Finding very high lipoprotein(a): the need for routine assessment

Rethinking cardiovascular risk: The emerging role of lipoprotein(a) screening

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a genetically inherited, independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), affecting approximately 20-25% of the global population. Elevated Lp(a) levels are associated with a 2-3-fold increased risk of myocardial infarction and aortic valve stenosis, comparable to the risk seen in individuals with familial hypercholesterolemia. Despite its clinical relevance, the integration of Lp(a) screening into routine practice has been limited by inconsistent measurement techniques and a lack of targeted treatments. Recent advancements, including improved assays and the development of potential Lp(a)-lowering therapies, have renewed focus on the importance of Lp(a) screening. This review aims to clarify the role of Lp(a) in cardiovascular health by examining current evidence on who should be screened, when screening should occur, and the most accurate methods for measuring Lp(a). Key recommendations include universal, one-time screening for adults, selective screening for high-risk pediatric patients, and special considerations for individuals with conditions such as familial hypercholesterolemia and chronic kidney disease. Advances in assay technology now allow for more precise Lp(a) measurement, supporting better risk stratification. Additionally, emerging therapies that specifically target elevated Lp(a) levels could lead to more personalized management of CVD risk. Our findings support the integration of Lp(a) screening into routine cardiovascular risk assessment, highlighting its potential to improve early detection and prevention strategies across diverse patient populations.

Increasing provider awareness of Lp(a) testing for patients at risk for cardiovascular disease: A comparative study

Background

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a low-density lipoprotein variant with atherogenic, thrombogenic, and pro-inflammatory properties that may have numerous pathologic effects, including dyslipidemia. Screening for Lp(a) is clinically significant, due to its causal role in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Among clinicians, however, there remains a general lack of both clinical awareness of Lp(a) and adequate tools to track Lp(a) testing in patients.

Objective

To study factors affecting Lp(a) screening by: i) determining the effectiveness of messaging providers at a large community health system about Lp(a) screening and measuring the subsequent percentage of Lp(a) tests requested; and ii) by determining the percentage of patients who obtained Lp(a) testing after being advised by the provider.

Methods

From December 2022 through March 2023, messages detailing the need for Lp(a) screening were sent via the Epic EHR™ to providers of patients meeting criteria for Lp(a) testing in advance of scheduled patient appointments. In this prospective study, providers were randomized into 2 groups: those receiving the pre-appointment message (Group 1) and those not receiving the pre-appointment message (Group 2).

Results

Sending pre-appointment messages correlated with more Lp(a) orders (16.6 % v. 4.7 %, P < 0.001) and consequently with more tests performed (10.2 % v. 3.7 %, p < 0.001). Among provider types, nurse practitioners and physician assistants had the highest number of Lp(a) results per order (Z = 16.40, P < 0.001), achieving 30.8-39.1 % more test results, even if they did not receive the pre-appointment message. Distribution of Lp(a) values in patients was 59.7 % ≤ 29 mg/dL; 9.7 % > 29 and < 50mg/dL; and 30.6 % ≥ 50 mg/dL.

Conclusion

Providers who received pre-appointment messages via an EHR were associated with requesting more tests and consequently receiving more Lp(a) results, compared with providers who did not receive messages.

Random Survival Forest Machine Learning for the Prediction of Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With a Measured Lipoprotein(a) Level: A Model Development Study

BACKGROUND

Established risk models may not be applicable to patients at higher cardiovascular risk with a measured Lp(a) (lipoprotein[a]) level, a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

This was a model development study. The data source was the Nashville Biosciences Lp(a) data set, which includes clinical data from the Vanderbilt University Health System. We included patients with an Lp(a) measured between 1989 and 2022 and who had at least 1 year of electronic health record data before measurement of an Lp(a) level. The end point of interest was time to first myocardial infarction, stroke/TIA, or coronary revascularization. A random survival forest model was derived and compared with a Cox proportional hazards model derived from traditional cardiovascular risk factors (ie, the variables used to estimate the Pooled Cohort Equations for the primary prevention population and the variables used to estimate the Second Manifestations of Arterial Disease and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Risk Score for Secondary Prevention scores for the secondary prevention population). Model discrimination was evaluated using Harrell's C-index.

RESULTS

A total of 4369 patients were included in the study (49.5% were female, mean age was 51 [SD 18] years, and mean Lp(a) level was 33.6 [38.6] mg/dL, of whom 23.7% had a prior cardiovascular event). The random survival forest model outperformed the traditional risk factor models in the test set (c-index, 0.82 [random forest model] versus 0.69 [primary prevention model] versus 0.80 [secondary prevention model]). These results were similar when restricted to a primary prevention population and under various strategies to handle competing risk. A Cox proportional hazard model based on the top 25 variables from the random forest model had a c-index of 0.80.

CONCLUSIONS

A random survival forest model outperformed a model using traditional risk factors for predicting cardiovascular events in patients with a measured Lp(a) level.

