The Lipoprotein(a) Implementation Gap: Bridging Evidence and Clinical Practice

Abstract

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] represents one of cardiovascular medicine's most profound implementation gaps: a genetically determined risk factor affecting 1.5 billion people worldwide, yet historically underutilized in clinical practice despite overwhelming evidence of its importance. This review examines the transformation of Lp(a) from an untreatable genetic burden to a promising therapeutic target through four interconnected perspectives. First, we document the implementation gap, where, despite affecting 20% of the global population, screening remains below 1%. The evolution from selective screening (2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA)) to universal measurement (2024 National Lipid Association (NLA) Class I recommendation) reflects growing recognition, yet persistent barriers, including reimbursement challenges, provider knowledge gaps, and laboratory standardization issues, perpetuate underutilization. Second, we synthesize evidence establishing Lp(a)'s dual nature as both a biomarker and a causal factor. Observational studies demonstrate markedly increased cardiovascular risk with elevated Lp(a), while Mendelian randomization confirms causal relationships with coronary heart disease, large-artery stroke, peripheral artery disease, and aortic stenosis, with differential effects on stroke subtypes and non-atherosclerotic outcomes. Third, we examine the transformation from genetic determinism to pharmacological tractability. Despite 70–90% heritability, novel RNA-targeted therapies achieve unprecedented 80–95% reductions, with phase 3 cardiovascular outcome trials (completing 2026–2029) poised to determine whether dramatic Lp(a) lowering translates to clinical benefit. Finally, we provide a practical management algorithm bridging current evidence-based risk stratification with emerging therapies, stratifying patients by Lp(a) levels with corresponding interventions. The Lp(a) story exemplifies how genetic insights and technological innovation can transform immutable disease aspects into treatable conditions, offering a paradigm for precision cardiovascular medicine while highlighting the urgent need to close the gap between scientific knowledge and clinical implementation.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

lipoprotein(a) / implementation gap / atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease / biomarkers / mendelian randomization / RNA therapies / clinical practice guidelines

1. Introduction

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] represents one of cardiovascular medicine’s most profound implementation challenges: a genetically determined risk factor affecting 1 in 5 individuals globally, despite overwhelming evidence of Lp(a) causality and 20+ years of clinical recommendations, implementation remains remarkably poor [1]. Structurally, Lp(a) consists of a low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-like particle covalently bound to apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)], a unique glycoprotein encoded by the lipoprotein(a) (LPA) gene on chromosome 6. However, this simple description belies the molecule’s extraordinary complexity. The apo(a) component contains multiple kringle domains with striking homology to plasminogen, positioning Lp(a) at the intersection of lipid metabolism and coagulation—a molecular chimera that defies conventional categorization [2, 3]. Table 1 summarizes the distinctive characteristics of Lp(a) compared to other apolipoprotein B-containing lipoproteins, highlighting its unique structural and metabolic properties.

Unlike other cardiovascular risk factors, plasma Lp(a) concentrations are predominantly (70–90%) genetically determined by variation at the LPA locus [4]. The apo(a) gene exhibits remarkable size polymorphism due to variable numbers of kringle IV type 2 (KIV-2) repeats, creating over 40 different isoforms in human populations [2]. This genetic diversity produces an inverse relationship between isoform size and plasma concentration: individuals inheriting smaller apo(a) variants have markedly elevated Lp(a) levels, while those with larger isoforms maintain low concentrations. Consequently, Lp(a) levels can vary over 1000-fold between individuals.

The pathophysiology of Lp(a) reveals its dual threat to vascular health. Its LDL-like component promotes atherosclerosis through cholesterol deposition and oxidative modification, while the plasminogen-like apo(a) moiety inhibits fibrinolysis and enhances thrombosis [3]. This combination of pro-atherogenic and pro-thrombotic properties distinguishes Lp(a) from other lipoproteins and may explain its particularly strong association with cardiovascular events [5]. Moreover, recent evidence suggests Lp(a) promotes vascular inflammation through oxidized phospholipid transport, adding a third dimension to its pathogenic repertoire.

However, understanding these mechanisms has not translated into clear clinical management strategies. While guidelines recognize Lp(a) as a risk enhancer, healthcare providers lack clear management strategies once results are obtained—yet this gap is rapidly closing with novel ribonucleic acid (RNA)-targeted interventions demonstrating remarkable Lp(a) reductions exceeding 80% in clinical trials [6, 7, 8, 9]. These emerging treatments have catalyzed a paradigm shift, transforming Lp(a) from an unmodifiable genetic burden to a potentially treatable condition. The implementation challenge extends beyond therapeutic nihilism: Lp(a) presents unique paradoxes as a biomarker that is simultaneously highly heritable yet now pharmacologically modifiable, causally linked to disease yet resistant to conventional therapies, and recommended for universal screening yet lacking established management pathways.

This review addresses the implementation challenges currently facing clinicians by providing: (1) a comprehensive comparison of evolving international guidelines (2018–2024) with practical laboratory standardization requirements; (2) analysis of real-world implementation barriers including reimbursement challenges and healthcare provider uncertainty; (3) synthesis of all Mendelian randomization evidence in accessible tables that distinguish atherosclerotic from non-atherosclerotic outcomes; (4) critical appraisal of therapeutic evolution from conventional to RNA-targeted approaches; and (5) a practical management algorithm for the current “bridging period” between diagnosis and RNA-targeted therapy availability. This review is designed to equip healthcare providers with actionable knowledge for managing patients with elevated Lp(a) today, while preparing for the therapeutic revolution ahead.

2. Current State: The Implementation Gap

2.1 Global Epidemiology

Lp(a) affects approximately 1.5 billion people globally. Despite being present in 20% of populations worldwide, recent data indicate that only 0.3% of adults underwent screening between 2012 and 2021 [10], creating a profound gap between epidemiological significance and clinical implementation.

Global prevalence patterns of Lp(a) levels vary significantly by ethnicity, sex, and age. Ethnic disparities in median Lp(a) levels follow a distinct pattern: individuals of African descent exhibit the highest levels (median 75 nmol/L), followed by South Asian populations (median 31 nmol/L), White individuals (median 19 nmol/L), and East Asian individuals (median 16 nmol/L) [11]. Race-specific 90th percentile thresholds demonstrate statistical significance across all ethnic groups [11]. Despite substantial ethnic differences in baseline Lp(a) levels, the relative cardiovascular risk per unit increase appears consistent across ethnic groups [11]. The distribution of apo(a) isoform size also varies by ancestry: African populations show a single peak distribution, South Asian populations demonstrate equal distribution of large and small isoforms, European populations exhibit a biphasic pattern with higher peaks on smaller isoforms, and East Asian populations display a biphasic distribution with higher peaks on larger isoforms [12].

