Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular and valvular diseases: A genetic epidemiological perspective.

Rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in the Western world have spectacularly decreased over the past 50 years. However, a substantial proportion of high-risk patients still develop heart attacks, strokes and valvular heart diseases despite benefiting from state-of-the-art treatments including lipid-lowering therapies. Over the past 10-15 years, it has become increasingly clear that Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a critical component of this so-called residual risk. Genetic association studies revealed that Lp(a) is robustly, independently and causally associated with a broad range of cardiovascular and valvular heart diseases. Up to 1 billion people around the globe may have an Lp(a) level that places them in a high-risk category. Lp(a) is strongly associated with calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS), coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and to a lesser extent with ischemic stroke (IS) and heart failure (HF). Because of this strong association with cardiovascular and valvular heart diseases, Lp(a) even emerged as one of the most important genetic determinants of human lifespan and healthspan. Here, we review the evidence from the largest and most informative genetic association studies and prospective studies that have investigated the association between Lp(a) and human lifespan, healthspan, CVD, CAVS and non-cardiovascular diseases. We present Lp(a) threshold values that may be clinically relevant and identify other cardiovascular risk factors that may modulate the absolute risk of CVD in individuals with high Lp(a) levels. Finally, we identify key clinical and research questions that require further investigation to eventually and optimally reduce CVD risk in patients with high Lp(a) levels.

Lipoprotein(a) and Body Mass Compound the Risk of Calcific Aortic Valve Disease.

BACKGROUND: High plasma lipoprotein(a) and high body mass index are both causal risk factors for calcific aortic valve disease. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to test the hypothesis that risk of calcific aortic valve disease is the highest when both plasma lipoprotein(a) and body mass index are extremely high. METHODS: From the Copenhagen General Population Study, we used information on 69,988 randomly selected individuals recruited from 2003 to 2015 (median follow-up 7.4 years) to evaluate the association between high lipoprotein(a) and high body mass index with risk of calcific aortic valve disease. RESULTS: Compared with individuals in the 1st to 49th percentiles for both lipoprotein(a) and body mass index, the multivariable adjusted HRs for calcific aortic valve disease were 1.6 (95% CI: 1.3-1.9) for the 50th to 89th percentiles of both (16% of all individuals) and 3.5 (95% CI: 2.5-5.1) for the 90th to 100th percentiles of both (1.1%) (P for interaction = 0.92). The 10-year absolute risk of calcific aortic valve disease increased with higher lipoprotein(a), body mass index, and age, and was higher in men than in women. For women and men 70-79 years of age with body mass index ≥30.0 kg/m2, 10-year absolute risks were 5% and 8% for lipoprotein(a) ≤42 mg/dL (88 nmol/L), 7% and 11% for 42-79 mg/dL (89-169 nmol/L), and 9% and 14% for lipoprotein(a) ≥80 mg/dL (170 nmol/L), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Extremely high lipoprotein(a) levels and extremely high body mass index together conferred a 3.5-fold risk of calcific aortic valve disease. Ten-year absolute risk of calcific aortic valve disease by categories of lipoprotein(a) levels, body mass index, age, and sex ranged from 0.4% to 14%.