Interaction Between Lipoprotein(a) and Other Lipid Molecules: A Review of the Current Literature

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a well-established causal risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), as reported by multiple Mendelian randomization studies and large epidemiological studies. When elevated Lp(a) is combined with other risk factors, most notably elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), a synergistic atherogenic effect has been reported. However, the current literature is conflicting regarding how Lp(a) interacts in the context of controlled LDL-C levels (e.g., <70 mg/dL) and whether reducing LDL-C can modify the atherogenic effect of Lp(a). In some studies, elevated Lp(a) was still significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events, despite controlled levels of LDL-C. In contrast, multiple studies have reported attenuation of the cardiovascular risk mediated by elevated Lp(a) with lower LDL-C levels. Moreover, the relationship between Lp(a) and triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, and very low-density lipoprotein remains unclear. In this literature review, we summarize and discuss the current evidence regarding the interactions between Lp(a) and other lipid molecules, how they contribute to the pathogenesis of CVD, and future perspectives, particularly in the current era where promising targeted Lp(a)-lowering therapies are under development.

Prevalence of Lp(a) in a real-world Portuguese cohort: implications for cardiovascular risk assessment

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of mortality worldwide, necessitating more refined strategies for risk assessment. Recently, lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has gained attention for its distinctive role in atherosclerosis, yet its prevalence and impact for cardiovascular risk assessment are not well-documented in the Portuguese population. This study aimed to characterize Lp(a) levels in a real-world Portuguese cohort, investigating its prevalence and association with CVD risk.

METHODS

Retrospective and cross-sectional study of adults who underwent serum Lp(a) analysis in a Portuguese hospital between August 2018 and June 2022. Demographic and anthropometric data, laboratory values, relevant comorbidities and lipid-lowering medication were collected.

RESULTS

Of 1134 participants, 28.7% had elevated Lp(a) levels (> 125 nmol/L). A higher prevalence was observed in those with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (45.9%) or a family history of premature CVD (41.9%). Additionally, a significant association was found between elevated Lp(a) levels and traditional CVD risk factors, including hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus. Among those classified as having low-to-moderate CVD risk by (Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation 2) SCORE2, 55.7% exhibited high Lp(a) levels (> 75 nmol/L), suggesting a potential higher risk of CVD disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of elevated Lp(a) in Portugal, notably among those with ASCVD or premature CVD history, is concerning. This study underscores the potential of Lp(a) assessment for a more comprehensive approach to cardiovascular risk assessment. This could improve the stratification of CVD risk and identify individuals who could benefit from early intensive management of their risk factors, ultimately reducing the burden of CVD and cardiovascular-related mortality.

Lipoprotein(a) levels in a population with clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the United States: A subanalysis from the Lp(a)HERITAGE study

BACKGROUND

Elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is the most common inherited dyslipidemia that is independently and causally associated with increased atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. However, data from diverse populations with ASCVD are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate Lp(a) levels in a diverse, contemporary United States (US) population with ASCVD, stratified by race, ethnicity, and sex.

METHODS

Lp(a)HERITAGE (NCT03887520) was a multicenter study that estimated the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) in adults (18-80 years) with ASCVD. US participants with Lp(a) measured in nmol/L pre- or post-enrollment were included in this subanalysis. This study was descriptive; therefore, no statistical comparisons were made.

RESULTS

Of all US participants, 14% had an Lp(a) measurement pre-enrollment. This subanalysis included 7679 US participants with Lp(a) measurements in nmol/L (80.5% White; 66.4% male; mean age 63.8 years [standard deviation ± 9.7]). Median Lp(a) was > 2.5-fold higher in Black participants (132.0 nmol/L; IQR, 57.1-239.6) vs the overall population (52.1 nmol/L; IQR, 15.7-167.8), and higher in females compared with males (69.4 nmol/L; IQR, 20.1-194.7 vs 45.6 nmol/L; IQR, 14.0-152.6, respectively). Lp(a) levels ≥ 125 nmol/L were more prevalent among Black (52.0%) and female (38.9%) participants vs the overall population (33.3%).

CONCLUSION

In US Lp(a)HERITAGE participants, only 14% had an Lp(a) measurement pre-enrollment, despite having ASCVD. One-third of participants demonstrated Lp(a) levels ≥ 125 nmol/L, the threshold for high ASCVD risk, which was higher among Black (1/2) and female (2/5) participants, suggesting a greater need for Lp(a) testing in these groups to inform ASCVD risk mitigation.

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.

Intra-individual Variability in Lipoprotein(a) Levels: Findings from a Large Academic Health System Population

AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels are known to be mainly genetically determined. However, only scarce data are available on the intra-individual variability of Lp(a) levels across time.

METHODS

We included adult patients (≥18 years old) who had baseline and follow-up Lp(a) measurements (between 1997 and 2024) with a minimum of one year apart. Patients were categorized into three groups as follows: normal (<30 mg/dL), borderline (30 to 50 mg/dL) and high Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL). Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to assess the predictors of the intra-individual changes in Lp(a) ≥10 mg/dL.

RESULTS

A total of 11,669 individuals (median age: 54 years, 60% males) were included in our analysis, with median time between measurements of 4.5 years (IQR: 2.2, 10.6). The median Lp(a) was 16 mg/dL (IQR: 7, 52) at baseline, compared with 15 mg/dL (IQR: 7, 52) at follow-up. At follow-up, 96.4% of individuals with normal Lp(a) and 89.9% with high Lp(a) remained in their categories, while 51.2% with borderline Lp(a) changed their category. Of the included population, 24.9% had an intra-individual Lp(a) change ≥10 mg/dL. Female sex (p <0.001), history of ASCVD (p=0.003), statin therapy (p=0.003) and elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels ≥100 mg/dL (p <0.001) were significantly associated with higher odds of intra-individual Lp(a) changes ≥10 mg/dL.