Sex-based differences in Lp(a) levels are modest but consistent, with females demonstrating concentrations approximately 5–10% higher than males [13, 14]. Large-scale studies indicate that Lp(a) levels are generally similar between men and women before menopause but tend to be modestly higher in women afterward [11, 15, 16, 17]. Meta-analyses show that postmenopausal tibolone treatment significantly reduces Lp(a) levels by 25%, and that postmenopausal increases appear to be due to aging rather than menopause itself [18, 19].

Age-related patterns of Lp(a) levels are unique among lipoproteins: primarily genetically determined, they rise rapidly after birth, with the LPA gene fully expressed by age 2 and adult-like concentrations achieved by age 5 [20, 21]. After this point, Lp(a) levels remain largely unchanged throughout life, except in specific physiological or disease states [12].

2.2 Guideline Evolution of Standardization

The evolution of Lp(a) recommendations from 2018 to 2024 reflects the field’s transition from uncertainty to clinical readiness (Table 2, Ref. [12, 22, 23, 24, 25]) [12, 22, 23, 26]. The 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines adopted selective screening for high-risk individuals [23], while the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) pivotally endorsed population-wide screening, recognizing Lp(a)’s genetic determination warranted early identification regardless of therapeutic availability [24]. The 2022 EAS and 2024 National Lipid Association (NLA) guidelines marked critical inflection points by establishing detailed laboratory standards and elevating screening to a Class I recommendation, respectively [12, 22]. This progression—from selective to universal measurement with standardized protocols—coincided with promising results from phase 2 RNA-targeted intervention trials [6, 7, 9, 27].

The standardization of Lp(a) testing is essential for reliable clinical implementation. Current standardization follows International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17511:2020 guidelines with the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC)/World Health Organization (WHO) reference material, Standard Reference Material 2B (SRM2B), serving as the primary standard [28, 29, 30]. A major advancement is the liquid chromatography-multiple reaction monitoring-mass spectrometry (LC-MRM-MS) based reference measurement procedure that measures apo(a) peptides independent of size polymorphism, offering extended measuring range up to 600 nmol/L and traceability to international standards [25]. Laboratory medicine organizations now recommend reporting in molar units (nmol/L) rather than mass concentrations (mg/dL), as mass measurements are inherently flawed due to variable apo(a) molecular weights [12]. This shift represents a paradigm change essential for accurate risk assessment across populations with different apo(a) isoform distributions. Clinically, physicians must recognize that the traditional 50 mg/dL threshold corresponds to approximately 100–125 nmol/L, with variation due to apo(a) size polymorphism, complicating risk assessment during the transition period.

Implementation of these advances faces several challenges: many laboratories still use older assays lacking proper standardization, creating significant inter-laboratory variation. The transition from mass to molar reporting requires both technical changes and clinician education for those accustomed to mg/dL thresholds. Furthermore, establishing metrological traceability chains requires coordination between manufacturers, reference laboratories, and clinical facilities—a process still in progress globally [29].

2.3 Barriers to Implementation

Multiple systemic barriers perpetuate the implementation gap between guidelines and clinical practice. First, reimbursement challenges create fundamental access barriers. Despite test costs of \$20–100, Lp(a) testing faces critical reimbursement barriers globally. In the United States, Medicare explicitly does not cover Lp(a) testing, the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 83695, despite covering standard lipid panels, and many private insurers classify it as ‘investigational and not medically necessary’. Similarly, in South Korea, Lp(a) measurement is not reimbursed by the National Health Insurance Service and is classified as a non-covered service. Patients must pay out-of-pocket for Lp(a) testing, which serves as a major barrier to routine screening. This creates a fundamental disconnect—recent cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that Lp(a) screening is cost-effective to cost-saving, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 12,134 AUD/Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) in Australia and actual cost savings in the UK healthcare system [31]. The Brussels International Declaration explicitly called for “systematic Lp(a) testing at least once during a person’s lifetime with full reimbursement”, representing unprecedented international consensus on the need for policy action [32].

Second, knowledge gaps among providers hinder implementation. Surveys indicate that many healthcare providers remain uncertain about how to manage patients once Lp(a) results are obtained. This uncertainty stems from the absence of specific therapies until recently and the lack of clear management algorithms. Only 4.6% of primary care providers and 14.1% of cardiologists ordered even a single Lp(a) test during the recent study periods [10].

Third, laboratory standardization issues create measurement challenges. Many laboratories still use older assays that lack proper standardization, potentially misclassifying patients as high or low risk depending on which laboratory performs the test. The transition from mass (mg/dL) to molar (nmol/L) reporting adds complexity for clinicians accustomed to traditional thresholds.

Finally, limited patient awareness reduces demand for testing. Unlike cholesterol, patients are rarely aware of Lp(a), which limits demand for testing and reduces the opportunity for cascade screening in affected families. This knowledge gap is particularly problematic given the genetic nature of elevated Lp(a) and the importance of family screening.

2.4 Unresolved Clinical Questions

Despite emerging consensus on universal screening and the establishment of robust metrological standards, several fundamental questions remain hotly debated in the clinical community, reflecting the complexity of translating genetic insights and analytical precision into practical care.

Reference standards and risk thresholds present a major area of ongoing debate. While current guidelines favor universal thresholds (\ge125 nmol/L or \ge50 mg/dL), the substantial ethnic differences in baseline levels—with African populations having 4-fold higher median levels than East Asians—challenge this approach. This is particularly critical for sub-Saharan African populations, where applying universal thresholds would classify 40–50% as high-risk, yet most outcome data come from African Americans with different genetic admixture rather than continental African populations [11]. Despite these elevated levels, the clinical significance of Lp(a) in sub-Saharan African populations remains uncertain, though some evidence suggests that the predictive value for cardiovascular diseases may not vary sufficiently across ancestries to warrant different thresholds [11]. Critics argue that universal thresholds may lead to over-screening in some populations and under-screening in others. The question remains: Should risk stratification be ancestry-specific to account for population differences, sex-specific to address hormonal influences, or maintain universal standards for clinical simplicity? Recent genetic studies suggest that relative risk per unit increase remains consistent across ethnicities, supporting universal thresholds, but this remains an active area of investigation.

Measurement frequency and timing represent another major point of contention. While guidelines recommend “once in a lifetime” measurement based on genetic stability [12, 22, 24, 33], accumulating evidence challenges this assumption, as Lp(a) levels can fluctuate significantly during acute conditions, with certain medications, and during physiological transitions. This raises critical questions: Should Lp(a) be remeasured after major cardiovascular events? Should women be retested post-menopause? How do we account for medication-induced changes when assessing baseline risk? Current guidelines provide little guidance on these scenarios, leaving clinicians to navigate these decisions empirically.

