A focused update to the 2019 NLA scientific statement on use of lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice.

Since the 2019 National Lipid Association (NLA) Scientific Statement on Use of Lipoprotein(a) in Clinical Practice was issued, accumulating epidemiological data have clarified the relationship between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level and cardiovascular disease risk and risk reduction. Therefore, the NLA developed this focused update to guide clinicians in applying this emerging evidence in clinical practice. We now have sufficient evidence to support the recommendation to measure Lp(a) levels at least once in every adult for risk stratification. Individuals with Lp(a) levels <75 nmol/L (30 mg/dL) are considered low risk, individuals with Lp(a) levels ≥125 nmol/L (50 mg/dL) are considered high risk, and individuals with Lp(a) levels between 75 and 125 nmol/L (30-50 mg/dL) are at intermediate risk. Cascade screening of first-degree relatives of patients with elevated Lp(a) can identify additional individuals at risk who require intervention. Patients with elevated Lp(a) should receive early, more-intensive risk factor management, including lifestyle modification and lipid-lowering drug therapy in high-risk individuals, primarily to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an indication for lipoprotein apheresis (which reduces both Lp(a) and LDL-C) in high-risk patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and documented coronary or peripheral artery disease whose Lp(a) level remains ≥60 mg/dL [∼150 nmol/L)] and LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. Although Lp(a) is an established independent causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and despite the high prevalence of Lp(a) elevation (∼1 of 5 individuals), measurement rates are low, warranting improved screening strategies for cardiovascular disease prevention.

Association between lipoprotein(a), LPA genetic risk score, aortic valve disease, and subsequent major adverse cardiovascular events.

AIMS: Cohort studies have demonstrated associations between calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD) and Lp(a). As Lp(a) is almost entirely genetically determined, in this study, we aim to determine whether Lp(a), when predicted from genetic data, is associated with CAVD and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing coronary angiography between January 2012 and May 2013 were invited to participate in the study. Of 752 analysable participants, 446 had their Lp(a) measured and 703 had a calculable LPA genetic risk score (GRS). The primary outcomes were the presence of CAVD at baseline and MACE over a 7-year follow-up. The GRS explained 45% of variation in Lp(a). After adjustment for cardiac risk factors and coronary artery disease (CAD), the odds of CAVD increased with increasing Lp(a) [odds ratio (OR) 1.039 per 10-unit increase, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.022-1.057, P < 0.001] and GRS (OR 1.054 per 10-unit increase, 95% CI 1.024-1.086; P < 0.001). Lipoprotein(a) and the GRS as continuous variables were not associated with subsequent MACEs. A dichotomized GRS (>54) was associated with MACE, but this relationship became non-significant when CAD classification was added into the model (OR 1.333, 95% CI 0.927-1.912; P = 0.12). CONCLUSION: An LPA GRS can explain 45% of variation in Lp(a) levels, and both Lp(a) and the GRS are associated with CAVD. An elevated GRS is associated with future cardiac events in a secondary risk setting, but, if the CAD status is known, it does not provide additional prognostic information.

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a type of cholesterol that is determined almost entirely by genetics. It is associated with heart disease and also stiffening of the heart valves. Recent advancements have made it possible to predict Lp(a) levels by analysing a person's DNA. This study examines the association between genetically predicted Lp(a) and adverse outcomes. Genetically predicted Lp(a) accounts for 45% of the variability in the actual Lp(a) level.Both actual and genetically predicted Lp(a) are associated with heart valve disease and adverse heart outcomes. If the degree of narrowing of the arteries in the heart is already known, genetically predicted Lp(a) does not help further predict risk.

The impact of baseline dietary fatty acid intake on the association between lipoprotein(a) and mortality in two US cohorts.

Background: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an established casual risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. It remains unknown whether dietary fat modifies the association of Lp(a) with cardiovascular death. Aim: To understand if dietary fat modifies the association between Lp(a) and cardiovascular death. Methods: We utilized the Atherosclerotic Risk in Communities (ARIC) study and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III cohorts and used multivariate cox proportional hazard modeling to test the association between Lp(a), dietary fats, and cardiovascular death. Results: The sample (n = 22,805) had average age 51.3 years and was mostly female (55.4%). Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL was associated with CV death in both ARIC (1.36, p = 0.001) and NHANES (1.31, p = 0.03). In multivariate analysis, no categorical or individual fatty acids modified the association between Lp(a) and CV death. Conclusion: There was no evidence that baseline dietary fat intake modified the association between Lp(a) and CV death.

