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.

Independence of Lipoprotein(a) and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol-Mediated Cardiovascular Risk: A Participant-Level Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels are independently associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, the relationship between Lp(a) level, LDL-C level, and ASCVD risk at different thresholds is not well defined. METHODS: A participant-level meta-analysis of 27 658 participants enrolled in 6 placebo-controlled statin trials was performed to assess the association of LDL-C and Lp(a) levels with risk of fatal or nonfatal coronary heart disease events, stroke, or any coronary or carotid revascularization (ASCVD). The multivariable-adjusted association between baseline Lp(a) level and ASCVD risk was modeled continuously using generalized additive models, and the association between baseline LDL-C level and ASCVD risk by baseline Lp(a) level by Cox proportional hazards models with random effects. The joint association between Lp(a) level and statin-achieved LDL-C level with ASCVD risk was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Compared with an Lp(a) level of 5 mg/dL, increasing levels of Lp(a) were log-linearly associated with ASCVD risk in statin- and placebo-treated patients. Among statin-treated individuals, those with Lp(a) level >50 mg/dL (≈125 nmol/L) had increased risk across all quartiles of achieved LDL-C level and absolute change in LDL-C level. Even among those with the lowest quartile of achieved LDL-C level (3.1-77.0 mg/dL), those with Lp(a) level >50 mg/dL had greater ASCVD risk (hazard ratio, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.06-1.79]) than those with Lp(a) level ≤50 mg/dL. The greatest risk was observed with both Lp(a) level >50 mg/dL and LDL-C level in the fourth quartile (hazard ratio, 1.90 [95% CI, 1.46-2.48]). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate the independent and additive nature of Lp(a) and LDL-C levels for ASCVD risk, and that LDL-C lowering does not fully offset Lp(a)-mediated risk.

Relating Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations to Cardiovascular Event Risk After Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Comparison of 3 Tests.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) is a risk factor for cardiovascular events and modifies the benefit of PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitors. Lipoprotein(a) concentration can be measured with immunoassays reporting mass or molar concentration or a reference measurement system using mass spectrometry. Whether the relationships between lipoprotein(a) concentrations and cardiovascular events in a high-risk cohort differ across lipoprotein(a) methods is unknown. We compared the prognostic and predictive value of these types of lipoprotein(a) tests for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). METHODS: The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) compared the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab with placebo in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome. We compared risk of a MACE in the placebo group and MACE risk reduction with alirocumab according to baseline lipoprotein(a) concentration measured by Siemens N-latex nephelometric immunoassay (IA-mass; mg/dL), Roche Tina-Quant turbidimetric immunoassay (IA-molar; nmol/L), and a noncommercial mass spectrometry-based test (MS; nmol/L). Lipoprotein(a) values were transformed into percentiles for comparative modeling. Natural cubic splines estimated continuous relationships between baseline lipoprotein(a) and outcomes in each treatment group. Event rates were also determined across baseline lipoprotein(a) quartiles defined by each assay. RESULTS: Among 11 970 trial participants with results from all 3 tests, baseline median (Q1, Q3) lipoprotein(a) concentrations were 21.8 (6.9, 60.0) mg/dL, 45.0 (13.2, 153.8) nmol/L, and 42.2 (14.3, 143.1) nmol/L for IA-mass, IA-molar, and MS, respectively. The strongest correlation was between IA-molar and MS (r=0.990), with nominally weaker correlations between IA-mass and MS (r=0.967) and IA-mass and IA-molar (r=0.972). Relationships of lipoprotein(a) with MACE risk in the placebo group were nearly identical with each test, with estimated cumulative incidences differing by ≤0.4% across lipoprotein(a) percentiles, and all were incrementally prognostic after accounting for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (all spline P≤0.0003). Predicted alirocumab treatment effects were also nearly identical for each of the 3 tests, with estimated treatment hazard ratios differing by ≤0.07 between tests across percentiles and nominally less relative risk reduction by alirocumab at lower percentiles for all 3 tests. Absolute risk reduction with alirocumab increased with increasing lipoprotein(a) measured by each test, with significant linear trends across quartiles. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recent acute coronary syndrome, 3 lipoprotein(a) tests were similarly prognostic for MACE in the placebo group and predictive of MACE reductions with alirocumab at the cohort level. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01663402.