The clinical significance of measurement variability also remains unresolved. While standardized assays exist, clinicians face unanswered questions: Is the 5–15% inter-assay variation clinically acceptable when making treatment decisions [12, 22]? Should clinicians request apo(a) isoform size testing in addition to concentration, given that smaller isoforms may confer higher risk? When patients present with results in different units (mg/dL vs nmol/L), how should clinicians interpret risk given that conversion factors vary from 2.0–2.5 depending on isoform size [12, 22]? These measurement uncertainties directly impact clinical decision-making, particularly for patients with borderline elevations where assay variability could alter risk classification.

3. Scientific Foundation: Biomarker vs Causal Factor

From an evolutionary perspective, Lp(a) presents a fascinating enigma. Emerging approximately 40 million years ago in primates, its conservation suggests potential adaptive advantages. Yet this molecule now confers substantial cardiovascular risk in modern humans, with levels \ge125 nmol/L (\ge50 mg/dL) affecting 20% of the global population. The critical question is whether Lp(a) is merely a marker of risk or a genuine causal factor—a distinction with profound implications for intervention.

3.1 As a Biomarker: Robust Observational Evidence

Lp(a) has been firmly established as an independent biomarker for cardiovascular risk through decades of large-scale observational studies. The evidence base demonstrates consistent, dose-dependent associations across diverse populations and cardiovascular outcomes.

Three landmark observational studies exemplify this evidence. The Copenhagen City Heart Study (9330 participants, 10-year follow-up) demonstrated extreme Lp(a) levels predicted a 3- to 4-fold increase in myocardial infarction risk, with hazard ratios (HR) increasing stepwise from 1.2 to 2.6 across Lp(a) percentiles (trend p 0.001) [34]. The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study (14,221 participants, 13.5-year follow-up) showed individuals with Lp(a) \ge30 mg/dL had 79% higher ischemic stroke risk than those 10 mg/dL, with comparable associations in African Americans and Caucasians, establishing Lp(a) as a universal biomarker across ancestries [35]. More recently, the Mass General Brigham Lp(a) Registry (16,419 participants, median 11.9-year follow-up) confirmed these associations in a large contemporary U.S. cohort, demonstrating that elevated Lp(a) independently predicts major adverse cardiovascular events in both primary and secondary prevention populations [36]. Notably, primary prevention patients with Lp(a) in the highest decile show markedly elevated cardiovascular risk, underscoring the clinical importance of identifying these individuals [36]. This recognition has led to Lp(a) being described as a biomarker whose time has come by the NLA, reflecting its maturation from research curiosity to clinical tool.

3.2 As a Causal Factor: Mendelian Randomization Evidence

Mendelian randomization (MR) uses genetic variants as ‘nature’s randomized trial’. Since genes are randomly assigned at conception, they’re not influenced by lifestyle or other factors that confound observational studies. If genetic variants that raise Lp(a) also increase atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk, this strongly suggests Lp(a) causes the disease rather than just marking it. Because Lp(a) levels are largely genetically determined—primarily by LPA gene variants, including KIV-2 repeats and specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)—MR is a particularly powerful tool for establishing causality [32].

Table 3 (Ref. [37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50]) summarizes key MR studies demonstrating causal relationships between Lp(a) and ASCVD (Coronary heart disease [37, 38, 39, 40], multiple cardiovascular diseases [41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46], ischemic stroke [41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46], and peripheral arterial disease [50]), while Table 4 (Ref. [41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61]) presents MR evidence for non-atherosclerotic outcomes including valvular heart disease [41, 42, 43, 44, 51, 52, 53], heart failure [41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 54, 55, 56], atrial fibrillation [41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 55, 56, 57], non-ASCVD stroke [42, 45, 47], and other non-ASCVD outcomes [41, 42, 43, 46, 58, 59, 60, 61]. The MR evidence demonstrates robust causal relationships across the ASCVD outcomes. Multiple large-scale MR studies consistently show causal relationships between Lp(a) and coronary heart disease. The 2018 Burgess et al. study [40] notably found that a 100 mg/dL Lp(a) reduction would provide cardiovascular benefits equivalent to a 38.67 mg/dL LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction. Importantly, MR studies reveal differential effects by stroke subtype, with stronger associations for large-artery stroke (odds ratio, OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.11–1.30) [47] and null or protective effects for small-vessel stroke, suggesting distinct pathophysiological mechanisms underlying Lp(a)’s vascular effects.

While MR studies provide compelling evidence for Lp(a) causality in atherosclerotic outcomes (Table 3), the evidence for non-atherosclerotic cardiovascular outcomes presents a more complex picture (Table 4). Strong evidence supports Lp(a) causality for calcific aortic valve stenosis [41, 42, 44, 51, 52, 53]. For heart failure, the MR evidence shows significant heterogeneity that appears population-dependent, with European populations showing mostly positive associations [43, 54] or null effects [45, 55], while African [43] and Chinese [48] ancestry show null effects, with meta-analysis revealing extreme heterogeneity (I² = 97.6%) [56]. This variation may suggest that Lp(a)’s effect on heart failure may be modified by genetic background or environmental factors. Similarly, atrial fibrillation shows modest positive associations in European [43, 55, 57] but null effects in African ancestry (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99–1.14) [43] and protective effects in Han Chinese (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90–0.99) [48], highlighting striking population-specific differences.

Notably, multiple MR studies consistently show no causal relationship between Lp(a) and type 2 diabetes (OR 0.97–1.08 across studies) [41, 58, 59, 60]. This null association distinguishes Lp(a) from triglyceride-rich lipoproteins. Unlike metabolically active lipoproteins that affect insulin signaling, Lp(a) primarily drives vascular inflammation through oxidized phospholipids without affecting glucose metabolism—suggesting Lp(a)-lowering therapies will be metabolically neutral, unlike statins. MR analysis does not support a causal relationship between Lp(a) and immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [61]. Lp(a) is causally linked to both thrombosis (especially arterial) and inflammation [62]. Its prothrombotic effects are mediated by impaired fibrinolysis and increased tissue factor, while its pro-inflammatory properties are largely due to its carriage of oxidized phospholipids and stimulation of vascular immune responses. For venous thromboembolism, MR evidence has been inconsistent—studies of individual components showed null associations [41, 42], while recent combined VTE analysis found a modest increased risk [46]. The smaller and less consistent effect sizes for non-atherosclerotic outcomes may reflect that Lp(a)’s thrombotic and inflammatory effects are primarily pathogenic in the arterial circulation or require the presence of atherosclerotic plaque to manifest their full clinical impact. This mechanistic understanding supports the focus on ASCVD as the primary target for Lp(a)-lowering interventions.

3.3 Dual Nature: Both Biomarker and Causal Factor

The convergence of observational and genetic evidence establishes Lp(a) as both a biomarker and causal factor. This dual validation provides the scientific foundation for both current screening recommendations and the ongoing development of Lp(a)-targeted therapies [4]. As a biomarker, Lp(a) identifies high-risk individuals who benefit from aggressive management of modifiable risk factors; as a causal factor, it represents a valid therapeutic target, justifying the ongoing clinical trials of Lp(a)-lowering approaches.

