Variability in the measurement of lipoprotein(a) in the British Isles

The current status of lipoprotein (a) measurement in clinical biochemistry laboratories in the UK: Results of a 2021 national survey

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is now established as a causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and accurate laboratory measurement is of pivotal importance in reducing Lp(a) associated risk. The consensus statement by HEART UK in 2019 included recommendations to improve standardisation of clinical laboratory measurement and reporting of Lp(a).

METHODS

A 16 question, electronic audit survey was circulated to 190 accredited clinical biochemistry laboratories to assess the adoption of these recommendations in the UK.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 65 of 190 laboratories (34%). Only 5 (8%) did not offer Lp(a) measurement. Of those providing the test, 23% (n = 14) offered an in-house service (IHS), the remaining laboratories (77%; n = 46) used an external referral service (ERS). The majority (10 of 14 or 71%) of IHS laboratories responded with details of their method, stating whether it minimised sensitivity to the effect of Lp(a) isoform size and used calibrators certified for traceability to the WHO/IFCC reference material, however, only a minority ERS laboratories (13 of the 46 or 28%) were able to specify the method used by their referral laboratory. Of the laboratories who specified their reporting units, 6 of 10 IHS and 7 of 23 ERS laboratories reported in nmol/L. Among the 60 laboratories who responded, the HEART UK recommendations appear to have been adopted in full by only 3 IHS laboratories.

CONCLUSIONS

Further efforts are needed to standardise the measurement and reporting of Lp(a) so that results and interpretation are comparable across clinical biochemistry laboratories in the UK.

Lp(a): When and how to measure it

Lipoprotein(a) has long been regarded as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease; however, its routine use in clinical practice has been hampered by difficulties inherent in the measurement of this complex lipoprotein. The major challenges relate to its size heterogeneity and related issues including (1) use of appropriate calibrators (2) standardization of calibration protocols (3) traceability and (4) reporting units. In the UK, results from the current EQA schemes for lipoprotein(a) suggest that there is considerable work required to standardize lipoprotein(a) measurement. This is becoming increasingly pertinent with the increasing recognition of lipoprotein(a) as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease in international guidelines and the emergence of novel antisense therapies to effectively reduce lipoprotein(a). This article raises awareness of the importance of measurement of lipoprotein(a) for the assessment of cardiovascular disease risk and gives guidance to clinical laboratories regarding choice of appropriate assays.

Prognostic value of plasma fibrinolysis activation markers in cardiovascular disease

The pivotal role of hypoactive endogenous fibrinolysis in the occurrence of thrombotic cardiovascular events is now well-recognized. To evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic role of impaired fibrinolysis, plasma fibrinolysis markers have been investigated in large prospective studies in both healthy individuals and patients with established coronary disease. Antigen and activity levels of components of the fibrinolytic system were measured by immunoassays, which replaced earlier global fibrinolysis tests. This review covers 45 studies in nearly 50,000 subjects, examining the association between plasma markers of fibrinolysis and coronary artery disease, to establish the usefulness of these markers in predicting future cardiovascular events. The predictive value of plasma levels of tissue-type plasminogen activator, platelet activator inhibitor-1, plasmin-antiplasmin complex, D-dimer, thrombin activatable fibrinolysis inhibitor, and lipoprotein(a) for major adverse cardiac events is highly variable and conflicting, especially after adjusting for conventional risk factors, judging from the published data in the last decade. The value of fibrinolysis activity markers is very limited in aiding diagnosis and risk stratification in the individual patient, on the basis of the weak prognostic values obtained in some studies and the lack of power in others. The physiological limitations of such markers in reflecting endogenous fibrinolysis is discussed. The emerging novel global assays of fibrinolysis will require large-scale clinical trials before their prognostic power or superiority to multiple biomarker measurements can be evaluated.