Lp(a) [Lipoprotein(a)]-Related Risk of Heart Failure Is Evident in Whites but Not in Other Racial/Ethnic Groups

Lipoprotein (a) and lipid-lowering treatment from the perspective of a cardiac surgeon. An impact on the prognosis in patients with aortic valve replacement and after heart transplantation

Lipoprotein(a) is a recognized risk factor for ASCVD. There is still no targeted therapy for Lp(a), however, drugs such as pelacarsen, olpasiran, zerlasiran, lepodisiran and muvalaplin are in clinical trials and have been shown to be effective in significantly reducing Lp(a) levels. Moreover, elevated Lp(a) levels significantly affect the prognosis of patients after aortic valve replacement (AVR) and heart transplantation (HTx). Therefore, the assessment of Lp(a) concentration in these patients will allow for a more accurate stratification of their cardiovascular risk, and the possibility of lowering Lp(a) will allow for the optimization of this risk. In this article, we summarized the most important information regarding the role of Lp(a) and lipid-lowering treatment in patients after AVR and HTx.

Initial decrease in the lipoprotein(a) level is a novel prognostic biomarker in patients with acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases; however, its role in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains unclear.

AIM

To investigate the hypothesis that the Lp(a) levels are altered by various conditions during the acute phase of ACS, resulting in subsequent cardiovascular events.

METHODS

From September 2009 to May 2016, 377 patients with ACS who underwent emergent coronary angiography, and 249 who completed ≥ 1000 d of follow-up were enrolled. Lp(a) levels were measured using an isoform-independent assay at each time point from before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to 48 h after PCI. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, other vascular death, ACS, and non-cardiac vascular events).

RESULTS

The mean circulating Lp(a) level decreased significantly from pre-PCI (0 h) to 12 h after (19.0 mg/dL to 17.8 mg/dL, P < 0.001), and then increased significantly up to 48 h after (19.3 mg/dL, P < 0.001). The changes from 0 to 12 h [Lp(a)Δ0-12] significantly correlated with the basal levels of creatinine [Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (SRCC): -0.181, P < 0.01] and Lp(a) (SRCC: -0.306, P < 0.05). Among the tertiles classified according to Lp(a)Δ0-12, MACE was significantly more frequent in the lowest Lp(a)Δ0-12 group than in the remaining two tertile groups (66.2% vs 53.6%, P = 0.034). A multivariate analysis revealed that Lp(a)Δ0-12 [hazard ratio (HR): 0.96, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.92-0.99] and basal creatinine (HR: 1.13, 95%CI: 1.05-1.22) were independent determinants of subsequent MACE.

CONCLUSION

Circulating Lp(a) levels in patients with ACS decreased significantly after emergent PCI, and a greater decrease was independently associated with a worse prognosis.

Lipoprotein(a), Oxidized Phospholipids, and Progression to Symptomatic Heart Failure: The CASABLANCA Study

BACKGROUND

Higher lipoprotein(a) and oxidized phospholipid concentrations are associated with increased risk for coronary artery disease and valvular heart disease. The role of lipoprotein(a) or oxidized phospholipid as a risk factor for incident heart failure (HF) or its complications remains uncertain.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 1251 individuals referred for coronary angiography in the Catheter Sampled Blood Archive in Cardiovascular Diseases (CASABLANCA) study were stratified on the basis of universal definition of HF stage; those in stage A/B (N=714) were followed up for an average 3.7 years for incident stage C/D HF or the composite of HF/cardiovascular death. During follow-up, 105 (14.7%) study participants in stage A/B progressed to symptomatic HF and 57 (8.0%) had cardiovascular death. In models adjusted for multiple HF risk factors, including severe coronary artery disease and aortic stenosis, individuals with lipoprotein(a) ≥150 nmol/L were at higher risk for progression to symptomatic HF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.90 [95% CI, 1.15-3.13]; P=0.01) or the composite of HF/cardiovascular death (HR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.10-2.67]; P=0.02). These results remained significant after further adjustment of the model to include prior myocardial infarction (HF: HR, 1.89, P=0.01; HF/cardiovascular death: HR, 1.68, P=0.02). Elevated oxidized phospholipid concentrations were similarly associated with risk, particularly when added to higher lipoprotein(a). In Kaplan-Meier analyses, individuals with stage A/B HF and elevated lipoprotein(a) had shorter time to progression to stage C/D HF or HF/cardiovascular death (both log-rank P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among individuals with stage A or B HF, higher lipoprotein(a) and oxidized phospholipid concentrations are independent risk factors for progression to symptomatic HF or cardiovascular death.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://wwwclinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00842868.

