Association of LPA Variants With Risk of Coronary Disease and the Implications for Lipoprotein(a)-Lowering Therapies: A Mendelian Randomization Analysis

A potentially underestimated predictor of coronary artery disease risk: The ApoB/ApoA1 ratio

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide, and statin therapy is the cornerstone of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, clinical practice is unsatisfactory, and there is significant interest in the risk of residual cardiovascular events. Traditional study methods make it difficult to exclude the crosstalk of confounding factors, and we investigated the impact of the ApoB/ApoA1 ratio on CVD using two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) and multivariate Mendelian randomization (MVMR) methods.

Methods

Two-sample MR and MVMR analyses were performed using pooled statistics from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of ApoB/ApoA1 ratio (BAR), lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)), and triglyceride (TG) in Europeans to assess the causal relationship between BAR, Lp(a), and TG with coronary artery disease (CAD).

Results

The genetic prediction of BAR was significantly correlated with CAD (Inverse variance weighted (IVW) beta = 0.255; OR = 1.291; 95 % CI = 1.061-1.571; P = 0.011) in a two-sample MR analysis. MVMR studies showed that BAR (beta = 0.373; OR = 1.452; 95 % CI = 1.305-1.615; P = 7.217e-12), Lp (a) (beta = 0.238; OR = 1.269; 95 % CI = 1.216-1.323; P = 2.990e-28), and TG (beta = 0.155; OR = 1.168; 95 % CI = 1.074-1.270; P = 2.829e-04) were significantly associated with CAD. After further colinearity analyses of LASSO regressions, the results of multivariate analyses were similar for IVW, MR-Egger, MR-Lasso, and median methods.

Conclusion

BAR is causally related to coronary artery disease. BAR is an independent predictor of CAD risk, independent of routine lipid measurements and other risk factors. TG and Lp(a) may be causally related to CAD, subject to verification in clinical practice.

Therapeutic Potential of Lipoprotein(a) Inhibitors

Increasing evidence has implicated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the causality of atherosclerosis and calcific aortic stenosis. This has stimulated immense interest in developing novel approaches to integrating Lp(a) into the setting of cardiovascular prevention. Current guidelines advocate universal measurement of Lp(a) levels, with the potential to influence cardiovascular risk assessment and triage of higher-risk patients to use of more intensive preventive therapies. In parallel, considerable activity has been undertaken to develop novel therapeutics with the potential to achieve selective and substantial reductions in Lp(a) levels. Early studies of antisense oligonucleotides (e.g., mipomersen, pelacarsen), RNA interference (e.g., olpasiran, zerlasiran, lepodisiran) and small molecule inhibitors (e.g., muvalaplin) have demonstrated effective Lp(a) lowering and good tolerability. These agents are moving forward in clinical development, in order to determine whether Lp(a) lowering reduces cardiovascular risk. The results of these studies have the potential to transform our approach to the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Associations of lipids and lipid-modifying drug target genes with atrial fibrillation risk based on genomic data

BACKGROUND

The causal associations of lipids and the drug target genes with atrial fibrillation (AF) risk remain obscure. We aimed to investigate the causal associations using genetic evidence.

METHODS

Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses were conducted using summary-level genome-wide association studies (GWASs) in European and East Asian populations. Lipid profiles (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and lipoprotein[a]) and lipid-modifying drug target genes (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9, NPC1-like intracellular cholesterol transporter 1, apolipoprotein C3, angiopoietin-like 3, and lipoprotein[a]) were used as exposures. AF was used as an outcome. The inverse variance weighted method was applied as the primary method. Summary-data-based Mendelian randomization analyses were performed for further validation using expression quantitative trait loci data. Mediation analyses were conducted to explore the indirect effect of coronary heart disease.

RESULTS

In the European population, MR analyses demonstrated that elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) increased AF risk. Moreover, analyses focusing on drug targets revealed that the genetically proxied target gene LPA, which simulates the effects of drug intervention by reducing lipoprotein(a), exhibited an association with AF risk. This association was validated in independent datasets. There were no consistent and significant associations observed for other traits when analyzed in different datasets. This finding was also corroborated by Summary-data-based Mendelian randomization analyses between LPA and AF. Mediation analyses revealed that coronary heart disease plays a mediating role in this association. However, in the East Asian population, no statistically significant evidence was observed to support these associations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided genetic evidence that Lp(a) may be a causal factor for AF and that LPA may represent a promising pharmacological target for preventing AF in the European population.

Lipoprotein(a): Are we ready for large-scale clinical trials?

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are currently the most important disease threatening human health, which may be due to the high incidence of risk factors including hyperlipidemia. With the deepening of research on lipoprotein, lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] has been shown to be an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases and calcified aortic valve stenosis and is now an unaddressed "residual risk" in current CVD management. Accurate measurement of Lp(a) concentration is the basis for diagnosis and treatment of high Lp(a). This review summarized the Lp(a) structure, discussed the current problems in clinical measurement of plasma Lp(a) concentration and the effects of existing lipid-lowering therapies on Lp(a).

New targets and mechanisms of action for lipid-lowering and anti-inflammatory therapies in atherosclerosis: where does the field stand?

INTRODUCTION

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, despite widespread use of statins. There is a need to develop additional therapeutic strategies that will complement statins to achieve more effective reductions in cardiovascular risk.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides a comprehensive summary of current areas of therapeutic development targeting both lipid and inflammatory factors implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. In addition to develop of novel approaches that will produce more effective lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, clinical trials are currently evaluating the potential to target other atherogenic lipid parameters such as triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and Lp(a), in addition to promoting the biological properties of high-density lipoproteins. Targeting inflammation within the vascular wall has emerged as a new frontier in cardiovascular prevention, with early evidence that use of anti-inflammatory agents have the potential to reduce cardiovascular risk.

EXPERT OPINION

Clinical practice has an increasing array of therapeutic tools to achieve more effective lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol for high-risk patients. In addition, clinical trials have the potential to deliver a range of additional agents to the clinic, that target alternative lipid and inflammatory mediators. This will permit the potential to personalize cardiovascular prevention.

Single Ascending and Multiple-Dose Trial of Zerlasiran, a Short Interfering RNA Targeting Lipoprotein(a): A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Lipoprotein(a) is a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic stenosis, with no pharmacological treatments approved by regulatory authorities.

Objectives

To assess the safety and tolerability of zerlasiran, a short interfering RNA targeting hepatic synthesis of apolipoprotein(a), and effects on serum concentrations of lipoprotein(a).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Single- and multiple-dose study in healthy participants and patients with stable ASCVD, respectively, with lipoprotein(a) serum concentrations greater than 150 nmol/L, conducted at 7 research sites in the US, the Netherlands, UK, and Australia between November 18, 2020, and February 8, 2023, with last follow-up on August 23, 2023.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to receive (1) a single subcutaneous dose of placebo (n = 8), zerlasiran 300 mg (n = 6) or 600 mg (n = 6); or (2) 2 doses of placebo (n = 9), zerlasiran 200 mg (n = 9) at a 4-week interval or 300 mg (n = 9) or 450 mg (n = 9) at an 8-week interval.

Main Outcomes Measures

The primary outcome was safety and tolerability. Secondary outcomes included serum levels of zerlasiran and effects on lipoprotein(a) serum concentrations.

