The role of lipoprotein (a) in chronic kidney disease

Lp(a): A Clinical Review

Elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a genetically determined cardiovascular risk factor, linked to both atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis. Elevated Lp(a) is widely prevalent, and consequently, several cardiovascular societies now recommend performing Lp(a) screening at least once in all adults. While there are presently no approved drugs specifically aimed at lowering Lp(a), several promising candidates are currently in the drug development pipeline, and many of these are now undergoing late phase clinical trials. In this comprehensive review, we outline Lp(a) biology and genetics, describe Lp(a)'s relationship to various cardiovascular clinical phenotypes of interest, highlight novel Lp(a)-lowering therapies, and outline what role these may have in future clinical practice.

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) 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.

Association of Lipoprotein(a) With Major Adverse Limb Events and All-Cause Mortality Following Revascularization for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: A Substudy of the BEST-CLI Trial

BACKGROUND

The BEST-CLI (Best Endovascular Versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia) trial tested the optimal initial revascularization strategy in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Little is known about the prognostic relevance of Lp(a) (lipoprotein[a]) and its modification by renal function in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. We investigated the relationship between Lp(a) and prespecified cardiovascular outcomes.

METHODS

A subgroup of patients from the BEST-CLI trial (as part of the TIDE [The Impact of Diabetes on Revascularization] study) underwent blinded, core-laboratory assessment of Lp(a) levels and were included in this analysis. The primary end point was major adverse limb events or death from any cause. Secondary end points were the components of the primary end point, major amputation, major reintervention, and major adverse cardiac events (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or death from any cause). The association of Lp(a) with end points was assessed using Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for traditional risk factors and then also for renal function and statin use, which increase Lp(a) levels.

RESULTS

A total of 189 patients (median [interquartile range] age 67.3 [61.6-74.1] years) were included and followed for a median of 2.1 (1.2-2.9) years. Median Lp(a) for the total study population was 27.3 (10.4-65.8) mg/dL, and 62 (32.8%) patients had elevated values (≥50 mg/dL). The 1-year event rate of the primary outcome was 33.3 (95% CI, 23.7-42.8) per 100 person-years. There was no association between Lp(a) and the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00 [95% CI, 0.99-1.00]; P=0.186). In secondary analyses controlling for renal function, elevated Lp(a) was associated with increased risk for all-cause death (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.05]; P=0.009). Results were similar regardless of peripheral revascularization strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated Lp(a) level was not associated with major adverse limb events or death but was associated with all-cause death after controlling for renal function. Lp(a) may be an important therapeutic target in the patient population with high-risk chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

REGISTRATION

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03085524; Unique identifier: NCT03085524.

PCSK-9 Inhibitors Can Significantly Improve the Coronary Slow Flow Caused by Elevated Lipoprotein (a) in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease

BACKGROUND

Coronary slow flow and no reflow significantly predict poor prognosis in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients, especially those with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Early identification of factors contributing to these conditions can mitigate ischemic events and improve outcomes.

AIMS

This study aimed to investigate the association between elevated lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] levels and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin Type 9 (PCSK-9) inhibitor therapy with coronary slow flow or no reflow after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in AMI patients with CKD.

METHODS

A total of 323 ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients who underwent PCI between October 2017 and June 2023 were included. Patients were divided into CKD (n = 132) and non-CKD (n = 191) groups. Lp(a) levels and the prevalence of coronary slow flow or no reflow after PCI were evaluated. STEMI patients with CKD were further categorized into elevated Lp(a) (n = 81) and normal Lp(a) (n = 51) subgroups. Logistic analysis identified risk factors for coronary slow flow/no reflow after PCI. The impact of PCSK-9 inhibitors on outcomes was also assessed in the elevated Lp(a) subgroup.

RESULTS

STEMI patients with CKD had significantly higher Lp(a) levels compared to those without CKD (median 36.75 vs. 15.90 mg/dL, p = 0.0001). CKD patients with elevated Lp(a) had a higher prevalence of coronary slow flow/no reflow after PCI than those with normal Lp(a) (38.3% vs. 13.7%, p = 0.002). Logistic regression analysis identified elevated Lp(a) as an independent risk factor for slow flow/no reflow after PCI in STEMI patients with CKD (OR = 2.985, p = 0.027). In CKD patients with elevated Lp(a), PCSK-9 inhibitors significantly improved post-PCI coronary flow and reduced composite cardiovascular events during 1-year follow-up (22.2% vs. 51.1%, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated Lp(a) is an independent risk factor for coronary slow flow or no reflow after PCI in STEMI patients with CKD. PCSK-9 inhibitors improve coronary blood flow and reduce cardiovascular events in these patients.

Distribution of lipoprotein (a) levels in patients with lower extremity artery disease and their impact on amputation and survival: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Elevated lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) is an independent risk factor for lower extremity artery disease (LEAD) with equivocal effect on amputation and mortality. Results regarding aggressive lipid-lowering therapies (LLT) are missing. We examined LEAD patients with Lp(a) measurement and the impact of intensive LLT on amputation and survival.

METHODS

Baseline characteristics of 263 LEAD patients with Lp(a) measurement treated in a tertiary hospital from 01/2017 until 01/2022 were recorded. Patients were categorized into three groups according to their Lp(a) values (< 30 mg/dL, 30-90 mg/dL and > 90 mg/dL). Lipid values and LLT were recorded at baseline and during follow-up (median 750 days). Peripheral endovascular revascularizations (EVR), amputations and death during follow-up were analysed.

RESULTS

Of 263 patients, 75% were male, mean age was 67 ± 10 years. Elevated Lp(a) values ≥ 30 mg/dL were found in 32%, 16% had values > 90 mg/dL. Baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was 89 ± 38 mg/dL, decreasing to 61 ± 30 mg/dL at follow-up, with no difference between Lp(a) groups (63 ± 32 mg/dL vs. 52 ± 23 mg/dL vs. 60 ± 25 mg/dL, p = 0.273). Statin dose was intensified more frequently in those with elevated Lp(a) (16% vs. 35% vs. 33%, p = 0.005), who also received significantly more often ezetimibe (50% vs. 58% vs. 73%, p = 0.028) and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (2% vs. 3% vs. 8%, p = 0.043). No difference was seen regarding EVR (91% vs. 95% vs. 90%, p = 0.729), amputations (4% vs. 7% vs. 0%, p = 0.245) and death (8% vs. 5% vs. 3%, p = 0.436).

CONCLUSIONS

Aggressive LLT in high-risk LEAD patients with elevated Lp(a) levels enabled LDL-C target achievement in a majority by combination of established lipid-lowering agents. An increase in EVR, amputation or death could not be observed in patients with high Lp(a) levels.

Can Lipoprotein(a) Predict the Risk of Diabetic Nephropathy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We aimed to examine if serum lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] values could be used to predict the risk of diabetic nephropathy (DN) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). English-language observational studies available as full-texts on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to 28th November 2024 were included in the review. Studies were to assess the association between Lp(a) and DN and report adjusted effect size. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Five cross-sectional, two case-control, and eight studies prospective cohort were included. Six studies used Lp(a) as a continuous variable while eight used it as a categorical variable. Two studies used Lp(a) as both. Meta-analysis showed that an incremental increase in Lp(a) was associated with a small increase in the risk of DN (OR: 1.03 95% CI: 1.01, 1.04 I2=86%). Meta-analysis also showed that high levels of Lp(a) were associated with a significant increase in the risk of DN (OR: 1.64 95% CI: 1.24, 2.17 I2=67%). Subgroup analysis based on study design, location, sample size, T2DM duration, baseline HbA1c, and definition of DN yielded mixed results. Lp(a) could be a potential marker for DN in T2DM. Further investigations may provide better evidence.

Serum Lipoprotein(a) Levels and Their Association with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Japan

AIMS

To investigate the distribution of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and its association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in Japanese patients at high risk for ASCVD using a health insurance database.

