Lipoprotein(a) mass: a massively misunderstood metric

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

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

Association of free-living diet composition with plasma lipoprotein(a) levels in healthy adults

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is an apoB100-containing lipoprotein with high levels being positively associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Lp(a) levels are genetically determined. However, previous studies report a negative association between Lp(a) and saturated fatty acid intake. Currently, apoB100 lowering therapies are used to lower Lp(a) levels, and apheresis therapy is FDA approved for patients with extreme elevations of Lp(a). The current study analyzed the association of free-living diet components with plasma Lp(a) levels.

METHODS

Dietary composition data was collected during screening visits for enrollment in previously completed lipid and lipoprotein metabolism studies at Columbia University Irving Medical Center via a standardized protocol by registered dietitians using 24 hour recalls. Data were analyzed with the Nutrition Data System for Research (Version 2018). Diet quality was calculated using the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) score. Fasting plasma Lp(a) levels were measured via an isoform-independent ELISA and apo(a) isoforms were measured using gel electrophoresis.

RESULTS

We enrolled 28 subjects [Black (n = 18); Hispanic (n = 7); White (n = 3)]. The mean age was 48.3 ± 12.5 years with 17 males. Median level of Lp(a) was 79.9 nmol/L (34.4-146.0) and it was negatively associated with absolute (grams/day) and relative (percent of total calories) intake of dietary saturated fatty acids (SFA) (R = -0.43, P = 0.02, SFA …(% CAL): R = -0.38, P = 0.04), palmitic acid intake (R = -0.38, P = 0.05), and stearic acid intake (R = -0.40, P = 0.03). Analyses of associations with HEI score when stratified based on Lp(a) levels > or ≤ 100 nmol/L revealed no significant associations with any of the constituent factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Using 24 hour recall, we confirm previous findings that Lp(a) levels are negatively associated with dietary saturated fatty acid intake. Additionally, Lp(a) levels are not related to diet quality, as assessed by the HEI score. The mechanisms underlying the relationship of SFA with Lp(a) require further investigation.

Lipoprotein(a) in Atherosclerotic Diseases: From Pathophysiology to Diagnosis and Treatment

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol-like particle bound to apolipoprotein(a). Increased Lp(a) levels are an independent, heritable causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) as they are largely determined by variations in the Lp(a) gene (LPA) locus encoding apo(a). Lp(a) is the preferential lipoprotein carrier for oxidized phospholipids (OxPL), and its role adversely affects vascular inflammation, atherosclerotic lesions, endothelial function and thrombogenicity, which pathophysiologically leads to cardiovascular (CV) events. Despite this crucial role of Lp(a), its measurement lacks a globally unified method, and, between different laboratories, results need standardization. Standard antilipidemic therapies, such as statins, fibrates and ezetimibe, have a mediocre effect on Lp(a) levels, although it is not yet clear whether such treatments can affect CV events and prognosis. This narrative review aims to summarize knowledge regarding the mechanisms mediating the effect of Lp(a) on inflammation, atherosclerosis and thrombosis and discuss current diagnostic and therapeutic potentials.

The Inherited Hypercholesterolemias

Inherited hypercholesterolemias include monogenic and polygenic disorders, which can be very rare (eg, cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis (CTX)) or relatively common (eg, familial combined hyperlipidemia [FCH]). In this review, we discuss familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), FH-mimics (eg, polygenic hypercholesterolemia [PH], FCH, sitosterolemia), and other inherited forms of hypercholesterolemia (eg, hyper-lipoprotein(a) levels [hyper-Lp(a)]). The prevalence, genetics, and management of inherited hypercholesterolemias are described and selected guidelines summarized.

Elevated Lipoprotein(a) Level Influences Familial Hypercholesterolemia Diagnosis

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level are the most common inherited disorders of lipid metabolism. This study evaluated the impact of high Lp(a) level on accuracy Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) criteria of heterozygous FH diagnosis. A group of 206 individuals not receiving lipid-lowering medication with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >4.9 mmol/L was chosen from the Russian FH Registry. LDL-C corrected for Lp(a)-cholesterol was calculated as LDL-C − 0.3 × Lp(a). DLCN criteria were applied before and after adjusting LDL-C concentration. Of the 206 patients with potential FH, a total of 34 subjects (17%) were reclassified to less severe FH diagnosis, 13 subjects of them (6%) were reclassified to “unlike” FH. In accordance with Receiver Operating Characteristic curve, Lp(a) level ≥40 mg/dL was associated with FH re-diagnosing with sensitivity of 63% and specificity of 78% (area under curve = 0.7, 95% CI 0.7−0.8, p < 0.001). The reclassification was mainly observed in FH patients with Lp(a) level above 40 mg/dL, i.e., 33 (51%) with reclassified DLCN criteria points and 22 (34%) with reclassified diagnosis, compared with 21 (15%) and 15 (11%), respectively, in patients with Lp(a) level less than 40 mg/dL. Thus, LDL-C corrected for Lp(a)-cholesterol should be considered in all FH patients with Lp(a) level above 40 mg/dL for recalculating points in accordance with DLCN criteria.

