Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease

Design and Rationale of Lp(a)HORIZON Trial: Assessing the Effect of Lipoprotein(a) Lowering With Pelacarsen on Major Cardiovascular Events in Patients With CVD and Elevated Lp(a)

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a), abbreviated Lp(a), consists of apolipoprotein B-100 covalently bound to apolipoprotein(a), and represents an independent, genetically-determined, causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) and calcific aortic stenosis. More than 20% of the world CVD population has elevated Lp(a). Currently there are no approved pharmacologic treatments to lower Lp(a) levels, and no randomized trials have demonstrated that lowering Lp(a) reduces CVD risk.

STUDY DESIGN

Lp(a) HORIZON is a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, multinational trial in 8,323 patients with established CVD and elevated Lp(a) levels of ≥70 mg/dL (approximately 149 nmol/L), testing the effect of pelacarsen, an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) on the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Established CVD is defined as history of myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke or symptomatic peripheral artery disease. The minimum follow-up is required to be 2.5 years. The study will end when 993 CEC confirmed primary CV events have accumulated. Based on the current event accrual trend, the overal study duration is anticipated to be approximately 6 years. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either monthly subcutaneous (SQ) injections of pelacarsen 80 mg or matching placebo on a background of optimized standard of care therapy for CVD. The primary endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or urgent coronary revascularization requiring hospitalization. This endpoint will be evaluated in the overall population and in a subpopulation of Lp(a) ≥90 mg/dL (approximately 192 nmol/L) at screening, with multiplicity control designed to test the primary endpoint in both the overall population and the subpopulation.

CONCLUSION

Lp(a) HORIZON will determine the effect of pelacarsen on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with elevated Lp(a) and established CVD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04023552.

Cardiometabolic determinants of aortic and carotid intima-media thickness in adolescence

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Comprehensive longitudinal data in healthy populations on cardiometabolic determinants of arterial intima-media thickness (IMT), especially aortic IMT, in adolescence are lacking. We aimed to examine in detail how cardiometabolic risk factors associate with aortic and carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in adolescence.

METHODS

Participants (n = 522) were healthy individuals from Special Turku Coronary Risk Factor Intervention Project. IMT of the abdominal aorta and common carotid artery was measured repeatedly with ultrasonography at the age of 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19 years. Data on cardiometabolic risk markers were available beginning from early childhood.

RESULTS

Between ages 11 and 19 years, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, serum total cholesterol, non-HDL-cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B levels, insulin and insulin resistance indicated by homeostasis model of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), C-reactive protein, and smoking associated directly with aortic IMT. For carotid IMT, a direct association was found with BMI, waist circumference, systolic blood pressure and smoking. In multivariate analyses, BMI(β = 5.49, SE = 1.01, P < 0.0001) and HOMA-IR (β = 16.79, SE = 7.45, P = 0.02) remained as determinants of aortic IMT. Correspondingly, BMI(β = 1.78, SE = 0.42, P < 0.0001) and systolic blood pressure (β = 0.38, SE = 0.10, P = 0.0001) determined carotid IMT. Participants with longitudinal aortic or carotid IMT above/equal the 80th percentile had higher BMI measured from infancy than their peers with longitudinal IMT below the 80th percentile.

CONCLUSIONS

In adolescence, several cardiometabolic risk factors associate with aortic IMT while these links are less evident for carotid IMT. Aortic IMT may serve as a more sensitive marker than carotid IMT of early vascular remodeling.

The Brussels International Declaration on Lipoprotein(a) Testing and Management

There is striking evidence that a high lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentration is a strong, independent, and causal cardiovascular risk factor. However, Lp(a) testing rates are very low (1 %-2 %) despite the fact that 1 in 5 individuals have elevated Lp(a) concentrations. The Brussels International Declaration on Lp(a) Testing and Management was co-created by the Lp(a) International Task Force and global leaders at the Lp(a) Global Summit, held in Brussels, Belgium, on March 24-25, 2025. The event, organized by FH Europe Foundation, brought together scientific experts, people with the lived experience of elevated Lp(a) and policy makers from the European Institutions and World Health Organization. The World Heart Federation, Global Heart Hub, and European Alliance for Cardiovascular Health and scientific organizations such as European Atherosclerosis Society, and International Atherosclerosis Society were formal partners. The Summit was hosted by a Member of the European Parliament, Romana Jerković, and held under the patronage of the Polish presidency of the Council of the European Union. The Declaration calls for 1) integration of Lp(a) testing and management into Global, European and National Cardiovascular Health Plans; 2) appropriate investment, policy and programmes in targeting Lp(a) testing and management based on a recent study demonstrating the substantial overall cost-saving to health systems across the globe; 3) political commitment to mandate systematic Lp(a) testing at least once during a person's lifetime, ideally at an early age, with full reimbursement; 4) incorporation of Lp(a) test results in the context of a person's cardiovascular risk assessment, with development of personalised cardiovascular health roadmaps as needed, without fear of dredit aiscrimination; 5) investment in public and healthcare professional education to increase awareness of Lp(a) and its impact on cardiovascular health.