Lipoprotein alterations in endocrine disorders - a review of the recent developments in the field.

Dyslipidemia is one of the most common disorders worldwide, which, if left untreated, results in a multitude of complications. Thus proper diagnostics, which includes identifying of secondary causes of dyslipidemia is crucial. Endocrine disorders are an important cause of secondary dyslipidemia. This paper aims to review the publications on lipoprotein alterations in endocrine disorders from the past two years and provide an overview of the recent discoveries in this dynamically developing and large field. Significant changes in lipoprotein serum concentrations are present in most endocrinological diseases and can be modified with proper treatment. Some lipoproteins have also been proposed as markers in some endocrine diseases, e.g., thyroid carcinoma. From the scope of endocrine disorders, the largest number of studies explored the lipoprotein changes in polycystic ovary syndrome and in women during the menopausal and peri-menopausal period. Even though the association of thyroid disorders with dyslipidemia is already well studied, new research has delivered some exciting findings about lipoprotein alterations in euthyroid patients with either positive antithyroid peroxidase antibodies or reduced sensitivity to thyroid hormones. The problem of the adverse metabolic profile, including dyslipidemia in hypoprolactinemia has been recognized. Moreover, this review describes other significant discoveries encompassing lipoprotein alterations in disorders of the adrenals, thyroid, parathyroid glands, pituitary, and gonads. The up-to-date knowledge of the influence of endocrine disorders and hormonal changes on serum lipoproteins is prudent as it can significantly impact therapeutic decisions.

Elevated Lipoprotein(a) Levels: A Crucial Determinant of Cardiovascular Disease Risk and Target for Emerging Therapies.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a significant global health challenge despite advancements in prevention and treatment. Elevated Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels have emerged as a crucial risk factor for CVD and aortic stenosis, affecting approximately 20% of the global population. Research over the last decade has established Lp(a) as an independent genetic contributor to CVD and aortic stenosis, beginning with Kare Berg's discovery in 1963. This has led to extensive exploration of its molecular structure and pathogenic roles. Despite the unknown physiological function of Lp(a), studies have shed light on its metabolism, genetics, and involvement in atherosclerosis, inflammation, and thrombosis. Epidemiological evidence highlights the link between high Lp(a) levels and increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Newly emerging therapies, including pelacarsen, zerlasiran, olpasiran, muvalaplin, and lepodisiran, show promise in significantly lowering Lp(a) levels, potentially transforming the management of cardiovascular disease. However, further research is essential to assess these novel therapies' long-term efficacy and safety, heralding a new era in cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment and providing hope for at-risk patients.

Lipoprotein(a) and Long-Term Cardiovascular Risk in a Multi-Ethnic Pooled Prospective Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a causal genetic risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). There are limited long-term follow-up data from large U.S. population cohorts. OBJECTIVES: This study examined the relationship of Lp(a) with ASCVD outcomes in a large, pooled, multi-ethnic U.S. METHODS: The study included data on Lp(a) and ASCVD outcomes from 5 U.S. PROSPECTIVE STUDIES: MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), CARDIA (Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults), JHS (Jackson Heart Study), FHS-OS (Framingham Heart Study-Offspring), and ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities). Lp(a) levels were classified on the basis of cohort-specific percentiles. Multivariable Cox regression related Lp(a) with composite incident ASCVD events by risk group and diabetes status. RESULTS: The study included 27,756 persons without previous ASCVD who were aged 20 to 79 years, including 55.0% women, 35.6% Black participants, and 7.6% patients with diabetes, with mean follow-up of 21.1 years. Compared with Lp(a) levels <50th percentile, Lp(a) levels in the 50th to <75th, 75th to <90th, and ≥90th percentiles had adjusted HRs of 1.06 (95% CI: 0.99-1.14), 1.18 (95% CI: 1.09-1.28), and 1.46 (95% CI: 1.33-1.59), respectively for ASCVD events. Elevated Lp(a) predicted incident ASCVD events similarly by risk group, sex, and race or ethnic groups, but more strongly in patients with vs without diabetes (interaction P = 0.0056), with HRs for Lp(a) levels ≥90th percentile of 1.92 (95% CI: 1.50-2.45) and 1.41 (95% CI: 1.28-1.55), respectively. Lp(a) also individually predicted myocardial infarction, revascularization, stroke, and coronary heart disease death, but not total mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows, in a large U.S. pooled cohort, that higher Lp(a) levels are associated with an increased ASCVD risk, including in patients with diabetes.