Looking forward, Lp(a) is poised to play a central role in multi-biomarker approaches to cardiovascular risk assessment. Its genetic determination and lifelong stability make it an ideal complement to dynamic biomarkers such as high-sensitivity troponin, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and C-reactive protein. Such integrated biomarker panels could enable more precise identification of patients with residual cardiovascular risk despite optimal management of traditional risk factors, ultimately guiding both risk stratification and the selection of targeted interventions in precision cardiovascular medicine.

4. From Genetic Determinism to Modifiable Target

For decades, therapeutic nihilism toward elevated Lp(a) persisted even as genetic studies confirmed causality and biomarker research quantified risk [63]. The emergence of RNA-targeted therapeutics has shattered this dogma, demonstrating that genetic risk factors need not remain pharmacologically intractable, with novel approaches achieving Lp(a) reductions exceeding 95% and transforming a previously unmodifiable genetic burden into a druggable target.

4.1 The Management Void and Conventional Drugs

Conventional lipid-lowering therapies demonstrate limited efficacy against Lp(a), with some paradoxically increasing levels despite their cardiovascular benefits. Table 5 (Ref. [64]) summarizes these effects across drug classes: statin [65], PCSK9 monoclonal antibody inhibitors [66, 67, 68], PCSK9 small interfering RNA (siRNA) [69], ezetimibe [70], bempedoic acid [71], fibrates [64], niacin [72], and lomitapide [73].

Statins exemplify this paradox, increasing Lp(a) levels by 10–20% through upregulation of LPA gene expression—potentially undermining their cardiovascular benefits in patients with elevated Lp(a) levels [12, 65]. This phenomenon represents a cardiologist’s dilemma: the very medications proven to reduce cardiovascular events may simultaneously elevate a potent genetic risk factor. Despite this paradox, statins remain indicated in patients with elevated Lp(a) because their cardiovascular benefits through LDL-C reduction substantially outweigh the possible modest Lp(a) increase. MR studies suggest the cardiovascular benefit from a 38.67 mg/dL LDL-C reduction (achievable with statins) is equivalent to a 100 mg/dL Lp(a) reduction [40]—far exceeding the 10–20% Lp(a) increase caused by statins. Thus, withholding statins from high Lp(a) patients would result in net cardiovascular harm.

PCSK9 inhibitors achieve modest Lp(a) reductions, though reporting varies across studies. A meta-analysis demonstrated that these agents reduce Lp(a) by a weighted mean difference of –12.55 mg/dL (95% CI: –17.05 to –8.04 mg/dL) and are associated with reduced major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81–0.91) in patients with coronary heart disease, though the analysis did not establish whether Lp(a) reduction independently contributes to cardiovascular benefit [67]. Similarly, while the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial with alirocumab demonstrated 25–30% Lp(a) reduction, it did not prove this reduction significantly contributed to cardiovascular benefits, leaving the relationship correlative rather than causal [68]. In contrast, the FOURIER trial provided stronger evidence for Lp(a)’s independent contribution, showing that evolocumab reduced Lp(a) by a median of 26.9% (interquartile range: 6.2–46.7%) at 48 weeks, with a 15% cardiovascular risk reduction per 25 nmol/L decrease in Lp(a) independent of LDL-C changes [66]. Despite these benefits, PCSK9 inhibitors are still not considered a primary Lp(a)-targeted therapy due to their modest effect compared to newer RNA-targeted therapies, which achieve reductions exceeding 95%.

Inclisiran, a PCSK9 siRNA, reduces Lp(a) by 15–25% [69], similar to monoclonal antibodies evolocumab and alirocumab, likely through enhanced LDL receptor-mediated clearance. Like ODYSSEY OUTCOMES, the ORION trials have not analyzed whether this Lp(a) reduction independently contributes to cardiovascular benefit. The ongoing ORION-4 cardiovascular outcomes trial, with results expected around 2026, will determine whether inclisiran reduces MACE.

Niacin reduces Lp(a) levels via decreasing apo(a) production rate. Extended-release niacin was associated with a significant 23% reduction in Lp(a) levels in a meta-analysis [72]. The Coronary Drug Project demonstrated the benefit of niacin monotherapy for ASCVD in men [74]; however, a combination of statin and niacin did not show clinical benefit [75, 76]. The 2024 NLA guidelines explicitly recommend against its use for ASCVD risk reduction (Class III recommendation) [22].

Lipoprotein apheresis is the first Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved Lp(a)-lowering intervention [33, 77]. The 2024 NLA provides a Class IIa recommendation: Lipoprotein apheresis is reasonable for high-risk patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and ASCVD (coronary or peripheral arteries) whose Lp(a) level remains \ge60 mg/dL (150 nmol/L) and LDL-C \ge100 mg/dL on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy [22]. While effective at acutely lowering Lp(a) through non-specific apoB particle removal, the procedure’s benefits are transient, requiring frequent repetition.

Emerging observational evidence suggests aspirin may offer benefit for individuals with elevated Lp(a), with a recent propensity-matched study demonstrating a 46% lower risk of coronary events (HR 0.54, 95% CI, 0.32–0.94) among those with Lp(a) >50 mg/dL taking aspirin, though randomized trials are needed for confirmation [78]. Overall, these modest effects pale in comparison to the unprecedented potency of emerging RNA-targeted therapies.

4.2 RNA-Targeted Therapeutics and Small Molecule Inhibitors

The landscape for Lp(a) management is undergoing revolutionary transformation with therapeutic approaches targeting different stages of Lp(a) production. RNA-targeted strategies, including antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) and siRNAs, prevent apolipoprotein(a) synthesis at the hepatic level, while small molecule inhibitors like muvalaplin disrupt Lp(a) particle assembly. These approaches provide clinicians with tools to meaningfully reduce Lp(a) levels that have remained resistant to conventional lipid-lowering therapies [79, 80].

As shown in Table 5, monthly administered ASOs like pelacarsen achieved dose-dependent Lp(a) reductions of 35–80% in phase 2 trials [6], leading to the ongoing Lp(a)HORIZON phase 3 cardiovascular outcome trial [81]. The siRNA approaches demonstrated even greater potency with extended duration: olpasiran achieved >95% reduction with quarterly dosing [7, 27, 82] and is now being evaluated in the OCEAN(a) trial [83]; lepodisiran showed 94% reduction with potential twice-yearly administration [84] and entered the ACCLAIM-Lp(a) trial [85]; while zerlasiran achieved 90% reduction with 4–6 month intervals [9] and recently completed phase 2. All maintained efficacy between doses, representing a major advance over conventional therapies requiring daily or frequent administration.

The emergence of muvalaplin as the first oral Lp(a)-lowering agent represents a pivotal advance in treatment accessibility. This small molecule inhibitor achieved up to 85.8% reductions in the KRAKEN phase 2 trial [8, 86], offering daily oral therapy that could dramatically improve patient acceptance compared to injectable approaches, particularly for primary prevention populations.

