Discovery of potent small-molecule inhibitors of lipoprotein(a) formation.

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), an independent, causal cardiovascular risk factor, is a lipoprotein particle that is formed by the interaction of a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle and apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a))1,2. Apo(a) first binds to lysine residues of apolipoprotein B-100 (apoB-100) on LDL through the Kringle IV (KIV) 7 and 8 domains, before a disulfide bond forms between apo(a) and apoB-100 to create Lp(a) (refs. 3-7). Here we show that the first step of Lp(a) formation can be inhibited through small-molecule interactions with apo(a) KIV7-8. We identify compounds that bind to apo(a) KIV7-8, and, through chemical optimization and further application of multivalency, we create compounds with subnanomolar potency that inhibit the formation of Lp(a). Oral doses of prototype compounds and a potent, multivalent disruptor, LY3473329 (muvalaplin), reduced the levels of Lp(a) in transgenic mice and in cynomolgus monkeys. Although multivalent molecules bind to the Kringle domains of rat plasminogen and reduce plasmin activity, species-selective differences in plasminogen sequences suggest that inhibitor molecules will reduce the levels of Lp(a), but not those of plasminogen, in humans. These data support the clinical development of LY3473329-which is already in phase 2 studies-as a potent and specific orally administered agent for reducing the levels of Lp(a).

Lipoprotein(a) as a blood marker for large artery atherosclerosis stroke etiology: validation in a prospective cohort from a swiss stroke center.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] serum levels are highly genetically determined and promote atherogenesis. High Lp(a) levels are associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity. Serum Lp(a) levels have recently been associated with large artery atherosclerosis (LAA) stroke. We aimed to externally validate this association in an independent cohort. METHODS: This study stems from the prospective multicentre CoRisk study (CoPeptin for Risk Stratification in Acute Stroke patients [NCT00878813]), conducted at the University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, between 2009 and 2011, in which Lp(a) plasma levels were measured within the first 24 hours after stroke onset. We assessed the association of Lp(a) with LAA stroke using multivariable logistic regression and performed interaction analyses to identify potential effect modifiers. RESULTS: Of 743 patients with ischaemic stroke, 105 (14%) had LAA stroke aetiology. Lp(a) levels were higher for LAA stroke than non-LAA stroke patients (23.0 nmol/l vs 16.3 nmol/l, p = 0.01). Multivariable regression revealed an independent association of log10and#xA0;Lp(a) with LAA stroke aetiology (aOR 1.47 [95% CI 1.03and#x2013;2.09], p = 0.03). The interaction analyses showed that Lp(a) was not associated with LAA stroke aetiology among patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: In a well-characterised cohort of patients with ischaemic stroke, we validated the association of higher Lp(a) levels with LAA stroke aetiology, independent of traditional cardiovascular risk factors. These findings may inform randomised clinical trials investigating the effect of Lp(a) lowering agents on cardiovascular outcomes. The CoRisk (CoPeptin for Risk Stratification in Acute Patients) study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00878813.

Fragment-based drug design of novel inhibitors targeting lipoprotein (a) kringle domain KIV-10-mediated cardiovascular disease.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the leading cause of death globally, attributed to a complex etiology involving metabolic, genetic, and protein-related factors. Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), identified as a genetic risk factor, exhibits elevated levels linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases. The lipoprotein(a) kringle domains have recently been identified as a potential target for the treatment of CVDs, in this study we utilized a fragment-based drug design approach to design a novel, potent, and safe inhibitor for lipoprotein(a) kringle domain. With the use of fragment library (61,600 fragments) screening, combined with analyses such as MM/GBSA, molecular dynamics simulation (MD), and principal component analysis, we successfully identified molecules effective against the kringle domains of Lipoprotein(a). The hybridization process (Breed) of the best fragments generated a novel 249 hybrid molecules, among them 77 exhibiting superior binding affinity (≤ -7 kcal/mol) compared to control AZ-02 (-6.9 kcal/mol), Importantly, the top ten molecules displayed high similarity to the control AZ-02. Among the top ten molecules, BR1 exhibited the best docking energy (-11.85 kcal/mol ), and higher stability within the protein LBS site, demonstrating the capability to counteract the pathophysiological effects of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]. Additionally, principal component analysis (PCA) highlighted a similar trend of motion during the binding of BR1 and the control compound (AZ-02), limiting protein mobility and reducing conformational space. Moreover, ADMET analysis indicated favorable drug-like properties, with BR1 showing minimal violations of Lipinski's rules. Overall, the identified compounds hold promise as potential therapeutics, addressing a critical need in cardiovascular medicine. Further preclinical and clinical evaluations are needed to validate their efficacy and safety, potentially ushering in a new era of targeted therapies for CVDs.