Independent Relationship of Lipoprotein(a) and Carotid Atherosclerosis With Long-Term Risk of Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is considered to be a causal risk factor of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether there is an independent or joint association of Lp(a) and atherosclerotic plaque with ASCVD risk remains uncertain. This study aims to assess ASCVD risk independently or jointly conferred by Lp(a) and carotid atherosclerotic plaque. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 5471 participants with no history of cardiovascular disease at baseline were recruited and followed up for ASCVD events (all fatal and nonfatal acute coronary and ischemic stroke events) over a median of 11.5 years. Independent association of Lp(a), or the joint association of Lp(a) and carotid plaque with ASCVD risk, was explored using Cox proportional hazards models. Overall, 7.6% of the participants (60.0±7.9 years of age; 2649 [48.4%] men) had Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL, and 539 (8.4/1000 person-years) incident ASCVD events occurred. Lp(a) concentrations were independently associated with long-term risk of total ASCVD events, as well as coronary events and ischemic stroke events. Participants with Lp(a) ≥50 mg/dL had a 62% higher risk of ASCVD incidence (95% CI, 1.19-2.21) than those with Lp(a) <10 mg/dL, and they exhibited a 10-year ASCVD incidence of 11.7%. This association exists even after adjusting for prevalent plaque. Moreover, participants with Lp(a) ≥30 mg/dL and prevalent plaque had a significant 4.18 times higher ASCVD risk than those with Lp(a) <30 mg/dL and no plaque. CONCLUSIONS: Higher Lp(a) concentrations are independently associated with long-term ASCVD risk and may exaggerate cardiovascular risk when concomitant with atherosclerotic plaque.

Joint Association of Lipoprotein(a) and a Family History of Coronary Artery Disease with the Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Coronary Syndrome.

AIM: No data are currently available regarding the association between Lp(a) and the cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) according to their family history (FHx) of CAD. This study aimed to evaluate the significance of Lp(a) in predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) with or without FHx. METHODS: A total of 6056 patients with CCS were enrolled. Information on FHx was collected, and the plasma Lp(a) levels were measured. All patients were followed up regularly. The independent and joint associations of Lp(a) and FHx with the risk of MACEs, including cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke, were analyzed. RESULTS: With over an average of 50.35±18.58 months follow-up, 378 MACEs were recorded. A Cox regression analysis showed an elevated Lp(a) level to be an independent predictor for MACEs in patients with [hazard ratio (HR): 2.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-5.54] or without FHx (HR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.02-1.77). In comparison to subjects with non-elevated Lp(a) and negative FHx, patients with elevated Lp(a) alone were at a nominally higher risk of MACEs (HR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.96-1.67), while those with both had the highest risk (HR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.14-3.28). Moreover, adding Lp(a) to the original model increased the C-statistic by 0.048 in subjects with FHx (p=0.004) and by 0.004 in those without FHx (p=0.391). CONCLUSIONS: The present study is the first to suggest that Lp(a) could be used to predict MACEs in CCS patients with or without FHx; however, its prognostic significance was more noteworthy in patients with FHx.

