Standardization and clinical management of lipoprotein(a) measurements

Increased cardiovascular risk associated with hyperlipoproteinemia (a) and the challenges of current and future therapeutic possibilities

Population, genetic, and clinical studies demonstrated a causative and continuous, from other plasma lipoproteins independent relationship between elevated plasma lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] concentration and the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), mainly those related to athe-rosclerotic CVD, and calcific aortic stenosis. Currently, a strong international consensus is still lacking regarding the single value which would be commonly used to define hyperlipoproteinemia (a). Its prevalence in the general population is estimated to be in the range of 10%–35% in accordance with the most commonly used threshold levels (>30 or >50 mg/dL). Since elevated Lp(a) can be of special importance in patients with some genetic disorders, as well as in individuals with otherwise controlled major risk factors, the identification and establishment of the proper therapeutic interventions that would lower Lp(a) levels and lead to CVD risk reduction could be very important. The majority of the classical lipid-lowering agents (statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates), as well as nutraceuticals (CoQ10 and garlic), appear to have no significant effect on its plasma levels, whereas for the drugs with the demonstrated Lp(a)-lowering effects (aspirin, niacin, and estrogens), their clinical efficacy in reducing cardiovascular (CV) events has not been unequivocally proven yet. Both Lp(a) apheresis and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors can reduce the plasma Lp(a) by approximately 20%–30% on average, in parallel with much larger reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (up to 70%), what puts us in a difficulty to conclude about the true contribution of lowered Lp(a) to the reduction of CV events. The most recent advancement in the field is the introduction of the novel apolipoprotein (a) [apo(a)] antisense oligonucleotide therapy targeting apo(a), which has already proven itself as being very effective in decreasing plasma Lp(a) (by even >90%), but should be further tested in clinical trials. The aim of this review was to present some of the most important accessible scientific data, as well as dilemmas related to the currently and potentially in the near future more widely available therapeutic options for the management of hyperlipoproteinemia (a).

Comparison of lipoprotein (a) serum concentrations measured by six commercially available immunoassays

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is an established causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), independently of low-density lipoproteins (LDL) and other risk factors. The recognition of Lp(a) as an atherogenic molecule has raised the demand for reliable quantification methods in the clinical laboratory. The aim of this work is to compare commercial immunochemical assays.

METHODS

We measured Lp(a) serum concentrations using six different assays, providing Lp(a) in mg/dl (Denka Seiken, Abbott Quantia, Beckman, Diasys 21FS, and Siemens N Latex) or in nmol/l (Roche TinaQuant, Diasys 21 FS) in 144 serum samples covering the clinically relevant range of Lp(a) concentrations. All assays relied on five-point calibrations using calibrators provided by the manufacturers. Apolipoprotein(a) phenotyping was performed by sodium dodecyl sulfate-agarose gel electrophoresis (SDS-agarose) followed by immunoblotting.

RESULTS

Most bivariate correlation coefficients were greater than 0.90. Compared to an established IFCC-proposed reference material, the results of the different assays diverged from the target values (43.3 mg/dl or 96.6 nmol/l) by -8% (Siemens N Latex) and +22% (Abbott Quantia). Stratification of the samples into five groups with increasing Lp(a) concentrations and difference plots showed that the differences among assays were concentration-dependent. Some assays overestimated Lp(a) at high concentrations compared to the Denka Seiken assay.

CONCLUSIONS

Current commercial immunological assays for measuring Lp(a) concentrations are differently calibrated. Their biases differ significantly across the clinically relevant concentration range in a non-linear manner. This is not conclusively explained by apolipoprotein (a) phenotypes. Further international efforts to harmonize assays for Lp(a) are needed.

Lipoprotein (a) and other Lipid Profile in Patients with Thrombotic Stroke: Is it a Reliable Marker?

BACKGROUND

Cerebrovascular disease (CVD) and coronary heart disease (CHD) cause 40%-50% of deaths in developed countries with CVD causing 10%-12% of deaths. Though increased Lipoprotein (a) is a risk factor in developing CHD, its role is poorly defined in etiopathogenesis of CVD.