Relationship Between Lipoprotein(a) Levels and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review.

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels are independently associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, although this association is less explored in postmenopausal women. The main objective of this systematic review was to analyze the association between elevated Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular outcomes in posmenopausal women. Studies that evaluated this association were searched in the current literature. Ten studies including 157.690 women were considered eligible for this study. In total, 4 prospective cohorts, 3 cross-sectional studies, 2 nested case-control studies, and one post-hoc analysis from a randomized clinical trial were analyzed. The included studies showed different results regarding the association between Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular outcomes: a positive association (4 studies), no association (2 studies), or different results depending on the subgroups or outcomes evaluated (4 studies). The results were robust when evaluating coronary events. The reduction in coronary events attributed to a hormone replacement therapy-associated decrease in Lp(a) levels was controversial.

The development of lipoprotein apheresis in Saxony in the last years.

METHODS: Three hundred thirty-nine patients (230 men, 109 women) treated with lipoprotein apheresis in Saxony, Germany, in 2018 are described in terms of age, lipid pattern, risk factors, cardiovascular events, medication, and number of new admissions since 2014, and the data are compared with figures from 2010 to 2013. RESULTS: Patients were treated by 45.5 physicians in 16 lipoprotein apheresis centers. With about 10 patients per 100 000 inhabitants, the number of patients treated with lipoprotein apheresis in Saxony is twice as high as in Germany as a whole. The median treatment time was 3 years. Almost all patients had hypertension; type 2 diabetes mellitus was seen significantly more often in patients with low Lipoprotein(a). Cardiovascular events occurred in almost all patients before initiation of lipoprotein apheresis, under apheresis therapy the cardiovascular events rate was very low in this high-risk group. For some cardiovascular regions even no events could be observed. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of lipoprotein apheresis in Saxony had been increasing from 2010 to 2018.

The nonlinear correlation between lipoprotein (a) and the prevalence of aortic valve calcification in patients with new-onset acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Growing studies show that lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is related to calcified aortic valve diseases in general population, while the relationship between Lp(a) and aortic valve calcification (AVC) in patients with new-onset acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains unclear. Therefore, this study was to evaluate the correlation between Lp(a) and AVC in patients with new-onset AMI. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 410 patients with new-onset AMI who were hospitalised in Zhongda Hospital affiliated to Southeast University from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021. Multivariable logistic regression, subgroup analysis, generalised additive model, threshold and saturation effect and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve were used to explore the association between Lp(a) and AVC. RESULTS: Patients with AVC had higher levels of Lp(a) than those without AVC. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that higher Lp(a) was still associated with higher risk of AVC after adjusting for confounding factors, and this correlation was robust in most subgroups and sensitivity analyses (p < 0.05). Additionally, the generalised additive model showed that there was a nonlinear correlation between Lp(a) and AVC (P for nonlinearity = 0.037). Threshold and saturation effect analysis indicated that when Lp(a) < 840 mg/L, it was positively correlated with the prevalence of AVC (p < 0.05), but when Lp(a) ≥ 840 mg/L, this correlation no longer existed. Besides, ROC curve analysis demonstrated that Lp(a) had a good diagnostic performance for AVC. CONCLUSION: Lp(a) was independently associated with the prevalence of AVC in patients with new-onset AMI.

