Lipoprotein(a): Evidence for Role as a Causal Risk Factor in Cardiovascular Disease and Emerging Therapies

Lipoprotein(a) as a cardiovascular risk factor among patients with and without diabetes Mellitus: the Mass General Brigham Lp(a) Registry

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and Lp(a) are well-established predictors of coronary artery disease (CAD) outcomes. However, their combined association remains poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between elevated Lp(a) and DM with CAD outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the MGB Lp(a) Registry involving patients ≥ 18 years who underwent Lp(a) measurements between 2000 and 2019. Exclusion criteria were severe kidney dysfunction, malignant neoplasms, and prior atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The primary outcome was a combination of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (MI). Elevated Lp(a) was defined as > 90th percentile (≥ 216 nmol/L).

RESULTS

Among 6,238 patients who met the eligibility criteria, the median age was 54, 45% were women, and 12% had DM. Patients with DM were older, more frequently male, and had a higher prevalence of additional cardiovascular risk factors. Over a median follow-up of 12.9 years, patients with either DM or elevated Lp(a) experienced higher rates of the primary outcome. Notably, those with elevated Lp(a) had a higher incidence of the primary outcome regardless of their DM status. The annual event rates were as follows: No-DM and Lp(a) < 90th% - 0.6%; No-DM and Lp(a) > 90th% - 1.3%; DM and Lp(a) < 90th% - 1.9%; DM and Lp(a) > 90th% - 4.7% (p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, elevated Lp(a) remained independently associated with the primary outcome among both patients with DM (HR = 2.66 [95%CI: 1.55-4.58], p < 0.001) and those without DM (HR = 2.01 [95%CI: 1.48-2.74], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated Lp(a) constitutes an independent and incremental risk factor for CAD outcomes in patients with and without DM.

Association between hepatic steatosis and lipoprotein(a) levels in non-alcoholic patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

It is well known that lipid abnormalities exist in the context of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The association between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels and NAFLD is poorly understood. The main objective of the present study was to assess the association between Lp(a) levels and NAFLD.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42023392526). A literature search was performed to detect studies that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels, NAFLD and steatohepatitis (NASH).

RESULTS

Ten observational studies, including 40,045 patients, were identified and considered eligible for this systematic review. There were 9266 subjects in the NAFLD groups and 30,779 individuals in the respective control groups. Five studies evaluated patients with NAFLD (hepatic steatosis was associated with lower Lp(a) levels in four studies, while the remaining showed opposite results). Two studies evaluating NASH patients showed that Lp(a) levels were not different compared to controls. However, the increment of Lp(a) levels was correlated with liver fibrosis in one of them. In addition, one study analyzed simultaneously patients with NAFLD and NASH, showing a neutral result in NAFLD patients and a positive relationship in NASH patients. Two studies that included patients with the new definition of metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) also showed neutral results.

CONCLUSION

Although there could be an association between Lp(a) levels and hepatic steatosis, the results of the studies published to date are contradictory and not definitive.

Association of Lipoprotein (a) and Standard Modifiable Cardiovascular Risk Factors With Incident Myocardial Infarction: The Mass General Brigham Lp(a) Registry

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a robust predictor of coronary heart disease outcomes, with targeted therapies currently under investigation. We aimed to evaluate the association of high Lp(a) with standard modifiable risk factors (SMuRFs) for incident first acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective study used the Mass General Brigham Lp(a) Registry, which included patients aged ≥18 years with an Lp(a) measurement between 2000 and 2019. Exclusion criteria were severe kidney dysfunction, malignant neoplasm, and prior known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking were considered SMuRFs. High Lp(a) was defined as >90th percentile, and low Lp(a) was defined as <50th percentile. The primary outcome was fatal or nonfatal AMI. A combination of natural language processing algorithms, International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, and laboratory data was used to identify the outcome and covariates. A total of 6238 patients met the eligibility criteria. The median age was 54 (interquartile range, 43-65) years, and 45% were women. Overall, 23.7% had no SMuRFs, and 17.8% had ≥3 SMuRFs. Over a median follow-up of 8.8 (interquartile range, 4.2-12.8) years, the incidence of AMI increased gradually, with higher number of SMuRFs among patients with high (log-rank P=0.031) and low Lp(a) (log-rank P<0.001). Across all SMuRF subgroups, the incidence of AMI was significantly higher for patients with high Lp(a) versus low Lp(a). The risk of high Lp(a) was similar to having 2 SMuRFs. Following adjustment for confounders and number of SMuRFs, high Lp(a) remained significantly associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 2.9 [95% CI, 2.0-4.3]; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with no prior atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, high Lp(a) is associated with significantly higher risk for first AMI regardless of the number of SMuRFs.