Major Facilitator Superfamily Domain Containing 5 Inhibition Reduces Lipoprotein(a) Uptake and Calcification in Valvular Heart Disease.

BACKGROUND: High circulating levels of Lp(a) (lipoprotein[a]) increase the risk of atherosclerosis and calcific aortic valve disease, affecting millions of patients worldwide. Although atherosclerosis is commonly treated with low-density lipoprotein-targeting therapies, these do not reduce Lp(a) or risk of calcific aortic valve disease, which has no available drug therapies. Targeting Lp(a) production and catabolism may provide therapeutic benefit, but little is known about Lp(a) cellular uptake. METHODS: Here, unbiased ligand-receptor capture mass spectrometry was used to identify MFSD5 (major facilitator superfamily domain containing 5) as a novel receptor/cofactor involved in Lp(a) uptake. RESULTS: Reducing MFSD5 expression by a computationally identified small molecule or small interfering RNA suppressed Lp(a) uptake and calcification in primary human valvular endothelial and interstitial cells. MFSD5 variants were associated with aortic stenosis (P=0.027 after multiple hypothesis testing) with evidence suggestive of an interaction with plasma Lp(a) levels. CONCLUSIONS: MFSD5 knockdown suppressing human valvular cell Lp(a) uptake and calcification, along with meta-analysis of MFSD5 variants associating with aortic stenosis, supports further preclinical assessment of MFSD5 in cardiovascular diseases, the leading cause of death worldwide.

Diacylglycerols and Lysophosphatidic Acid, Enriched on Lipoprotein(a), Contribute to Monocyte Inflammation.

BACKGROUND: Oxidized phospholipids play a key role in the atherogenic potential of lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]); however, Lp(a) is a complex particle that warrants research into additional proinflammatory mediators. We hypothesized that additional Lp(a)-associated lipids contribute to the atherogenicity of Lp(a). METHODS: Untargeted lipidomics was performed on plasma and isolated lipoprotein fractions. The atherogenicity of the observed Lp(a)-associated lipids was tested ex vivo in primary human monocytes by RNA sequencing, ELISA, Western blot, and transendothelial migratory assays. Using immunofluorescence staining and single-cell RNA sequencing, the phenotype of macrophages was investigated in human atherosclerotic lesions. RESULTS: Compared with healthy individuals with low/normal Lp(a) levels (median, 7 mg/dL [18 nmol/L]; n=13), individuals with elevated Lp(a) levels (median, 87 mg/dL [218 nmol/L]; n=12) demonstrated an increase in lipid species, particularly diacylglycerols (DGs) and lysophosphatidic acid (LPA). DG and the LPA precursor lysophosphatidylcholine were enriched in the Lp(a) fraction. Ex vivo stimulation with DG(40:6) demonstrated a significant upregulation in proinflammatory pathways related to leukocyte migration, chemotaxis, NF-κB (nuclear factor kappa B) signaling, and cytokine production. Functional assessment showed a dose-dependent increase in the secretion of IL (interleukin)-6, IL-8, and IL-1ß after DG(40:6) and DG(38:4) stimulation, which was, in part, mediated via the NLRP3 (NOD [nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain]-like receptor family pyrin domain containing 3) inflammasome. Conversely, LPA-stimulated monocytes did not exhibit an inflammatory phenotype. Furthermore, activation of monocytes by DGs and LPA increased their transendothelial migratory capacity. Human atherosclerotic plaques from patients with high Lp(a) levels demonstrated colocalization of Lp(a) with M1 macrophages, and an enrichment of CD68+IL-18+TLR4+ (toll-like receptor) TREM2+ (triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells) resident macrophages and CD68+CASP1+ (caspase) IL-1B+SELL+ (selectin L) inflammatory macrophages compared with patients with low Lp(a). Finally, potent Lp(a)-lowering treatment (pelacarsen) resulted in a reduction in specific circulating DG lipid subspecies in patients with cardiovascular disease with elevated Lp(a) levels (median, 82 mg/dL [205 nmol/L]). CONCLUSIONS: Lp(a)-associated DGs and LPA have a potential role in Lp(a)-induced monocyte inflammation by increasing cytokine secretion and monocyte transendothelial migration. This DG-induced inflammation is, in part, NLRP3 inflammasome dependent.