METHODS

Between July 2013 and June 2021, patients eligible for ASCVD prevention according to the 2017 Japan Atherosclerosis Society (JAS) guidelines with documented Lp(a) test results were extracted from the Medical Data Vision claims database and divided into three groups: primary prevention high-risk (Group I), secondary prevention (Group II) and secondary prevention high-risk (Group III). Data on lipid levels, cardiovascular morbidity risk factors and lipid-lowering treatments were extracted.

RESULTS

Of 700,580 patients with documented low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), 2,967 (0.42%) were tested for Lp(a). In 2,170 eligible patients, the median [interquartile range] serum concentration of Lp(a) was 13.9 [7.5-24.6] mg/dL, with 151 patients (7.0%) above the recommended risk threshold of ≥ 50 mg/dL. Lp(a) levels increased with risk across all prevention groups. Being in the highest Lp(a) quintile (Q5) was associated with an increased frequency of ASCVD (28.9% versus 18.9% in the lowest quintile (Q1) for unstable angina; 18.7% versus 10.1% for myocardial infarction; 27.9% versus 17.0% for ischemic stroke). In the secondary prevention groups, the proportion of patients meeting an LDL-C target of ＜70 mg/dL decreased from 30.2% in Q1 to 19.0% in Q5 for Group II and from 32.9% to 16.3% for Group III.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a high prevalence of Lp(a) ≥ 50mg/dL in Japanese patients at high risk for ASCVD, it found that the Lp(a) testing rate was very low.

Combined Treatment With Lipoprotein Apheresis and Hemodialysis in Patients With Severe Cardiovascular Disease, High Lipoprotein(a) and End Stage Renal Disease

Elevated Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a known independent cardiovascular risk factor. Lp(a) Lipoprotein Apheresis (LA) substantially reduces the number of cardiovascular events. The effect of LA treatment in hemodialysis (HD) patients remains unknown. Retrospective analysis of nine patients undergoing LA and HD. Cardiovascular risk factors and the efficacy of treatment were assessed. Adverse cardiac or vascular events (ACVE) were recorded. Median (range) years on HD were 4.2 (1.5 to 23.6) years and median years on LA were 4.0 (1.6 to 12.4) years. Before initiation of LA, median (range) Lp(a) level was 242.67 (164.0 to 400.10) nmol/L and mean LDL-C level (±SD) 2.49 (±1.14) mmol/L. Under treatment, mean acute reduction rates, comparing concentrations before and after LA sessions, were 64.15 (±5.45)% for Lp(a) and 57.26 (±7.93)% for LDL-C. Before initiation of LA, 14 ACVE occurred; after initiation, only 6 (57.2% reduction rate). In this small cohort, LA appears to be effective in reducing ACVE in patients on HD with elevated Lp(a) levels. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of LA on cardiovascular outcomes in dialysis patients.

Lipoprotein(a) levels and cardiovascular mortality risk in Chinese patients undergoing hemodialysis

PURPOSE

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is recognized as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population. However, its impact on CVD mortality among Chinese patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) has not been fully established. This study aimed to evaluate the association between Lp(a) levels and both CVD mortality and all-cause mortality in this population.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving 200 MHD patients from Beijing Tongren Hospital, analyzed from January 1, 2013, to July 1, 2024. The mortality outcomes included CVD-related and all-cause mortality. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were utilized to assess the impact of Lp(a), while Cox regression analysis and restrict cubic spline were performed to explore associations.

RESULTS

The median follow-up duration was 66.5 months, with 121 deaths recorded (60.5%), of which 66 (54.5%) were due to CVD. Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that patients in the highest tertile of Lp(a) levels had the lowest survival for both CVD mortality and all-cause mortality. In multivariable Cox regression, higher Lp(a) levels were independently associated with an increased risk of both CVD mortality and all-cause mortality. The restricted cubic splines regression model showed that the risk of CVD mortality and all-cause mortality increased with rising Lp(a) levels.

CONCLUSION

Elevated serum Lp(a) levels are independently associated with increased mortality from both CVD and all causes in Chinese MHD patients. These findings indicate that serum Lp(a) may be a significant risk factor for CVD mortality in this population.

Managing Dyslipidemia in Chronic Kidney Disease: Implications for Cardiovascular and Renal Risk

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The review aims to address the complex relationship between dyslipidemia and chronic kidney disease (CKD), emphasizing its dual role in driving cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and contributing to CKD progression. It explores pathophysiological mechanisms, highlights recent biomarker discoveries, and evaluates contemporary and emerging lipid-lowering therapies tailored for CKD patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have highlighted the inadequacy of traditional lipid markers like LDL-C in reflecting cardiovascular risk in CKD. Novel biomarkers, such as remnant cholesterol and lipoprotein(a), demonstrate stronger associations with adverse outcomes. Emerging lipid-lowering agents, including bempedoic acid, pemafibrate, and PCSK9 inhibitors, show promise for risk reduction, especially in non-dialysis-dependent CKD. However, evidence remains limited for advanced stages of CKD and dialysis patients. Furthermore, alterations in lipid metabolism, such as dysfunctional HDL and triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, are now recognized as significant contributors to CVD and renal damage in CKD populations. Dyslipidemia is a pivotal modifiable risk factor in CKD, exacerbating both cardiovascular risk and disease progression. While statins remain the cornerstone of therapy in early-to-moderate CKD, their efficacy diminishes in advanced stages. The advent of novel therapeutic options and a deeper understanding of dyslipidemia's pathophysiology hold potential for improving outcomes. Future research should prioritize personalized approaches, focusing on the unique metabolic derangements of CKD and advancing treatments for high-risk and dialysis-dependent patients.

Unveiling patient profiles associated with elevated Lp(a) through an unbiased clustering analysis

Introduction

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has been recognized as key factor in cardiovascular research. This study aimed to identify key patient profiles based on the characteristics of a Portuguese cohort of adults who were referred for Lp(a) measurement.

Method

An unsupervised clustering analysis was performed on 661 Portuguese adults to identify patient profiles associated with lipoprotein a [Lp(a)] based on a range of demographic and clinical indicators. Lp(a) levels were deliberately excluded from the algorithm, to ensure an unbiased cluster formation.

Results

The analysis revealed two distinct clusters based on Lp(a) levels. Cluster 1 (n = 336) exhibited significantly higher median Lp(a) levels than Cluster 2 (n = 325; p = 0.004), with 46.4% of individuals exceeding the 75 nmol/L (30 mg/dl) risk threshold (p < 0.001). This group was characterized by older age (median 57 vs. 45 years), lower body mass index (27.17 vs. 29.40), and a majority male composition (73.8% vs. 26.5%). Additionally, Cluster 1 displayed a higher prevalence of hypertension (56.5% vs. 31.1%), diabetes mellitus (38.7% vs. 17.2%), and dyslipidemia (88.7% vs. 55.4%). These data suggest that the Cluster 1 profile has a potential increased risk for cardiovascular complications and underscore the importance of considering specific patient profiles for Lp(a) screening and cardiovascular risk assessment.

Conclusion

Despite the study limitations, including single-institution data and potential selection bias, this study highlights the utility of cluster analysis in identifying clinically meaningful patient profiles and suggests that proactive screening and management of Lp(a) levels, particularly in patients with characteristics resembling those of Cluster 1, may be beneficial.

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.

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.

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.

Management of dyslipidaemia in patients with comorbidities: facing the challenge

Dyslipidaemia is a common chronic kidney disease (CKD) and contributes to excessively elevated cardiovascular mortality. The pathophysiology is complex and modified by comorbidities like the presence/absence of proteinuria, diabetes mellitus or drug treatment. This paper provides an overview of currently available treatment options. We focused on individuals with CKD and excluded those on renal replacement therapy (haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, or kidney transplantation). The use of statins is safe and recommended in most patients, but guidelines vary with respect to low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goals. While no dedicated primary or secondary prevention studies are available for pro-protein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, secondary analyses of large outcome trials reveal no effect modification on endpoints by the presence of CKD. Similar data have been shown for bempedoic acid, but no definite conclusion can be drawn with respect to efficacy and safety. No outcome trials are available for inclisiran while the cholesterol lowering effects seem to be unaffected by CKD. Finally, the value of fibrates and icosapent ethyl in CKD is unclear. Lipid abnormalities contribute to the massive cardiovascular disease burden in CKD. Lowering of LDL cholesterol with statins (and most likely PCSK9 inhibitors) reduces the event rate and thus statin therapy should be initiated in almost all individuals. Other interventions (bempedoic acid, inclisiran, fibrates, or icosapent ethyl) currently need a case-by-case decision before prescription.