Causal Relevance of Lp(a) for Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke Types in East Asian and European Ancestry Populations: A Mendelian Randomization Study

BACKGROUND

Elevated plasma levels of Lp(a) [lipoprotein(a)] are a causal risk factor for coronary heart disease and stroke in European individuals, but the causal relevance of Lp(a) for different stroke types and in East Asian individuals with different Lp(a) genetic architecture is uncertain.

METHODS

We measured plasma levels of Lp(a) in a nested case-control study of 18 174 adults (mean [SD] age, 57 [10] years; 49% female) in the China Kadoorie Biobank (CKB) and performed a genome-wide association analysis to identify genetic variants affecting Lp(a) levels, with replication in ancestry-specific subsets in UK Biobank. We further performed 2-sample Mendelian randomization analyses, associating ancestry-specific Lp(a)-associated instrumental variants derived from CKB or from published data in European individuals with risk of myocardial infarction (n=17 091), ischemic stroke (IS [n=29 233]) and its subtypes, or intracerebral hemorrhage (n=5845) in East Asian and European individuals using available data from CKB and genome-wide association analysis consortia.

RESULTS

In CKB observational analyses, plasma levels of Lp(a) were log-linearly and positively associated with higher risks of myocardial infarction and IS, but not with intracerebral hemorrhage. In genome-wide association analysis, we identified 29 single nucleotide polymorphisms independently associated with Lp(a) that together explained 33% of variance in Lp(a) in Chinese individuals. In UK Biobank, the lead Chinese variants identified in CKB were replicated in 1260 Chinese individuals, but explained only 10% of variance in Lp(a) in European individuals. In Mendelian randomization analyses, however, there were highly concordant effects of Lp(a) across both ancestries for all cardiovascular disease outcomes examined. In combined analyses of both ancestries, the proportional reductions in risk per 100 nmol/L lower genetically predicted Lp(a) levels for myocardial infarction were 3-fold greater than for total IS (rate ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.76-0.81] versus 0.94 [0.92-0.96]), but were similar to those for large-artery IS (0.80 [0.73-0.87]; n=8134). There were weaker associations with cardioembolic IS (0.92 [95% CI, 0.86-0.98]; n=11 730), and no association with small-vessel IS (0.99 [0.91-1.07]; n=12 343) or with intracerebral hemorrhage (1.08 [0.96-1.21]; n=5845).

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of Lp(a) on risk of myocardial infarction and large-artery IS were comparable in East Asian and European individuals, suggesting that people with either ancestry could expect comparable proportional benefits for equivalent reductions in Lp(a), but there was little effect on other stroke types.

Residual lipoprotein(a)-associated risk in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a genetically determined risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases. This study aimed to evaluate the association of serum Lp(a) levels with the risk of residual vascular event risk after stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) in the Japanese population.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, 533 patients (mean age, 70.7 years; female, 41.8 %) with ischemic stroke (n = 496) or high-risk TIA (n = 37) were consecutively enrolled within 1 week of onset and followed up for 1 year. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the median baseline Lp(a) levels: (i) low (≤15 mg/dL, n = 270) and (ii) high (>15 mg/dL, n = 263) Lp(a) groups. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including nonfatal stroke, nonfatal acute coronary syndrome, and vascular death.

RESULTS

Compared to patients with Lp(a) ≤15 mg/dL, those with Lp(a) > 15 mg/dL were more likely to have extracranial carotid artery stenosis (8.8 % versus 15.2 %; p = 0.024) and a history of coronary artery disease (7.8 % versus 14.1 %; p = 0.019). Elevated Lp(a) levels were independently associated with an increased risk of MACE (annual rate, 10.7 % versus 19.1 %; log-rank p = 0.009; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.68; 95 % confidence interval, 1.03-2.72; p = 0.037). When patients were classified according to the etiologic subtype of the index event, elevated Lp(a) was a significant predictor of MACE in patients with atherothrombotic stroke (annual rate, 14.0 % versus 25.8 %; log-rank p = 0.041), but not in those with small vessel disease, cardioembolism, or cryptogenic stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated Lp(a) levels >15 mg/dL in Japanese patients with stroke are associated with extracranial carotid stenosis and a higher risk of MACE. The measurement of Lp(a) levels helped refine the risk assessment of patients with stroke or TIA.

Lipoprotein (a) levels and clinical decision-making: data from a Mexican cohort at a tertiary medical institution

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Approximately 20% of the global population has a Lp(a) concentrations above 50 mg/dL (> 125nmol/L), yet many remain unaware of the associated cardiovascular risks. In Mexico, routine measurement of Lp(a) is uncommon. This study aimed to investigate the frequency of Lp(a) testing, and the clinical actions taken by physicians upon detecting elevated Lp(a) concentrations in patients at a tertiary medical institution.

METHODS

Using an algorithm-based screening system, we reviewed the clinical and biochemical data of patients with Lp(a) measurements from 2019 to 2024. Data were retrieved from the laboratory information system and electronic health records. Complementary assessment data were obtained from the radiology and cardiology departments.