[Lipoprotein apheresis in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia: a single center research].

Objective: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of lipoprotein apheresis (LA) in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) who can't reach low-density lipoprotein cholesterol(LDL-C) target goals with the maximal tolerated dose of lipid-lowering agents. Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study. Between February 2015 and November 2019, patients with FH who were admitted in Fuwai hospital and treated with LA were consecutively enrolled. Based on intensive lipid-lowering agents, these patients received LA by double filtration plasma pheresis (DFPP) method. The changes of lipid levels such as LDL-C and lipoprotein(a)[Lp(a)] were compared before and after LA treatment, and the changes of immunoglobulin (Ig) concentration and LA-related adverse effects were also discussed. Results: A total of 115 patients with FH were enrolled in this study, of which 8 cases were homozygous FH and 107 cases were heterozygous FH. The age was (43.9±12.2) years and there were 75 (65.2%) males, and 108 (93.8%) with coronary artery disease. For pre-and immediately after LA treatment, the LDL-C was (5.20±2.94) mmol/L vs. (1.83±1.08) mmol/L, Lp(a) concentration was 428.70(177.00, 829.50)mg/L vs. 148.90(75.90, 317.00) mg/L (P<0.001), with a decrease of 64.2% and 59.8% respectively. The levels of IgG and IgA measured 1 day after LA treatment were both in the normal range and IgM concentration was below the reference value, the reductions of which were 15.1%, 25.0% and 58.7% respectively (P<0.001). Six patients had mild symptoms of nausea, hypotension dyspnea and palpitation, the symptoms were relieved by symptomatic treatment. Conclusion: For patients with FH who do not achieve LDL-C target goal with the maximal tolerated lipid-lowering agents, especially those with elevated Lp(a) levels, LA, which can significantly further reduce LDL-C and Lp(a) levels, is an effective and safe option.

[Lipoprotein (a) :NSFA consensus]. / Lipoprotéine(a) : consensusde la NSFA 2021.

LIPOPROTEIN(a) : NSFA CONSENSUS Lipoprotein(a), first described in 1963, consists of a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) associated with apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] which has a structural similarity with plasminogen but does not have fi-brinolytic activity. This complex structure determines the prothrom¬botic and antifibrinolytic action of high concentrations of Lp(a) and promotes the progression of atherosclerosis. Lp(a) has a propensity to remain in the arterial intima and to deposit its load of choleste¬rol and oxidized phospholipids at the sites of plaque formation. Lp(a) is characterized by a dramatically wide range of plasma concentrations (from 0.01 to > 3g/L, or from 2.5nmol/L to > 750nmol/L) that are mainly influenced by genetic factors and not by age, gender or lifestyle. The increase in its circulating concen¬tration is related to the increase in atherothrombotic risk. In this context, Lp(a) assays, although currently insufficiently standardized, are of considerable interest not only for cardiovascular risk strati¬fication in high-risk subjects, but also for the clinical follow-up of patients treated with new lipid-lowering therapies likely to signifi¬cantly reduce its circulating concentration, PCSK9 inhibitors, an¬ti-apo(a) antisense oligonucleotide «ONAS¼ and, ultimately, to improve the management of subjects at high cardiovascular risk.