What's next for lipoprotein(a)? A National Lipid Association report from an Expert Panel Discussion

This is an exciting time in the lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] field. Attention to this important lipoprotein and potent cardiovascular risk marker is transitioning from the purview of the specialist to that of the general practitioner. Its clinical adoption as an important test is increasing in momentum. There is evidence that Lp(a) contributes to the pathology of atherothrombotic disease, aortic valve stenosis, and childhood ischemic strokes. Three large, Phase 3, randomized, cardiovascular outcomes trials in which Lp(a) is specifically and substantially lowered by mRNA-directed therapies in secondary prevention settings are in progress and will start to report results as early as 2025. Regardless of outcomes, there remain many unanswered questions about Lp(a), ranging from fundamental unknowns about Lp(a) biology, to the complexity of its measurement, optimal screening strategies, and clinical management in individuals with high Lp(a) levels both with and without overt cardiovascular disease. Accordingly, The National Lipid Association (NLA) convened an Expert Discussion involving clinicians and fundamental researchers to identify knowledge gaps in our understanding of Lp(a) biology and pathogenicity and to discuss approaches in the management of elevated Lp(a) in different clinical settings.

The functions of apolipoproteins and lipoproteins in health and disease

Lipoproteins and apolipoproteins are crucial in lipid metabolism, functioning as essential mediators in the transport of cholesterol and triglycerides and being closely related to the pathogenesis of multiple systems, including cardiovascular. Lipoproteins a (Lp(a)), as a unique subclass of lipoproteins, is a low-density lipoprotein(LDL)-like particle with pro-atherosclerotic and pro-inflammatory properties, displaying high heritability. More and more strong evidence points to a possible link between high amounts of Lp(a) and cardiac conditions like atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic stenosis (AS), making it a risk factor for heart diseases. In recent years, Lp(a)'s role in other diseases, including neurological disorders and cancer, has been increasingly recognized. Although therapies aimed at low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) have achieved significant success, elevated Lp(a) levels remain a significant clinical management problem. Despite the limited efficacy of current lipid-lowering therapies, major clinical advances in new Lp(a)-lowering therapies have significantly advanced the field. This review, grounded in the pathophysiology of lipoproteins, seeks to summarize the wide-ranging connections between lipoproteins (such as LDL-C and HDL-C) and various diseases, alongside the latest clinical developments, special emphasis is placed on the pivotal role of Lp(a) in cardiovascular disease, while also examining its future potential and mechanisms in other conditions. Furthermore, this review discusses Lp(a)-lowering therapies and highlights significant recent advances in emerging treatments, advocates for further exploration into Lp(a)'s pathogenic mechanisms and its potential as a therapeutic target, proposing new secondary prevention strategies for high-risk individuals.

Lipoprotein (a) in the context of atherosclerosis: pathological implications and therapeutic perspectives in myocardial infarction. A narrative review

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a recognized independent cardiovascular (CV) risk factor with significant implications in the morphopathology of atherosclerotic plaques, particularly in the context of myocardial infarction (MI). Structurally, Lp(a) consists of a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle covalently bound to apolipoprotein A (ApoA), and its resemblance to plasminogen (PLG) underpins its dual proatherogenic and prothrombotic effects. Elevated Lp(a) levels disrupt endothelial repair mechanisms, enhance the deposition of oxidized LDL, and promote foam cell formation, which are critical for the initiation and progression of atherosclerosis. Pathologically, atherosclerotic plaques associated with Lp(a) display hallmark features of instability, including thin fibrous caps, increased macrophage infiltration, calcification, and fragile neovascularization. These features contribute to plaque ruptures and thrombotic complications. Additionally, the structural similarity of Lp(a) to PLG interferes with fibrinolysis, creating a prothrombotic environment that exacerbates the risk of acute ischemic events. Genetic and non-genetic factors influence plasma Lp(a) concentrations, with significant inter-individual and ethnic variability contributing to varying CV risk profiles. Despite advancements in the understanding of the pathophysiological role of Lp(a), effective therapeutic options remain limited. Current management focuses on mitigating traditional CV risk factors, while emerging therapies, such as antisense oligonucleotides and short interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) targeting hepatic ApoA production, offer promising avenues for reducing Lp(a) levels. Further clinical validation of these therapies is warranted. This review underscores the importance of incorporating Lp(a) measurement into routine CV risk assessment and emphasizes the need for continued research on its morphopathological impacts and therapeutic modulation, with the aim of reducing the burden of atherosclerosis and MI.

Intra-individual variability in lipoprotein(a): the value of a repeat measure for reclassifying individuals at intermediate risk

Aims

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels are predominantly genetically determined and repeat measurements are generally considered unlikely to be clinically useful. However, the temporal variation of Lp(a) is not well characterized. Our aim was to determine the intra-individual variability of Lp(a) and whether a repeated measure reclassified Lp(a)-specific cardiovascular risk using the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) consensus statement risk categories.

Methods and results

This retrospective cohort study analysed initial and repeated serum Lp(a) levels measured using the same methodology from 609 individuals in the Nashville Biosciences database, a de-identified electronic medical records database. Baseline and follow-up paired values were significantly different (P < 0.05), with an absolute change of ≥10 mg/dL in 38.1% [95% CI 34.2-42%] and a >25% change in 40.5% [95% CI 36.6-44.3%] of individuals. Although the categories of those whose values were in the EAS low-risk and high-risk categories did not change, 53% of those in the intermediate 'grey-zone' category transitioned to either the low-risk (20%) or high-risk (33%) category. Black individuals exhibited greater variability than White individuals and women exhibited greater variability than men. There was a positive correlation between the baseline Lp(a) levels and the absolute changes in Lp(a), (r = 0.59, P < 0.01).

Conclusion

Temporal-related changes in Lp(a) variability were present in many individuals. A repeat Lp(a) measure may allow more precise Lp(a)-specific cardiovascular risk prediction for individuals whose initial value is in the EAS-defined intermediate 'grey-zone' category. Lp(a) variability should be included in calculating the expected effect sizes in future clinical research studies targeting Lp(a).

Elevated lipoprotein(a) levels: A crucial determinant of cardiovascular disease risk and target for emerging therapies

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a significant global health challenge despite advancements in prevention and treatment. Elevated Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels have emerged as a crucial risk factor for CVD and aortic stenosis, affecting approximately 20 of the global population. Research over the last decade has established Lp(a) as an independent genetic contributor to CVD and aortic stenosis, beginning with Kare Berg's discovery in 1963. This has led to extensive exploration of its molecular structure and pathogenic roles. Despite the unknown physiological function of Lp(a), studies have shed light on its metabolism, genetics, and involvement in atherosclerosis, inflammation, and thrombosis. Epidemiological evidence highlights the link between high Lp(a) levels and increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Newly emerging therapies, including pelacarsen, zerlasiran, olpasiran, muvalaplin, and lepodisiran, show promise in significantly lowering Lp(a) levels, potentially transforming the management of cardiovascular disease. However, further research is essential to assess these novel therapies' long-term efficacy and safety, heralding a new era in cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment and providing hope for at-risk patients.