Results

Among 37 patients in the multiple-dose group (mean age, 56 [SD, 10.4] years; 15 [42%] women), 36 completed the trial. Among 14 participants with extended follow-up after single doses, 13 completed the trial. There were no serious adverse events. Median baseline lipoprotein(a) concentrations in the multiple-dose group were 288 (IQR, 199-352) nmol/L. Median changes in lipoprotein(a) concentration at 365 days after single doses were 14% (IQR, 13% to 15%) for the placebo group, -30% (IQR, -51% to -18%) for the 300 mg of zerlasiran group, and -29% (IQR, -39% to -7%) for the 600-mg dose group. After 2 doses, maximal median changes in lipoprotein(a) concentration were 19 (IQR, -17 to 28) nmol/L for the placebo group, -258 (IQR, -289 to -188) nmol/L for the 200 mg of zerlasiran group, -310 (IQR, -368 to -274) nmol/L for the 300-mg dose group, and -242 (IQR, -343 to -182) nmol/L for the 450-mg dose group, with maximal median percent change of 7% (IQR, -4% to 21%), -97% (IQR, -98% to -95%), -98% (IQR, -99% to -97%), and -99% (IQR, -99% to -98%), respectively, attenuating to 0.3% (IQR, -2% to 21%), -60% (IQR, -71% to -40%), -90% (IQR, -91% to -74%), and -89% (IQR, -91% to -76%) 201 days after administration.

Conclusions

Zerlasiran was well tolerated and reduced lipoprotein(a) concentrations with infrequent administration.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04606602.

Functional interrogation of cellular Lp(a) uptake by genome-scale CRISPR screening

An elevated level of lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), in the bloodstream has been causally linked to the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and calcific aortic valve stenosis. Steady state levels of circulating lipoproteins are modulated by their rate of clearance, but the identity of the Lp(a) uptake receptor(s) has been controversial. In this study, we performed a genome-scale CRISPR screen to functionally interrogate all potential Lp(a) uptake regulators in HuH7 cells. Strikingly, the top positive and negative regulators of Lp(a) uptake in our screen were LDLR and MYLIP, encoding the LDL receptor and its ubiquitin ligase IDOL, respectively. We also found a significant correlation for other genes with established roles in LDLR regulation. No other gene products, including those previously proposed as Lp(a) receptors, exhibited a significant effect on Lp(a) uptake in our screen. We validated the functional influence of LDLR expression on HuH7 Lp(a) uptake, confirmed in vitro binding between the LDLR extracellular domain and purified Lp(a), and detected an association between loss-of-function LDLR variants and increased circulating Lp(a) levels in the UK Biobank cohort. Together, our findings support a central role for the LDL receptor in mediating Lp(a) uptake by hepatocytes.

Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease: sifting the evidence to guide future research

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a genetically determined causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease including coronary heart disease, peripheral arterial disease, ischaemic stroke, and calcific aortic valve stenosis. Clinical trials of specific and potent Lp(a)-lowering drugs are currently underway. However, in clinical practice, widespread assessment of Lp(a) is still lacking despite several guideline recommendations to measure Lp(a) at least once in a lifetime in all adults to identify those at high or very high risk due to elevated levels. The present review provides an overview of key findings from observational and genetic Lp(a) studies, highlights the main challenges in observational Lp(a) studies, and proposes a minimum set of requirements to enhance the quality and harmonize the collection of Lp(a)-related data. Adherence to the recommendations set forth in the present manuscript is intended to enhance the quality of future observational Lp(a) studies, to better define thresholds for increased risk, and to better inform clinical trial design. The recommendations can also potentially assist in the interpretation and generalization of clinical trial findings, to improve care of patients with elevated Lp(a) and optimize treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease.

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

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

All we need to know about lipoprotein(a)

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], a genetically determined macromolecular complex, is independently and causally associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic stenosis via proposed proinflammatory, prothrombotic, and proatherogenic mechanisms. While Lp(a) measurement standardization issues are being resolved, several guidelines now support testing Lp(a) at least once in each adult's lifetime for ASCVD risk prediction which can foster implementation of more aggressive primary or secondary prevention therapies. Currently, there are several emerging targeted Lp(a) lowering therapies in active clinical investigation for safety and cardiovascular benefit among both primary and secondary prevention populations. First degree relatives of patients with high Lp(a) should be encouraged to undergo cascade screening. Primary prevention patients with high Lp(a) should consider obtaining a coronary calcium score for further risk estimation and to guide further ASCVD risk factor management including consideration of low dose aspirin therapy. Secondary prevention patients with high Lp(a) levels should consider adding PCSK9 inhibition to statin therapy.

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 [βiwv(baPWV) = -.0005, p = .8 and βiwv(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) Blood Levels and Cardiovascular Risk Reduction With Icosapent Ethyl

BACKGROUND

Elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) concentrations are associated with increased cardiovascular event risk even in the presence of well-controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, but few treatments are documented to reduce this residual risk.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this post hoc analysis of REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial) was to explore the cardiovascular benefit of icosapent ethyl (IPE) across a range of Lp(a) levels.

METHODS

A total of 8,179 participants receiving statin therapy with established cardiovascular disease or age ≥50 years with diabetes and ≥1 additional risk factor, fasting triglyceride 1.69 to 5.63 mmol/L, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 1.06 to 2.59 mmol/L were randomized to receive 2 g twice daily of IPE or matching placebo. Relationships between continuous baseline Lp(a) mass concentration and risk for first and total (first and subsequent) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were analyzed, along with the effects of IPE on first MACE among those with Lp(a) concentrations ≥50 or <50 mg/dL.

RESULTS

Among 7,026 participants (86% of those randomized) with baseline Lp(a) assessments, the median concentration was 11.6 mg/dL (Q1-Q3: 5.0-37.4 mg/dL). Lp(a) had significant relationships with first and total MACE (P < 0.0001), while event reductions with IPE did not vary across the range of Lp(a) (interaction P > 0.10). IPE significantly reduced first MACE in subgroups with concentrations ≥50 and <50 mg/dL.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline Lp(a) concentration was prognostic for MACE among participants with elevated triglyceride levels receiving statin therapy. Importantly, IPE consistently reduced MACE across a range of Lp(a) levels, including among those with clinically relevant elevations.

Dietary n-3 alpha-linolenic and n-6 linoleic acids modestly lower serum lipoprotein(a) concentration but differentially influence other atherogenic lipoprotein traits: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a causal, genetically determined cardiovascular risk factor. Limited evidence suggests that dietary unsaturated fat may increase serum Lp(a) concentration by 10-15 %. Linoleic acid may increase Lp(a) concentration through its endogenous conversion to arachidonic acid, a process regulated by the fatty acid desaturase (FADS) gene cluster. We aimed to compare the Lp(a) and other lipoprotein trait-modulating effects of dietary alpha-linolenic (ALA) and linoleic acids (LA). Additionally, we examined whether FADS1 rs174550 genotype modifies Lp(a) responses.

METHODS

A genotype-based randomized trial was performed in 118 men homozygous for FADS1 rs174550 SNP (TT or CC). After a 4-week run-in period, the participants were randomized to 8-week intervention diets enriched with either Camelina sativa oil (ALA diet) or sunflower oil (LA diet) 30-50 mL/day based on their BMI. Serum lipid profile was measured at baseline and at the end of the intervention.