Lipoprotein Apheresis: Utility, Outcomes, and Implementation in Clinical Practice: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Despite the availability of multiple classes of lipoprotein-lowering medications, some high-risk patients have persistent hypercholesterolemia and may require nonpharmacologic therapy. Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) is a valuable but underused adjunctive therapeutic option for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lipoprotein(a) lowering, particularly in children and adults with familial hypercholesterolemia. In addition to lipid lowering, LA reduces serum levels of proinflammatory and prothrombotic factors, reduces blood viscosity, increases microvascular myocardial perfusion, and may provide beneficial effects on endothelial function. Multiple observational studies demonstrate strong evidence for improved cardiovascular outcomes with LA; however, use in the United States is limited to a fraction of its Food and Drug Administration-approved indications. In addition, there are limited data regarding LA benefit for refractory focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. In this scientific statement, we review the history of LA, mechanisms of action, cardiovascular and renal outcomes data, indications, and options for treatment.

Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease.

Elevated plasma levels of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) are a prevalent, independent, and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and calcific aortic valve disease. Lp(a) consists of a lipoprotein particle resembling low density lipoprotein and the covalently-attached glycoprotein apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)). Novel therapeutics that specifically and potently lower Lp(a) levels are currently in advanced stages of clinical development, including in large, phase 3 cardiovascular outcomes trials. However, fundamental unanswered questions remain concerning some key aspects of Lp(a) biosynthesis and catabolism as well as the true pathogenic mechanisms of the particle. In this review, we describe the salient biochemical features of Lp(a) and apo(a) and how they underlie the disease-causing potential of Lp(a), the factors that determine plasma Lp(a) concentrations, and the mechanism of action of Lp(a)-lowering drugs.

C-reactive protein modifies lipoprotein(a)-related risk for coronary heart disease: the BiomarCaRE project.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Recent investigations have suggested an interdependence of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]-related risk for cardiovascular disease with background inflammatory burden. The aim the present analysis was to investigate whether high-sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP) modulates the association between Lp(a) and coronary heart disease (CHD) in the general population. METHODS: Data from 71 678 participants from 8 European prospective population-based cohort studies were used (65 661 without/6017 with established CHD at baseline; median follow-up 9.8/13.8 years, respectively). Fine and Gray competing risk-adjusted models were calculated according to accompanying hsCRP concentration (<2 and ≥2 mg/L). RESULTS: Among CHD-free individuals, increased Lp(a) levels were associated with incident CHD irrespective of hsCRP concentration: fully adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratios [sHRs (95% confidence interval)] for the highest vs. lowest fifth of Lp(a) distribution were 1.45 (1.23-1.72) and 1.48 (1.23-1.78) for a hsCRP group of <2 and ≥2 mg/L, respectively, with no interaction found between these two biomarkers on CHD risk (Pinteraction = 0.82). In those with established CHD, similar associations were seen only among individuals with hsCRP ≥ 2 mg/L [1.34 (1.03-1.76)], whereas among participants with a hsCRP concentration <2 mg/L, there was no clear association between Lp(a) and future CHD events [1.29 (0.98-1.71)] (highest vs. lowest fifth, fully adjusted models; Pinteraction = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: While among CHD-free individuals Lp(a) was significantly associated with incident CHD regardless of hsCRP, in participants with CHD at baseline, Lp(a) was related to recurrent CHD events only in those with residual inflammatory risk. These findings might guide adequate selection of high-risk patients for forthcoming Lp(a)-targeting compounds.

Associations between lipoprotein(a), oxidized phospholipids, and extracoronary vascular disease.

