Lipoprotein (a): impact by ethnicity and environmental and medical conditions

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Association between lipoprotein(a) plasma levels and diabetic nephropathy in Han Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The goal of this study was to evaluate the relationship between serum lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels and diabetic nephropathy (DN) among Han Chinese individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This retrospective analysis comprised a consecutive case series of 767 grown-up patients with T2DM (199 among them with DN) hospitalized in the Department of Endocrinology at the The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from February 20220 to February 2021. Clinical data and other laboratory measurements, such as glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), were extracted from medical records and compared among groups. Clinical characteristics according to Lp(a) quartiles were also studied. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis were used to examine the relationship between serum Lp(a) and DN. Patients with DN had a longer disease duration, higher HbA1c, higher level of Lp(a), and were more likely to have diabetic retinopathy (DR) than those without DN (P < 0.005 for each). With regard to the Lp(a) quartile group, patients with a higher Lp(a) concentration were more likely to have DN and have higher level of HbA1c during the study (P for trend < 0.005 for each). After adjusting for several confounding factors, the development of DN was significantly associated with the serum Lp(a) level (P = 0.026, comparing the 4th vs 1st quartile of Lp(a)) according to multivariate regression analysis. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for DN development using serum Lp(a) showed that the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) was 0.590 (P < 0.001). Findings from this study demonstrated that the DN was independently associated with the serum Lp(a) level in patients with T2DM in this retrospective study.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

All we need to know about lipoprotein(a)

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

Association between lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease in patients undergoing coronary angiography

OBJECTIVE

Many previous studies reported the relationship between lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease, but the conclusions were controversial. The aim of our study was to retrospectively investigate the association between lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease in patients undergoing coronary angiography.

METHODS

We collected and compared clinical information of patients hospitalized for coronary angiography. Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease in patients undergoing coronary angiography.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in gender, hypertension, APOA1, smoking, hyperuricemia, obesity, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), cardiac insufficiency, family history of diabetes, or family history of hyperlipidemia among the four groups of lipoprotein(a). Elevated lipoprotein(a) does not increase the risk of hypertriglyceridemia, while elevated lipoprotein(a) increases the risk of high total cholesterol and high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c). Elevated lipoprotein(a) increases the risk of diabetes and premature coronary artery disease (CAD). Elevated lipoprotein(a) increases the incidence of CAD, multivessel lesions, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Multivariate logistic regression analysis further showed that elevated lipoprotein(a) increases the incidence of high total cholesterol, high LDL‑c, diabetes, CAD, premature CAD, multivessel lesions, and PCI.

CONCLUSION

The findings indicated that elevated lipoprotein(a) had no obvious relationship with hypertension and obesity. Elevated lipoprotein(a) increases the risk of high total cholesterol, high LDL‑c, and premature CAD, and increases the occurrence and severity of coronary heart disease.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Consideration and Application of Lipoprotein(a) in the Risk Assessment of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Adults

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is an low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-like particle in which apolipoprotein (apo) B is covalently bound to a plasminogen-like molecule called apo(a). A High level of Lp(a) has been demonstrated to be an independent, causal, and prevalent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), as well as aortic valve disease, through mechanisms that promote atherogenesis, inflammation, and thrombosis. With reliable and accessible assays, Lp(a) level has been established to be associated linearly with the risk for ASCVD. The 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Dyslipidemia Guidelines recommend measuring an Lp(a) level once in a person's lifetime as part of the initial lipid screening. The aim of this review is to provide an update and overview of the utility and application of Lp(a) level in the assessment and treatment of adults at risk for ASCVD, consistent with this guideline recommendation.

Relationship Between Lipoprotein(a), Renal Function Indicators, and Chronic Kidney Disease: Evidence From a Large Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) poses a significant global public health challenge. While lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) has been established as a significant factor in cardiovascular disease, its connection to CKD risk remains a topic of debate. Existing evidence indicates diverse risks of kidney disease among individuals with various renal function indicators, even when within the normal range.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the joint associations between different renal function indicators and Lp(a) regarding the risks of incident CKD in the general population.

METHODS

The analysis involved a cohort of 329,415 participants without prior CKD who were enrolled in the UK Biobank between 2006 and 2010. The participants, with an average age of 56 (SD 8.1) years, included 154,298/329,415 (46.84%) males. At baseline, Lp(a) levels were measured using an immunoturbidimetric assay and classified into 2 groups: low (<75 nmol/L) and high (≥75 nmol/L). To assess participants' baseline renal function, we used the baseline urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The relationship between Lp(a), renal function indicators, and the risk of CKD was evaluated using multivariable Cox regression models. These models were adjusted for various factors, including sociodemographic variables, lifestyle factors, comorbidities, and laboratory measures.

RESULTS

A total of 6003 incident CKD events were documented over a median follow-up period of 12.5 years. The association between elevated Lp(a) levels and CKD risk did not achieve statistical significance among all participants, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.05 and a 95% CI ranging from 0.98 to 1.13 (P=.16). However, a notable interaction was identified between Lp(a) and UACR in relation to CKD risk (P for interaction=.04), whereas no significant interaction was observed between Lp(a) and eGFR (P for interaction=.96). When compared with the reference group with low Lp(a) and low-normal UACR (<10 mg/g), the group with high Lp(a) and low-normal UACR exhibited a nonsignificant association with CKD risk (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90-1.08; P=.74). By contrast, both the low Lp(a) and high-normal UACR (≥10 mg/g) group (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.24; P<.001) and the high Lp(a) and high-normal UACR group (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.19-1.46; P<.001) demonstrated significant associations with increased CKD risks. In individuals with high-normal UACR, elevated Lp(a) was linked to a significant increase in CKD risk, with an HR of 1.14 and a 95% CI ranging from 1.03 to 1.26 (P=.01). Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses consistently produced results that were largely in line with the main findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis revealed a significant interaction between Lp(a) and UACR in relation to CKD risk. This implies that Lp(a) may act as a risk factor for CKD even when considering UACR. Our findings have the potential to provide valuable insights into the assessment and prevention of CKD, emphasizing the combined impact of Lp(a) and UACR from a public health perspective within the general population. This could contribute to enhancing public awareness regarding the management of Lp(a) for the prevention of CKD.

