Lipoprotein(a): Pathophysiology, measurement, indication and treatment in cardiovascular disease. A consensus statement from the Nouvelle Société Francophone d'Athérosclérose (NSFA)

Patient Experience of Heart Disease with Elevated Lipoprotein(a): Views from a Patient, His Physician, and a Patient Association

This article presents three points of view on lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]: that of a patient, his endocrinologist, and a patient association, the Association Nationale des Hypercholestérolémies familiales et Lipoprotéines (a) (ANHET). By sharing his story, the patient reveals the severe impact his high Lp(a) levels had on his health, his daily life, and his family. The endocrinologist explains what Lp(a) is and its role as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. As an expert in the field, he reviews the recommendations for the screening and management of Lp(a). The vice-president of ANHET describes the association's fight to increase awareness of this risk factor among patients, the medical profession, and even politicians, and to bring about changes in the healthcare system. Given the large number of people concerned, the perspectives of the patient, the physician, and the patient association converge in raising awareness of the negative impact of high levels of Lp(a) on health and the importance of intensifying Lp(a) screening.See the Supplementary Material for a French-language version of this abstract.

Lp(a) concentration and polymorphic size are not associated with new onset diabetes in individuals with prediabetes

AIM

Observational studies in the general population suggest that low concentrations of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] are associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Here, we aim to determine whether Lp(a) plasma concentration and Kringle-IV (K-IV) repeat polymorphism were associated with new-onset diabetes (NOD) in individuals with prediabetes.

METHODS

IT-DIAB is an observational, prospective study including 303 participants with impaired fasting glucose (fasting plasma glucose [FPG]: 110-125 mg/dl) followed annually for 5 years. The primary endpoint was the development of NOD, defined as a first FPG value ≥ 126 mg/dl during follow-up. Lp(a) concentrations were measured by immunoturbidimetry, apo(a) concentrations and the number of K-IV domains by mass spectrometry. Survival analyses for NOD were modeled using Kaplan-Meier curves and a multivariable Cox model, after binarization on threshold values of Lp(a) or K-IV.

RESULTS

Among the participants, 113 (37%) developed NOD during follow-up. The concentrations of Lp(a) and the number of K-IV domains were not significantly different according to NOD status. Similarly, the percentage of patients with a non-detectable (≤ 7 nmol/l) or elevated (>125 nmol/l) Lp(a) concentration was similar between those with or without NOD: 68.1 vs 63.7% (P = 0.46) and 8.8 vs 8.9% (P > 0.99), respectively. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models did not show any association between Lp(a) concentration (threshold 7 nmol/l and 125 nmol/l) or number of K-IV domain (threshold 23) and the risk of NOD.

CONCLUSION

In a high-risk population, Lp(a) concentration or polymorphic size do not appear to be substantially associated with type 2 diabetes risk.

Fundamentals of lipoprotein(a) request and quantification in the clinical laboratory

Cardiovascular diseases keep being the leading cause of mortality in Spain. Efforts should be intensified to identify new risk factors that may contribute to increasing cardiovascular risk. Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) has been associated with a higher risk for developing aortic valve stenosis, heart failure, ischemic stroke, ischemic heart disease and peripheral arterial disease. Hyperlipoproteinemia(a) is a common health problem. Between 10 and 30 % of the world population have Lp(a) values exceeding 50 mg/dL. The scientific evidence provided in the recent years confirms an independent association between Lp(a) and the risk for having an arteriosclerotic cardiovascular event. This finding, added to the emergence of new specific therapies for reducing Lp(a) has raised interest in the quantification of this lipoprotein. The objective of this paper was to perform a review of the evidence available to identify the patients who will benefit from undergoing Lp(a) testing and determine the recommended quantification methods, the desirable concentrations, and the role of Lp(a) determination in reclassifying the cardiovascular risk of patients.

Aspectos fundamentales en la solicitud y determinación de la lipoproteína(a) en el laboratorio clínico

Las enfermedades cardiovasculares continúan siendo la principal causa de muerte en España, lo que sugiere la necesidad de estudiar la presencia de nuevos factores de riesgo que puedan estar contribuyendo a aumentar el riesgo cardiovascular. La lipoproteína(a) (Lp(a)) se ha asociado con un mayor riesgo de desarrollar estenosis valvular aórtica, insuficiencia cardíaca, ictus isquémico, cardiopatía isquémica y enfermedad arterial periférica. La hiperlipoproteinemia(a) es un problema de salud generalizado. Entre el 10 % y el 30 % de la población mundial presenta valores de Lp(a) superiores a 50 mg/dL. La evidencia científica acumulada en los últimos años ha confirmado la existencia de una asociación independiente entre la concentración de Lp(a) y el riesgo de presentar un evento cardiovascular arteriosclerótico. Este hallazgo, unido al creciente desarrollo de nuevas terapias específicas para reducir la Lp(a), ha incrementado notablemente el interés por su medición. El objetivo de este documento es, en base a la evidencia actual, informar sobre a qué pacientes se debería medir la Lp(a), cuáles son los métodos de medición recomendados, las concentraciones deseables y la utilidad de su medición en la reclasificación de pacientes según su riesgo cardiovascular.

[Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 (Lp-PLA2): Relevant biomarker and therapeutic target?]

Over the last fifteen years, numerous studies have sought to decipher the role of lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 (Lp-PLA2) in vascular inflammation-related diseases, notably atherosclerosis. Despite the disappointing results of clinical trials using the Lp-PLA2 inhibitor darapladib, new pathophysiological, epidemiological and genetic data have enabled the development of new inhibitors. Recent studies also show that Lp-PLA2 is involved in vascular inflammation-related diseases other than atherosclerosis (ischemic stroke, Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia, diabetes, cancers…), and inhibition of Lp-PLA2 could have beneficial therapeutic in these diseases. This review aims to present new data on Lp-PLA2 and to evaluate its current interest as a biomarker but also as a therapeutic target.

Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease

One in five people are at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic valve stenosis due to high lipoprotein(a). Lipoprotein(a) concentrations are lowest in people from east Asia, Europe, and southeast Asia, intermediate in people from south Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, and highest in people from Africa. Concentrations are more than 90% genetically determined and 17% higher in post-menopausal women than in men. Individuals at a higher cardiovascular risk should have lipoprotein(a) concentrations measured once in their lifetime to inform those with high concentrations to adhere to a healthy lifestyle and receive medication to lower other cardiovascular risk factors. With no approved drugs to lower lipoprotein(a) concentrations, it is promising that at least five drugs in development lower concentrations by 65-98%, with three currently being tested in large cardiovascular endpoint trials. This Review covers historical perspectives, physiology and pathophysiology, genetic evidence of causality, epidemiology, role in familial hypercholesterolaemia and diabetes, management, screening, diagnosis, measurement, prevention, and future lipoprotein(a)-lowering drugs.

Worldwide Increasing Use of Nonfasting Rather Than Fasting Lipid Profiles

BACKGROUND

Historically, lipids and lipoproteins were measured in the fasting state for cardiovascular risk prediction; however, since 2009 use of nonfasting lipid profiles has increased substantially worldwide. For patients, nonfasting lipid profiles are convenient and avoid any risk of hypoglycemia. For laboratories, blood sampling in the morning and extra visits for patients who have not fasted are avoided. For patients, clinicians, hospitals, and society, nonfasting sampling allows same-day visits with first blood sampling followed by a short wait for test results before clinical consultation. Therefore, nonfasting compared to fasting lipid profiles will save money and time and may improve patient compliance with cardiovascular prevention programs.

CONTENT

We report on the progression of endorsement and implementation of nonfasting lipid profiles for cardiovascular risk prediction worldwide and summarize the recommendations from major medical societies and health authorities in different countries. We also describe practical advantages and disadvantages for using nonfasting lipid profiles. Further, we include a description of why fasting has been the standard historically, the barriers against implementation of nonfasting lipid profiles, and finally we suggest the optimal content of a nonfasting lipid profile.

SUMMARY

Lipid, lipoprotein, and apolipoprotein concentrations vary minimally in response to normal food intake and nonfasting lipid profiles are equal or superior to fasting profiles for cardiovascular risk prediction. Major guidelines and consensus statements in Europe, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Japan, India, and Australia now endorse use of nonfasting lipid profiles in some or all patients; however, there are still gaps in endorsement and implementation of nonfasting lipid profiles worldwide.

Hyperlipidaemia in diabetes: are there particular considerations for next-generation therapies?