Lipoprotein (a): When to Measure and How to Treat?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to review current evidence for lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) as a risk factor for multiple cardiovascular (CV) disease phenotypes, provide a rationale for Lp(a) lowering to reduce CV risk, identify therapies that lower Lp(a) levels that are available clinically and under investigation, and discuss future directions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Mendelian randomization and epidemiological studies have shown that elevated Lp(a) is an independent and causal risk factor for atherosclerosis and major CV events. Lp(a) is also associated with non-atherosclerotic endpoints such as venous thromboembolism and calcific aortic valve disease. It contributes to residual CV risk in patients receiving standard-of-care LDL-lowering therapy. Plasma Lp(a) levels present a skewed distribution towards higher values and vary widely between individuals and according to ethnic background due to genetic variants in the LPA gene, but remain relatively constant throughout a person's life. Thus, elevated Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL) is a prevalent condition affecting >20% of the population but is still underdiagnosed. Treatment guidelines have begun to advocate measurement of Lp(a) to identify patients with very high levels that have a family history of premature CVD or elevated Lp(a). Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) efficiently lowers Lp(a) and was recently associated with a reduction of incident CV events. Statins have neutral or detrimental effects on Lp(a), while PCSK9 inhibitors significantly reduce its level by up to 30%. Specific lowering of Lp(a) with antisense oligonucleotides (ASO) shows good safety and strong efficacy with up to 90% reductions. The ongoing CV outcomes study Lp(a)HORIZON will provide a first answer as to whether selective Lp(a) lowering with ASO reduces the risk of major CV events. Given the recently established association between Lp(a) level and CV risk, guidelines now recommend Lp(a) measurement in specific clinical conditions. Accordingly, Lp(a) is a current target for drug development to reduce CV risk in patients with elevated levels, and lowering Lp(a) with ASO represents a promising avenue.

Association of lipoprotein(a) with intrinsic and on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an independent, genetically determined, and causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Laboratory data have suggested an interaction of Lp(a) with platelet function, potentially caused by its interaction with platelet receptors. So far, the potential association of Lp(a) with platelet activation and reactivity has not been proven in larger clinical cohorts. This study analyzed intrinsic platelet reactivity before loading with clopidogrel 600 mg and on-treatment platelet reactivity tested 24 h following loading in patients undergoing elective coronary angiography. Platelet reactivity was tested by optical aggregometry following stimulation with collagen or adenosine diphosphate as well as by flow cytometry. Lp(a) levels were directly measured in all patients from fresh samples. The present analysis included 1912 patients. Lp(a) levels ranged between 0 and 332 mg/dl. There was a significant association of rising levels of Lp(a) with a higher prevalence of a history of ischemic heart disease (p < 0.001) and more extensive coronary artery disease (p = 0.001). Results for intrinsic (p = 0.80) and on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (p = 0.81) did not differ between quartiles of Lp(a) levels. Flow cytometry analyses of expression of different platelet surface proteins (CD41, CD62P or PAC-1) confirmed these findings. Correlation analyses of levels of Lp(a) with any of the tested platelet activation markers did not show any correlation. The present data do not support the hypothesis of an interaction of Lp(a) with platelet reactivity.

Performance evaluation of five lipoprotein(a) immunoassays on the Roche cobas c501 chemistry analyzer

Objectives

Measurement of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is used in risk assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The aim of the current study was to evaluate performance characteristic of five different Lp(a) assays using the cobas c501 (Roche Diagnostics) analyzer.

Design and methods

Lp(a) was measured using five Lp(a) assays (Diazyme, Kamiya, MedTest, Randox, and Roche) configured to mg/dL units. Assays from Diazyme and Kamiya were also configured using nmol/L units in separate experiments. Studies included sensitivity, imprecision, linearity, method comparison, and evaluation of healthy subjects. Imprecision (intra-day, 20 replicates; inter-day, duplicates twice daily for five days) and linearity were evaluated using patient pools. Linearity assessed a minimum of five patient splits spanning the analytical measurement range (AMR). Method comparison used 80 residual serum samples. Specimens from 120 self-reported healthy subjects (61 females / 59 males) were also tested. Method comparison for two assays in nmol/L units was conducted using 96 residual serum samples.