Prevalence of elevated lipoprotein(a) in cardiac rehabilitation patients - results from a large-scale multicentre registry in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an independent risk factor for myocardial infarction and aortic valve stenosis. European guidelines recommend assessing it at least once in a lifetime, particularly in premature atherosclerotic heart disease. METHODS: A non-interventional registry was conducted at MEDIAN rehabilitation facilities in Germany to assess the frequency of Lp(a) testing in referring acute care hospitals and the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) levels in aortic valve stenosis or premature myocardial infarction. All consecutive patients referred after coronary intervention or aortic valve surgery were included in four cohorts: aortic valve intervention (cohort 1), current/previous myocardial infarction at < 60 years of age (cohorts 2a/2b), and myocardial infarction at ≥ 60 years of age (control). RESULTS: The analysis included 3393 patient records (cohort 1, n = 1063; cohort 2a, n = 1351; cohort 2b, n = 381; control, n = 598). Lp(a) had been determined at the referring hospital in 0.19% (cohort 1), 4.96% (cohort 2a), 2.36% (cohort 2b), and 2.01% (control) of patients. Lp(a) levels were > 50 mg/dL or > 125 nmol/L in 28.79% (cohort 1), 29.90% (cohort 2a), and 36.48% (cohort 2b; p < 0.001) compared to 24.25% (control). Family history of premature cardiovascular disease was reported in 13.45% (cohort 1), 38.56% (cohort 2a), and 32.81% (cohort 2b) compared to 17.89% (control; p < 0.05 for each comparison). CONCLUSIONS: Lp(a) had been rarely assessed in acute management of aortic valve stenosis or premature myocardial infarction despite expanding scientific evidence and guideline recommendation. Given the above-average incidence of elevated Lp(a) levels, awareness for Lp(a) has to increase substantially to better identify and manage high-risk patients.

High lipoprotein(a): Actionable strategies for risk assessment and mitigation.

High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] are causal for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Lp(a) is the most prevalent inherited dyslipidemia and strongest genetic ASCVD risk factor. This risk persists in the presence of at target, guideline-recommended, LDL-C levels and adherence to lifestyle modifications. Epidemiological and genetic evidence supporting its causal role in ASCVD and calcific aortic stenosis continues to accumulate, although various facets regarding Lp(a) biology (genetics, pathophysiology, and expression across race/ethnic groups) are not yet fully understood. The evolving nature of clinical guidelines and consensus statements recommending universal measurements of Lp(a) and the scientific data supporting its role in multiple disease states reinforce the clinical merit to start population screening for Lp(a) now. There is a current gap in the implementation of recommendations for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in those with high Lp(a), in part due to a lack of protocols for management strategies. Importantly, targeted apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)]-lowering therapies that reduce Lp(a) levels in patients with high Lp(a) are in phase 3 clinical development. This review focuses on the identification and clinical management of patients with high Lp(a). Specifically, we highlight the clinical value of measuring Lp(a) and its use in determining Lp(a)-associated CVD risk by providing actionable guidance, based on scientific knowledge, that can be utilized now to mitigate risk caused by high Lp(a).

Lipoprotein(a): Emerging insights and therapeutics.

The strong association between lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has led to considerations of Lp(a) being a potential target for mitigating residual cardiovascular risk. While approximately 20 % of the population has an Lp(a) level greater than 50 mg/dL, there are no currently available pharmacological lipid-lowering therapies that have demonstrated substantial reduction in Lp(a). Novel therapies to lower Lp(a) include antisense oligonucleotides and small-interfering ribonucleic acid molecules and have shown promising results in phase 2 trials. Phase 3 trials are currently underway and will test the causal relationship between Lp(a) and ASCVD and whether lowering Lp(a) reduces cardiovascular outcomes. In this review, we summarize emerging insights related to Lp(a)'s role as a risk-enhancing factor for ASCVD, association with calcific aortic stenosis, effects of existing therapies on Lp(a) levels, and variations amongst patient populations. The evolving therapeutic landscape of emerging therapeutics is further discussed.

Unique features of dyslipidemia in women across a lifetime and a tailored approach to management.

Purpose of Review: Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death worldwide. Dyslipidemia is a critical modifiable risk factor for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Dyslipidemia affects a large population of women and is especially pervasive within racial/ethnic minorities. Recent Findings: Dyslipidemia in pregnancy leads to worse outcomes for patients and creates increased cardiovascular risk for women at an older age. However, women remain underscreened and undertreated compared to men. Females also comprise a small portion of clinical trial participants for lipid lowering agents with increased disease prevalence compared to trial representation. However, recent lipid trials have shown different efficacies of therapies such as ezetimibe, inclisiran, and bempedoic acid with a greater relative benefit for women. Summary: Pathophysiology of dyslipidemia varies between men and women and across a woman's lifetime. While increased lipid levels or lipid imbalances are more common in postmenopausal women over age 50, conditions such as PCOS and FH produce higher cardiovascular risk for young women.Best practices for management of women with dyslipidemia include early screening with lifestyle intervention and pharmacotherapy with statin and non-statin agents to achieve guideline directed LDL-C thresholds.