RESULTS

ALA diet lowered serum Lp(a) concentration by 7.3 % (p = 0.003) and LA diet by 9.5 % (p < 0.001) (p = 0.089 for between-diet difference). Both diets led to greater absolute decreases in individuals with higher baseline Lp(a) concentration (p < 0.001). Concentrations of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), non-HDL-C, remnant-C, and apolipoprotein B were lowered more by the ALA diet (p < 0.01). Lipid or lipoprotein responses were not modified by the FADS1 rs174550 genotype.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable increase in either dietary ALA or LA from vegetable oils has a similar Lp(a)-lowering effect, whereas ALA may lower other major atherogenic lipids and lipoproteins to a greater extent than LA. Genetic differences in endogenous PUFA conversion may not influence serum Lp(a) concentration.

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.

The association of lipoprotein(a) and coronary artery calcium in asymptomatic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an atherogenic lipid particle associated with increased risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) events. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) score is a tool to diagnose subclinical atherosclerosis and guide clinical decision-making for primary prevention of CHD. Studies show conflicting results concerning the relationship between Lp(a) and CAC in asymptomatic populations. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the association of Lp(a) and CAC in asymptomatic patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane until April 2023 for studies evaluating the association between Lp(a) and CAC in asymptomatic patients. We evaluated CAC > 0 Agatston units, and CAC ≥ 100. Lp(a) was analysed as a continuous or dichotomous variable. We assessed the association between Lp(a) and CAC with pooled odds ratios (OR) adopting a random-effects model. A total of 23 105 patients from 18 studies were included in the meta-analysis with a mean age of 55.9 years, 46.4% female. Elevated Lp(a) increased the odds of CAC > 0 [OR 1.31; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.05-1.64; P = 0.02], CAC ≥100 (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.01-1.65; P = 0.04; ), and CAC progression (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.20-1.70; P < 0.01; ). For each increment of 1 mg/dL in Lp(a) there was a 1% in the odds of CAC > 0 (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.01-1.01; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Our findings of this meta-analysis suggest that Lp(a) is positively associated with a higher likelihood of CAC. Higher Lp(a) levels increased the odds of CAC >0. These data support the concept that Lp(a) is atherogenic, although with high heterogeneity and a low level of certainty.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

CRD42023422034.

KEY FINDINGS

Asymptomatic patients with elevated Lp(a) had 31% higher chances of having any coronary calcification (CAC > 0) and 29% higher chances of having more advanced calcification (CAC > 100). It increased the chances of having progression of coronary calcification over time by 43%. For each 1 mg/dL of Lp(a) there was an increment of 1% chance of having coronary calcification.

Polygenic scores for cardiovascular risk factors improve estimation of clinical outcomes in CCB treatment compared to pharmacogenetic variants alone

Pharmacogenetic variants are associated with clinical outcomes during Calcium Channel Blocker (CCB) treatment, yet whether the effects are modified by genetically predicted clinical risk factors is unknown. We analyzed 32,000 UK Biobank participants treated with dihydropiridine CCBs (mean 5.9 years), including 23 pharmacogenetic variants, and calculated polygenic scores for systolic and diastolic blood pressures, body fat mass, and other patient characteristics. Outcomes included treatment discontinuation and heart failure. Pharmacogenetic variant rs10898815-A (NUMA1) increased discontinuation rates, highest in those with high polygenic scores for fat mass. The RYR3 variant rs877087 T-allele alone modestly increased heart failure risks versus non-carriers (HR:1.13, p = 0.02); in patients with high polygenic scores for fat mass, lean mass, and lipoprotein A, risks were substantially elevated (HR:1.55, p = 4 × 10-5). Incorporating polygenic scores for adiposity and lipoprotein A may improve risk estimates of key clinical outcomes in CCB treatment such as treatment discontinuation and heart failure, compared to pharmacogenetic variants alone.

Consensus on lipoprotein(a) of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis. Literature review and recommendations for clinical practice

The irruption of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) in the study of cardiovascular risk factors is perhaps, together with the discovery and use of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (iPCSK9) inhibitor drugs, the greatest novelty in the field for decades. Lp(a) concentration (especially very high levels) has an undeniable association with certain cardiovascular complications, such as atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD) and aortic stenosis. However, there are several current limitations to both establishing epidemiological associations and specific pharmacological treatment. Firstly, the measurement of Lp(a) is highly dependent on the test used, mainly because of the characteristics of the molecule. Secondly, Lp(a) concentration is more than 80% genetically determined, so that, unlike other cardiovascular risk factors, it cannot be regulated by lifestyle changes. Finally, although there are many promising clinical trials with specific drugs to reduce Lp(a), currently only iPCSK9 (limited for use because of its cost) significantly reduces Lp(a). However, and in line with other scientific societies, the SEA considers that, with the aim of increasing knowledge about the contribution of Lp(a) to cardiovascular risk, it is relevant to produce a document containing the current status of the subject, recommendations for the control of global cardiovascular risk in people with elevated Lp(a) and recommendations on the therapeutic approach to patients with elevated Lp(a).

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.

Elevated Lp(a): Guidance for Identifying and Managing Patients

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a unique low-density lipoprotein-like lipoprotein that is considered an independent and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and calcific aortic valve stenosis. The Lp(a) molecule also contains apolipoprotein A and apolipoprotein B, which collectively promote atherosclerosis, thrombosis, and inflammation. Lp(a) is highly genetic and minimally responsive to nonpharmacological measures. Lp(a) serum levels ≥125 nmol/L are associated with increased ASCVD risk, but this threshold has not been accepted universally. Elevated Lp(a) is the most common genetic dyslipidemia affecting approximately 20% of the general population. Certain currently available lipid-lowering drugs, including the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 therapies, produce moderate reductions in Lp(a); however, none are indicated for the treatment of elevated Lp(a). There are currently four investigational RNA-based therapeutic agents that reduce Lp(a) by 70% to 100%. Two of these agents are being evaluated for ASCVD risk reduction in adequately powered outcomes trials, with results expected in 2 to 3 years. Until such therapies become available and demonstrate favorable clinical outcomes, strategies for elevated Lp(a) primarily involve early and intensive ASCVD risk factor management.

Lp(a) - an overlooked risk factor

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an increasingly discussed and studied risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic valve stenosis. Many genetic and epidemiological studies support the important causal role that Lp(a) plays in the incidence of cardiovascular disease. Although dependent upon the threshold and unit of measurement of Lp(a), most estimates suggest between 20 and 30% of the world's population have elevated serum levels of Lp(a). Lp(a) levels are predominantly mediated by genetics and are not significantly modified by lifestyle interventions. Efforts are ongoing to develop effective pharmacotherapies to lower Lp(a) and to determine if lowering Lp(a) with these medications ultimately decreases the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events. In this review, the genetics and pathophysiological properties of Lp(a) will be discussed as well as the epidemiological data demonstrating its impact on the incidence of cardiovascular disease. Recommendations for screening and how to currently approach patients with elevated Lp(a) are also noted. Finally, the spectrum of pharmacotherapies under development for Lp(a) lowering is detailed.

Association evaluations of oral anticoagulants with dementia risk based on genomic and real-world data

BACKGROUND

Several observational studies have suggested that oral anticoagulants (OACs) might reduce the risk of dementia in the elderly, but the evidence is inconclusive. And the consistency of this relationship across different OAC classes and dementia subtypes is still uncertain.

METHODS

To comprehensively evaluate this association, we applied Mendelian randomization (MR) combined with pharmacovigilance analysis. MR was used to assess the associations between genetic proxies for three target genes of OACs (VKORC1, F2, and F10) and dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD). This genetic analysis was supplemented with real-world pharmacovigilance data, employing disproportionality analysis for more reliable causal inference.