Therapeutic Potential of Lipoprotein(a) Inhibitors

Increasing evidence has implicated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the causality of atherosclerosis and calcific aortic stenosis. This has stimulated immense interest in developing novel approaches to integrating Lp(a) into the setting of cardiovascular prevention. Current guidelines advocate universal measurement of Lp(a) levels, with the potential to influence cardiovascular risk assessment and triage of higher-risk patients to use of more intensive preventive therapies. In parallel, considerable activity has been undertaken to develop novel therapeutics with the potential to achieve selective and substantial reductions in Lp(a) levels. Early studies of antisense oligonucleotides (e.g., mipomersen, pelacarsen), RNA interference (e.g., olpasiran, zerlasiran, lepodisiran) and small molecule inhibitors (e.g., muvalaplin) have demonstrated effective Lp(a) lowering and good tolerability. These agents are moving forward in clinical development, in order to determine whether Lp(a) lowering reduces cardiovascular risk. The results of these studies have the potential to transform our approach to the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

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).

Association between lipoprotein (a) and risk of heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization studies

BACKGROUND

Rising incidence of heart failure (HF) in the Western world despite advanced clinical care necessitate exploration of further preventive tools and strategies. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], recognized as one of the major cardiovascular risk factors has also been implicated as a risk factor for HF. However, existing evidence remains inconclusive and that has led us to perform this meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline, EMBASE and Scopus were systematically searched for studies evaluating an association of Lp(a) with occurrence of HF from inception-till November 2023. Random effects models and I2 statistics were used for pooled odds ratio (OR) and heterogeneity assessment. We performed leave one out sensitivity analyses by sequentially removing one study at a time and recalculating the pooled effect size.

RESULT

Our search rendered in total 360 studies and after final screening this resulted in 7 Mendelian randomization (MR) design. According to the MR analysis, increasing Lp(a) level were significantly associated with increased risk of HF (OR 1.064, 95 % CI: 1.043-1.086, I2= 97.59 %, P < 0.001). In addition, Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis showed that the effect size did not change substantially by removal of any particular study in MR studies and ORs ranged from 1.051 (when excluding Levin) to a maximum of 1.111 (when excluding Wang or Jiang), hereby confirming the association.

CONCLUSION

We were able to show that by meta-analysis of MR data, increasing lipoprotein (a) levels are associated with an increased risk of HF. Whether this is due to a direct effect on heart muscle contraction or whether this is due to an increased risk of ischemic cardiac disease remains to be elucidated.

Association of Lipoprotein(a) Levels With Myocardial Fibrosis in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) has been identified as an emerging risk factor for adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, including heart failure. However, the connections among Lp(a), myocardial fibrosis (interstitial and replacement), and cardiac remodeling as pathways to CV diseases remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the relationship between Lp(a) levels and myocardial fibrosis by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) T1 mapping and late gadolinium enhancement, as well as cardiac remodeling by cine CMR, in the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) cohort.

METHODS

The study included 2,040 participants with baseline Lp(a) measurements and T1 mapping for interstitial myocardial fibrosis (IMF) evaluation in 2010. Lp(a) was analyzed as a continuous variable (per log unit) and using clinical cutoff values of 30 and 50 mg/dL. Multivariate linear and logistic regression were used to assess the associations of Lp(a) with CMR measures of extracellular volume (ECV fraction [ECV%]), native T1 time, and myocardial scar, as well as parameters of cardiac remodeling, in 2,826 participants.

RESULTS

Higher Lp(a) levels were associated with increased ECV% (per log-unit Lp[a]; β = 0.2%; P = 0.007) and native T1 time (per log-unit Lp[a]; β = 4%; P < 0.001). Similar relationships were observed between elevated Lp(a) levels and a higher risk of clinically significant IMF defined by prognostic thresholds per log-unit Lp(a) of ECV% (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.04-1.43) and native T1 (OR: 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1-1.4) equal to 30% and 955 ms, respectively. Clinically used Lp(a) cutoffs (30 and 50 mg/dL) were associated with greater prevalence of myocardial scar (OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.1-3.2 and OR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.1-3.4, respectively). Finally, higher Lp(a) levels were associated with left atrial enlargement and dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated Lp(a) levels are linked to greater subclinical IMF, increased myocardial scar prevalence, and left atrial remodeling.

Lipoprotein(a) and heart failure: a systematic review

The role of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] as a possible causal risk factor for atherosclerotic artery disease and aortic valve stenosis has been well established. However, the information on the association between Lp(a) levels and heart failure (HF) is limited and controversial. The main objective of the present study was to assess the association between Lp(a) levels and HF. This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. A literature search was performed to detect studies that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels and HF. Eight studies, including 73,410 patients, were eligible for this research. Seven prospective or retrospective cohorts and one cross-sectional study were analyzed. Five studies analyzed populations without HF; another three included patients with HF or left ventricular dysfunction. The endpoints evaluated varied according to the study analyzed, including incident HF, HF hospitalizations, and decreased left ventricular ejection fraction. Lp(a) levels were also analyzed in different ways, including analysis of Lp(a) as a continuous or categorical variable (distinct cut-off points or percentiles). Globally, the studies included in this review found predominantly positive results. Data on some relevant subgroups, such as HF of ischemic or non-ischemic etiology or HF with or without left ventricular dysfunction, was poorly reported. This systematic review suggests that there would be a positive relationship between Lp(a) levels and HF. Given the complexity and heterogeneity of HF, new studies should be developed to clarify this topic.