Elevated lipoprotein(a) in mitral and aortic valve calcification and disease: The Copenhagen General Population Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We tested the hypotheses (i) that elevated lipoprotein(a) is causally associated with both mitral and aortic valve calcification and disease, and (ii) that aortic valve calcification mediates the effect of elevated lipoprotein(a) on aortic valve stenosis. METHODS: From the Copenhagen General Population study, we included 12,006 individuals who underwent cardiac computed tomography to measure mitral and aortic valve calcification and 85,884 to examine risk of heart valve disease. Participants had information on plasma lipoprotein(a) and genetic instruments associated with plasma lipoprotein(a) to investigate potential causality. RESULTS: At age 70-79 years, 29% and 54% had mitral and aortic valve calcification, respectively. For 10-fold higher lipoprotein(a) levels, multifactorially adjusted odds ratios for mitral and aortic valve calcification were 1.26 (95% confidence interval: 1.13-1.41) and 1.62 (1.48-1.77). For mitral and aortic valve stenosis, corresponding hazard ratios were 0.93 (95%CI:0.40-2.15, 19 events) and 1.54 (1.38-1.71, 1158 events), respectively. For ≤23 versus ≥36 kringle IV type 2 number of repeats, the age and sex adjusted odds ratios for mitral and aortic valve calcification were 1.53 (1.18-1.99) and 2.23 (1.81-2.76). For carriers versus non-carriers of LPA rs10455872, odds ratios for mitral and aortic valve calcification were 1.33 (1.13-1.57) and 1.86 (1.64-2.13). For aortic valve stenosis, 31% (95%CI:16%-76%) of the effect of lipoprotein(a) was mediated through calcification. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated lipoprotein(a) was genetically and observationally associated with mitral and aortic valve calcification and aortic valve stenosis. Aortic valve calcification mediated 31% of the effect of elevated lipoprotein(a) on aortic valve stenosis.

Low lipoprotein(a) levels and risk of disease in a large, contemporary, general population study.

AIMS: With the current focus on lipoprotein(a) as a likely causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease and new drugs potentially on the market to lower lipoprotein(a) levels, the safety of lowering lipoprotein(a) to low levels becomes increasingly important. We tested whether low levels of lipoprotein(a) and corresponding LPA genotypes associate with major disease groups including cancers and infectious disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 109 440 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study. For main World Health Organization International Classification of Diseases 10th edition chapter diseases, the only concordant association of low levels of lipoprotein(a) plasma levels and corresponding LPA genotypes with risk of disease was with low risk of diseases of the circulatory system. Furthermore, no concordant association of low levels of lipoprotein(a) plasma levels and corresponding LPA genotypes with the risk of any cancer (i.e. cancer subtypes combined) or infectious disease was seen. The hazard ratio for the risk of any cancer was 1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97-1.15] for the first vs. the fourth quartile of lipoprotein(a), 1.02 (0.97-1.07) for the fourth vs. the first quartile of KIV-2 number of repeats, and 1.01 (0.96-1.07) for rs10455872 non-carriers vs. carriers. The corresponding hazard ratios for the risk of hospitalization for infection were 1.05 (95% CI: 0.99-1.10), 1.02 (0.98-1.07), and 0.97 (0.93-1.03), respectively. CONCLUSION: In a large, contemporary, general population cohort, apart from the well-established association with cardiovascular disease, low levels of lipoprotein(a) and corresponding LPA genotypes did not concordantly associate with any major disease groups including cancers and infections. There is no safety signal from our results to indicate that low levels of lipoprotein(a) are harmful.

Comparison of 16 Serological SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassays in 16 Clinical Laboratories.

Serological assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to support clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations. Recently, assays for large-scale detection of total antibodies (Ab), immunoglobulin G (IgG), and IgM against SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed, but there are limited data on the diagnostic accuracy of these assays. This study was a Danish national collaboration and evaluated 15 commercial and one in-house anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays in 16 laboratories. Sensitivity was evaluated using 150 samples from individuals with asymptomatic, mild, or moderate COVID-19, nonhospitalized or hospitalized, confirmed by nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT); samples were collected 13 to 73 days either from symptom onset or from positive NAAT (patients without symptoms). Specificity and cross-reactivity were evaluated in samples collected prior to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic from >586 blood donors and patients with autoimmune diseases, cytomegalovirus or Epstein-Barr virus infections, and acute viral infections. A specificity of ≥99% was achieved by all total-Ab and IgG assays except one, DiaSorin Liaison XL IgG (97.2%). Sensitivities in descending order were Wantai ELISA total Ab (96.7%), CUH-NOVO in-house ELISA total Ab (96.0%), Ortho Vitros total Ab (95.3%), YHLO iFlash IgG (94.0%), Ortho Vitros IgG (93.3%), Siemens Atellica total Ab (93.2%), Roche Elecsys total Ab (92.7%), Abbott Architect IgG (90.0%), Abbott Alinity IgG (median 88.0%), DiaSorin Liaison XL IgG (median 84.6%), Siemens Vista total Ab (81.0%), Euroimmun/ELISA IgG (78.0%), and Snibe Maglumi IgG (median 78.0%). However, confidence intervals overlapped for several assays. The IgM results were variable, with the Wantai IgM ELISA showing the highest sensitivity (82.7%) and specificity (99%). The rate of seropositivity increased with time from symptom onset and symptom severity.