The roles of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and related oxidized phospholipids (OxPLs) in the development and progression of coronary disease is known, but their influence on extracoronary vascular disease is not well-established. We sought to evaluate associations between Lp(a), OxPL apolipoprotein B (OxPL-apoB), and apolipoprotein(a) (OxPL-apo(a)) with angiographic extracoronary vascular disease and incident major adverse limb events (MALEs). Four hundred forty-six participants who underwent coronary and/or peripheral angiography were followed up for a median of 3.7 years. Lp(a) and OxPLs were measured before angiography. Elevated Lp(a) was defined as ≥150 nmol/L. Elevated OxPL-apoB and OxPL-apo(a) were defined as greater than or equal to the 75th percentile (OxPL-apoB ≥8.2 nmol/L and OxPL-apo(a) ≥35.8 nmol/L, respectively). Elevated Lp(a) had a stronger association with the presence of extracoronary vascular disease compared to OxPLs and was minimally improved with the addition of OxPLs in multivariable models. Compared to participants with normal Lp(a) and OxPL concentrations, participants with elevated Lp(a) levels were twice as likely to experience a MALE (odds ratio: 2.14, 95% confidence interval: 1.03, 4.44), and the strength of the association as well as the C statistic of 0.82 was largely unchanged with the addition of OxPL-apoB and OxPL-apo(a). Elevated Lp(a) and OxPLs are risk factors for progression and complications of extracoronary vascular disease. However, the addition of OxPLs to Lp(a) does not provide additional information about risk of extracoronary vascular disease. Therefore, Lp(a) alone captures the risk profile of Lp(a), OxPL-apoB, and OxPL-apo(a) in the development and progression of atherosclerotic plaque in peripheral arteries.

Multiancestry Genome-Wide Association Study of Aortic Stenosis Identifies Multiple Novel Loci in the Million Veteran Program.

BACKGROUND: Calcific aortic stenosis (CAS) is the most common valvular heart disease in older adults and has no effective preventive therapies. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) can identify genes influencing disease and may help prioritize therapeutic targets for CAS. METHODS: We performed a GWAS and gene association study of 14 451 patients with CAS and 398 544 controls in the Million Veteran Program. Replication was performed in the Million Veteran Program, Penn Medicine Biobank, Mass General Brigham Biobank, BioVU, and BioMe, totaling 12 889 cases and 348 094 controls. Causal genes were prioritized from genome-wide significant variants using polygenic priority score gene localization, expression quantitative trait locus colocalization, and nearest gene methods. CAS genetic architecture was compared with that of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Causal inference for cardiometabolic biomarkers in CAS was performed using Mendelian randomization and genome-wide significant loci were characterized further through phenome-wide association study. RESULTS: We identified 23 genome-wide significant lead variants in our GWAS representing 17 unique genomic regions. Of the 23 lead variants, 14 were significant in replication, representing 11 unique genomic regions. Five replicated genomic regions were previously known risk loci for CAS (PALMD, TEX41, IL6, LPA, FADS) and 6 were novel (CEP85L, FTO, SLMAP, CELSR2, MECOM, CDAN1). Two novel lead variants were associated in non-White individuals (P<0.05): rs12740374 (CELSR2) in Black and Hispanic individuals and rs1522387 (SLMAP) in Black individuals. Of the 14 replicated lead variants, only 2 (rs10455872 [LPA], rs12740374 [CELSR2]) were also significant in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease GWAS. In Mendelian randomization, lipoprotein(a) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were both associated with CAS, but the association between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and CAS was attenuated when adjusting for lipoprotein(a). Phenome-wide association study highlighted varying degrees of pleiotropy, including between CAS and obesity at the FTO locus. However, the FTO locus remained associated with CAS after adjusting for body mass index and maintained a significant independent effect on CAS in mediation analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We performed a multiancestry GWAS in CAS and identified 6 novel genomic regions in the disease. Secondary analyses highlighted the roles of lipid metabolism, inflammation, cellular senescence, and adiposity in the pathobiology of CAS and clarified the shared and differential genetic architectures of CAS with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases.

Causal associations between insulin and Lp(a) levels in Caucasian population: a Mendelian randomization study.

BACKGROUND: Numerous observational studies have demonstrated that circulating lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] might be inversely related to the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, recent Mendelian randomization (MR) studies do not consistently support this association. The results of in vitro research suggest that high insulin concentrations can suppress Lp(a) levels by affecting apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] synthesis. This study aimed to identify the relationship between genetically predicted insulin concentrations and Lp(a) levels, which may partly explain the associations between low Lp(a) levels and increased risk of T2D. METHODS: Independent genetic variants strongly associated with fasting insulin levels were identified from meta-analyses of genome-wide association studies in European populations (GWASs) (N = 151,013). Summary level data for Lp(a) in the population of European ancestry were acquired from a GWAS in the UK Biobank (N = 361,194). The inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method approach was applied to perform two-sample summary-level MR. Robust methods for sensitivity analysis were utilized, such as MR‒Egger, the weighted median (WME) method, MR pleiotropy residual sum and outlier (MR-PRESSO), leave-one-out analysis, and MR Steiger. RESULTS: Genetically predicted fasting insulin levels were negatively associated with Lp(a) levels (ß = - 0.15, SE = 0.05, P = 0.003). The sensitivity analysis revealed that WME (ß = - 0.26, SE = 0.07, P = 0.0002), but not MR‒Egger (ß = - 0.22, SE = 0.13, P = 0.11), supported a causal relationship between genetically predisposed insulin levels and Lp(a). CONCLUSION: Our MR study provides robust evidence supporting the association between genetically predicted increased insulin concentrations and decreased concentrations of Lp(a). These findings suggest that hyperinsulinaemia, which typically accompanies T2D, can partially explain the inverse relationship between low Lp(a) concentrations and an increased risk of T2D.