Recommendations of the Experts of the Polish Cardiac Society (PCS) and the Polish Lipid Association (PoLA) on the diagnosis and management of elevated lipoprotein(a) levels

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is made up of a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle and a specific apolipoprotein(a). The blood concentration of Lp(a) is approximately 90% genetically determined, and the main genetic factor determining Lp(a) levels is the size of the apo(a) isoform, which is determined by the number of KIV2 domain repeats. The size of the apo(a) isoform is inversely proportional to the blood concentration of Lp(a). Lp(a) is a strong and independent cardiovascular risk factor. Elevated Lp(a) levels ≥ 50 mg/dl (≥ 125 nmol/l) are estimated to occur in more than 1.5 billion people worldwide. However, determination of Lp(a) levels is performed far too rarely, including Poland, where, in fact, it is only since the 2021 guidelines of the Polish Lipid Association (PoLA) and five other scientific societies that Lp(a) measurements have begun to be performed. Determination of Lp(a) concentrations is not easy due to, among other things, the different sizes of the apo(a) isoforms; however, the currently available certified tests make it possible to distinguish between people with low and high cardiovascular risk with a high degree of precision. In 2022, the first guidelines for the management of patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels were published by the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the American Heart Association (AHA). The first Polish guidelines are the result of the work of experts from the two scientific societies and their aim is to provide clear, practical recommendations for the determination and management of elevated Lp(a) levels.

Epidemiology of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in polygenic hypercholesterolemia with or without high lipoprotein(a) levels

Background and aims

Epidemiology of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease might be different in patients with polygenic hypercholesterolemia plus high levels (≥30 mg/dl) of Lp(a) (H-Lpa) than in those with polygenic hypercholesterolemia alone (H-LDL). We compared the incidence of peripheral artery disease (PAD), coronary artery disease (CAD), and cerebrovascular disease (CVD) in patients with H-Lpa and in those with H-LDL.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of demographics, risk factors, vascular events, therapy, and lipid profile in outpatient clinical data. Inclusion criteria was adult age, diagnosis of polygenic hypercholesterolemia, and both indication and availability for Lp(a) measurement.

Results

Medical records of 258 patients with H-Lpa and 290 H-LDL were reviewed for occurrence of vascular events. The median duration of follow-up was 10 years (IQR 3-16). In spite of a similar reduction of LDL cholesterol, vascular events occurred more frequently, and approximately 7 years earlier (P = 0.024) in patients with H-Lpa than in H-LDL (HR 1.96 1.21-3.17, P = 0.006). The difference was around 10 years for acute events (TIA, Stroke, acute coronary events) and one year for chronic ones (P = 0.023 and 0.525, respectively). Occurrence of acute CAD was higher in H-Lpa men (HR 3.1, 95% CI 1.2-7.9, P = 0.007) while, among women, PAD was observed exclusively in H-Lpa subjects with smoking habits (P = 0.009).

Conclusions

Patients with high Lp(a) levels suffer from a larger and earlier burden of the disease compared to those with polygenic hypercholesterolemia alone. These patients are at higher risk of CAD if they are men, and of PAD if they are women.

The ins and outs of lipoprotein(a) assay methods

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

Associations of Lipoprotein(a) Level with Cerebral Small Vessel Disease in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to examine the association of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level with the burden of cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD).

METHODS

Data from 111 consecutive patients with AD admitted to Nanjing First Hospital from 2015 to 2022 were retrospectively analyzed in this study. Serum Lp(a) concentrations were grouped into tertiles (T1-T3). Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was rated for the presence of CSVD, including enlarged perivascular spaces (EPVS), lacunes, white-matter lesions, and cerebral microbleeds (CMBs). The CSVD burden was calculated by summing the scores of each MRI marker at baseline. A binary or ordinal logistic regression model was used to estimate the relationship of serum Lp(a) levels with CSVD burden and each MRI marker.

RESULTS

Patients with higher tertiles of Lp(a) levels were less likely to have any CSVD (T1, 94.6%; T2, 78.4%; T3, 66.2%; p = 0.013). Multivariable analysis found that Lp(a) levels were inversely associated with the presence of CSVD (T2 vs. T1: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.132, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.018-0.946, p = 0.044; T3 vs. T1: aOR 0.109, 95% CI 0.016-0.737, p = 0.023) and CSVD burden (T3 vs. T1: aOR 0.576, 95% CI 0.362-0.915, p = 0.019). The independent relationship between Lp(a) levels and individual CSVD features was significant for moderate-to-severe EPVS in the centrum semiovale (T2 vs. T1: aOR 0.059, 95% CI 0.006-0.542, p = 0.012; T3 vs. T1: aOR 0.029, 95% CI 0.003-0.273, p = 0.002) and CMBs (T3 vs. T1: aOR 0.144, 95% CI 0.029-0.716, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, serum Lp(a) level was inversely associated with CSVD in AD patients.

Genetic study of the causal effect of lipid profiles on insomnia risk: a Mendelian randomization trial

OBJECTIVES

In response to the controversy surrounding observational studies of the association between lipid profiles and the risk of insomnia, the aim of this study was to analyze lipid profiles, including triglycerides (TG), apolipoprotein A-1 (ApoA-1), apolipoprotein B (ApoB) and lipoprotein A (LPA), in a European population to further assess the causal relationship between these lipid types and insomnia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study explores the causal effect of lipid profiles on insomnia based on a genome-wide association study (GWAS)-derived public dataset using two-sample and multivariate Mendelian randomization (MVMR) analysis. The main MR analyses used inverse variance weighting (IVW) odds ratio (OR), and the sensitivity analyses included weighted median (WM) and MR‒Egger.

RESULTS

Both MR and MVMR showed that lowering ApoA-1 and LPA levels had causal effects on the risk of insomnia [MR: per 10 units, ApoA-1: OR: 0.7546, 95% CI: 0.6075-0.9372, P = 0.011; LPA: OR: 0.8392, 95% CI: 0.7202-0.9778, P = 0.025; MVMR: per 10 units, ApoA-1: OR: 0.7600, 95% CI: 0.6362-0.9079, P = 0.002; LPA, OR: 0.903, 95% CI: 0.8283-0.9845, P = 0.021]. There were no causal effects of TG or ApoB on insomnia (all P > 0.05). The MR‒Egger intercept test, funnel plot, and IVW methods all suggested an absence of strong directional pleiotropy, and leave-one-out permutation analysis did not detect any single single-nucleotide polymorphism that had a strong influence on the results.