LIPOPROTÉINE(a) : CONSENSUS DE LA NSFA 2021 La lipoprotéine (a) ou Lp(a), initialement décrite en 1963 par Kåre Berg, est constituée d'une lipoprotéine de basse densité (LDL) associée à l'apolipoprotéine (a) [apo(a)]. L'apo(a) est structurelle¬ment similaire au plasminogène, mais ne possède pas l'activité fibrinolytique caractéristique de la plasmine formée à partir de celui-ci. En raison de cette structure complexe, les concentrations élevées de Lp(a) peuvent favoriser la progression des plaques d'athérome grâce à son composant LDL, riche en cholestérol et en phospholipides oxydés, et exercer une action antifibrinolytique et prothrombotique grâce à son composant apo(a). La Lp(a) se carac-térise par une gamme spectaculairement large de concentrations plasmatiques (de 0,01 à plus de 3g/L, c'est-à-dire de 2,5 à plus de 750nmol/L), qui sont principalement influencées par des fac¬teurs génétiques et non par l'âge, le sexe ou le mode de vie. L'augmentation de sa concentration circulante est liée à celle du risque athérothrombotique. Dans ce contexte, le dosage de la Lp(a) présente un intérêt considérable non seulement pour la stratification du risque cardiovasculaire chez les sujets à haut risque mais éga¬lement pour le suivi clinique des patients traités par de nouvelles thérapies hypolipémiantes. Ces nouveaux médicaments, inhibiteurs de PCSK9, oligonucléotides antisens ou ONAS anti-apo(a), seraient susceptibles d'en réduire significativement la concentration circu¬lante et, à terme, d'améliorer la prise en charge des sujets à haut risque cardiovasculaire.

Apo(a) and ApoB Interact Noncovalently Within Hepatocytes: Implications for Regulation of Lp(a) Levels by Modulation of ApoB Secretion.

BACKGROUND: Elevated plasma Lp(a) (lipoprotein(a)) levels are associated with increased risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic valve stenosis. However, the cell biology of Lp(a) biosynthesis remains poorly understood, with the locations of the noncovalent and covalent steps of Lp(a) assembly unclear and the nature of the apoB-containing particle destined for Lp(a) unknown. We, therefore, asked if apo(a) and apoB interact noncovalently within hepatocytes and if this impacts Lp(a) biosynthesis. METHODS: Using human hepatocellular carcinoma cells expressing 17K (17 kringle) apo(a), or a 17KΔLBS7,8 variant with a reduced ability to bind noncovalently to apoB, we performed coimmunoprecipitation, coimmunofluorescence, and proximity ligation assays to document intracellular apo(a):apoB interactions. We used a pulse-chase metabolic labeling approach to measure apo(a) and apoB secretion rates. RESULTS: Noncovalent complexes containing apo(a)/apoB are present in lysates from cells expressing 17K but not 17KΔLBS7,8, whereas covalent apo(a)/apoB complexes are absent from lysates. 17K and apoB colocalized intracellularly, overlapping with staining for markers of endoplasmic reticulum trans-Golgi, and early endosomes, and less so with lysosomes. The 17KΔLBS7,8 had lower colocalization with apoB. Proximity ligation assays directly documented intracellular 17K/apoB interactions, which were dramatically reduced for 17KΔLBS7,8. Treatment of cells with PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) enhanced, and lomitapide reduced, apo(a) secretion in a manner dependent on the noncovalent interaction between apo(a) and apoB. Apo(a) secretion was also reduced by siRNA-mediated knockdown of APOB. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings explain the coupling of apo(a) and Lp(a)-apoB production observed in human metabolic studies using stable isotopes as well as the ability of agents that inhibit apoB biosynthesis to lower Lp(a) levels.

Interfacial Activity of Lipoprotein (a) Isoforms with a Variable Number of Kringle IV Type 2 Repeats: A New Indicator of Cardiovascular Risk?

