Digital droplet PCR versus quantitative PCR for lipoprotein (a) kringle IV type 2 repeat polymorphism genetic characterization.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level variability, related to atherothrombotic risk increase, is mainly attributed to LPA gene, encoding apolipoprotein(a), with kringle IV type 2 (KIV2) copy number variation (CNV) acting as the primary genetic determinant. Genetic characterization of Lp(a) is in continuous growth; nevertheless, the peculiar structural characteristics of this variant constitute a significant challenge to the development of effective detection methods. The aim of the study was to compare quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) and digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) in the evaluation of KIV2 repeat polymorphism. METHODS: We analysed 100 subjects tested for cardiovascular risk in which Lp(a) plasma levels were assessed. RESULTS: Correlation analysis between CNV values obtained with the two methods was slightly significant (R = 0.413, p = 0.00002), because of the wider data dispersion in qPCR compared with ddPCR. Internal controls C1, C2 and C3 measurements throughout different experimental sessions revealed the superior stability of ddPCR, which was supported by a reduced intra/inter-assay coefficient of variation determined in this method compared to qPCR. A significant inverse correlation between Lp(a) levels and CNV values was confirmed for both techniques, but it was higher when evaluated by ddPCR than qPCR (R = -0.393, p = 0.000053 vs R = -0.220, p = 0.028, respectively). When dividing subjects into two groups according to 500 mg/L Lp(a) cut-off value, a significantly lower number of KIV2 repeats emerged among subjects with greater Lp(a) levels, with stronger evidence in ddPCR than in qPCR (p = 0.000013 and p = 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Data obtained support a better performance of ddPCR in the evaluation of KIV2 repeat polymorphism.

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.

Novel Therapies for Lipoprotein(a): Update in Cardiovascular Risk Estimation and Treatment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Lipoprotein(a) is an important causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease but currently no available medication effectively reduces lipoprotein(a). This review discusses recent findings regarding lipoprotein(a) as a causal risk factor and therapeutic target in cardiovascular disease, it reviews current clinical recommendations, and summarizes new lipoprotein(a) lowering drugs. RECENT FINDINGS: Epidemiological and genetic studies have established lipoprotein(a) as a causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease and mortality. Guidelines worldwide now recommend lipoprotein(a) to be measured once in a lifetime, to offer patients with high lipoprotein(a) lifestyle advise and initiate other cardiovascular medications. Clinical trials including antisense oligonucleotides, small interfering RNAs, and an oral lipoprotein(a) inhibitor have shown great effect on lowering lipoprotein(a) with reductions up to 106%, without any major adverse effects. Recent clinical phase 1 and 2 trials show encouraging results and ongoing phase 3 trials will hopefully result in the introduction of specific lipoprotein(a) lowering drugs to lower the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Association between lipoprotein (a) and risk of heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization studies.

BACKGROUND: Rising incidence of heart failure (HF) in the Western world despite advanced clinical care necessitate exploration of further preventive tools and strategies. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], recognized as one of the major cardiovascular risk factors has also been implicated as a risk factor for HF. However, existing evidence remains inconclusive and that has led us to perform this meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed/Medline, EMBASE and Scopus were systematically searched for studies evaluating an association of Lp(a) with occurrence of HF from inception-till November 2023. Random effects models and I2 statistics were used for pooled odds ratio (OR) and heterogeneity assessment. We performed leave one out sensitivity analyses by sequentially removing one study at a time and recalculating the pooled effect size. RESULT: Our search rendered in total 360 studies and after final screening this resulted in 7 Mendelian randomization (MR) design. According to the MR analysis, increasing Lp(a) level were significantly associated with increased risk of HF (OR 1.064, 95 % CI: 1.043-1.086, I2= 97.59 %, P < 0.001). In addition, Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis showed that the effect size did not change substantially by removal of any particular study in MR studies and ORs ranged from 1.051 (when excluding Levin) to a maximum of 1.111 (when excluding Wang or Jiang), hereby confirming the association. CONCLUSION: We were able to show that by meta-analysis of MR data, increasing lipoprotein (a) levels are associated with an increased risk of HF. Whether this is due to a direct effect on heart muscle contraction or whether this is due to an increased risk of ischemic cardiac disease remains to be elucidated.

Haplotype of the Lipoprotein(a) Gene Variants rs10455872 and rs3798220 Is Associated with Parameters of Coagulation, Fibrinolysis, and Inflammation in Patients after Myocardial Infarction and Highly Elevated Lipoprotein(a) Values.