Results

Assay sensitivities met all manufacturer claims. Imprecision studies demonstrated %CVs ranging from 2.5 to 5.2% for the low pool (average concentration from 7.3 to 12.4 ​mg/dL); high pool %CVs ranged from 0.8 to 3.0% (average concentrations from 31.5–50.2 ​mg/dL). Linearity was confirmed for all assays. Variation in accuracy was observed when comparing results to an all method average. Lp(a) results were higher in females versus males in self-reported healthy subjects.

Conclusions

All assays performed according to manufacturer described performance characteristics, although differences were observed across Lp(a) assays tested when compared to an all method average.

•

Five automated assays for Lp(a) measurement (mg/dL units) were compared.

•

Differences in accuracy were observed across the methods investigated.

•

Two assays were also compared using nmol/L units.

•

More Lp(a) assay traceability to the international reference material is needed.

Measuring the contribution of Lp(a) cholesterol towards LDL-C interpretation

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a pro-atherogenic and pro-thrombotic LDL-like particle recognized as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). The cholesterol within Lp(a) (Lp(a)-C) contributes to the reported LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) concentration by nearly all available methods. Accurate LDL-C measurements are critical for identification of genetic dyslipidemias such as familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). FH diagnostic criteria, such as the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) criteria, utilize LDL-C concentration cut-offs to assess the likelihood of FH. Therefore, failure to adjust for Lp(a)-C can impact accurate FH diagnosis and classification, appropriate follow-up testing and treatments, and interpretation of cholesterol-lowering treatment efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we use direct Lp(a)-C measurements to assess the potential misclassification of FH from contributions of Lp(a)-C to reported LDL-C in patient samples submitted for advanced lipoprotein profiling.

METHODS

A total of 31,215 samples submitted for lipoprotein profiling were included. LDL-C was measured by beta quantification or calculated by one of three equations. Lp(a)-C was measured by quantitative lipoprotein electrophoresis. DLCN LDL-C cut-offs were applied to LDL-C results before and after accounting for Lp(a)-C contribution.

RESULTS

Lp(a)-C was detected in 8665 (28%) samples. A total of 940 subjects were reclassified to a lower DLCN LDL-C categories; this represents 3% of the total patient series or 11% of subjects with measurable Lp(a)-C.

CONCLUSION

Lp(a)-C is present in a significant portion of samples submitted for advanced lipid testing and could cause patient misclassification when using FH diagnostic criteria. These misclassifications could trigger inappropriate follow-up, treatment, and cascade testing for suspected FH.

Current and future role of lipoprotein(a) in preventive cardiology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to highlight our emerging understanding of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]'s role in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), its structure-function relationship, and promising developments within the therapeutic pipeline.

RECENT FINDINGS

Elevated levels of Lp(a) are strongly associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease, calcific aortic valve stenosis, and ischemic stroke. With circulating levels almost exclusively genetically mediated, increased levels of Lp(a) contribute significantly to the residual cardiovascular disease risk in individuals with otherwise well controlled risk factors. The unique structure of Lp(a) - comprised of a genetically heterogeneous apolipoprotein(a) molecule bound to an LDL-like moiety - provides insight into its pathogenic role in cardiovascular disease and also complicates its accurate measurement. Emerging therapies targeting the apolipoprotein(a) component of Lp(a) have the potential to revolutionize the management of individuals with elevated Lp(a).

SUMMARY

With promising therapies on the horizon, there has been a renewed focus on the role of Lp(a) in ASCVD. Given Lp(a)'s strong and independent association with key cardiovascular outcomes, it is hopeful that these promising targeted therapies will add another therapeutic option for the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Lipoprotein(a) the Insurgent: A New Insight into the Structure, Function, Metabolism, Pathogenicity, and Medications Affecting Lipoprotein(a) Molecule

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], aka “Lp little a”, was discovered in the 1960s in the lab of the Norwegian physician Kåre Berg. Since then, we have greatly improved our knowledge of lipids and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Lp(a) is an enigmatic class of lipoprotein that is exclusively formed in the liver and comprises two main components, a single copy of apolipoprotein (apo) B-100 (apo-B100) tethered to a single copy of a protein denoted as apolipoprotein(a) apo(a). Plasma levels of Lp(a) increase soon after birth to a steady concentration within a few months of life. In adults, Lp(a) levels range widely from <2 to 2500 mg/L. Evidence that elevated Lp(a) levels >300 mg/L contribute to CVD is significant. The improvement of isoform-independent assays, together with the insight from epidemiologic studies, meta-analyses, genome-wide association studies, and Mendelian randomization studies, has established Lp(a) as the single most common independent genetically inherited causal risk factor for CVD. This breakthrough elevated Lp(a) from a biomarker of atherosclerotic risk to a target of therapy. With the emergence of promising second-generation antisense therapy, we hope that we can answer the question of whether Lp(a) is ready for prime-time clinic use. In this review, we present an update on the metabolism, pathophysiology, and current/future medical interventions for high levels of Lp(a).