Dyslipidaemias are major cardiovascular risk factors, especially in people with diabetes. In this area, next-generation therapies targeting circulating lipoparticle metabolism (LDL, VLDL, chylomicrons, HDL) have recently been approved by the European and US medical agencies, including anti- proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) antibodies; an siRNA targeting PCSK9; bempedoic acid, which targets ATP citrate lyase; an antisense oligonucleotide targeting apolipoprotein C-III; an anti-angiopoietin-like 3 antibody; and a purified omega-3 fatty acid, icosapent ethyl. Other therapies are in different phases of development. There are several important considerations concerning the link between these new lipid-lowering therapies and diabetes. First, since concerns were first raised in 2008 about an increased risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM) with intensive statin treatment, each new lipid-lowering therapy is being evaluated for its associated risk of NODM, particularly in individuals with prediabetes (impaired fasting glucose and/or impaired glucose tolerance). Second, people with diabetes represent a large proportion of those at high or very high cardiovascular risk in whom these lipid-lowering drugs are currently, or will be, prescribed. Thus, the efficacy of these drugs in subgroups with diabetes should also be closely considered, as well as any potential effects on glycaemic control. In this review, we describe the efficacy of next-generation therapies targeting lipoprotein metabolism in subgroups of people with diabetes and their effects on glycaemic control in individuals with diabetes and prediabetes and in normoglycaemic individuals.

Elevated lipoprotein(a) increases risk of subsequent major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and coronary revascularisation in incident ASCVD patients: A cohort study from the UK Biobank

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a genetic driver for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We aimed to provide novel insights into the associated risk of elevated versus normal Lp(a) levels on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in an incident ASCVD cohort.

METHODS

This was an observational cohort study of incident ASCVD patients. MACE counts and incidence rates (IRs) per 100-person-years were reported for patients with normal (<65 nmol/L) and elevated (>150 nmol/L) Lp(a) within the first year after incident ASCVD diagnosis and overall follow-up. Cox proportional hazard models quantified the risk of MACE associated with a 100 nmol/L increase in Lp(a).

RESULTS

The study cohort included 32,537 incident ASCVD patients; 5204 with elevated and 22,257 with normal Lp(a). Of those with elevated Lp(a), 41.2% had a subsequent MACE, versus 35.61% with normal Lp(a). Within the first year of follow-up, the IRs of composite MACE and coronary revascularisation were significantly higher (p < 0.001) in patients with elevated versus normal Lp(a) (IR difference 6.79 and 4.66). This trend was also observed in the overall follow-up (median 4.7 years). Using time to first subsequent MACE, a 100 nmol/L increase in Lp(a) was associated with an 8.0% increased risk of composite MACE, and 18.6% increased risk of coronary revascularisation during the overall follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of elevated Lp(a) with increased risk of subsequent MACE and coronary revascularisation highlights a population who may benefit from earlier and more targeted intervention for cardiovascular risk including Lp(a), particularly within the first year after ASCVD diagnosis. Proactive Lp(a) testing as part of routine clinical practice can help identify and better manage these higher-risk individuals.

Effects of Lipid-Modifying and Other Drugs on Lipoprotein(a) Levels-Potent Clinical Implications

The past few years have shown an ongoing interest in lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), a lipid molecule that has been proven to have atherogenic, thrombogenic, and inflammatory properties. Several lines of evidence, indeed, have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular disease as well as calcific aortic valve stenosis in patients with elevated Lp(a) levels. Statins, the mainstay of lipid-lowering therapy, slightly increase Lp(a) levels, while most other lipid-modifying agents do not significantly alter Lp(a) concentrations, except for proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. The latter have been shown to reduce Lp(a) levels; however, the clinical significance of this effect has not been clearly elucidated. Of note, the pharmaceutical lowering of Lp(a) may be achieved with novel treatments specifically designed for this purpose (i.e., antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) and small interfering RNAs (siRNAs)). Large clinical trials with cardiovascular outcomes with these agents are ongoing, and their results are eagerly awaited. Furthermore, several non-lipid-modifying drugs of various classes may influence Lp(a) concentrations. We have searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases up to 28 January 2023 and summarized the effects of established and emerging lipid-modifying drugs and other medications on Lp(a) levels. We also discuss the potent clinical implications of these alterations.

Supporting evidence for lipoprotein(a) measurements in clinical practice

High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] are causal for development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and highly regulated by genetics. Levels are higher in Blacks compared to Whites, and in women compared to men. Lp(a)'s main protein components are apolipoprotein (apo) (a) and apoB100, the latter being the main component of Low-Density Lipoprotein (LDL) particles. Studies have identified Lp(a) to be associated with inflammatory, coagulation and wound healing pathways. Lack of validated and accepted assays to measure Lp(a), risk cutoff values, guidelines for diagnosis, and targeted therapies have added challenges to the field. Scientific efforts are ongoing to address these, including studies evaluating the cardiovascular benefits of decreasing Lp(a) levels with targeted apo(a) lowering treatments. This review will provide a synopsis of evidence-based effects of high Lp(a) on disease presentation, highlight available guidelines and discuss promising therapies in development. We will conclude with current clinical information and future research needs in the field.

