Lipoprotein (a) is associated with poor long-term prognosis in patients aged 80 years and older with acute coronary syndrome

Synergistic effect of lipoprotein(a) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein on the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a large prospective cohort study

Objective

Although lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP) are closely associated with the mortality of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), their synergistic effect on the risk of death remains unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the combined effect of Lp(a) and Hs-CRP on the incidence of all-cause and cardiovascular death in AMI patients.

Methods

A comprehensive cohort study enrolled 912 AMI patients, categorizing them into four groups based on Lp(a) and Hs-CRP levels: Group 1 [Lp(a) < 30 mg/dL & Hs-CRP < 2 mg/L], Group 2 [Lp(a) < 30 mg/dL & Hs-CRP ≥ 2 mg/L], Group 3 [Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL & Hs-CRP < 2 mg/L], and Group 4 [Lp(a) ≥ 30 mg/dL & Hs-CRP ≥ 2 mg/L]. Cox regression analysis, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and sensitivity analysis were employed to determine the combined effects of Lp(a) and Hs-CRP on the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death.

Results

Over a median observation period of 38.98 months, 217 patients passed away, with 137 deaths attributed to cardiovascular causes. The multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that in the comprehensively adjusted Model 3, only Lp(a) and the combination of Lp(a) and Hs-CRP exhibited a strong association with cardiovascular death risk. Specifically, for Lp(a) levels ≥ 30 mg/dL compared to < 30 mg/dL, the hazard ratio (HR) was 2.434 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.653-3.583 (P < 0.001); for log10(Lp(a)), the HR was 2.630 with a 95% CI of 1.530-4.523 (P < 0.001); for Group 4 versus Group 1, the HR was 2.346 with a 95% CI of 1.054-5.220 (P = 0.037); and for Group 4 versus Groups 1 + 2 + 3, the HR was 1.878 with a 95% CI of 1.284-2.748 (P = 0.001). Sensitivity analysis indicated that the synergy between Lp(a) and Hs-CRP continued to be independently associated with the risk of cardiovascular death. For Group 3 versus Group 1, the HR was 3.353 with a 95% CI of 1.133-9.917 (P = 0.029); for Group 4 versus Group 1, the HR was 3.710 with a 95% CI of 1.466-9.392 (P = 0.006); and for Group 4 versus Groups 1 + 2 + 3, the HR was 2.433 with a 95% CI of 1.620-3.656 (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Compared to elevated levels of either Lp(a) or Hs-CRP alone, the concurrent high levels of both significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular death in patients with AMI, underscoring the importance of considering their combined effects in the prognostic management of AMI patients.

Prognostic value of elevated lipoprotein (a) in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Elevated lipoprotein (a) level was recognized as an independent risk factor for significant adverse cardiovascular events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. Despite this recognition, the consensus in the literature regarding the prognostic significance of elevated lipoprotein (a) in ACS was also limited. Consequently, we conducted a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the prognostic relevance of elevated lipoprotein (a) level in individuals diagnosed with ACS.

Methods and results

A thorough literature review was conducted by systematically searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases until September 2023. This review specifically examined cohort studies exploring the prognostic implications of elevated lipoprotein (a) level in relation to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including death, stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and coronary revascularization, in patients with ACS. The meta-analysis utilized aggregated multivariable hazard ratios (HR) and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) to evaluate prognostic implications between high and low lipoprotein (a) levels [the cut-off of high lipoprotein (a) level varies from 12.5 to 60 mg/dl]. Among 18,168 patients in the identified studies, elevated lipoprotein (a) was independently associated with increased MACE risk (HR 1.26; 95% CI: 1.17-1.35, P < 0.00001) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.36; 95% CI: 1.05-1.76, P = 0.02) in ACS patients. In summary, elevated lipoprotein (a) levels independently forecast MACE and all-cause mortality in ACS patients. Assessing lipoprotein (a) levels appears promising for risk stratification in ACS, offering valuable insights for tailoring secondary prevention strategies.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42023476543).