RESULTS

Increased expression of the VKORC1 gene was strongly associated with increased risk of dementia, especially for AD (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.14-1.43; p value < 0.001). Based on pharmacovigilance data, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs, inhibitors targeting VKORC1) exhibited a protective effect against dementia risk (ROR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.28-0.67). Additional sensitivity analyses, including different MR models and cohorts, supported these results. Conversely, no strong causal associations of genetically proxied F2 and F10 target genes with dementia and its subtypes were found.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals that the inhibition of genetically proxied VKORC1 expression or VKAs exposure is associated with a reduced risk of Alzheimer's dementia. However, there is little evidence to support similar associations with direct oral anticoagulants (F2 inhibitors and F10 inhibitors). Further research is warranted to clinically validate our findings.

Targeting Lipoprotein(a): Can RNA Therapeutics Provide the Next Step in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease?

Numerous genetic and epidemiologic studies have demonstrated an association between elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) and cardiovascular disease. As a result, lowering Lp(a) levels is widely recognized as a promising strategy for reducing the risk of new-onset coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure. Lp(a) consists of a low-density lipoprotein-like particle with covalently linked apolipoprotein A (apo[a]) and apolipoprotein B-100, which explains its pro-thrombotic, pro-inflammatory, and pro-atherogenic properties. Lp(a) serum concentrations are genetically determined by the apo(a) isoform, with shorter isoforms having a higher rate of particle synthesis. To date, there are no approved pharmacological therapies that effectively reduce Lp(a) levels. Promising treatment approaches targeting apo(a) expression include RNA-based drugs such as pelacarsen, olpasiran, SLN360, and lepodisiran, which are currently in clinical trials. In this comprehensive review, we provide a detailed overview of RNA-based therapeutic approaches and discuss the recent advances and challenges of RNA therapeutics specifically designed to reduce Lp(a) levels and thus the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Executive summary of the Hellenic Atherosclerosis Society guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemias - 2023

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the main cause of death worldwide, and thus its prevention, early diagnosis and treatment is of paramount importance. Dyslipidemia represents a major ASCVD risk factor that should be adequately managed at different clinical settings. 2023 guidelines of the Hellenic Atherosclerosis Society focus on the assessment of ASCVD risk, laboratory evaluation of dyslipidemias, new and emerging lipid-lowering drugs, as well as diagnosis and treatment of lipid disorders in women, the elderly and in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, stroke, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Statin intolerance is also discussed.

Genetically determined blood pressure, antihypertensive medications, and risk of intracranial aneurysms and aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A Mendelian randomization study

INTRODUCTION

Observational studies suggest that different classes of antihypertensive drugs may have different effects on the occurrence of intracranial aneurysms (IA) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). However, the reported results in previous studies are inconsistent, and randomized data are absent. We performed a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis to study the causal effects of genetically determined blood pressure (BP) and genetic proxies for antihypertensive drug classes on the risk of IA and SAH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Genetic instruments and outcome data were obtained from independent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) or published data, which were exclusively restricted to European ancestry. Causal relationships were identified using inverse-variance weighted MR analyses and a series of statistical sensitivity analyses. The FinnGen consortium was used for repeated analysis to verify results obtained from the above GWAS.

RESULTS

Two-sample MR analysis showed that genetically determined Systolic BP, Dystolic BP, and Pulse Pressure were related to a higher risk of IA and SAH. Based on identified single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that influence the effect of calcium channel blockers (CCB, 42 SNPs), beta-blockers (BB, 8 SNPs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI, 2 SNPs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB, 1 SNPs), and thiazides (5 SNPs), genetically determined effect of CCBs was associated with a higher risk of IA (OR, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03-1.10], p = 5.02 × 10-5) and SAH (OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.09], p = 1.84 × 10-3). No associations were found between other antihypertensive drugs and the risk of IA or SAH. The effect of CCBs on SAH was confirmed in FinnGenconsortium samples (OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.08], p = 0.042).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This MR analysis supports the role of elevated blood pressure in the occurrence of intracranial aneurysms and subarachnoid hemorrhage. However, genetic proxies for calcium channel blockers were associated with an increased risk of intracranial aneurysms and subarachnoid hemorrhage. Further studies are required to confirm these findings and investigate the underlying mechanisms.

Causal association between lipoproteins and risk of coronary artery disease-a systematic review and meta-analysis of Mendelian randomization studies

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the causal effect of lipoproteins to the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) by systematic review and meta-analysis of the associated Mendelian randomization (MR) studies.

METHODS

This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42023465430). Searches from the databases (e.g., PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science) and non-database sources to collect MR studies. The search time frame was from the database inception to August 2023. After data extraction, quality evaluation was performed, and the meta-analysis with bias evaluation was carried out with RevMan software.

RESULTS

A total of 5,828,409 participants from 21 records were included. Quality and bias assessment was performed by evaluating the internal three assumptions of MR studies. Meta-analysis for the causal association between non-HDL lipoproteins and CAD showed a significantly positive association between LDL and CAD (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.26-1.49; P < 0.001, I2 = 95%), apoB and CAD (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11-1.71; P = 0.003, I2 = 98%), and Lp(a) and CAD (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12-1.31; P < 0.001, I2 = 99%). Interestingly, although there was no statistical significance in the association between VLDL/apoA1 and CAD (both P > 0.05), the pooled non-HDL lipoproteins showed a significantly positive association with CAD (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.22-1.34; P < 0.001, I2 = 99%). For the HDL lipoproteins, the pooled OR showed a significantly negative association with CAD (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.98; P = 0.002, I2 = 72%). However, the protective effect of HDL on CAD diminished when analyzed together with apoA1 and/or apoB (both P > 0.05). The funnel plot did not show serious publication bias, and sensitivity analysis performed relatively well robustness of the causal association of LDL, apoB, Lp(a), and total cholesterol with CAD.

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis suggests an overall effect of causal association between lipoproteins and CAD. Most of the non-HDL lipoproteins (LDL, apoB, Lp(a)) promote CAD, while the protective effect of HDL in CAD still needs to be verified in the future.

Lipoprotein (a) is a predictor of non-achievement of LDL-C goals in patients with chronic heart disease

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] concentration influences serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. How it influences the achievement of LDL-C targets established in the guidelines is not well studied. Our aim was to know the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) levels in patients with coronary artery disease, and to assess its influence on the achievement of LDL-C targets.

METHOD

We conducted a cross-sectional study in a cardiology department in Spain. A total of 870 patients with stable coronary artery disease had their lipid profile determined, including Lp(a). Patients were stratified into 2 groups according to Lp(a)>50mg/dL and Lp(a)≤50mg/dL. The association of Lp(a)>50mg/dL with achievement of LDL-C targets was assessed by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The prevalence of Lp(a)>50mg/dL was 30.8%. Patients with Lp(a)>50mg/dL had higher baseline (142.30±47.54 vs. 130.47±40.75mg/dL; p=0.0001) and current (72.91±26.44 vs. 64.72±25.30mg/dL; p=0.0001), despite the fact that they were treated with more high-potency statins (77.2 vs. 70.9%; p=0.058) and more combination lipid-lowering therapy (37.7 vs. 25.7%; p=0.001). The proportion of patients achieving target LDL-C was lower in those with Lp(a)>50mg/dL. Independent predictors of having elevated Lp(a) levels>50mg/dL were the use of high-potency statins (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.08-2.14), combination lipid-lowering therapy with ezetimibe (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.45-2.73) and failure to achieve a LDL-C ≤55mg/dL (OR 2.3; 95% CI 1.63-3.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated Lp(a) levels influence LDL-C levels and hinder the achievement of targets in patients at very high cardiovascular risk. New drugs that act directly on Lp(a) are needed in these patients.