Cholesterol-Lowering Agents

Loss-of-function variants in PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9) are associated with lower lifetime risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) events. Confirmation of these genetic observations in large, prospective clinical trials in participants with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has provided guidance on risk stratification and enhanced our knowledge on hitherto unresolved and contentious issues concerning the efficacy and safety of markedly lowering LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol). PCSK9 has a broad repertoire of molecular effects. Furthermore, clinical trials with PCSK9 inhibitors demonstrate that reductions in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events are more effective in patients with recent myocardial infarction, multiple myocardial infarctions, multivessel coronary artery disease, and lower extremity arterial disease. The potent LDL-C lowering efficacy of PCSK9 inhibitors provides the opportunity for more aggressive LDL-lowering strategies in high-risk patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and supports the notion that there is no lower limit for LDL-C. Aggressive LDL-C lowering with fully human PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies has been associated by a safety profile superior to that of other classes of LDL-lowering agents. These clinical trials provide evidence that LDL lowering with PCSK9 inhibitors is an effective therapy for lowering cardiovascular events in high-risk patients with LDL-C levels ≥70 mg/dL on maximally tolerated oral therapies, including statins and ezetimibe.

Effect of Lipoprotein(a) on the Diagnosis of Familial Hypercholesterolemia: Does It Make a Difference in the Clinic?

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic tools for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) rely on estimation of LDL cholesterol concentration. However, routine measurement or calculation of LDL cholesterol concentration using the Friedewald equation contains a cholesterol contribution from lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]. We investigated whether Lp(a) influences the phenotypic diagnosis of FH by commonly used clinical criteria.

METHODS

A cohort of 907 adult index patients attending a clinic were studied. The Dutch Lipid Clinic Network (DLCN) and Simon Broome (SB) diagnostic criteria were estimated before and after adjusting LDL cholesterol concentration for the cholesterol content (30%) of Lp(a). Diagnostic reclassification rates and area under the ROC (AUROC) curves in predicting an FH mutation were also compared.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients defined by DLCN criteria (8.2%) and 207 patients defined by SB criteria (22.8%) were reclassified to “unlikely” FH after adjusting LDL cholesterol for Lp(a) cholesterol. The proportion of FH patients defined by DLCN (probable/definite) and SB (possible/definite) criteria decreased significantly in patients with increased Lp(a) (&gt;0.5 g/L; n = 330) after Lp(a) cholesterol adjustment (P &lt; 0.01). The overall reclassification rate was significantly higher in patients with Lp(a) concentration &gt;1.0 g/L (P &lt; 0.001). The AUROC curve for LDL cholesterol concentration ≥191 mg/dL (≥5.0 mmol/L), DLCN criteria, and SB criteria in predicting an FH mutation increased significantly after adjustment (P &lt; 0.001). There was no significant difference in AUROC curve before and after Lp(a) cholesterol adjustment at an LDL cholesterol concentration ≥251 mg/dL (≥6.5 mmol/L).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjusting LDL cholesterol concentration for Lp(a) cholesterol improves the diagnostic accuracy of DLCN and SB criteria, especially with Lp(a) &gt;1.0 g/L and LDL cholesterol &lt;251 mg/dL (&lt;6.5 mmol/L). Lp(a) should be measured in all patients suspected of having FH.

To test, or not to test: that is the question for the future of lipoprotein(a)

INTRODUCTION

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a potent, highly heritable and common risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Evidence for a causal association between elevated Lp(a) and ASCVD has been provided by large epidemiological investigations that have demonstrated a curvilinear association with increased risk, as well as from genetic examinations and cellular and transgenic animal studies. Although there are several therapies available for lowering Lp(a), none are selective for Lp(a) and there is no clinical trial data that has specifically shown that lowering Lp(a) reduces the risk of ASCVD. Hence, screening for elevated Lp(a) is not routinely incorporated into clinical practice. Areas covered: This paper reviews the current evidence supporting the causal role of Lp(a) in the primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD, screening approaches for high Lp(a), current guidelines on testing Lp(a), and barriers to the routine screening of elevated Lp(a) in clinical practice. Expert opinion: At present, there is a moderate level of evidence supporting the routine screening of elevated Lp(a). Current guidelines recommend testing for elevated Lp(a) in individuals at intermediate or high risk of ASCVD.