Across all RNA-targeted approaches, safety profiles have been reassuring, with mild injection-site reactions as the most common adverse effects and no evidence of off-target toxicity. Importantly, these agents specifically target Lp(a) production rather than having off-target LDL-C effects, unlike PCSK9 inhibitors which affect both.

4.3 The Efficacy-Outcome Gap

Despite achieving exceptional biomarker reductions with RNA-targeted therapies, a critical question remains unanswered: will these dramatic biochemical changes translate to reduced cardiovascular events? This fundamental uncertainty represents the current “waiting game” in cardiovascular medicine, where remarkable pharmacological success awaits clinical validation.

The disconnect between proven Lp(a) lowering and unproven clinical outcomes reflects the complexity of cardiovascular therapeutics. History teaches caution—numerous interventions that successfully modified biomarkers failed to improve patient outcomes. Yet the genetic evidence for Lp(a) causality, combined with the magnitude of achievable reductions, provides reason for optimism.

There are three ongoing major phase 3 cardiovascular outcome trials: Lp(a)HORIZON (pelacarsen, completing 2026) [81, 87], OCEAN(a) (olpasiran, completing 2026) [83], and ACCLAIM-Lp(a) (lepodisiran, completing 2029) [85]. These trials should provide definitive evidence whether genetically-targeted Lp(a) reduction translates to cardiovascular benefit—completing the journey from genetic insight to clinical reality.

5. Clinical Practice Roadmap

The imminent availability of Lp(a)-lowering therapies necessitates clear guidance for current management and preparation for integrating these agents into clinical practice. This section provides a practical roadmap for managing elevated Lp(a) with currently available tools while preparing for the therapeutic revolution ahead.

5.1 Today: Managing Elevated Lp(a) With Available Tools

A practical treatment algorithm for Lp(a) management, based on current evidence and guidelines, is presented in Fig. 1. Universal screening is recommended for all adults \ge18 years, at least once in their lifetime. The optimal timing is 40–50 years, which balances early detection with the cardiovascular risk period. If resources are limited, priority testing would be for personal history of premature ASCVD (55 years men, 65 years women), family history of premature ASCVD or elevated Lp(a), familial hypercholesterolemia, recurrent cardiovascular events despite optimal LDL-C control, calcific aortic valve stenosis, and intermediate cardiovascular risk (5–20% 10-year risk) requiring reclassification.

Risk stratification based on Lp(a) levels alters several key clinical decisions: (1) cascade family screening becomes mandatory when Lp(a) levels reach 125 nmol/L or higher, necessitating testing of all first-degree relatives given the strong genetic heritability [4, 12, 33]; (2) the threshold for statin initiation shifts in patients with borderline cardiovascular risk, where Lp(a) levels of \ge75 nmol/L favor treatment initiation despite otherwise equivocal risk profiles [24]; (3) aspirin for primary prevention requires careful risk-benefit assessment, with consideration warranted when Lp(a) \ge125 nmol/L and 10-year ASCVD risk \ge10%, or when Lp(a) \ge430 nmol/L with 10-year risk >7.5% [78]; (4) the addition of PCSK9 inhibitors should be considered at lower LDL-C thresholds in patients with Lp(a) levels above 125 nmol/L, recognizing both the modest Lp(a)-lowering effect and the heightened residual risk [66]; (5) lipoprotein apheresis referral becomes appropriate for patients with Lp(a) levels of 60 mg/dL or higher who experience recurrent cardiovascular events despite guideline-directed medical therapy [22, 33, 77].

Repeated Lp(a) measurements are generally unnecessary given genetic stability [12, 22]; monitoring should focus on modifiable factors like LDL-C, blood pressure, and HbA1c. Rare exceptions for repeat testing include acute phase responses (20–30% elevation during acute myocardial infarction), pregnancy-related fluctuations, verification of extremely high values before initiating apheresis, and certain conditions affecting Lp(a) levels such as declining renal function, post-menopausal status (5–10% increase), or medication effects from niacin and PCSK9 inhibitors (15–30% reduction) [12, 18, 19, 66, 72]. While these variations rarely alter management given Lp(a)’s predominantly genetic determination, clinicians should recognize these potential confounders when interpreting serial measurements.

5.2 Tomorrow: Preparing for Lp(a)-Specific Therapies

Healthcare systems must prepare for the imminent availability of RNA-targeted therapies. Key preparatory steps include establishing specialized lipid clinics, training healthcare providers in Lp(a) management, developing patient registries for those with elevated levels, and creating reimbursement pathways. While phase 3 trials have enrolled patients with Lp(a) thresholds as low as 70 mg/dL (175 nmol/L) for secondary prevention (Lp(a)HORIZON) [81] and 175 nmol/L for primary prevention (ACCLAIM-Lp(a)) [85], real-world implementation will likely require more stringent criteria initially.

Based on risk-benefit considerations and cost-effectiveness, patient selection may follow a tiered approach. First priority would be secondary prevention with recurrent ASCVD events and Lp(a) \ge125 nmol/L. Second would be secondary prevention with a single event and Lp(a) \ge125 nmol/L. Third would be primary prevention for patients with Lp(a) \ge180–250 nmol/L, particularly those with additional risk enhancers. These higher thresholds reflect the balance between identifying those at the highest absolute risk while awaiting definitive outcome data [12, 22].

Implementation challenges require immediate attention. Healthcare systems should establish Lp(a) testing infrastructure now, as identifying eligible patients requires systematic screening programs that may take years to implement fully. Clinical protocols must address practical questions, including the timing of therapy initiation relative to acute events, concurrent management with existing lipid-lowering agents, and monitoring requirements during treatment. Patient education programs should also be initiated immediately, as individuals with elevated Lp(a) need an understanding of both current risk management strategies and emerging therapeutic options. Beyond these clinical considerations, economic barriers will be substantial. Cost considerations based on pricing precedents for similar RNA-targeted therapies will necessitate careful patient selection and outcomes documentation to justify expenditure. Healthcare systems must develop prior authorization processes and work with payers to establish reimbursement pathways that balance access with appropriate utilization.

The focus must shift from whether we can lower Lp(a) to how we can efficiently deliver these therapies to the millions who may benefit. Centers should develop referral networks for high-risk patients and create multidisciplinary teams combining lipidology, cardiology, and pharmacy expertise. Success will require coordinated efforts between healthcare systems, payers, and pharmaceutical companies to ensure equitable access while maintaining appropriate utilization.