Association between lipoprotein (a) and risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events among maintenance hemodialysis patients in Beijing, China: a single-center, retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Serum lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in the general population, its association with ASCVD incidence in Chinese maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between Lp(a) levels and ASCVD incidence among MHD patients in Beijing, China.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational cohort study included MHD patients at Beijing Tongren Hospital from January 1, 2013 to December 1, 2020, and followed until December 1,2023. The primary outcome was ASCVD occurrence. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to evaluate ASCVD-free survival in MHD patients, with stratification based on Lp(a) levels. Cox regression analyses were conducted to assess the association between Lp(a) levels and the occurrence of ASCVD.

RESULTS

A total of 265 patients were enrolled in the study. The median follow-up period were 71 months.78 (29.4%) participants experienced ASCVD events, and 118 (47%) patients died, with 58 (49.1%) deaths attributed to ASCVD. Spearman rank correlation analyses revealed positive correlations between serum Lp(a) levels and LDL-c levels, and negative correlations with hemoglobin, triglyceride, serum iron, serum creatinine, and albumin levels. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that Lp(a) levels ≥ 30 mg/L, increased age, decreased serum albumin levels, and a history of diabetes mellitus were significantly associated with ASCVD incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated an independent and positive association between serum Lp(a) levels and the risk of ASCVD in MHD patients, suggesting that serum Lp(a) could potentially serve as a clinical biomarker for estimating ASCVD risk in this population.

Consensus on lipoprotein(a) of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis. Literature review and recommendations for clinical practice

The irruption of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) in the study of cardiovascular risk factors is perhaps, together with the discovery and use of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (iPCSK9) inhibitor drugs, the greatest novelty in the field for decades. Lp(a) concentration (especially very high levels) has an undeniable association with certain cardiovascular complications, such as atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD) and aortic stenosis. However, there are several current limitations to both establishing epidemiological associations and specific pharmacological treatment. Firstly, the measurement of Lp(a) is highly dependent on the test used, mainly because of the characteristics of the molecule. Secondly, Lp(a) concentration is more than 80% genetically determined, so that, unlike other cardiovascular risk factors, it cannot be regulated by lifestyle changes. Finally, although there are many promising clinical trials with specific drugs to reduce Lp(a), currently only iPCSK9 (limited for use because of its cost) significantly reduces Lp(a). However, and in line with other scientific societies, the SEA considers that, with the aim of increasing knowledge about the contribution of Lp(a) to cardiovascular risk, it is relevant to produce a document containing the current status of the subject, recommendations for the control of global cardiovascular risk in people with elevated Lp(a) and recommendations on the therapeutic approach to patients with elevated Lp(a).

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.

Association between lipoprotein(a) plasma levels and diabetic nephropathy in Han Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The goal of this study was to evaluate the relationship between serum lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels and diabetic nephropathy (DN) among Han Chinese individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This retrospective analysis comprised a consecutive case series of 767 grown-up patients with T2DM (199 among them with DN) hospitalized in the Department of Endocrinology at the The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from February 20220 to February 2021. Clinical data and other laboratory measurements, such as glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), were extracted from medical records and compared among groups. Clinical characteristics according to Lp(a) quartiles were also studied. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis were used to examine the relationship between serum Lp(a) and DN. Patients with DN had a longer disease duration, higher HbA1c, higher level of Lp(a), and were more likely to have diabetic retinopathy (DR) than those without DN (P < 0.005 for each). With regard to the Lp(a) quartile group, patients with a higher Lp(a) concentration were more likely to have DN and have higher level of HbA1c during the study (P for trend < 0.005 for each). After adjusting for several confounding factors, the development of DN was significantly associated with the serum Lp(a) level (P = 0.026, comparing the 4th vs 1st quartile of Lp(a)) according to multivariate regression analysis. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for DN development using serum Lp(a) showed that the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) was 0.590 (P < 0.001). Findings from this study demonstrated that the DN was independently associated with the serum Lp(a) level in patients with T2DM in this retrospective study.

Relationship Between Lipoprotein(a), Renal Function Indicators, and Chronic Kidney Disease: Evidence From a Large Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) poses a significant global public health challenge. While lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) has been established as a significant factor in cardiovascular disease, its connection to CKD risk remains a topic of debate. Existing evidence indicates diverse risks of kidney disease among individuals with various renal function indicators, even when within the normal range.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the joint associations between different renal function indicators and Lp(a) regarding the risks of incident CKD in the general population.

METHODS

The analysis involved a cohort of 329,415 participants without prior CKD who were enrolled in the UK Biobank between 2006 and 2010. The participants, with an average age of 56 (SD 8.1) years, included 154,298/329,415 (46.84%) males. At baseline, Lp(a) levels were measured using an immunoturbidimetric assay and classified into 2 groups: low (<75 nmol/L) and high (≥75 nmol/L). To assess participants' baseline renal function, we used the baseline urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The relationship between Lp(a), renal function indicators, and the risk of CKD was evaluated using multivariable Cox regression models. These models were adjusted for various factors, including sociodemographic variables, lifestyle factors, comorbidities, and laboratory measures.

RESULTS

A total of 6003 incident CKD events were documented over a median follow-up period of 12.5 years. The association between elevated Lp(a) levels and CKD risk did not achieve statistical significance among all participants, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.05 and a 95% CI ranging from 0.98 to 1.13 (P=.16). However, a notable interaction was identified between Lp(a) and UACR in relation to CKD risk (P for interaction=.04), whereas no significant interaction was observed between Lp(a) and eGFR (P for interaction=.96). When compared with the reference group with low Lp(a) and low-normal UACR (<10 mg/g), the group with high Lp(a) and low-normal UACR exhibited a nonsignificant association with CKD risk (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90-1.08; P=.74). By contrast, both the low Lp(a) and high-normal UACR (≥10 mg/g) group (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.24; P<.001) and the high Lp(a) and high-normal UACR group (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.19-1.46; P<.001) demonstrated significant associations with increased CKD risks. In individuals with high-normal UACR, elevated Lp(a) was linked to a significant increase in CKD risk, with an HR of 1.14 and a 95% CI ranging from 1.03 to 1.26 (P=.01). Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses consistently produced results that were largely in line with the main findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis revealed a significant interaction between Lp(a) and UACR in relation to CKD risk. This implies that Lp(a) may act as a risk factor for CKD even when considering UACR. Our findings have the potential to provide valuable insights into the assessment and prevention of CKD, emphasizing the combined impact of Lp(a) and UACR from a public health perspective within the general population. This could contribute to enhancing public awareness regarding the management of Lp(a) for the prevention of CKD.

Risk factors and their association with mortality in patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis or/and kidney transplant patients or late-stage chronic kidney disease: A single center, prospective observational study

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are a very common occurrence in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and that was the main cause of mortality in these patients. The aims of the present study were to examine the effects of inflammation, malnutrition, and an oxidative stress in patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis or/and kidney transplant patients or patients with late-stage CKD, with its coherent consequences during a 38-month follow-up period. The present study included 137 patients with renal insufficiencies (48 patients had CKD, 29 patients had kidney transplants, and 60 CKD patients underwent hemodialysis [HD] and 39 normal individuals [controls]; aged 49 ± 20 years, 96 males and 80 females). All patients with renal insufficiencies were dialyzed 3 times a week for 4 to 5 hours/day (dialysis commenced in March 2017 and continued for 38 months). Biochemical parameters, Paraoxonoase (PON)-1 status, and inflammatory-markers were assayed using the standard laboratory protocols. The Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test was used for survival analysis of CKD patients. Older aged patients had a higher risk of developing CKD than the controls (P < .001). The albumin level, body mass index, and total cholesterol were found to be lower, and the triglyceride value was found to be higher in the patients of the HD group (P < .05 for all). The patients of the HD group exhibited a higher activity of PON-1 than the patients who received a kidney transplant (P < .001). The control patients had a higher activity of PON-1 than the patients of the HD group, those with CKD, and those of the kidney transplant group (P < .001 for all). Following a follow-up of 16 patients with CKD for 38 months, 15 patients undergoing HD succumbed due to cardiovascular diseases and one patient received a kidney transplant. At 8 to 10-month of follow-up 85% of survival function was noted. As the disease progressed, the survival function decreased to 30% due to the malnutrition in patients with CKD. Lipid oxidation and malnutrition/inflammation are associated with in various stages of CKD patients. With progressing CKD patients' biomarkers of lipid oxidation and malnutrition/inflammation show an increasing trend.