Detection strategies for elevated lipoprotein(a): will implementation let the genie out of the bottle?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Elevated Lp(a) level is an important causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), principally coronary artery disease. Selective testing for Lp(a) is highly recommended in patients at intermediate and high risk for ASCVD. Lp(a) levels are predominantly genetically determined, and this has implications for cascade testing.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies show that cascade testing is effective in identifying elevated Lp(a) in close relatives of probands with high Lp(a). Apart from selective testing and cascade testing as detection strategies, some recent guidelines recommend testing of Lp(a) in all adults at least once in their lifetime and various implementation strategies have been suggested.

SUMMARY

Hyper-Lp(a) is an important global health problem that can be easily detected. Hyper-Lp(a) meets all the criteria for universal screening except that there is not yet supportive evidence from clinical interventional trials showing a reduction of ASCVD events. The cost-effectiveness of the various detection and implementation strategies need to be further evaluated.

Impact of Lipoprotein(a) on Macrovascular Complications of Diabetes in a Multiethnic Population in the French Amazon

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In French Guiana, the prevalence of diabetes is around 10%, and cardio and neurovascular pathologies are the first medical cause of early mortality. Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is described in the literature as a risk factor independent of other cardiovascular risk factors, but there are important interindividual differences, especially according to ethnicity. The objective of this study was to investigate the association of Lp(a) and macrovascular complications in a multiethnic population of patients with diabetes in the French Amazon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Since May 2019, 1243 patients were screened 806 of whom had Lp(a) determination. We compared the prevalence of macrovascular complications in three groups according to Lp(a) concentration: between 0 and 75 mg/mL, between 76 and 300 mg/mL, and >300 mg/mL.

RESULTS

712 patients in the study had type 2 diabetes (88.34% of the sample). A history of hypertension was significantly associated with greater Lp(a) levels. Lp(a) concentration was greater among Creole ethnic groups. No association was found between Lp(a) levels and macrovascular complications in the Lp(a) > 300 mg/mL group.

CONCLUSIONS

These results do not replicate findings in mostly Caucasian populations suggesting that the Lp(a) threshold for, or the link with, cardiovascular risk may be different given the predominantly African origin of the French Guianese population. Further studies should study genetic polymorphisms in our population.

Lipoprotein(a) and residual vascular risk in statin-treated patients with first acute ischemic stroke: A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Statins either barely affect or increase lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels. This study aimed to explore the factors correlated to the change of Lp(a) levels as well as the relationship between Lp(a) and the recurrent vascular events in statin-treated patients with first acute ischemic stroke (AIS).

METHODS

Patients who were admitted to the hospital with first AIS from October 2018 to September 2020 were eligible for inclusion. Correlation between the change of Lp(a) levels and potential influencing factors was assessed by linear regression analysis. Cox proportional regression models were used to estimate the association between Lp(a) and recurrent vascular events including AIS, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization.

RESULTS

In total, 303 patients, 69.6% males with mean age 64.26 ± 11.38 years, completed the follow-up. During the follow-up period, Lp(a) levels increased in 50.5% of statin-treated patients and the mean percent change of Lp(a) levels were 14.48% (95% CI 6.35-22.61%). Creatinine (β = 0.152, 95% CI 0.125-0.791, P = 0.007) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (β = 0.160, 95% CI 0.175-0.949, P = 0.005) were positively associated with the percent change of Lp(a) levels. During a median follow-up of 26 months, 66 (21.8%) patients had a recurrent vascular event. The median time period between AIS onset and vascular events recurrence was 9.5 months (IQR 2.0-16.3 months). The on-statin Lp(a) level ≥70 mg/dL (HR 2.539, 95% CI 1.076-5.990, P = 0.033) and the change of Lp(a) levels (HR 1.003, 95% CI 1.000-1.005, P = 0.033) were associated with the recurrent vascular events in statin-treated patients with first AIS. Furthermore, the on-statin Lp(a) levels ≥70 mg/dL (HR 3.612, 95% CI 1.018-12.815, P = 0.047) increased the risk of recurrent vascular events in patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels < 1.8 mmol/L.

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) levels increased in half of statin-treated patients with first AIS. Creatinine and AST were positively associated with the percent change of Lp(a) levels. Lp(a) is a determinant of residual vascular risk and the change of Lp(a) is positively associated with the risk of recurrent vascular events in these patients.