Beyond antithrombotics: recent advances in pharmacological risk factor management for secondary stroke prevention

Patients with ischaemic stroke represent a diverse group with several cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities, which classify them as patients at very high risk of stroke recurrence, cardiovascular adverse events or death. In addition to antithrombotic therapy, which is important for secondary stroke prevention in most patients with stroke, cardiovascular risk factor assessment and treatment also contribute significantly to the reduction of mortality and morbidity. Dyslipidaemia, diabetes mellitus and hypertension represent common and important modifiable cardiovascular risk factors among patients with stroke, while early recognition and treatment may have a significant impact on patients' future risk of major cardiovascular events. In recent years, there have been numerous advancements in pharmacological agents aimed at secondary cardiovascular prevention. These innovations, combined with enhanced awareness and interventions targeting adherence and persistence to treatment, as well as lifestyle modifications, have the potential to substantially alleviate the burden of cardiovascular disease, particularly in patients who have experienced ischaemic strokes. This review summarises the evidence on the contemporary advances on pharmacological treatment and future perspectives of secondary stroke prevention beyond antithrombotic treatment.

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.

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.

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.

Novel therapeutic targets and emerging treatments for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Even with excellent control of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, adverse cardiovascular events remain a significant clinical problem worldwide, including among those without any traditional ASCVD risk factors. It is necessary to identify novel sources of residual risk and to develop targeted strategies that address them. Lipoprotein(a) has become increasingly recognized as a new cardiovascular risk determinant. Large-scale clinical trials have also signalled the potential additive cardiovascular benefits of decreasing triglycerides beyond lowering LDL-C levels. Since CANTOS (Anti-inflammatory Therapy with Canakinumab for Atherosclerotic Disease) demonstrated that antibodies against interleukin-1β may decrease recurrent cardiovascular events in secondary prevention, various anti-inflammatory medications used for rheumatic conditions and new monoclonal antibody therapeutics have undergone rigorous evaluation. These data build towards a paradigm shift in secondary ASCVD prevention, underscoring the value of targeting multiple biological pathways in the management of both lipid levels and systemic inflammation. Evolving knowledge of the immune system, and the gut microbiota may result in opportunities for modifying previously unrecognized sources of residual inflammatory risk. This review provides an overview of novel therapeutic targets for ASCVD and emerging treatments with a focus on mechanisms, efficacy, and safety.

Mendelian Randomization as a Tool for Cardiovascular Research: A Review

Importance

Mendelian randomization (MR) is a statistical approach that has become increasingly popular in the field of cardiovascular disease research. It offers a way to infer potentially causal relationships between risk factors and outcomes using observational data, which is particularly important in cases where randomized clinical trials are not feasible or ethical. With the growing availability of large genetic data sets, MR has become a powerful and accessible tool for studying the risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

Observations

MR uses genetic variation associated with modifiable exposures or risk factors to mitigate biases that affect traditional observational study designs. The approach uses genetic variants that are randomly assigned at conception as proxies for exposure to a risk factor, mimicking a randomized clinical trial. By comparing the outcomes of individuals with different genetic variants, researchers may draw causal inferences about the effects of specific risk factors on cardiovascular disease, provided assumptions are met that address (1) the association between each genetic variant and risk factor and (2) the association of the genetic variants with confounders and (3) that the association between each genetic variant and the outcome only occurs through the risk factor. Like other observational designs, MR has limitations, which include weak instruments that are not strongly associated with the exposure of interest, linkage disequilibrium where genetic instruments influence the outcome via correlated rather than direct effects, overestimated genetic associations, and selection and survival biases. In addition, many genetic databases and MR studies primarily include populations genetically similar to European reference populations; improved diversity of participants in these databases and studies is critically needed.

Conclusions and Relevance

This review provides an overview of MR methodology, including assumptions, strengths, and limitations. Several important applications of MR in cardiovascular disease research are highlighted, including the identification of drug targets, evaluation of potential cardiovascular risk factors, as well as emerging methodology. Overall, while MR alone can never prove a causal relationship beyond reasonable doubt, MR offers a rigorous approach for investigating possible causal relationships in observational data and has the potential to transform our understanding of the etiology and treatment of cardiovascular disease.

The ins and outs of lipoprotein(a) assay methods

Pathophysiological, epidemiological and genetic studies convincingly showed lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) to be a causal mediator of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). This happens through a myriad of mechanisms including activation of innate immune cells, endothelial cells as well as platelets. Although these certainties whether or not Lp(a) is ready for prime-time clinical use remain debated. Thus, remit of the present review is to provide an overview of different methods that have been employed for the measurement of Lp(a). The methods include dynamic light scattering, multi-angle light scattering analysis, near-field imaging, sedimentation, gel filtration, and electron microscopy. The development of multiple Lp(a) detection methods is vital for improved prediction of ASCVD risk.

Lp(a) and risk of cardiovascular disease - A review of existing evidence and emerging concepts

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death among adults in the United States. There has been significant advancement in the diagnosis and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and its underlying risk factors. In certain populations, there remains a significant residual risk despite adequate lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and control of traditional risk factors. This has led to an interest in research to identify additional risk factors that contribute to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Elevated lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] has been identified as an independent risk factor contributing to an increased risk for CVD. There are also ethnic and racial disparities in Lp(a) inheritance that need to be understood. This paper reviews the current literature on lipoprotein a, proposed mechanisms of actions for cardiovascular disease, recommendations for testing, and the current and emerging therapies for lowering Lp(a).

Mendelian randomization for cardiovascular diseases: principles and applications

Large-scale genome-wide association studies conducted over the last decade have uncovered numerous genetic variants associated with cardiometabolic traits and risk factors. These discoveries have enabled the Mendelian randomization (MR) design, which uses genetic variation as a natural experiment to improve causal inferences from observational data. By analogy with the random assignment of treatment in randomized controlled trials, the random segregation of genetic alleles when DNA is transmitted from parents to offspring at gamete formation is expected to reduce confounding in genetic associations. Mendelian randomization analyses make a set of assumptions that must hold for valid results. Provided that the assumptions are well justified for the genetic variants that are employed as instrumental variables, MR studies can inform on whether a putative risk factor likely has a causal effect on the disease or not. Mendelian randomization has been increasingly applied over recent years to predict the efficacy and safety of existing and novel drugs targeting cardiovascular risk factors and to explore the repurposing potential of available drugs. This review article describes the principles of the MR design and some applications in cardiovascular epidemiology.

Lepodisiran, an Extended-Duration Short Interfering RNA Targeting Lipoprotein(a): A Randomized Dose-Ascending Clinical Trial

Importance

Epidemiological and genetic data have implicated lipoprotein(a) as a potentially modifiable risk factor for atherosclerotic disease and aortic stenosis, but there are no approved pharmacological treatments.