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

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

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

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

Lipoprotein(a), family history of cardiovascular disease, and incidence of heart failure

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a largely genetically determined biomarker for cardiovascular disease (CVD), while its potential interplay with family history (FHx) of CVD, a measure of both genetic and environmental exposures, remains unclear. We examined the associations of Lp(a) in terms of circulating concentration or polygenetic risk score (PRS), and FHx of CVD with risk of incident heart failure (HF). Included were 299,158 adults from the UK Biobank without known HF and CVD at baseline. Hazards ratios (HRs) and 95% Cls were estimated by Cox regression models adjusted for traditional risk factors defined by the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study HF risk score. During the 11.8-year follow-up, 5,502 incidents of HF occurred. Higher levels of circulating Lp(a), Lp(a) PRS, and positive FHx of CVD were associated with higher risks of HF. Compared with individuals who had lower circulating Lp(a) and no FHx, HRs (95% CIs) of HF were 1.36 (1.25, 1.49), 1.31 (1.19, 1.43), and 1.42 (1.22, 1.67) for those with higher Lp(a) and a positive history of CVD for all family members, parents, and siblings, respectively; similar results were observed by using Lp(a) PRS. The risk estimates for HF associated with elevated Lp(a) and positive FHx were attenuated after excluding those with incident myocardial infarction (MI) during follow-up. Lp(a) and FHx of CVD were independent risk factors for incident HF, and the highest risk of HF was observed among individuals with both risk factors. The association may be partly mediated by myocardial infarction.

The Oxidized Lipoproteins In Vivo: Its Diversity and Behavior in the Human Circulation

A high concentration of low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) in circulation has been well-known as a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. The presence of oxidized LDLs (oxLDLs) in atherosclerotic lesions and circulation was demonstrated using anti-oxLDL monoclonal antibodies. The so-called “oxLDL hypothesis”, as a mechanism for atherosclerosis development, has been attracting attention for decades. However, the oxLDL has been considered a hypothetical particle since the oxLDL present in vivo has not been fully characterized. Several chemically modified LDLs have been proposed to mimic oxLDLs. Some of the subfractions of LDL, especially Lp(a) and electronegative LDL, have been characterized as oxLDL candidates as oxidized phospholipids that stimulate vascular cells. Oxidized high-density lipoprotein (oxHDL) and oxLDL were discovered immunologically in vivo. Recently, an oxLDL-oxHDL complex was found in human plasma, suggesting the involvement of HDLs in the oxidative modification of lipoproteins in vivo. In this review, we summarize our understanding of oxidized lipoproteins and propose a novel standpoint to understand the oxidized lipoproteins present in vivo.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Genome-wide association and multi-trait analyses characterize the common genetic architecture of heart failure

Heart failure is a leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, the contribution of common genetic variation to heart failure risk has not been fully elucidated, particularly in comparison to other common cardiometabolic traits. We report a multi-ancestry genome-wide association study meta-analysis of all-cause heart failure including up to 115,150 cases and 1,550,331 controls of diverse genetic ancestry, identifying 47 risk loci. We also perform multivariate genome-wide association studies that integrate heart failure with related cardiac magnetic resonance imaging endophenotypes, identifying 61 risk loci. Gene-prioritization analyses including colocalization and transcriptome-wide association studies identify known and previously unreported candidate cardiomyopathy genes and cellular processes, which we validate in gene-expression profiling of failing and healthy human hearts. Colocalization, gene expression profiling, and Mendelian randomization provide convergent evidence for the roles of BCKDHA and circulating branch-chain amino acids in heart failure and cardiac structure. Finally, proteome-wide Mendelian randomization identifies 9 circulating proteins associated with heart failure or quantitative imaging traits. These analyses highlight similarities and differences among heart failure and associated cardiovascular imaging endophenotypes, implicate common genetic variation in the pathogenesis of heart failure, and identify circulating proteins that may represent cardiomyopathy treatment targets.

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.

Association of lipoprotein(a) with aortic dissection

Background

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with coronary atherosclerotic heart disease, aortic stenosis, stroke, and heart failure. We aimed to determine the relationship between Lp(a) and aortic dissection (AD).

Methods

Two hundred patients with AD were included in our case group. The control group consisted of 200 non‐AD people who were age‐ (±5 years) and gender‐matched to the case group. Data were collected retrospectively, including hypertension, smoking, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, Lp(a), total cholesterol, triglyceride, low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol. The association between Lp(a) and AD was studied using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results

Patients with AD had greater median Lp(a) concentrations than non‐AD people (152.50 vs. 81.75 mg/L). Lp(a) was associated with AD in a multivariate logistic regression analysis (odds ratio, 8.03; 95% confidence interval, 2.85–22.62), comparing those with Lp(a) quartile 4 with those with Lp(a) quartile 1. Stratified analysis showed that this relationship was observed in both men and women, as well as in older and younger individuals.