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an independent risk factor for future coronary events. Variants rs10455872 and rs3798220 in the gene encoding Lp(a) are associated with an increased Lp(a) concentration and risk of coronary artery disease. We aimed to determine whether in high-risk coronary artery disease patients these two genetic variants and the kringle IV type 2 (KIV-2) repeats are associated with impairment of inflammatory and hemostatic parameters. Patients after myocardial infarction with elevated Lp(a) levels were included. Blood samples underwent biochemical and genetic analyses. In carriers of the AC haplotype, the concentrations of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α (4.46 vs. 3.91 ng/L, p = 0.046) and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) (p = 0.026) were significantly higher compared to non-carriers. The number of KIV-2 repeats was significantly associated with the concentration of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (ρ = 0.251, p = 0.038) and overall fibrinolytic potential (r = -0.253, p = 0.038). In our patients, a direct association between the AC haplotype and both TNF-α and PAI-1 levels was observed. Our study shows that the number of KIV-2 repeats not only affects proatherosclerotic and proinflammatory effects of Lp(a) but is also associated with its antifibrinolytic properties.

Association of Lipoprotein(a) with arterial stiffness: A Mendelian randomization study.

BACKGROUND: In this study we used Mendelian randomization (MR) to investigate the potential causal association of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] levels with pulse wave velocity (PWV). METHODS: Genetic variants associated with Lp(a) were retrieved from the UK Biobank GWAS (N = 290,497). A non- overlapping GWAS based on a European cohort (N = 7,000) was used to obtain genetic associations with PWV (outcome) and utilized two different measures for the same trait, brachial-ankle (baPWV) and carotid-femoral (cfPWV) PWV. We applied a two-sample MR using the inverse variance weighting method (IVW) and a series of sensitivity analyses for 170 SNPs that were selected as instrumental variables (IVs). RESULTS: Our analyses do not support a causal association between Lp(a) and PWV for neither measurement [ßiwv(baPWV) = -.0005, p = .8 and ßiwv(cfPWV) = -.006, p = .16]. The above findings were consistent across sensitivity analyses including weighted median, mode-based estimation, MR-Egger regression and MR-PRESSO. CONCLUSION: We did not find evidence indicating that Lp(a) is causally associated with PWV, the gold standard marker of arterial stiffness.

Lipoprotein(a) Is Markedly More Atherogenic Than LDL: An Apolipoprotein B-Based Genetic Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is recognized as a causal factor for coronary heart disease (CHD) but its atherogenicity relative to that of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) on a per-particle basis is indeterminate. OBJECTIVES: The authors addressed this issue in a genetic analysis based on the fact that Lp(a) and LDL both contain 1 apolipoprotein B (apoB) per particle. METHODS: Genome-wide association studies using the UK Biobank population identified 2 clusters of single nucleotide polymorphisms: one comprising 107 variants linked to Lp(a) mass concentration, the other with 143 variants linked to LDL concentration. In these Lp(a) and LDL clusters, the relationship of genetically predicted variation in apoB with CHD risk was assessed. RESULTS: The Mendelian randomization-derived OR for CHD for a 50 nmol/L higher Lp(a)-apoB was 1.28 (95% CI: 1.24-1.33) compared with 1.04 (95% CI: 1.03-1.05) for the same increment in LDL-apoB. Likewise, use of polygenic scores to rank subjects according to difference in Lp(a)-apoB vs difference in LDL-apoB revealed a greater HR for CHD per 50 nmol/L apoB for the Lp(a) cluster (1.47; 95% CI: 1.36-1.58) compared with the LDL cluster (1.04; 95% CI: 1.02-1.05). From these data, we estimate that the atherogenicity of Lp(a) is approximately 6-fold (point estimate of 6.6; 95% CI: 5.1-8.8) greater than that of LDL on a per-particle basis. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the atherogenicity of Lp(a) (CHD risk quotient per unit increase in particle number) is substantially greater than that of LDL. Therefore, Lp(a) represents a key target for drug-based intervention in a significant proportion of the at-risk population.

Lipoprotein(a) is associated with DNA damage in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia.

Heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) is a common autosomal-dominant inherited disorder associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). HeFH subjects have a higher lipoprotein(a), i.e. Lp(a), concentration than the general population. Patients with FH are exposed to elevated levels of LDL from birth and ox-LDL may induce other oxidation pathways. The aim of the study was to determine the levels of markers of oxidative stress and DNA damage in patients with HeFH and describe the effect of Lp(a) on the resulting damage. Higher DNA damage was identified in patients with HeFH compared to the normolipidemic ones, and ASCVD was associated with greater damage. Oxidative stress markers were elevated in HeFH patients; however, only ox-LDL was higher in the ASCVD group and its level correlated with DNA damage. A positive correlation was found between DNA damage and Lp(a) concentration in the HeFH patients. Higher levels of Lp(a) were associated with greater DNA damage, especially in patients with HeFH and ASCVD. In HeFH patients, the optimal Lp(a) cut-off point associated with ASCVD is > 23.45 nmol/L, i.e. much lower than for the general population; however this cut-off point needs validation in a larger group of HeFH patients.

Lipoprotein(a): from Causality to Treatment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper reviews the evidence why lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease and how high Lp(a) concentrations should be managed now and with an outlook to the future. REVIEW FINDINGS: No optimal and widely available animal models exist to study the causality of the association between Lp(a) and cardiovascular disease. This has been a major handicap for the entire field. However, genetic studies turned the page. Already in the early 1990s, the principle of Mendelian randomization studies was applied for the first time ever (even if they were not named so at that time). Genetic variants of the LPA gene such as the apolipoprotein(a) isoform size, the number and sum of kringle IV repeats and later single nucleotide polymorphisms are strongly associated with life-long exposure to high Lp(a) concentrations as well as cardiovascular outcomes. This evidence provided a basis for the development of specific Lp(a)-lowering drugs that are currently in clinical testing phase. Lp(a) is one of the most important genetically determined risk factors for cardiovascular disease. With the specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies, we might get tools to fight this common risk factor in case the outcome trials will be positive.

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

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

Association Between Lipoprotein (a) and Risk of Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Mendelian Randomization Studies.

Lipoprotein (a) (Lp[a]) is an established risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, data on association of Lp(a) with risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) is still limited. We searched PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE for studies evaluating the association of Lp(a) with the occurrence of AF until July 2023. Random effects models and I2 statistics were used for pooled odds ratios (OR), and heterogeneity assessments. A subgroup analysis was performed based on the cohort population, and a one-out sensitivity analysis was performed. This meta-analysis comprised 275,647 AF cases and 2,100,172 Lp(a) participants. An increase in Lp(a) was associated with an increased risk of AF in mendelian randomization (MR) studies (OR 1.024, 95% CI: 1.007-1.042, I2 = 87.72%, P < 0.001). Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis confirmed equivalent results in MR studies. Subgroup analysis of MR studies revealed a higher risk of AF in the European cohort (OR 1.023, 95% CI: 1.007-1.040, I2 = 89.05%, P < 0.001) and a low risk (OR 0.940, 95% CI: 0.893-0.990) in the Chinese population. Meta-analysis of the MR data suggested higher levels of Lp(a) were associated with increased risk of AF. Future robust prospective studies are warranted to validate these findings.

Lipoprotein(a) and calcific aortic valve disease: current evidence and future directions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD), the most common cause of aortic stenosis (AS), is characterized by slowly progressive fibrocalcific remodelling of the valve cusps. Once symptomatic, severe AS is associated with poor survival unless surgical or transcatheter valve replacement is performed. Unfortunately, no pharmacological interventions have been demonstrated to alter the natural history of CAVD. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], a low-density lipoprotein-like particle, has been implicated in the pathophysiology of CAVD. RECENT FINDINGS: The mechanisms by which Lp(a) results in CAVD are not well understood. However, the oxidized phospholipids carried by Lp(a) are considered a crucial mediator of the disease process. An increasing number of studies demonstrate a causal association between plasma Lp(a) levels and frequency of AS and need for aortic valve replacement, which is independent of inflammation, as measured by plasma C-reactive protein levels. However, not all studies show an association between Lp(a) and increased progression of calcification in individuals with established CAVD. SUMMARY: Epidemiologic, genetic, and Mendelian randomization studies have collectively suggested that Lp(a) is a causal risk factor for CAVD. Whether Lp(a)-lowering can prevent initiation or slow progression of CAVD remains to be demonstrated.

Lipoprotein a - Lp(a).