Lipids: a personal view of the past decade

The past decade has witnessed considerable progress in the field of lipids. New drugs have been "rapidly" developed and some of these drugs have already been evaluated in event-based large trials. This evidence has led to the guidelines recommending new, more aggressive treatment goals for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Although LDL-C remains the principal goal for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction, there has also been considerable interest in other lipid variables, such as high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and lipoprotein(a). Statin intolerance is now considered a very important topic in daily clinical practice. This has resulted in more attention focusing on non-statin drugs [e.g., ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors] and statin-related side effects. The latter mainly involve muscles, but there is also a need to consider other adverse effects associated with statin use (e.g., new onset diabetes). New specific areas of statin use have attracted interest. For example, statin-loading before procedures (e.g., coronary stenting), the prevention of stroke, and the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Statins will remain the most widely used drugs to treat dyslipidaemia and decrease CVD risk. However, we also need to briefly consider some other lipid-lowering drugs, including those that may become available in the future.

Low LPA gene kringle IV-2 repeat copy number association with elevated lipoprotein (a) concentration as an independent risk factor of coronary atherosclerotic heart disease in the Chinese Han population

Background

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)], which is genetically determined by the LPA gene kringle IV type 2 (KIV-2) repeat copy number, has previously been reported in different populations. However, it is uncertain if the same occurs in the Chinese Han population. This study explored the correlation of Lp(a) mass or particle concentration with KIV-2 repeat copy number and application for coronary atherosclerotic heart disease (CAHD) risk assessment.

Methods

A cross-sectional study including 884 subjects was conducted. The Lp(a) level and routine risk factors of CAHD were compared. The KIV-2 copy number distribution, relationship with Lp(a), and assessment for CAHD risk were explored.

Results

The mean of Lp(a) mass or particle concentration in the CAHD group was higher than that in the non-CAHD group, while the KIV-2 copy number in the CAHD group was lower. Lp(a) had auxiliary values in gauging the type of plaque and was significantly higher in the soft-plaque group than that in the other two groups (200 mg/L [21.5 nmol/L], 166 mg/L [18.6 nmol/L], 149 mg/L [17.1 nmol/L], respectively, P < 0.05). Kappa test indicated divergence for the same individual using two Lp(a) concentrations (kappa value was 0.536 [< 0.75]). Elevated Lp(a) was an independent CAHD risk factor, whatever mass or particle concentration, and large KIV-2 copy number was a protective factor.

Conclusion

Lp(a) level and small KIV-2 copy number are risk factors for CAHD in the Chinese Han population; furthermore, elevated Lp(a) may gauge the type of coronary plaque.

Homogenization of the lipid profile values

Analytical reports from the clinical laboratory are essential to guide clinicians about what lipid profile values should be considered altered and, therefore, require intervention. Unfortunately, there is a great heterogeneity in the lipid values reported as "normal, desirable, recommended or referenced" by clinical laboratories. This can difficult clinical decisions and be a barrier to achieve the therapeutic goals for cardiovascular prevention. A recent international recommendation has added a new heterogeneity factor for the interpretation of lipid profile, such as the possibility of measuring it without previous fasting. All this justifies the need to develop a document that adapts the existing knowledge to the clinical practice of our health system. In this regard, professionals from different scientific societies involved in the measurement and use of lipid profile data have developed this document to establish recommendations that facilitate their homogenization.

Lipid Biomarkers for Risk Assessment in Acute Coronary Syndromes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The objective of this review was to summarize evidence gathered for the prognostic value of routine and novel blood lipids and lipoproteins measured in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS).

RECENT FINDINGS

Data supports clear association with risk and actionable value for non-high-density lipoprotein (Non-HDL) cholesterol and plasma ceramides in a setting of ACS. The prognostic value and clinical actionability of apolipoprotein B (apoB) and lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in ACS have not been thoroughly tested, while the data for omega-3 fatty acids and oxidized low-density lipoprotein (Ox-LDL) are either untested or more varied. Measuring basic lipids, which should include Non-HDL cholesterol, at the time of presentation for ACS is guideline mandated. Plasma ceramides also provide useful information to guide both treatment decisions and follow-up. Additional studies targeting ACS patients are necessary for apoB, Lp(a), omega-3 fatty acids, and Ox-LDL.