AIMS

To find the association of lipoprotein (a) and lipid profile in thrombotic stroke patients after acute phase.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

The study was conducted at Kasturba Medical College, Manipal. Twenty one cases of thrombotic stroke and 18 cases of age and sex matched controls were taken for the study. Informed consent was taken from both case and control.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Overnight fasting sample was collected from both case and control. Serum was separated and parameters such as total cholesterol, triglycerides, high density lipoproteins-C, low density lipoprotein-C, lipoprotein (a), fasting blood sugars were estimated.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data were analyzed by SPSS software, Student's t-test, standard deviation (SD), and standard error of mean (SEM), P-value <0.05 is considered to be significant.

RESULTS

In this study, we found no statistical significant differences in serum lipid and lipoprotein (a) profile between controls and thrombotic stroke patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Highest frequency (38%) of stroke was found in the age group of 7080 years. There were other associated risk factors such as diabetes in five cases (24%), hypertension in nine cases (43%), and family history of stroke in four cases. However, further studies are required to evaluate the importance of serum Lp(a) estimation in the assessment as a risk factor for thrombotic stroke.

No Correlation Between Lipoprotein(a) and Biochemical Markers of Renal Function in the General Population

Context.—Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is receiving major emphasis as an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Results of studies on Lp(a) in patients with impaired renal function are contradictory, and no information is available on the association between Lp(a) and estimated glomerular filtration rate and cystatin C.

Objective.—To evaluate the potential relationships among the biochemical markers creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and cystatin C and their association with Lp(a) in patients with impaired renal function.

Design.—We performed a retrospective analysis using the database of our laboratory to retrieve results of Lp(a), creatinine, and cystatin C tests performed on consecutive outpatients referred by general practitioners for routine blood testing during the last year.

Results.—Cumulative results for all of the above-mentioned variables were retrieved for 150 adults older than 35 years. After stratifying Lp(a) values according to thresholds of creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and cystatin C, no significant differences in Lp(a) concentration were observed in subjects with abnormal values of these biochemical markers. The prevalence of Lp(a) values greater than or equal to 300 mg/L was not significantly different in subjects with biochemical markers suggestive of impaired renal function, as compared with those without such markers. In multivariable linear regression analysis, none of the parameters tested was significantly associated with Lp(a).

Conclusions.—We suggest that unless renal function is completely compromised, measurement of biochemical markers of renal function might be relatively unimportant to improve clinical usefulness of Lp(a) testing.

Risk factors for first-ever acute ischemic non-embolic stroke in elderly individuals

BACKGROUND

Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and subsequent serious long-term physical and mental disability among survivors. In the elderly, ischemic stroke accounts for more than 80% of all strokes.

OBJECTIVES

To identify major risk factors for a first-ever acute ischemic/non-embolic stroke in individuals older than 70 years.

METHODS

A population-based case-control study of patients admitted to the University Hospital of Ioannina, Epirus, Greece, due to first-ever ischemic/non-embolic stroke from March 1997 to January 2002. All patients were subjected to brain CT and had their serum lipids and biochemical metabolic parameters determined within 24 h from the onset of symptoms.

RESULTS

A total of 163 (aged>70 years) consecutive stroke patients and 166 apparently healthy volunteers were studied. An atherogenic lipid profile and metabolic disturbances were more prevalent in the patient group than in stroke-free controls. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified diabetes mellitus (odds ratio (OR), 1.92; 95% CI, 1.02-3.63), triglycerides (TG) (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09-1.22), HDL-cholesterol (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43-0.76), apo A-I (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92), lipoprotein(a) [LP(a)] (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.25-1.79), uric acid (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.59) albumin (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.20-0.70) fibrinogen (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.13) and the metabolic syndrome (OR 2.48, 95% CI, 1.16-5.29) as significantly associated with ischemic/non-embolic stroke.

CONCLUSION

Ischemic non-embolic stroke in the elderly is associated with dyslipidemia and several predictor metabolic factors, which could be substantially modified by lifestyle changes and therapeutic intervention.

