Lipoprotein(a) as a predictor of cardiovascular disease in a prospectively followed cohort of patients with type 1 diabetes

Lp(a) and the Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: Focus on the Lp(a) Paradox in Diabetes Mellitus

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is one of the strongest causal risk factors of atherosclerotic disease. It is rich in cholesteryl ester and composed of apolipoprotein B and apo(a). Plasma Lp(a) levels are determined by apo(a) transcriptional activity driven by a direct repeat (DR) response element in the apo(a) promoter under the control of (HNF)4α Farnesoid-X receptor (FXR) ligands play a key role in the downregulation of APOA expression. In vitro studies on the catabolism of Lp(a) have revealed that Lp(a) binds to several specific lipoprotein receptors; however, their in vivo role remains elusive. There are more than 1000 publications on the role of diabetes mellitus (DM) in Lp(a) metabolism; however, the data is often inconsistent and confusing. In patients suffering from Type-I diabetes mellitus (T1DM), provided they are metabolically well-controlled, Lp(a) plasma concentrations are directly comparable to healthy individuals. In contrast, there exists a paradox in T2DM patients, as many of these patients have reduced Lp(a) levels; however, they are still at an increased cardiovascular risk. The Lp(a) lowering mechanism observed in T2DM patients is most probably caused by mutations in the mature-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) gene and possibly other polymorphisms in key transcription factors of the apolipoprotein (a) gene (APOA).

Lp(a) and the Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: Focus on the Lp(a) Paradox in Diabetes Mellitus

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is one of the strongest causal risk factors of atherosclerotic disease. It is rich in cholesteryl ester and composed of apolipoprotein B and apo(a). Plasma Lp(a) levels are determined by apo(a) transcriptional activity driven by a direct repeat (DR) response element in the apo(a) promoter under the control of (HNF)4α Farnesoid-X receptor (FXR) ligands play a key role in the downregulation of APOA expression. In vitro studies on the catabolism of Lp(a) have revealed that Lp(a) binds to several specific lipoprotein receptors; however, their in vivo role remains elusive. There are more than 1000 publications on the role of diabetes mellitus (DM) in Lp(a) metabolism; however, the data is often inconsistent and confusing. In patients suffering from Type-I diabetes mellitus (T1DM), provided they are metabolically well-controlled, Lp(a) plasma concentrations are directly comparable to healthy individuals. In contrast, there exists a paradox in T2DM patients, as many of these patients have reduced Lp(a) levels; however, they are still at an increased cardiovascular risk. The Lp(a) lowering mechanism observed in T2DM patients is most probably caused by mutations in the mature-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) gene and possibly other polymorphisms in key transcription factors of the apolipoprotein (a) gene (APOA).

Lp(a) and the Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: Focus on the Lp(a) Paradox in Diabetes Mellitus

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is one of the strongest causal risk factors of atherosclerotic disease. It is rich in cholesteryl ester and composed of apolipoprotein B and apo(a). Plasma Lp(a) levels are determined by apo(a) transcriptional activity driven by a direct repeat (DR) response element in the apo(a) promoter under the control of (HNF)4α Farnesoid-X receptor (FXR) ligands play a key role in the downregulation of APOA expression. In vitro studies on the catabolism of Lp(a) have revealed that Lp(a) binds to several specific lipoprotein receptors; however, their in vivo role remains elusive. There are more than 1000 publications on the role of diabetes mellitus (DM) in Lp(a) metabolism; however, the data is often inconsistent and confusing. In patients suffering from Type-I diabetes mellitus (T1DM), provided they are metabolically well-controlled, Lp(a) plasma concentrations are directly comparable to healthy individuals. In contrast, there exists a paradox in T2DM patients, as many of these patients have reduced Lp(a) levels; however, they are still at an increased cardiovascular risk. The Lp(a) lowering mechanism observed in T2DM patients is most probably caused by mutations in the mature-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) gene and possibly other polymorphisms in key transcription factors of the apolipoprotein (a) gene (APOA).

Lipoprotein (a) and diabetes mellitus: causes and consequences

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides an update on the role of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] in diabetes, including its impact as a risk factor as well as its contribution to the development of cardiovascular disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although a specific role for Lp(a) has not yet been conclusively established, it appears to have an inverse association with risk of diabetes. Several population-based studies have demonstrated associations between low levels of Lp(a) and increased risk of type 2 diabetes, but Mendelian randomization studies do not consistently support causality. Conversely, in patients with type 2 diabetes, elevated Lp(a) levels are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events.