6. Conclusions

Despite establishing Lp(a) as a causal risk factor affecting 1.5 billion people globally, screening remains below 1%, leaving millions at unrecognized cardiovascular risk. Yet the emergence of RNA-targeted therapies achieving 80–95% reductions demonstrates that genetic determinism need not mean therapeutic futility. This review addresses the current implementation gap by synthesizing evolving guidelines with standardization requirements, organizing complex Mendelian randomization evidence into clinically actionable tables, and providing a practical management algorithm for the transitional period before RNA-targeted therapies become widely available. Two priorities emerge for the field: outcome trials must confirm that biochemical efficacy translates to clinical benefit and healthcare systems must eliminate barriers to systematic screening and treatment. The transformation of Lp(a) from an immutable genetic burden to a modifiable risk factor represents a pivotal advance in cardiovascular medicine. For the one in five individuals worldwide with elevated levels, closing the gap between scientific knowledge and clinical implementation is no longer just desirable—it is imperative.

References

[1] Clair V, Zirille FM, Gill E. Rethinking cardiovascular risk: The emerging role of lipoprotein(a) screening. American Journal of Preventive Cardiology. 2025; 21: 100945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpc.2025.100945.

[2] Schmidt K, Noureen A, Kronenberg F, Utermann G. Structure, function, and genetics of lipoprotein (a). Journal of Lipid Research. 2016; 57: 1339–1359. https://doi.org/10.1194/jlr.R067314.

[3] Tsimikas S. A Test in Context: Lipoprotein(a): Diagnosis, Prognosis, Controversies, and Emerging Therapies. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2017; 69: 692–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.11.042.

[4] Reyes-Soffer G, Ginsberg HN, Berglund L, Duell PB, Heffron SP, Kamstrup PR, et al. Lipoprotein(a): A Genetically Determined, Causal, and Prevalent Risk Factor for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2022; 42: e48–e60. https://doi.org/10.1161/ATV.0000000000000147.

[5] Duarte Lau F, Giugliano RP. Lipoprotein(a) and its Significance in Cardiovascular Disease: A Review. JAMA Cardiology. 2022; 7: 760–769. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2022.0987.

[6] Tsimikas S, Karwatowska-Prokopczuk E, Gouni-Berthold I, Tardif JC, Baum SJ, Steinhagen-Thiessen E, et al. Lipoprotein(a) Reduction in Persons with Cardiovascular Disease. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2020; 382: 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1905239.

[7] O’Donoghue ML, Rosenson RS, Gencer B, López JAG, Lepor NE, Baum SJ, et al. Small Interfering RNA to Reduce Lipoprotein(a) in Cardiovascular Disease. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2022; 387: 1855–1864. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2211023.

[8] Nicholls SJ, Nissen SE, Fleming C, Urva S, Suico J, Berg PH, et al. Muvalaplin, an Oral Small Molecule Inhibitor of Lipoprotein(a) Formation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2023; 330: 1042–1053. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.16503.

[9] Nissen SE, Wang Q, Nicholls SJ, Navar AM, Ray KK, Schwartz GG, et al. Zerlasiran-A Small-Interfering RNA Targeting Lipoprotein(a): A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2024; 332: 1992–2002. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.21957.

[10] Bhatia HS, Hurst S, Desai P, Zhu W, Yeang C. Lipoprotein(a) Testing Trends in a Large Academic Health System in the United States. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2023; 12: e031255. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.123.031255.

[11] Tsimikas S, Marcovina SM. Ancestry, Lipoprotein(a), and Cardiovascular Risk Thresholds: JACC Review Topic of the Week. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2022; 80: 934–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.06.019.

[12] Kronenberg F, Mora S, Stroes ESG, Ference BA, Arsenault BJ, Berglund L, et al. Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis: a European Atherosclerosis Society consensus statement. European Heart Journal. 2022; 43: 3925–3946. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac361.

[13] Sosnowska B, Stepinska J, Mitkowski P, Bielecka-Dabrowa A, Bobrowska B, Budzianowski J, et al. Recommendations of the Experts of the Polish Cardiac Society (PCS) and the Polish Lipid Association (PoLA) on the diagnosis and management of elevated lipoprotein(a) levels. Archives of Medical Science: AMS. 2024; 20: 8–27. https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms/183522.

[14] Varvel S, McConnell JP, Tsimikas S. Prevalence of Elevated Lp(a) Mass Levels and Patient Thresholds in 532 359 Patients in the United States. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2016; 36: 2239–2245. https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.116.308011.

[15] Yurtseven E, Ural D, Gursoy E, Cunedioglu BO, Guler OU, Baysal K, et al. Is There a Need for Sex-Tailored Lipoprotein(a) Cut-Off Values for Coronary Artery Disease Risk Stratification? Clinical Cardiology. 2024; 47: e70012. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.70012.

[16] Schreiner PJ, Heiss G, Tyroler HA, Morrisett JD, Davis CE, Smith R. Race and gender differences in the association of Lp(a) with carotid artery wall thickness. The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 1996; 16: 471–478. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.atv.16.3.471.

[17] Jenner JL, Ordovas JM, Lamon-Fava S, Schaefer MM, Wilson PW, Castelli WP, et al. Effects of age, sex, and menopausal status on plasma lipoprotein(a) levels. The Framingham Offspring Study. Circulation. 1993; 87: 1135–1141. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.87.4.1135.

[18] Kotani K, Sahebkar A, Serban C, Andrica F, Toth PP, Jones SR, et al. Tibolone decreases Lipoprotein(a) levels in postmenopausal women: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 studies with 1009 patients. Atherosclerosis. 2015; 242: 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2015.06.056.

[19] Anagnostis P, Antza C, Trakatelli C, Lambrinoudaki I, Goulis DG, Kotsis V. The effect of menopause on lipoprotein (a) concentrations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Maturitas. 2023; 167: 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2022.09.012.

[20] Alankar A, Brar PC, Kohn B. Lipoprotein(a): a Case for Universal Screening in Youth. Current Atherosclerosis Reports. 2023; 25: 487–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11883-023-01120-3.

[21] Rifai N, Heiss G, Doetsch K. Lipoprotein(a) at birth, in blacks and whites. Atherosclerosis. 1992; 92: 123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9150(92)90271-h.

[22] Koschinsky ML, Bajaj A, Boffa MB, Dixon DL, Ferdinand KC, Gidding SS, et al. A focused update to the 2019 NLA scientific statement on use of lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Lipidology. 2024; 18: e308–e319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacl.2024.03.001.

[23] Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, Beam C, Birtcher KK, Blumenthal RS, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2019; 139: e1082–e1143. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000625.

[24] Mach F, Baigent C, Catapano AL, Koskinas KC, Casula M, Badimon L, et al. 2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. European Heart Journal. 2020; 41: 111–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz455.

[25] Ruhaak LR, Romijn FPHTM, Begcevic Brkovic I, Kuklenyik Z, Dittrich J, Ceglarek U, et al. Development of an LC-MRM-MS-Based Candidate Reference Measurement Procedure for Standardization of Serum Apolipoprotein (a) Tests. Clinical Chemistry. 2023; 69: 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvac204.