CONCLUSIONS

Lipoprotein(a) levels were generally stable over time; however, patients with borderline levels may require more than one Lp(a) measurement, especially if they are females, have a history of ASCVD, have elevated LDL-C levels or are on statins therapy.

Lipoprotein(a) in interventional cardiology: identifying patients at highest risk of recurrent cardiovascular events through early recognition - a case based review

INTRODUCTION

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is linked to higher risks of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Current guideline recommendations are quite liberal on measuring Lp(a) (Class IIa, Level C), and may lead to underuse among (interventional) cardiologists.

AREAS COVERED

This case-based narrative review outlines four clinical cases of patients with elevated Lp(a) to illustrate its pathophysiological impact on coronary artery disease (CAD). The expert consensus statements from the American Heart Association (AHA) and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) served as the basis of this review. More recent publications, from 2023 to 2024, were accessed through the MEDLINE online library.

EXPERT OPINION

We highlighted the importance of routine Lp(a) measurement in identifying patients at high risk for atherosclerosis, necessitating potent risk mitigation. Measuring Lp(a) helps clinicians identify which patients are at highest residual risk, who require potent pharmacological treatment and special attention during catheter interventions. As noninvasive and advanced intravascular imaging modalities evolve, future catheterization laboratories will integrate advanced imaging, diagnostics, and treatment, facilitating tailored patient care. Knowing Lp(a) levels is crucial in this context. While Lp(a)-lowering drugs are currently investigated in clinical trials, it is of paramount importance to know Lp(a) levels and strive toward aggressive management of other modifiable risk factors in patients with elevated Lp(a) and established symptomatic CAD being diagnosed or treated in catheterization laboratories.

Genetics and Pathophysiological Mechanisms of Lipoprotein(a)-Associated Cardiovascular Risk

Elevated lipoprotein(a) is a genetically transmitted codominant trait that is an independent risk driver for cardiovascular disease. Lipoprotein(a) concentration is heavily influenced by genetic factors, including LPA kringle IV-2 domain size, single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and interleukin-1 genotypes. Apolipoprotein(a) is encoded by the LPA gene and contains 10 subtypes with a variable number of copies of kringle -2, resulting in >40 different apolipoprotein(a) isoform sizes. Genetic loci beyond LPA, such as APOE and APOH, have been shown to impact lipoprotein(a) levels. Lipoprotein(a) concentrations are generally 5% to 10% higher in women than men, and there is up to a 3-fold difference in median lipoprotein(a) concentrations between racial and ethnic populations. Nongenetic factors, including menopause, diet, and renal function, may also impact lipoprotein(a) concentration. Lipoprotein(a) levels are also influenced by inflammation since the LPA promoter contains an interleukin-6 response element; interleukin-6 released during the inflammatory response results in transient increases in plasma lipoprotein(a) levels. Screening can identify elevated lipoprotein(a) levels and facilitate intensive risk factor management. Several investigational, RNA-targeted agents have shown promising lipoprotein(a)-lowering effects in clinical studies, and large-scale lipoprotein(a) testing will be fundamental to identifying eligible patients should these agents become available. Lipoprotein(a) testing requires routine, nonfasting blood draws, making it convenient for patients. Herein, we discuss the genetic determinants of lipoprotein(a) levels, explore the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the association between lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease, and provide practical guidance for lipoprotein(a) testing.

High lipoprotein(a): Actionable strategies for risk assessment and mitigation

High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] are causal for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Lp(a) is the most prevalent inherited dyslipidemia and strongest genetic ASCVD risk factor. This risk persists in the presence of at target, guideline-recommended, LDL-C levels and adherence to lifestyle modifications. Epidemiological and genetic evidence supporting its causal role in ASCVD and calcific aortic stenosis continues to accumulate, although various facets regarding Lp(a) biology (genetics, pathophysiology, and expression across race/ethnic groups) are not yet fully understood. The evolving nature of clinical guidelines and consensus statements recommending universal measurements of Lp(a) and the scientific data supporting its role in multiple disease states reinforce the clinical merit to start population screening for Lp(a) now. There is a current gap in the implementation of recommendations for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in those with high Lp(a), in part due to a lack of protocols for management strategies. Importantly, targeted apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)]-lowering therapies that reduce Lp(a) levels in patients with high Lp(a) are in phase 3 clinical development. This review focuses on the identification and clinical management of patients with high Lp(a). Specifically, we highlight the clinical value of measuring Lp(a) and its use in determining Lp(a)-associated CVD risk by providing actionable guidance, based on scientific knowledge, that can be utilized now to mitigate risk caused by high Lp(a).

Development and multinational validation of an algorithmic strategy for high Lp(a) screening

Elevated lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) is associated with premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, fewer than 0.5% of individuals undergo Lp(a) testing, limiting the evaluation and use of novel targeted therapeutics currently under development. Here we describe the development of a machine learning model for targeted screening for elevated Lp(a) (≥150 nmol l-1) in the UK Biobank (N = 456,815), the largest cohort with protocolized Lp(a) testing. We externally validated the model in 3 large cohort studies, ARIC (N = 14,484), CARDIA (N = 4,124) and MESA (N = 4,672). The model, Algorithmic Risk Inspection for Screening Elevated Lp(a) (ARISE), reduced the number needed to test to find one individual with elevated Lp(a) by up to 67.3%, based on the probability threshold, with consistent performance across external validation cohorts. ARISE could be used to optimize screening for elevated Lp(a) using commonly available clinical features, with the potential for its deployment in electronic health records to enhance the yield of Lp(a) testing in real-world settings.