RESULTS

Of the 150,083 individuals evaluated at the institution, only 830 (0.5%) underwent Lp(a) testing, with testing rates increasing from 0.037% in 2019 to 0.24% in 2023. Elevated Lp(a) concentrations (> 50 mg/dL) were found in 21% of patients, and 2.2% had concentrations > 180 mg/dL. Patients with elevated Lp(a) had significantly higher rates of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (p < 0.001) and familial hypercholesterolemia (p < 0.004) than those with lower Lp(a) levels. Interestingly, diabetes prevalence was higher in those with Lp(a) < 4 mg/dL (51.5% vs. 33.4%, p < 0.001). Despite the cardiovascular risk, only 26% of patients with elevated Lp(a) levels received interventions to modify risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) testing was infrequent in a tertiary medical setting. Clinical interventions to modify cardiovascular risk factors were insufficient among patients with elevated Lp(a). These findings highlight the need for greater awareness among healthcare providers and the development of comprehensive screening and management algorithms to mitigate Lp(a) -related cardiovascular risk.

Lipoprotein(a) and panvascular disease

Panvascular disease (PVD) is an emerging clinical concept that encompasses a spectrum of atherosclerotic conditions involving multiple major vascular beds, including the coronary, cerebral, peripheral, and valvular arteries. Although not formally recognized as a nosological entity, in this review, PVD is adopted as a conceptual framework to reflect the systemic nature of atherosclerosis affecting vascular territories supplying the heart, brain, and peripheral circulation. This perspective enables a more integrated understanding of disease processes across organ systems that are often studied in isolation. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a genetically regulated, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-like particle that has garnered increasing attention as an independent pathogenic risk factor for PVD. Accumulating evidence from epidemiological, genetic, and mechanistic studies has confirmed the multifaceted role of Lp(a) in promoting atherogenesis, vascular calcification, inflammation, and thrombogenesis across multiple vascular beds. Elevated Lp(a) levels are associated with increased cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event risk, even after controlling for traditional risk factors. This review systematically outlines the structure, genetic determinants, and pathogenic mechanisms of Lp(a), and synthesizes current clinical evidence regarding its role in various PVD subtypes. The interactions between Lp(a) and traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, and hypertension are explored in depth, highlighting their synergistic contributions to vascular injury and disease progression. Furthermore, sex-based differences in Lp(a)-associated risk, response to therapy, and biological behavior are discussed, providing insights into personalized cardiovascular risk stratification. In addition, the review summarizes current and emerging therapeutic strategies targeting Lp(a), including niacin, antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs), small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), and gene-editing technologies. These advances offer promising new avenues for reducing residual cardiovascular risk attributable to elevated Lp(a). In conclusion, viewing Lp(a)-associated pathology through the lens of PVD provides a comprehensive and unifying approach to understanding its systemic impact. This framework supports the development of integrated risk assessment tools and multi-targeted interventions, ultimately aiming to improve outcomes for patients with complex, multisite vascular involvement.

Lipoprotein(a) and peripheral artery disease: contemporary evidence and therapeutic advances

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a major cause of global health burden, including amputation and impaired quality of life. This review examines the evidence implicating lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in PAD, which is timely as novel therapies lowering Lp(a) are currently being tested in several clinical trials.

RECENT FINDINGS

Human observational studies demonstrate strong associations between elevated Lp(a) levels and increased risk of PAD incidence, severity of chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and major adverse limb events. Emerging therapies including small interfering RNA, antisense oligonucleotides, proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors and lipoprotein apheresis demonstrate significant Lp(a)-lowering effects. However, whether these treatments benefit patients with PAD is currently unknown.

SUMMARY

Lp(a) may be involved in PAD pathogenesis. Lp(a)-lowering therapies may significantly reduce PAD-related events and improve outcomes. Future studies are needed to test Lp(a)-lowering therapies in people with PAD and to explore how the association of Lp(a) varies in different sexes and ethnicities and understand mechanisms by which Lp(a) may contribute to limb ischemia.

Lipoprotein(a) and Effects of Diet: Time for Reassessment

Dietary modification is a critical tool in the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). While the role of saturated fat (SFA) intake is well established in affecting LDL cholesterol concentrations, diet impacts on lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) have been less studied. Lp(a) is a prevalent, strong, and highly heritable risk factor for CVD and a therapeutic target for CVD risk management. While significant insights have been made into the genetic regulation of Lp(a), our understanding of any metabolic impact on Lp(a) by other factors, including diets, is limited. For many years, Lp(a) was not considered to be subject to dietary regulation, but there is now clear evidence of a dietary impact, in particular variability in SFA intake, on Lp(a) concentrations. The present narrative review aims to provide an updated view on dietary regulation of Lp(a), moving beyond studies testing the effect of reducing SFA intake, to include new evidence from clinical trials on the impact of an increased sugar intake and ketogenic diets. In addition to describing an opposite effect of SFA on Lp(a) and LDL cholesterol concentrations, with a rise in Lp(a) during a reduced SFA intake, this review also provides new data on the role of apolipoprotein(a) size polymorphism, a major genetic regulator of Lp(a) concentrations. Beyond an impact on Lp(a) concentrations, the extent to which diet might impact Lp(a)'s molecular and metabolic properties including its lipidomic composition remains unknown. Taken together, evidence shows the presence of a dietary modulation of Lp(a) beyond its genetic control and points to the need to better understand Lp(a)'s cardiovascular risk factor properties, including metabolomics/lipidomics characteristics. This also raises the issue whether diet should be a component of elevated Lp(a) management, and this needs to be addressed in future studies.