Objectives

To assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and effects of lepodisiran on lipoprotein(a) concentrations after single doses of the drug; lepodisiran is a short interfering RNA directed at hepatic synthesis of apolipoprotein(a), an essential component necessary for assembly of lipoprotein(a) particles.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A single ascending-dose trial conducted at 5 clinical research sites in the US and Singapore that enrolled 48 adults without cardiovascular disease and with lipoprotein(a) serum concentrations of 75 nmol/L or greater (or ≥30 mg/dL) between November 18, 2020, and December 7, 2021; the last follow-up visit occurred on November 9, 2022.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to receive placebo or a single dose of lepodisiran (4 mg, 12 mg, 32 mg, 96 mg, 304 mg, or 608 mg) administered subcutaneously.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the safety and tolerability of the single ascending doses of lepodisiran. The secondary outcomes included plasma levels of lepodisiran for 168 days after dose administration and changes in fasting lipoprotein(a) serum concentrations through a maximum follow-up of 336 days (48 weeks).

Results

Of the 48 participants enrolled (mean age, 46.8 [SD, 11.6] years; 35% were women), 1 serious adverse event occurred. The plasma concentrations of lepodisiran reached peak levels within 10.5 hours and were undetectable by 48 hours. The median baseline lipoprotein(a) concentration was 111 nmol/L (IQR, 78 to 134 nmol/L) in the placebo group, 78 nmol/L (IQR, 50 to 152 nmol/L) in the 4 mg of lepodisiran group, 97 nmol/L (IQR, 86 to 107 nmol/L) in the 12-mg dose group, 120 nmol/L (IQR, 110 to 188 nmol/L) in the 32-mg dose group, 167 nmol/L (IQR, 124 to 189 nmol/L) in the 96-mg dose group, 96 nmol/L (IQR, 72 to 132 nmol/L) in the 304-mg dose group, and 130 nmol/L (IQR, 87 to 151 nmol/L) in the 608-mg dose group. The maximal median change in lipoprotein(a) concentration was -5% (IQR, -16% to 11%) in the placebo group, -41% (IQR, -47% to -20%) in the 4 mg of lepodisiran group, -59% (IQR, -66% to -53%) in the 12-mg dose group, -76% (IQR, -76% to -75%) in the 32-mg dose group, -90% (IQR, -94% to -85%) in the 96-mg dose group, -96% (IQR, -98% to -95%) in the 304-mg dose group, and -97% (IQR, -98% to -96%) in the 608-mg dose group. At day 337, the median change in lipoprotein(a) concentration was -94% (IQR, -94% to -85%) in the 608 mg of lepodisiran group.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this phase 1 study of 48 participants with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels, lepodisiran was well tolerated and produced dose-dependent, long-duration reductions in serum lipoprotein(a) concentrations. The findings support further study of lepodisiran.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04914546.

Multi-proteomic Biomarker Risk Scores for Predicting Risk and Guiding Therapy in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) are at high residual risk for adverse events, despite guideline-based treatments. Herein, we aimed to determine whether risk scores based on multiple circulating biomarkers that represent activation of various pathophysiologically important pathways involved in atherosclerosis and myocardial dysfunction help identify those at greatest residual risk.

RECENT FINDINGS

Numerous circulating proteins, representing dysregulation of the pathways involved in the development and stability of coronary and myocardial diseases, have been identified. When aggregated together, biomarker risk scores (BRS) more accurately stratify patients with established CAD that may help target interventions in those individuals who are at elevated risk. Moreover, intensification of guideline-based therapies has been associated with parallel improvements in both BRS and outcomes, indicating that these risk scores may be employed clinically to target therapy. Multi-protein BRS are predictive of risk, independent of, and in addition to traditional risk factor assessments in patients with CAD. Those with elevated risk may benefit from optimization of therapies, and improvements in the BRS will identify those with improved outcomes.

Association between blood pressure and different antihypertensive drugs with outcome after ischemic stroke: A Mendelian randomization study

BACKGROUND

Observational studies suggest an association between blood pressure (BP) and functional outcomes in ischemic stroke patients but whether this is causal or due to confounding is uncertain. We used Mendelian randomization (MR) to assess causality, and also explore whether particular classes of anti-hypertensives were associated with a better outcome after ischemic stroke.

METHODS

We selected genetic variants associated with systolic and diastolic BP and BP-lowering variants in genes encoding antihypertensive drugs from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on 757,601 individuals. The primary outcome was 3-month dependence or death defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) of 3-6. The secondary outcome was disability or death after 90 days defined as mRS 2-6. Cochran's Q statistic in the inverse variance weighted (IVW) model, the weighted median, MR-Egger regression, leave-one-single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-out analysis, MR-Pleiotropy Residual Sum and Outlier methods were adopted as sensitivity analyses. To validate our primary results, we performed independent repeat analyses and Bi-directional MR analyses.

RESULTS

Genetic predisposition to higher systolic and diastolic BP was associated with disability or death after ischemic stroke in univariable IVW MR analysis (odds ratio (OR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05-1.59, p = 0.014; OR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.07-1.51, p = 0.006, respectively). Pulse pressure was associated with both dependence or death and disability or death after ischemic stroke (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02-1.08, p = 0.002; OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01-1.07, p = 0.009, respectively). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and calcium channel blocker (CCB) were significantly associated with improved functional outcomes (dependence or death, OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.62-0.94, p = 0.009; OR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83-0.97, p = 0.005). Proxies for β-blockers, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), and thiazides failed to show associations with functional outcomes (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

We provide evidence for an association of genetic predisposition to higher BP with a higher risk of 3-month functional dependence after ischemic stroke. Our findings support ACEI and CCB as promising antihypertensive drugs for improving functional outcomes in ischemic stroke.

Residual risks and evolving atherosclerotic plaques

Atherosclerotic disease of the coronary and carotid arteries is the primary global cause of significant mortality and morbidity. The chronic occlusive diseases have changed the epidemiological landscape of health problems both in developed and the developing countries. Despite the enormous benefit of advanced revascularization techniques, use of statins, and successful attempts of targeting modifiable risk factors, like smoking and exercise in the last four decades, there is still a definite "residual risk" in the population, as evidenced by many prevalent and new cases every year. Here, we highlight the burden of the atherosclerotic diseases and provide substantial clinical evidence of the residual risks in these diseases despite advanced management settings, with emphasis on strokes and cardiovascular risks. We critically discussed the concepts and potential underlying mechanisms of the evolving atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary and carotid arteries. This has changed our understanding of the plaque biology, the progression of unstable vs stable plaques, and the evolution of plaque prior to the occurrence of a major adverse atherothrombotic event. This has been facilitated using intravascular ultrasound, optical coherence tomography, and near-infrared spectroscopy in the clinical settings to achieve surrogate end points. These techniques are now providing exquisite information on plaque size, composition, lipid volume, fibrous cap thickness and other features that were previously not possible with conventional angiography.

Burden of elevated lipoprotein(a) among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: Evidence from a systematic literature review and feasibility assessment of meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level is an independent genetic risk factor that increases the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) by 2-4 fold. We aimed to report the burden of clinically relevant elevated Lp(a) in secondary prevention ASCVD population as the evaluation of such evidence is lacking.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted using Embase®, MEDLINE®, and MEDLINE® In-Process databases to identify studies reporting burden of elevated Lp(a) levels from January 1, 2010, to March 28, 2022. Full-text, English-language studies including ≥500 participants with ≥1 Lp(a) assessment were included.

RESULTS

Sixty-one studies reported clinical burden of elevated Lp(a). Of these, 25 observational studies and one clinical trial reported clinical burden of clinically relevant elevated Lp(a) levels. Major clinical outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; n = 20), myocardial infarction (MI; n = 11), revascularization (n = 10), stroke (n = 10), cardiovascular (CV) mortality (n = 9), and all-cause mortality (n = 10). Elevated Lp(a) levels significantly increased the risk of MACE (n = 15) and revascularization (n = 8), while they demonstrated a trend for positive association with remaining CV outcomes. Meta-analysis was not feasible for included studies due to heterogeneity in Lp(a) thresholds, outcome definitions, and patient characteristics. Three studies reported humanistic burden. Patients with elevated Lp(a) levels had higher odds of manifesting cognitive impairment (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval; CI]: 1.62 [1.11-2.37]) and disability related to stroke (OR [95% CI]:1.46 [1.23-1.72)]) (n = 2). Elevated Lp(a) levels negatively correlated with health-related quality of life (R = -0.166, p = 0.014) (n = 1). A single study reported no association between elevated Lp(a) levels and economic burden.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR demonstrated a significant association of elevated Lp(a) levels with major CV outcomes and increased humanistic burden in secondary prevention ASCVD population. These results reinforce the need to quantify and manage Lp(a) for CV risk reduction and to perform further studies to characterize the economic burden.

Developing an SI-traceable Lp(a) reference measurement system: a pilgrimage to selective and accurate apo(a) quantification

In the past decade a remarkable rebirth of serum/plasma lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) as an independent risk factor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) occurred. Updated evidence for a causal continuous association in different ethnic groups between Lp(a) concentrations and cardiovascular outcomes has been published in the latest European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) Lp(a) consensus statement. Interest in measuring Lp(a) at least once in a person's lifetime moreover originates from the development of promising new Lp(a) lowering drugs. Accurate and clinically effective Lp(a) tests are of key importance for the timely detection of high-risk individuals and for future evaluation of the therapeutic effects of Lp(a) lowering medication. To this end, it is necessary to improve the performance and standardization of existing Lp(a) tests, as is also noted in the Lp(a) consensus statement. Consequently, a state-of-the-art internationally endorsed reference measurement system (RMS) must be in place that allows for performance evaluation of Lp(a) field tests in order to certify their validity and accuracy. An ELISA-based RMS from Northwest Lipid Research Laboratory (University of Washington, Seattle, USA) has been available since the 1990s. A next-generation apo(a)/Lp(a) RMS is now being developed by a working group from the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). The envisioned apo(a) RMS is based on the direct measurement of selected proteotypic fragments generated after proteolytic digestion using quantitative protein mass spectrometry (MS). The choice for an MS-based RMS enables selective measurement of the proteotypic peptides and is by design apo(a) isoform insensitive. Clearly, the equimolar conversion of apo(a) into the surrogate peptide measurands is required to obtain accurate Lp(a) results. The completeness of proteolysis under reaction conditions from the candidate reference measurement procedure (RMP) has been demonstrated for the quantifying apo(a) peptides. Currently, the candidate apo(a) RMP is endorsed by the IFCC and recommendations for suitable secondary reference materials have been made in a recent commutability study paper. Ongoing efforts toward a complete apo(a) RMS that is listed by the Joint Committee on Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM) are focused on the peptide-based calibration and the establishment of a network of calibration laboratories running the apo(a) RMS in a harmonized way. Once completed, it will be the holy grail for evaluation and certification of Lp(a) field methods.

The Promise of PCSK9 and Lipoprotein(a) as Targets for Gene Silencing Therapies

PURPOSE

High plasma concentrations of LDL and lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) are independent and causal risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). There is an unmet therapeutic need for high-risk patients with elevated levels of LDL-C and/or Lp(a). Recent advances in the development of nucleic acids for gene silencing (ie, triantennary N-acetylgalactosamine conjugated antisense-oligonucleotides [ASOs] and small interfering RNA [siRNA]) targeting proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) and Lp(a) offer effective and sustainable therapies.

METHODS

Related articles in the English language were identified through a search for original and review articles in the PubMed database using the following key terms: cardiovascular disease, dyslipidemia, PCSK9 inhibitors, Lp(a), LDL-cholesterol, familial hypercholesterolemia, siRNA, and antisense oligonucleotide and clinical trials (either alone or in combination).

FINDINGS

Inclisiran, the most advanced siRNA-treatment targeting hepatic PCSK9, is well tolerated, producing a >30% reduction on LDL-C levels in randomized controlled trials. Pelacarsen is the most clinical advanced ASO, whereas olpasiran and SLN360 are the 2 siRNAs directed against the mRNA of the LPA gene. Evidence suggests that all Lp(a)-targeting agents are safe and well tolerated, with robust and sustained reduction in plasma Lp(a) concentration up to 70% to 90% in individuals with elevated Lp(a) levels.

IMPLICATIONS

Cumulative evidence from clinical trials supports the value of ASO and siRNA therapies targeting the synthesis of PCSK9 and Lp(a) for lowering LDL-C and Lp(a) in patients with established ASCVD or high risk of ASCVD. Further research is needed to examine whether gene silencing therapy could improve clinical outcomes in patients with elevated LDL and/or Lp(a) levels. Confirmation of the tolerability and cost-effectiveness of long-term inhibition of PCSK9 and Lp(a) with this approach is essential.

Prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy in invasively treated acute coronary syndrome patients with different lipoprotein(a) concentrations

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was positively associated with recurrent ischemic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This study was performed to investigate the effect of Lp(a) levels on outcomes of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) > 1 year versus DAPT ≤ 1 year after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in this population.

METHODS

A total of 4,357 ACS patients who were event-free at 1 year after PCI were selected from the Fuwai PCI Registry, and patients were stratified into four groups according to DAPT duration (≤ 1 year vs. > 1 year) and Lp(a) levels (≤ 30 mg/dL vs. > 30 mg/dL). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction or stroke.

RESULTS

After 2.4-year follow-up, the incidence of MACCE (HRadjusted 0.284, 95% CI 0.115-0.700; HRIPTW 0.351, 95% CI 0.164-0.751) were significantly reduced in DAPT > 1 year group than that in DAPT ≤ 1 year group in individuals with elevated Lp(a) levels. However, in individuals with normal Lp(a) levels, no statistically difference was found between these two groups in terms of MACCE, although the risks of all-cause death and definite/probable stent thrombosis were lower in DAPT > 1 year group. Notably, the risk of clinically relevant bleeding did not statistically differ between these two groups in individuals with different Lp(a) levels.

CONCLUSIONS

This study firstly demonstrated that extended DAPT (> 1 year) was statistically associated with lower risk of ischemic events in ACS patients with elevated Lp(a) levels after PCI, whereas this association was not found in individuals with normal Lp(a) levels.

Lipid-Lowering Therapy after Acute Coronary Syndrome in Outpatient Practice-How to Achieve Goal

BACKGROUND

Secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease involves the use of optimal pharmacological treatment and modification of risk factors through lifestyle changes. Recent evidence demonstrates that the major initiating event in atherogenesis is the storage of low-density lipoproteins.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to compare the efficacy in achieving the therapeutic lipid target in relation to the frequency of follow-up at selected time points and to determine the safety and tolerability of cholesterol-lowering drugs (statins, ezetimibe).

METHODS

This was a prospective analysis of 72 consecutive patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome: ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Patients were consecutively divided into two groups: first, with follow-up and laboratory tests at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after hospital discharge, including 32 patients; second, including 40 patients with follow-up and laboratory tests 12 months after hospital discharge.

RESULTS

A significant reduction in LDL-C level was observed at 12 months in both groups. LDL-C level was significantly lower in group 1 than in group 2 after 12 months (p = 0.02). Total cholesterol level was significantly lower in group 1 than in group 2 after 12 months. After 12 months of therapy, 21 (65.6%) patients in group 1 and 17 (42.5%) in group 2 had LDL-C < 1.4 mmol/L. In group 1, we observed a significant decrease in LDL-C, triglyceride, and total cholesterol levels at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The group of patients with more frequent follow-up visits showed a greater reduction in LDL-C level than the group with only one visit after a 12-month hospital discharge.

Lipoprotein(a)-60 Years Later-What Do We Know?

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) molecule includes two protein components: apolipoprotein(a) and apoB100. The molecule is the main transporter of oxidized phospholipids (OxPL) in plasma. The concentration of this strongly atherogenic lipoprotein is predominantly regulated by the LPA gene expression. Lp(a) is regarded as a risk factor for several cardiovascular diseases. Numerous epidemiological, clinical and in vitro studies showed a strong association between increased Lp(a) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), calcific aortic valve disease/aortic stenosis (CAVD/AS), stroke, heart failure or peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Although there are acknowledged contributions of Lp(a) to the mentioned diseases, clinicians struggle with many inconveniences such as a lack of well-established treatment lowering Lp(a), and common guidelines for diagnosing or assessing cardiovascular risk among both adult and pediatric patients. Lp(a) levels are different with regard to a particular race or ethnicity and might fluctuate during childhood. Furthermore, the lack of standardization of assays is an additional impediment. The review presents the recent knowledge on Lp(a) based on clinical and scientific research, but also highlights relevant aspects of future study directions that would approach more suitable and effective managing risk associated with increased Lp(a), as well as control the Lp(a) levels.

Reporting LDL cholesterol results by clinical biochemistry laboratories in Czechia and Slovakia to improve the detection rate of familial hypercholesterolemia

Introduction

This survey aims to assess the implementation of recommendations from the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) by clinical biochemistry laboratories in Czechia and Slovakia in their policies for reporting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations.

Materials and methods

The web-based survey was distributed to all 383 Czech and Slovak clinical biochemistry laboratories that measure lipids by external quality assessment provider SEKK. A total of 17 single-answer questions were included. The questionnaire was focused on the detection and decision points in familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). All survey answers were taken into account. The laboratories followed the EFLM and EAS guidelines when they reported an interpretative comment considering FH diagnosis in adults.

Results

A total of 203 (53%) laboratories answered. Only 5% of laboratories added interpretative comments considering FH diagnosis when LDL-C concentrations are above 5.0 mmol/L in adults, and 3% of laboratories added interpretative comments considering FH diagnosis when LDL-C concentrations are above 4.0 mmol/L in children. Only 7% of laboratories reported goals for all cardiovascular risk categories (low, moderate, high, very high). Non-HDL cholesterol concentrations were calculated by 74% of responders. A significant number (51%) of participants did not measure apolipoprotein B, and 59% of laboratories did not measure lipoprotein(a).

Conclusions

Only a small portion of laboratories from Czechia and Slovakia reported high LDL-C results with interpretative comments considering FH diagnosis in adults, the laboratories did not follow the guidelines.

Role of lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A review of current and emerging therapies

Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is structurally like low-density lipoprotein (LDL) but differs in that it contains glycoprotein apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)]. Due to its prothrombotic and proinflammatory properties, Lp(a) is an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve stenosis. Lp(a) levels are genetically determined, and it is estimated that 20%-25% of the global population has an Lp(a) level ≥50 mg/dL (or ≥125 nmol/L). Diet and lifestyle interventions have little to no effect on Lp(a) levels. Lipoprotein apheresis is the only approved treatment for elevated Lp(a) but is time-intensive for the patient and only modestly effective. Pharmacological approaches to reduce Lp(a) levels and its associated risks are of significant interest; however, currently available lipid-lowering therapies have limited effectiveness in reducing Lp(a) levels. Although statins are first-line agents to reduce LDL cholesterol levels, they modestly increase Lp(a) levels and have not been shown to change Lp(a)-mediated ASCVD risk. Alirocumab, evolocumab, and inclisiran reduce Lp(a) levels by 20-25%, yet the clinical implications of this reduction for Lp(a)-mediated ASCVD risk are uncertain. Niacin also lowers Lp(a) levels; however, its effectiveness in mitigating Lp(a)-mediated ASCVD risk remains unclear, and its side effects have limited its utilization. Recommendations for when to screen and how to manage individuals with elevated Lp(a) vary widely between national and international guidelines and scientific statements. Three investigational compounds targeting Lp(a), including small interfering RNA (siRNA) agents (olpasiran, SLN360) and an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen), are in various stages of development. These compounds block the translation of messenger RNA (mRNA) into apo(a), a key structural component of Lp(a), thereby substantially reducing Lp(a) synthesis in the liver. The purpose of this review is to describe current recommendations for screening and managing elevated Lp(a), describe the effects of currently available lipid-lowering therapies on Lp(a) levels, and provide insight into emerging therapies targeting Lp(a).

Treatment of Lp(a): Is It the Future or Are We Ready Today?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this review is to present the pharmacodynamic effectiveness as well as the clinical efficacy and safety of investigational antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) and small interference RNAs (siRNAs) drugs that specifically target lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)). The review will discuss whether the existing lipid-lowering therapies are adequate to treat high Lp(a) levels or whether it is necessary to use the emerging new therapeutic approaches which are based on the current RNA technologies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), independent of other conventional risk factors. High Lp(a) levels are also independently associated with an increased risk of aortic stenosis progression rate. Plasma Lp(a) levels are primarily genetically determined by variation in the LPA gene coding for apo(a). All secondary prevention trials have demonstrated that the existing hypolipidemic therapies are not adequate to reduce Lp(a) levels to such an extent that could lead to a substantial reduction of ASCVD risk. This has led to the development of new drugs that target the mRNA transcript of LPA and efficiently inhibit Lp(a) synthesis leading to potent Lp(a) reduction. These new drugs are the ASO pelacarsen and the siRNAs olpasiran and SLN360. Recent pharmacodynamic studies showed that all these drugs potently reduce Lp(a) up to 98%, in a dose-dependent manner. Ongoing clinical trials will determine the Lp(a)-lowering efficacy, tolerability, and safety of these drugs as well as their potential effectiveness in reducing the ASCVD risk attributed to high plasma Lp(a) levels. We are not ready today to significantly reduce plasma Lp(a). Emerging therapies potently decrease Lp(a) and ongoing clinical trials will determine their effectiveness in reducing ASCVD risk in subjects with high Lp(a) levels.

European guidelines for the treatment of dyslipidaemias: New concepts and future challenges

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is one of the most important causal factors for ASCVD. Based on the evidence of the clinical benefits of lowering LDL-C, the current 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines provide guidance for optimal management of people with dyslipidaemia. These guidelines include new and revised concepts, with a general tightening of LDL-C goals to be achieved, especially for patients at high and very high cardiovascular risk, based on the results of clinical trials of the recently approved drugs for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia. However, some issues are still open for discussion. Among others, the concept of lifetime exposure to elevated LDL-C levels will probably drive the pharmacological approach and future guidelines. In addition, other factors such as non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein(a) are becoming increasingly important in determining cardiovascular risk. Finally, there is the question of whether combination therapy should be used as the first step to maximise the effectiveness of the pharmacological approach, avoiding the stepwise approach, which is likely to have a detrimental effect on adherence. Given the ever-changing landscape and the availability of new drugs targeting other important lipids, future guidelines will need to consider all these issues.