Rutger Verbeek1, Renate M Hoogeveen1, Anne Langsted2, Lotte C A Stiekema1, Simone L Verweij1, G Kees Hovingh1, Nicholas J Wareham3, Kay-Tee Khaw4, S Matthijs Boekholdt5, Børge G Nordestgaard2, Erik S G Stroes1. 1. Department of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730 Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark. 3. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK. 4. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK. 5. Department of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Aims: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) elevation is a causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). It has however been suggested that elevated Lp(a) causes CVD mainly in individuals with high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. We hypothesized that the risk associated with high Lp(a) levels would largely be attenuated at low LDL-C levels. Methods and results: In 16 654 individuals from the EPIC-Norfolk prospective population study, and in 9448 individuals from the Copenhagen City Heart Study (CCHS) parallel statistical analyses were performed. Individuals were categorized according to their Lp(a) and LDL-C levels. Cut-offs were set at the 80th cohort percentile for Lp(a). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol cut-offs were set at 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, and 5.5 mmol/L. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in the primary analyses were corrected for Lp(a)-derived LDL-C (LDL-Ccorr). Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios were calculated for each category. The category with LDL-Ccorr <2.5 mmol/L and Lp(a) <80th cohort percentile was used as reference category. In the EPIC-Norfolk and CCHS cohorts, individuals with an Lp(a) ≥80th percentile were at increased CVD risk compared with those with Lp(a) <80th percentile for any LDL-Ccorr levels ≥2.5 mmol/L. In contrast, for LDL-Ccorr <2.5 mmol/L, the risk associated with elevated Lp(a) attenuated. However, there was no interaction between LDL-Ccorr and Lp(a) levels on CVD risk in either cohort. Conclusion: Lipoprotein(a) and LDL-C are independently associated with CVD risk. At LDL-C levels below <2.5 mmol/L, the risk associated with elevated Lp(a) attenuates in a primary prevention setting.
Aims: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) elevation is a causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). It has however been suggested that elevated Lp(a) causes CVD mainly in individuals with high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. We hypothesized that the risk associated with high Lp(a) levels would largely be attenuated at low LDL-C levels. Methods and results: In 16 654 individuals from the EPIC-Norfolk prospective population study, and in 9448 individuals from the Copenhagen City Heart Study (CCHS) parallel statistical analyses were performed. Individuals were categorized according to their Lp(a) and LDL-C levels. Cut-offs were set at the 80th cohort percentile for Lp(a). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol cut-offs were set at 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, and 5.5 mmol/L. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in the primary analyses were corrected for Lp(a)-derived LDL-C (LDL-Ccorr). Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios were calculated for each category. The category with LDL-Ccorr <2.5 mmol/L and Lp(a) <80th cohort percentile was used as reference category. In the EPIC-Norfolk and CCHS cohorts, individuals with an Lp(a) ≥80th percentile were at increased CVD risk compared with those with Lp(a) <80th percentile for any LDL-Ccorr levels ≥2.5 mmol/L. In contrast, for LDL-Ccorr <2.5 mmol/L, the risk associated with elevated Lp(a) attenuated. However, there was no interaction between LDL-Ccorr and Lp(a) levels on CVD risk in either cohort. Conclusion: Lipoprotein(a) and LDL-C are independently associated with CVD risk. At LDL-C levels below <2.5 mmol/L, the risk associated with elevated Lp(a) attenuates in a primary prevention setting.
Authors: S M Marcovina; J J Albers; A M Scanu; H Kennedy; F Giaculli; K Berg; R Couderc; F Dati; N Rifai; I Sakurabayashi; J R Tate; A Steinmetz Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: William E Boden; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Todd Anderson; Bernard R Chaitman; Patrice Desvignes-Nickens; Kent Koprowicz; Ruth McBride; Koon Teo; William Weintraub Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gregory G Schwartz; Laurence Bessac; Lisa G Berdan; Deepak L Bhatt; Vera Bittner; Rafael Diaz; Shaun G Goodman; Corinne Hanotin; Robert A Harrington; J Wouter Jukema; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Angèle Moryusef; Robert Pordy; Matthew T Roe; Tyrus Rorick; William J Sasiela; Cheerag Shirodaria; Michael Szarek; Jean-François Tamby; Pierluigi Tricoci; Harvey White; Andreas Zeiher; Philippe Gabriel Steg Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Gérald Luc; Jean-Marie Bard; Dominique Arveiler; Jean Ferrieres; Alun Evans; Philippe Amouyel; Jean-Charles Fruchart; Pierre Ducimetiere Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Massimo F Piepoli; Arno W Hoes; Stefan Agewall; Christian Albus; Carlos Brotons; Alberico L Catapano; Marie-Therese Cooney; Ugo Corrà; Bernard Cosyns; Christi Deaton; Ian Graham; Michael Stephen Hall; F D Richard Hobbs; Maja-Lisa Løchen; Herbert Löllgen; Pedro Marques-Vidal; Joep Perk; Eva Prescott; Josep Redon; Dimitrios J Richter; Naveed Sattar; Yvo Smulders; Monica Tiberi; H Bart van der Worp; Ineke van Dis; W M Monique Verschuren; Simone Binno Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Lotte C A Stiekema; Erik S G Stroes; Simone L Verweij; Helina Kassahun; Lisa Chen; Scott M Wasserman; Marc S Sabatine; Venkatesh Mani; Zahi A Fayad Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Nishant P Shah; Neha J Pajidipati; Robert W McGarrah; Ann Marie Navar; Sreekanth Vemulapalli; Michael A Blazing; Svati H Shah; Adrian F Hernandez; Manesh R Patel Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 2.778