Sex-specific molecular hallmarks point to increased atherogenesis susceptibility in male senescence-accelerated mice

AIMS

The senescence-accelerated mouse (SAM) model has been extensively used to study neurological alterations associated with aging. The SAM model has also proved to be useful in the study of vascular aging, but there is still work to be done to better define its utility as a model of atherosclerosis, since contradictory data have been published and sex seems to play a crucial role in potential divergences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

With this in mind, we aimed to decipher the molecular mechanisms underlying early vascular aging on SAMP8 mice, analyzing the aorta of 10 months-old animals by means of in-depth proteomic analysis, considering sex-specific differences. Validation of the results obtained were performed by western blot in an independent cohort of mice, as well as in human aortic smooth muscle cells (HASMC). Besides, an exhaustive lipoprotein and glycoprotein analysis was performed in blood plasma.

KEY FINDINGS

Distinct proteomic, lipoprotein and glycoprotein profiles have been found in SAMP8 mice, according to sex. Male SAMP8 mice showed signs of increased atherogenesis susceptibility due to several sex-specific alterations: 1) increased number of VLDLs, as well as in their cholesterol and TG content; 2) upregulation of inflammatory glycoproteins in plasma; and 3) increased features of SASP and vascular calcification: upregulation of exocytic vesicular transport and downregulation of the protein Gas6. On the contrary, female mice showed a much better proteomic and lipoprotein profile.

SIGNIFICANCE

The results obtained suggest that male SAMP8 mice will be more susceptible to develop atherosclerosis under a HFD than female mice.

Lipoprotein(a) and recurrent atherosclerotic cardiovascular events: the US Family Heart Database

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Higher levels of lipoprotein(a) drive increasing risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in otherwise healthy individuals regardless of sex and race/ethnicity. This study aimed to evaluate whether this is also true for recurrent ASCVD, and whether LDL cholesterol-lowering therapy possibly mitigates such a relationship.

METHODS

In US medical claims between 2012 and 2022 for 340 million individuals, 273 770 had diagnosed ASCVD and lipoprotein(a) measured in nmol/L. These women (n = 117 269; 43%) and men (n = 156 501; 57%) included Black (n = 22 451; 8%), Hispanic (n = 24 606; 9%), and White (n = 161 165; 59%) individuals.

RESULTS

Lipoprotein(a) levels were higher in women vs men and in Black vs Hispanic and White individuals. During a median follow-up of 5.4 years, 41 687 individuals (15%) experienced recurrent ASCVD. Higher lipoprotein(a) levels were associated with continuously increasing risk of recurrent ASCVD. Compared to individuals with lipoprotein(a) < 15 nmol/L, the adjusted hazard ratios for recurrent ASCVD events were 1.04 (95% confidence interval 1.01-1.07) for 15-79 nmol/L, 1.15 (1.12-1.19) for 80-179 nmol/L, 1.29 (1.25-1.33) for 180-299 nmol/L, and 1.45 (1.39-1.51) for ≥300 nmol/L. Results were similar for individual ASCVD components, and in sex, race/ethnicity, baseline ASCVD, and diabetes subgroups; however, high impact LDL cholesterol-lowering therapy possibly mitigates the deleterious effect of lipoprotein(a) ≥ 180 nmol/L, most pronounced in those on PCSK9 inhibitors. Interaction on recurrent ASCVD events between lipoprotein(a) categories and sex, race/ethnicity, baseline ASCVD, diabetes, and impact of LDL cholesterol-lowering therapy use had P-values of .61, .06, .33, .91, and 2 × 10-8, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In 273 770 individuals with ASCVD, higher lipoprotein(a) levels were associated with continuously increasing risk of recurrent ASCVD events regardless of sex and race/ethnicity that may have been partially mitigated by high impact LDL cholesterol-lowering therapy.

Lipoprotein(a) and aortic stenosis: Practical insights

AIMS

The role of Lp(a) in cardiovascular diseases is increasingly recognized, with high Lp(a) levels shown to be associated with worse outcomes. In this review, we aim to summarize the literature and the current research status regarding AS and Lp(a) with a comprehensive approach, in order to inform basic and clinical scientists with the most up-to-date data and insights.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Lp(a) is significantly involved in the pathogenesis of aortic stenosis (AS), with the interplay between AS and Lp(a) being documented in observational studies and a causal association being proposed based on genetic studies. Patients with AS have generally higher levels of Lp(a) and increased Lp(a) levels are associated with higher risk of AS development. The above observations offer opportunities for further research, mainly regarding potential therapeutic implications, particularly considering the Lp(a)-specific lowering therapies that are awaited to influence the prevention and treatment strategies for AS.

CONCLUSION

Increased Lp(a) levels can be predictive of the presence, development and progression of AS, as well as could offer novel insights in the pathophysiology of bioprosthetic valve function. Further research, focusing on Lp(a)-lowering agents, is key in order to identify any benefit in such patient phenotypes.