CONCLUSION

Elevated levels of ApoA-1 and LPA were independently and causally associated with the risk of insomnia, suggesting that elevated ApoA-1 and LPA levels may contribute to a reduced risk of insomnia.

Clinical characteristics associated with elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) in patients with vascular risk

Objectives

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is increasingly used in the evaluation of patients with vascular risk due to its association with cardiovascular events. The purpose of this study was to identify the clinical characteristics of patients with elevated levels of Lp(a) attended in an outpatient vascular risk unit.

Methods

An observational, retrospective study was conducted to assess the clinical characteristics of patients with elevated levels of Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL), as compared to patients with normal values (<50 mg/dL). The sample was composed of 878 patients identified as having a high vascular risk due to a diagnosis of vascular disease, attended in a vascular risk unit between 2021 and 2022.

Results

The highest levels of Lp(a) were independently associated with a higher probability of having a history of peripheral arterial disease (p=0.024), polygenic familial hypercholesterolemia (PH, p=0.030) and combined familial hypercholesterolemia (CFH, p=0.015); and using PCSK9 inhibitor treatment (p=0.029) and combination therapy with statins and ezetimibe (p=0.018). In contrast, there were no significant differences in relation to familial history of early cardiovascular disease (p=0.143) or personal history of cardiovascular disease (p=0.063), which contrasts with other series.

Conclusions

Elevated levels of Lp(a) were associated with a history of peripheral arterial disease, diagnosis of FHP and CFH, and need for more intense lipid-lowering treatments.

Association of the LPA gene polymorphisms with coronary artery disease risk in the Xinjiang population of China: A case-control study

Lipoprotein(a) is a well-known independent risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD) and primarily determined by variation in the LPA gene coding for the apolipoprotein(a) moiety. Our study purpose was to evaluate the association between the human LPA gene polymorphisms and CAD in Han and Uyghur populations in Xinjiang, China. A case-control study was conducted with 831 Han people (392 CAD patients and 439 control subjects) and 829 Uygur people (513 CAD patients and 316 control subjects). All participants were genotyped for the same 3 single nucleotide polymorphisms (rs1801693, rs6923877, and rs9364559) of the LPA gene by a Real-time PCR instrument. In CAD patients, the levels of lipoprotein(a) were significantly higher in the Han population with the C/C genotype at the rs1801693 (P = .018) and the A/A genotype at the rs9364559 (P = .029) than in the Uyghur population. The polymorphisms rs1801693, rs6923877, and rs9364559 were found to be associated with CAD in the Han population. For men, the distribution of rs1801693 in genotypes, alleles and recessive model (CC vs CT + TT) showed a significant difference (all P < .05), and the difference in recessive model was retained after adjustment for covariates (odds ratio [OR]: 0.557, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.355-0.874, P = .011). But the distribution of rs6923877 in genotypes and dominant model (GG vs AG + AA) showed a significant difference (both P < .05) in both men and women, and the difference was kept in dominant model after adjustment (OR: 1.473, 95% CI:1.009-2.148, P = .045). For women, a significant difference was found in the distribution of rs9364559 in the alleles and dominant model (AA vs AG + GG) (for alleles: P = .021, for dominant model: P = .025, OR: 0.560, 95% CI:0.350-0.898, P = .016) after adjustment. Polymorphisms rs1801693, rs6923877, and rs9364559 of the LPA gene are associated with CAD in the Han population in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China.

Características clínicas asociadas a niveles elevados de lipoproteína(a) en pacientes atendidos por riesgo vascular

Objectivos

La lipoproteína(a) (Lp(a)) es cada vez más relevante en la evaluación de pacientes con riesgo vascular debido a su asociación con una mayor incidencia de eventos cardiovasculares. Este estudio tiene como objetivo identificar las características clínicas de los pacientes con niveles elevados de Lp(a) atendidos en consultas externas por riesgo vascular.

Métodos

Estudio observacional retrospectivo en donde se compararon las características clínicas de los pacientes con niveles elevados de Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL) con la de los pacientes con valores normales (<50 mg/dL), en un total de 878 pacientes atendidos por riesgo o enfermedad vascular durante los años 2021 y 2022.

Resultados

Los valores más elevados de Lp(a) se asociaron de forma independiente con una mayor probabilidad de antecedentes de enfermedad arterial periférica (p=0,024), hipercolesterolemia familiar poligénica (HFP, p=0,030) e hipercolesterolemia familiar combinada (HFC, p=0,015), el tratamiento de inhibidores de PCSK9 (p=0,029) y la combinación de estatinas y ezetimiba (p=0,018). Sin embargo, no se obtuvieron diferencias significativas para las variables antecedentes familiares de enfermedad cardiovascular precoz (p=0,143) ni para antecedentes de enfermedad cardiovascular previa (p=0,063) a diferencia de lo identificado en otras series.

Conclusiones

Los niveles elevados de Lp(a) se asociaron con antecedentes de enfermedad arterial periférica, diagnóstico de HFP y HFC, así como con la necesidad de utilizar tratamientos hipolipemiantes más intensos.

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

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

Lipoprotein(a)-60 Years Later-What Do We Know?

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) molecule includes two protein components: apolipoprotein(a) and apoB100. The molecule is the main transporter of oxidized phospholipids (OxPL) in plasma. The concentration of this strongly atherogenic lipoprotein is predominantly regulated by the LPA gene expression. Lp(a) is regarded as a risk factor for several cardiovascular diseases. Numerous epidemiological, clinical and in vitro studies showed a strong association between increased Lp(a) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), calcific aortic valve disease/aortic stenosis (CAVD/AS), stroke, heart failure or peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Although there are acknowledged contributions of Lp(a) to the mentioned diseases, clinicians struggle with many inconveniences such as a lack of well-established treatment lowering Lp(a), and common guidelines for diagnosing or assessing cardiovascular risk among both adult and pediatric patients. Lp(a) levels are different with regard to a particular race or ethnicity and might fluctuate during childhood. Furthermore, the lack of standardization of assays is an additional impediment. The review presents the recent knowledge on Lp(a) based on clinical and scientific research, but also highlights relevant aspects of future study directions that would approach more suitable and effective managing risk associated with increased Lp(a), as well as control the Lp(a) levels.

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.

Association between lipoprotein(a) and ischemic stroke: Fibrinogen as a mediator

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported lipoprotein(a) was related to increased risk of ischemic stroke. However, the role of fibrinogen in their associations was not fully elucidated.