Prevention of cardiovascular complications in patients with Lp(a)-hyperlipoproteinemia and progressive cardiovascular disease by long-term lipoprotein apheresis according to German national guidelines

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an independent cardiovascular risk factor playing a causal role for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD). Lipoprotein apheresis (LA) is a safe well-tolerated outpatient treatment to lower LDL-C and Lp(a) by 60–70%, and is the ultimate escalating therapeutic option in patients with hyperlipoproteinemias (HLP) involving LDL particles. Major therapeutic effect of LA is preventing cardiovascular events. Lp(a)-HLP associated with progressive CVD has been approved as indication for regular LA in Germany since 2008. The Pro(a)LiFe-study investigated with a prospective multicenter design the long-term preventive effect of LA on incidence rates of cardiovascular events prospectively over a period of 5 years in 170 consecutive patients who commenced regular LA. During a median period of 4.7 years of the pre-LA period, Lp(a) associated progressive CVD became apparent. Apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) isoforms and polymorphisms at the apo(a) gene (LPA) were analyzed to assess hypothetical clinical correlations. 154 patients (90.6%) completed 5‑years follow-up. Significant decline of the mean annual major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate was observed from 0.41 ± 0.45 two years prior to regular LA to 0.06 ± 0.11 during 5 years with regular LA (p < 0.0001). 95.3% of patients expressed at least one small apo(a) isoform. Calculation of isoform specific concentrations allowed to confirm the equivalence of 60 mg/dl or 120 nmol/l as Lp(a) thresholds of the German LA guideline. Results of 5 years prospective follow-up confirmed that LA has a lasting effect on prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with Lp(a)-HLP and afore progressive CVD.

Lipoprotein(a) and its role in inflammation, atherosclerosis and malignancies

Lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) is a modified low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle with an additional specific apolipoprotein (a), covalently attached to apolipoprotein B‑100 of LDL by a single thioester bond. Increased plasma Lp(a) level is a genetically determined, independent, causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease.

The precise quantification of Lp(a) in plasma is still hampered by mass-sensitive assays, large particle variation, poor standardization and lack of assay comparability.

The physiological functions of Lp(a) include wound healing, promoting tissue repair and vascular remodeling. Similarly to other lipoproteins, Lp(a) is also susceptible for oxidative modifications, leading to extensive formation of pro-inflammatory and pro-atherogenic oxidized phospholipids, oxysterols, oxidized lipid-protein adducts in Lp(a) particles, that perpetuate atherosclerotic lesion progression and intima-media thickening through induction of M1-macrophages, inflammation, autoimmunity and apoptosis. The oxidation-specific epitopes of modified lipoproteins are major targets of pre-immune, natural IgM antibodies, that may attenuate the pro-inflammatory and pro-atherogenic effects of Lp(a).

Although the data are still insufficient, recent studies suggest a potential anti-neoplastic role of Lp(a).

Progress in the care of common inherited atherogenic disorders of apolipoprotein B metabolism

Familial hypercholesterolaemia, familial combined hyperlipidaemia (FCH) and elevated lipoprotein(a) are common, inherited disorders of apolipoprotein B metabolism that markedly accelerate the onset of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). These disorders are frequently encountered in clinical lipidology and need to be accurately identified and treated in both index patients and their family members, to prevent the development of premature ASCVD. The optimal screening strategies depend on the patterns of heritability for each condition. Established therapies are widely used along with lifestyle interventions to regulate levels of circulating lipoproteins. New therapeutic strategies are becoming available, and could supplement traditional approaches in the most severe cases, but their long-term cost-effectiveness and safety have yet to be confirmed. We review contemporary developments in the understanding, detection and care of these highly atherogenic disorders of apolipoprotein B metabolism.

Evidence-based assessment of lipoprotein(a) as a risk biomarker for cardiovascular diseases - Some answers and still many questions

The present article is aimed at outlining the current state of knowledge regarding the clinical value of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) as a marker of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk by summarizing the results of recent clinical studies, meta-analyses and systematic reviews. The literature supports the predictive value of Lp(a) on CVD outcomes, although the effect size is modest. Lp(a) would also appear to have an effect on cerebrovascular outcomes, however the effect appears even smaller than that for CVD outcomes. Consideration of apolipoprotein(a) (apo(a)) isoforms and LPA genetics in relation to the simple assessment of Lp(a) concentration may enhance clinical practice in vascular medicine. We also describe recent advances in Lp(a) research (including therapies) and highlight areas where further research is needed such as the measurement of Lp(a) and its involvement in additional pathophysiological processes.