SUMMARY

Although Lp(a) contributes to the development of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes, few trials have investigated the benefits of reducing Lp(a) within this patient population. Furthermore, guidelines do not specifically address the risk associated with elevated Lp(a) levels. Despite this, Lp(a) should be measured in patients with diabetes and considered when evaluating their overall risk burden.

The Association of Lipoprotein(a) Plasma Levels With Prevalence of Cardiovascular Disease and Metabolic Control Status in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of the cardiovascular risk factor lipoprotein (Lp)(a) and vascular complications in patients with type 1 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients with type 1 diabetes receiving regular care were recruited in this observational cross-sectional study and divided into four groups according to their Lp(a) levels in nmol/L (very low <10, low 10-30, intermediate 30-120, high >120). Prevalence of vascular complications was compared between the groups. In addition, the association between metabolic control, measured as HbA_1c, and Lp(a) was studied.

RESULTS

The patients (n = 1,860) had a median age of 48 years, diabetes duration of 25 years, and HbA_1c of 7.8% (61 mmol/mol). The median Lp(a) was 19 (interquartile range 10-71) nmol/L. No significant differences between men and women were observed, but Lp(a) levels increased with increasing age. Patients in the high Lp(a) group had higher prevalence of complications than patients in the very low Lp(a) group. The age- and smoking-status-adjusted relative risk ratio of having any macrovascular disease was 1.51 (95% CI 1.01-2.28, P = 0.048); coronary heart disease, 1.70 (95% CI 0.97-3.00, P = 0.063); albuminuria, 1.68 (95% CI 1.12-2.50, P = 0.01); and calcified aortic valve disease, 2.03 (95% CI 1.03-4.03; P = 0.042). Patients with good metabolic control, HbA_1c <6.9% (<52 mmol/mol), had significantly lower Lp(a) levels than patients with poorer metabolic control, HbA_1c >6.9% (>52 mmol/mol).

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) is a significant risk factor for macrovascular disease, albuminuria, and calcified aortic valve disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. Poor metabolic control in patients with type 1 diabetes is associated with increased Lp(a) levels.

Dyslipidemia in Type 1 Diabetes: AMaskedDanger

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients show lipid disorders which are likely to play a role in their increased cardiovascular (CV) disease risk. Quantitative abnormalities of lipoproteins are noted in T1D with poor glycemic control. In T1D with optimal glycemic control, triglycerides and LDL-cholesterol are normal or slightly decreased whereas HDL-cholesterol is normal or slightly increased. T1D patients, even with good glycemic control, show several qualitative and functional abnormalities of lipoproteins that are potentially atherogenic. An association between these abnormalities and CV disease risk has been reported in recent studies. Although the mechanisms underlying T1D dyslipidemia remain unclear, the subcutaneous route of insulin administration, that is responsible for peripheral hyperinsulinemia, is likely to be an important factor.

Lipoprotein(a) the Insurgent: A New Insight into the Structure, Function, Metabolism, Pathogenicity, and Medications Affecting Lipoprotein(a) Molecule

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], aka "Lp little a", was discovered in the 1960s in the lab of the Norwegian physician Kåre Berg. Since then, we have greatly improved our knowledge of lipids and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Lp(a) is an enigmatic class of lipoprotein that is exclusively formed in the liver and comprises two main components, a single copy of apolipoprotein (apo) B-100 (apo-B100) tethered to a single copy of a protein denoted as apolipoprotein(a) apo(a). Plasma levels of Lp(a) increase soon after birth to a steady concentration within a few months of life. In adults, Lp(a) levels range widely from <2 to 2500 mg/L. Evidence that elevated Lp(a) levels >300 mg/L contribute to CVD is significant. The improvement of isoform-independent assays, together with the insight from epidemiologic studies, meta-analyses, genome-wide association studies, and Mendelian randomization studies, has established Lp(a) as the single most common independent genetically inherited causal risk factor for CVD. This breakthrough elevated Lp(a) from a biomarker of atherosclerotic risk to a target of therapy. With the emergence of promising second-generation antisense therapy, we hope that we can answer the question of whether Lp(a) is ready for prime-time clinic use. In this review, we present an update on the metabolism, pathophysiology, and current/future medical interventions for high levels of Lp(a).