[26] Arnett DK, Blumenthal RS, Albert MA, Buroker AB, Goldberger ZD, Hahn EJ, et al. 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2019; 140: e596–e646. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000678.

[27] O’Donoghue ML, G López JA, Knusel B, Gencer B, Wang H, Wu Y, et al. Study design and rationale for the Olpasiran trials of Cardiovascular Events And lipoproteiN(a) reduction-DOSE finding study (OCEAN(a)-DOSE). American Heart Journal. 2022; 251: 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2022.05.004.

[28] Panteghini M, Wielgosz R. Supporting prioritization efforts of higher-order reference providers using evidence from the Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine database. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. 2025; 63: 1494–1502. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2025-0401.

[29] Cobbaert CM, Althaus H, Begcevic Brkovic I, Ceglarek U, Coassin S, Delatour V, et al. Towards an SI-Traceable Reference Measurement System for Seven Serum Apolipoproteins Using Bottom-Up Quantitative Proteomics: Conceptual Approach Enabled by Cross-Disciplinary/Cross-Sector Collaboration. Clinical Chemistry. 2021; 67: 478–489. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvaa239.

[30] Miida T, Hirayama S, Fukushima Y, Hori A, Ito S, Hinata M, et al. Harmonization of Lipoprotein(a) Immunoassays Using A Serum Panel Value Assigned with The IFCC-Endorsed Mass Spectrometry-Based Reference Measurement Procedure as A First Step Towards Apolipoprotein Standardization. Journal of Atherosclerosis and Thrombosis. 2025; 32: 580–595. https://doi.org/10.5551/jat.65238.

[31] Morton JI, Kronenberg F, Daccord M, Bedlington N, Geanta M, Silberzahn T, et al. Lp(a) testing for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in high-income countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Atherosclerosis. 2025; 409: 120447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2025.120447.

[32] Kronenberg F, Bedlington N, Ademi Z, Geantă M, Silberzahn T, Rijken M, et al. The Brussels International Declaration on Lipoprotein(a) Testing and Management. Atherosclerosis. 2025; 406: 119218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2025.119218.

[33] Wilson DP, Jacobson TA, Jones PH, Koschinsky ML, McNeal CJ, Nordestgaard BG, et al. Use of Lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice: A biomarker whose time has come. A scientific statement from the National Lipid Association. Journal of Clinical Lipidology. 2022; 16: e77–e95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacl.2022.08.007.

[34] Kamstrup PR, Benn M, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, Nordestgaard BG. Extreme lipoprotein(a) levels and risk of myocardial infarction in the general population: the Copenhagen City Heart Study. Circulation. 2008; 117: 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.715698.

[35] Ohira T, Schreiner PJ, Morrisett JD, Chambless LE, Rosamond WD, Folsom AR. Lipoprotein(a) and incident ischemic stroke: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Stroke. 2006; 37: 1407–1412. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000222666.21482.b6.

[36] Berman AN, Biery DW, Besser SA, Singh A, Shiyovich A, Weber BN, et al. Lipoprotein(a) and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients With or Without Baseline Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2024; 83: 873–886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.12.031.

[37] Kamstrup PR, Tybjaerg-Hansen A, Steffensen R, Nordestgaard BG. Genetically elevated lipoprotein(a) and increased risk of myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2009; 301: 2331–2339. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.801.

[38] Clarke R, Peden JF, Hopewell JC, Kyriakou T, Goel A, Heath SC, et al. Genetic variants associated with Lp(a) lipoprotein level and coronary disease. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2009; 361: 2518–2528. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0902604.

[39] Lim ET, Würtz P, Havulinna AS, Palta P, Tukiainen T, Rehnström K, et al. Distribution and medical impact of loss-of-function variants in the Finnish founder population. PLoS Genetics. 2014; 10: e1004494. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004494.

[40] Burgess S, Ference BA, Staley JR, Freitag DF, Mason AM, Nielsen SF, et al. Association of LPA Variants With Risk of Coronary Disease and the Implications for Lipoprotein(a)-Lowering Therapies: A Mendelian Randomization Analysis. JAMA Cardiology. 2018; 3: 619–627. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2018.1470.

[41] Emdin CA, Khera AV, Natarajan P, Klarin D, Won HH, Peloso GM, et al. Phenotypic Characterization of Genetically Lowered Human Lipoprotein(a) Levels. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2016; 68: 2761–2772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.033.

[42] Larsson SC, Gill D, Mason AM, Jiang T, Bäck M, Butterworth AS, et al. Lipoprotein(a) in Alzheimer, Atherosclerotic, Cerebrovascular, Thrombotic, and Valvular Disease: Mendelian Randomization Investigation. Circulation. 2020; 141: 1826–1828. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.045826.

[43] Satterfield BA, Dikilitas O, Safarova MS, Clarke SL, Tcheandjieu C, Zhu X, et al. Associations of Genetically Predicted Lp(a) (Lipoprotein[a]) Levels With Cardiovascular Traits in Individuals of European and African Ancestry. Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine. 2021; 14: e003354. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCGEN.120.003354.

[44] Guertin J, Kaiser Y, Manikpurage H, Perrot N, Bourgeois R, Couture C, et al. Sex-Specific Associations of Genetically Predicted Circulating Lp(a) (Lipoprotein(a)) and Hepatic LPA Gene Expression Levels With Cardiovascular Outcomes: Mendelian Randomization and Observational Analyses. Circulation. Genomic and Precision Medicine. 2021; 14: e003271. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCGEN.120.003271.

[45] Wang S, Zha L, Chen J, Du D, Liu D, Zhong M, et al. The relationship between lipoprotein(a) and risk of cardiovascular disease: a Mendelian randomization analysis. European Journal of Medical Research. 2022; 27: 211. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-022-00825-6.

[46] Wang L, Jiang F, Sun J, Zhao J, He Y, Gill D, et al. Factorial Mendelian randomization of lipoprotein (a) lowering, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering, and lifestyle improvements: joint associations with cardiovascular risk. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2025; 54: dyaf020. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaf020.

[47] Pan Y, Li H, Wang Y, Meng X, Wang Y. Causal Effect of Lp(a)[Lipoprotein(a)] Level on Ischemic Stroke and Alzheimer Disease: A Mendelian Randomization Study. Stroke. 2019; 50: 3532–3539. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.026872.

[48] Xia J, Guo C, Liu K, Xie Y, Cao H, Peng W, et al. Association of Lipoprotein (a) variants with risk of cardiovascular disease: a Mendelian randomization study. Lipids in Health and Disease. 2021; 20: 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-021-01482-0.

[49] Huang Y, Zhang R, Han L, Wu Y, Deng X, Xu T, et al. Lipoprotein(a) and stroke: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. 2023; 15: 1178079. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2023.1178079.

[50] Thomas PE, Vedel-Krogh S, Nielsen SF, Nordestgaard BG, Kamstrup PR. Lipoprotein(a) and Risks of Peripheral Artery Disease, Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm, and Major Adverse Limb Events. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2023; 82: 2265–2276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.10.009.