AIM

We aimed to investigate the mediating role of fibrinogen in the association between lipoprotein(a) and risk of ischemic stroke.

METHODS

A total of 516 patients with ischemic stroke were matched 1:1 to patients without ischemic stroke for age and gender. Serum lipoprotein(a) and plasma fibrinogen levels were collected on the basis of the results of biochemical tests. Multivariate conditional logistic regression analyses were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for lipoprotein(a) levels and ischemic stroke risk. Mediation analysis were further conducted to evaluate the potential mediating role of fibrinogen in the association between lipoprotein(a) and ischemic stroke risk.

RESULTS

The lipoprotein(a) level of subjects with ischemic stroke was significantly higher than that of subjects without ischemic stroke (P < 0.001). Each SD increment of lipoprotein(a) was associated with 27% higher odds (OR 1.27, 95%CI: 1.11, 1.45) increment in ORs of ischemic stroke. Furthermore, mediation analyses indicated that fibrinogen mediated 10.15% of the associations between lipoprotein(a) and ischemic stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher level of lipoprotein(a) was independently associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke and fibrinogen partially mediated the associations of lipoprotein(a) and ischemic stroke risk.

Assessment of Apolipoprotein(a) Isoform Size Using Phenotypic and Genotypic Methods

Apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) is the protein component that defines lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) particles and is encoded by the LPA gene. The apo(a) is extremely heterogeneous in size due to the copy number variations in the kringle-IV type 2 (KIV2) domains. In this review, we aim to discuss the role of genetics in establishing Lp(a) as a risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD) by examining a series of molecular biology techniques aimed at identifying the best strategy for a possible application in clinical research and practice, according to the current gold standard.

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.

Reducing saturated fat intake lowers LDL-C but increases Lp(a) levels in African Americans: the GET-READI feeding trial

Reducing dietary saturated fatty acids (SFA) intake results in a clinically significant lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) across ethnicities. In contrast, dietary SFA's role in modulating emerging cardiovascular risk factors in different ethnicities remains poorly understood. Elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], an independent cardiovascular risk factor, disproportionally affect individuals of African descent. Here, we assessed the responses in Lp(a) levels to dietary SFA reduction in 166 African Americans enrolled in GET-READI (The Gene-Environment Trial on Response in African Americans to Dietary Intervention), a randomized controlled feeding trial. Participants were fed two diets in random order for 5 weeks each: 1) an average American diet (AAD) (37% total fat: 16% SFA), and 2) a diet similar to the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet (25% total fat: 6% SFA). The participants' mean age was 35 years, 70% were women, the mean BMI was 28 kg/m2, and the mean LDL-C was 116 mg/dl. Compared to the AAD diet, LDL-C was reduced by the DASH-type diet (mean change: -12 mg/dl) as were total cholesterol (-16 mg/dl), HDL-C (-5 mg/dl), apoA-1 (-9 mg/dl) and apoB-100 (-5 mg/dl) (all P < 0.0001). In contrast, Lp(a) levels increased following the DASH-type diet compared with AAD (median: 58 vs. 44 mg/dl, P < 0.0001). In conclusion, in a large cohort of African Americans, reductions in SFA intake significantly increased Lp(a) levels while reducing LDL-C. Future studies are warranted to elucidate the mechanism(s) underlying the SFA reduction-induced increase in Lp(a) levels and its role in cardiovascular risk across populations.

Cardiometabolic predictors of high-risk CCTA phenotype in a diverse patient population

Introduction

Low-attenuation non-calcified plaque (LAP) burden and vascular inflammation by pericoronary adipose tissue (PCAT) measured from coronary CT angiography (CCTA) have shown to be predictors of cardiovascular outcomes. We aimed to investigate the relationships of cardiometabolic risk factors including lipoprotein(a) and epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) with CCTA high-risk imaging biomarkers, LAP and vascular inflammation.

Methods

The patient population consisted of consecutive patients who underwent CCTA for stable chest pain and had a complete cardiometabolic panel including lipoprotein(a). Plaque, PCAT and EAT were measured from CT using semiautomated software. Elevated LAP burden and PCAT attenuation were defined as ≥4% and ≥70.5 HU, respectively. The primary clinical end-point was a composite of myocardial infarction, revascularization or cardiovascular death.

Results

A total of 364 consecutive patients were included (median age 56 years, 64% female); the majority of patients were of Hispanic (60%), and the rest were of non-Hispanic Black (21%), non-Hispanic White (6%) and non-Hispanic Asian (4%) race/ethnicity. The prevalence of elevated LAP burden and PCAT attenuation was 31 and 18%, respectively, while only 8% had obstructive stenosis. There were significant differences in plaque characteristics among different racial/ethnic groups (p<0.001). Lipoprotein(a) correlated with LAP burden in Hispanic patients. Patients with elevated LAP were older, more likely to be have diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and smoke with higher CAC and EAT volume (all P<0.05). Patients with elevated LAP were more likely to develop the primary clinical outcome (p<0.001) but those with elevated PCAT were not (p=0.797).

Conclusion

The prevalence of LAP and PCAT attenuation were 31 and 18%, respectively. Lipoprotein(a) levels correlated with LAP burden in Hispanic patients. Age, male sex, hypertension and hyperlipidemia increased the odds of elevated LAP, which showed prognostic significance.

Consensus document for lipid profile testing and reporting in Spanish clinical laboratories: What parameters should a basic lipid profile include?

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) continue to be the main cause of death in our country. Adequate control of lipid metabolism disorders is a key challenge in cardiovascular prevention that is far from being achieved in real clinical practice. There is a great heterogeneity in the reports of lipid metabolism from Spanish clinical laboratories, which may contribute to its poor control. For this reason, a working group of the main scientific societies involved in the care of patients at vascular risk, has prepared this document with a consensus proposal on the determination of the basic lipid profile in cardiovascular prevention, recommendations for its realization and unification of criteria to incorporate the lipid control goals appropriate to the vascular risk of the patients in the laboratory reports.

Consensus document for lipid profile testing and reporting in Spanish clinical laboratories

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) continue to be the main cause of death in our country. Adequate control of lipid metabolism disorders is a key challenge in cardiovascular prevention that is far from being achieved in real clinical practice. There is a great heterogeneity in the reports of lipid metabolism from Spanish clinical laboratories, which may contribute to its poor control. For this reason, a working group of the main scientific societies involved in the care of patients at vascular risk, has prepared this document with a consensus proposal on the determination of the basic lipid profile in cardiovascular prevention, recommendations for its realization and unification of criteria to incorporate the lipid control goals appropriate to the vascular risk of the patients in the laboratory reports.