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

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) and Lp(a) are well-established predictors of coronary artery disease (CAD) outcomes. However, their combined association remains poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between elevated Lp(a) and DM with CAD outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the MGB Lp(a) Registry involving patients ≥ 18 years who underwent Lp(a) measurements between 2000 and 2019. Exclusion criteria were severe kidney dysfunction, malignant neoplasms, and prior atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The primary outcome was a combination of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (MI). Elevated Lp(a) was defined as > 90th percentile (≥ 216 nmol/L). RESULTS: Among 6,238 patients who met the eligibility criteria, the median age was 54, 45% were women, and 12% had DM. Patients with DM were older, more frequently male, and had a higher prevalence of additional cardiovascular risk factors. Over a median follow-up of 12.9 years, patients with either DM or elevated Lp(a) experienced higher rates of the primary outcome. Notably, those with elevated Lp(a) had a higher incidence of the primary outcome regardless of their DM status. The annual event rates were as follows: No-DM and Lp(a) < 90th% - 0.6%; No-DM and Lp(a) > 90th% - 1.3%; DM and Lp(a) < 90th% - 1.9%; DM and Lp(a) > 90th% - 4.7% (p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, elevated Lp(a) remained independently associated with the primary outcome among both patients with DM (HR = 2.66 [95%CI: 1.55-4.58], p < 0.001) and those without DM (HR = 2.01 [95%CI: 1.48-2.74], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Elevated Lp(a) constitutes an independent and incremental risk factor for CAD outcomes in patients with and without DM.

First time ACS in patients with on-target lipid levels: Inflammation at admission and re-event rate at follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Dyslipidaemia, inflammation and elevated Lp(a) levels are associated with the progression of atherosclerosis. This study investigates whether patients with a first-time presentation of chest pain and on-target LDL-C levels and intermediate FRS/ESC-Score risks, display a high inflammatory burden linked to myocardial injury and whether inflammation at admission affects the re-event rate up to 6 years follow-up. METHODS: Blind assessments of novel inflammatory markers such as Glycoprotein A and B via nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), cytokines, hsCRP, Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and Lipoprotein(a) levels were examined. Out of 198 chest pain patients screened, 97 met the inclusion criteria at admission. RESULTS: cTnI(+) patients (>61 ng/L) with elevated Lipoprotein(a), showed significantly increased levels of Glycoprotein A and B, hsCRP, IL-6, a high NLR and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (%) compared to cTnI(-) individuals. Those patients, with a higher inflammatory burden at hospital admission (hsCRP, IL-6, Glycoprotein A and B, and Lipoprotein(a)) had a higher re-event rate at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Inflammation and Lipoprotein(a) levels were particularly prominent in patients presenting with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Notably, Glycoproteins A/B emerge as novel markers of inflammation in these patients. Our study highlights the significantly higher impact of inflammatory burden in patients with chest pain and high level of myocardial damage than in those with lower myocardial affectation, even when they all had lipid levels well controlled. Inflammation at the time of admission influenced the re-event rate over a follow-up period of up to 6 years.

Synergetic impact of lipoprotein(a) and fibrinogen on stroke in coronary artery disease patients.