Association between lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease in patients undergoing coronary angiography.

OBJECTIVE: Many previous studies reported the relationship between lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease, but the conclusions were controversial. The aim of our study was to retrospectively investigate the association between lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease in patients undergoing coronary angiography. METHODS: We collected and compared clinical information of patients hospitalized for coronary angiography. Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease in patients undergoing coronary angiography. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in gender, hypertension, APOA1, smoking, hyperuricemia, obesity, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), cardiac insufficiency, family history of diabetes, or family history of hyperlipidemia among the four groups of lipoprotein(a). Elevated lipoprotein(a) does not increase the risk of hypertriglyceridemia, while elevated lipoprotein(a) increases the risk of high total cholesterol and high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c). Elevated lipoprotein(a) increases the risk of diabetes and premature coronary artery disease (CAD). Elevated lipoprotein(a) increases the incidence of CAD, multivessel lesions, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Multivariate logistic regression analysis further showed that elevated lipoprotein(a) increases the incidence of high total cholesterol, high LDL­c, diabetes, CAD, premature CAD, multivessel lesions, and PCI. CONCLUSION: The findings indicated that elevated lipoprotein(a) had no obvious relationship with hypertension and obesity. Elevated lipoprotein(a) increases the risk of high total cholesterol, high LDL­c, and premature CAD, and increases the occurrence and severity of coronary heart disease.

Influencia de la concentración de triglicéridos en la lipoproteína(a) en función de la dislipidemia / Influence of triglyceride concentration in lipoprotein (a) as a function of dyslipidemia

Introducción Recientemente se ha demostrado una relación inversa entre la concentración en sangre de la lipoproteína(a) (Lp[a]) y los triglicéridos (TG). A mayor tamaño de lipoproteínas de muy baja densidad (VLDL), mayor presencia de VLDL ricas en apoliproteína E (apo E) y en sujetos con genotipo apo E2/E2, Lp(a) más baja. El mecanismo de esta asociación contrapuesta es desconocido. El objetivo de nuestro análisis fue evaluar la correspondencia Lp(a)-TG en los pacientes atendidos en las Unidades de Lípidos incluidos en el registro de la Sociedad Española de Arteriosclerosis (SEA) comparando las diferentes dislipidemias. Pacientes y métodos Se incluyeron 5.275 usuarios de ≥ 18 años registrados antes del 31 de marzo de 2023, con datos de concentración de Lp(a) e información completa del perfil lipídico sin tratamiento. Resultados La media de edad fue de 53,0 ± 14,0 años, con 48% de mujeres. Un total de 9,5% (n = 502) tenían diabetes mellitus (DM) y 1.184 sujetos (22,4%) presentaban obesidad. La mediana de TG fue de 130 mg/dL (rango intercuartílico [IQR] 88,0-210) y de Lp(a) 55,0 nmol/L (IQR 17,9 -156). La concentración de Lp(a) mostró una asociación negativa con la de TG cuando los valores de estos superaban los 300 mg/dL. Los pacientes con TG > 1.000 mg/dL mostraron el menor nivel de Lp(a) 17,9 nmol/L y los usuarios con TG < 300 mg/dL, presentaron una media de Lp(a) de 60,1 nmol/L. En pacientes sin DM ni obesidad, la relación inversa de Lp(a)-TG fue especialmente importante (p < 0,001). La mediana de Lp(a) fue de 58,3 nmol/L en aquellos con TG < 300 mg/dL y 22,0 nmol/L si TG > 1.000 mg/dL. No se encontró asociación entre TG y Lp(a) en sujetos con DM y obesidad, ni en los que contaban con hipercolesterolemia familiar (HF). En los que padecen hiperlipemia combinada multifactorial con TG < 300 mg/dL la Lp(a) fue 64,6 nmol/L, en el rango de 300-399 mg/dL de TG la Lp(a) desciende hasta 38,8 nmol/L y hasta 22,3 nmol/L si TG > 1.000 mg/dL. Conclusiones ... (AU)