Association between serum lipoprotein(a) and mildly reduced eGFR: a cross-sectional study

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and aortic stenosis. However, the data on the relationship between Lp(a) and mildly reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) has been disputed. This study was conducted to assess the relationship between Lp(a) concentrations and mildly reduced eGFR in healthy subjects.This community-based, cross-sectional study enrolled 1,064 volunteers aged ≥ 40 years who lived in Yonghong Community, Zhonglou District, Changzhou, China, between December 2016 and December 2017. A mildly reduced eGFR was defined as eGFR between 60 and 90 mL/min/1.73m2. A standardized questionnaire and biochemical measurements were used to gather information about participants. The serum concentration of Lp(a) was determined using the latex-enhanced immunoturbidimetric test. Of the total study population, 34.8% (n = 370) were men, and the mean age was 66.8 ± 8.5 years. A significant association existed between Lp(a) levels and the risk of mildly reduced eGFR. Individuals with the highest tertile of Lp(a) had higher odds of mildly reduced eGFR after adjusting for various confounders (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24-2.60, P = 0.0025) compared to those with the lowest tertile of Lp(a). Multivariable logistic regression of studies in which Lp(a) was presented as continuous variables showed consistent results (adjusted OR: 1.23 for 1-SD increment of Ln-Lp(a), 95% CI: 1.05-1.43). Subgroup analyses showed that study characteristics such as age, sex, obesity, diabetes, and hypertension status did not significantly affect the association (P for all interactions > 0.05). These results suggest that higher serum Lp(a) level was an independent risk factor for mildly reduced eGFR.

Elevated Lipoprotein(a) Levels are Associated with Arterial Stiffness Measured by Cardio-Ankle Vascular Index in Patients Undergoing Peritoneal Dialysis

Background

Arterial stiffness (AS) can be used to predict future cardiovascular diseases. High lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) levels were independently correlated with cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and death in patients with chronic renal insufficiency. The cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) is a useful biomarker of arteriosclerotic disorders and has a close relationship with a variety of CV events. This study aimed to investigate the correlation between serum Lp(a) levels and AS in patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) using the CAVI.

Methods

A total of 86 adult patients who were on regular PD for at least 3 months were recruited in this study. The CAVI values were determined using the waveform device (VaSera VS-1000). A CAVI value of ≥ 9.0 on either side was defined as high. Serum Lp(a) levels were measured by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

Results

Among these participants, 35 of 86 (40.7%) belonged to the high CAVI group. In contrast to those with a normal CAVI, PD recipients in the high CAVI group had higher serum levels of total cholesterol (p = 0.003), triglycerides (p = 0.044), C-reactive protein (p < 0.001), and Lp(a) (p < 0.001), whereas their albumin levels were significantly lower (p = 0.026). Based on multivariable logistic regression analysis, serum Lp(a) (odds ratio [OR] 1.025, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.010-1.040, p = 0.001), total cholesterol (OR 1.042, 95% CI 1.005-1.081, p = 0.027), and C-reactive protein (each increase 0.1 mg/dL, OR 1.217, 95% CI 1.008-1.469, p = 0.041) levels were found as the parameters that could independently predict AS in patients on PD. Further, using Spearman's correlation analysis, both the left and right CAVIs revealed a significantly positive correlation with log-transformed Lp(a) levels (r = 0.588, p < 0.001; r = 0.639, p < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusions

Serum Lp(a) levels were postulated to participate in the pathogenic processes of AS in adult patients undergoing PD.

Lipoprotein(a)-60 Years Later-What Do We Know?

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) molecule includes two protein components: apolipoprotein(a) and apoB100. The molecule is the main transporter of oxidized phospholipids (OxPL) in plasma. The concentration of this strongly atherogenic lipoprotein is predominantly regulated by the LPA gene expression. Lp(a) is regarded as a risk factor for several cardiovascular diseases. Numerous epidemiological, clinical and in vitro studies showed a strong association between increased Lp(a) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), calcific aortic valve disease/aortic stenosis (CAVD/AS), stroke, heart failure or peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Although there are acknowledged contributions of Lp(a) to the mentioned diseases, clinicians struggle with many inconveniences such as a lack of well-established treatment lowering Lp(a), and common guidelines for diagnosing or assessing cardiovascular risk among both adult and pediatric patients. Lp(a) levels are different with regard to a particular race or ethnicity and might fluctuate during childhood. Furthermore, the lack of standardization of assays is an additional impediment. The review presents the recent knowledge on Lp(a) based on clinical and scientific research, but also highlights relevant aspects of future study directions that would approach more suitable and effective managing risk associated with increased Lp(a), as well as control the Lp(a) levels.

Pathophysiological concepts and screening of cardiovascular disease in dialysis patients

Dialysis patients experience 10-20 times higher cardiovascular mortality than the general population. The high burden of both conventional and nontraditional risk factors attributable to loss of renal function can explain higher rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and death among dialysis patients. As renal function declines, uremic toxins accumulate in the blood and disrupt cell function, causing cardiovascular damage. Hemodialysis patients have many cardiovascular complications, including sudden cardiac death. Peritoneal dialysis puts dialysis patients with end-stage renal disease at increased risk of CVD complications and emergency hospitalization. The current standard of care in this population is based on observational data, which has a high potential for bias due to the paucity of dedicated randomized clinical trials. Furthermore, guidelines lack specific guidelines for these patients, often inferring them from non-dialysis patient trials. A crucial step in the prevention and treatment of CVD would be to gain better knowledge of the influence of these predisposing risk factors. This review highlights the current evidence regarding the influence of advanced chronic disease on the cardiovascular system in patients undergoing renal dialysis.

Lipoprotein(a) as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Diseases: Pathophysiology and Treatment Perspectives

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is still a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, despite all the progress achieved as regards to both prevention and treatment. Having high levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease that operates independently. It can increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease even when LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels are within the recommended range, which is referred to as residual cardiovascular risk. Lp(a) is an LDL-like particle present in human plasma, in which a large plasminogen-like glycoprotein, apolipoprotein(a) [Apo(a)], is covalently bound to Apo B100 via one disulfide bridge. Apo(a) contains one plasminogen-like kringle V structure, a variable number of plasminogen-like kringle IV structures (types 1-10), and one inactive protease region. There is a large inter-individual variation of plasma concentrations of Lp(a), mainly ascribable to genetic variants in the Lp(a) gene: in the general po-pulation, Lp(a) levels can range from <1 mg/dL to >1000 mg/dL. Concentrations also vary between different ethnicities. Lp(a) has been established as one of the risk factors that play an important role in the development of atherosclerotic plaque. Indeed, high concentrations of Lp(a) have been related to a greater risk of ischemic CVD, aortic valve stenosis, and heart failure. The threshold value has been set at 50 mg/dL, but the risk may increase already at levels above 30 mg/dL. Although there is a well-established and strong link between high Lp(a) levels and coronary as well as cerebrovascular disease, the evidence regarding incident peripheral arterial disease and carotid atherosclerosis is not as conclusive. Because lifestyle changes and standard lipid-lowering treatments, such as statins, niacin, and cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors, are not highly effective in reducing Lp(a) levels, there is increased interest in developing new drugs that can address this issue. PCSK9 inhibitors seem to be capable of reducing Lp(a) levels by 25-30%. Mipomersen decreases Lp(a) levels by 25-40%, but its use is burdened with important side effects. At the current time, the most effective and tolerated treatment for patients with a high Lp(a) plasma level is apheresis, while antisense oligonucleotides, small interfering RNAs, and microRNAs, which reduce Lp(a) levels by targeting RNA molecules and regulating gene expression as well as protein production levels, are the most widely explored and promising perspectives. The aim of this review is to provide an update on the current state of the art with regard to Lp(a) pathophysiological mechanisms, focusing on the most effective strategies for lowering Lp(a), including new emerging alternative therapies. The purpose of this manuscript is to improve the management of hyperlipoproteinemia(a) in order to achieve better control of the residual cardiovascular risk, which remains unacceptably high.