Lp(a) is a genetically determined, heritable, independent and causal risk factor for ASCVD. About 1 in 5 people worldwide have elevated Lp(a) (>50 mg/dL or >125 nmol/L) whereas in Indians it is 25 %. Epidemiological, genome-wide association and mendelian randomization studies have demonstrated an association between elevated Lp(a) levels and increased incidence of myocardial infarction, aortic valve stenosis, ischemic stroke, heart failure, CV and all-cause mortality. The increased Lp(a)-mediated CV risk is mediated by pro-inflammatory, pro-thrombotic and pro-atherogenic processes, leading to progression of atherosclerosis and increased risk of thrombosis. Lp(a) level reaches peak by 5 years of age and remains stable over time. Levels are not much influenced by dietary and environmental factors but it can vary in certain clinical situations like thyroid diseases, chronic kidney disease, inflammation and sepsis. It should be measured at least once in life time. Cascade testing for high Lp(a) is recommended in the settings of FH, family history of (very) high Lp(a), and personal or family history of ASCVD. In the absence of specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies, comprehensive risk factor management is recommended as per guidelines for individuals with elevated Lp(a). PCSK9 inhibitors and Inclisiran reduce Lp(a) by 25%. Pelacarsen is an antisense oligonucleotide and is found to reduce Lp(a) by 80%. In a recent Indian study of 1,021 CAD patients, presence of elevated Lp(a) (>50 mg/dL) correlated with severe angiographic disease. 37% of ACS patients exhibited elevated Lp(a) and it was higher in young CAD patients with FH (43%).

Association of the LPA gene polymorphisms with coronary artery disease risk in the Xinjiang population of China: A case-control study.

Lipoprotein(a) is a well-known independent risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD) and primarily determined by variation in the LPA gene coding for the apolipoprotein(a) moiety. Our study purpose was to evaluate the association between the human LPA gene polymorphisms and CAD in Han and Uyghur populations in Xinjiang, China. A case-control study was conducted with 831 Han people (392 CAD patients and 439 control subjects) and 829 Uygur people (513 CAD patients and 316 control subjects). All participants were genotyped for the same 3 single nucleotide polymorphisms (rs1801693, rs6923877, and rs9364559) of the LPA gene by a Real-time PCR instrument. In CAD patients, the levels of lipoprotein(a) were significantly higher in the Han population with the C/C genotype at the rs1801693 (P = .018) and the A/A genotype at the rs9364559 (P = .029) than in the Uyghur population. The polymorphisms rs1801693, rs6923877, and rs9364559 were found to be associated with CAD in the Han population. For men, the distribution of rs1801693 in genotypes, alleles and recessive model (CC vs CT + TT) showed a significant difference (all P < .05), and the difference in recessive model was retained after adjustment for covariates (odds ratio [OR]: 0.557, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.355-0.874, P = .011). But the distribution of rs6923877 in genotypes and dominant model (GG vs AG + AA) showed a significant difference (both P < .05) in both men and women, and the difference was kept in dominant model after adjustment (OR: 1.473, 95% CI:1.009-2.148, P = .045). For women, a significant difference was found in the distribution of rs9364559 in the alleles and dominant model (AA vs AG + GG) (for alleles: P = .021, for dominant model: P = .025, OR: 0.560, 95% CI:0.350-0.898, P = .016) after adjustment. Polymorphisms rs1801693, rs6923877, and rs9364559 of the LPA gene are associated with CAD in the Han population in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China.

Effect of MEF2A and SLC22A3-LPAL2-LPA gene polymorphisms on warfarin sensitivity and responsiveness in Jordanian cardiovascular patients.

AIMS: This study aims to investigate the influence of MEF2A and SLC22A3-LPAL2-LPA polymorphisms on cardiovascular disease susceptibility and responsiveness to warfarin medication in Jordanian patients, during the initiation and maintenance phases of treatment. BACKGROUNDS: Several candidate genes have been reported to be involved in warfarin metabolism and studying such genes may help in finding an accurate way to determine the needed warfarin dose to lower the risk of adverse drug effects, resulting in more safe anticoagulant therapy. METHODS: The study population included 212 cardiovascular patients and 213 healthy controls. Genotyping of MEF2A and SLC22A3-LPAL2-LPA polymorphisms was conducted to examine their effects on warfarin efficiency and cardiovascular disease susceptibility using PCR-based methods. RESULTS: One SNP (SLC22A3-LPAL2-LPA rs10455872) has been associated with cardiovascular disease in the Jordanian population, whereas the other SNPs in the MEF2A gene and SLC22A3-LPAL2-LPA gene cluster did not have any significant differences between cardiovascular patients and healthy individuals. Moreover, SLC22A3-LPAL2-LPA rs10455872 was correlated with moderate warfarin sensitivity, the other SNPs examined in the current study have not shown any significant associations with warfarin sensitivity and responsiveness. CONCLUSION: Our data refer to a lack of correlation between the MEF2A polymorphism and the efficacy of warfarin treatment in both phases of treatment, the initiation, and maintenance phases. However, only rs10455872 SNP was associated with sensitivity to warfarin during the initiation phase. Furthermore, rs3125050 has been found to be associated with the international normalized number treatment outcomes in the maintenance phase.