Increased lipoprotein (a) levels as an independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism

Elevation of serum lipoprotein (a) (Lp[a]) is a known risk factor predisposing to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. However, little is known about the role of increased Lp(a) in venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study evaluated the role of Lp(a) among a panel of established hereditary thrombogenic defects in patients with VTE. A total of 685 consecutive patients with at least one episode of VTE and 266 sex- and age-matched healthy controls were screened with regard to activated protein C resistance, protein C, protein S, and antithrombin deficiency, elevated serum levels of Lp(a), and the factor V G1691A, MTHFR C677T, and prothrombin G20210A mutations. Elevated Lp(a) levels above 30 mg/dL were found in 20% of all patients, as compared to 7% among healthy controls (P < .001, odds ratio [OR] 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-5.3). The coexistence of FV G1691A and elevated Lp(a) was significantly more prevalent among patients with VTE than in the control group (7% versus 0.8%; P < .001, OR 9.8, 95% CI, 2.4-40.7). No other established prothrombotic risk factor was found to be significantly combined with increased Lp(a). These data suggest that Lp(a) concentrations greater than 30 mg/dL are a frequent and independent risk factor for VTE. Furthermore, elevated Lp(a) levels might contribute to the penetrance of thromboembolic disease in subjects being affected by other prothrombotic defects, such as FV G1691A mutation.

Increased lipoprotein (a) levels as an independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism

Elevation of serum lipoprotein (a) (Lp[a]) is a known risk factor predisposing to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. However, little is known about the role of increased Lp(a) in venous thromboembolism (VTE). This study evaluated the role of Lp(a) among a panel of established hereditary thrombogenic defects in patients with VTE. A total of 685 consecutive patients with at least one episode of VTE and 266 sex- and age-matched healthy controls were screened with regard to activated protein C resistance, protein C, protein S, and antithrombin deficiency, elevated serum levels of Lp(a), and the factor V G1691A, MTHFR C677T, and prothrombin G20210A mutations. Elevated Lp(a) levels above 30 mg/dL were found in 20% of all patients, as compared to 7% among healthy controls (P &lt; .001, odds ratio [OR] 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-5.3). The coexistence of FV G1691A and elevated Lp(a) was significantly more prevalent among patients with VTE than in the control group (7% versus 0.8%; P &lt; .001, OR 9.8, 95% CI, 2.4-40.7). No other established prothrombotic risk factor was found to be significantly combined with increased Lp(a). These data suggest that Lp(a) concentrations greater than 30 mg/dL are a frequent and independent risk factor for VTE. Furthermore, elevated Lp(a) levels might contribute to the penetrance of thromboembolic disease in subjects being affected by other prothrombotic defects, such as FV G1691A mutation.

Biochemical risk factors and patient's outcome: the case of lipoprotein(a)

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a genetic variant of low density lipoproteins and consists of the covalent association of the unique and enigmatic apolipoprotein(a) to apoliprotein B100. Despite the high degree of homology with low density lipoproteins, Lp(a) displays distinctive physico-chemical properties, function and metabolism. The present article reviews the main biological and clinical evidences about the association between raised concentration of Lp(a) and atherothrombotic diseases and provides tentative guidelines to improve the clinical usefulness of Lp(a) measurements.

Evaluation of the analytical performances of a new fully automated commercial immunonephelometric assay for lipoprotein(a)

Several commercial methods have been proposed for lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) measurements over the past decades. However, only a few of them appear completely suitable in terms of analytical performance, costs and practicability. We evaluated the analytical performance of a new commercial fully automated immunonephelometric assay for Lp(a) measurements on the IMMAGE Immunochemistry System. Mean within- and between-run coefficients of variation were 2.7% (range 1.2-4.7%) and 3.8% (range 1.8-7.9%), respectively. The linearity of the assay was confirmed up to 102 mg/dl and the deviation from the expected values did not exceed 4% (mean deviation: 1.9%). Moreover, the relative non-linearity was acceptable, ranging from 1.4% to 1.6% and hence constantly lower than the 2.5% upper limit. Since there is no reference method for Lp(a) measurements, 100 routine random serum samples measured by the IMMAGE Immunochemistry System immunonephelometric assay were further compared with two other commercial immunonephelometric assays (Array LPA immunonephelometric assay and BNA Latex-Enhanced Lp(a) nephelometric assay). Non-parametric regression and relative Spearman's correlation coefficients were satisfactory, (y=1.009x - 1.38; r=0.998 IMMAGE Immunochemistry System vs. Array LPA and y=0.922x - 0.40; r=0.989 IMMAGE Immunochemistry System vs. Behring Nephelometer Analyzer (BNA) Latex Lp(a) assay). On the basis of the results of the present evaluation we conclude that the analytical performance and the main technical features of the IMMAGE Immunochemistry System immunonephelometric assay make it a suitable method for Lp(a) measurement in clinical laboratories.