Cardiovascular Risk in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is associated with premature cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recently updated their position statement on the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) to include additional focus on cardiovascular risk; improved management of risk factors in T1DM is also needed. There are important differences in the pathophysiology of CVD in T1DM and T2DM. Hyperglycaemia appears to have a more profound effect on cardiovascular risk in T1DM than T2DM, and other risk factors appear to cause a synergistic rather than additive effect, so achievement of treatment targets for all recognized risk factors is crucial to reducing cardiovascular risk. Here we discuss the evidence for addressing established cardiovascular risk factors, candidate biomarkers and surrogate measurements, and possible interventions.

Pathogenesis of Lipid Disorders in Insulin Resistance: a Brief Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Insulin resistance (IR) is recognized to play an important role in the pathogenesis of dyslipidemia. This review summarizes the complex interplay between IR and dyslipidemia in people with and without diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

IR impacts the metabolism of triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C) by several mechanisms. Trials with insulin sensitizing therapies, including biguanides and thiazolidinediones, have provided inconsistent results on lipid lowering in people with and without diabetes. In this review, we focus on the pathophysiological interplay between IR and dyslipidemia and recapitulate lipid and lipoprotein data from insulin-sensitizing trials. Further research elucidating the reciprocal relationship between IR and dyslipidemia is needed to better target these important risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

Cardiovascular risk assessment and screening in diabetes

Diabetes used to be considered as a coronary heart disease equivalence and universally classified high cardiovascular risk population. However increasing epidemiological evidence now indicates the heterogeneity of risk among the diabetic patients and imposes animportance of stratifying those with relative low-risk from high-risk ones. Despite the existing risk assessment tools, current cardivoascualr disease prevention guidelines fail to provide more detailed stratification strategies for patient with diabetes and expose them to either overtreatment or undertreatment. On the other hand, various screening modality, including novel biomarkers and subclinical asthrosclerosis scanning, including coronary calcium scanning, carotid intima-media thickness, myocardial perfusion imaging and coronary computed tomography angiography, have provided very promising usage is risk stratification. With better developed test techniques and more extensive evidence, these modalities may serve in standardized screening algorithm to improve the cardiovascular risk assessment of patients with diabetes and better instruct their individualized preventive therapy.

Serum lipoprotein(a) levels and diabetic nephropathy among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

We aimed to evaluate the association between serum lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels and diabetic nephropathy among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

This study included 581 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Serum Lp(a) levels were divided into four groups; the cut-off points were at the 30th, 60th, and 90th percentile values on the basis of the distribution for all subjects. Diabetic nephropathy was defined as present when the urinary albumin-creatinine ratio was ≥33.9mg/mmol creatinine and/or the estimated glomerular filtration rate was <30ml/min/1.72m(2). Adjustment was made for age, sex, body mass index, hemoglobin A1c, duration of diabetes mellitus, current drinking, current smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, coronary heart disease, and stroke.

RESULTS

Higher serum Lp(a) levels were significantly associated with a higher prevalence of diabetic nephropathy: the adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for diabetic nephropathy in relation to serum Lp(a) levels of ≤6, 7-15, 16-38, and ≥39mg/dl were 1.00 (reference), 2.74 (1.08-7.00), 3.31 (1.28-8.54), and 4.80 (1.57-14.60), respectively (P for trend=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that serum Lp(a) levels may be positively associated with diabetic nephropathy among Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Lipoprotein(a): novel target and emergence of novel therapies to lower cardiovascular disease risk

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article summarizes recent observations on the role of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] as a risk factor mediating cardiovascular disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Lp(a) is a highly prevalent cardiovascular risk factor, with levels above 30 mg/dl affecting 20-30% of the global population. Up until now, no specific therapies have been developed to lower Lp(a) levels. Three major levels of evidence support the notion that elevated Lp(a) levels are a causal, independent, genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease: epidemiologic studies and meta-analyses, genome-wide association studies and Mendelian randomization studies. Recent studies also have noted that individuals with low levels of Lp(a) are associated with a higher risk of incident type 2 diabetes mellitus, and conversely individuals with high levels have a lower risk, but this association does not appear to be causal. Novel therapies to lower Lp(a) include PCSK9 inhibitors and antisense oligonucleotides directly preventing translation of apolipoprotein(a) mRNA.

SUMMARY

With this robust and expanding clinical database, a reawakening of interest in Lp(a) as clinical risk factor is taking place. Trials are underway with novel drugs that substantially lower Lp(a) and may reduce its contribution to cardiovascular disease.

When should we measure lipoprotein (a)?