OBJECTIVE: Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is an LDL-like particle constituted by lipids, apolipoprotein B100 and apolipoprotein (a) [apo(a)], a multidomain glycoprotein whose molecular mass is dependent on the genetically encoded number of Kringle IV type 2 (KIV-2) repeats. Because Lp(a) isoforms have been associated with cardiovascular risk (CVR), we have investigated if their interfacial properties can contribute to distinguish between low and high-risk groups and thus be used as a new CVR indicator. METHODS: Four Lp(a) variants, each carrying a different apo(a) isoform (K20, K24, K25, and K29), were purified from plasma of homozygous donors and their interfacial properties characterized using ellipsometry and surface pressure techniques. RESULTS: Ellipsometry measurements revealed that these isoforms had a similar propensity to form adsorbed layers at hydrophobic-hydrophilic interfaces, but surface pressure enabled to clearly separate them into two groups: K20 and K24 on one side, and K25 and K29 on the other side. CONCLUSION: Though K24 and K25 differ only by a single KIV-2 domain, their sharp difference in surface pressure suggests a critical threshold between the two Lp(a) forms, providing insights into the use of condensed matter approaches to monitor CVR. Our findings may represent a new laboratory window to assist medical decisions and to develop precision medicine treatments, practices, and products for CVR, which can be extended to other cardiovascular disease conditions.

Lipoprotein(a): Knowns, unknowns and uncertainties.

Over the last 10 years, there have been advances on several aspects of lipoprotein(a) which are reviewed in the present article. Since the standard immunoassays for measuring lipoprotein(a) are not fully apo(a) isoform-insensitive, the application of an LC-MS/MS method for assaying molar concentrations of lipoprotein(a) has been advocated. Genome wide association, epidemiological, and clinical studies have established high lipoprotein(a) as a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD). However, the relative importance of molar concentration, apo(a) isoform size or variants within the LPA gene is still controversial. Lipoprotein(a)-raising single nucleotide polymorphisms has not been shown to add on value in predicting ASCVD beyond lipoprotein(a) concentrations. Although hyperlipoproteinemia(a) represents an important confounder in the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), it enhances the risk of ASCVD in these patients. Thus, identification of new cases of hyperlipoproteinemia(a) during cascade testing can increase the identification of high-risk individuals. However, it remains unclear whether FH itself increases lipoprotein(a). The ASCVD risk associated with lipoprotein(a) seems to follow a linear gradient across the distribution, regardless of racial subgroups and other risk factors. The inverse association with the risk of developing type 2 diabetes needs consideration as effective lipoprotein(a) lowering therapies are progressing towards the market. Considering that Mendelian randomization analyses have identified the degree of lipoprotein(a)-lowering that is required to achieve ASCVD benefit, the findings of the ongoing outcome trial with pelacarsen will clarify whether dramatically lowering lipoprotein(a) levels can reduce the risk of ASCVD.

Lipoprotein(a) and Cardiovascular Outcomes after Revascularization of Carotid and Lower Limbs Arteries.

BACKGROUND: Despite high-intensity lipid-lowering therapy, there is a residual risk of cardiovascular events that could be associated with lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)). It has been shown that there is an association between elevated Lp(a) level and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease. Data about the role of Lp(a) in the development of cardiovascular events after peripheral revascularization are scarce. PURPOSE: To evaluate the relationship of Lp(a) level with cardiovascular outcomes after revascularization of carotid and lower limbs arteries. METHODS: The study included 258 patients (209 men, mean age 67 years) with severe carotid and/or lower extremity artery disease, who underwent successful elective peripheral revascularization. The primary endpoint was the composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The secondary endpoint was the composite of primary endpoint and repeated revascularization. RESULTS: For 36-month follow-up, 29 (11%) primary and 128 (50%) secondary endpoints were registered. There was a greater risk of primary (21 (8%) vs. 8 (3%); hazard ratio (HR), 3.0; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5-6.3; p < 0.01) and secondary endpoints (83 (32%) vs. 45 (17%), HR, 2.8; 95% CI 2.0-4.0; p < 0.01) in patients with elevated Lp(a) level (≥30 mg/dL) compared to patients with Lp(a) < 30 mg/dL. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analysis revealed that Lp(a) was independently associated with the incidence of cardiovascular outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with peripheral artery diseases have a high risk of cardiovascular events. Lp(a) level above 30 mg/dL is significantly and independently associated with cardiovascular events during 3-year follow-up after revascularization of carotid and lower limbs arteries.