Heterogeneity of Lipoprotein(a) Levels Among Hispanic or Latino Individuals Residing in the US

Importance

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a genetically determined risk-enhancing factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The Lp(a) distribution among the diverse Hispanic or Latino community residing in the US has not been previously described, to the authors' knowledge.

Objective

To determine the distribution of Lp(a) levels across a large cohort of diverse Hispanic or Latino adults living in the US and by key demographic groups.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) is a prospective, population-based, cohort study of diverse Hispanic or Latino adults living in the US. At screening, participants aged 18 to 74 years were recruited between 2008 and 2011 from 4 US metropolitan areas (Bronx, New York; Chicago, Illinois; Miami, Florida; San Diego, California). HCHS/SOL included 16 415 noninstitutionalized adults recruited through probability sampling of randomly selected households. The study population represents Hispanic or Latino participants from diverse self-identified geographic and cultural backgrounds: Central American, Cuban, Dominican, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and South American. This study evaluated a subset of HCHS/SOL participants who underwent Lp(a) measurement. Sampling weights and surveys methods were used to account for HCHS/SOL sampling design. Data for this study were analyzed from April 2021 to April 2023.

Exposure

Lp(a) molar concentration was measured by a particle-enhanced turbidimetric assay with minimized sensitivity to apolipoprotein(a) size variation.

Main Outcome and Measure

Lp(a) quintiles were compared using analysis of variance among key demographic groups, including self-identified Hispanic or Latino background. Median percentage genetic ancestry (Amerindian, European, West African) were compared across Lp(a) quintiles.

Results

Lp(a) molar concentration was measured in 16 117 participants (mean [SD] age, 41 [14.8] years; 9680 female [52%]; 1704 Central American [7.7%], 2313 Cuban [21.1%], 1436 Dominican [10.3%], 6395 Mexican [39.1%], 2652 Puerto Rican [16.6%], 1051 South American [5.1%]). Median (IQR) Lp(a) level was 19.7 (7.4-59.7) nmol/L. Across Hispanic or Latino background groups, there was significant heterogeneity in median Lp(a) levels ranging from 12 to 41 nmol/L in those reporting a Mexican vs Dominican background. Median (IQR) West African genetic ancestry was lowest in the first quintile of Lp(a) level and highest in the fifth quintile (5.5% [3.4%-12.9%] and 12.1% [5.0%-32.5%]; respectively; P < .001), whereas the converse was seen for Amerindian ancestry (32.8% [9.9%-53.2%] and 10.7% [4.9%-30.7%], respectively; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this cohort study suggest that differences in Lp(a) level distribution across the diverse US Hispanic or Latino population may carry important implications for the use of Lp(a) level in ASCVD risk assessment for this group. Cardiovascular outcomes data are needed to better understand the clinical impact of differences in Lp(a) levels by Hispanic or Latino background.

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.

Consensus document for lipid profile determination and reporting in Spanish clinical laboratories. What parameters should be included in a basic lipid profile?

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) continue to be the main cause of death in our country. Adequate control of lipid metabolism disorders is a key challenge in cardiovascular prevention that is far from being achieved in real clinical practice. There is a great heterogeneity in the reports of lipid metabolism from Spanish clinical laboratories, which may contribute to its poor control. For this reason, a working group of the main scientific societies involved in the care of patients at vascular risk, has prepared this document with a consensus proposal on the determination of the basic lipid profile in cardiovascular prevention, recommendations for its realization and unification of criteria to incorporate the lipid control goals appropriate to the vascular risk of the patients in the laboratory reports.

Consensus document for lipid profile testing and reporting in Spanish clinical laboratories: what parameters should a basic lipid profile include?

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) continue to be the main cause of death in our country. Adequate control of lipid metabolism disorders is a key challenge in cardiovascular prevention that is far from being achieved in real clinical practice. There is a great heterogeneity in the reports of lipid metabolism from Spanish clinical laboratories, which may contribute to its poor control. For this reason, a working group of the main scientific societies involved in the care of patients at vascular risk, has prepared this document with a consensus proposal on the determination of the basic lipid profile in cardiovascular prevention, recommendations for its realization and unification of criteria to incorporate the lipid control goals appropriate to the vascular risk of the patients in the laboratory reports.

[Consensus document for lipid profile determination and reporting in Spanish clinical laboratories]

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) continue to be the main cause of death in our country. Adequate control of lipid metabolism disorders is a key challenge in cardiovascular prevention that is far from being achieved in real clinical practice. There is a great heterogeneity in the reports of lipid metabolism from Spanish clinical laboratories, which may contribute to its poor control. For this reason, a working group of the main scientific societies involved in the care of patients at vascular risk, has prepared this document with a consensus proposal on the determination of the basic lipid profile in cardiovascular prevention, recommendations for its realization and unification of criteria to incorporate the lipid control goals appropriate to the vascular risk of the patients in the laboratory reports.

Association of vitamins, minerals, and lead with lipoprotein(a) in a cross-sectional cohort of US adults

Lipoprotein(a)(Lp[a]) is a low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C)-like particle with potent pro-atherothrombotic properties. The association of Lp(a) with several circulating factors, including vitamins, remains unresolved. We performed an observational analysis using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III cohort, a cohort used to monitor the nutrition status of US-citizens. We used multivariable linear regression to test associations of Lp(a) and LDL-C with levels of serum vitamins and minerals and whole-blood lead. Analyses controlled for factors known to associate with Lp(a) (age, sex, race/ethnicity, statin use, hemoglobin A1c, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, glomerular filtration rate, alcohol intake, and saturated fat intake). LDL-C was corrected for Lp(a) mass. Multiple sensitivity tests were performed, including considering factors as categorical variables (deficient, normal, elevated). Among 7,662 subjects, Lp(a) correlated (β-coefficient) positively (change per 1 conventional unit increase) with carotenoids (lycopene (0.17(0.06,0.28), p=0.005), lutein (0.19(0.07,0.30), p=0.002), β-cryptoxanthin (0.21(0.05,0.37), p=0.01), β-carotene (0.05(0.02,0.09), p=0.003), and α-carotene (0.15(0.01,0.30), p=0.04)) and lead (0.54(0.03,1.05), p=0.04) levels when tested as continuous variables. LDL-C had similar associations. Lp(a) did not associate with vitamins A, B12, C, or E retinyl esters, folate, RBC-folate, selenium, ferritin, transferrin saturation, or calcium. With factors as categorical variables, Lp(a) but not LDL-C negatively associated with elevated vitamin B12 (-5.41(-9.50, -1.53), p=0.01) and folate (-2.86(-5.09, -0.63), p=0.01). In conclusion, Lp(a) associated similarly to LDL-C when vitamins, minerals, and lead were tested as continuous variables, while only Lp(a) correlated with vitamin B12 and folate when tested as categorical variables. These observations are hypotheses generating and require further studies to determine causality.