Durability and efficacy of solbinsiran, a GalNAc-conjugated siRNA targeting ANGPTL3, in adults with mixed dyslipidaemia (PROLONG-ANG3): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Mixed dyslipidaemia, characterised by elevated concentrations of circulating triglycerides and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), is associated with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Solbinsiran, a GalNAc-conjugated small interfering RNA targeting hepatic angiopoietin-like protein 3 (ANGPTL3), reduced triglycerides and LDL-C concentrations in a phase 1 study. This study aimed to assess the durability and efficacy of solbinsiran in reducing concentrations of atherogenic lipoproteins in adults with mixed dyslipidaemia.

METHODS

This double-blind, parallel-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with mixed dyslipidaemia at 41 clinical research units across seven countries. Patients receiving moderate-intensity or high-intensity statins, and with concentrations of fasting triglycerides between 1·69 mmol/L and 5·64 mmol/L, LDL-C of at least 1·81 mmol/L, and non-HDL cholesterol of at least 3·36 mmol/L were included. Using an interactive web-response system, patients were randomly assigned (1:2:2:2) to receive either solbinsiran 100 mg, solbinsiran 400 mg, solbinsiran 800 mg, or placebo, by subcutaneous injection on days 0 and 90. Patients were followed up for at least 270 days. The primary outcome was percent change in apolipoprotein B (apoB) concentration from baseline to day 180 with solbinsiran compared with placebo, analysed under an efficacy estimand (in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug). This trial is completed and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05256654.

FINDINGS

Of 585 patients screened, 205 patients were enrolled in the study between July 20, 2022, and March 4, 2024. Patients (111 [54%] female and 94 [46%] male; median age 57 years [IQR 49-65]) were randomly assigned to receive solbinsiran 100 mg (n=30), solbinsiran 400 mg (n=58), solbinsiran 800 mg (n=59), or placebo (n=58). At baseline, median concentrations were 111 mg/dL (IQR 96-130) for apoB, 2·64 mmol/L (2·06-3·29) for triglycerides, and 3·16 mmol/L (2·57-3·82) for LDL-C. The placebo-adjusted percent change in apoB concentration from baseline at day 180 was -2·8% (95% CI -15·5 to 11·9; p=0·69) for solbinsiran 100 mg; -14·3% (-23·6 to -3·9; p=0·0085) for solbinsiran 400 mg; and -8·3% (-18·3 to 2·9; p=0·14) for solbinsiran 800 mg. Solbinsiran administration was well tolerated, with a low incidence of adverse events. The number of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events was 18 [60%] of 30 patients in the solbinsiran 100 mg group, 30 [52%] of 58 patients in the solbinsiran 400 mg group, 26 [44%] of 59 patients in the solbinsiran 800 mg group, and 37 [65%] of 57 patients in the placebo group.

INTERPRETATION

Solbinsiran 400 mg reduced apoB in patients with mixed dyslipidaemia and was generally well tolerated. The impact of solbinsiran on cardiovascular outcomes remains to be investigated.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Lipoprotein(a): Assessing the Current Knowledge and Gaps in Screening and Treatment-A Narrative Review

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) has long been screened using the traditional lipid profile, mainly focusing on LDL cholesterol. However, despite growing evidence supporting lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] as an independent risk factor involved in atherosclerosis, its clinical use remains limited. This review examines the reasons behind the limited use of Lp(a) screening in clinical practice, assessing its role in cardiovascular risk, comparing it to traditional lipid markers and evaluating current assessment methods. It also explores existing and emerging treatments, including gene-silencing therapies, for managing elevated Lp(a) levels. One in four clinicians does not routinely check Lp(a) levels, which proves a lack of awareness amongst them. The reasons for that are implied to be that the cost is too high and that available treatments are scarce. The traditional lipid profile, including LDL, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and triglycerides, continues to be the gold standard for CV risk assessment. One limitation of using Lp(a) in clinical practice is the significant variability in apo(a) sizes, which results from the presence of multiple isoforms determined by the number of kringle domains. This structural diversity poses challenges in standardizing measurement methods, affecting the accuracy and comparability of results. While statins have a minimal impact on Lp(a), PCSK9-i lowers its levels by 20-25%, although this class is not prescribed primarily for this reason. Lastly, gene-silencing therapies, which achieve the greatest reduction in Lp(a) levels, are still in phase III trials, and there is still a need to examine whether this reduction translates into CV benefits. These limitations should not discourage further research, because ASCVD's complexity requires a more tailored approach. Current lipid-lowering therapy still fails in a minority of cases, as evidenced by new-onset cardiovascular events in patients with well-controlled LDL levels. There is a need for future interventional studies to assess whether a reduction in Lp(a) by PCSK9-i really translates into CV benefits, independent of LDL.