BACKGROUND: Emerging data suggested that lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Previous studies indicated fibrinogen (Fib) had synergetic effect on Lp(a)-induced events. However, combined impact of Fib and Lp(a) on ischemic stroke has not been elucidated. METHODS: In this prospective study, we consecutively enrolled 8263 patients with stable coronary artery diseases (CAD) from 2011 to 2017. Patients were categorized into three groups according to tertiles of Lp(a) levels [Lp(a)-low, Lp(a)-medium, and Lp(a)-high] and further divided into nine groups by Lp(a) and Fib levels. All subjects were followed up for the occurrence of ischemic stroke. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 37.7 months, 157 (1.9%) ischemic strokes occurred. Stroke incidence increased by Lp(a) (1.1 vs. 2.1 vs. 2.5%, Cochran-Armitage p < .001) and Fib (1.1 vs. 2.0 vs. 2.6%, Cochran-Armitage p < .001) categories. When further classified into nine groups by Lp(a) and Fib levels, the incidence of ischemic stroke in group 9 [Lp(a)-high and Fib-high] was significantly higher than that in group 1 [Lp(a)-low and Fib-low] (3.1 vs. 6%, p < .001). The group 9 was associated with a highest risk for ischemic stroke (adjusted HR 4.907, 95% CI: 2.154-11.18, p < .001), compared with individuals in the Lp(a)-high (adjusted HR 2.290, 95% CI: 1.483-3.537, p < .001) or Fib-high (adjusted HR 1.184, 95% CI: 1.399-3.410, p = .001). Furthermore, combining Lp(a) with Fib increased C-statistics by .045 (p = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Current study first demonstrated that elevated Lp(a) combining with Fib evaluation enhanced the risk of ischemic stroke in patients with CAD beyond Lp(a) or Fib alone.

New insights into the therapeutic options to lower lipoprotein(a).

BACKGROUND: Elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] represent a risk factor for cardiovascular disease including aortic valve stenosis, myocardial infarction and stroke. While the patho-physiological mechanisms linking Lp(a) with atherosclerosis are not fully understood, from genetic studies that lower Lp(a) levels protect from CVD independently of other risk factors including lipids and lipoproteins. Hereby, Lp(a) has been considered an appealing pharmacological target. RESULTS: However, approved lipid lowering therapies such as statins, ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors have a neutral to modest effect on Lp(a) levels, thus prompting the development of new strategies selectively targeting Lp(a). These include antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) directed towards apolipoprotein(a) [Apo(a)], which are in advanced phase of clinical development. More recently, additional approaches including inhibitors of Apo(a) and gene editing approaches via CRISPR-Cas9 technology entered early clinical development. CONCLUSION: If the results from the cardiovascular outcome trials, designed to demonstrate whether the reduction of Lp(a) of more than 80% as observed with pelacarsen, olpasiran or lepodisiran translates into the decrease of cardiovascular mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events, will be positive, lowering Lp(a) will become a new additional target in the management of patients with elevated cardiovascular risk.

Evaluation of high-density lipoprotein-bound long non-coding RNAs in subjects with familial hypercholesterolaemia.

BACKGROUND: Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) could be attractive circulating biomarkers for cardiovascular risk stratification in subjects at high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk such as familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH). Our aim was to investigate the presence of lncRNAs carried by high-density lipoprotein (HDL) in FH subjects and to evaluate the associations of HDL-lncRNAs with lipoproteins and mechanical vascular impairment assessed by pulse wave velocity (PWV). METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study involving 94 FH subjects on statin treatment. Biochemical assays, HDL purification, lncRNA and PWV analyses were performed in all subjects. RESULTS: LncRNA HIF1A-AS2, LASER and LEXIS were transported by HDL; moreover, HDL-lncRNA LEXIS was associated with Lp(a) plasma levels (p < .01). In a secondary analysis, the study population was stratified into two groups based on the Lp(a) median value. The high-Lp(a) group exhibited a significant increase of PWV compared to the low-Lp(a) group (9.23 ± .61 vs. 7.67 ± .56, p < .01). While HDL-lncRNA HIF1A-AS2 and LASER were similar in the two groups, the high-Lp(a) group exhibited a significant downregulation of HDL-lncRNA LEXIS compared to the low-Lp(a) group (fold change -4.4, p < .0001). Finally, Lp(a) and HDL-lncRNA LEXIS were associated with PWV (for Lp(a) p < .01; for HDL-lncRNA LEXIS p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: LncRNA HIF1A-AS2, LASER and LEXIS were transported by HDL; moreover, significant relationships of HDL-lncRNA LEXIS with Lp(a) levels and PWV were found. Our study suggests that HDL-lncRNA LEXIS may be useful to better identify FH subjects with more pronounced vascular damage.