Exploring PCSK9 Genetic Impact on Lipoprotein(a) via Dual Approaches: Association and Mendelian Randomization.

Previous investigations have suggested an association between the PCSK9 common polymorphism E670G and Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) levels, as well as a link between plasma PCSK9 levels and Lp(a) concentrations. However, the causal relationship between plasma PCSK9 and Lp(a) levels remains uncertain. In this study, we explored the association between PCSK9 E670G polymorphism and Lp(a) levels in 614 healthy Taiwanese individuals. Employing a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis using openly accessible PCSK9 and Lp(a) summary statistics from the genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and UK Biobank, we aimed to determine if a causal link exists between plasma PCSK9 levels and Lp(a) concentrations. Our findings reveal that the E670G G allele is independently associated with a decreased likelihood of developing elevated Lp(a) levels. This association persists even after adjusting for common cardiovascular risk factors and irrespective of lipid profile variations. The MR analysis, utilizing six PCSK9 GWAS-associated variants as instrumental variables to predict plasma PCSK9 levels, provides compelling evidence of a causal relationship between plasma PCSK9 levels and Lp(a) concentration. In conclusion, our study not only replicates the association between the PCSK9 E670G polymorphism and Lp(a) levels but also confirms a causative relationship between PCSK9 levels and Lp(a) concentrations through MR analysis.

Lp(a) in the Pathogenesis of Aortic Stenosis and Approach to Therapy with Antisense Oligonucleotides or Short Interfering RNA.

To date, no medical therapy can slow the progression of aortic stenosis. Fibrocalcific stenosis is the most frequent form in the general population and affects about 6% of the elderly population. Over the years, diagnosis has evolved thanks to echocardiography and computed tomography assessments. The application of artificial intelligence to electrocardiography could further implement early diagnosis. Patients with severe aortic stenosis, especially symptomatic patients, have valve repair as their only therapeutic option by surgical or percutaneous technique (TAVI). The discovery that the pathogenetic mechanism of aortic stenosis is similar to the atherosclerosis process has made it possible to evaluate the hypothesis of medical therapy for aortic stenosis. Several drugs have been tested to reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) levels, inflammation, and calcification. The Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9-i) could decrease the progression of aortic stenosis and the requirement for valve implantation. Great interest is related to circulating Lp(a) levels as causally linked to degenerative aortic stenosis. New therapies with ASO (antisense oligonucleotides) and siRNA (small interfering RNA) are currently being tested. Olpasiran and pelacarsen reduce circulating Lp(a) levels by 85-90%. Phase 3 studies are underway to evaluate the effect of these drugs on cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial injury, and non-fatal stroke) in patients with elevated Lp(a) and CVD (cardiovascular diseases). For instance, if a reduction in Lp(a) levels is associated with aortic stenosis prevention or progression, further prospective clinical trials are warranted to confirm this observation in this high-risk population.

Lipoprotein(a): Just an Innocent Bystander in Arterial Hypertension?

Elevated plasma lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a relatively common and highly heritable trait conferring individuals time-dependent risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD). Following its first description, Lp(a) triggered enormous scientific interest in the late 1980s, subsequently dampened in the mid-1990s by controversial findings of some prospective studies. It was only in the last decade that a large body of evidence has provided strong arguments for a causal and independent association between elevated Lp(a) levels and CVD, causing renewed interest in this lipoprotein as an emerging risk factor with a likely contribution to cardiovascular residual risk. Accordingly, the 2022 consensus statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society has suggested inclusion of Lp(a) measurement in global risk estimation. The development of highly effective Lp(a)-lowering drugs (e.g., antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering RNA, both blocking LPA gene expression) which are still under assessment in phase 3 trials, will provide a unique opportunity to reduce "residual cardiovascular risk" in high-risk populations, including patients with arterial hypertension. The current evidence in support of a specific role of Lp(a) in hypertension is somehow controversial and this narrative review aims to overview the general mechanisms relating Lp(a) to blood pressure regulation and hypertension-related cardiovascular and renal damage.