious lipoprotein.

Association of Lipoprotein(a) With Atherosclerotic Plaque Progression

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction, although the mechanism for this observation remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate whether Lp(a) is associated with adverse plaque progression.

METHODS

Lp(a) was measured in patients with advanced stable coronary artery disease undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography at baseline and 12 months to assess progression of total, calcific, noncalcific, and low-attenuation plaque (necrotic core) in particular. High Lp(a) was defined as Lp(a) ≥ 70 mg/dL. The relationship of Lp(a) with plaque progression was assessed using linear regression analysis, adjusting for body mass index, segment involvement score, and ASSIGN score (a Scottish cardiovascular risk score comprised of age, sex, smoking, blood pressure, total and high-density lipoprotein [HDL]-cholesterol, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and deprivation index).

RESULTS

A total of 191 patients (65.9 ± 8.3 years of age; 152 [80%] male) were included in the analysis, with median Lp(a) values of 100 (range: 82 to 115) mg/dL and 10 (range: 5 to 24) mg/dL in the high and low Lp(a) groups, respectively. At baseline, there was no difference in coronary artery disease severity or plaque burden. Patients with high Lp(a) showed accelerated progression of low-attenuation plaque compared with low Lp(a) patients (26.2 ± 88.4 mm3 vs -0.7 ± 50.1 mm3; P = 0.020). Multivariable linear regression analysis confirmed the relation between Lp(a) and low-attenuation plaque volume progression (β = 10.5% increase for each 50 mg/dL Lp(a), 95% CI: 0.7%-20.3%). There was no difference in total, calcific, and noncalcific plaque volume progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with advanced stable coronary artery disease, Lp(a) is associated with accelerated progression of coronary low-attenuation plaque (necrotic core). This may explain the association between Lp(a) and the high residual risk of myocardial infarction, providing support for Lp(a) as a treatment target in atherosclerosis.

A New Look at Novel Cardiovascular Risk Biomarkers: The Role of Atherogenic Lipoproteins and Innovative Antidiabetic Therapies

The presence of residual cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is a current dilemma in clinical practice; indeed, despite optimal management and treatment, a considerable proportion of patients still undergo major CV events. Novel lipoprotein biomarkers are suggested as possible targets for improving the outcomes of patients at higher risk for CVD, and their impact on major CV events and mortality have previously been investigated. Innovative antidiabetic therapies have recently shown a significant reduction in atherogenic lipoproteins, beyond their effects on glucose parameters; it has also been suggested that such anti-atherogenic effect may represent a valuable mechanistic explanation for the cardiovascular benefit of, at least, some of the novel antidiabetic agents, such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. This emphasizes the need for further research in the field in order to clearly assess the effects of innovative treatments on different novel biomarkers, including atherogenic lipoproteins, such as small dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL), lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and dysfunctional high-density lipoprotein (HDL). The current article discusses the clinical importance of novel lipid biomarkers for better management of patients in order to overcome residual cardiovascular risk.

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

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

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

AIMS 

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

METHODS AND RESULTS 

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

CONCLUSION 

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

Association of Lipoprotein(a) With Recurrent Ischemic Events Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the association between elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and risk of recurrent ischemic events in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

Elevated levels of Lp(a) have been identified as an independent, possibly causal, risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in a general population study.

METHODS

A prospective single-center registry was used to identify 12,064 patients with baseline Lp(a) measurements who underwent PCI between 2003 and 2013. The primary outcomes were a composite of cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke.

RESULTS

From the registry, 3,747 (31.1%) patients had high Lp(a) (>30 mg/dL) and 8,317 (68.9%) patients had low Lp(a) (≤30 mg/dL). During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, primary outcomes occurred in 1,490 patients, and the incidence rates of primary outcomes were 2.0 per 100 person-years in the high-Lp(a) group and 1.6 per 100 person-years in the low-Lp(a) group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.30; P = 0.004). Increased risk of recurrent ischemic cardiovascular events in the high-Lp(a) group was consistent in various subgroups including patients receiving statin treatment at discharge (aHR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.03-1.34; P = 0.011). In addition, the risk of repeated revascularization was significantly higher in the high-Lp(a) group (aHR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.02-1.25; P = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated levels of Lp(a) were significantly associated with the recurrent ischemic events in patients who underwent PCI. This study provides a rationale for outcome trials to test Lp(a)-lowering therapy for secondary prevention in patients undergoing PCI.