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical Nomogram to Predict Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients within 1 Year of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The purpose of this study was to summarize the clinical characteristics and risk factors of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients who had had acute myocardial infarction (AMI) within 1 year of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A total of 421 AMI patients who were treated with PCI and experienced MACEs within 1 year of their admission were included in this retrospective study. In addition, patients were matched for age, sex, and presentation with 561 patients after AMI who had not had MACEs. The clinical characteristics and risk factors for MACEs within 1 year in AMI patients were investigated, to develop a nomogram for MACEs based on univariate and multivariate analyses. The C statistic was used to assess the discriminative performance of the nomogram. In addition, calibration curve and decision curve analyses were conducted to validate the calibration performance and utility, respectively, of the nomogram. After univariate and multivariate analyses, a nomogram was constructed based on age (odds ratio (OR): 1.030; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.014–1.047), diabetes mellitus (OR: 1.667; 95% CI: 1.151–2.415), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (OR: 1.332; 95% CI: 1.134–1.565), uric acid (OR: 1.003; 95% CI: 1.001–1.005), lipoprotein (a) (OR: 1.003; 95% CI: 1.002–1.003), left ventricular ejection fraction (OR: 0.929; 95% CI: 0.905–0.954), Syntax score (OR: 1.075; 95% CI: 1.053–1.097), and hypersensitive troponin T (OR: 1.002; 95% CI: 1.002–1.003). The C statistic was 0.814. The calibration curve showed good concordance of the nomogram, while decision curve analysis demonstrated satisfactory positive net benefits. We developed a convenient, practical, and effective prediction model for predicting MACEs in AMI patients within 1 year of PCI. To ensure generalizability, this model requires external validation.

Lipoprotein (a) and Cardiovascular Disease: A Missing Link for Premature Atherosclerotic Heart Disease and/or Residual Risk

ABSTRACT

Lipoprotein(a) or lipoprotein "little a" is an under-recognized causal risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD), including coronary atherosclerosis, aortic valvular stenosis, ischemic stroke, heart failure and peripheral arterial disease. Elevated plasma Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL or ≥100 nmol/L) is commonly encountered in almost 1 in 5 individuals and confers a higher CV risk compared to those with normal Lp(a) levels, although such normal levels have not been generally agreed upon. Elevated Lp(a) is considered a cause of premature and accelerated atherosclerotic CVD. Thus, in patients with a positive family or personal history of premature coronary artery disease (CAD), Lp(a) should be measured. However, elevated Lp(a) may confer increased risk for incident CAD even in the absence of a family history of CAD, and even in those who have guideline-lowered LDL-cholesterol (<70 mg/dl) and continue to have a persisting CV residual risk. Thus, measurement of Lp(a) will have a significant clinical impact on the assessment of atherosclerotic CVD risk, and will assume a more important role in managing patients with CVD with the advent and clinical application of specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies. Conventional therapeutic approaches like lifestyle modification and statin therapy remain ineffective at lowering Lp(a). Newer treatment modalities, such as gene silencing via RNA interference with use of antisense oligonucleotide(s) or small interfering RNA molecules targeting Lp(a) seem very promising. These issues are herein reviewed, accumulated data are scrutinized, meta-analyses and current guidelines are tabulated and Lp(a)-related CVDs and newer therapeutic modalities are pictorially illustrated.

Breaking Therapeutic Inertia With Alirocumab in an 80-Year-Old Patient With Severe Hypercholesterolemia: A Case Report

Background: Therapeutic inertia, defined as the failure to initiate or intensify therapy in a timely manner as per evidence-based clinical guidelines, is an important barrier limiting optimal care in the elderly. Therefore, overcoming therapeutic inertia is the core challenge when dealing with geriatric patients.

Case Description: The patient was an 80-year-old man that attended our Outpatient Lipid Clinic (Pisa University Hospital) because of persistent high LDL cholesterol (LDLc) levels in a setting of a statin contraindication. He underwent five percutaneous coronary angioplasties with drug-eluting stents. In 2014, upon starting treatment with rosuvastatin for LDLc level of 7.59 mmol/L, the patient was admitted to the Emergency Room for a presumptive diagnosis of rhabdomyolysis (creatine kinase 6685 U/L) secondary to statin. Patient developed acute kidney injury treated with dialysis. After resolution, he was discharged with ezetimibe (10 mg daily). This treatment however failed to effectively reduce LDLc levels that ranged between 5.9 and 6.6 mmol/L for the ensuing 4-years. In 2018, at the time of our evaluation, in consideration of the age, we performed a comprehensive geriatric assessment that showed good functional and mental status supporting a reliable treatment with a proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 inhibitor. Therefore, alirocumab was prescribed as add-on to ezetimibe. At 24-month follow-up, the geriatric assessment showed no significant changes, and alirocumab was well-tolerated. LDLc was 82% lower as compared to baseline values (from 6.6 to 1.2 mmol/L).

Conclusions: This report describes a case of therapeutic inertia despite a very high-risk profile. It is also instrumental in highlightening that appropriate intensification of therapy in an elderly patient at high cardiovascular risk, by means of a patient-centered approach, may allow reaching therapeutic targets and overcoming the condition of therapeutic inertia.