Elevated lipoprotein(a) is not linked to coronary artery calcification incidence or progression

AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a genetically determined, independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, its role in coronary artery calcification (CAC) remains unclear. We aimed to determine whether Lp(a) levels are associated with the incidence and progression of CAC.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a longitudinal cohort study (2015-22) of 41 929 adults (aged ≥30 years) who underwent baseline Lp(a) measurement and CAC assessment via multi-detector computed tomography. Participants were stratified into those with baseline CAC = 0 (n = 32 338) and CAC > 0 (n = 9591). Outcomes were analysed according to Lp(a) quintiles and clinically relevant categories (<30, 30-50, 50-100, ≥ 100 mg/dL). Cox proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for incident CAC (CAC > 0) among those with CAC = 0 (median follow-up, 4.04 years). Linear mixed-effects models evaluated CAC progression among those with CAC > 0 (median follow-up, 3.78 years). All models were adjusted for cardiovascular risk factors. Among participants with CAC = 0 (mean age, 40.94 ± 5.81 years; 85.69% men), neither Lp(a) quintiles nor clinical categories were significantly associated with incident CAC [HR for highest vs. second quintile: 0.998 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.90-1.10); HR for ≥100 vs. <30 mg/dL: 0.83 (95% CI, 0.57-1.23)]. Among those with CAC > 0 (mean age, 45.99 ± 7.20 years; 94.90% men), CAC progression did not differ materially across Lp(a) quintiles or clinical thresholds.

CONCLUSION

Elevated Lp(a) levels were not associated with new-onset CAC or progression of existing CAC in this large longitudinal cohort.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, C-reactive protein, and lipoprotein(a) universal one-time screening in primary prevention: the EPIC-Norfolk study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recent data from a large American cohort of women strongly support universal one-time screening for LDL cholesterol, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), and lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in primary prevention. This study addresses the validity and generalizability of this novel primary prevention strategy in a large prospective European cohort of initially healthy men and women.

METHODS

Plasma levels of LDL cholesterol, hsCRP, and Lp(a) were measured at study entry in 17 087 participants from the EPIC-Norfolk study who were subsequently followed over a period of 20 years for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). Competing risk- and multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incident MACE across quintiles of each biomarker and sought evidence of independent as well as additive effects over time were calculated.

RESULTS

During the 20-year follow-up, a total of 3249 MACEs occurred. Increasing quintiles of baseline LDL cholesterol, hsCRP, and Lp(a) all predicted 20-year risks; the multivariable-adjusted HRs in a comparison of the top to bottom quintile were 1.78 (95% CI: 1.57-2.00) for LDL cholesterol, 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37-1.74) for hsCRP, and 1.19 (95% CI: 1.07-1.33) for Lp(a). Compared with individuals with no biomarker elevations, the multivariable-adjusted HRs for incident MACE were 1.33, 1.68, and 2.41 for those with one, two, or three biomarkers in the top quintile, respectively (all P < .001). Each biomarker demonstrated independent contributions to overall risk and findings were consistent in analyses stratified by sex.

CONCLUSIONS

A single combined measure of LDL cholesterol, hsCRP, and Lp(a) among initially healthy European men and women was predictive of incident MACE during a 20-year period. These data replicate findings from a recent American cohort and strongly support universal screening for all three biomarkers in primary prevention.

Discordance analyses comparing LDL cholesterol, Non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B for cardiovascular risk estimation

For decades, studies have tried to identify the cholesterol marker that best reflects risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease(ASCVD). Comparing low-density-lipoprotein(LDL) cholesterol, non-high-density-lipoprotein(non-HDL) cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B(apoB) as ASCVD risk markers has been challenged by high correlation between them. Thus, discordance analyses, directly addressing disagreements between the cholesterol markers, have emerged. Approaches adopted to define discordance originate in one of three methods: discordance by cut-points, discordance by percentiles, or discordance by residuals. Commonly, concordant lipid levels serve as reference examining the association between discordant lipid levels with risk of ASCVD. Importantly, concordant reference groups present heterogeneity of clinical relevance across different discordance methods as concordant low lipid levels associate with lowest ASCVD risk while concordant high lipid levels associate with highest risk. Thus, results from different discordance approaches cannot be directly compared. Moreover, discordance between cholesterol markers is more frequently seen in individuals treated with lipid-lowering medication than in individuals not treated with lipid-lowering medication. Accordingly, studies performing discordance analyses have reported inconsistent and even conflicting results. Discordance by cut-points appears the most intuitive and clinically applicable method; results from these analyses suggest that elevated LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, or apoB levels in individuals not treated with lipid-lowering medication confer increased ASCVD risk while in individuals treated with lipid-lowering medication, elevated non-HDL cholesterol and apoB levels best indicate residual risk. Results from discordance analyses comparing LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apoB in risk of ASCVD as well as complexities of discordance analyses and considerations regarding interpretations are discussed in this review.

Machine learning in cardiovascular risk assessment: Towards a precision medicine approach

Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of global morbidity and mortality. Validated risk scores are the basis of guideline-recommended care, but most scores lack the capacity to integrate complex and multidimensional data. Limitations inherent to traditional risk prediction models and the growing burden of residual cardiovascular risk highlight the need for refined strategies that go beyond conventional paradigms. Artificial intelligence and machine learning (ML) provide unique opportunities to refine cardiovascular risk assessment and surveillance through the integration of diverse data types and sources, including clinical, electrocardiographic, imaging and multi-omics derived data. In fact, ML models, such as deep neural networks, can handle high-dimensional data through which phenotyping and cardiovascular risk assessment across diverse patient populations become much more precise, fostering a paradigm shift towards more personalized care. Here, we review the role of ML in advancing cardiovascular risk assessment and discuss its potential to identify novel therapeutic targets and to improve prevention strategies. We also discuss key challenges inherent to ML, such as data quality, standardized reporting, model transparency and validation, and discuss barriers in its clinical translation. We highlight the transformative potential of ML in precision cardiology and advocate for more personalized cardiovascular prevention strategies that go beyond previous notions.