Measuring the contribution of Lp(a) cholesterol towards LDL-C interpretation.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a pro-atherogenic and pro-thrombotic LDL-like particle recognized as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). The cholesterol within Lp(a) (Lp(a)-C) contributes to the reported LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) concentration by nearly all available methods. Accurate LDL-C measurements are critical for identification of genetic dyslipidemias such as familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). FH diagnostic criteria, such as the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) criteria, utilize LDL-C concentration cut-offs to assess the likelihood of FH. Therefore, failure to adjust for Lp(a)-C can impact accurate FH diagnosis and classification, appropriate follow-up testing and treatments, and interpretation of cholesterol-lowering treatment efficacy. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we use direct Lp(a)-C measurements to assess the potential misclassification of FH from contributions of Lp(a)-C to reported LDL-C in patient samples submitted for advanced lipoprotein profiling. METHODS: A total of 31,215 samples submitted for lipoprotein profiling were included. LDL-C was measured by beta quantification or calculated by one of three equations. Lp(a)-C was measured by quantitative lipoprotein electrophoresis. DLCN LDL-C cut-offs were applied to LDL-C results before and after accounting for Lp(a)-C contribution. RESULTS: Lp(a)-C was detected in 8665 (28%) samples. A total of 940 subjects were reclassified to a lower DLCN LDL-C categories; this represents 3% of the total patient series or 11% of subjects with measurable Lp(a)-C. CONCLUSION: Lp(a)-C is present in a significant portion of samples submitted for advanced lipid testing and could cause patient misclassification when using FH diagnostic criteria. These misclassifications could trigger inappropriate follow-up, treatment, and cascade testing for suspected FH.

What do we know about the role of lipoprotein(a) in atherogenesis 57 years after its discovery?

Elevated circulating concentrations of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is strongly associated with increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) and degenerative aortic stenosis. This relationship was first observed in prospective observational studies, and the causal relationship was confirmed in genetic studies. Everybody should have their Lp(a) concentration measured once in their lifetime. CVD risk is elevated when Lp(a) concentrations are high i.e. > 50 mg/dL (≥100 mmol/L). Extremely high Lp(a) levels >180 mg/dL (≥430 mmol/L) are associated with CVD risk similar to that conferred by familial hypercholesterolemia. Elevated Lp(a) level was previously treated with niacin, which exerts a potent Lp(a)-lowering effect. However, niacin is currently not recommended because, despite the improvement in lipid profile, no improvements on clinical outcomes have been observed. Furthermore, niacin use has been associated with severe adverse effects. Post hoc analyses of clinical trials with proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type-9 (PCSK9) inhibitors have shown that these drugs exert clinical benefits by lowering Lp(a), independent of their potent reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). It is not yet known whether PCSK9 inhibitors will be of clinical use in patients with elevated Lp(a). Apheresis is a very effective approach to Lp(a) reduction, which reduces CVD risk but is invasive and time-consuming and is thus reserved for patients with very high Lp(a) levels and progressive CVD. Studies are ongoing on the practical application of genetic approaches to therapy, including antisense oligonucleotides against apolipoprotein(a) and small interfering RNA (siRNA) technology, to reduce the synthesis of Lp(a).