Lipoprotein(a): Knowns, unknowns and uncertainties

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

Lipoprotein (a) as a treatment target for cardiovascular disease prevention and related therapeutic strategies: a critical overview

Advances in several fields of cardiovascular (CV) medicine have produced new treatments (e.g. to treat dyslipidaemia) that have proven efficacy in terms of reducing deaths and providing a better quality of life. However, the burden of CV disease (CVD) remains high. Thus, there is a need to search for new treatment targets. Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] has emerged as a potential novel target since there is evidence that it contributes to CVD events. In this narrative review, we present the current evidence of the potential causal relationship between Lp(a) and CVD and discuss the likely magnitude of Lp(a) lowering required to produce a clinical benefit. We also consider current and investigational treatments targeting Lp(a), along with the potential cost of these interventions.

Impact of Postprocedural High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein on Lipoprotein(a)-Associated Cardiovascular Risk with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

This study aimed to investigate the impact of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) on Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] associated cardiovascular risk in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A total of 2318 STEMI-PCI patients were retrospectively recruited, and further stratified based on postprocedural hsCRP levels (≥ 2 vs < 2 mg/L). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction and stroke. During a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, MACE occurred in 159 (6.9%) patients. In the setting of hsCRP ≥ 2mg/L, per unit increase of Lp(a) was associated with a 28% increase of MACE risk (HR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.49, p = 0.002; p = 0.031 for interaction); increasing tertiles of Lp(a) were significantly related to greater rates of MACE (p = 0.011 for interaction; p = 0.005 for trend across tertiles). Patients with upper tertile of Lp(a) had a significant lower event-free survival (p = 0.034) when hsCRP ≥ 2mg/L. No similar association between Lp(a) and MACE was noted when hsCRP < 2mg/L. In conclusion, high Lp(a) levels were associated with poor prognosis when hsCRP ≥ 2mg/L, implying systemic inflammation can modulate Lp(a)-associated MACE risk in STEMI-PCI patients. Measurement of Lp(a) in patients with high inflammation risk may identify individuals at high cardiovascular risk.

The Predictive Value of Lp(a) for Adverse Cardiovascular Event in ACS Patients With an Achieved LDL-C Target at Follow Up After PCI

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a traditional and important risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD). Recently, lipoprotein (a) (lp(a)) attracts considerable attention as a residual risk factor for CVD. However, the roles of lp(a) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with well-controlled LDL-C (≤1.8mmol/L) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain unclear. Current study results demonstrated that occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) increased with the Lp(a) increasing in patients with LDL-C≤1.8mmol/L at 1-month follow-up. In relatively low-risk patients presented with ACS and underwent PCI (LDL-C ≤1.8mmol/L at 1-month follow-up), lp(a) is still independently related to adverse prognosis. Further researches of targeted therapy against lp(a) are warranted.

Lipoprotein (a), hypertension, and cardiovascular outcomes: a prospective study of patients with stable coronary artery disease