Inflammation, lipids and cardiovascular risk: The quest for improving risk stratification and prognosis in ischemic heart disease

Lp(a): Lipoprotein (a). Created in BioRender. Romiti, G. (2024) BioRender.com/g02a734.

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.

Deficient perceptions and practices concerning elevated lipoprotein(a) among specialists in Singapore

Background

Multiple guidelines recommend detection of and early risk factor management for elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]. Effective implementation requires assessment of knowledge and practices regarding elevated Lp(a) among medical specialists.

Aim

To assess awareness, knowledge and practices of the detection and treatment of elevated Lp(a) among specialist physicians in Singapore.

Methods

Seventy-five practicing specialists in cardiology (n = 33) or endocrinology (n = 42) anonymously completed a structured questionnaire that assessed the above three aims.

Results

The majority of respondents (83%) rated their familiarity with Lp(a) as at least average, with a greater percentage of endocrinologists being less familiar with Lp(a) than cardiologists (29% vs. 3%, P < 0.01). 57% were aware of at least one guideline or consensus statement on Lp(a), which was more frequent among cardiologists than endocrinologists (70% vs. 48%, P = 0.05). There were major gaps in knowledge of the prevalence, pathophysiological role, clinical significance and management of elevated Lp(a), correct responses being less than 30%; 44% of respondents (33% cardiologists and 52% endocrinologists) never tested for Lp(a), lack of effective treatment being the most common barrier (59%). A higher proportion of specialists that did not test for Lp(a) rated familiarity with Lp(a) as being low compared with specialists that tested for Lp(a) regularly (33% vs. 13%, P = 0.02). Education and training were considered most useful for improving care of patients with elevated Lp(a).

Conclusion

Major gaps in awareness, knowledge and management of elevated Lp(a) were identified among specialists in Singapore. Education and training of specialists are required to overcome initial barriers to testing.

Lipoprotein(a) Response to Dietary Saturated Fat Reduction: Relationship to Apolipoprotein(a) Size Polymorphism in African Americans

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

An elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level, which is a prevalent cardiovascular risk factor, is genetically determined by a size polymorphism of its apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] component. Despite its genetic control, Lp(a) level increases in response to dietary saturated fat (SFA) reduction. We tested the roles of apo(a) size and characteristics in modulating Lp(a) response to SFA reduction.

METHODS

We assessed apo(a) characteristics in 165 African Americans experiencing a 24% Lp(a) increase resulting from SFA reduction [16% at an average American Diet diet (AAD) to 6% at a DASH-type diet]. Apo(a) effects were tested based on the following factors: (1) the presence of a small atherogenic size (≤22 kringles), (2) phenotype (single or two isoforms), (3) isoform dominance, and (4) tertiles of combined kringle sizes.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in Lp(a) increases between carriers vs. non-carriers of a small apo(a), between those with a single vs. two expressed isoforms, or in those with differing isoform dominance patterns (p > 0.05 for all). The extent of Lp(a) increase differed across increasing tertiles of combined kringle sizes (p = 0.006 for trend). In a multivariate model, the AAD Lp(a) level was a significant predictor of Lp(a) changes (p < 0.05). Relative increases in the allele-specific apo(a) level-an Lp(a) level associated with a defined apo(a) size-were similar across the apo(a) size spectrum.

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing dietary SFA intake results in a 24% increase in Lp(a) level in African Americans across apo(a) sizes. Individuals with smaller apo(a) sizes reached an elevated Lp(a) level post-intervention compared to those with larger sizes, in some cases resulting in cardiovascular risk reclassification.

Evolocumab for the reduction of cardiovascular risk in HIV patients: is this a clinician's best option for HIV patients?

INTRODUCTION

People living with HIV (PLHIV) are at higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and dyslipidemia is a prevalent comorbidity that requires effective treatment. Limitations for the use of statins such as drug interactions and adverse effects highlight the need for alternative therapies.

AREAS COVERED

This review evaluates the role of PCSK9 inhibitors in reducing cardiovascular risk in PLHIV with dyslipidemia. We analyzed studies available on PUBMED, using keywords HIV, dyslipidemia, PCSK9 inhibitors, and statin intolerance. We discuss the mechanisms underlying increased cardiovascular risk, limitations of statins, including a recent study using PCSK9 inhibitors. Evolocumab significantly reduced LDL-C levels by 56.9% in PLHIV, with 72.5% of patients achieving ≥50% LDL-C reduction. The trial confirmed the drug's safety. Additionally, PCSK9 inhibitors demonstrated reductions in lipoprotein(a) and inflammatory markers.