Interaction of lipoprotein(a) with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol on first incident acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interaction effects between lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) on first incident acute myocardial infarction (AMI) among Chinese Han population. METHODS: 1522 cases and 1691 controls were retrospectively analyzed. All subjects were grouped by Lp(a) or LDL-C level. RESULTS: Compared with reference group (LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L and in the 1st quintile of Lp(a)), multivariable-adjusted analysis revealed that OR(95%CI) of first incident AMI for higher LDL-C alone is 2.66(1.78-3.98); that ORs(95%CI) for higher Lp(a) alone are 1.51(1.07-2.15), 1.84(1.28-2.64), 1.86(1.30-2.67) and 2.66(1.88-3.76) across the Lp(a) quintiles; and that ORs(95%CI) for both higher LDL-C and higher Lp(a) are 3.95(2.64-5.92), 3.20(2.21-4.64), 5.64(3.80-8.36) and 7.48(4.90-11.44) which were greater than the sum of the risks of both alone across the Lp(a) quintiles. Relative excess risks due to interaction were 1.78(95% CI, 0.12-3.44, P = 0.036) and 3.01(0.58-5.44, P = 0.015) at the 4th and 5th quintile of Lp(a), confirming the presence of additive interaction between Lp(a) and LDL-C on initial AMI. CONCLUSIONS: Lp(a) interacts with LDL-C in first incident AMI on additive scale in Chinese Han population. The risk of initial AMI from exposure of elevated Lp(a) combined with elevated LDL-C is much greater than the sum of the risks from that of both alone.

Lipoprotein(a): Current Evidence for a Physiologic Role and the Effects of Nutraceutical Strategies.

PURPOSE: Cardiovascular (CV) diseases account for most worldwide mortality, and a higher level of lipoprotein (Lp)-(a) is recognized as a prevalent contributing risk factor. However, there is no consensus regarding nutritional strategies for lowering Lp(a) concentration. Thus, the purposes of this literature review were to: (1) critically examine data concerning the effects of dietetic interventions and nutraceutical agents on Lp(a) level; and (2) review the feasibility and utility of their clinical use. METHODS: A literature search was conducted for studies published between August 2018 and March 2019. The search was performed using the Cochrane, Medline, and Web of Science databases. In order to expand the research, there were no delimitations on the type or year of the studies. A total of 1932 articles were identified using this search procedure. After duplicates were eliminated, 740 abstracts of articles written in English were screened to identify those of highest relevance. In the final tally, a total of 152 full-text articles were included in this review. FINDINGS: Several foods and decreases in saturated fat and ethanol intake, especially red wine intake, may lower Lp(a) concentration, but limits are necessary. Coffee and tea intake may decrease Lp(a) level; further investigation is crucial before they can be considered potent Lp(a)-lowering agents. Among supplementation strategies, only l-carnitine and coenzyme Q10 are promising clinical candidates to lower Lp(a) level. Since both l-carnitine and coenzyme Q10 supplementation are commonly used for CV support, they deserve further exploration regarding clinical applicability. In contrast, despite potential CV benefits, current research fails to justify use of higher intakes of vitamin C, soy isoflavones, garlic, and ω-3 for decreasing Lp(a) concentration. IMPLICATIONS: Definitive long-term clinical trials are needed to confirm the effects of dietetic interventions and nutraceutical agents on Lp(a) concentration when anticipating improved CV outcomes.

Lipoprotein(a) as an Old and New Causal Risk Factor of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], discovered in 1963, has been associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) independent of other traditional risk factors, including LDL cholesterol. Lp(a) is an apolipoprotein B (apoB)-containing lipoprotein, which contains an LDL-like particle. Unlike LDL, which is a primary therapeutic target to decrease ASCVD, current guidelines recommend measuring Lp(a) for risk assessments because there is no clear evidence demonstrating the clinical benefit of decreasing Lp(a) using classical drugs such as niacin. However, recent Mendelian randomization studies indicate that Lp(a) causally correlates with ASCVD. In addition, novel drugs, including PCSK9 inhibitors, as well as antisense oligonucleotide for apo(a), have exhibited efficacy in decreasing Lp(a) substantially, invigorating a discussion whether Lp(a) could be a novel therapeutic target for further ASCVD risk reduction. This review aims to provide current understanding, and future perspectives, of Lp(a), which is currently considered a mere biomarker but may emerge as a novel therapeutic target in future clinical settings.