Dyslipidemia in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: An Updated Overview

Dyslipidemia is a potentially modifiable cardiovascular risk factor. Whereas the recommendations for the treatment target of dyslipidemia in the general population are being more and more rigorous, the 2013 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes clinical practice guideline for lipid management in chronic kidney disease (CKD) presented a relatively conservative approach with respect to the indication of lipid lowering therapy and therapeutic monitoring among the patients with CKD. This may be largely attributed to the lack of high-quality evidence derived from CKD population, among whom the overall feature of dyslipidemia is considerably distinctive to that of general population. In this review article, we cover the characteristic features of dyslipidemia and impact of dyslipidemia on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CKD. We also review the current evidence on lipid lowering therapy to modify the risk of cardiovascular events in this population. We finally discuss the association between dyslipidemia and CKD progression and the potential strategy to delay the progression of CKD in relation to lipid lowering therapy.

Lipoprotein(a) and the Risk for Recurrent Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Events Among Adults With CKD: The Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study

Rationale & Objective

Many adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) have high lipoprotein(a) levels. It is unclear whether high lipoprotein(a) levels confer an increased risk for recurrent ASCVD events in this population. We estimated the risk for recurrent ASCVD events associated with lipoprotein(a) in adults with CKD and prevalent ASCVD.

Study Design

Observational cohort study.

Setting & Participants

We included 1,439 adults with CKD and prevalent ASCVD not on dialysis enrolled in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort study between 2003 and 2008.

Exposure

Baseline lipoprotein(a) mass concentration, measured using a latex-enhanced immunoturbidimetric assay.

Outcomes

Recurrent ASCVD events (primary outcome), kidney failure, and death (exploratory outcomes) through 2019.

Analytical Approach

We used Cox proportional-hazards regression models to estimate adjusted HR (aHRs) and 95% CIs.

Results

Among participants included in the current analysis (mean age 61.6 years, median lipoprotein(a) 29.4 mg/dL [25th-75th percentiles 9.9-70.9 mg/dL]), 641 had a recurrent ASCVD event, 510 developed kidney failure, and 845 died over a median follow-up of 6.6 years. The aHR for ASCVD events associated with 1 standard deviation (SD) higher log-transformed lipoprotein(a) was 1.04 (95% CI, 0.95-1.15). In subgroup analyses, 1 SD higher log-lipoprotein(a) was associated with an increased risk for ASCVD events in participants without diabetes (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.48), but there was no evidence of an association among those with diabetes (aHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.88-1.10, P comparing aHRs = 0.031). The aHR associated with 1 SD higher log-lipoprotein(a) in the overall study population was 1.16 (95% CI, 1.04-1.28) for kidney failure and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.94-1.11) for death.

Limitations

Lipoprotein(a) was not available in molar concentration.

Conclusions

Lipoprotein(a) was not associated with the risk for recurrent ASCVD events in adults with CKD, although it was associated with a risk for kidney failure.

Lipoprotein(a) and diet-a challenge for a role of saturated fat in cardiovascular disease risk reduction?

In this perspective, we discuss new evidence relating to current dietary recommendations to reduce SFA intake to modulate an individual's global risk of CVD. Although it is well established that lowering dietary SFA intake has a beneficial effect on LDL cholesterol concentrations, findings increasingly indicate an opposite effect on lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentrations. In recent years, many studies have firmly established a role for an elevated Lp(a) concentration as a genetically regulated, causal, and prevalent risk factor for CVD. However, there is less awareness of the effect of dietary SFA intake on Lp(a) concentrations. This study discusses this issue and highlights the contrasting effect of reducing dietary SFA intake on LDL cholesterol and Lp(a), 2 highly atherogenic lipoproteins. This calls attention to the need for precision nutrition approaches that move beyond a "one-size-fits-all" approach. To illustrate the contrast, we describe the dynamic contributions of Lp(a) and LDL cholesterol concentrations to CVD risk during interventions with a low-SFA diet, with the hope that this will stimulate further studies and discussions regarding dietary management of CVD risk.

Lipoprotein(a) distribution and its association with carotid arteriopathy in the Chinese population

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The distribution of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] has not been well-studied in a large population in China. The relationship between Lp(a) and carotid atherosclerosis remains undefined. In this study, we aimed to investigate the distribution of Lp(a) levels and to assess their association with carotid arteriopathy in China.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 411,634 adults with Lp(a) measurements from 22 health check-up centers were used to investigate Lp(a) distribution in China. Among participants with Lp(a) data, carotid ultrasound was performed routinely at seven health check-up centers covering 75,305 subjects. Carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) and carotid plaque were used as surrogate biomarkers of carotid arteriopathy. The multivariate logistic regression model was applied to evaluate the association of increased Lp(a) levels with carotid arteriopathy.

RESULTS

The distribution of Lp(a) concentrations was right-skewed, with a median concentration of 10.60 mg/dL. The proportions of Lp(a) levels ≥30 mg/dL and ≥50 mg/dL were 16.75% and 7.10%, respectively. The median Lp(a) level was higher in females individuals in northern China, and increased with age. Spearman's analysis revealed weak correlations between the Lp(a) concentration as a continuous variable and other lipid profiles. The multiple logistic regression analysis showed that participants with Lp(a) levels ≥50 mg/dL had an increased risk of cIMT ≥1.0 mm (OR = 1.138, 95% CI, 1.071-1.208) and carotid plaque (OR = 1.296, 95% CI, 1.219-1.377) compared with those with Lp(a) levels <50 mg/dL.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study of the Lp(a) distribution in a large population in China. Our findings revealed a positive association between elevated Lp(a) levels (≥50 mg/dL) and increased prevalence of carotid atherosclerosis, which implies an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in the future.

Relationship between lipoprotein(a) levels, cardiovascular outcomes and death in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review of prospective studies

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

In the general population, high levels of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) are an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases. However, the information available in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is less robust. The main objective of this updated systematic review of prospective studies was to analyze the association between elevated Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular outcomes or death in patients with CKD.

METHODS

The PRISMA guidelines were used to carry out this systematic review. Randomized clinical trials or prospective observational studies that evaluated the association between Lp(a) levels and cardiovascular outcomes or death in CKD patients were searched in the current literature.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies including 12,260 individuals were identified and considered eligible for this systematic review. In total, 14 prospective cohorts and one post-hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial were analyzed. Eight studies evaluated hemodialysis patients, one study analyzed patients on peritoneal dialysis, while six studies evaluated subjects with different stages of CKD. Median follow-up duration ranged from 1 to 8.6 years. Our findings showed that elevated Lp(a) values were associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events or death in most studies, despite adjusting for traditional risk factors.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this systematic review show that there is a positive association between Lp(a) levels and fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events in patients with CKD.

Atherogenic Dyslipidemias: Unmet Needs and the Therapeutic Potential of Emerging and Novel Approaches and Drugs

Innovative lipid-modifying agents are valuable resources to improve the control of atherogenic dyslipidemias and reduce the lipid-related residual cardiovascular risk of patients with intolerance or who are not fully responsive to a consolidated standard of care (statins plus ezetimibe). Moreover, some of the upcoming compounds potently affect lipid targets that are thus far considered "unmodifiable". The present paper is a viewpoint aimed at presenting the incremental metabolic and cardiovascular benefits of the emerging lipid-modulating agents and real-life barriers, hindering their prescription by physicians and their assumption by patients, which need to be worked out for a more diffuse and appropriate drug utilization.

Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fatty Liver Disease in Newly Diagnosed, Treatment-Naive Hypertensive Patients and Its Association with Cardiorenal Risk Markers

INTRODUCTION

Patients with arterial hypertension frequently present with comorbidities that are associated with increased cardiorenal risk, such as metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD).