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.

Relationship of apolipoprotein(a) isoform size with clearance and production of lipoprotein(a) in a diverse cohort

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has two main proteins, apoB100 and apo(a). High levels of Lp(a) confer an increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Most people have two circulating isoforms of apo(a) differing in their molecular mass, determined by the number of Kringle IV Type 2 repeats. Previous studies report a strong inverse relationship between Lp(a) levels and apo(a) isoform sizes. The roles of Lp(a) production and fractional clearance and how ancestry affects this relationship remain incompletely defined. We therefore examined the relationships of apo(a) size with Lp(a) levels and both apo(a) fractional clearance rates (FCR) and production rates (PR) in 32 individuals not on lipid-lowering treatment. We determined plasma Lp(a) levels and apo(a) isoform sizes, and used the relative expression of the two isoforms to calculate a "weighted isoform size" (wIS). Stable isotope studies were performed, using D3-leucine, to determine the apo(a) FCR and PR. As expected, plasma Lp(a) concentrations were inversely correlated with wIS (R2 = 0.27; P = 0.002). The wIS had a modest positive correlation with apo(a) FCR (R2 = 0.10, P = 0.08), and a negative correlation with apo(a) PR (R2 = 0.11; P = 0.06). The relationship between wIS and PR became significant when we controlled for self-reported race and ethnicity (SRRE) (R2 = 0.24, P = 0.03); controlling for SRRE did not affect the relationship between wIS and FCR. Apo(a) wIS plays a role in both FCR and PR; however, adjusting for SRRE strengthens the correlation between wIS and PR, suggesting an effect of ancestry.

Consensus document for lipid profile determination and reporting in Spanish clinical laboratories. What parameters should be included in a basic lipid profile?

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) continue to be the main cause of death in our country. Adequate control of lipid metabolism disorders is a key challenge in cardiovascular prevention that is far from being achieved in real clinical practice. There is a great heterogeneity in the reports of lipid metabolism from Spanish clinical laboratories, which may contribute to its poor control. For this reason, a working group of the main scientific societies involved in the care of patients at vascular risk, has prepared this document with a consensus proposal on the determination of the basic lipid profile in cardiovascular prevention, recommendations for its realization and unification of criteria to incorporate the lipid control goals appropriate to the vascular risk of the patients in the laboratory reports.

Documento de consenso para la determinación e informe del perfil lipídico en laboratorios clínicos españoles

Las enfermedades cardiovasculares (ECV) siguen siendo la principal causa de muerte en nuestro país. El control adecuado de las alteraciones del metabolismo lipídico es un reto clave en prevención cardiovascular que está lejos de alcanzarse en la práctica clínica real. Existe una gran heterogeneidad en los informes del metabolismo lipídico de los laboratorios clínicos españoles, lo que puede contribuir al mal control del mismo. Por ello, un grupo de trabajo de las principales sociedades científicas implicadas en la atención de los pacientes de riesgo vascular, hemos elaborado este documento con una propuesta básica de consenso sobre la determinación del perfil lipídico básico en prevención cardiovascular, recomendaciones para su realización y unificación de criterios para incorporar los objetivos de control lipídico adecuados al riesgo vascular de los pacientes en los informes de laboratorio. Palabras clave: consenso, panel de lípidos, enfermedades cardiovasculares, bioquímica, colesterol, lípidos, triglicéridos, lipoproteína (a).

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.

Elevated Lp(a) Levels Correlate with Severe and Multiple Coronary Artery Stenotic Lesions

Backgrounds and Aims

The role of Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) in increasing the risk of cardiovascular diseases is reported in several populations. The aim of this study is to investigate the correlation of high Lp(a) levels with the degree of coronary artery stenosis.

Methods

Two hundred and sixty-eight patients were enrolled for this study. Patients who underwent coronary artery angiography and who had Lp(a) measurements available were included in this study. Binomial logistic regressions were applied to investigate the association between Lp(a) and stenosis in the four major coronary arteries. The effect of LDL and HDL Cholesterol on modulating the association of Lp(a) with coronary artery disease (CAD) was also evaluated. Multinomial regression analysis was applied to assess the association of Lp(a) with the different degrees of stenosis in the four major coronary arteries.

Results

Our analyses showed that Lp(a) is a risk factor for CAD and this risk is significantly apparent in patients with HDL-cholesterol ≥35 mg/dL and in non-obese patients. A large proportion of the study patients with elevated Lp(a) levels had CAD even when exhibiting high HDL serum levels. Increased HDL with low Lp(a) serum levels were the least correlated with stenosis. A significantly higher levels of Lp(a) were found in patients with >50% stenosis in at least two major coronary vessels arguing for pronounced and multiple stenotic lesions. Finally, the derived variant (rs1084651) of the LPA gene was significantly associated with CAD.

Conclusion

Our study highlights the importance of Lp(a) levels as an independent biological marker of severe and multiple coronary artery stenosis.

Lipoprotein(a) in Atherosclerotic Diseases: From Pathophysiology to Diagnosis and Treatment

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol-like particle bound to apolipoprotein(a). Increased Lp(a) levels are an independent, heritable causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) as they are largely determined by variations in the Lp(a) gene (LPA) locus encoding apo(a). Lp(a) is the preferential lipoprotein carrier for oxidized phospholipids (OxPL), and its role adversely affects vascular inflammation, atherosclerotic lesions, endothelial function and thrombogenicity, which pathophysiologically leads to cardiovascular (CV) events. Despite this crucial role of Lp(a), its measurement lacks a globally unified method, and, between different laboratories, results need standardization. Standard antilipidemic therapies, such as statins, fibrates and ezetimibe, have a mediocre effect on Lp(a) levels, although it is not yet clear whether such treatments can affect CV events and prognosis. This narrative review aims to summarize knowledge regarding the mechanisms mediating the effect of Lp(a) on inflammation, atherosclerosis and thrombosis and discuss current diagnostic and therapeutic potentials.