Elevated Lipoprotein(a) and Risk of Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND: High lipoprotein(a) is associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction and aortic valve stenosis. Previous studies have examined the association of lipoprotein(a) and risk of stroke; however, the results are conflicting. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to test if high lipoprotein(a) is associated with high risk of ischemic stroke observationally and causally from human genetics. METHODS: The study included 49,699 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study and 10,813 individuals from the Copenhagen City Heart Study with measurements of plasma lipoprotein(a), LPA kringle-IV type 2 number of repeats, and LPA rs10455872. The endpoint of ischemic stroke was ascertained from Danish national health registries and validated by medical doctors. RESULTS: Compared with individuals with lipoprotein(a) levels <10 mg/dl (<18 nmol/l: first to 50th percentile), the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio for ischemic stroke was 1.60 (95% confidence interval [CI]:1.24 to 2.05) for individuals with lipoprotein(a) levels >93mg/dl (>199 nmol/L: 96th to 100th percentile). In observational analyses for a 50 mg/dl (105 nmol/l) higher lipoprotein(a) level the age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratio for ischemic stroke was 1.20 (95% CI: 1.13 to 1.28), while the corresponding age- and sex-adjusted genetic causal risk ratio for KIV-2 number of repeats was 1.20 (95% CI: 1.02 to 1.43) and for rs10455872 was 1.27 (95% CI: 1.06 to 1.51). The highest absolute 10-year risk of ischemic stroke was 17% in active smoking individuals >70 years of age with hypertension and lipoprotein(a) levels >93 mg/dl (>199 nmol/l: 96th to 100th percentile). In the Copenhagen City Heart Study, risk estimates for high levels of lipoprotein(a) were in the same direction but did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In a large contemporary general population study, high plasma levels of lipoprotein(a) were associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke both observationally and causally from human genetics.

Oxidized Phospholipids and Risk of Calcific Aortic Valve Disease: The Copenhagen General Population Study.

OBJECTIVE: Lipoprotein(a) is causally associated with calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD). Lipoprotein(a) carries proinflammatory and procalcific oxidized phospholipids (OxPL). We tested whether the CAVD risk is mediated by the content of OxPL on lipoprotein(a). APPROACH AND RESULTS: A case-control study was performed within the Copenhagen General Population Study (n=87 980), including 725 CAVD cases (1977-2013) and 1413 controls free of cardiovascular disease. OxPL carried by apoB (apolipoprotein B-100; OxPL-apoB) or apolipoprotein(a) (OxPL-apo(a)) containing lipoproteins, lipoprotein(a) levels, LPA kringle IV type 2 repeat, and rs10455872 genetic variants were measured. OxPL-apoB and OxPL-apo(a) levels correlated with lipoprotein(a) levels among cases (r=0.75 and r=0.95; both P<0.001) and controls (r=0.65 and r=0.93; both P<0.001). OxPL-apoB levels associated with risk of CAVD with odds ratios of 1.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]:1.0-1.6) for 34th to 66th percentile levels, 1.6 (95% CI, 1.2-2.1) for 67th to 90th percentile levels, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.3-3.0) for 91st to 95th percentile levels, and 3.4 (95% CI, 2.1-5.5) for levels >95th percentile, versus levels <34th percentile (trend, P<0.001). Corresponding odds ratios for OxPL-apo(a) were 1.2 (95% CI, 1.0-1.5), 1.2(95% CI, 0.9-1.6), 2.1(95% CI, 1.4-3.1), and 2.9(95% CI, 1.9-4.5; trend, P<0.001) and were similar for lipoprotein(a). LPA genotypes associated with OxPL-apoB, OxPL-apo(a), and lipoprotein(a) levels and explained 34%, 46%, and 39%, respectively, of the total variation in levels. LPA genotypes associated with risk of CAVD; a doubling in genetically determined OxPL-apoB, OxPL-apo(a), and lipoprotein(a) levels associated with odds ratio of CAVD of 1.18 (95% CI, 1.10-1.27), 1.09 (95% CI, 1.05-1.13), and 1.09 (95% CI, 1.05-1.14), respectively, comparable to the corresponding observational estimates of 1.27 (95% CI, 1.16-1.39), 1.13 (95% CI, 1.08-1.18), and 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06-1.17). CONCLUSIONS: OxPL-apoB and OxPL-apo(a) are novel genetic and potentially causal risk factors for CAVD and may explain the association of lipoprotein(a) with CAVD.

No se requiere ayuno para la determinacion rutinaria del perfil lipidico: implicaciones clinicas y de laboratorio, incluyendo valores de corte deseables - Declaracion de consenso conjunta de la European Atherosclerosis Society y la European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine / Fasting Is Not Routinely Required for Determination of a Lipid Profile: Clinical and Laboratory Implications Including Flagging at Desirable Concentration Cutpoints - A Joint Consensus Statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society and European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Objetivos: Evaluar criticamente las implicaciones clinicas de la utilizacion del perfil lipidico sin ayuno en lugar de perfiles de lipidos con ayuno y proporcionar orientacion para la elaboracion de informes de laboratorio sobre perfiles lipidicos anormales con ayuno y sin ayuno. Metodos y Resultados: Abundantes datos observacionales, en los que perfiles lipidicos medidos aleatoriamente sin ayuno se han comparado con perfiles lipidicos determinados en condiciones de ayuno, indican que las variaciones medias maximas de 1-6 h despues de ingestas habituales no son clinicamente significativas [+0,3 mmol/L (+26 mg/dL) para trigliceridos; -0,2 mmol/L (-8 mg/dL) para colesterol total; -0,2 mmol/L (-8 mg/dL) para colesterol-LDL; +0,2 mmol/L (+8 mg/dL) para colesterol de remanentes calculado; -0,2 mmol/L (-8 mg/dL) para el colesterol no-HDL calculado]; las concentraciones de colesterol-HDL, apolipoproteina A1, apolipoproteina B, y lipoproteina(a) no se ven afectados por el estado de ayuno/ no ayuno. Ademas, las concentraciones en ayunas y sin ayuno varian de manera similar con el tiempo y son comparables en la prediccion de la enfermedad cardiovascular. Para mejorar el cumplimiento del paciente con las condiciones para la determinacion del perfil lipidico, por lo tanto, se recomienda el uso rutinario de los perfiles lipidicos sin ayuno, mientras que se puede considerar la toma de muestra en ayunas cuando los trigliceridos sin ayuno son >5 mmol/L (440 mg/dL). Para las muestras sin ayuno, los informes de laboratorio deberian marcar como concentraciones anormales a trigliceridos ≥2 mmol/L (175 mg/dL), colesterol total ≥5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), colesterol-LDL ≥3 mmol/L (115 mg/dL), colesterol remanente calculado ≥0,9 mmol/L (35 mg/dL), colesterol no-HDL calculado ≥3.9 mmol/L (150 mg/dL), HDL colesterol ≤1 mmol/L (40 mg/dL), apolipoproteina A1 ≤1,25 g/L (125 mg/dL), apolipoproteina B ≥1,0 g/L (100 mg/dL), y lipoproteina(a) ≥50 mg/dL (percentil 80); para muestras con ayuno, las concentraciones anormales corresponden a trigliceridos ≥1,7 mmol/L (150 mg/dL). Aquellas concentraciones que ponen en peligro la vida requieren derivacion inmediata debido al riesgo de pancreatitis cuando los trigliceridos son >10 mmol/L (880 mg/dL), de hipercolesterolemia familiar homocigotica cuando el colesterol-LDL es >13 mmol/L (500 mg/dL) o hipercolesterolemia familiar heterocigota cuando el colesterol-LDL es >5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), y debido al riesgo cardiovascular muy alto cuando la lipoproteina(a) es >150 mg/dL (percentil 99). Conclusiones: Recomendamos la utilizacion de rutina de muestras de sangre sin ayuno para la evaluacion del perfil lipidico plasmatico. Los informes de laboratorio deberian marcar resultados anormales basandose en valores de corte deseables. Las determinaciones con ayuno y sin ayuno deben ser complementarias, pero no se excluyen mutuamente.

Aims: To critically evaluate the clinical implications of the use of non-fasting rather than fasting lipid profiles and to provide guidance for the laboratory reporting of abnormal non-fasting or fasting lipid profiles. Methods and Results: Extensive observational data, in which random non-fasting lipid profiles have been compared with those determined under fasting conditions, indicate that the maximal mean changes at 1-6 h after habitual meals are not clinically significant [+0.3 mmol/L (26 mg/dL) for triglycerides; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for total cholesterol; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for LDL cholesterol; +0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for calculated remnant cholesterol; -0.2 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) for calculated non-HDL cholesterol]; concentrations of HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein A1, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein(a) are not affected by fasting/nonfasting status. In addition, non-fasting and fasting concentrations vary similarly over time and are comparable in the prediction of cardiovascular disease. To improve patient compliance with lipid testing, we therefore recommend the routine use of non-fasting lipid profiles, whereas fasting sampling may be considered when non-fasting triglycerides are >5 mmol/L (440 mg/dL). For nonfasting samples, laboratory reports should flag abnormal concentrations as triglycerides ≥2 mmol/L (175 mg/dL), total cholesterol ≥5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), LDL cholesterol ≥3 mmol/L (115 mg/dL), calculated remnant cholesterol ≥0.9 mmol/L (35 mg/dL), calculated non-HDL cholesterol ≥3.9 mmol/L (150 mg/dL), HDL cholesterol ≤1 mmol/L (40 mg/dL), apolipoprotein A1 ≤1.25 g/L (125 mg/dL), apolipoprotein B ≥1.0 g/L (100 mg/dL), and lipoprotein(a) ≥50 mg/dL (80th percentile); for fasting samples, abnormal concentrations correspond to triglycerides ≥1.7 mmol/L (150 mg/dL). Life-threatening concentrations require separate referral for the risk of pancreatitis when triglycerides are >10 mmol/L (880 mg/dL), for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia when LDL cholesterol is >13 mmol/L (500 mg/dL), for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia when LDL cholesterol is >5 mmol/L (190 mg/dL), and for very high cardiovascular risk when lipoprotein(a) >150 mg/dL (99th percentile). Conclusions: We recommend that non-fasting blood samples be routinely used for the assessment of plasma lipid profiles. Laboratory reports should flag abnormal values on the basis of desirable concentration cutpoints. Non-fasting and fasting measurements should be complementary but not mutually exclusive.

High lipoprotein(a) as a possible cause of clinical familial hypercholesterolaemia: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The reason why lipoprotein(a) concentrations are raised in individuals with clinical familial hypercholesterolaemia is unclear. We tested the hypotheses that high lipoprotein(a) cholesterol and LPA risk genotypes are a possible cause of clinical familial hypercholesterolaemia, and that individuals with both high lipoprotein(a) concentrations and clinical familial hypercholesterolaemia have the highest risk of myocardial infarction. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study that included data from 46 200 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study who had lipoprotein(a) measurements and were genotyped for common familial hypercholesterolaemia mutations. Individuals receiving cholesterol-lowering drugs had their concentrations of LDL and total cholesterol multiplied by 1·43, corresponding to an estimated 30% reduction in LDL cholesterol from the treatment. In lipoprotein(a) cholesterol-adjusted analyses, total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol were adjusted for the lipoprotein(a) cholesterol content by subtracting 30% of the individuals' lipoprotein(a) total mass before total and LDL cholesterol were used for diagnosis of clinical familial hypercholesterolaemia. We used modified Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN), Simon Broome, and Make Early Diagnosis to Prevent Early Death (MEDPED) criteria to clinically diagnose familial hypercholesterolaemia. Cox proportional hazard regression calculated hazard ratios (95% CI) of myocardial infarction. FINDINGS: Using unadjusted LDL cholesterol, mean lipoprotein(a) concentrations were 23 mg/dL in individuals unlikely to have familial hypercholesterolaemia, 32 mg/dL in those with possible familial hypercholesterolaemia, and 35 mg/dL in those with probable or definite familial hypercholesterolaemia (ptrend<0·0001). However, when adjusting LDL cholesterol for lipoprotein(a) cholesterol content the corresponding values were 24 mg/dL for individuals unlikely to have familial hypercholesterolaemia, 22 mg/dL for those with possible familial hypercholesterolaemia, and 21 mg/dL for those with probable or definite familial hypercholesterolaemia (ptrend=0·46). High lipoprotein(a) cholesterol accounted for a quarter of all individuals diagnosed with clinical familial hypercholesterolaemia and LPA risk genotypes were more frequent in clinical familial hypercholesterolaemia, whereas lipoprotein(a) concentrations were similar in those with and without familial hypercholesterolaemia mutations. The hazard ratios (HRs) for myocardial infarction compared with individuals unlikely to have familial hypercholesterolaemia and lipoprotein(a) concentration of 50 mg/dL or less were 1·4 (95% CI 1·1-1·7) in those unlikely to have familial hypercholesterolaemia and lipoprotein(a) concentrations of more than 50 mg/dL, 3·2 (2·5-4·1) in those with possible, probable, or definite familial hypercholesterolaemia and lipoprotein(a) concentration of 50 mg/dL or less, and 5·3 (3·6-7·6) in those with possible, probable, or definite familial hypercholesterolaemia and lipoprotein(a) concentration of more than 50 mg/dL. In analyses using Simon Broome or MEDPED criteria, results were similar to those using DLCN criteria to diagnose clinical familial hypercholesterolaemia. INTERPRETATION: High lipoprotein(a) concentrations and corresponding LPA risk genotypes represent novel risk factors for clinical familial hypercholesterolaemia. Our findings suggest that all individuals with familial hypercholesterolaemia should have their lipoprotein(a) measured in order to identify those with the highest concentrations, and as a result, the highest risk of myocardial infarction. FUNDING: Danish Heart Association and IMK General Fund, Denmark.

Long-term prostate-specific antigen velocity in improved classification of prostate cancer risk and mortality.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether adding long-term prostate-specific antigen velocity (PSAV) to baseline PSA values improves classification of prostate cancer (PCa) risk and mortality in the general population. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether long-term PSAV improves classification of PCa risk and mortality in the general population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We studied 503 men aged 30-80 yr, with and without PCa, who had repeated PSA measurements over 20 yr and up to 28 yr before PCa diagnosis. These were selected from among 7455 men in the Copenhagen City Heart Study, a prospective, general population study with follow-up from 1981 through 2010. Results were subsequently applied to all 1 351 441 men aged 40-80 yr living in Denmark from 1997 through 2006. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: PCa risk and mortality were assessed using Cox regression. Improvement in risk classification was assessed using the net reclassification index (NRI). RESULTS: Age-adjusted hazard ratios for PCa risk and mortality were 2.7-5.3 and 2.3-3.4, respectively, for long-term PSAV when added to models already including baseline PSA values. For PCa risk and mortality, adding long-term PSAV to models already including baseline PSA values and age yielded continuous NRIs of 98-99% and 56-106%, respectively. Used on a nationwide scale (eg, for men aged 60-64 yr), long-term PSAV >0.35 versus ≤ 0.35 ng/ml per year appropriately reclassified 128 of 10 000 men with PCa and 8095 of 10 000 men with no PCa. Correspondingly, inappropriately reclassified were 49 of 10 000 men with PCa and 1658 of 10 000 men with no PCa. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term PSAV in addition to baseline PSA value improves classification of PCa risk and mortality. Applying long-term PSAV nationwide, the ratio of appropriately to inappropriately classified men would typically be 5:1.