Although emerging data suggest that circulating lipoprotein (a) [Lp (a)] could predict cardiovascular events (CVEs) in patients with cardiovascular disease, no study is currently available regarding the prognostic linkage of Lp (a) and hypertension in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). This study sought to evaluate the association of Lp (a), hypertension and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable CAD. A total of 8668 patients with stable CAD were consecutively enrolled. Baseline Lp (a) concentrations were measured. All subjects were categorized according to Lp (a) levels of <10 (low), 10-30 (medium) and ≥30 mg/dL (high) and were further stratified by hypertension status. They were regularly followed-up for the occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke. Over an average of 54.81 ± 18.60 months of follow-up, 584 (6.7%) CVEs occurred. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression analyses showed that elevated Lp (a) levels had a significant association with CVEs in hypertensive patients, regardless of the control status of blood pressure, but not in normotensive subjects. Moreover, when analyzed by subgroups according to both Lp (a) category and hypertension status, the risk of CVEs was only significantly elevated in the high Lp (a) plus hypertension group compared with the reference group with low Lp (a) levels and normotension (hazard ratio: 1.80, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-2.91). Elevated Lp (a) was associated with an increased risk of CVEs in stable CAD patients with hypertension. Moreover, the coexistence of high Lp (a) concentrations and hypertension greatly worsened the clinical prognosis in patients with CAD, which may suggest a prognostic correlation between Lp (a) and hypertension.

Coronary heart disease risk: Low-density lipoprotein and beyond

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality world-wide and has been characterized as a chronic immunoinflammatory, fibroproliferative disease fueled by lipids. Great advances have been made in elucidating the complex mechanistic interactions among risk factors associated with CHD, yielding abundant success towards preventive measures and the development of pharmaceuticals to prevent and treat CHD via attenuation of lipoprotein-mediated risk. However, significant residual risk remains. Several potentially modifiable CHD risk factors ostensibly contributing to this residual risk have since come to the fore, including systemic inflammation, diabetes mellitus, high-density lipoprotein, plasma triglycerides (TG) and remnant lipoproteins (RLP), lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]), and vascular endothelial dysfunction (ED). Herein, we summarize the body of evidence implicating each of these risk factors in residual CHD risk.

A Synergistic Effect of Lp(a) and GRACE Score on Cardiovascular Risk in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Cohort Study From China

Objectives: Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has been thought as an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score is used to predict the risk of death or death/non-fatal myocardial infarction in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). It suggests that there may be a synergism between Lp(a) and the GRACE risk score on predicting cardiovascular events. Accordingly, this study aimed to test the hypothesis that Lp(a)-related cardiovascular risk could be significantly modulated by the GRACE risk score in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods: Patients hospitalized with ACS undergoing PCI were enrolled and followed up for 18 months. The primary outcome was the composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and unplanned repeat revascularization. A Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to determine the relationship between Lp(a) and cardiovascular events.

Results: A total of 6,309 patients were included (age: 60.1 ± 10.06 years, male: 75.2%, BMI: 26.2 ± 10.57 kg/m²). A total of 310 (4.9%) cardiovascular events occurred. When the overall population was stratified by a GRACE score of 91 or less vs. more than 91 and by tertiles of Lp(a), higher Lp(a) was significantly associated with cardiovascular events only when the GRACE score was <91(tertile 2 vs. tertile 1: HR 1.31, 95% CI: 0.86–1.98, P = 0.205; tertile 3 vs. tertile 1: HR 1.94, 95% CI: 1.32–2.84, P = 0.001; P = 0.002). However, no such significant correlation between cardiovascular events and Lp(a) emerged in the case of a GRACE score 91 or less, and there was a significant interaction for cardiovascular events between Lp(a) tertiles and dichotomized GRACE scores (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: In ACS patients undergoing PCI, there was a synergistic effect between the GRACE risk score and on-statins Lp(a) on predicting cardiovascular events. This finding could help us more accurately identify patients who would benefit most from Lp(a)-lowering treatment.

Lipoprotein(a) and Cardiovascular Outcomes after Revascularization of Carotid and Lower Limbs Arteries