Background Recently, an inverse relationship between the blood concentration of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and triglycerides (TG) has been demonstrated. The larger the VLDL particle size, the greater the presence of VLDL rich in apoliprotein E and in subjects with the apoE2/E2 genotype, the lower Lp(a) concentration. The mechanism of this inverse association is unknown. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the Lp(a)–TG association in patients treated at the lipid units included in the registry of the Spanish Society of Atherosclerosis (SEA) by comparing the different dyslipidemias. Patients and methods Five thousand two hundred and seventy-five subjects ≥18 years of age registered in the registry before March 31, 2023, with Lp(a) concentration data and complete lipid profile information without treatment were included. Results The mean age was 53.0 ± 14.0 years, with 48% women. The 9.5% of subjects (n = 502) had diabetes and the 22.4% (n = 1184) were obese. The median TG level was 130 mg/dL (IQR 88.0–210) and Lp(a) 55.0 nmol/L (IQR 17.9–156). Lp(a) concentration showed a negative association with TG concentration when TG values exceeded 300 mg/dL. Subjects with TG > 1000 mg/dL showed the lowest level of Lp(a), 17.9 nmol/L, and subjects with TG < 300 mg/dL had a mean Lp(a) concentration of 60.1 nmol/L. In subjects without diabetes or obesity, the inverse association of Lp(a)–TG was especially important (p < 0.001). The median Lp(a) was 58.3 nmol/L in those with TG < 300 mg/dL and 22.0 nmol/L if TG > 1000 mg/dL. No association was found between TG and Lp(a) in subjects with diabetes and obesity, nor in subjects with familial hypercholesterolemia. In subjects with multifactorial combined hyperlipemia with TG < 300 mg/dL, Lp(a) was 64.6 nmol/L; in the range of 300–399 mg/dL of TG, Lp(a) decreased to 38. 8 nmol/L, and up to 22.3 nmol/L when TG > 1000 mg/dL. Conclusions ... (AU)

Association between evolocumab use and slow progression of aortic valve stenosis.

No medications have been reported to inhibit the progression of aortic valve stenosis (AS). The present study aimed to investigate whether evolocumab use is related to the slow progression of AS evaluated by serial echocardiography. This was a retrospective observational study from 2017 to 2022 at Yokohama City University Medical Center. Patients aged ≥ 18 with moderate AS were included. Exclusion criteria were (1) mild AS; (2) severe AS defined by maximum aortic valve (AV) velocity ≥ 4.0 m/s; and/or (3) no data of annual follow-up echocardiography. The primary endpoint was the association between evolocumab use and annual changes in the maximum AV-velocity or peak AV-pressure gradient (PG). A total of 57 patients were enrolled: 9 patients treated with evolocumab (evolocumab group), and the other 48 patients assigned to a control group. During a median follow-up of 33 months, the cumulative incidence of AS events (a composite of all-cause death, AV intervention, or unplanned hospitalization for heart failure) was 11% in the evolocumab group and 58% in the control group (P = 0.012). Annual change of maximum AV-velocity or peak AV-PG from the baseline to the next year was 0.02 (- 0.18 to 0.22) m/s per year or 0.60 (- 4.20 to 6.44) mmHg per year in the evolocumab group, whereas it was 0.29 (0.04-0.59) m/s per year or 7.61 (1.46-16.48) mmHg per year in the control group (both P < 0.05). Evolocumab use was associated with slow progression of AS and a low incidence of AS events in patients with moderate AS.

Lipoprotein(a): An important piece of the ASCVD risk factor puzzle across diverse populations.

Elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is an independent, genetic risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) that impacts ~1.4 billion people globally. Generally, Lp(a) levels remain stable over time; thus, most individuals need only undergo Lp(a) testing through a non-fasting blood draw once in their lifetime, unless elevated Lp(a) is identified. Despite the convenience of the test for clinicians and patients, routine Lp(a) testing has not been widely adopted. This review provides a guide to the benefits of Lp(a) testing and solutions for overcoming common barriers in practice, including access to testing and lack of awareness. Lp(a) testing provides the opportunity to reclassify ASCVD risk and drive intensive cardiovascular risk factor management in individuals with elevated Lp(a), and to identify patients potentially less likely to respond to statins. Moreover, cascade screening can help to identify elevated Lp(a) in relatives of individuals with a personal or family history of premature ASCVD. Overall, given the profound impact of elevated Lp(a) on cardiovascular risk, Lp(a) testing should be an essential component of risk assessment by primary and specialty care providers.