Lipoprotein(a) in Youth and Prediction of Major Cardiovascular Outcomes in Adulthood

BACKGROUND

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a common risk factor for cardiovascular disease outcomes with unknown mechanisms. We examined its potential role in identifying youths who are at increased risk of developing adult atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

METHODS

Lp(a) levels measured in youth 9 to 24 years of age were linked to adult ASCVD and carotid intima-media thickness in the YFS (Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study), in which 95 of the original 3596 participants (2.7%) recruited as children have been diagnosed with ASCVD at a median of 47 years of age. Results observed in YFS were replicated with the use of data for White participants from the BHS (Bogalusa Heart Study). In BHS, 587 White individuals had data on youth Lp(a) (measured at 8-17 years of age) and information on adult events, including 15 cases and 572 noncases. Analyses were performed with the use of Cox proportional hazard regression.

RESULTS

In YFS, those who had been exposed to high Lp(a) level in youth [defined as Lp(a) ≥30 mg/dL] had ≈2 times greater risk of developing adult ASCVD compared with nonexposed individuals (hazard ratio, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.4-2.6]). Youth risk factors, including Lp(a), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, body mass index, and smoking, were all independently associated with higher risk. In BHS, in an age- and sex-adjusted model, White individuals who had been exposed to high Lp(a) had 2.5 times greater risk (95% CI, 0.9-6.8) of developing adult ASCVD compared with nonexposed individuals. When also adjusted for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and body mass index, the risk associated with high Lp(a) remained unchanged (hazard ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 0.8-7.3]). In a multivariable model for pooled data, individuals exposed to high Lp(a) had 2.0 times greater risk (95% CI, 1.0-3.7) of developing adult ASCVD compared with nonexposed individuals. No association was detected between youth Lp(a) and adult carotid artery thickness in either cohort or pooled data.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated Lp(a) level identified in youth is a risk factor for adult atherosclerotic cardiovascular outcomes but not for increased carotid intima-media thickness.

Impact of Lipoprotein(a) on Macrovascular Complications of Diabetes in a Multiethnic Population in the French Amazon

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In French Guiana, the prevalence of diabetes is around 10%, and cardio and neurovascular pathologies are the first medical cause of early mortality. Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is described in the literature as a risk factor independent of other cardiovascular risk factors, but there are important interindividual differences, especially according to ethnicity. The objective of this study was to investigate the association of Lp(a) and macrovascular complications in a multiethnic population of patients with diabetes in the French Amazon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since May 2019, 1243 patients were screened 806 of whom had Lp(a) determination. We compared the prevalence of macrovascular complications in three groups according to Lp(a) concentration: between 0 and 75 mg/mL, between 76 and 300 mg/mL, and >300 mg/mL.

RESULTS

712 patients in the study had type 2 diabetes (88.34% of the sample). A history of hypertension was significantly associated with greater Lp(a) levels. Lp(a) concentration was greater among Creole ethnic groups. No association was found between Lp(a) levels and macrovascular complications in the Lp(a) > 300 mg/mL group.

CONCLUSIONS

These results do not replicate findings in mostly Caucasian populations suggesting that the Lp(a) threshold for, or the link with, cardiovascular risk may be different given the predominantly African origin of the French Guianese population. Further studies should study genetic polymorphisms in our population.

Sex differences in LDL-C response to PCSK9 inhibitors: A real world experience

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown the efficacy of PCSK9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) in lowering LDL-C. One clinical trial with alirocumab suggested that the LDL-C reduction effect is larger in men than women. In contrast, none of the studies with evolocumab have observed a difference in the treatment effect between men and women. However, sex differences data from real life experience is lacking. In addition, the difference in LDL-C response to PCSK9i between pre- and post-menopausal women has not been investigated so far.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative change in LDL-C following the introduction of a PCSK9i in a real-life clinical setting according to sex and menopausal status.

METHODS

All patients were recruited at the IRCM lipid clinic. Lipid profiles before and after the introduction of PCSK9i were available in the medical file for 259 patients (160 men and 99 women (72 post-menopausal, 20 pre-menopausal and 7 unknown menopausal status).

RESULTS

We observed a significant difference in relative LDL-C change between men (-70%) and women (-59%), p<0.0001. However, no difference was observed between pre-menopausal (-58%) and post-menopausal (-58%) women. In a linear regression model, sex remains a significant predictor of the response to PCSK9i after correction for confounding factors such as statin intensity (beta coefficient=-0.245, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

We observed a greater relative LDL-C response to PCSK9i in men than in women in a real-life clinical context. However, it is still unknown whether this difference in LDL-C change between men and women translates into a meaningful difference on long-term cardiovascular risk.

Differential effects of bariatric surgery and lifestyle interventions on plasma levels of Lp(a) and fatty acids

BACKGROUND

Limited evidence suggests that surgical and non-surgical obesity treatment differentially influence plasma Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] levels. Further, a novel association between plasma arachidonic acid and Lp(a) has recently been shown, suggesting that fatty acids are a possible target to influence Lp(a). Here, the effects of bariatric surgery and lifestyle interventions on plasma levels of Lp(a) were compared, and it was examined whether the effects were mediated by changes in plasma fatty acid (FA) levels.

METHODS

The study includes two independent trials of patients with overweight or obesity. Trial 1: Two-armed intervention study including 82 patients who underwent a 7-week low energy diet (LED), followed by Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 52-week follow-up (surgery-group), and 77 patients who underwent a 59-week energy restricted diet- and exercise-program (lifestyle-group). Trial 2: A clinical study including 134 patients who underwent a 20-week very-LED/LED (lifestyle-cohort).

RESULTS

In the surgery-group, Lp(a) levels [median (interquartile range)] tended to increase in the pre-surgical LED-phase [17(7-68)-21(7-81)nmol/L, P = 0.05], but decreased by 48% after surgery [21(7-81)-11(7-56)nmol/L, P < 0.001]. In the lifestyle-group and lifestyle-cohort, Lp(a) increased by 36%[14(7-77)-19(7-94)nmol/L, P < 0.001] and 14%[50(14-160)-57(19-208)nmol/L, P < 0.001], respectively. Changes in Lp(a) were independent of weight loss. Plasma levels of total saturated FAs remained unchanged after surgery, but decreased after lifestyle interventions. Arachidonic acid and total n-3 FAs decreased after surgery, but increased after lifestyle interventions. Plasma FAs did not mediate the effects on Lp(a).