Background: Despite high-intensity lipid-lowering therapy, there is a residual risk of cardiovascular events that could be associated with lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)). It has been shown that there is an association between elevated Lp(a) level and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease. Data about the role of Lp(a) in the development of cardiovascular events after peripheral revascularization are scarce. Purpose: To evaluate the relationship of Lp(a) level with cardiovascular outcomes after revascularization of carotid and lower limbs arteries. Methods: The study included 258 patients (209 men, mean age 67 years) with severe carotid and/or lower extremity artery disease, who underwent successful elective peripheral revascularization. The primary endpoint was the composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint was the composite of primary endpoint and repeated revascularization. Results: For 36-month follow-up, 29 (11%) primary and 128 (50%) secondary endpoints were registered. There was a greater risk of primary (21 (8%) vs. 8 (3%); hazard ratio (HR), 3.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5–6.3; p < 0.01) and secondary endpoints (83 (32%) vs. 45 (17%), HR, 2.8; 95% CI 2.0–4.0; p < 0.01) in patients with elevated Lp(a) level (≥30 mg/dL) compared to patients with Lp(a) < 30 mg/dL. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analysis revealed that Lp(a) was independently associated with the incidence of cardiovascular outcomes. Conclusions: Patients with peripheral artery diseases have a high risk of cardiovascular events. Lp(a) level above 30 mg/dL is significantly and independently associated with cardiovascular events during 3-year follow-up after revascularization of carotid and lower limbs arteries.

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Method

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Elevated lipoprotein(a) and risk of coronary heart disease according to different lipid profiles in the general Chinese community population: the CHCN-BTH study

Background

To evaluate the contributions of elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] to the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in the general Chinese community population according to different lipid profiles.

Methods

We recruited individuals aged over 18 years from the baseline survey of the Cohort Study on Chronic Disease of Communities Natural Population in Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei (CHCN-BTH) using a stratified, multistage cluster sampling method. Data were collected through questionnaire surveys, anthropometric measures and laboratory tests. Restricted cubic spline (RCS) functions, multivariate logistic regression, sensitivity analyses and stratified analyses were used to evaluate the association between Lp(a) and CHD.

Results

A total of 25,343 participants were included, with 1,364 (5.38%) identified as having CHD. Elevated Lp(a) levels were linearly related to an increased risk of CHD (P_{overall-association}<0.0001 and P_{nonlinear-association}=0.8468). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that subjects with Lp(a) ≥300 mg/L had a higher risk of CHD [OR (95% CI): 1.36 (1.17, 1.57)] than did individuals with Lp(a) <300 mg/L. Compared with individuals with Lp(a) <119.0 mg/L (<50th percentile), the ORs (95% CI) for CHD in the 51st–80th, 81st–95th and >95th percentiles were 1.07 (0.93, 1.23), 1.26 (1.07, 1.50) and 1.68 (1.30, 2.17), respectively (P for trend <0.0001). This association was also found among the subgroup of subjects without dyslipidemia, including those with normal total cholesterol (TC) (<6.2 mmol/L), triglycerides (TG) (<2.3 mmol/L), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (≥1.0 mmol/L) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (<4.1 mmol/L). Elevated Lp(a) and dyslipidemia significantly contributed to a higher risk of CHD with synergistic effects. Stratified analyses showed that elevated Lp(a) concentrations were significantly associated with an increased risk of CHD in the subgroups of individuals who were noncurrent drinkers, overweight individuals, individuals with hypertension, individuals who engaged in moderate physical activity, those without diabetes mellitus and individuals in Beijing and Tianjin.

Conclusions

Elevated Lp(a) concentrations were linearly associated with a higher risk of CHD in the general Chinese community population, especially in normolipidemic subjects. Both dyslipidemia and elevated Lp(a) independently or synergistically contributed to the risk of CHD. Our results suggest that more attention should be paid to the levels of Lp(a) in normolipidemic subjects, which may be an early predictor of CHD.

Usefulness of Lipoprotein (a) for Predicting Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Angina Pectoris in Patients on Hemodialysis