Genetic associations with valvular calcification and aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available regarding genetic contributions to valvular calcification, which is an important precursor of clinical valve disease. METHODS: We determined genomewide associations with the presence of aortic-valve calcification (among 6942 participants) and mitral annular calcification (among 3795 participants), as detected by computed tomographic (CT) scanning; the study population for this analysis included persons of white European ancestry from three cohorts participating in the Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology consortium (discovery population). Findings were replicated in independent cohorts of persons with either CT-detected valvular calcification or clinical aortic stenosis. RESULTS: One SNP in the lipoprotein(a) (LPA) locus (rs10455872) reached genomewide significance for the presence of aortic-valve calcification (odds ratio per allele, 2.05; P=9.0×10(-10)), a finding that was replicated in additional white European, African-American, and Hispanic-American cohorts (P<0.05 for all comparisons). Genetically determined Lp(a) levels, as predicted by LPA genotype, were also associated with aortic-valve calcification, supporting a causal role for Lp(a). In prospective analyses, LPA genotype was associated with incident aortic stenosis (hazard ratio per allele, 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32 to 2.15) and aortic-valve replacement (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.05 to 2.27) in a large Swedish cohort; the association with incident aortic stenosis was also replicated in an independent Danish cohort. Two SNPs (rs17659543 and rs13415097) near the proinflammatory gene IL1F9 achieved genomewide significance for mitral annular calcification (P=1.5×10(-8) and P=1.8×10(-8), respectively), but the findings were not replicated consistently. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic variation in the LPA locus, mediated by Lp(a) levels, is associated with aortic-valve calcification across multiple ethnic groups and with incident clinical aortic stenosis. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others.).

Lipoprotein(a) and risk of type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that cardiovascular risk is higher with increased lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]. Whether Lp(a) concentration is related to type 2 diabetes is unclear. METHODS: In 26 746 healthy US women (mean age 54.6 years), we prospectively examined baseline Lp(a) concentrations and incident type 2 diabetes (n = 1670) for a follow-up period of 13 years. We confirmed our findings in 9652 Danish men and women with prevalent diabetes (n = 419). Analyses were adjusted for risk factors that included age, race, smoking, hormone use, family history, blood pressure, body mass index, hemoglobin A(1c) (Hb A(1c)), C-reactive protein, and lipids. RESULTS: Lp(a) was inversely associated with incident diabetes, with fully adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for quintiles 2-5 vs quintile 1 of 0.87 (0.75-1.01), 0.80 (0.68-0.93), 0.88 (0.76-1.02), and 0.78 (0.67-0.91); P for trend 0.002. The association was stronger in nonfasting women, for whom respective HRs were 0.79 (0.58-1.09), 0.78 (0.57-1.08), 0.66 (0.46-0.93), and 0.56 (0.40-0.80); P for trend 0.001; P for interaction with fasting status 0.002. When we used Lp(a) > or =10 mg/L and Hb A(1c) <5% as reference values, the adjusted HRs were 1.62 (0.91-2.89) for Lp(a) <10 mg/L and Hb A(1c) <5%, 3.50 (3.06-4.01) for Lp(a) > or =10 mg/L and Hb A(1c) 5%-<6.5%, and 5.36 (4.00-7.19) for Lp(a) <10 mg/L and Hb A(1c) 5%-<6.5%. Results were similar in nonfasting Danish men and women, for whom adjusted odds ratios were 0.75 (0.55-1.03), 0.64 (0.46-0.88), 0.74 (0.54-1.01), and 0.58 (0.42-0.79) for Lp(a) quintiles 2-5 vs quintile 1; P for trend 0.002. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated that Lp(a) was associated inversely with risk of type 2 diabetes independently of risk factors, in contrast to prior findings of positive associations of Lp(a) with cardiovascular risk.