Impact of Lipoprotein(a) Levels on Cardiovascular Risk Estimation

INTRODUCTION

A new cardiovascular risk (CVR) calculator that incorporates Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels has recently been designed.

AIMS

To estimate CVR using the new score and to identify the reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) or systolic blood pressure (SBP) necessary to balance the risk attributable to Lp(a).

METHODS

CVR throughout life and at 10 years was estimated with the new score in patients in primary prevention, both considering and not considering the value of Lp(a). When the estimated risk considering Lp(a) levels exceeded the baseline risk, the reduction in LDL-C levels or SBP necessary to balance the risk attributable to Lp(a) was calculated.

RESULTS

In total, 671 patients (mean age 54.2 years, 47.2% women) were included. Globally, 22.7% of the population had high Lp(a) values (> 50 mg/dL or > 125 nmol/L). When calculating CVR throughout life and considering the Lp(a) value, the global risk increased in 66.7% of cases (median 19.3%). Similar results were observed when we assessed the 10-year risk. The risk associated with Lp(a) could be completely compensated by decreasing LDL-C (average 21 mg/dL) or SBP (average 6.3 mmHg) in 79.2% and 74.7% of cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

When calculating the CVR with the new score, two-thirds and one-third of the population were bidirectionally recategorized as 'up' or 'down,' respectively. The decrease in LDL-C or SBP mitigated the increased risk caused by Lp(a) levels across a substantial proportion of patients.

Lipoprotein(a): A Review of Risk Factors, Measurements, and Novel Treatment Modalities

The study of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has long been a source of interest as a possible independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The results of large sample observational studies, genome-wide association studies, and Mendelian randomization studies have been strong indicators supporting the link between ASCVD and Lp(a) despite early studies, with less sensitive assays, failing to show a connection. The recommendations for the indications and frequency of testing Lp(a) levels vary between US, Canadian, and European organizations due to the uncertain role of Lp(a) in ASCVD. The innovation of recent therapies, such as antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering RNA, designed to specifically target and reduce Lp(a) levels by targeting mRNA translation have once more thrust LP(a) into the spotlight of inquiry. These emerging modalities serve the dual purpose of definitively elucidating the connection between elevated Lp(a) levels and atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk, as well as the possibility of providing clinicians with the tools necessary to manage elevated Lp(a) levels in vulnerable populations. This review seeks to examine the mechanisms of atherogenicity of Lp(a) and explore the most current pharmacologic therapies currently in development.

LP(a): Structure, Genetics, Associated Cardiovascular Risk, and Emerging Therapeutics

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a molecule bound to apolipoprotein(a) with some similarity to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), which has been found to be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Lp(a) appears to induce inflammation, atherogenesis, and thrombosis. Approximately 20% of the world's population has increased Lp(a) levels, determined predominantly by genetics. Current clinical practices for the management of dyslipidemia are ineffective in lowering Lp(a) levels. Evolving RNA-based therapeutics, such as the antisense oligonucleotide pelacarsen and small interfering RNA olpasiran, have shown promising results in reducing Lp(a) levels. Phase III pivotal cardiovascular outcome trials [Lp(a)HORIZON and OCEAN(a)] are ongoing to evaluate their efficacy in secondary prevention of major cardiovascular events in patients with elevated Lp(a). The future of cardiovascular residual risk reduction may transition to a personalized approach where further lowering of either LDL-C, triglycerides, or Lp(a) is selected after high-intensity statin therapy based on the individual risk profile and preferences of each patient.

Intracranial Aneurysms and Lipid Metabolism Disorders: From Molecular Mechanisms to Clinical Implications

Many vascular diseases are linked to lipid metabolism disorders, which cause lipid accumulation and peroxidation in the vascular wall. These processes lead to degenerative changes in the vessel, such as phenotypic transformation of smooth muscle cells and dysfunction and apoptosis of endothelial cells. In intracranial aneurysms, the coexistence of lipid plaques is often observed, indicating localized lipid metabolism disorders. These disorders may impair the function of the vascular wall or result from it. We summarize the literature on the relationship between lipid metabolism disorders and intracranial aneurysms below.

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.

Aspirin and lipoprotein(a) in primary prevention

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is causally associated with cardiovascular diseases, and elevated levels are highly prevalent. However, there is a lack of available therapies to address Lp(a)-mediated risk. Though aspirin has progressively fallen out of favor for primary prevention, individuals with high Lp(a) may represent a high-risk group that derives a net benefit.