Serum lipoprotein (a) level is genetically determined and remains consistent during a person's life. Previous studies have reported that people with high lipoprotein (a) level are at a high risk of cardiac events. We investigated the association between lipoprotein (a) levels and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for stable angina pectoris (SAP) in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Serum lipoprotein (a) levels were measured on admission in 410 consecutive HD patients who underwent successful PCI for SAP. Patients were divided into 2 groups: low and high group having lipoprotein (a) level <40 mg/dL (n = 297) and ≧40 mg/dL (n = 113) respectively. After PCI, the incidence of major adverse cardiac event (MACE) including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, necessity of a new coronary revascularization procedure (coronary bypass surgery, repeat target lesion PCI, PCI for a new non-target lesion) was analyzed. At a median follow-up of 24 months (12 to 37 months), MACE occurred in 188 patients (45.6%). The rate of MACE rate was significantly higher in the high lipoprotein (a) group than in the low lipoprotein (a) group (59.2% vs 40.7%, long-rank test chi-square = 12.3; p < 0.001). Cox analysis showed that high lipoprotein (a) level (Hazard Ratio, 1.62; 95% Confidence Interval, 1.19 to 2.20; p = 0.002) was an independent predictor for MACE after PCI. In conclusion, high lipoprotein (a) level was associated with a higher incidence of MACE after PCI for SAP in HD patients.

Increased cardiovascular risk associated with hyperlipoproteinemia (a) and the challenges of current and future therapeutic possibilities

Population, genetic, and clinical studies demonstrated a causative and continuous, from other plasma lipoproteins independent relationship between elevated plasma lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] concentration and the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), mainly those related to athe-rosclerotic CVD, and calcific aortic stenosis. Currently, a strong international consensus is still lacking regarding the single value which would be commonly used to define hyperlipoproteinemia (a). Its prevalence in the general population is estimated to be in the range of 10%–35% in accordance with the most commonly used threshold levels (>30 or >50 mg/dL). Since elevated Lp(a) can be of special importance in patients with some genetic disorders, as well as in individuals with otherwise controlled major risk factors, the identification and establishment of the proper therapeutic interventions that would lower Lp(a) levels and lead to CVD risk reduction could be very important. The majority of the classical lipid-lowering agents (statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates), as well as nutraceuticals (CoQ10 and garlic), appear to have no significant effect on its plasma levels, whereas for the drugs with the demonstrated Lp(a)-lowering effects (aspirin, niacin, and estrogens), their clinical efficacy in reducing cardiovascular (CV) events has not been unequivocally proven yet. Both Lp(a) apheresis and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors can reduce the plasma Lp(a) by approximately 20%–30% on average, in parallel with much larger reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (up to 70%), what puts us in a difficulty to conclude about the true contribution of lowered Lp(a) to the reduction of CV events. The most recent advancement in the field is the introduction of the novel apolipoprotein (a) [apo(a)] antisense oligonucleotide therapy targeting apo(a), which has already proven itself as being very effective in decreasing plasma Lp(a) (by even >90%), but should be further tested in clinical trials. The aim of this review was to present some of the most important accessible scientific data, as well as dilemmas related to the currently and potentially in the near future more widely available therapeutic options for the management of hyperlipoproteinemia (a).

Effect of different types and dosages of statins on plasma lipoprotein(a) levels: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Studies differ with respect to the effects of statins and their on lipoprotein(a)[Lp(a)] levels. The aim of the present study was to resolve these differences by determining the effect of various types and dosages of statins on Lp(a) levels.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of statins on plasma Lp(a) levels. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by four authors. We conducted pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA). Consistency models were applied to NMA and the ranking probabilities for each treatment's efficacy were calculated. Node-splitting analysis was used to test inconsistency. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42020167612.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs with 23,605 participants were included, involving 11 interventions. Most of the included studies presented some risks of bias, especially risks of performance and detection bias. In the pairwise meta-analysis, pooled results showed a small but statistically significant difference between high-intensity rosuvastatin and placebo on Lp(a) levels (MD = 1.81, 95 % CI [0.43, 3.19], P = 0.01). In the NMA, different types and dosages of statins showed no significant effect on the level of Lp(a), and there was no obvious difference between them. Subgroup analysis based on different populations and treatment durations did not provide any statistically significant findings about different statins on Lp(a) levels. Node-splitting analysis showed that no significant inconsistency existed (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Statins have no clinically significant effect on Lp(a) levels, and there is no significant difference in the effect on Lp(a) levels between different types and dosages of statins. Moderate-intensity pitavastatin tended to have the best effect on reducing Lp(a) levels; nevertheless, it was insignificant. Our findings highlight the necessity for further study of the effect of statins on Lp(a) levels in future studies.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Lipoprotein (a): An Update on a Marker of Residual Risk and Associated Clinical Manifestations

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a low-density, cholesterol-containing lipoprotein that differs from other low-density lipoproteins due to the presence of apolipoprotein(a) bound to its surface apolipoprotein B100. Multiple epidemiologic studies, including Mendelian Randomization studies, have demonstrated that increasing Lp(a) levels are associated with increased risk of heart disease, including atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and calcific aortic stenosis. The risk associated with elevations in Lp(a) appears to be independent of other lipid markers. While the current treatment options for elevated Lp(a) are limited, promising new therapies are under development, leading to renewed interest in Lp(a). This review provides an overview of the biology and epidemiology of Lp(a), available outcome studies, and insights into future therapies.

Circulating oxidized LDL, increased in patients with acute myocardial infarction, is accompanied by heavily modified HDL

Oxidized LDL (oxLDL) is a known risk factor for atherogenesis. This study aimed to reveal structural features of oxLDL present in human circulation related to atherosclerosis. When LDL was fractionated on an anion-exchange column, in vivo-oxLDL, detected by the anti-oxidized PC (oxPC) mAb, was recovered in flow-through and electronegative LDL [LDL(-)] fractions. The amount of the electronegative in vivo-oxLDL, namely oxLDL in the LDL(-) fraction, present in patients with acute MI was 3-fold higher than that observed in healthy subjects. Surprisingly, the LDL(-) fraction contained apoA1 in addition to apoB, and HDL-sized particles were observed with transmission electron microscopy. In LDL(-) fractions, acrolein adducts were identified at all lysine residues in apoA1, with only a small number of acrolein-modified residues identified in apoB. The amount of oxPC adducts of apoB was higher in the LDL(-) than in the L1 fraction, as determined using Western blotting. The electronegative in vivo-oxLDL was immunologically purified from the LDL(-) fraction with an anti-oxPC mAb. The majority of PC species were not oxidized, whereas oxPC and lysoPC did not accumulate. Here, we propose that there are two types of in vivo-oxLDL in human circulating plasma and the electronegative in vivo-oxLDL accompanies oxidized HDL.

Association of lipoprotein(a) levels with recurrent events in patients with coronary artery disease

Objective

Whether lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a predictor for recurrent cardiovascular events (RCVEs) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) has not been established. This study, hence, aimed to examine the potential impact of Lp(a) on RCVEs in a real-world, large cohort of patients with the first cardiovascular event (CVE).

Methods

In this multicentre, prospective study, 7562 patients with angiography-diagnosed CAD who had experienced a first CVE were consecutively enrolled. Lp(a) concentrations of all subjects were measured at admission and the participants were categorised according to Lp(a) tertiles. All patients were followed-up for the occurrence of RCVEs including cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke.

Results

During a mean follow-up of 61.45±19.57 months, 680 (9.0%) RCVEs occurred. The results showed that events group had significantly higher Lp(a) levels than non-events group (20.58 vs 14.95 mg/dL, p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that Lp(a) tertile 2 (p=0.001) and tertile 3 (p<0.001) groups had significantly lower cumulative event-free survival rates compared with tertile 1 group. Moreover, multivariate Cox regression analysis further revealed that Lp(a) was independently associated with RCVEs risk (HR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.44 to 2.80, p<0.001). Moreover, adding Lp(a) to the SMART risk score model led to a slight but significant improvement in C-statistic (∆C-statistic: 0.018 (95% CI: 0.011 to 0.034), p=0.002), net reclassification (6.8%, 95% CI: 0.5% to 10.9%, p=0.040) and integrated discrimination (0.3%, 95% CI: 0.1% to 0.7%, p<0.001).

Conclusions

Circulating Lp(a) concentration was indeed a useful predictor for the risk of RCVEs in real-world treated patients with CAD, providing additional information concerning the future clinical application of Lp(a).