The relationship between Lp(a) and CVD outcomes: a systematic review

Robust associations between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and CVD outcomes among general populations have been published in previous studies. However, associations in high risk primary prevention and secondary prevention populations are less well defined. In order to investigate this further, a systematic review was performed including prospective studies, which assessed the relationship between Lp(a) and CVD outcomes using multivariable analyses. Additional information was gathered on Lp(a) assays, multivariable modelling and population characteristics. Literature searches from inception up to December 2015 retrieved 2850 records. From these 60 studies were included. Across 39 primary prevention studies in the general population (hazard ratios ranged from 1.16 to 2.97) and seven high risk primary prevention studies (hazard ratios ranged from 1.01 to 3.7), there was evidence of a statistically significant relationship between increased Lp(a) and an increased risk of future CVD. Results in 14 studies of secondary prevention populations were also suggestive of a modest statistically significant relationship (hazard ratios ranged from 0.75 to 3.7).Therefore current evidence would suggest that increased Lp(a) levels are associated with modest increases in the risk of future CVD events in both general and higher risk populations. However, further studies are required to confirm these findings.

Lipoprotein(a) hyperlipidemia as cardiovascular risk factor: pathophysiological aspects

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a modified LDL particle with an additional apolipoprotein [apo(a)] protein covalently attached by a thioester bond. Multiple isoforms of apo(a) exist that are genetically determined by differences in the number of Kringle-IV type-2 repeats encoded by the LPA gene. Elevated plasma Lp(a) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease.

The phenotypic diversity of familial Lp(a) hyperlipidemia [Lp(a)-HLP] and familial hypercholesterolemia [FH], as defined risks with genetic background, and their frequent co-incidence with additional cardiovascular risk factors require a critical revision of the current diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations established for isolated familial Lp(a)-HLP or FH in combination with elevated Lp(a) levels.

Lp(a) assays still suffer from poor standardization, comparability and particle variation. Further evaluation of the current biomarkers and establishment of novel comorbidity biomarkers are necessary for extended risk assessment of cardiovascular disease in FH or Lp(a)-HLP and to better understand the pathophysiology and to improve patient stratification of the Lp(a) syndrome complex.

Lp(a) promotes vascular remodeling, increased lesion progression and intima media thickening through induction of M1-macrophages, antiangiogenic effects (e.g. vasa vasorum) with secretion of the antiangiogenic chemokine CXCL10 (IP10) and CXCR3 mediated activation of Th1- and NK-cells.

In addition inhibition of serine proteases causing disturbances of thrombosis/ hemostasis/ fibrinolysis, TGFb-activation and acute phase response (e.g. CRP, anti-PL antibodies) are major features of Lp(a) pathology. Anti-PL antibodies (EO6 epitope) also bind to oxidized Lp(a).

Lipoprotein apheresis is used to reduce circulating lipoproteins in patients with severe FH and/or Lp(a)-HLP, particularly with multiple cardiovascular risks who are intolerant or insufficiently responsive to lipid-lowering drugs.

Lipoprotein(a)-clinical aspects and future challenges

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) was first described by K. Berg and is known for more than 50 years. It is an interesting particle and combines the atherogenic properties of low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol as well as the thrombogenic properties of plasminogen inactivation. However, due to technical problems and publication of negative trials the potential role of Lp(a) in atherosclerosis was severely underestimated. In recent years our understanding of the function and importance of Lp(a) improved. Interventional trials with niacin failed to demonstrate any benefit of lowering Lp(a); however, several studies confirmed the residual cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk of elevated Lp(a). LDL/Lp(a) apheresis is able to lower Lp(a) and some new drugs under development should help us to lower Lp(a) in the near future. It will be important to follow this with hard endpoint trials. Until then most clinicians recommend the use of an aggressive LDL-lowering approach in patients with high Lp(a). Since most of these patients with high Lp(a) might have manifested atherosclerosis anyway, we would also consider the use of acetylsalicylic acid.

Lipoprotein (a) measurements for clinical application

The high degree of size heterogeneity of apo(a), the distinct protein component of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)], renders the development and selection of specific antibodies directed to apo(a) more difficult and poses significant challenges to the development of immunoassays to measure its concentration in plasma or serum samples. Apo(a) is extremely variable in size not only between but also within individuals because of the presence of two different, genetically determined apo(a) isoform sizes. Therefore, the antigenic determinants per particle available to interact with the antibodies will vary in the samples and the calibrators, thus contributing to apo(a) size-dependent inaccuracy of different methods. The lack of rigorous validation of the immunoassays and common means of expressing Lp(a) concentrations hinder the harmonization of results obtained by different studies and contribute to the lack of common cut points for identification of individuals at risk for coronary artery disease or for interventions aimed at reducing Lp(a) levels. The aim of our review is to present and critically evaluate the issues surrounding the measurements of Lp(a), their impact on the clinical interpretation of the data, and the obstacles we need to overcome to achieve the standardization of Lp(a) measurements.