RECENT FINDINGS

Aspirin has been demonstrated to have a clear benefit in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, but recent primary prevention trials have at best demonstrated a small benefit. However, individuals with elevated Lp(a) may be of high risk enough to benefit, particularly given interactions between Lp(a) and the fibrinolytic system / platelets, and the lack of available targeted medical therapies. In secondary analyses of the Women's Health Study (WHS) and the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, aspirin use was associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in carriers of genetic polymorphisms associated with elevated Lp(a) levels. Further studies are needed, however, as these studies focused on narrower subsets of the overall population and genetic markers.

SUMMARY

Individuals with elevated Lp(a) may benefit from aspirin therapy in primary prevention, but further study with plasma Lp(a) levels, broader populations, and randomization of aspirin are needed.

Elevated Lipoprotein(a) Levels and Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review

Objective

The role of lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) as a possibly causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has been well established. However, the clinical evidence regarding the association between Lp(a) levels and atrial fibrillation (AF) remains limited and inconsistent. This study aimed to analyze the association between elevated Lp(a) levels or single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to high levels of Lp(a) and AF.

Methods

This systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A literature search was performed to identify studies that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels or SNPs related to high levels of Lp(a) and AF. Observational studies with a cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort design were included in this systematic review, without limitations according to language, country, or publication type.

Results

Eleven observational studies including 1,246,817 patients were eligible for this systematic review. Two cross-sectional studies, 5 prospective/retrospective cohort studies, and 4 Mendelian randomization studies were analyzed. Two cross-sectional studies that compared Lp(a) levels between patients with and without AF showed conflicting results. Cohort studies that evaluated the incidence of AF according to Lp(a) levels showed different results: no association (3 studies), a positive association (1 study), and an inverse relationship (1 study). Finally, Mendelian randomization studies also showed heterogeneous results (positive association: 2 studies; inverse association: 1 study; no association: 1 study).

Conclusion

Although there could be an association between Lp(a) levels and AF, the results of the studies published to date are contradictory and not yet definitive. Therefore, further research should clarify this issue.

The association between lipoprotein(a) and atrial fibrillation: A systemic review and meta-analysis

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a particle consisting of a low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-like core connected to an apolipoprotein(a) chain, which is an established risk factor for cardiovascular disease. However, studies addressing the relationship between atrial fibrillation (AF) and Lp(a) demonstrated conflicted results. Thus, we sought to evaluate this relationship by conducting this systemic review and meta-analysis. We performed a comprehensive systematic search of health science databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and ScienceDirect, to identify all relevant literature from their inception to March 1, 2023. We identified nine related articles, which were eventually included in this study. Our study showed no association between Lp(a) with new-onset AF (HR = 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-3.67, p = .432). In addition, genetically elevated Lp(a) was not associated with the risk of atrial fibrillation (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 1.00-1.00, p = .461). Different stratification of Lp(a) levels may have different outcomes. Also, higher Lp(a) levels may be inversely associated with the risk of developing AF compared to those with lower levels. Lp(a) levels were not associated with incident AF. Further research is needed to identify the mechanism underlying these results and better understand Lp(a) stratification for AF and the possible inverse association between Lp(a) and AF.

Lipoprotein(a) and calcific aortic valve disease initiation and progression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Although evidence indicates the association of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] with atherosclerosis, the link with calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD) is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis explores the connection between Lp(a) and aortic valve calcification and stenosis (AVS). We included all relevant studies, indexed in eight databases, up to February 2023. A total of 44 studies (163 139 subjects) were included, with 16 of them being further meta-analysed. Despite considerable heterogeneity, most studies support the relationship between Lp(a) and CAVD, especially in younger populations, with evidence of early aortic valve micro-calcification in elevated-Lp(a) populations. The quantitative synthesis showed higher Lp(a) levels, by 22.63 nmol/L (95% CI: 9.98-35.27), for patients with AVS, while meta-regressing the data revealed smaller Lp(a) differences for older populations with a higher proportion of females. The meta-analysis of eight studies providing genetic data, revealed that the minor alleles of both rs10455872 and rs3798220 LPA gene loci were associated with higher risk for AVS (pooled odds ratio 1.42; 95% CI: 1.34-1.50 and 1.27; 95% CI: 1.09-1.48, respectively). Importantly, high-Lp(a) individuals displayed not only faster AVS progression, by a mean difference of 0.09 m/s/year (95% CI: 0.09-0.09), but also a higher risk of serious adverse outcomes, including death (pooled hazard ratio 1.39; 95% CI: 1.01-1.90). These summary findings highlight the effect of Lp(a) on CAVD initiation, progression and outcomes, and support the early onset of Lp(a)-related subclinical lesions before clinical evidence.

Lipoprotein(a) and coronary artery calcium in comparison with other lipid biomarkers: The multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring is often used for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk stratification in individuals with elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)].