Novel Therapeutic Approaches for the Management of Elevated Lipoprotein(a): From Traditional Agents to Future Treatment Options.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Despite the availability of effective low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering agents, an increased cardiovascular risk is still observed in individuals with therapeutic LDL-C levels. One of these cardiovascular risk factors is elevated plasma lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) concentration, which maintains chronic inflammation through the increased presence of oxidized phospholipids on its surface. In addition, due to its 90 percent homology with the fibrinolytic proenzyme plasminogen, Lp(a) exhibits atherothrombotic effects. These may also contribute to the increased cardiovascular risk in individuals with high Lp(a) levels that previous epidemiological studies have shown to exist independently of LDL-C and other lipid parameters. In this review, the authors overview the novel therapeutic options to achieve effective Lp(a) lowering treatment, which may help to define tailored personalized medicine and reduce the residual cardiovascular risk in high-risk patients. Agents that increase LDL receptor expression, including statins, proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin type 9 inhibitors, and LDL production inhibitors, are also discussed. Other treatment options, e.g., cholesterolester transfer protein inhibitors, nicotinic acid derivatives, thyroid hormone mimetics, lipoprotein apheresis, as well as apolipoprotein(a) reducing antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering RNAs, are also evaluated.

Lipoprotein(a) and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: Where Do We Stand?

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] consists of a low-density lipoprotein-like molecule and an apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] particle. Lp(a) has been suggested to be an independent risk factor of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Lp(a) plasma levels are considered to be 70-90% genetically determined through the codominant expression of the LPA gene. Therefore, Lp(a) levels are almost stable during an individual's lifetime. This lifelong stability, together with the difficulties in measuring Lp(a) levels in a standardized manner, may account for the scarcity of available drugs targeting Lp(a). In this review, we synopsize the latest data regarding the structure, metabolism, and factors affecting circulating levels of Lp(a), as well as the laboratory determination measurement of Lp(a), its role in the pathogenesis of ASCVD and thrombosis, and the potential use of various therapeutic agents targeting Lp(a). In particular, we discuss novel agents, such as antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) and small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) that are currently being developed and target Lp(a). The promising role of muvalaplin, an oral inhibitor of Lp(a) formation, is then further analyzed.

Spontaneous reperfusion in STEMI: Its mechanisms and possible modulation.

Patients with transient ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or spontaneous reperfusion, which occurs in approximately 20% of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), have smaller infarcts and more favourable clinical outcomes than patients without spontaneous reperfusion. Understanding the mechanisms underlying spontaneous reperfusion is therefore important, since this may identify possible novel therapeutic targets to improve outcomes in patients with STEMI. In this review, we discuss some of the possible determinants of spontaneous reperfusion including pro-thrombotic profile, endogenous fibrinolytic status, lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), inflammatory markers and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs). Effective (rapid) endogenous fibrinolysis, as assessed in whole blood in vitro, using a point-of-care technique assessment of global thrombotic status, has been strongly linked to spontaneous reperfusion. Lp(a), which has a high degree of homology to plasminogen, may impair fibrinolysis through competitive inhibition of tissue plasminogen activator-mediated plasminogen activation as well as tissue plasminogen activator-mediated clot lysis and contributing to pathogenic clot properties by decreasing fibrin clot permeation. NETs appear to negatively modulate clot lysis by increasing thrombin fibre diameter and inhibiting plasmin-driven lysis of plasma clots. There are limited data that oral anticoagulation may modulate endogenous fibrinolysis but antiplatelet agents currently appear to have no impact. Phase III trials involving subcutaneous P2Y12 or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, oral factor XIa inhibitors, interleukin-6 inhibitors, and apolipoprotein(a) antisense oligonucleotides in patients with cardiovascular disease are ongoing. Future studies will be needed to determine the impact of these novel antithrombotic, anti-inflammatory and lipid lowering therapies on endogenous fibrinolysis and spontaneous reperfusion.