Targeting lipoprotein (a): an evolving therapeutic landscape

Robust epidemiologic and genetic studies have solidified the role of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] as an independent and causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The increased cardiovascular risk of Lp(a) is mediated through both proatherogenic and prothrombotic/antifibrinolytic mechanisms. Several societies recommend Lp(a) screening for patients with high cardiovascular risk, although no consensus exists on the management of patients with elevated Lp(a). However, numerous pharmacologic approaches are being evaluated that have the potential to reduce Lp(a) and will be the focus of this review. The majority of these interventions have been developed for other lipid-lowering indications, but also lower Lp(a). There are also novel therapies in development that specifically target Lp(a). The efficacy of these therapies varies, and their role in the evolving lipoprotein therapeutic landscape has yet to be determined. Nevertheless, targeted Lp(a) reduction is certainly intriguing and will likely continue to be an active area of investigation in the future.

Lipoprotein(a): Its relevance to the pediatric population

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a highly atherogenic and heterogeneous lipoprotein that is inherited in an autosomal codominant trait. A unique aspect of this lipoprotein is that it is fully expressed by the first or second year of life in children, a pattern that is distinctly different from other lipoproteins, which typically only reach adult levels after adolescence. Despite decades of research, Lp(a) metabolism is still poorly understood but what is abundantly clear is that it is an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The Expert Panel on Integrated Guidelines for Cardiovascular Health and Risk Reduction in Children and Adolescents does not recommend measuring Lp(a) levels as part of routine screening except in youth with an ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or youth with a parental history of ASCVD not explained by classical risk factors. One of the reasons that both the pediatric and adult guidelines fail to include this lipoprotein as part of routine lipid screening is the absence of data to show that lowering Lp(a) will reduce current or future ASCVD risk independently of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering. The cholesterol carried by Lp(a) is included in the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol measurement, but a separate test is used to measure the lipoprotein mass and/or cholesterol carried only by Lp(a). Because levels seem to be largely under genetic control, studies of lifestyle modification have been inconclusive although one study in obese children showed a decrease in the Lp(a) level comparable with the favorable effect on other lipids. The most compelling data regarding the importance of Lp(a) in the pediatric population are the increased risk associated with arterial ischemic stroke, a risk that is comparable with that associated with antiphospholipid antibodies or protein C deficiency. Although no specific pharmaceutical treatments are recommended to lower Lp(a) levels in youth, it is vitally important to educate youth and their parents about the excessive risk associated with this lipoprotein and the need to avoid the acquisition of other lifestyle-related risk factors such as smoking, excess weight, and physical inactivity to preserve more ideal cardiovascular health in adulthood.

Effects of Extended-Release Nicotinic Acid on Apolipoprotein (a) Kinetics in Hypertriglyceridemic Patients

OBJECTIVE

To determine the mechanisms by which extended-release nicotinic acid reduces circulating lipoprotein (a) concentrations in hypertriglyceridemic patients.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

Eight nondiabetic, obese male subjects (aged 48±12 years; body mass index, 31.2±1.8 kg/m(2)) with hypertriglyceridemia (triglycerides, 226±78 mg/dL) were enrolled in an 8 week, double blind, placebo-controlled cross-over study. At the end of each treatment phase, fasted subjects received a 10 µmol/L per kg bolus injection of [5,5,5-(2)H3]-l-Leucine immediately followed by constant infusion of [5,5,5-(2)H3]-l-Leucine (10 µmol L(-1) kg(-1) h(-1)) for 14 hours, and blood samples were collected. A liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method was used to study apolipoprotein (a) (Apo(a)) kinetics. The fractional catabolic rate of Apo(a) was calculated with a single compartmental model using the apolipoprotein B100 (ApoB100) containing very low density lipoprotein tracer enrichment as a precursor pool. Extended-release nicotinic acid decreased plasma triglycerides (-46%; P=0.023), raised high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (+20%; P=0.008), and decreased Apo(a) plasma concentrations (-20%; P=0.008). Extended-release nicotinic acid also decreased ApoB100 (22%; P=0.008) and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9, -29%; P=0.008) plasma concentrations. Apo(a) fractional catabolic rate and production rates were decreased by 37% (0.58±0.28 versus 0.36±0.19 pool/d; P=0.008) and 50% (1.4±0.8 versus 0.7±0.4 nmol/kg per day; P=0.008), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended-release nicotinic acid treatment decreased Apo(a) plasma concentrations by 20%, production rates by 50%, and catabolism by 37%. ApoB100 and PCSK9 concentrations were also decreased by treatment, but no correlation was found with Apo(a) kinetic parameters.