Conclusions

High levels of Lp(a) are strongly associated with AD, independent of other cardiovascular risk factors.

Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists Harmonized Clinical Laboratory Lipid Reporting Recommendations on the Basis of the 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Lipid Guidelines

There is limited guidance on laboratory reporting and interpretation of lipids and lipoproteins used in cardiovascular risk stratification. This contributes to inconsistencies in lipid reporting across clinical laboratories. Recently, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) published the 2021 CCS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in the adult. A subcommittee of the Working Group on Reference Interval Harmonization of the Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists has developed harmonized lipid reporting recommendations that are aligned with the 2021 CCS guidelines, to improve the standardization of lipid assessment and clinical decision-making. The proposed harmonized lipid reporting recommendations were critically reviewed by a broad range of laboratory and clinical experts across Canada. Feedback from approximately 30 expert reviewers was reviewed by the Working Group on Reference Interval Harmonization lipid subcommittee, and consensus decisions were incorporated into the 2021 harmonized lipid reporting recommendations. In this position statement, we provide 6 recommendations for laboratory reporting of lipid parameters. These recommendations include implementing the new National Institutes of Health equation to replace the Friedewald equation for calculating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, offering lipoprotein (a), either as an in-house or send-out test, and using assays that report lipoprotein (a) in molar units (nmol/L). We also developed a harmonized lipid reporting format with interpretive comments that includes flagging results based on screening patients using treatment decision thresholds in a primary prevention setting. Overall, harmonized lipid reporting will help bridge the gap between clinical guideline recommendations and clinical laboratory reporting and interpretation, and will improve cardiovascular risk assessment across Canada.

Non-genetic influences on lipoprotein(a) concentrations

An elevated level of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a genetically regulated, independent, causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease. However, the extensive variability in Lp(a) levels between individuals and population groups cannot be fully explained by genetic factors, emphasizing a potential role for non-genetic factors. In this review, we provide an overview of current evidence on non-genetic factors influencing Lp(a) levels with a particular focus on diet, physical activity, hormones and certain pathological conditions. Findings from randomized controlled clinical trials show that diets lower in saturated fats modestly influence Lp(a) levels and often in the opposing direction to LDL cholesterol. Results from studies on physical activity/exercise have been inconsistent, ranging from no to minimal or moderate change in Lp(a) levels, potentially modulated by age and the type, intensity, and duration of exercise modality. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in postmenopausal women lowers Lp(a) levels with oral being more effective than transdermal estradiol; the type of HRT, dose of estrogen and addition of progestogen do not modify the Lp(a)-lowering effect of HRT. Kidney diseases result in marked elevations in Lp(a) levels, albeit dependent on disease stages, dialysis modalities and apolipoprotein(a) phenotypes. In contrast, Lp(a) levels are reduced in liver diseases in parallel with the disease progression, although population studies have yielded conflicting results on the associations between Lp(a) levels and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Overall, current evidence supports a role for diet, hormones and related conditions, and liver and kidney diseases in modifying Lp(a) levels.

Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular and valvular diseases: A genetic epidemiological perspective

Rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in the Western world have spectacularly decreased over the past 50 years. However, a substantial proportion of high-risk patients still develop heart attacks, strokes and valvular heart diseases despite benefiting from state-of-the-art treatments including lipid-lowering therapies. Over the past 10-15 years, it has become increasingly clear that Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a critical component of this so-called residual risk. Genetic association studies revealed that Lp(a) is robustly, independently and causally associated with a broad range of cardiovascular and valvular heart diseases. Up to 1 billion people around the globe may have an Lp(a) level that places them in a high-risk category. Lp(a) is strongly associated with calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS), coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and to a lesser extent with ischemic stroke (IS) and heart failure (HF). Because of this strong association with cardiovascular and valvular heart diseases, Lp(a) even emerged as one of the most important genetic determinants of human lifespan and healthspan. Here, we review the evidence from the largest and most informative genetic association studies and prospective studies that have investigated the association between Lp(a) and human lifespan, healthspan, CVD, CAVS and non-cardiovascular diseases. We present Lp(a) threshold values that may be clinically relevant and identify other cardiovascular risk factors that may modulate the absolute risk of CVD in individuals with high Lp(a) levels. Finally, we identify key clinical and research questions that require further investigation to eventually and optimally reduce CVD risk in patients with high Lp(a) levels.

Association of lipoprotein (a) and 1 year prognosis in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Aim

Current study was to evaluate relationship between baseline serum lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] level and prognosis in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and to explore whether the relationship would be modified by baseline high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein (Hs‐CRP) level.