EXPERT OPINION

PCSK9i present a promising option for lipid management in PLHIV, especially in statin-intolerant individuals or those with residual risk despite statin therapy. Additional non-statin therapies targeting adverse lipid profiles, including low HDL-C, high triglycerides, and lipoprotein(a), are under development. Combined with advancements in antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) and siRNA technologies, they hold promise for transforming the treatment of dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease in PLHIV.

Lipid-lowering efficacy of obicetrapib: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Obicetrapib is a next-generation, oral, selective cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor known to significantly affect atherogenic lipoproteins, including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), apolipoprotein B (ApoB), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (Non-HDL-C), and lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)].

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the lipid-lowering efficacy of obicetrapib based on available evidence.

METHODS

This systematic review was drafted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials assessing the lipid-lowering effects of obicetrapib compared to placebo. Fixed- and random-effects models were used.

RESULTS

Five randomized clinical trials (n = 288 patients) were included in this analysis. Patients treated with obicetrapib exhibited significantly greater reductions in LDL-C (mean difference [MD]: 41.4% [95% CI: 45.7 to -37.1]; I²: 6%), ApoB (MD: 26.5% [95% CI: 31.3 to -21.6]; I²: 45%) and Non-HDL-C (MD: 34.5% [95% CI: 37.0 to -31.6]; I²: 80%) compared to those receiving a placebo. Additionally, HDL-C levels were significantly higher in the obicetrapib group (MD: 157.4% [95% CI: 142.2 to 172.6]; I²: 69%). While triglyceride levels did not differ significantly between the 2 groups, Lp(a) levels were notably reduced with obicetrapib treatment (MD: 39.5% [95% CI: 54.6 to -24.3]; I²: 67%).

CONCLUSION

Obicetrapib is associated with significant reductions in key atherogenic lipoproteins, including LDL-C, ApoB, Non-HDL-C and Lp(a). Further investigation is needed to assess its impact on cardiovascular risk.

Drugs for dyslipidaemia: the legacy effect of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S)

Since the discovery of statins and the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) results three decades ago, remarkable advances have been made in the treatment of dyslipidaemia, a major risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Safe and effective statins remain the cornerstone of therapeutic approach for this indication, including for children with genetic dyslipidaemia, and are one of the most widely prescribed drugs in the world. However, despite the affordability of generic statins, they remain underutilised worldwide. The use of ezetimibe to further decrease plasma LDL cholesterol and the targeting of other atherogenic lipoproteins, such as triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and lipoprotein(a), are likely to be required to further reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events. Drugs directed at these lipoproteins, including gene silencing and editing methods that durably suppress the production of proteins, such as PCSK9 and ANGPTL3, open novel therapeutic options to further reduce the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Lipoprotein(a) and the atherosclerotic burden - Should we wait for clinical trial evidence before taking action?

The fact that lipoprotein(a) levels should be regarded as a causal residual risk factor in the atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD) is now a no-brainer. This review article aims to summarize the latest evidence supporting the causal role of lipoprotein(a) in ASCVD and the potential strategies to reduce the lipoprotein(a) burden until clinical trial results are available. Epidemiological and genetic data demonstrate the causal link between lipoprotein(a) and increased ASCVD risk. That being said, a specific question comes to mind: "must we wait for outcome trials in order to take action?". Given that lipoprotein(a) levels predict incident ASCVD in both primary and secondary prevention contexts, with a linear risk gradient across its distribution, measuring lipoprotein(a) can unequivocally help identify patients who may later benefit from specific lipoprotein(a)-lowering therapies. This understanding has led various National Societies to recommend dosing lipoprotein(a) in high-risk individuals and to support the recommendation of measuring lipoprotein(a) levels at least once in every adult for risk stratification.

Deep Learning-Based Detection of Carotid Plaques Informs Cardiovascular Risk Prediction and Reveals Genetic Drivers of Atherosclerosis

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of global mortality, is driven by lipid accumulation and plaque formation within arterial walls. Carotid plaques, detectable via ultrasound, are a well-established marker of subclinical atherosclerosis. In this study, we trained a deep learning model to detect plaques in 177,757 carotid ultrasound images from 19,499 UK Biobank (UKB) participants (aged 47-83 years) to assess the prevalence, risk factors, prognostic significance, and genetic architecture of carotid atherosclerosis in a large population-based cohort. The model demonstrated high performance metrics with accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of 89.3%, 89.5%, 89.2%, and 82.9%, respectively, identifying carotid plaques in 45% of the population. Plaque presence and count were significantly associated with future cardiovascular events over a median follow-up period of up to 7 years, leading to improved risk reclassification beyond established clinical prediction models. A genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analysis of carotid plaques (29,790 cases, 36,847 controls) uncovered two novel genomic loci (p < 5×10-8) with downstream analyses implicating lipoprotein(a) and interleukin-6 signaling, both targets of investigational drugs in advanced clinical development. Observational and Mendelian randomization analyses showed associations between smoking, low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and high blood pressure and the odds of carotid plaque presence. Our study underscores the potential of carotid plaque assessment for improving cardiovascular risk prediction, provides novel insights into the genetic basis of subclinical atherosclerosis, and offers a valuable resource for advancing atherosclerosis research at the population scale.