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate associations between Lp(a) and baseline CAC (volume/density) and CAC progression compared to other lipid biomarkers.

METHODS

We utilized data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), a cohort study of individuals without clinical ASCVD, excluding statin users. We evaluated the associations between Lp(a), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and non-HDL-C with baseline CAC and annual CAC progression using multivariable ordinal regression with adjustment for ASCVD risk factors. Analyses were also stratified by median age.

RESULTS

In 5,597 participants (2,726 at median 9.5-year follow-up), Lp(a) was not associated with baseline CAC volume or density and was modestly associated with volume progression (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.21). However, other biomarkers were positively associated with baseline volume and volume progression (LDL-C: OR 1.26, 95% CI: 1.19-1.33 and OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.15-1.30, respectively), except HDL-C which was inversely associated. LDL-C, total cholesterol and non-HDL-C were inversely associated with baseline density. In participants <62 years of age, Lp(a) was modestly associated with baseline CAC volume (OR 1.10, 95% CI: 1.00-1.20) and volume progression (OR 1.16 95% CI: 1.04-1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to other lipid biomarkers, Lp(a) was not associated with baseline CAC volume or density and was only modestly associated with volume progression. Our findings suggest that Lp(a) is not as robustly associated with CAC as other lipid biomarkers.

Plasma Lipoprotein(a) Levels in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) may represent an important model of lipid alterations. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has emerged as a new marker of cardiovascular risk.

AIM

The main objective of this meta-analysis was to analyze the available evidence on Lp(a) levels in patients with PCOS compared to a control group.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. A literature search was performed to detect studies that have quantified Lp(a) levels in women with PCOS compared to a control group. The primary outcome was Lp(a) levels expressed in mg/dL. Random effects models were used.

RESULTS

Twenty-three observational studies including 2,337 patients were identified and considered eligible for this meta-analysis. In the overall analysis, the quantitative analysis showed that patients with PCOS have a higher Lp(a) levels (SMD: 1.1 [95% CI: 0.7 to 1.4]; I²=93%) compared to the control group. The results were similar in the analysis of the subgroups of patients according to body mass index (normal weight group: SMD: 1.2 [95% CI: 0.5 to 1.9], I²=95%; overweight group: SMD: 1.2 [95% CI: 0.5 to 1.8], I²=89%). Sensitivity analysis showed that the results were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis shows that women with PCOS had higher levels of Lp(a) compared to healthy women used as a control group. These findings were observed in both overweight and non-overweight women.

High lipoprotein(a) levels and mitral valve disease: A systematic review

AIMS

The role of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] as a possibly causal risk factor for atherosclerotic artery disease and aortic valve stenosis has been well established. However, the information available on the association between Lp(a) levels and mitral valve disease is limited and controversial. The main objective of the present study was to assess the association between Lp(a) levels and mitral valve disease.

DATA SYNTHESIS

This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO CRD42022379044). A literature search was performed to detect studies that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels or single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to high levels of Lp(a) and mitral valve disease, including mitral valve calcification and valve dysfunction. Eight studies including 1,011,520 individuals were considered eligible for this research. The studies that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels and prevalent mitral valve calcification found predominantly positive results. Similar findings were reported in two studies that evaluated the SNPs related to high levels of Lp(a). Only two studies evaluated the association of Lp(a) and mitral valve dysfunction, showing contradictory results.

CONCLUSIONS

This research showed disparate results regarding the association between Lp(a) levels and mitral valve disease. The association between Lp(a) levels and mitral valve calcification seems more robust and is in line with the findings already demonstrated in aortic valve disease. New studies should be developed to clarify this topic.

Vaccine Formulation Strategies and Challenges Involved in RNA Delivery for Modulating Biomarkers of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Race from Laboratory to Market

It has been demonstrated that noncoding RNAs have significant physiological and pathological roles. Modulation of noncoding RNAs may offer therapeutic approaches as per recent findings. Small RNAs, mostly long noncoding RNAs, siRNA, and microRNAs make up noncoding RNAs. Inhibiting or promoting protein breakdown by binding to 3' untranslated regions of target mRNA, microRNAs post-transcriptionally control the pattern of gene expression. Contrarily, long non-coding RNAs perform a wider range of tasks, including serving as molecular scaffolding, decoys, and epigenetic regulators. This article provides instances of long noncoding RNAs and microRNAs that may be a biomarker of CVD (cardiovascular disease). In this paper we highlight various RNA-based vaccine formulation strategies designed to target these biomarkers-that are either currently in the research pipeline or are in the global pharmaceutical market-along with the physiological hurdles that need to be overcome.