Methods and results

This is an observational prospective study. HFrEF patients from outpatient clinic were consecutively recruited (n = 362). Based on Lp(a) cutoff (30 mg/dL), patients were divided into normal and high Lp(a) groups; and based on Hs‐CRP cutoff (3 mg/dL), patients were divided into low‐degree and high‐degree groups. The 1 year rate of HF rehospitalization was similar between these two groups (22.7% vs. 24.1%, P = 0.18), while the 1 year rate of cardiovascular mortality was higher in Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL versus Lp(a) < 30 mg/dL groups (20.3% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.009), as was composite endpoint (44.4% vs. 36.0%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, elevated Lp(a) level remained associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.22 and 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04–1.64, P = 0.02] and composite endpoint (HR 1.38 and 95% CI 1.16–2.01, P = 0.006). In Hs‐CRP ≥ 3 mg/dL group, elevated Lp(a) level was associated with HF rehospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, and composite endpoint, which was not observed in Hs‐CRP < 3 mg/dL group. The association was greater for cardiovascular mortality (P‐interaction = 0.04) and composite endpoint (P‐interaction = 0.02) in Hs‐CRP ≥ 3 mg/dL versus Hs‐CRP < 3 mg/dL groups.

Conclusion

Elevated Lp(a) level is associated with higher risk of cardiovascular mortality in HFrEF patients, which might be due to enhanced systemic inflammation.

Association between lipoprotein (a) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction development

Background

The current study aimed to evaluate the relationship between baseline serum lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] level and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) development.

Methods

This was a retrospective study, and participants were enrolled from the outpatient clinic. All data were extracted from the electronic health record of the outpatient clinic system. The follow‐up was performed through reviewing the clinical notes at the outpatient clinic system, and study outcome of the current study was the first diagnosis of HFrEF. Participants were divided into low Lp(a) (<30 mg/dl, n = 336) and high Lp(a) (≥30 mg/dl, n = 584) groups.

Results

Individuals in the high Lp(a) group were more likely to be men and have diabetes mellitus (DM) and dyslipidemia. Increased Lp(a) at baseline was positively associated with serum N‐terminal pro‐B natriuretic peptide level while negatively associated with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at follow‐up. After adjusting for covariates, per 10 mg/dl increase in baseline Lp(a) remained significantly associated with HFrEF, with odds ratio of 1.17 (95% confidence interval of 1.05, 1.46). The magnitude of association between baseline Lp(a) level and HFrEF was greater in men and in individuals with DM or coronary heart disease (CHD), while it was weaker in individuals treated with beta‐blocker at baseline.

Conclusion

Increased Lp(a) at baseline was associated with HFrEF development. The adverse effects of Lp(a) were greater on men and individuals with DM or CHD, which were mitigated by beta‐blocker therapy. These findings together underscore the possibility and usefulness of Lp(a) as a new risk factor to predict HFrEF.

Lipoprotein (a) and Cardiovascular Disease: A Missing Link for Premature Atherosclerotic Heart Disease and/or Residual Risk

ABSTRACT

Lipoprotein(a) or lipoprotein "little a" is an under-recognized causal risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD), including coronary atherosclerosis, aortic valvular stenosis, ischemic stroke, heart failure and peripheral arterial disease. Elevated plasma Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL or ≥100 nmol/L) is commonly encountered in almost 1 in 5 individuals and confers a higher CV risk compared to those with normal Lp(a) levels, although such normal levels have not been generally agreed upon. Elevated Lp(a) is considered a cause of premature and accelerated atherosclerotic CVD. Thus, in patients with a positive family or personal history of premature coronary artery disease (CAD), Lp(a) should be measured. However, elevated Lp(a) may confer increased risk for incident CAD even in the absence of a family history of CAD, and even in those who have guideline-lowered LDL-cholesterol (<70 mg/dl) and continue to have a persisting CV residual risk. Thus, measurement of Lp(a) will have a significant clinical impact on the assessment of atherosclerotic CVD risk, and will assume a more important role in managing patients with CVD with the advent and clinical application of specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies. Conventional therapeutic approaches like lifestyle modification and statin therapy remain ineffective at lowering Lp(a). Newer treatment modalities, such as gene silencing via RNA interference with use of antisense oligonucleotide(s) or small interfering RNA molecules targeting Lp(a) seem very promising. These issues are herein reviewed, accumulated data are scrutinized, meta-analyses and current guidelines are tabulated and Lp(a)-related CVDs and newer therapeutic modalities are pictorially illustrated.

Associations of Lipoprotein(a) With Coronary Atherosclerotic Burden and All-Cause Mortality in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background: The coronary atherosclerotic burden in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been identified as the main predictor of prognosis. However, the association of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], a well-established proatherogenic factor, with atherosclerotic burden in patients with STEMI is unclear.

Methods: In total, 1,359 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for STEMI were included in analyses. Three prespecified models with adjustment for demographic parameters and risk factors were evaluated. Generalized additive models and restricted cubic spline analyses were used to assess the relationships of Lp(a) with Gensini scores and the no-reflow phenomenon. Kaplan–Meier curves were generated to explore the predictive value of Lp(a) for long-term all-cause mortality. Furthermore, mRNA expression levels of LPA in different groups were compared using the GEO database.

Results: Patients in the highest tertile according to Lp(a) levels had an increased incidence of heart failure during hospitalization. Furthermore, patients with high levels of Lp(a) (>19.1 mg/dL) had sharply increased risks for a higher Gensini score (P_{for trend} = 0.03) and no-reflow (P_{for trend} = 0.002) after adjustment for demographic parameters and risk factors. During a median follow-up of 930 days, 132 deaths (9.95%) were registered. Patients with high levels of Lp(a) (>19.1 mg/dL) had the worst long-term prognosis (P_{for trend} < 0.0001). In a subgroup analysis, patients with higher Lp(a) still had the highest all-cause mortality. Additionally, the mRNA expression levels of LPA in patients with STEMI with lower cardiac function were higher than those in other groups (P = 0.003). A higher coronary atherosclerotic burden was correlated with higher LPA expression (P = 0.01).

Conclusion: This study provides the first evidence that Lp(a) (at both the protein and mRNA levels) is independently associated with coronary atherosclerotic lesions and prognosis in patients with STEMI treated with PCI.

Clinical Trial Registration:http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx, identifier: ChiCTR1900028516.

Structure and Dynamics of Oxidized Lipoproteins In Vivo: Roles of High-Density Lipoprotein

Oxidative modification of lipoproteins is implicated in the occurrence and development of atherosclerotic lesions. Earlier studies have elucidated on the mechanisms of foam cell formation and lipid accumulation in these lesions, which is mediated by scavenger receptor-mediated endocytosis of oxidized low-density lipoprotein (oxLDL). Mounting clinical evidence has supported the involvement of oxLDL in cardiovascular diseases. High-density lipoprotein (HDL) is known as anti-atherogenic; however, recent studies have shown circulating oxidized HDL (oxHDL) is related to cardiovascular diseases. A modified structure of oxLDL, which was increased in the plasma of patients with acute myocardial infarction, was characterized. It had two unique features: (1) a fraction of oxLDL accompanied oxHDL, and (2) apoA1 was heavily modified, while modification of apoB, and the accumulation of oxidized phosphatidylcholine (oxPC) and lysophosphatidylcholine (lysoPC) was less pronounced. When LDL and HDL were present at the same time, oxidized lipoproteins actively interacted with each other, and oxPC and lysoPC were transferred to another lipoprotein particle and enzymatically metabolized rapidly. This brief review provides a novel view on the dynamics of oxLDL and oxHDL in circulation.

The impact of race and ethnicity on lipoprotein(a) levels and cardiovascular risk

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a plasma circulating apoB100 (apoB) containing lipoprotein. It has a unique glycoprotein bound to the apoB100, apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)]. The majority of the population expresses two apo(a) isoforms, when bound to apoB100 they create two circulating Lp(a) particles. Lp(a) levels are genetically determined and epidemiological studies have established elevated levels of Lp(a) to be a causal risk factor of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Lp(a) levels differ across racial groups and Blacks of Sub-Saharan decent have higher levels when compared to white. In comparison to white populations, studies in minorities are less represented in the published literature. Additionally, there is a lack of standardization in the commercial assays used to measured Lp(a) levels, and hence it is difficult to assess risk based on individual Lp(a) levels, but risk seems to occur in the upper percentiles of the population.

RECENT FINDINGS

A recent study using data from the UK biobank highlights the racial differences in Lp(a) levels and the increase risk in CVD amongst all races.

SUMMARY

This review will highlight Lp(a) biology and physiology with a focus on available data from racially diverse cohorts. There is a need to perform studies in diverse populations to understand if they are at higher risk than whites are.

Association of Lipoprotein (a) variants with risk of cardiovascular disease: a Mendelian randomization study

Background

There is a well-documented empirical relationship between lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] and cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, causal evidence, especially from the Chinese population, is lacking. Therefore, this study aims to estimate the causal association between variants in genes affecting Lp(a) concentrations and CVD in people of Han Chinese ethnicity.

Methods

Two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis was used to assess the causal effect of Lp(a) concentrations on the risk of CVD. Summary statistics for Lp(a) variants were obtained from 1256 individuals in the Cohort Study on Chronic Disease of Communities Natural Population in Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei. Data on associations between single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and CVD were obtained from recently published genome-wide association studies.

Results

Thirteen SNPs associated with Lp(a) levels in the Han Chinese population were used as instrumental variables. Genetically elevated Lp(a) was inversely associated with the risk of atrial fibrillation [odds ratio (OR), 0.94; 95% confidence interval (95%CI), 0.901–0.987; P = 0.012)], the risk of arrhythmia (OR, 0.96; 95%CI, 0.941–0.990; P = 0.005), the left ventricular mass index (OR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.949–1.000; P = 0.048), and the left ventricular internal dimension in diastole (OR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.950–0.997; P = 0.028) according to the inverse-variance weighted method. No significant association was observed for congestive heart failure (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.950–1.038; P = 0.766), ischemic stroke (OR, 1.01; 95%CI, 0.981–1.046; P = 0.422), and left ventricular internal dimension in systole (OR, 0.98; 95%CI, 0.960–1.009; P = 0.214).

Conclusions

This study provided evidence that genetically elevated Lp(a) was inversely associated with atrial fibrillation, arrhythmia, the left ventricular mass index and the left ventricular internal dimension in diastole, but not with congestive heart failure, ischemic stroke, and the left ventricular internal dimension in systole in the Han Chinese population. Further research is needed to identify the mechanism underlying these results and determine whether genetically elevated Lp(a) increases the risk of coronary heart disease or other CVD subtypes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12944-021-01482-0.

Lipoprotein (a) and coronary artery calcification: prospective study assessing interactions with other risk factors

BACKGROUND

Elevated plasma lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] and coronary artery calcification (CAC) are established cardiovascular risk factors that correlate with each other. We hypothesized that other cardiovascular risk factors could affect their relationship.

METHODS

We tested for interactions of 24 study variables related to dyslipidemia, diabetes, insulin resistance, hypertension, inflammation and coagulation with baseline Lp(a) on change in CAC volume and density over 9.5 years in 5975 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) participants, free of apparent cardiovascular disease at baseline.

RESULTS

Elevated Lp(a) was associated with larger absolute increase in CAC volume (3.21 and 4.45 mm3/year higher for Lp(a) ≥30 versus <30 mg/dL, and Lp(a) ≥50 versus <50 mg/dL, respectively), but not relative change in CAC volume. No association was found with change in CAC density when assessing continuous ln-transformed Lp(a). The association between elevated Lp(a) (≥30 mg/dL) and absolute change in CAC volume was greater in participants with higher circulating levels of interleukin-2 soluble receptor α, soluble tumor necrosis factor alpha receptor 1 and fibrinogen (15.33, 11.81 and 7.02 mm3/year in quartile 4, compared to -3.44, -0.59 and 1.91 mm3/year in quartile 1, respectively). No significant interaction was found for other study variables. Similar interactions were seen when assessing Lp(a) levels ≥50 mg/dL.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated Lp(a) was associated with an absolute increase in CAC volume, especially in participants with higher levels of selected markers of inflammation and coagulation. These results suggest Lp(a) as a potential biomarker for CAC volume progression.

Association of lipoprotein (a) and in-hospital outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Objective: The current study was to evaluate the association of Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] and in-hospital outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Methods: ACS patients undergoing PCI were retrospectively enrolled. Based on Lp(a) level, patients were divided into low (<30 mg/dL) and high (≥30 mg/dL) Lp(a) groups.Results: Compared to those with low Lp(a), patients with high Lp(a) had larger numbers of coronary arteries ≥70% stenosis and had longer coronary artery lesion (P < 0.05). After adjustment for covariates, high Lp(a) remained associated with higher odds of having coronary artery ≥70% stenosis, type C coronary lesion and pre-PCI TIMI flow grade 1/0. Patients with high Lp(a) had a higher unadjusted odds of acute stent thrombosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.10 and 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-2.27), congestive heart failure (OR 1.24 and 95% CI 1.15-2.38) and composite in-hospital outcomes (OR 1.28 and 95% CI 1.18-2.42). After adjustment for covariates, patients with high Lp(a) still had a higher odds of congestive heart failure (OR 1.08 and 95% CI 1.01-1.78) and composite in-hospital outcomes (OR 1.12 and 95% CI 1.04-1.81).Conclusion: In ACS patients undergoing PCI, compared to those with low Lp(a), patients with high Lp(a) had more severe coronary artery lesion, higher risk of congestive heart failure and composite in-hospital outcomes.

Risks of incident heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in Chinese patients hospitalized for cardiovascular diseases

Background

Endogenous aldehyde damages DNA and potentiates an ageing phenotype. The aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 (ALDH2) rs671 polymorphism has a prevalence of 30%–50% in Asian populations. In this study, we aimed to analyze risk factors contributing to the development of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) along with the genetic exposure in Chinese patients hospitalized with cardiovascular diseases (CVD).

Methods

From July 2017 to October 2018, a total of 770 consecutive Chinese patients with normal left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) and established CVD (hypertension, coronary heart diseases, or diabetes) were enrolled in this prospective cross-sectional study. HFpEF was defined by the presence of at least one of symptom (dyspnoea and fatigue) or sign (rales and ankle swelling) related to heart failure; N-terminal pro-B-Type natriuretic peptide (NT pro-BNP ≥ 280 pg/mL); LVEF ≥ 50%; and at least one criterion related to elevated ventricular filling pressure or diastolic dysfunction (left atrial diameter > 40 mm, E/E' ≥ 13, E'/A' < 1 or concurrent atrial fibrillation). Logistic regression was performed to yield adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for HFpEF incidence associated with traditional and/or genetic exposures.

Results

Finally, among 770 patients with CVD, 92 (11.9%) patients were classified into the HFpEF group according to the diagnostic criteria. The mean age of the participants was 67 ± 12 years, and 278 (36.1%) patients were females. A total of 303 (39.4%) patients were ALDH2*2 variant carriers. In the univariate analysis, eight exposures were found to be associated with HFpEF: atrial fibrillation, ALDH2*2 variants, hypertension, age, anaemia, smoking, alcohol consumption and sex. Multivariable logistic regression showed that 4 ‘A’ variables (atrial fibrillation, ALDH2*2 variants, age and anaemia) were significantly associated with an increased risk of HFpEF. Atrial fibrillation was associated with a 3.8-fold increased HFpEF risk (95% CI: 2.21–6.61, P < 0.001), and the other three exposures associated with increased HFpEF risk were the ALDH2*2 variant (OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.49–3.87, P < 0.001), age (OR = 2.14, 95% CI: 1.27–3.60, P = 0.004), and anaemia (OR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.05–3.03, P = 0.032). These four variables predicted HFpEF incidence in Chinese CVD patients (C-statistic = 0.745, 95% CI: 0.691–0.800, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

4 A traits (atrial fibrillation, ALDH2*2 variants, age and anaemia) were associated with an increased risk of HFpEF in Chinese CVD patients. Our results provide potential clues to the aetiology, pathophysiology and therapeutic targets of HFpEF.

Molecular, Population, and Clinical Aspects of Lipoprotein(a): A Bridge Too Far?

There is now significant evidence to support an independent causal role for lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) as a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Plasma Lp(a) concentrations are predominantly determined by genetic factors. However, research into Lp(a) has been hampered by incomplete understanding of its metabolism and proatherogeneic properties and by a lack of suitable animal models. Furthermore, a lack of standardized assays to measure Lp(a) and no universal consensus on optimal plasma levels remain significant obstacles. In addition, there are currently no approved specific therapies that target and lower elevated plasma Lp(a), although there are recent but limited clinical outcome data suggesting benefits of such reduction. Despite this, international guidelines now recognize elevated Lp(a) as a risk enhancing factor for risk reclassification. This review summarises the current literature on Lp(a), including its discovery and recognition as an atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factor, attempts to standardise analytical measurement, interpopulation studies, and emerging therapies for lowering elevated Lp(a) levels.

Lipoprotein(a) Elevation: A New Diagnostic Code with Relevance to Service Members and Veterans

Newly recognized as a clinical diagnosis, Lp(a) elevation is a major contributor to cardiovascular disease risk should be considered for patients with advanced premature atherosclerosis on imaging or a family history of premature cardiovascular disease, particularly when there are few traditional risk factors.

Race-Based Differences in Lipoprotein(a)-Associated Risk of Carotid Atherosclerosis

Objective- Lp(a) [lipoprotein(a)] is a well-described risk factor for atherosclerosis, but Lp(a)-associated risk may vary by race/ethnicity. We aimed to determine whether race/ethnicity modifies Lp(a)-related risk of carotid atherosclerotic plaque outcomes among black, white, Chinese, and Hispanic individuals. Approach and Results- Carotid plaque presence and score were assessed by ultrasonography at baseline (n=5155) and following a median 9.4 year period (n=3380) in MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) participants. Lp(a) concentrations were measured by immunoassay and examined as a continuous and categorical variable using clinically-based cutoffs, 30 and 50 mg/dL. Lp(a) was related to greater risk of prevalent carotid plaque at baseline in whites alone (all P<0.001): per log unit (relative risk, 1.05); Lp(a)≥30 mg/dL (relative risk, 1.16); and Lp(a)≥50 mg/dL (relative risk, 1.20). Lp(a) levels over 50 mg/dL were associated with a higher plaque score at baseline in whites (all P<0.001) and Hispanics ( P=0.04). In prospective analyses, whites with Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL were found to have greater risk of plaque progression (relative risk, 1.12; P=0.03) and higher plaque scores (all P<0.001) over the 9.4-year follow-up. Race-based differences between whites and black participants were significant for cross-sectional associations and for carotid plaque score following the 9.4 year study period. Conclusions- Race was found to be a modifying variable in Lp(a)-related risk of carotid plaque, and Lp(a) levels may have greater influence on plaque burden in whites than in black individuals. Borderline results in Hispanics suggest that elevated Lp(a) may increase the risk of carotid plaque, but follow-up studies are needed.