The 10 essential questions regarding lipoprotein(a)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lp(a) is one of the most atherogenic lipoproteins, and significant progress has been made to understand its pathophysiology over the last 20 years. There are now selective therapies in late-stage clinical trials to lower Lp(a). Yet there are many outstanding questions about Lp(a). This review outlines 10 of the most burning questions and tries to answer some of them.

RECENT FINDINGS

Antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) treatment is currently the most advanced therapy to lower plasma Lp(a) by 60-80%. There are, however, also two small molecule medications in early stage of development with similar efficacy.

SUMMARY

This review aims to answer important preclinical and clinical questions about the metabolism and physiological role of Lp(a) and also outlines possible therapeutic approaches with nutraceuticals, currently available lipid-lowering therapies and new medications. In addition, ways are illustrated to use Lp(a) as a marker to better predict cardiovascular risk.

Lipoprotein(a): An important piece of the ASCVD risk factor puzzle across diverse populations

Elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is an independent, genetic risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) that impacts ~1.4 billion people globally. Generally, Lp(a) levels remain stable over time; thus, most individuals need only undergo Lp(a) testing through a non-fasting blood draw once in their lifetime, unless elevated Lp(a) is identified. Despite the convenience of the test for clinicians and patients, routine Lp(a) testing has not been widely adopted. This review provides a guide to the benefits of Lp(a) testing and solutions for overcoming common barriers in practice, including access to testing and lack of awareness. Lp(a) testing provides the opportunity to reclassify ASCVD risk and drive intensive cardiovascular risk factor management in individuals with elevated Lp(a), and to identify patients potentially less likely to respond to statins. Moreover, cascade screening can help to identify elevated Lp(a) in relatives of individuals with a personal or family history of premature ASCVD. Overall, given the profound impact of elevated Lp(a) on cardiovascular risk, Lp(a) testing should be an essential component of risk assessment by primary and specialty care providers.

The ins and outs of lipoprotein(a) assay methods

Pathophysiological, epidemiological and genetic studies convincingly showed lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) to be a causal mediator of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). This happens through a myriad of mechanisms including activation of innate immune cells, endothelial cells as well as platelets. Although these certainties whether or not Lp(a) is ready for prime-time clinical use remain debated. Thus, remit of the present review is to provide an overview of different methods that have been employed for the measurement of Lp(a). The methods include dynamic light scattering, multi-angle light scattering analysis, near-field imaging, sedimentation, gel filtration, and electron microscopy. The development of multiple Lp(a) detection methods is vital for improved prediction of ASCVD risk.

Development and Multinational Validation of a Novel Algorithmic Strategy for High Lp(a) Screening

Importance

Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). However, fewer than 0.5% of patients undergo Lp(a) testing, limiting the evaluation and use of novel targeted therapeutics currently under development.

Objective

We developed and validated a machine learning model to enable targeted screening for elevated Lp(a).

Design

Cross-sectional.

Setting

4 multinational population-based cohorts.

Participants

We included 456,815 participants from the UK Biobank (UKB), the largest cohort with protocolized Lp(a) testing for model development. The model's external validity was assessed in Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) (N=14,484), Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) (N=4,124), and Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) (N=4,672) cohorts.

Exposures

Demographics, medications, diagnoses, procedures, vitals, and laboratory measurements from UKB and linked electronic health records (EHR) were candidate input features to predict high Lp(a). We used the pooled cohort equations (PCE), an ASCVD risk marker, as a comparator to identify elevated Lp(a).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was elevated Lp(a) (≥150 nmol/L), and the number-needed-to-test (NNT) to find one case with elevated Lp(a). We explored the association of the model's prediction probabilities with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and MACE.

Results

The Algorithmic Risk Inspection for Screening Elevated Lp(a) (ARISE) used low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, statin use, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, history of ASCVD, and anti-hypertensive medication use as input features. ARISE outperformed cardiovascular risk stratification through PCE for predicting elevated Lp(a) with a significantly lower NNT (4.0 versus 8.0 [with or without PCE], P<0.001). ARISE performed comparably across external validation cohorts and subgroups, reducing the NNT by up to 67.3%, depending on the probability threshold. Over a median follow-up of 4.2 years, a high ARISE probability was also associated with a greater hazard of all-cause death and MACE (age/sex-adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.35, and 1.38, respectively, P<0.001), with a greater increase in cardiovascular mortality (aHR, 2.17, P<0.001).

Conclusions and Relevance

ARISE optimizes screening for elevated Lp(a) using commonly available clinical features. ARISE can be deployed in EHR and other settings to encourage greater Lp(a) testing and to improve identifying cases eligible for novel targeted therapeutics in trials.

KEY POINTS

Question: How can we optimize the identification of individuals with elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] who may be eligible for novel targeted therapeutics?Findings: Using 4 multinational population-based cohorts, we developed and validated a machine learning model, Algorithmic Risk Inspection for Screening Elevated Lp(a) (ARISE), to enable targeted screening for elevated Lp(a). In contrast to the pooled cohort equations that do not identify those with elevated Lp(a), ARISE reduces the "number-needed-to-test" to find one case with elevated Lp(a) by up to 67.3%.Meaning: ARISE can be deployed in electronic health records and other settings to enable greater yield of Lp(a) testing, thereby improving the identification of individuals with elevated Lp(a).