CONCLUSION

Bariatric surgery reduced, whereas lifestyle interventions increased plasma Lp(a), independent of weight loss. The interventions differentially influenced changes in plasma FAs, but these changes did not mediate changes in Lp(a).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial 1: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00626964. Trial 2: Netherlands Trial Register NL2140 (NTR2264).

Lipoprotein(a): Cardiovascular Disease, Aortic Stenosis and New Therapeutic Option

Atherosclerosis is a chronic and progressive inflammatory process beginning early in life with late clinical manifestation. This slow pathological trend underlines the importance to early identify high-risk patients and to treat intensively risk factors to prevent the onset and/or the progression of atherosclerotic lesions. In addition to the common Cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, new markers able to increase the risk of CV disease have been identified. Among them, high levels of Lipoprotein(a)-Lp(a)-lead to very high risk of future CV diseases; this relationship has been well demonstrated in epidemiological, mendelian randomization and genome-wide association studies as well as in meta-analyses. Recently, new aspects have been identified, such as its association with aortic stenosis. Although till recent years it has been considered an unmodifiable risk factor, specific drugs have been developed with a strong efficacy in reducing the circulating levels of Lp(a) and their capacity to reduce subsequent CV events is under testing in ongoing trials. In this paper we will review all these aspects: from the synthesis, clearance and measurement of Lp(a), through the findings that examine its association with CV diseases and aortic stenosis to the new therapeutic options that will be available in the next years.

Lipoprotein(a): a risk factor for atherosclerosis and an emerging therapeutic target

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a complex circulating lipoprotein, and increasing evidence has demonstrated its role as a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and as a possible therapeutic target. Lp(a) atherogenic effects are attributed to several potential mechanisms in addition to cholesterol accumulation in the arterial wall, including proinflammatory effects mainly mediated by oxidised phospholipids. Several studies have found a causal and independent relationship between Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular risk. Furthermore, several studies also suggest a causal association between Lp(a) levels and calcific aortic valve stenosis. Available lipid-lowering agents have at best moderate impact on Lp(a) levels. Among available therapies, antibody proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors are the most effective in reducing Lp(a). Potent Lp(a)-lowering treatments that target LPA expression are under development. Lp(a) level measurement poses some challenges due to the absence of a definitive reference method and the reporting of Lp(a) values as molar (nanomoles per litre (nmol/L)) or mass concentrations (milligrams per decilitre (mg/dL)) by different assays. Currently, Lp(a) measurement is recommended to refine cardiovascular risk in specific clinical settings, that is, in individuals with a family history of premature ASCVD, in patients with ASCVD not explained by standard risk factors or in those with recurrent events despite optimal management of traditional risk factors. Patients with high Lp(a) levels should be managed with more intensive approaches to treat other modifiable cardiovascular risk factors. Overall, this review focuses on Lp(a) as an ASCVD risk factor and therapeutic target. Furthermore, it reports practical recommendations for Lp(a) measurement and interpretation and updated evidence on Lp(a)-lowering approaches.

Lipoprotein(a), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and cardiovascular risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the effects of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) on Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a))-associated cardiovascular risk remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the independent and combined association of Lp(a) and hsCRP with cardiovascular events in this specific population.

METHODS

A total of 10,424 patients with measurements of both Lp(a) and hsCRP were included in this prospective cohort study. Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan-Meier analysis were performed to evaluate the relationship between Lp(a), hsCRP and adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and revascularization).

RESULTS

During 5 years of follow-up, 2140 (20.5%) MACCE occurred. Elevated Lp(a) and hsCRP levels were associated with increased risks of MACCE (p<0.05). Notably, there might be a significant interaction between Lp(a) and hsCRP (P for interaction = 0.019). In the setting of hsCRP≥2 mg/L, significant higher risk of MACCE was observed with Lp(a) 15-29.9 mg/dL (HR: 1.18; 95% CI 1.01-1.39) and Lp(a) ≥30 mg/dL (HR: 1.20; 95% CI 1.04-1.39), whereas such association was attenuated when hsCRP was <2 mg/L with Lp(a) 15-29.9 mg/dL (HR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.80-1.10) and Lp(a) ≥30 mg/dL (HR: 1.12; 95% CI 0.98-1.28). Moreover, when Lp(a) and hsCRP were combined for risk stratification, patients with dual elevation of these two biomarkers had a significant higher risk of MACCE compared with the reference group (Lp(a) < 15 mg/dL and hsCRp<2 mg/L) (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CAD undergoing PCI, high Lp(a) level was associated with worse outcomes, and this association might be stronger in those with elevated hsCRP concomitantly. Evaluation of Lp(a) and hsCRP together may help identify high-risk individuals for targeted intervention in clinical utility.

Lipoprotein (a) Levels and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several studies have linked high Lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) concentrations to cardiovascular events, including the formation of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms (AAA). We review and meta-analyze existing evidence on the association of Lp(a) levels with AAA.

METHODS

Studies evaluating the link of Lp(a) with AAA, up to December 27th 2021, were identified by a systematic search of PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases. The results were qualitatively and quantitatively synthesized according to PRISMA guidelines. Results are presented as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 5,078 subjects (1,637 patients with AAA vs. 3,441 controls) from 11 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with a mean age of 69.9 years and a male sex prevalence of 85.8%. Based on the qualitative synthesis, high Lp(a) concentrations are linked to abdominal aortic wall degradation and extracellular matrix disarrangement. Moreover, despite the considerable variability among races, high Lp(a) levels are related to increased AAA risk, independently of race differences. Accordingly, patients with AAA displayed significantly higher Lp(a) levels compared to controls (SMD: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.55-1.17, p < 0.001). The outcome was not affected in a sensitivity analysis excluding three outlying studies (SMD: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.22-0.58, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicates the association between high Lp(a) levels and the presence of AAA, although existing literature presents high heterogeneity. Further studies are needed to standardize Lp(a) measurements and to conclude whether Lp(a) can be used as a sensitive biomarker of early presymptomatic AAA diagnosis.