AIMS

Our study aimed to assess the prevalence and the association of MAFLD with cardiorenal risk markers in newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve hypertensive patients.

METHODS

We recruited 281 individuals with new-onset hypertension who were not prescribed any medication. Medical history, clinical examination findings, and laboratory test results were recorded. Liver steatosis was assessed through fatty liver index (FLI) calculation. Patients with FLI ≥ 60 together with one main metabolic abnormality (type 2 diabetes mellitus or overweight/obesity) or at least two metabolic risk abnormalities (increased waist circumference, blood pressure, plasma triglycerides, presence of prediabetes or insulin resistance, decreased plasma high-density lipoprotein) fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for MAFLD.

RESULTS

The prevalence of MAFLD in our study population was 28.7%. Individuals with MAFLD were more frequently male and had increased body mass index. Systolic, diastolic, and pulse pressure values were significantly higher in this group of patients. Moreover, lipid, renal, glucose, and inflammatory markers were considerably deranged in patients with MAFLD. After multivariate regression analysis, uric acid, ferritin, and apoE emerged as independent predictors of MAFLD. Area under receiver operating characteristics curve revealed that uric acid had the greatest diagnostic accuracy, with the ideal cutoff being ≥ 5.2 mg/dl (sensitivity: 77.6%, specificity: 76.3%).

CONCLUSION

MAFLD represents a common comorbidity in hypertensive patients and is associated with markers of cardiorenal risk. Uric acid may be indicative of MAFLD in particular.

Study on the relationship between lipoprotein (a) and diabetic kidney disease

OBJECTIVE

Little is currently known about the role of lipid metabolism in diabetic kidney disease (DKD), warranting further study. The present study sought to investigate the correlation between lipid metabolism and renal function as well as renal pathological grade/score in DKD patients.

METHODS

A total of 224 patients diagnosed with DKD by pathological examination were retrospectively analyzed, of which 74 patients were further evaluated by DKD pathological grade/score. ANOVA was used to investigate serum lipoprotein (a) [Lp (a)] levels in DKD patients with different chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages. Spearman correlation analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between Lp (a) and renal function-related indicators. The DKD pathological grade/score was also evaluated with this method. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to analyze the value of Lp (a) in assessing renal function and pathological changes.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in Lp (a) levels among different CKD stages (H = 17.063, p = 0.002) and glomerular grades (H = 12.965, p = 0.005). Lp (a) levels correlated with serum creatinine (p = 0.000), blood urea nitrogen (p = 0.000), estimated glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.000), 24-h proteinuria (24hUPro, p = 0.000), urine microalbumin (p = 0.000), urine albumin creatinine ratio (p = 0.000), glomerular basement membrane thickness (p = 0.003), and glomerular grade (p = 0.039). ROC curve demonstrated good performance of Lp (a) as an indicator to assess CKD stage 4-5 (AUC = 0.684, p = 0.000), 24hUPro > 3.5 g (AUC = 0.720, p = 0.000), and glomerular grade III-IV (AUC = 0.695, p = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated levels of Lp (a) are associated with decreased GFR, increased proteinuria, and renal pathological progression, suggesting they could be used to monitor changes in DKD patients.

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.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment in patients with clinical evidence of familial hypercholesterolemia and elevated Lp(a)

BACKGROUND

Although potent lipid-lowering therapies are available, patients commonly fall short of recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and LDL-C goal attainment, as well as the prevalence and severity of coronary artery disease (CAD). Moreover, we characterized patients failing to meet recommended LDL-C goals.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis in a cohort of patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Clinical FH was determined by the Dutch Clinical Lipid Network Score, and Lp(a) ≥ 50 mg/dL (≈ 107 nmol/L) was considered elevated.

RESULTS

A total of 838 participants were included. Overall, the prevalence of CAD was 72%, and 62% received lipid-lowering treatment. The prevalence of clinical FH (probable and definite FH) was 4%, and 19% had elevated Lp(a) levels. With 35%, LDL-C goal attainment was generally poor. Among the participants with clinical FH, none reached their LDL-C target. Among patients with elevated Lp(a), LDL-C target achievement was only 28%. The prevalence and severity of CAD were higher in participants with clinical FH (86% prevalence) and elevated Lp(a) (80% prevalence).

CONCLUSION

Most participants failed to meet their individual LDL-C goals according to the ESC 2016 and 2019 guidelines. In particular, high-risk patients with clinical FH or elevated Lp(a) rarely met their target for LDL-C. The identification of these patients and more intense treatment approaches are crucial for the improvement of CAD primary and secondary prevention.

Temporal Trends in Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study

Background

Plasma lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) concentrations are primarily determined by genetic factors and are believed to remain stable throughout life. However, data are scarce on longitudinal trends in Lp(a) concentrations over time. Therefore, it is unclear whether measurement of Lp(a) once in a person's life is sufficient for cardiovascular risk assessment in all adults.

Methods and Results

Lp(a) concentrations, specifically apolipoprotein(a) concentrations, were measured at visits 4 and 5, ≈15 years apart, in 4734 adult participants of the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) study (mean age at visits 4 and 5, 60.7±5.1 and 75.5±5.2 years, respectively). Participants were categorized by baseline (visit 4) Lp(a) concentrations as normal (<30 mg/dL), borderline‐high (30–49 mg/dL), or high (≥50 mg/dL). We compared adults with Lp(a) change ≥20 mg/dL between visits and those with Lp(a) change <20 mg/dL. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify covariates associated with change in Lp(a) over time. At visit 5, 58.1% of participants with borderline‐high Lp(a) concentrations of 30 to 49 mg/dL at visit 4 had high Lp(a) concentrations ≥50 mg/dL. Participants with low Lp(a) (<30 mg/dL) or high Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL) at visit 4 tended to stay in these respective categories. Black race, female sex, diabetes, hypertension, total cholesterol, and albuminuria were associated with significantly greater probability for Lp(a) change ≥20 mg/dL over time.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that adults with borderline‐high Lp(a) concentrations may be considered for repeat monitoring of Lp(a) over time, particularly if they are Black, women, or have diabetes, hypertension, and/or elevated albuminuria.

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.

Association between lipoprotein(a) and thromboembolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a recognized risk factor for ischemic stroke (IS); however, its role in thromboembolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) remains controversial. We aimed to assess the association of Lp(a) and IS and systemic embolism (SEE) in NVAF patients.

METHODS

In total, 16,357 patients with NVAF were recruited from the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2021, and were divided into groups based on Lp(a) quartiles. Logistic regression models analyzed the association between Lp(a), IS, and SEE. The restriction cubic spline was used to assess the potential nonlinear relationship between Lp(a), IS, and SEE. We conducted subgroup analyses and estimated the multiplicative interaction between the stratified variables and Lp(a) to investigate whether the association between Lp(a) and IS and SEE was affected by age, sex, anticoagulants, and CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.

RESULTS

We identified 1319 IS and 133 SEE events. After correcting for CHA₂DS₂-VASc score and other potential confounders, each 1-standard deviation (SD) increase in log-Lp(a) was related to a 23% increased risk of IS (odds ratios [OR], 1.23; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.07-1.41). NVAF patients in the highest Lp(a) quartile were 1.23-fold more likely to have IS than those in the lowest quartile (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.04-1.45). A positive linear relationship between Lp(a) and IS risk was observed (P for nonlinear = 0.341). In the fully adjusted model, subjects had a 1.78-fold increased risk of SEE for each 1-SD increase in log-Lp(a) (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.78-4.36). Subjects in the highest Lp(a) quartile had a 2.38-fold elevated risk of SEE (OR, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.85-6.19) compared with the lowest quartile. Furthermore, Lp(a) had a nonlinear relationship with the risk of SEE (P for nonlinear = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated Lp(a) concentration was significantly associated with IS and SEE, suggesting that Lp(a) may be an emerging biomarker that can help clinicians identify patients at high risk of thromboembolism in this population.