Recently published epidemiological and genetic studies strongly suggest a causal relationship of elevated concentrations of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] with cardiovascular disease (CVD), independent of low-density lipoproteins (LDLs), reduced high density lipoproteins (HDL), and other traditional CVD risk factors. The atherogenicity of Lp(a) at a molecular and cellular level is caused by interference with the fibrinolytic system, the affinity to secretory phospholipase A2, the interaction with extracellular matrix glycoproteins, and the binding to scavenger receptors on macrophages. Lipoprotein (a) plasma concentrations correlate significantly with the synthetic rate of apo(a) and recent studies demonstrate that apo(a) expression is inhibited by ligands for farnesoid X receptor. Numerous gaps in our knowledge on Lp(a) function, biosynthesis, and the site of catabolism still exist. Nevertheless, new classes of therapeutic agents that have a significant Lp(a)-lowering effect such as apoB antisense oligonucleotides, microsomal triglyceride transfer protein inhibitors, cholesterol ester transfer protein inhibitors, and PCSK-9 inhibitors are currently in trials. Consensus reports of scientific societies are still prudent in recommending the measurement of Lp(a) routinely for assessing CVD risk. This is mainly caused by the lack of definite intervention studies demonstrating that lowering Lp(a) reduces hard CVD endpoints, a lack of effective medications for lowering Lp(a), the highly variable Lp(a) concentrations among different ethnic groups and the challenges associated with Lp(a) measurement. Here, we present our view on when to measure Lp(a) and how to deal with elevated Lp(a) levels in moderate and high-risk individuals.

Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease in diabetic patients

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a LDL-like particle consisting of an ApoA moiety linked to one molecule of ApoB(100). Recent data from large-scale prospective studies and genetic association studies provide highly suggestive evidence for a potentially causal role of Lp(a) in affecting risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in general populations. Patients with Type 2 diabetes display clustered metabolic abnormalities and elevated risk of CVD. Lower plasma Lp(a) levels were observed in diabetic patients in several recent studies. Epidemiology studies of Lp(a) and CVD risk in diabetic patients generated inconsistent results. We recently found that Lp(a)-related genetic markers did not predict CVD in two diabetic cohorts. The current data suggest that Lp(a) may differentially affect cardiovascular risk in diabetic patients and in the general population. More prospective studies, Mendelian randomization analysis and functional studies are needed to clarify the causal relationship of Lp(a) and CVD in diabetic patients.

Metabolic profiling in personalized medicine: bridging the gap between knowledge and clinical practice in Type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) is the most commonly diagnosed metabolic disease and its prevalence is expected to increase. Epidemiological studies clearly show excess mortality associated with DM2, as well as an increased risk of DM2-related complications. Advances in personalized medicine would greatly improve patient care in the field of diabetes and other metabolic diseases. Prediction of the disease in asymptomatic patients as well as its harsh complications in patients already diagnosed is becoming a necessity, with the considerable increase in the cost of the treatment. In the current article, we review the known clinical, molecular metabolic and genetic biomarkers that should be integrated in a future bioinformatic platform to be used at the point-of-care, and discuss the challenges we face in applying this vision of personalized medicine for diabetes into reality.

Long-term lifestyle intervention lowers the incidence of stroke in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a nationwide multicentre randomised controlled trial (the Japan Diabetes Complications Study)

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of the study was to clarify whether a therapeutic intervention focused on lifestyle modification affected the incidence of vascular complications in patients with established diabetes.

METHODS

A total of 2,033 eligible Japanese men and women aged 40-70 years with type 2 diabetes from 59 institutes were randomised to a conventional treatment group (CON), which continued to receive the usual care, and a lifestyle intervention group (INT), which received education on lifestyle modification regarding dietary habits, physical activities and adherence to treatment by telephone counselling and at each outpatient clinic visit, in addition to the usual care. Randomisation and open-label allocation were done by a central computer system. Primary analysis regarding measurements of control status and occurrence of macro- and microvascular complications was based on 1,304 participants followed for an 8 year period.

RESULTS

Although status of control of most classic cardiovascular risk factors, including body weight, glycaemia, serum lipids and BP, did not differ between groups during the study period, the incidence of stroke in the INT group (5.48/1,000 patient-years) was significantly lower than in the CON group (9.52/1,000 patient-years) by Kaplan- Meier analysis (p=0.02 by logrank test) and by multivariate Cox analysis (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.98, p=0.04). The incidence of CHD, retinopathy and nephropathy did not differ significantly between groups. Lipoprotein(a) was another significant independent risk factor for stroke.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

These findings suggest that lifestyle modification had limited effects on most typical control variables, but did have a significant effect on stroke incidence in patients with established type 2 diabetes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN-CTR C000000222

FUNDING

The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan