Plasma apolipoprotein (a) is increased in type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic patients with microalbuminuria

Study on the relationship between hormone and Lp(a) in Chinese overweight/obese patients

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a risk factor for metabolic diseases and often influences hormone change. Lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) is associated with various metabolic diseases, but there are few studies on the relationship between Lp(a) and hormones in obese patients. This study investigated the the relationship between Lp(a) and hormones in Chinese overweight/obese people.

METHODS

A total of 410 overweight/obese patients (Body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m²) were included and underwent sociodemographic data investigations and relevant clinical examinations. Lp(a) was analyzed by colorimetric enzymatic assays and hormone was measured with chemiluminescence immunoassay method. According to Lp(a) levels, they were categorized into 3 groups: the lower Lp(a) group (Lp(a) levels < 30 mg/dl), the moderate Lp(a) group (Lp(a) levels between 30 mg/dl and 120 mg/dl) and the higher Lp(a) group (Lp(a) levels > 120 mg/dl). The differences of hormone levels among the three groups were compared and the relationship between Lp(a) and hormones was analyzed by Spearman's rank correlation.

RESULTS

The higher Lp(a) group had significantly lower testosterone (TES) levels compared with the lower and moderate Lp(a) groups in the case of gender, age and BMI matching. Lp(a) concentration was negatively correlated with TES levels in all participants and the negative association between Lp(a) and TES levels was also observed when the analysis was stratified by gender. Additionally, the TES was statistically related with Lp(a) levels in the multiple linear regression model (95% confidence interval: - 0.451 to - 0.079).

CONCLUSIONS

TES levels was negatively associated with Lp(a) levels in Chinese overweight/obese patients.

Lp(a) is not Related to Retinopathy in Diabetic Subjects

PURPOSE

To examine the association between Lp(a) concentrations and the severity of retinopathy in 22 younger-onset and 48 older-onset diabetic subjects from the Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy (WESDR), a population-based study of diabetic retinopathy.

METHODS

We used a subset of the WESDR population with standardized protocols and stereoscopic color fundus photography to determine the severity of diabetic retinopathy in relation to Lp(a) concentrations. Lp(a) concentrations were measured by a monoclonal anti-Lp(a) antibody.

RESULTS

Lp(a) levels were not significantly different between younger-onset or older-onset subjects with and without retinopathy.

CONCLUSION

Our results do not support a link between higher levels of Lp(a) and severe retinopathy in either younger-onset or older-onset diabetic subjects but this needs confirmation in larger prospective studies.

Association Between Serum Lipoprotein(a) and Diabetic Retinopathy in Han Chinese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

CONTEXT

Contrasting observations have been made on the relationship between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentration and diabetic retinopathy (DR) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

OBJECTIVE

To measure serum Lp(a) concentrations in patients with T2D to investigate whether Lp(a) affects risk for DR.

DESIGN AND PATIENTS

Serum Lp(a) was determined in 377 Han Chinese patients with T2D. Demographic and clinical information, including presence of DR and vision-threatening DR (VTDR), were collected on admission. The relationship between serum Lp(a) and DR or VTDR was evaluated using univariate and multivariate regression analyses.

RESULTS

Patients with DR or VTDR had significantly higher serum Lp(a) concentrations on admission (P < 0.001). The distribution across Lp(a) quartiles ranged from 11.7% (DR) and 4.3% (VTDR) in the first quartile to 47.9% (DR) and 19.1% (VTDR) in the fourth quartile (P for trend < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for common DR and VTDR risk factors showed that the third and fourth Lp(a) quartiles were significantly associated with DR and VTDR compared with the first Lp(a) quartile (P < 0.001). The patient group with highest concentrations of both Lp(a) (fourth quartile) and hemoglobin A1c (≥7%) had an odds ratio for DR of 5.15 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.78 to 9.55; P < 0.001] and for VTDR of 5.32 (95% CI, 2.92 to 10.15; P < 0.001) compared with patients with lower concentrations of both factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) concentration was independently associated with DR in patients with T2D. More frequent retinal examinations should be recommended for patients with T2D and high Lp(a) concentrations.

Lipoprotein (a) is not significantly associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus: cross-sectional study of 1604 cases and 7983 controls

AIMS

Lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)), a well-established risk factor for coronary artery diseases (CAD), would also be anticipated to be associated in a similar manner with risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) based on the common soil hypothesis of etiology of T2DM and CAD. Unfortunately, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the association of Lp(a) with the risk of T2DM. We aimed to examine the association of Lp(a) with T2DM.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of 1604 cases and 7983 controls was performed for identifying the association of Lp(a) with T2DM, its possible interactions with risk factors and threshold effects on T2DM. The association of Lp(a) with CAD was also examined and compared within the same study.

RESULTS

On a continuous scale, 10 mg/L higher Lp(a) levels were insignificantly associated with a fully adjusted OR of 1.011, 95% CI 0.961-1.063 for T2DM. On a categorical scale, the fully adjusted ORs for T2DM were 0.733 (0.526-1.022), 0.554 (0.387-0.793), 0.848 (0.612-1.176), 0.727 (0.515-1.026), 0.692 (0.488-0.981), 0.696 (0.492-0.985), 0.719 (0.509-1.016), 0.74 (0.523-1.045), 0.809 (0.571-1.146), and 0.99 (0.962-1.019) for decile 2-10 in reference to decile 1. The magnitude of association did not increase with increasing decile (P for trend test = 0.990). In contrast, higher Lp(a) levels were significantly associated with prevalent CAD on a continuous or categorical scale in a fully adjusted model. No threshold effects were observed in terms of association of Lp(a) with T2DM or with CAD in Lp(a) <50 mg/dL.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study suggested that there was a lack of association of Lp(a) levels with prevalent T2DM. In contrast, Lp(a) levels were significantly associated with CAD in a dose-responding manner. Our findings provided evidence for differential approaches to higher Lp(a) levels in patients with T2DM or with CAD.

Association between lipoprotein(a) and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease among Korean adults

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are risk factors for cardiovascular diseases. We investigated the relationship between Lp(a) concentrations and NAFLD among Korean adults.

METHODS

A total of 2242 nondiabetic subjects undergoing routine health screening examination were enrolled. Anthropometric and biochemical parameters, including Lp(a) were measured. NAFLD were assessed by ultrasonography. Adjusted Odds ratios for the presence of NAFLD according to Lp(a) tertiles were estimated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Subjects were grouped according to the severity of NAFLD and Lp(a) concentrations. Lp(a) concentrations were decreased across the severity of NAFLD and the prevalence of NAFLD decreased with the Lp(a) tertiles. Compared with subjects in the lowest tertile of Lp(a), those in the highest tertile had higher total cholesterol and LDL-C concentrations and lower body mass index, blood pressure, fasting glucose, triglyceride, ALT, and HOMA-IR concentrations. In the logistic regression analysis after adjusting for multiple risk factors, the relationship between Lp(a) concentrations and the presence of NAFLD remained significant. However, this association was attenuated after adjusting for insulin resistance.

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) was inversely associated with the presence of NAFLD, but it was not an independent risk factor for NAFLD among Korean adults.

Lipoprotein (a): impact by ethnicity and environmental and medical conditions

Levels of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)], a complex between an LDL-like lipid moiety containing one copy of apoB, and apo(a), a plasminogen-derived carbohydrate-rich hydrophilic protein, are primarily genetically regulated. Although stable intra-individually, Lp(a) levels have a skewed distribution inter-individually and are strongly impacted by a size polymorphism of the LPA gene, resulting in a variable number of kringle IV (KIV) units, a key motif of apo(a). The variation in KIV units is a strong predictor of plasma Lp(a) levels resulting in stable plasma levels across the lifespan. Studies have demonstrated pronounced differences across ethnicities with regard to Lp(a) levels and some of this difference, but not all of it, can be explained by genetic variations across ethnic groups. Increasing evidence suggests that age, sex, and hormonal impact may have a modest modulatory influence on Lp(a) levels. Among clinical conditions, Lp(a) levels are reported to be affected by kidney and liver diseases.

Biomarkers in Diabetic Retinopathy

There is a global diabetes epidemic correlating with an increase in obesity. This coincidence may lead to a rise in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes. There is also an as yet unexplained increase in the incidence of type 1 diabetes, which is not related to adiposity. Whilst improved diabetes care has substantially improved diabetes outcomes, the disease remains a common cause of working age adult-onset blindness. Diabetic retinopathy is the most frequently occurring complication of diabetes; it is greatly feared by many diabetes patients. There are multiple risk factors and markers for the onset and progression of diabetic retinopathy, yet residual risk remains. Screening for diabetic retinopathy is recommended to facilitate early detection and treatment. Common biomarkers of diabetic retinopathy and its risk in clinical practice today relate to the visualization of the retinal vasculature and measures of glycemia, lipids, blood pressure, body weight, smoking, and pregnancy status. Greater knowledge of novel biomarkers and mediators of diabetic retinopathy, such as those related to inflammation and angiogenesis, has contributed to the development of additional therapeutics, in particular for late-stage retinopathy, including intra-ocular corticosteroids and intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors ('anti-VEGFs') agents. Unfortunately, in spite of a range of treatments (including laser photocoagulation, intraocular steroids, and anti-VEGF agents, and more recently oral fenofibrate, a PPAR-alpha agonist lipid-lowering drug), many patients with diabetic retinopathy do not respond well to current therapeutics. Therefore, more effective treatments for diabetic retinopathy are necessary. New analytical techniques, in particular those related to molecular markers, are accelerating progress in diabetic retinopathy research. Given the increasing incidence and prevalence of diabetes, and the limited capacity of healthcare systems to screen and treat diabetic retinopathy, there is need to reliably identify and triage people with diabetes. Biomarkers may facilitate a better understanding of diabetic retinopathy, and contribute to the development of novel treatments and new clinical strategies to prevent vision loss in people with diabetes. This article reviews key aspects related to biomarker research, and focuses on some specific biomarkers relevant to diabetic retinopathy.

Role of lipoprotein(a) in predicting the severity of new on-set coronary artery disease in type 2 diabetics: A Gensini score evaluation

The objective of the study was to investigate the usefulness of serum lipoprotein(a) level in predicting the severity of new on-set coronary artery disease in type 2 diabetics. A total of 1254 new on-set, consecutive coronary artery disease patients were classified into two groups: diabetes group (n = 380) and non-diabetes group (n = 874). The relationship between serum lipoprotein(a) levels and the severity of coronary artery disease assessed by Gensini score was analysed. Data showed that the diabetes group had higher serum triglyceride and high sensitivity C-reactive protein levels but lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (all p < 0.05). The multivariate logistic regression analysis suggested that lipoprotein(a) was an independent predictor for high Gensini score (odds ratio = 1.82, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-3.12, p = 0.029) after adjusting for traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Additionally, lipoprotein(a) levels were positively correlated with Gensini score (rho = 0.15, p = 0.014) and significantly elevated according to the tertiles of Gensini score (p = 0.008) in diabetics. However, no such results were observed in non-diabetics. Our data indicate that lipoprotein(a) is an independent predictor for the severity of new on-set coronary artery disease patients accompanied by type 2 diabetes, suggesting that these patients may benefit from lipoprotein(a) management in clinical assessment.

Serum lipoprotein (a) concentrations are inversely associated with T2D, prediabetes, and insulin resistance in a middle-aged and elderly Chinese population

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)], an LDL-like particle, has been proposed as a causal risk factor for CVD among general populations. Meanwhile, both serum Lp(a) and diabetes increase the risk of CVD. However, the relationship between serum Lp(a) and T2D is poorly characterized, especially in the Asian population. Therefore, we conducted a cross-sectional study in 10,122 participants aged 40 years or older in Jiading District, Shanghai, China. Our study found that the prevalence of T2D was decreased from 20.9% to 15.0% from the lowest quartile to the highest quartile of serum Lp(a) concentrations (P for trend <0.0001). Logistic regression analyses showed that the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of prevalent T2D for quartiles 2-4 versus quartile 1 were 0.86 (0.73-1.01), 0.88 (0.75-1.04), and 0.76 (0.64-0.90) (P for trend = 0.0002), after adjustment for traditional confounding factors. Moreover, the risks for prevalent prediabetes, insulin resistance, and hyperinsulinemia were also decreased from the lowest to the top quartile. This inverse association between serum Lp(a) and T2D was not appreciably changed after we adjusted hypoglycemic medications or excluded the subjects with hypoglycemic and/or lipid-lowering agents and/or a history of self-reported CVD.

The association between circulating lipoprotein(a) and type 2 diabetes: is it causal?

Epidemiological evidence supports a direct and causal association between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels and coronary risk, but the nature of the association between Lp(a) levels and risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is unclear. In this study, we assessed the association of Lp(a) levels with risk of incident T2D and tested whether Lp(a) levels are causally linked to T2D. We analyzed data on 18,490 participants from the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk cohort that included adults aged 40-79 years at baseline 1993-1997. During an average 10 years of follow-up, 593 participants developed incident T2D. Cox regression models were used to estimate the association between Lp(a) levels and T2D. In Mendelian randomization analyses, based on EPIC-Norfolk combined with DIAbetes Genetics Replication And Meta-analysis data involving a total of 10,088 diabetes case participants and 68,346 control participants, we used a genetic variant (rs10455872) as an instrument to test whether the association between Lp(a) levels and T2D is causal. In adjusted analyses, there was an inverse association between Lp(a) levels and T2D: hazard ratio was 0.63 (95% CI 0.49-0.81; P trend = 0.003) comparing the top versus bottom quintile of Lp(a). In EPIC-Norfolk, a 1-SD increase in logLp(a) was associated with a lower risk of T2D (odds ratio [OR] 0.88 [95% CI: 0.80-0.95]). However, in Mendelian randomization analyses, a 1-SD increase in logLp(a) due to rs10455872, which explained 26.8% of the variability in Lp(a) levels, was not associated with risk of T2D (OR 1.03 [0.96-1.10]; P = 0.41). These prospective findings demonstrate a strong inverse association of Lp(a) levels with risk of T2D. However, a genetic variant that elevated Lp(a) levels was not associated with risk of T2D, suggesting that elevated Lp(a) levels are not causally associated with a lower risk of T2D.

Lipoprotein(a) serum levels in diabetic patients with retinopathy

BACKGROUND

Atherogenic lipoproteins, such as total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, oxidized low density lipoprotein, and triglycerides, are associated with progression of retinopathy. Aim. To evaluate the relationship between lipoprotein(a) and retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled 145 diabetic consecutive patients (82 females, 63 males; mean age 66.8 ± 12 years, mean duration of diabetes 9.4 ± 6.8 years). Presence and severity of retinopathy were evaluated. Serum lipid profile, including Lp(a) level, was assessed.

RESULTS

High Lp(a) levels have been observed in 54 (78.3%) subjects and normal levels in 13 (18.85%) subjects as regards diabetic patients with retinopathy. Lp(a) levels were high in 15 subjects (21.75%) and normal in 63 subjects (91.35%) as regards patients without retinopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) levels are increased in a significant percentage of patients with retinopathy compared to diabetic patients without retinopathy. The impact of Lp(a) levels on diabetic retinopathy needs to be further investigated.

Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease in diabetic patients

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a LDL-like particle consisting of an ApoA moiety linked to one molecule of ApoB(100). Recent data from large-scale prospective studies and genetic association studies provide highly suggestive evidence for a potentially causal role of Lp(a) in affecting risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in general populations. Patients with Type 2 diabetes display clustered metabolic abnormalities and elevated risk of CVD. Lower plasma Lp(a) levels were observed in diabetic patients in several recent studies. Epidemiology studies of Lp(a) and CVD risk in diabetic patients generated inconsistent results. We recently found that Lp(a)-related genetic markers did not predict CVD in two diabetic cohorts. The current data suggest that Lp(a) may differentially affect cardiovascular risk in diabetic patients and in the general population. More prospective studies, Mendelian randomization analysis and functional studies are needed to clarify the causal relationship of Lp(a) and CVD in diabetic patients.

High levels of lipoprotein(a) are associated with a lower prevalence of diabetes with advancing age: results of a cross-sectional epidemiological survey in Gran Canaria, Spain

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggest that concentrations of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] may be inversely associated with the risk of diabetes. This study analyzed the relationships between Lp(a) and both diabetes and insulin resistance in an adult cohort from the island of Gran Canaria, Spain.

METHODS

Lp(a), homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and conventional risk factors for diabetes were assessed in a sample of 1,030 adult individuals participating in a cross-sectional population-based epidemiological survey in the city of Telde. Diabetes was defined according to the WHO 1999 criteria, or as a previous diagnosis of diabetes. To identify patients at risk for diabetes, an Lp(a) cutoff level of 46 mg/dl was selected previously using classification and regression tree analysis. A multivariate logistic regression model with L2-regularization was used to assess the independent effect of Lp(a) on diabetes and its interactions with variables traditionally linked to the disease. Additionally, to investigate the effect of Lp(a) on insulin resistance, a parametric model was developed to describe the relationship between age and HOMA-IR values in subjects with levels of Lp(a) ≤ 46 or >46 mg/dl.

RESULTS

Along with variables known to be associated with diabetes, including age, mean blood pressure, serum triglycerides, and an interaction term between age and low HDL cholesterol, the logistic model identified a significant inverse association for diabetes and the interaction term between age and Lp(a) levels >46 mg/dl. According to the proposed parametric model, HOMA-IR was significantly lower in subjects of all ages who had Lp(a) levels >46 mg/dl.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the age-related increase in the probability of having diabetes is significantly lower in subjects with Lp(a) levels >46 mg/dl. This could be explained in part by a lower insulin resistance in this subset of the population.

Development and validation of a self-assessment tool for albuminuria: results from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of albuminuria in the general population is high, but awareness of it is low. Therefore, we sought to develop and validate a self-assessment tool that allows individuals to estimate their probability of having albuminuria.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

The population-based Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study for model development and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2004 for model validation. US adults 45 years or older in the REGARDS Study (n = 19,697) and NHANES 1999-2004 (n = 7,168).

PREDICTOR

Candidate items for the self-assessment tool were collected using a combination of interviewer- and self-administered questionnaires.

OUTCOME

Albuminuria was defined as a urinary albumin to urinary creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g in spot samples.

RESULTS

8 items were included in the self-assessment tool (age, race, sex, current smoking, self-rated health, and self-reported history of diabetes, hypertension, and stroke). These items provided a C statistic of 0.709 (95% CI, 0.699-0.720) and good model fit (Hosmer-Lemeshow χ(2)P = 0.49). In the external validation data set, the C statistic for discriminating individuals with and without albuminuria using the self-assessment tool was 0.714. Using a threshold of ≥10% probability of albuminuria from the self-assessment tool, 36% of US adults 45 years or older in NHANES 1999-2004 would test positive and be recommended for screening. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for albuminuria associated with a probability ≥10% were 66%, 68%, 23%, and 93%, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Repeated urine samples were not available to assess the persistency of albuminuria.

CONCLUSIONS

8 self-report items provide good discrimination for the probability of having albuminuria. This tool may encourage individuals with a high probability to request albuminuria screening.

Lipoprotein(a) and risk of type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated that cardiovascular risk is higher with increased lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]. Whether Lp(a) concentration is related to type 2 diabetes is unclear.

METHODS

In 26 746 healthy US women (mean age 54.6 years), we prospectively examined baseline Lp(a) concentrations and incident type 2 diabetes (n = 1670) for a follow-up period of 13 years. We confirmed our findings in 9652 Danish men and women with prevalent diabetes (n = 419). Analyses were adjusted for risk factors that included age, race, smoking, hormone use, family history, blood pressure, body mass index, hemoglobin A(1c) (Hb A(1c)), C-reactive protein, and lipids.

RESULTS

Lp(a) was inversely associated with incident diabetes, with fully adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for quintiles 2-5 vs quintile 1 of 0.87 (0.75-1.01), 0.80 (0.68-0.93), 0.88 (0.76-1.02), and 0.78 (0.67-0.91); P for trend 0.002. The association was stronger in nonfasting women, for whom respective HRs were 0.79 (0.58-1.09), 0.78 (0.57-1.08), 0.66 (0.46-0.93), and 0.56 (0.40-0.80); P for trend 0.001; P for interaction with fasting status 0.002. When we used Lp(a) > or =10 mg/L and Hb A(1c) <5% as reference values, the adjusted HRs were 1.62 (0.91-2.89) for Lp(a) <10 mg/L and Hb A(1c) <5%, 3.50 (3.06-4.01) for Lp(a) > or =10 mg/L and Hb A(1c) 5%-<6.5%, and 5.36 (4.00-7.19) for Lp(a) <10 mg/L and Hb A(1c) 5%-<6.5%. Results were similar in nonfasting Danish men and women, for whom adjusted odds ratios were 0.75 (0.55-1.03), 0.64 (0.46-0.88), 0.74 (0.54-1.01), and 0.58 (0.42-0.79) for Lp(a) quintiles 2-5 vs quintile 1; P for trend 0.002.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicated that Lp(a) was associated inversely with risk of type 2 diabetes independently of risk factors, in contrast to prior findings of positive associations of Lp(a) with cardiovascular risk.

Lipoprotein (a) and comprehensive lipid tetrad index as a marker for coronary artery disease in NIDDM patients in South India

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is reaching epidemic proportions in India, in the absence of traditional risk factors. Lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) concentrations are related to both atherogenesis and thrombogenesis and may be a key link between lipid and CAD. We studied the role of Lp(a) and comprehensive lipid tetrad index as markers for CAD in South Indian patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM).

METHODS

Lp(a) concentrations and lipid profile were estimated in 53 NIDDM patients with CAD (Group 1), 53 NIDDM patients without CAD (Group 2), and 52 control subjects (Group 3). Comprehensive lipid tetrad index was calculated in all patients and controls.

RESULTS

Lp(a) concentrations were significantly higher in Group 1 patients, when compared with Groups 2 and 3. In NIDDM patients with CAD, only total cholesterol and low-density cholesterol concentrations correlated significantly positively with lipoprotein (a) concentrations (r=0.184, p=0.03 and r=0.168, p=0.02). Mean comprehensive lipid tetrad index was 45,487+/-2747 in Group 1, 10,866+/-1163 in Group 2 and 4582+/-348 in Group 3 subjects.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing data, high Lp(a) concentrations show strong correlation with CAD in NIDDM patients of South India. High concentrations of Lp(a) and comprehensive lipid tetrad index, along with high prevalence of NIDDM, may render Indians particularly vulnerable to malignant atherosclerosis at a young age. As NIDDM is increasing in prevalence in India, the above observations have ominous dimensions in terms of total burden of CAD in India.

Lipoprotein(a), type 2 diabetes and vascular risk in coronary patients

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an important cardiovascular risk factor in the general population. However, prospective data on the vascular risk conferred by Lp(a) in patients with diabetes mellitus are scarce and controversial. It is not known whether the diabetic state affects the association of Lp(a) with vascular events among coronary patients.

DESIGN

We measured Lp(a) in 587 consecutive patients undergoing coronary angiography for the evaluation of coronary artery disease. The incidence of vascular events was recorded over 4 years.

RESULTS

At baseline, Lp(a) was significantly lower in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) (n = 136) than in nondiabetic individuals (11 (0.8-30) mg dL(-1) vs. 16 (0.8-51) mg dL(-1); P = 0.025). Prospectively, Lp(a) was a strong and independent predictor of vascular events in nondiabetic patients (standardized adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.461 (1.121-1.904); P = 0.005), but not in patients with T2DM [HR = 0.812 (0.539-1.223); P = 0.320]. An interaction term diabetes x Lp(a) was significant (P = 0.008), indicating that Lp(a) was a significantly stronger predictor of vascular events in nondiabetic patients than in patients with T2DM.

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) in diabetic coronary patients is low and not associated with the incidence of vascular events. Although measurement of Lp(a) provides useful information in nondiabetic coronary patients, it is of little value in coronary patients with T2DM.

Prospective study of lipoprotein(a) as a risk factor for deteriorating renal function in type 2 diabetic patients with overt proteinuria

OBJECTIVE

The effect of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] on the progression of diabetic nephropathy has not been evaluated yet. The aim of this study was to determine whether Lp(a) is an independent risk factor for deteriorating renal function in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted this prospective study in type 2 diabetic patients with overt proteinuria. Patients were divided into two groups according to their baseline serum Lp(a) level. Group 1 had Lp(a) levels < or =30 mg/dl (n = 40) and group 2 had Lp(a) levels >30 mg/dl (n = 41). Patients were followed for 2 years. Progression of diabetic nephropathy was defined as a greater than twofold increase of follow-up serum creatinine concentration from the baseline value.

RESULTS

At baseline and during the follow-up, there was no difference in HbA(1c) and lipid profile between groups 1 and 2. However, serum creatinine was significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1 after 1 year (148.3 +/- 78.0 vs. 108.1 +/- 34.9 micromol/l, P = 0.004) and after 2 years (216.9 +/- 144.5 vs. 131.3 +/- 47.3 micromol/l, P = 0.001), although baseline serum creatinine did not differ significantly between groups. In all, 13 of 14 patients with progression of diabetic nephropathy (progressors) were from group 2. Baseline Lp(a) levels were higher in the progressors than in the nonprogressors (62.9 +/- 26.7 vs. 33.5 +/- 27.5 mg/dl, P < 0.001). Multiple logistic regression showed that baseline Lp(a) level was a significant and independent predictor of the progression of diabetic nephropathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that Lp(a) is an independent risk factor for the progression of diabetic nephropathy in type 2 diabetic patients with overt proteinuria.

Lipoprotein(a) in patients who have non-insulin-dependent diabetes with and without coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the level of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] contributes to an increased risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM).

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated established cardiovascular risk factors, metabolic control, and Lp(a) levels in 53 men with NIDDM and CAD and compared these variables in 42 male patients with NIDDM but without CAD.

RESULTS

The groups were comparable for age, diabetes control, treatment and duration of diabetes, obesity, and other cardiac risk factors. Lp(a) levels did not differ between the groups (12.2 versus 12.4 mg/dL in those with and without CAD, respectively) and were unrelated to age, duration of diabetes, diabetes control, obesity, smoking, hypertension, urinary albumin, cholesterol, triglycerides, or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Patients with retinopathy had a higher Lp(a) concentration than did those without retinopathy (24.9 +/- 6.0 versus 10.1 +/- 1.5 mg/dL; P = 0.01). A significant correlation existed between Lp(a) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Routine measurement of Lp(a) level in patients with NIDDM does not seem warranted because no association was found between Lp(a) concentration and CAD in this study population.

Apoprotein(a) phenotypes and plasma lipoprotein(a) concentration in patients with diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether apo(a) isoforms and plasma Lp(a) concentrations in association with some lipid parameters increase the relative risk for the development of atherosclerosis in patients with diabetes mellitus (IDDM and NIDDM).

DESIGN AND METHODS

Apo (a) isoforms, Lp(a) and plasma lipids were determined in 40 IDDM and 65 NIDDM patients and in 182 healthy individuals. Apo(a) isoforms were separated by 3 to 15% gradient SDS-PAGE followed by immunoblotting.

RESULTS

Logistical analysis showed that: Lp(a) levels >30 mg/dL (RR = 0.25, p < 0.000001; RR = 0.18, p < 0.00002), HTA (RR = 0.212, p < 0.00001; RR = 0.30, p < 0.00001), LMW-S1 apo(a) isoform (RR = 6.86, p < 0.0131; RR = 7.04, p < 0.0057) play a significant role in aterogenecity in both groups of patients with DM (IDDM and NIDDM). The 6.50-fold increase in risk was found in NIDDM patients with high Lp(a) levels (>30 mg/dL) and plasma total/HDL cholesterol ratio (4.5-5.8).

CONCLUSION

Elevated Lp(a) levels, LMW S1 apo(a) isoform, HTA and combination of increased Lp(a) levels and total/HDL cholesterol ratio increase the risk for the development of atherosclerosis in patients with DM (IDDM and NIDDM).

Influence of lipoprotein(a) on restenosis after femoropopliteal percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in Type 2 diabetic patients

OBJECTIVE

The influence of vascular morphology and metabolic parameters including lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) on restenosis after peripheral angioplasty has been compared in Type 2 diabetes (DM) vs. non-diabetic patients (ND).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The clinical course and risk profile of 132 (54 DM vs. 78 ND) patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAD) were observed prospectively following femoropopliteal angioplasty (PTA). Clinical examination, oscillometry, ankle brachial blood pressure index (ABI) and the toe systolic blood pressure index (TSPI) were used during follow-up. Duplex sonography and reangiography were also used to verify suspected restenosis or reocclusion.

RESULTS

At the time of intervention patients with DM had a lower median Lp(a) of 9 vs. 15 mg/dl (P < 0.01) in patients without diabetes. Recurrence within 1 year after PTA occurred in 25 diabetic (= 46%, Lp(a) 12 mg/dl) and 30 non-diabetic (= 38%, Lp(a) 48 mg/dl) patients. DM patients with 1 year's patency had a median Lp(a) of 7 vs. 11 mg/dl in non-diabetic patients (P < 0.05). However, 12 months after angioplasty Lp(a) correlated negatively with the ABI (r = -0.44, P < 0.01) in diabetic and in non-diabetic patients (r = -0.20, P < 0.05). The probability of recurrence after PTA continuously increased with higher levels of Lp(a) in each subgroup of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate that Lp(a) is generally lower in those with peripheral arterial occlusive disease and Type 2 diabetes than in non-diabetic individuals. The increased risk for restenosis with rising levels of Lp(a) is set at a lower Lp(a) in diabetes and may be more harmful for diabetic patients.

Cardiovascular mortality in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. A controlled study among 683 diabetics and 683 age- and sex-matched normal subjects

Although non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) is considered a major cause of death, the role of some independent risk factors in diabetic patients is under debate. In fact the prognosis of NIDDM diabetes varies considerably in relation to the individual risk pattern, and the different studies are not directly comparable because of differences in size, age and geography of the samples, and type of statistical analysis. The aim of the study is to identify the independent predictors of mortality in a cohort of subjects with NIDDM, and to verify whether the relative risk (RR) of cardiovascular mortality is different in comparison to that of coeval non-diabetic subjects from a general population. The study includes 683 patients with NIDDM from the Northern Italian town of Pordenone, followed up for 6 years and age- and sex-matched to 683 non-diabetic subjects from a Northern Italian general population. When the two cohorts were compared, NIDDM turned out to be a strong risk factor for cardiovascular mortality (RR: 2.67). Age, coronary artery disease (RR: 1.78), arterial hypertension (RR: 1.39), macro- (RR: 2.97) and microalbuminuria (RR: 2.01) were independent predictors of cardiovascular mortality in the diabetics. In conclusion, survival of diabetic patients is worse than that of non-diabetic coeval subjects. Only few items are able to predict cardiovascular mortality in the diabetics, namely age, hypertension, CAD, macro- and microalbuminuria.

Lack of association of serum lipoprotein (a) levels with type-2 diabetes mellitus in patients with angiographically defined coronary artery disease

Multiple studies have demonstrated that elevated serum lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] levels are independent predictors for coronary artery disease (CAD) in subjects without diabetes mellitus (DM). However, their contribution in patients with DM is controversial and still requires clarification. We determined serum Lp(a) levels in 355 consecutive Caucasian patients (271 men and 84 women) with angiographically documented CAD, and in 100 control subjects (58 men and 42 women) who were clinically free of cardiovascular disease. In addition, the association of serum Lp(a) levels with type-2 DM in patients with CAD was investigated after reassigning patients according to the diagnosis of type-2 DM (61 men and 40 women with type-2 DM and 210 men and 44 women without). No gender differences in Lp(a) levels were observed between men and women (patients and control subjects). Patients with CAD had higher Lp(a) levels than the control subjects (33 (14-74) vs. 13 (9-29) mg/dl, P<0.001). Elevated Lp(a) levels (defined as >90th percentile of controls) were significantly more prevalent in men and women with CAD (35% and 28%, respectively) than in control subjects (13% and 10%, respectively). Serum Lp(a) levels correlated with LDL cholesterol (r=0.22, P<0.001) and apo B levels (r=0.18, P<0.03) in patients and control subjects. Stepwise discriminant analysis revealed that Lp(a) was an independent risk factor for the presence of CAD, independent of smoking, hypertension, type-2 DM, LDL and HDL cholesterol or apo A1 and B levels. When patients were studied according to the spread of CAD (evaluated as the number of narrowed vessels), no differences in serum Lp(a) levels were observed, nor was there a higher prevalence of elevated Lp(a) levels. Finally, when patients were re-assigned according to the diagnosis of type-2 DM, no effect of apo B and LDL-C levels on Lp(a) was found (r=0.06, P=n.s. and 40.14, P=n.s., respectively) and serum Lp(a) levels neither associated nor contributed to the extent of CAD. Our results showed that serum Lp(a) levels are increased in patients with angiographically documented CAD, but there were no significant differences between diabetic and non-diabetic patients, which indicates that elevated Lp(a) levels are specifically associated with CAD but not with type-2 DM.

Diabetic dyslipidaemia: current treatment recommendations

Insulin deficiency and hyperglycaemia in type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus produce lipid abnormalities, which can be corrected by appropriate insulin therapy. Diabetic nephropathy, which is the main risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD) in type 1 diabetes, causes pro-atherosclerotic changes in lipid metabolism. Detection and treatment of elevated cholesterol levels is likely to be of benefit in these patients. Type 2 (noninsulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus is associated with abnormal lipid metabolism, even when glycaemic control is good and nephropathy absent. Elevated triglyceride levels, reduced high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and a preponderance of small, dense low density lipoprotein (LDL) particles are the key abnormalities that constitute diabetic dyslipidaemia. The prevalence of hypercholesterolaemia is the same as for the nondiabetic population, but the relative risk of CHD is greatly increased at every level of cholesterol. Based on effectiveness, tolerability and clinical trial results, treatment with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors to lower LDL cholesterol is recommended as primary therapy. These agents are also moderately effective at reducing triglyceride and increasing HDL cholesterol levels. If hypertriglyceridaemia predominates, treatment with fibric acid derivatives is appropriate, although there is currently only limited clinical trial evidence that the risk of CHD will be reduced. In type 1 diabetes, but particularly in type 2 diabetes, lipid disorders are likely to contribute significantly to the increased risk of macrovascular complications. especially CHD. Management of the disordered lipid metabolism should be given a high priority in the clinical care of all patients with diabetes.

The effect of long-term glycaemic control on serum lipoprotein(a) levels in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To examine whether long-term glycaemic control affects lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) levels in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

Eighty-nine Type 2 diabetic patients (38 men, 51 women) were recruited from the diabetes clinic. Based on HbA1c concentrations at baseline, patients were divided into two groups: those with HbA1c < 8.0% (n =45) and those with HbA1c > or = 8.0% (n=44). Comparisons of Lp(a) levels were made between both groups. The effect of long-term glycaemic control on Lp(a) levels was investigated in a subgroup of 20 patients, selected from those with baseline HbA1c > or = 8%. All these patients were treated with a goal of HbA1c <7%.

RESULTS

Lp(a) levels were not significantly different between those with HbA1c< 8.0% and those with HbA1c, > or = 8.0%. No correlation between Lp(a) and HbA1c or fasting blood glucose levels was noted in diabetic patients as a whole. After 2 years of intensive glycaemic control, all patients exhibited remarkable improvement of therapy: their average HbA1c levels were 6.5 +/- 0.7%, being < 7% in 70% of patients. However, no change in Lp(a) levels were observed after 2 years (19.5 +/- 14.8-21.4 +/- 13.4 mg/dl, P = 0.390).

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that improvement of glycaemic control does not affect serum Lp(a) levels in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Insulin and 2-hour glucose levels are inversely related to Lp(a) concentrations controlled for LPA genotype

In this study we assessed the relationship of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] with diabetes status and with measures of glucose and insulin in a population of Mexican Americans having a high prevalence of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). Because of enormous allelic diversity at LPA [the locus encoding the apo(a) protein] that directly influences Lp(a) concentrations, it was first necessary to adjust for the large effects of variation at LPA. We calculated residual Lp(a) concentration as the difference between observed and expected; expected Lp(a) concentration was based on information from all family members sharing each identical-by-descent (IBD) allele. We found significant effects of sex and age on residual Lp(a) concentrations that increased with age (P=0.0004) and in females (P=0.0034). Although diabetes status per se was not related to residual Lp(a) concentrations (P=0.097), we found that residual Lp(a) concentrations were inversely correlated with fasting insulin (P=0.0017) and with insulin (P=0.0028) and glucose (P=0.0429) concentrations measured 2 hours after a glucose challenge. Furthermore, significant inverse correlations with the 2 insulin measures were observed for a subgroup of nondiabetic individuals. Inclusion of 2 lipid measures (plasma concentrations of cholesterol and triglycerides) in the models showed that the correlations with insulin and glucose were independent of the relationship between Lp(a) concentrations and the lipid measures. Also, we determined the residual size for each apo(a) isoform by adjusting for the IBD isoform group average. Although not related to diabetes status, residual apo(a) isoform size was positively correlated with fasting insulin (P=0.0013) and with 2-hour glucose (P=0.0246) and 2-hour insulin (P=0.0182) concentrations. In addition, significant correlations for all 4 measures were found for the subgroup of nondiabetic individuals. Thus, the results demonstrate that glucose-intolerant individuals have significantly lower residual Lp(a) concentrations and a significant increase of residual apo(a) size.

Correlation between serum lipoprotein(a) and angiographic coronary artery disease in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVES

To examine the impact of diabetic state on the concentrations of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) and the correlation between angiographic coronary artery disease (CAD) and serum Lp(a) concentrations in NIDDM.

DESIGN

In this cross-sectional study of 26 patients with NIDDM and 19 nondiabetic sex- and age-matched patients who underwent coronary angiography. CAD was assessed visually using coronary artery score (CAS), and plasma Lp(a) was measured by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

SETTING

The study was performed in an internal medicine clinic at a university hospital.

SUBJECTS

Twenty-six age- and sex-matched patients with NIDDM and 19 control patients without diabetes.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the Lp(a) concentrations of patients with NIDDM and nondiabetic subjects (P > 0.05). When patients with NIDDM were stratified by absence or presence of CAD, patients with CAD had higher levels of Lp(a) (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant correlation between the concentrations of Lp(a) and CAS (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetic state does not have any impact on Lp(a) concentrations. Lp(a) excess seems to be atherogenic in patients with NIDDM as shown in nondiabetic patients in previous studies. Although diabetic patients with CAD have higher Lp(a) concentrations than the diabetic patients without CAD, Lp(a) levels were not correlated with CAS.

Urinary albumin excretion rate and cardiovascular disease in Spaniard type 2 diabetic patients

To assess the prevalence of urinary albumin excretion abnormalities and their associations with cardiovascular disease or its classical risk factors in type 2 diabetes mellitus, 1348 clinic-proceeding patients have been studied retrospectively. The overnight urinary albumin excretion rate, blood pressure, smoking, ophthalmic and cardiovascular status, current therapies, estimates of glycemic control, plasma lipids, serum creatinine and uric acid have been ascertained. 767 (56.8%) patients were found normoalbuminuric, 461 (34.1%) microalbuminuric and 120 (8.9%) macroalbuminuric. In bivariate analyses, the urinary albumin excretion rate had statistically significant (P < 0.05) relationships with age, duration of diabetes, male sex, waist-to-hip ratio, systolic and diastolic pressure, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, antihypertensive therapy, laser-treated retinopathy, kind of treatment, smoking habit, fasting glycaemia, HbA1c, creatinine, uric acid, triglycerides, high density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol and apolipoprotein B. Borderline statistically significant (P < 0.1) relationships were found with hypolipidaemic therapy, insulin dose, non-HDL-cholesterol, apolipoprotein A1 and lipoprotein (a). In a multivariate stepwise logistic regression model, HbA1c, hypertension, male sex, age, diastolic blood pressure, coronary heart disease and body-mass index were sequentially selected as variables independently associated with microalbuminuria. Serum creatinine, HbA1c, male sex and hypertension were sequentially selected as independently associated with macroalbuminuria. Micro and macroalbuminuria are frequent abnormalities associated with poorly controlled and complicated disease, with overt cardiovascular disease and its classical risk factors as well as with the male sex.

Lack of association of lipoprotein (a) with coronary heart disease in Spaniard type 2 diabetic patients

We tried to elucidate the possible relationship between lipoprotein (a) levels and coronary heart disease by assessing the presence of lipoprotein (a) covariates in NIDDM. We selected 41 type 2 diabetic patients with coronary heart disease and 82 type 2 diabetic patients free from cardiovascular disease. They were adjusted for age, sex and duration of diabetes. Routine chemical analysis was carried out using standard procedures, HbA1c by HPLC and lipoprotein (a) and urinary albumin excretion rate by immunonephelometry. No difference has been found in lipoprotein (a) levels between both groups of patients (18 [144.25] mg/dl in cases vs. 23 [197.25] mg/dl in controls (median [range]), Mann Whitney U-test, P > 0.1). No association has been found between coronary heart disease and lipoprotein (a) levels greater than 30 mg/dl (Pearson's chi 2, P > 0.1). Significant and independent linear relationships have been found between the square root of lipoprotein (a) levels, serum creatinine and total cholesterol (multiple r2: 0.15, P < 0.001). Patients treated with insulin had greater square root of lipoprotein (a) levels, even after adjusting for serum creatinine and total cholesterol (5.87 +/- 0.35 vs. 4.76 +/- 0.36 (mean +/- S.E.), ANCOVA, P < 0.05). These data do not show an association between symptomatic coronary heart disease and lipoprotein (a) in NIDDM. Significant and independent relationships have been found between this variable and serum creatinine, total cholesterol and insulin therapy.

Lipoprotein(a) concentrations and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: relationship to glycaemic control and diabetic complications

The aim of our study was to determine the lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) levels in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) and to evaluate Lp(a) concentrations in relation to glycaemic control and diabetic complications. We evaluate in a cross-sectional study a total of 103 NIDDM patients (52 males and 51 females; mean age of 62.5 years; mean of diabetes duration: 12 years) referred to our hospital because of poor glycaemic control, and a group of 108 non-diabetic subjects (57 males and 51 females).

RESULTS

mean Lp(a) concentration did not significantly differ between NIDDM patients and non-diabetic subjects (11.1 +/- 14 vs. 16.2 +/- 14 mg/dl). The distribution of Lp(a) levels was highly skewed towards the lower levels in both groups, being over 30 mg/dl in only 6% of NIDDM patients and 12% of controls. Patients with Lp(a) levels over 10 mg/dl had lower haemoglobin Alc (HbA1c) than patients with Lp(a) levels over 10 mg/dl (8.5% vs. 10.4%; P < 0.01). Lp(a) concentration was positively correlated with body mass index (BMI) (P < 0.05) and HbA1c (P < 0.05). No association was found between Lp(a) and sex, age, other lipidic parameters, microalbuminuria, type of treatment and presence of cardiovascular disease. These findings may suggest that glycaemic control could have a modulatory role on Lp(a) concentration in NIDDM patients. In this study, diabetic complications did not seem to be associated with higher Lp(a) concentrations.

Lipoprotein (a) concentrations and apolipoprotein (a) phenotypes in normoglycaemic relatives of type 2 diabetic patients

Serum lipoprotein (a) concentrations (Lp(a)) are largely under genetic control, and are strong predictors of coronary heart disease. It has been hypothesised that Lp(a) may contribute to the increased risk of coronary heart disease in familial Type 2 diabetes mellitus. We therefore examined the Lp(a) concentrations and the apolipoprotein (a) (apo(a)) phenotypes in 126 normoglycaemic first degree relatives from families with two or more living Type 2 diabetic patients. These were compared with 147 sex matched normoglycaemic control subjects with no family history of diabetes. Lp(a) concentrations were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and apo(a) isoforms were determined and classified according to the relative mobility of apo(a) on sodium dodecyl sulphate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), relative to that of apolipoprotein B-100. There were no significant differences in Lp(a) concentrations between the relatives (R) and controls (C): 11.2 (R) vs. 11.1 (C) mg/dl (median). The distribution of apo(a) phenotypes was not significantly different between groups 0.65 (R) vs. 0.67 (C). These results show that first degree relatives at risk of developing Type 2 diabetes do not have abnormal Lp(a) concentrations or apo(a) phenotypes.

Microalbuminuria in type II diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To emphasize the prognostic significance of microalbuminuria in patients with type II diabetes and to summarize interventional studies in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and nephropathy.

METHODS

The definition of microalbuminuria is reviewed, the implications of its presence are discussed, and published trials of medical intervention to treat proteinuria in patients with type II diabetes are outlined.

RESULTS

Microalbuminuria--defined as the presence of 30 to 300 mg of protein in a 24-hour urine specimen or a urinary albumin excretion rate of 20 to 200 mg/min--is frequently present in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. It has been shown to be an independent cardiovascular risk factor as well as a predictor for the eventual development of renal failure. Intervention trials indicate that treatment with "tight" blood glucose control and antihypertensive agents, especially angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, may be beneficial in reversing early proteinuria or at least in preventing the progression to renal failure.

CONCLUSION

The presence of microalbuminuria in patients with type II diabetes mellitus is associated with premature death from cardiovascular disease and the development of renal failure. Thus, aggressive therapy should be instituted.

Lipoprotein(a) is not elevated in non-diabetic microalbuminuric subjects. A longitudinal study of lipoprotein(a) concentrations and apolipoprotein(a) size isoforms

Microalbuminuric non-diabetic subjects have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease which is not explained by standard risk factors. In diabetic patients, microalbuminuria is associated with increased lipoprotein(a) concentrations. We have determined lipoprotein(a) concentrations and duplicate measures of albumin excretion rate, on two occasions separated by around 3 years, in 125 Europid subjects aged 40-75 years without hypertension or glucose intolerance and in 49 offspring aged 15-40 years. The apolipoprotein(a) isoform size, the major genetic determinant of lipoprotein(a) concentration, was also determined. There were no differences in lipoprotein(a) concentration between the 42 subjects who were microalbuminuric on either or both samples at screening (median 9.4 mg/dl, 20th and 80th percentiles 2.6 and 46.3 mg/dl) and the 79 who had been normoalbuminuric at both collections (median 10.9 mg/dl, 20th and 80th percentiles 2.9 and 53.0 mg/dl; P = 0.58). Lipoprotein(a) concentrations were not significantly different between subjects with or without microalbuminuria at recell (P = 0.55) or between those with or without microalbuminuria classified by mean albumin excretion rate in either collection (P = 0.24 and P = 0.73, respectively). There were no significant relationships between albumin excretion rate as a continuous variable and lipoprotein(a) concentration, or between changes in the two variables over 3 years. The microalbuminuric and normoalbuminuric subjects had similar distributions of size isoforms. There were also no differences in lipoprotein(a) concentration or isoform distribution between offspring of microalbuminuric and of normoalbuminuric subjects. In conclusion, we found no evidence that microalbuminuric subjects with normal blood pressure and normal glucose tolerance have elevated concentrations of lipoprotein(a) to explain their increased cardiovascular risk.

Lipoprotein(a) in health and disease

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] represents an LDL-like particle to which the Lp(a)-specific apolipoprotein(a) is linked via a disulfide bridge. It has gained considerable interest as a genetically determined risk factor for atherosclerotic vascular disease. Several studies have described a correlation between elevated Lp(a) plasma levels and coronary heart disease, stroke, and peripheral atherosclerosis. In healthy individuals, Lp(a) plasma concentrations are almost exclusively controlled by the apo(a) gene locus on chromosome 6q2.6-q2.7. More than 30 alleles at this highly polymorphic gene locus determine a size polymorphism of apo(a). There exists an inverse correlation between the size (molecular weight) of apo(a) isoforms and Lp(a) plasma concentrations. The standardization of Lp(a) quantification is still an unresolved task due to the large particle size of Lp(a), the presence of two different apoproteins [apoB and apo(a)], and the large size polymorphism of apo(a) and its homology with plasminogen. A working group sponsored by the IFCC is currently establishing a stable reference standard for Lp(a) as well as a reference method for quantitative analysis. Aside from genetic reasons, abnormal Lp(a) plasma concentrations are observed as secondary to various diseases. Lp(a) plasma levels are elevated over controls in patients with nephrotic syndrome and patients with end-stage renal disease. Following renal transplantation, Lp(a) concentrations decrease to values observed in controls matched for apo(a) type. Controversial data on Lp(a) in diabetes mellitus result mainly from insufficient sample sizes of numerous studies. Large studies and those including apo(a) phenotype analysis came to the conclusion that Lp(a) levels are not or only moderately elevated in insulin-dependent patients. In noninsulin-dependent diabetics, Lp(a) is not elevated. Conflicting data also exist from studies in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia. Several case-control studies reported elevated Lp(a) levels in those patients, suggesting a role of the LDL-receptor pathway for degradation of Lp(a). However, recent turnover studies rejected that concept. Moreover, family studies also revealed data arguing against an influence of the LDL receptor for Lp(a) concentrations. Several rare diseases or disorders, such as LCAT- and LPL-deficiency as well as liver diseases, are associated with low plasma levels or lack of Lp(a).

Serum lipoprotein(a) concentrations and apolipoprotein(a) phenotypes in the families of NIDDM patients

We studied the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] as a function of apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] phenotype in 87 members (42 males, 45 females) of 20 diabetic families, 26 of whom were diagnosed with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) with moderate glycaemic control (HbA1c 7.1 +/- 1.2%). Apo(a) phenotyping was performed by a sensitive, high-resolution technique using SDS-agarose/gradient PAGE (3-6%). To date, 26 different apo(a) phenotypes, including a null type, have been identified. Serum Lp(a) levels of NIDDM patients and non-diabetic members of the same family who had the same apo(a) phenotypes were compared, while case control subjects were chosen from high-Lp(a) non-diabetic and low-Lp(a) nondiabetic groups with the same apo(a) phenotypes in the same family. Serum Lp(a) levels were significantly higher in NIDDM patients than in non-diabetic subjects (39.8 +/- 33.3 vs 22.3 +/- 19.5 mg/dl, p < 0.05). The difference in the mean Lp(a) level between the diabetic and non-diabetic groups was significantly (p < 0.05) greater than that between the high-Lp(a) non-diabetic and low-Lp(a) non-diabetic groups. An analysis of covariance and a least square means comparison indicated that the regression line between serum Lp(a) levels [log Lp(a)] and apo(a) phenotypes in the diabetic patient group was significantly (p < 0.01) elevated for each apo(a) phenotype, compared to the regression line of the control group. These data together with our previous findings that serum Lp(a) levels are genetically controlled by apo(a) phenotypes, suggest that Lp(a) levels in diabetic patients are not regulated by smaller apo(a) isoforms, and that serum Lp(a) levels are greater in diabetic patients than in non-diabetic family members, even when they share the same apo(a) phenotypes.

Lipoprotein (a) and vascular disease in diabetic patients

In order to assess the potential role of lipoprotein (a) as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus, plasma concentrations were measured in a large group (n = 500) of non-insulin-dependent (NIDDM, n = 355) and insulin-dependent (IDDM, n = 145) patients. Concentrations of lipoprotein (a) were compared in diabetic patients with (n = 153) or without (347) documented vascular disease (ischaemic heart disease, peripheral vascular disease or macroangiopathy). They were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in patients with ischaemic heart disease (mean [interquartile range] 15.5 (5.0-38.0) vs 9.0 (4.5-26.0) mg/dl) or macroangiopathy (13.0 (5.0-38.0) vs 9.0 (4.0-25.0) mg/dl) compared to patients without manifestations of vascular disease. In addition, stepwise logistic regression analysis identified lipoprotein (a) levels > or = 30 mg/dl as being independently associated with the presence of cardiovascular disease. Lipoprotein (a) was an independent risk factor for ischaemic heart disease and macroangiopathy in this group of IDDM and NIDDM patients.

Effect of simvastatin on Lp(a) concentrations

The effect of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors on Lp(a) concentrations is controversial, with some studies showing an increase and others showing no effect on Lp(a) concentrations. Many of these studies have been limited by small sample size and the lack of a prospective design. We evaluated the effect of four treatments: (1) placebo, (2) simvastatin 10 mg PO QPM, (3) simvastatin 20 mg PO QAM, and (4) simvastatin 20 mg PO QPM on Lp(a) concentrations in a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial of 24 weeks in 343 subjects in 28 clinical sites in the United States. Simvastatin was not associated with a change in Lp(a) concentrations relative to placebo. These results were not affected by controlling for race, initial Lp(a) level, or urinary albumin excretion. Simvastatin significantly reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels (10 mg PO QPM: -27.6%; 20 mg PO QAM: -28.1%; and 20 mg PO QPM: -34.3%, all p < 0.001). It was concluded that in a large, randomized, controlled trial, simvastatin does not affect Lp(a) levels but markedly lowers LDL cholesterol levels.

The role of lipoprotein(a) in the vascular complications of diabetes mellitus

Lipoprotein(a) has been identified as an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic vascular disease in non-diabetic populations. Because of its potential role in the pathogenesis of both microvascular and macrovascular complications in diabetes, there have recently been many reports on lipoprotein(a) in diabetic populations. Some studies indicate an association between elevated lipoprotein(a) and macrovascular disease in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM), but this link has not been found with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). In IDDM, elevated lipoprotein(a) has been found in groups with diabetic nephropathy and retinopathy, raising the possibility that it plays a causative role. The relationship between glycaemic control and the lipoprotein(a) level has not been fully resolved. Most studies have not found any connection in NIDDM, but some found higher lipoprotein(a) levels in hyperglycaemic IDDM patients. Potentially, lipoprotein(a) is an important factor linking the microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes.

Serum amyloid A protein in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

We determined the serum amyloid A protein (SAA) levels in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM), and investigated the possible association between SAA and the complications of NIDDM. The concentrations of SAA were measured in the plasma of 105 patients with NIDDM (52 men and 53 women, age mean +/- SD, 61 +/- 13 years) and 91 healthy subjects (37 men and 54 women, aged 57 +/- 11 years). SAA concentrations were assayed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. SAA concentrations in the patients with NIDDM were significantly higher than those in healthy subjects (2.1 +/- 1.3 vs. 1.2 +/- 0.5 mg/L). There were no obvious relationships between SAA levels and duration of diabetes, type of therapy, or control of blood sugar in the patients with NIDDM. However, SAA levels in patients with NIDDM increased significantly, with increase of urinary albumin excretion (p = 0.027). The increase of SAA in the patients with NIDDM did not influence the serum concentrations of lipid or lipoprotein. The SAA concentration in NIDDM was unrelated to the type of treatment, but seemed to be related to the development of diabetic nephropathy.

Association of elevated lipoprotein(a) levels and coronary heart disease in NIDDM patients. Relationship with apolipoprotein(a) phenotypes

Non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) is a strong and independent risk factor for coronary heart disease. We assessed the potential relationship between plasma Lp(a) levels, apo(a) phenotypes and coronary heart disease in a population of NIDDM patients. Seventy-one patients with coronary heart disease, who previously have had transmural myocardial infarction, or significant stenosis on coronary angiography, or positive myocardial thallium scintigraphy, or in combination, were compared with 67 patients without coronary heart disease, who tested negatively upon either coronary angiography, myocardial thallium scintigraphy or a maximal exercise test. The prevalence of plasma Lp(a) levels elevated above the threshold for increased cardiovascular risk (> 0.30 g/l) was significantly higher (p = 0.005) in patients with coronary heart disease (33.8%) compared to the control group (13.4%). The relative risk (odds ratio) of coronary heart disease among patients with high Lp(a) concentrations was 3.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.31-7.34; p = 0.01). The overall frequency distribution of apo(a) phenotypes differed significantly between the two groups (p = 0.043). However, the frequency of apo(a) isoforms of low apparent molecular mass (< or = 700 kDa) was of borderline significance (p = 0.067) between patients with or without coronary heart disease (29.6% and 16.4%, respectively). In this Caucasian population of NIDDM patients, elevated Lp(a) levels were associated with coronary heart disease, an association which was partially accounted for by the higher frequency of apo(a) isoforms of small size. In multivariate analyses, elevated levels of Lp(a) were independently associated with coronary heart disease (odds ratio 3.48, p = 0.0233).

Apolipoprotein(a) and atherogenesis

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) consists of a unique apolipoprotein, apolipoprotein(a), (apo(a)) linked by a disulphide bridge to apolipoprotein B of low density lipoprotein (LDL). Apo(a) is homologous with plasminogen and exhibits genetic polymorphism with the commoner phenotypes due to larger forms being associated with lower plasma levels and the less common phenotypes associated with smaller forms and higher plasma levels. The later are more common in patients with macrovascular disease. In a study of 6448 patients with established coronary heart disease we found that 43% had apo(a) levels above 300 units/litre and 10% had levels above 1000 units/litre and a geometric mean of 201 units/litre in contrast to 140 normal controls in whom 25% exceeded 300 units/litre, 1% exceeded 1000 units/litre and the geometric mean was 107 units/litre. Amongst patients with cholesterol levels < 5.5 mmol/L undergoing coronary artery surgery were patients with low HDL levels and raised apo(a) levels who would not be identified in screening focusing primarily on total cholesterol. In patients with both insulin dependent and non insulin dependent diabetes mellitus those with microalbuminuria or albuminuria (known to be at high risk for macrovascular disease) had apo(a) levels comparable to non diabetic patients with coronary artery disease while diabetic patients without microalbuminuria had normal levels of apo(a). It is likely that apo(a) has a role in the accelerated macrovascular disease in diabetic patients with renal disease.

Improved blood glucose control by insulin therapy in type 2 diabetic patients has no effect on lipoprotein(a) levels

The effects of improved blood glucose control by insulin therapy on lipoprotein(a) and other lipoproteins were studied in 54 patients with Type 2 diabetes (mean +/- SD: age 67 +/- 9 years, body mass index 26.1 +/- 4.4 kg m-2, median duration of diabetes 10 (range 1-37) years, 23 males, 31 females), who were poorly controlled despite diet and maximal doses of oral hypoglycaemic agents. After 6 months of insulin treatment, mean fasting blood glucose concentrations had decreased from 14.1 +/- 2.2 mmol l-1 to 8.4 +/- 1.8 mmol l-1 (p < 0.001), and HbA1c had fallen from 11.1 +/- 1.4% to 8.2 +/- 1.1% (p < 0.001). Significant decreases of total and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, apolipoprotein B, and free fatty acids were observed, while HDL-cholesterol and apoA1 increased by 10%. Baseline serum Lp(a) levels were elevated compared to non-diabetic subjects of similar age (median 283, range 8-3050 mg l-1, vs 101, range 8-1747 mg l-1, p < 0.05), but did not change with insulin, and there was no correlation with the degree of metabolic improvement and changes in Lp(a) levels. It is concluded that improved blood glucose control by insulin therapy does not alter elevated Lp(a) levels in Type 2 diabetic patients, but has favourable effects on the other lipoproteins.

Apolipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease in type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic patients with and without diabetic nephropathy

The relative mortality from cardiovascular disease is on average increased five-fold in Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic patients with diabetic nephropathy compared to non-diabetic subjects. We assessed the possible contribution of dyslipidaemia in general and elevated serum apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) in particular. Type 2 diabetic patients with normo-, micro- and macroalbuminuria were compared with healthy subjects. Each group consisted of 37 subjects matched for age, sex and diabetes duration. Serum creatinine in the nephropathy group was 105 (54-740) mumol/l. The prevalence of ischaemic heart disease (resting ECG, Minnesota, Rating Scale) was 57, 35, 19 and 2% in macro-, micro- and normoalbuminuric diabetic patients and healthy subjects, respectively. The prevalence of ischaemic heart disease was higher in all diabetic groups as compared to healthy subjects (p < 0.05), and higher in macroalbuminuric as compared to normoalbuminuric diabetic patients (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between apo(a) in the four groups: 161 (10-1370), 191 (10-2080), 147 (10-942), 102 (10-1440) U/l (median (range)) in macro-, micro- and normoalbuminuric groups and healthy subjects. Serum total-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol were not significantly different when comparing healthy subjects and each diabetic group. Apolipoprotein A-I was lower (p < 0.05) in all diabetic groups as compared to healthy subjects (nephropathy vs healthy subjects): 1.50 +/- 0.25 vs 1.69 +/- 0.32 g/l (mean +/- SD). Triglyceride was higher (p < 0.05) in patients with nephropathy and microalbuminuria as compared to healthy subjects (nephropathy vs healthy subjects): 2.01 (0.66-14.7) vs 1.09 (0.41-2.75) mmol/l (median (range)).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)