Healthy lifestyle, lipoprotein (a) levels and the risk of coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is associated with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the role of healthy lifestyle against the risk of CAD with consideration of high Lp(a) levels remains unclear. METHODS: This study examined 4512 participants who underwent serum Lp(a) level assessment at Kanazawa University Hospital from 2008 to March 2016. Their lifestyle habits were examined based on four questionnaires regarding dietary pattern, exercise habits, smoking status and body weight. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the association between healthy lifestyle and CAD independent of Lp(a) levels. RESULTS: The Lp(a) levels were significantly associated with CAD (odds ratio [OR]: 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-1.17, p = 1.3 × 10-7 per 10 mg/dL). Under these circumstances, the lifestyle risk score was also significantly associated with CAD (OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.12-1.36, p = 2.4 × 10-8 ). Compared with patients with a favourable lifestyle who have Lp(a) levels of <30 mg/dL, those with an intermediate or unfavourable lifestyle were at higher risk for CAD (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.02-1.20, p = 0.003 and OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.16-1.54, p = 3.6 × 10-5 , respectively). Further, patients with a favourable, intermediate or unfavourable lifestyle who have Lp(a) levels of ≥30 mg/dL were at high risk for CAD (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.08-1.34, p = 0.0014; OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.14-1.48, p = 1.2 × 10-4 ; and OR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.44-2.18, p = 2.2 × 10-7 , respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Healthy lifestyle was associated with a lower risk of CAD regardless of Lp(a) levels.

Factors Associated with Lipoprotein(a) Testing Among Multiethnic Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and clinical guidelines recommend incorporating Lp(a) testing in routine care. OBJECTIVE: Examine real-world, contemporary clinical testing patterns of Lp(a) among multiethnic populations. DESIGN: In this nested case-control study, we assessed the prevalence and factors associated with Lp(a) testing within a large Northern Californian health system between 2010 and 2021. Incident density matching was used to select controls matched with a case for a case:control ratio of up to 1:5. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between Lp(a) testing, sociodemographic, and clinical characteristics. PARTICIPANTS: We included individuals aged 18 years or older with ≥ 2 primary care visits during the study period. MAIN MEASURES: Lp(a) testing rates over time and factors associated with testing based on demographic, medical, and healthcare utilization variables. KEY RESULTS: Of the 1,484,410 individuals in the cohort, 14,818 (1.0%) underwent Lp(a) testing. The median Lp(a) level was 35 mg/dL and over a third of individuals had Lp(a) levels > 50 mg/dL. After adjustment, South Asian individuals were three times more likely to have undergone Lp(a) testing, as compared to non-Hispanic White individuals [OR = 3.19, (95% CI = 2.98, 3.41)], while those identified as non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic were significantly less likely to have undergone Lp(a) testing [OR = 0.70, (95% CI = 0.62, 0.80) and 0.64 (95% CI = 0.59, 0.69), respectively]. Those with a history of ASCVD had over twice the odds of undergoing testing [OR = 2.14 (95% CI = 1.99, 2.29)], as did individuals with more frequent primary care visits [OR = 1.99 (95% CI = 1.84, 2.15)]. CONCLUSIONS: Lp(a) testing rates in real-world settings are low, with significant disparities by race, ethnicity, and healthcare utilization. Expanding access to Lp(a) testing may help reduce disparities within ASCVD risk assessment and treatment as new targeted therapeutic agents become available.

Lipoprotein (a)-Related Inflammatory Imbalance: A Novel Horizon for the Development of Atherosclerosis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The primary objective of this review is to explore the pathophysiological roles and clinical implications of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the context of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We seek to understand how Lp(a) contributes to inflammation and arteriosclerosis, aiming to provide new insights into the mechanisms of ASCVD progression. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent research highlights Lp(a) as an independent risk factor for ASCVD. Studies show that Lp(a) not only promotes the inflammatory processes but also interacts with various cellular components, leading to endothelial dysfunction and smooth muscle cell proliferation. The dual role of Lp(a) in both instigating and, under certain conditions, mitigating inflammation is particularly noteworthy. This review finds that Lp(a) plays a complex role in the development of ASCVD through its involvement in inflammatory pathways. The interplay between Lp(a) levels and inflammatory responses highlights its potential as a target for therapeutic intervention. These insights could pave the way for novel approaches in managing and preventing ASCVD, urging further investigation into Lp(a) as a therapeutic target.

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.