A comprehensive map of single-base polymorphisms in the hypervariable LPA kringle IV type 2 copy number variation region.

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] concentrations are among the strongest genetic risk factors for cardiovascular disease and present pronounced interethnic and interindividual differences. Approximately 90% of Lp(a) variance is controlled by the LPA gene, which contains a 5.6-kb-large copy number variation [kringle IV type 2 (KIV-2) repeat] that generates >40 protein isoforms. Variants within the KIV-2 region are not called in common sequencing projects, leaving up to 70% of the LPA coding region currently unaddressed. To completely assess the variability in LPA, we developed a sequencing strategy for this region and report here the first map of genetic variation in the KIV-2 region, a comprehensively evaluated ultradeep sequencing protocol, and an easy-to-use variant analysis pipeline. We sequenced 123 Central-European individuals and reanalyzed public data of 2,504 individuals from 26 populations. We found 14 different loss-of-function and splice-site mutations, as well as >100, partially even common, missense variants. Some coding variants were frequent in one population but absent in others. This provides novel candidates to explain the large ethnic and individual differences in Lp(a) concentrations. Importantly, our approach and pipeline are also applicable to other similar copy number variable regions, allowing access to regions that are not captured by common genome sequencing.

JCL roundtable-Lipoprotein(a): The emerging risk factor.

Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is a major risk factor for atherothrombotic events along with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and, inversely, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Lp(a) also contributes to the progression of calcific aortic stenosis and to the rare occurrence of arterial thrombotic strokes without atherosclerosis in children and younger women. Much has been learned about the inheritance of Lp(a) levels and the relationship between apolipoprotein(a) structure and function. Recent work suggests an intriguing interaction between oxidized phospholipids on Lp(a) and inflammatory interleukin-1 genotypes. New pharmaceutical approaches with antisense and RNA interference technology may achieve up to 90% lowering of Lp(a). This Roundtable includes practical considerations for clinically measuring and responding to Lp(a) levels.

Relationship of lipoprotein(a) molar concentrations and mass according to lipoprotein(a) thresholds and apolipoprotein(a) isoform size.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is reported as Lp(a) particle mass (mg/dL) or molar concentration of apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] (nmol/L), which is considered the gold standard. Values are often converted from one measurement to the other but the validity of this is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the relationship between Lp(a) molar concentration and Lp(a) mass in the context of various Lp(a) level thresholds and apo(a) isoform size. METHODS: In all samples, Lp(a) levels in molar concentration and apo(a) isoform size were determined at the Northwest Lipid Metabolism and Diabetes Research Laboratories (NLMDRL). Lp(a) mass levels were determined at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) (1635 samples), by 5 commercially available assays: Denka 1 and Denka 2 (each 80 samples), 2 turbidimetric assays (2545 and 2673 samples, respectively), and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (2605 samples). The ratios between Lp(a) molar concentration and mass (eg, nmol/L/mg/dL) were calculated and related to apo(a) isoform size. RESULTS: The mean (SD) ratios for NLMDRL/UCSD, NLMDRL/Denka1, and NLMDRL/Denka2 were 2.42 (1.25), 1.64 (0.18), and 2.02 (0.22), respectively. The ratios for NLMDRL/UCSD, NLMDRL/Denka1, and NLMDRL/Denka2 increased by Lp(a) cutoffs, with ratios of 1.82, 1.52, and 1.87, respectively, for Lp(a) < 75 nmol/L and 2.80, 1.89, and 2.24, respectively, for Lp(a) > 125 nmol/L. For the commercial turbidimetric assays and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, the ratios ranged from <1 to >5. CONCLUSIONS: Lp(a) molar/mass ratios are threshold, method, and isoform dependent. A single conversion factor between assays is not appropriate. These data support the transition of Lp(a) mass assays to molar concentration to improve diagnostic and clinical interpretation of Lp(a)-mediated risk.