Considerations for routinely testing for high lipoprotein(a)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a likely causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve disease, confirmed by Mendelian randomization. With reliable assays, it has been established that Lp(a) is linearly associated with ASCVD. Current low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering therapies do not or minimally lower Lp(a). This review focuses on the clinical importance and therapeutic consequences of Lp(a) measurement.

RECENT FINDINGS

Development of RNA-based Lp(a) lowering therapeutics has positioned Lp(a) as one of the principal residual risk factors to target in the battle against lipid-driven ASCVD risk. Pelacarsen, which is a liver-specific antisense oligonucleotide, has shown Lp(a) reductions up to 90% and its phase 3 trial is currently underway. Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA targeting LPA messenger RNA, which is being investigated in phase 2 and has already shown dose-dependent Lp(a) reductions up to 90%.

SUMMARY

Lp(a) should be measured in every patient at least once to identify patients with very high Lp(a) levels. These patients could benefit from Lp(a) lowering therapies when approved. In the meantime, therapy in high Lp(a) patients should focus on further reducing LDL-C and other ASCVD risk factors.

Proteomics and lipidomics in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk prediction

Given the limited accuracy of clinically used risk scores such as the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation 2 system and the Second Manifestations of ARTerial disease 2 risk scores, novel risk algorithms determining an individual's susceptibility of future incident or recurrent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk are urgently needed. Due to major improvements in assay techniques, multimarker proteomic and lipidomic panels hold the promise to be reliably assessed in a high-throughput routine. Novel machine learning-based approaches have facilitated the use of this high-dimensional data resulting from these analyses for ASCVD risk prediction. More than a dozen of large-scale retrospective studies using different sets of biomarkers and different statistical methods have consistently demonstrated the additive prognostic value of these panels over traditionally used clinical risk scores. Prospective studies are needed to determine the clinical utility of a biomarker panel in clinical ASCVD risk stratification. When combined with the genetic predisposition captured with polygenic risk scores and the actual ASCVD phenotype observed with coronary artery imaging, proteomics and lipidomics can advance understanding of the complex multifactorial causes underlying an individual's ASCVD risk.

Are we seeing the light at the end of the tunnel for high lipoprotein(a)? Lipoprotein(a)

Lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) attests to be of interest as a new lipoprotein target. However, Lp(a) was discovered in 1963 and since then was recognized as a low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-like lipoprotein with a structurally similar domain to plasminogen. We are increasingly recognizing the importance of Lp(a) and cardiovascular pathologies including atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, aortic valve stenosis, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. However, we neither have a standardized measurement method nor an appropriate agent to intervene with this old threat that we have recognized for more than 50 years. Herein, we present an up-to-date review of our knowledge about Lp(a) covering measurement methods, its associates, and summary of the currently available therapies and emerging therapeutic agents for the management of high Lp(a) in the light of recent evidence and guideline recommendations

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Extreme lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice: A cross sectional study

Introduction

Measurement of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is recommended once in a lifetime to identify individuals at high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We aimed to analyze the clinical features of patients with extreme Lp(a).

Methods

Cross-sectional, case-control study of a single healthcare organization between 2015 and 2021. Individuals with extreme Lp(a) > 430 nmol/L (53 of 3900 tested patients) were compared to age- and sex-matched controls with normal range Lp(a).

Results

Mean patient age was 58 ± 14 years (49% women). Myocardial infarction (47.2% vs. 18.9%), coronary artery disease (CAD) (62.3% vs. 28.3%), and peripheral artery disease (PAD) or stroke (22.6% vs. 11.3%) were more prevalent in patients with extreme than normal range Lp(a). The adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] associated with extreme compared to normal range Lp(a) was 2.50 (1.20-5.21) for myocardial infarction, 2.20 (1.20-4.05) for CAD, and 2.75 (0.88-8.64) for PAD or stroke. A high-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination was issued by 33% and 20% of CAD patients with extreme and normal range Lp(a), respectively. In patients with CAD, low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <55 mg/dL was achieved in 36% of those with extreme Lp(a) and 47% of those with normal range Lp(a).

Conclusions

Extremely elevated Lp(a) levels are associated with an approximately 2.5-fold increased risk of ASCVD compared with normal range Lp(a) levels. Although lipid-lowering treatment is more intense in CAD patients with extreme Lp(a), combination therapies are underused, and attainment rates of LDL-C goals are suboptimal.

Trends and consequences of lipoprotein(a) testing: Cross-sectional and longitudinal health insurance claims database analyses

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is associated with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Our goal was to characterize patients undergoing Lp(a) testing and to assess the impact of Lp(a) testing on treatment changes and subsequent ASCVD events.

METHODS

A cross-sectional and a longitudinal claims data analysis were performed on 4 million patient records in Germany. Patients were followed up for a maximum of 4 years.