Penetrance of NOD2/CARD15 genetic variants in the general population.

BACKGROUND: In case-control studies of Europeans, heterozygosity for Arg702Trp(rs2066844), Gly908Arg(rs2066845) and Leu1007fsinsC(rs5743293) on the NOD2/CARD15 gene is associated with a 2-fold greater risk of Crohn disease, whereas homozygosity or compound heterozygosity is associated with a 17-fold greater risk. However, the importance of these genetic variants if identified in particular individuals within the general population is unknown. We undertook this study to estimate the penetrance of these variants in the general population. METHODS: We genotyped 43,596 individuals from the Danish general population followed between January 1976 and July 2007. Using a logistic regression model, we estimated the risk of Crohn disease in relation to variants of the NOD2/CARD15 gene in the general population. Penetrance was calculated as the fraction of participants in whom Crohn disease was diagnosed before age 50 years. RESULTS: In the general population, 89% of participants were noncarriers of the genetic variants of interest (n = 38,594), 11% were heterozygotes (n = 4838), and 0.4% were compound heterozygotes or homozygotes (n = 164). For Crohn disease, multifactorially adjusted odds ratios were 1.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.8-1.9) for heterozygotes and 3.3 (95% CI 0.8-13.6) for compound heterozygotes and homozygotes combined, relative to noncarriers. Only 2 compound heterozygotes received a diagnosis of Crohn disease, and this disease was not diagnosed in any of the homozygotes. The penetrance at age 50 years of NOD2/CARD15 genetic variants of Crohn disease was 0.30% (95% CI 0.29%-0.31%) for heterozygotes and 1.5% (95% CI 1.4%-1.6%) for compound heterozygotes and homozygotes. INTERPRETATION: The penetrance of NOD2/CARD15 genetic variants in relation to risk of Crohn disease for this Danish population was lower than might have been expected from previous European case-control studies. This should be considered when advising healthy individuals in whom these genetic variants are identified.

Extreme lipoprotein(a) levels and risk of myocardial infarction in the general population: the Copenhagen City Heart Study.

BACKGROUND: Elevated lipoprotein(a) levels are associated with myocardial infarction (MI) in some but not all studies. Limitations of previous studies include lack of risk estimates for extreme lipoprotein(a) levels, measurements in long-term frozen samples, no correction for regression dilution bias, and lack of absolute risk estimates in the general population. We tested the hypothesis that extreme lipoprotein(a) levels predict MI in the general population, measuring levels shortly after sampling, correcting for regression dilution bias, and calculating hazard ratios and absolute risk estimates. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined 9330 men and women from the general population in the Copenhagen City Heart Study. During 10 years of follow-up, 498 participants developed MI. In women, multifactorially adjusted hazard ratios for MI for elevated lipoprotein(a) levels were 1.1 (95% CI, 0.6 to 1.9) for 5 to 29 mg/dL (22nd to 66th percentile), 1.7 (1.0 to 3.1) for 30 to 84 mg/dL (67th to 89th percentile), 2.6 (1.2 to 5.9) for 85 to 119 mg/dL (90th to 95th percentile), and 3.6 (1.7 to 7.7) for > or =120 mg/dL (>95th percentile) versus levels <5 mg/dL (<22nd percentile). Equivalent values in men were 1.5 (0.9 to 2.3), 1.6 (1.0 to 2.6), 2.6 (1.2 to 5.5), and 3.7 (1.7 to 8.0). Absolute 10-year risks of MI were 10% and 20% in smoking, hypertensive women aged >60 years with lipoprotein(a) levels of <5 and > or =120 mg/dL, respectively. Equivalent values in men were 19% and 35%. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a stepwise increase in risk of MI with increasing levels of lipoprotein(a), with no evidence of a threshold effect. Extreme lipoprotein(a) levels predict a 3- to 4-fold increase in risk of MI in the general population and absolute 10-year risks of 20% and 35% in high-risk women and men.