[Association of lipoprotein (a) with ischemic stroke and stenotic carotid atherosclerosis]

INTRODUCTION

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a genetically determined risk factor of coronary heart disease and its complications. Meanwhile data about the role of Lp(a) in development of ischemic stroke are controversial.

AIM

To investigate the association of Lp(a) with atherothrombotic ischemic stroke and stenotic (≥50%) atherosclerosis of carotid arteries.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 490 patients (mean age 60 years, 53% male). The first group comprised 157 patients with ischemic stroke, the second group 68 patients with isolated stenotic atherosclerosis of carotid arteries, but without significant lesion of coronary and low limbs arteries. The control group included 265 patients without stroke, myocardial infarction, stenotic atherosclerosis of coronary, carotid and low limbs arteries according to instrumental examinations. The levels of Lp(a) and lipids were measured in blood serum of all patients.

RESULTS

Lp(a) concentration was significantly higher in patients of the first and second groups in comparison with the control group (median [interquartile range]): 24 [9; 48], 20 [8; 55] vs 13 [5; 27] mg/dl, respectively (p<0,05 in both cases). Hyperlipoproteinemia(a) (Lp(a) ≥30 mg/dl) was more frequent in the group with stroke, stenotic atherosclerosis of carotid arteries, than in the control group: 43%, 40% vs 22% (p<0.01 in all cases). In patients with hyperlipoproteinemia(a), odds ratio (OR) for ischemic stroke was 2.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-4.1), and OR for stenotic atherosclerosis of carotid arteries was 2.3 (95% CI 1.3-4.0) compared to the patients with Lp(a) level <30 mg/dl (p<0.01 in both cases). In logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, smoking and Lp(a) concentration, the hyperlipoproteinemia(a) was associated with ischemic stroke and isolated stenotic carotid atherosclerosis. In the group with severe carotid atherosclerosis, 16 patients (24%) had ischemic stroke. Lp(a) concentration in these patients was higher 36 [20; 59] mg/dl, than in the patients with isolated carotid atherosclerosis without stroke 15 [7; 54] mg/dl (p=0.04). Other risk factors of atherosclerosis did not differ in patients with or without ischemic stroke.

CONCLUSION

The study shows the association of elevated level of Lp(a) with ischemic stroke and isolated stenotic atherosclerosis of carotid arteries. In the presence of isolated stenotic carotid atherosclerosis, the median of Lp(a) concentration was significantly higher in patients with ischemic stroke than in patients without stroke.

Predicting Cardiovascular Outcomes by Baseline Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations: A Large Cohort and Long-Term Follow-up Study on Real-World Patients Receiving Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background

Although several studies have indicated that lipoprotein(a) is a useful prognostic predictor for patients following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), previous observations have somewhat been limited by either small sample size or short‐term follow‐up. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of lipoprotein(a) on long‐term outcomes in a large cohort of stable coronary artery disease patients after PCI.

Methods and Results

In this multicenter and prospective study, we consecutively enrolled 4078 stable coronary artery disease patients undergoing PCI from March 2011 to March 2016. They were categorized according to both the median of lipoprotein(a) levels and lipoprotein(a) values of <15 (low), 15 to 30 (medium), and ≥30 mg/dL (high). All patients were followed up for occurrence of cardiovascular events, including cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke. During an average of 4.9 years of follow‐up, 315 (7.7%) cardiovascular events occurred. The events group had significantly higher lipoprotein(a) levels than the nonevents group. Compared with the low lipoprotein(a) group, Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that the high lipoprotein(a) group had a significantly lower cumulative event‐free survival rate, and multivariate Cox regression analysis further revealed that the high lipoprotein(a) group had significantly increased cardiovascular events risk. Moreover, adding continuous or categorical lipoprotein(a) to the Cox model led to a significant improvement in C‐statistic, net reclassification, and integrated discrimination.

Conclusions

With a large sample size and long‐term follow‐up, our data confirmed that high lipoprotein(a) levels could be associated with a poor prognosis after PCI in stable coronary artery disease patients, suggesting that lipoprotein(a) measurements may be useful for patient risk stratification before selective PCI.