RESULTS

In 2015 and 2018, 0.25% and 0.34% of patients were tested, respectively. Testing was more frequent in younger women in the overall population, and in men in the ASCVD population. Patients tested for Lp(a) had more comorbidities and higher ASCVD risk compared to matched control patients. ASCVD hospitalizations were more frequent prior to the first Lp(a) test (5.55 vs 1.42 per 100/person-years). The mortality rate of the Lp(a)-tested cohort and the control group was similar. Mortality was lower in patients with prior ASCVD and Lp(a) testing compared to matched controls with prior ASCVD and no Lp(a) test (2.30 vs 3.64 per 100/person-years, p <0.001). Patients with Lp(a) test received more laboratory examinations and cardiovascular medications and had more visits with specialized physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Lp(a) testing is rarely performed even in patients with very high cardiovascular risk. Patients tested for Lp(a) have more comorbidities and a higher ASCVD risk. Lp(a) testing is associated with more intensive preventive treatment and with positive effects on clinical outcomes and survival. The data support the value of Lp(a) measurements to characterize ASCVD risk and to improve ASCVD prevention.

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.

Use of Lipoprotein(a) to improve diagnosis and management in clinical familial hypercholesterolemia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an LDL-like particle whose plasma levels are largely genetically determined. The impact of measuring Lp(a) in patients with clinical familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) referred for genetic testing is largely unknown. We set out to evaluate the contribution of (genetically estimated) Lp(a) in a large nation-wide referral population of clinical FH.

METHODS

In 1504 patients referred for FH genotyping, we used an LPA genetic instrument (rs10455872 and rs3798220) as a proxy for plasma Lp(a) levels. The genetic Lp(a) proxy was used to correct LDL-cholesterol and reclassify patients with clinical FH based on Dutch Lipid Criteria Network (DLCN) scoring. Finally, we used estimated Lp(a) levels to reclassify ASCVD risk using the SCORE and SMART risk scores.

RESULTS

LPA SNPs were more prevalent among mutation-negative compared with mutation-positive patients (296/1280 (23.1%) vs 35/224 (15.6%), p = 0.016). Among patients with genetically defined high Lp(a) levels, 9% were reclassified to the DLCN category 'unlikely FH' using Lp(a)-corrected LDL-cholesterol (LDL-Ccor) and all but one of these patients indeed carried no FH variant. Furthermore, elevated Lp(a) reclassified predicted ASCVD risk into a higher category in up to 18% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients referred for FH molecular testing, we show that taking into account (genetically estimated) Lp(a) levels not only results in reclassification of probability of genetic FH, but also has an impact on individual cardiovascular risk evaluation. However, to avoid missing the diagnosis of an FH variant, clear thresholds for the use of Lp(a)-cholesterol adjusted LDL-cholesterol levels in patients referred for genetic testing of FH must be established.

Targeted Treatment against Lipoprotein (a): The Coming Breakthrough in Lipid Lowering Therapy

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD) are a very important cause of premature death. The most important risk factor for ASCVD is lipid disorders. The incidence of lipid disorders and ASCVD is constantly increasing, which means that new methods of prevention and treatment of these diseases are still being searched for. In the management of patients with lipid disorders, the primary goal of therapy is to lower the serum LDL-C concentration. Despite the available effective lipid-lowering therapies, the risk of ASCVD is still increased in some patients. A high level of serum lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) is a risk factor for ASCVD independent of serum LDL-C concentration. About 20% of Europeans have elevated serum Lp(a) levels, requiring treatment to reduce serum Lp(a) concentrations in addition to LDL-C. Currently available lipid lowering drugs do not sufficiently reduce serum Lp(a) levels. Hence, drugs based on RNA technology, such as pelacarsen, olpasiran, SLN360 and LY3819469, are undergoing clinical trials. These drugs are very effective in lowering the serum Lp(a) concentration and have a satisfactory safety profile, which means that in the near future they will fill an important gap in the armamentarium of lipid-lowering drugs.

Consensus and guidelines on lipoprotein(a) - seeing the forest through the trees

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Over the past decade, lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] made it to several consensus and guideline documents. This review aims to summarize the literature which underlies the various recommendations and compares recent European and North American consensus and guideline documents of the recent 3-4 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple large epidemiological and genetic studies have provided strong evidence for a causal association between Lp(a) concentrations and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve stenosis. There is a dose-dependent linear relationship between Lp(a) and ASCVD risk advocating to consider Lp(a) on a continuous scale rather than using thresholds. The best way to implement this in the clinic is by individualizing the Lp(a)-related risk using tools such as the 'Lp(a) risk calculator' ( http://www.lpaclinicalguidance.com ) that takes into account the Lp(a) level in the context of an individual's traditional risk factors and global risk for ASCVD. There is growing agreement across the guidelines regarding the clinical utility of measuring Lp(a) and more recent expert groups advocate for a general screening approach applied to all adults. As long as the cardiovascular outcomes trials for specific Lp(a)-lowering drugs are in progress, the current management of patients with high Lp(a) should focus on the comprehensive management of all other modifiable ASCVD risk factors which can be therapeutically addressed as per guideline recommendations.

SUMMARY

Since the contribution of high Lp(a) concentrations to global ASCVD risk has been underestimated in the past, a clear recommendation to measure Lp(a) at least once in a person's lifetime is imperative. Recent expert consensus recommendations provide clinicians with direction on how to manage the excess risk associated with elevated Lp(a) concentration by comprehensive and individualized management of modifiable ASCVD risk factors while awaiting the results of clinical trials of Lp(a) targeted therapies.