Association of lipoprotein(a) with aortic dissection

Background

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with coronary atherosclerotic heart disease, aortic stenosis, stroke, and heart failure. We aimed to determine the relationship between Lp(a) and aortic dissection (AD).

Methods

Two hundred patients with AD were included in our case group. The control group consisted of 200 non‐AD people who were age‐ (±5 years) and gender‐matched to the case group. Data were collected retrospectively, including hypertension, smoking, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, Lp(a), total cholesterol, triglyceride, low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol. The association between Lp(a) and AD was studied using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results

Patients with AD had greater median Lp(a) concentrations than non‐AD people (152.50 vs. 81.75 mg/L). Lp(a) was associated with AD in a multivariate logistic regression analysis (odds ratio, 8.03; 95% confidence interval, 2.85–22.62), comparing those with Lp(a) quartile 4 with those with Lp(a) quartile 1. Stratified analysis showed that this relationship was observed in both men and women, as well as in older and younger individuals.

Conclusions

High levels of Lp(a) are strongly associated with AD, independent of other cardiovascular risk factors.

Lipoprotein (a) in familial hypercholesterolaemia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The role of lipoprotein (a) in atherogenesis has been the subject of argument for many years. Evidence that it is raised in familial hypercholesterolaemia has been disputed not least because a mechanism related to low density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor mediated catabolism has been lacking. Whether lipoprotein (a) increases the already raised atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk in familial hypercholesterolaemia is also more dubious than is often stated. We review the evidence in an attempt to provide greater clarity.

RECENT FINDINGS

Lipoprotein (a) levels are raised as a consequence of inheriting familial hypercholesterolaemia. The mechanism for this is likely to involve increased hepatic production, probably mediated by PCSK9 augmented by apolipoprotein E. The extent to which raised lipoprotein (a) contributes to the increased ASCVD risk in familial hypercholesterolaemia remains controversial.Unlike, for example, statins which are effective across the whole spectrum of LDL concentrations, drugs in development to specifically lower lipoprotein (a) are likely to be most effective in people with the highest levels of lipoprotein (a). People with familial hypercholesterolaemia may therefore be in the vanguard of those in whom theses agents should be exhibited.

SUMMARY

Inheritance of familial hypercholesterolaemia undoubtedly increases the likelihood that lipoprotein (a) will be raised. However, in familial hypercholesterolaemia when ASCVD incidence is already greatly increased due to high LDL cholesterol, whether lipoprotein (a) contributes further to this risk cogently needs to be tested with drugs designed to specifically lower lipoprotein (a).

A cross-sectional study to assess proteinuria and lipoprotein (a) levels in chronic kidney disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a reduced glomerular filtration rate and/or increased urinary albumin excretion. The worldwide prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) ranges from 8 to 16 %, and the prevalence of CKD is rising. The aim: To study the association between CKD stages, proteinuria, and lipoprotein (a) levels among the study participants. Materials and methods: This study was an institution-based observational case-control study involving CKD patients as study group and healthy volunteers as control one. Blood samples were tested for urea, serum creatinine, uric acid levels, triglycerides, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, VLDL cholesterol and serum lipoprotein. Statistical analysis was done with SPSS version 20.0. Result: In our study, the most common age group affected among cases was 41 to 50 years (5th decade), and there was a male preponderance in CKD. CKD patients had a higher mean protein creatinine ratio than controls, and this difference was statistically significant. In addition, CKD patients had significantly higher total cholesterol, triglyceride levels and lower HDL cholesterol levels than controls. Also, they had significantly elevated serum lipoprotein (a) levels than controls. Conclusion: Based on our study findings, we can conclude that because of the potential role of lipoprotein (a) in the development of cardiovascular disease, it is imperative to include an estimation of lipoprotein (a) levels in all CKD patients, especially in later stages to give a targeted therapy for dyslipidemia among CKD patients

Beneficial effects of procyanidin B2 on adriamycin-induced nephrotic syndrome mice: the multi-action mechanism for ameliorating glomerular permselectivity injury

Despite considerable advances in prevention, diagnosis, and therapy, nephrotic syndrome (NS) remains a significant cause of high morbidity and mortality globally. As a result, there is an urgent need to identify novel effective preventative and therapeutic agents for NS. NS is implicated in glomerular permselectivity injury, which can be attributed to oxidative distress, inflammation, lipid nephrotoxicity, podocyte apoptosis, autophagy dysfunction, and slit diaphragm (SLD) dysfunction. In addition to its well-documented antioxidant potency, procyanidin B2 (PB2) may exhibit pleiotropic effects by targeting various canonical signaling events, such as NF-κB, PPARs, PI3K/Akt, mTOR, and the caspase family. As a result, PB2 may be a promising therapeutic target against NS. To test this hypothesis, we established an Adriamycin (ADR)-induced NS mouse model to evaluate the pleiotropic renoprotective effects of PB2 on NS. Here, we demonstrated that PB2 improves podocyte injury via inhibition of NOX4/ROS and Hsp90/NF-κB to exhibit antioxidant and anti-inflammatory potency, respectively. We also show that PB2 indirectly activates the PI3K/Akt axis by regulating SLD protein levels, resulting in normalized podocyte apoptosis and autophagy function. Further, loss of albumin (ALB) induces lipid nephrotoxicity, which we found to be alleviated by PB2 via activation of PPARα/β-mediated lipid homeostasis and the cholesterol efflux axis. Interestingly, our results also suggested that PB2 reduces electrolyte abnormalities and edema. In addition, PB2 may contribute protective effects against trace element dys-homeostasis, which, through alleviating serum ALB loss, leads to a protective effect on glomerular permselectivity injury. Taken together, our results reveal that the identified mechanisms of PB2 on NS are multifactorial and involve inhibition of oxidative distress and inflammatory responses, as well as improvements in podocyte apoptosis and autophagy dysfunction, amelioration of lipid nephrotoxicity, and modulation of electrolyte abnormalities and edema. Thus, we provide a theoretical basis for the clinical application of PB2 against NS.

Lipoprotein(a) in systemic lupus erythematosus is associated with history of proteinuria and reduced renal function

OBJECTIVE

Proteinuria is the clinical expression of lupus nephritis and despite recent advances in the therapeutic armamentarium for lupus nephritis, morbidity and mortality rates remain high. Therefore, the identification of factors that predict lupus nephritis is paramount in preventing damage accrual and disease progression. Lipoprotein (a) (Lp[a]) is a primarily genetically inherited plasma lipoprotein with pro-thrombotic and pro-atherosclerotic effects. Elevated Lp(a) has been observed at early stages of renal impairment in the general population and is associated with the development of chronic kidney disease. However, little is known about renal implications of Lp(a) in SLE. Thus, we evaluated Lp(a) and atherosclerotic events, thrombotic events, renal disease, and disease activity in patients with SLE.

METHODS

SLE patients fulfilling the revised American College of Rheumatology (ACR) or SLICC classification criteria with a measurement of Lp(a) were included in the analysis. A cutoff of 125 nmol/L was chosen based on expert opinion. Chi-square test was used to compare the differences between patient characteristics and Lp(a) levels. Logistic regression or linear regression were used, where appropriate, to assess the association between Lp(a) values and the measured outcomes.

RESULTS

Lp(a) levels from 562 patients were analyzed. There was an association between elevated Lp(a) and a history of proteinuria (OR 1.58, p-value = 0.02). This association remained significant following adjustment for age, sex, race, low C3, and elevated anti-dsDNA (OR = 1.55, p-value = 0.04). There was also an association with eGFR < 60 (p = 0.02). Patients with elevated Lp(a) had higher physician global activity (p = 0.01) and erythrocyte sediment rate (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Elevated Lp(a) was associated with proteinuria, independent of known factors associated with lupus proteinuria, as well as reduced eGFR and physician global activity. Our findings highlight the potential role of Lp(a) as a noninvasive biomarker for early renal disease in SLE.