New Horizons: Revival of Lipoprotein (a) as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Disease

The status of lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] as a cardiovascular risk factor has been resurrected by advances in genetics. Mendelian randomization studies show a causal link of Lp(a) with coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral artery disease (PAD), and calcific aortic valve stenosis (CAVS). The genetics of Lp(a) is complex and extends beyond the kringle-IV type 2, as it is also dependent on ancestry. The plasma concentration of Lp(a) is determined by the hepatic production of apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] component of Lp(a), supporting the use of nucleic acids that inhibit the messenger RNA (mRNA) gene transcript for apo(a). Analytical barriers to measurement of Lp(a) are being addressed using isoform independent assays and a traceable standard. The association of Lp(a) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is higher for myocardial infarction than PAD and CAVS. Increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus associated with low Lp(a) levels is perplexing and requires further investigation. The greatest advancement in Lp(a)-lowering therapies is based on using RNA therapeutics that are now being investigated in clinical trials. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibition lowers Lp(a) modestly, but whether cardiovascular benefit is independent of low-density lipoprotein lowering remains unclear. Opportunistic and selective testing for Lp(a) is supported by moderate evidence, with the case for universal screening premature. Modification of behavioral and clinical risk factors may be targeted to mitigate Lp(a)-mediated risk of cardiovascular disease. Clinical practice guidelines have been developed to address gaps in care of high Lp(a), but full implementation awaits the findings of clinical outcome trials using RNA-directed therapies currently underway.

Role of lipoprotein(a) in plaque progression

Identified by Berg in 1963, lipoprotein(a) represents a key contemporary residual risk pathway in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) secondary prevention. Indeed, epidemiological and genetic studies have undoubtedly demonstrated that lipoprotein(a) is one of the strongest causal risk factors of ASCVD. Although a risk threshold has been set between 30 and 50 mg/dL, depending on the ethnicity, a linear risk gradient across the distribution has been demonstrated. In the context of the atherosclerotic process, hyperlipoproteinaemia(a) contributes to the atherosclerotic plaque formation by deposition of cholesterol in the same manner as low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, due to the LDL particle component of lipoprotein(a). Lipoprotein(a) accumulates in human coronary and carotid atherosclerotic lesions. High concentrations of lipoprotein(a) are associated with accelerated progression of the necrotic core, but not with coronary calcium score (CAC), although in the latter case, the evaluation of lipoprotein(a) can overcome the potential limitation of CAC to capture the totality of ASCVD risk in asymptomatic individuals. Finally, in the absence of a pharmacological approach to lower lipoprotein(a) to the extent required to achieve a cardiovascular benefit, implementation strategies that increase awareness among the population, patients, and healthcare providers on the importance of lipoprotein(a) in the development of ASCVD are eagerly needed.

Elevated Lipoprotein(a) prevalence and association with family history of premature cardiovascular disease in general population with moderate cardiovascular risk and increased LDL cholesterol

Background

Elevated Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is independently associated with increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. There are discrepancies regarding its epidemiology due to great variability in different populations. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) in people with moderate CVD risk and increased LDL-c and to determine the association between family history of premature CVD and elevated Lp(a).

Methods

Random subjects from the CESCAS population-based study of people with moderate CVD risk (Framingham score 10–20 %) and LDL-c ≥ 130 mg/dL, were selected to evaluate Lp(a) by immunoturbidimetry independent of the Isoforms variability. The association between family history of premature CVD and elevated Lp(a) was evaluated using multivariate logistic regression models. Elevated Lp(a) was defined as Lp(a) ​​≥ 125 nmol/L.

Results

Lp(a) was evaluated in 484 samples; men = 39.5 %, median age = 57 years (Q1-Q3: 50–63), mean CVD risk = 14.4 % (SE: 0.2), family history of premature CVD = 11.2 %, Lp(a) median of 21 nmol/L (Q1-Q3: 9–42 nmol/L), high Lp(a) = 6.1 % (95 % CI = 3.8–9.6). Association between family history of premature CVD and elevated Lp(a) in total population: OR 1.31 (95 % CI = 0.4, 4.2) p = 0.642; in subgroup of people with LDL-c ≥ 160 mg%, OR 4.24 (95 % CI = 1.2, 15.1) p = 0.026.

Conclusions

In general population with moderate CVD risk and elevated LDL-c from the Southern Cone of Latin America, less than one over ten people had elevated Lp(a). Family history of premature CVD was significantly associated with the presence of elevated Lp(a) in people with LDL-c ≥ 160 mg/dL.

Lp(a): a New Pathway to Target?

Purpose of Review

Over the past decades, genetic and observational evidence has positioned lipoprotein(a) as novel important and independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve stenosis.

Recent Findings

As Lp(a) levels are determined genetically, lifestyle interventions have no effect on Lp(a)-mediated ASCVD risk. While traditional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) can now be effectively lowered in the vast majority of patients, current lipid lowering therapies have no clinically relevant Lp(a) lowering effect.

Summary

There are multiple Lp(a)-directed therapies in clinical development targeting LPA mRNA that have shown to lower Lp(a) plasma levels for up to 90%: pelacarsen, olpasiran, and SLN360. Pelacarsen is currently investigated in a phase 3 cardiovascular outcome trial expected to finish in 2024, while olpasiran is about to proceed to phase 3 and SLN360’s phase 1 outcomes were recently published. If proven efficacious, Lp(a) will soon become the next pathway to target in ASCVD risk management.

Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis: a European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement

This 2022 European Atherosclerosis Society lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] consensus statement updates evidence for the role of Lp(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve stenosis, provides clinical guidance for testing and treating elevated Lp(a) levels, and considers its inclusion in global risk estimation. Epidemiologic and genetic studies involving hundreds of thousands of individuals strongly support a causal and continuous association between Lp(a) concentration and cardiovascular outcomes in different ethnicities; elevated Lp(a) is a risk factor even at very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. High Lp(a) is associated with both microcalcification and macrocalcification of the aortic valve. Current findings do not support Lp(a) as a risk factor for venous thrombotic events and impaired fibrinolysis. Very low Lp(a) levels may associate with increased risk of diabetes mellitus meriting further study. Lp(a) has pro-inflammatory and pro-atherosclerotic properties, which may partly relate to the oxidized phospholipids carried by Lp(a). This panel recommends testing Lp(a) concentration at least once in adults; cascade testing has potential value in familial hypercholesterolaemia, or with family or personal history of (very) high Lp(a) or premature ASCVD. Without specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies, early intensive risk factor management is recommended, targeted according to global cardiovascular risk and Lp(a) level. Lipoprotein apheresis is an option for very high Lp(a) with progressive cardiovascular disease despite optimal management of risk factors. In conclusion, this statement reinforces evidence for Lp(a) as a causal risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes. Trials of specific Lp(a)-lowering treatments are critical to confirm clinical benefit for cardiovascular disease and aortic valve stenosis.

Considerations for routinely testing for high Lp(a)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a likely causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve disease, confirmed by Mendelian randomization. With reliable assays, it has been established that Lp(a) is linearly associated with ASCVD. Current low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering therapies do not or minimally lower Lp(a). This review focuses on the clinical importance and therapeutic consequences of Lp(a) measurement.

RECENT FINDINGS

Development of RNA-based Lp(a) lowering therapeutics has positioned Lp(a) as one of the principal residual risk factors to target in the battle against lipid-driven ASCVD risk. Pelacarsen, which is a liver-specific antisense oligonucleotide, has shown Lp(a) reductions up to 90% and its phase 3 trial is currently underway. Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA targeting LPA messenger RNA which is being investigated in phase 2 and has already shown dose-dependent Lp(a) reductions up to 90%.

SUMMARY

Lp(a) should be measured in every patient at least once to identify patients with very high Lp(a) levels. These patients could benefit from Lp(a) lowering therapies when approved. In the meantime, therapy in high Lp(a) patients should focus on further reducing LDL-C and other ASCVD risk factors.

Lipoprotein(a) measurement issues: Are we making a mountain out of a molehill?

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] became besides LDL cholesterol one of the most attractive targets for intervention in cardiovascular disease. Strong genetic evidence supports the causal association between high Lp(a) concentrations and cardiovascular outcomes. Since specific Lp(a)-lowering therapies are under clinical investigation, the interest in measuring Lp(a) has markedly increased. However, the special structure of the lead protein component of Lp(a), named apolipoprotein(a), creates difficulties for an accurate measurement of Lp(a). A highly homologous repetitive structure, called kringle IV repeat with up to more the 40 repeats, causes a highly polymorphic protein. Antibodies raised against apolipoprotein(a) are mostly directed against the repetitive structure of this protein, which complicates the measurement of Lp(a) in molar terms. Both measurements in mass (mg/dL) and molar terms (nmol/L) are described and a conversion from one into the another unit is only approximately possible. Working groups for standardization of Lp(a) measurements are going to prepare widely available and improved reference materials, which will be a major step for the measurement of Lp(a). This review discusses many aspects of the difficulties in measuring Lp(a). It tries to distinguish between academic and practical concerns and warns to make a mountain out of a molehill, which does no longer allow to see the patient behind that mountain by simply staring at the laboratory issues. On the other hand, the calibration of some assays raises major concerns, which are anything else but a molehill. This should be kept in mind and we should start measuring Lp(a) with the aim of a better risk stratification for the patient and to identify those patients who might be in urgent need for a specific Lp(a)-lowering therapy as soon as it becomes available.

Trends in testing and prevalence of elevated Lp(a) among patients with aortic valve stenosis

Background and aims:

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is causally associated with aortic valve stenosis (AS) but Lp(a) testing among AS patients is not broadly incorporated into clinical practice. We evaluated trends in Lp(a) testing in an academic medical center.

Methods:

Educational efforts and adding Lp(a) to the lipid panel on the electronic medical record (EMR) and preprocedure order sets were used to increase awareness of Lp(a) as a risk factor in AS. Medical records at University of California San Diego Health (UCSDH) were analyzed from 2010 to 2020 to define the yearly frequency of first time Lp(a) testing in patients with diagnosis codes for AS or undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Results:

Lp(a) testing for any indication increased over 5-fold from 2010 to 2020. A total of 3808 patients had a diagnosis of AS and 417 patients had TAVR. Lp(a) levels >30 mg/dL were present in 37% of AS and 35% of TAVR patients. The rates of Lp(a) testing in AS and TAVR were 14.0% and 65.7%, respectively. In AS, Lp(a) testing increased over time from 8.5% in 2010, peaking at 24.2% in 2017, and declining to 13.9% in 2020 (p < 0.001 for trend). Following implementation of EMR order-sets in 2016, Lp(a) testing in TAVR cases increased to a peak of 88.5% in 2018.

Conclusions:

Elevated Lp(a) is prevalent in AS and TAVR patients. Implementation of educational efforts and practice pathways resulted in increased Lp(a) testing in patients with AS. This study represents a paradigm that may allow increased global awareness of Lp(a) as a risk factor for AS.