[51] Thanassoulis G, Campbell CY, Owens DS, Smith JG, Smith AV, Peloso GM, et al. Genetic associations with valvular calcification and aortic stenosis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2013; 368: 503–512. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1109034.

[52] Arsenault BJ, Boekholdt SM, Dubé MP, Rhéaume E, Wareham NJ, Khaw KT, et al. Lipoprotein(a) levels, genotype, and incident aortic valve stenosis: a prospective Mendelian randomization study and replication in a case-control cohort. Circulation. Cardiovascular Genetics. 2014; 7: 304–310. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.113.000400.

[53] Kamstrup PR, Tybjærg-Hansen A, Nordestgaard BG. Elevated lipoprotein(a) and risk of aortic valve stenosis in the general population. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2014; 63: 470–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.09.038.

[54] Kamstrup PR, Nordestgaard BG. Elevated Lipoprotein(a) Levels, LPA Risk Genotypes, and Increased Risk of Heart Failure in the General Population. JACC. Heart Failure. 2016; 4: 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchf.2015.08.006.

[55] Jiang Q, Qin D, Yang L, Lin Y, Zhai L, Zhang Y, et al. Causal effects of plasma lipids on the risk of atrial fibrillation: A multivariable mendelian randomization study. Nutrition, Metabolism, and Cardiovascular Diseases: NMCD. 2021; 31: 1569–1578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2021.02.011.

[56] Singh S, Baars DP, Desai R, Singh D, Pinto-Sietsma SJ. Association Between Lipoprotein (a) and Risk of Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Mendelian Randomization Studies. Current Problems in Cardiology. 2024; 49: 102024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2023.102024.

[57] Mohammadi-Shemirani P, Chong M, Narula S, Perrot N, Conen D, Roberts JD, et al. Elevated Lipoprotein(a) and Risk of Atrial Fibrillation: An Observational and Mendelian Randomization Study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2022; 79: 1579–1590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.02.018.

[58] Larsson SC, Wang L, Li X, Jiang F, Chen X, Mantzoros CS. Circulating lipoprotein(a) levels and health outcomes: Phenome-wide Mendelian randomization and disease-trajectory analyses. Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental. 2022; 137: 155347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2022.155347.

[59] Goławski M, Lejawa M, Banach M, Jóźwiak J, Gierlotka M, Osadnik T. Association between Lp(a) and T2D: a Mendelian randomization study. Archives of Medical Science: AMS. 2024; 20: 1002–1005. https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms/187774.

[60] Yeung MW, Said MA, van de Vegte YJ, Verweij N, Dullaart RPF, van der Harst P. Associations of very low Lipoprotein(a) levels with risks of new-onset diabetes and non-alcoholic liver disease. Atherosclerosis Plus. 2024; 57: 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athplu.2024.07.001.

[61] Ti Y, Xu D, Qin X, Hu Y, Xu Y, Zhao Q, et al. Mendelian randomization analysis does not support a causal influence between lipoprotein(A) and immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Scientific Reports. 2025; 15: 3834. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-88375-9.

[62] Ridker PM, Moorthy MV, Cook NR, Rifai N, Lee IM, Buring JE. Inflammation, Cholesterol, Lipoprotein(a), and 30-Year Cardiovascular Outcomes in Women. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2024; 391: 2087–2097. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2405182.

[63] Manzato M, Wright RS, Jaffe AS, Vasile VC. Lipoprotein (a): Underrecognized Risk with a Promising Future. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2024; 25: 393. https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2511393.

[64] Sahebkar A, Simental-Mendía LE, Watts GF, Serban MC, Banach M, Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-analysis Collaboration (LBPMC) Group. Comparison of the effects of fibrates versus statins on plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head randomized controlled trials. BMC Medicine. 2017; 15: 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0787-7.

[65] Tsimikas S, Gordts PLSM, Nora C, Yeang C, Witztum JL. Statin therapy increases lipoprotein(a) levels. European Heart Journal. 2020; 41: 2275–2284. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz310.

[66] O’Donoghue ML, Fazio S, Giugliano RP, Stroes ESG, Kanevsky E, Gouni-Berthold I, et al. Lipoprotein(a), PCSK9 Inhibition, and Cardiovascular Risk. Circulation. 2019; 139: 1483–1492. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037184.

[67] Hu E, Wan M. Effect of PCSK9 inhibitors on major cardiac adverse events and lipoprotein-a in patients with coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis. Coronary Artery Disease. 2025; 36: 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCA.0000000000001464.

[68] Jukema JW, Szarek M, Zijlstra LE, de Silva HA, Bhatt DL, Bittner VA, et al. Alirocumab in Patients With Polyvascular Disease and Recent Acute Coronary Syndrome: ODYSSEY OUTCOMES Trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2019; 74: 1167–1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.013.

[69] Wright RS, Raal FJ, Koenig W, Landmesser U, Leiter LA, Vikarunnessa S, et al. Inclisiran administration potently and durably lowers LDL-C over an extended-term follow-up: the ORION-8 trial. Cardiovascular Research. 2024; 120: 1400–1410. https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvae109.

[70] Awad K, Mikhailidis DP, Katsiki N, Muntner P, Banach M, Lipid and Blood Pressure Meta-Analysis Collaboration (LBPMC) Group. Effect of Ezetimibe Monotherapy on Plasma Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations in Patients with Primary Hypercholesterolemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Drugs. 2018; 78: 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-018-0870-1.

[71] Reddy S, Deoker A. Effects of bempedoic acid on markers of inflammation and Lp(a). Current Opinion in Cardiology. 2024; 39: 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0000000000001137.

[72] Sahebkar A, Reiner Ž Simental-Mendía LE, Ferretti G, Cicero AFG. Effect of extended-release niacin on plasma lipoprotein(a) levels: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. Metabolism: Clinical and Experimental. 2016; 65: 1664–1678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2016.08.007.

[73] Lupo MG, Arcidiacono D, Zaramella A, Fimiani F, Calabrò P, Cefalù AB, et al. Lomitapide does not alter PCSK9 and Lp(a) levels in homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia patients: Analysis on cytokines and lipid profile. Atherosclerosis Plus. 2021; 43: 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athplu.2021.05.001.

[74] Canner PL, Berge KG, Wenger NK, Stamler J, Friedman L, Prineas RJ, et al. Fifteen year mortality in Coronary Drug Project patients: long-term benefit with niacin. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1986; 8: 1245–1255. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0735-1097(86)80293-5.

[75] AIM-HIGH Investigators, Boden WE, Probstfield JL, Anderson T, Chaitman BR, Desvignes-Nickens P, et al. Niacin in patients with low HDL cholesterol levels receiving intensive statin therapy. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2011; 365: 2255–2267. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1107579.

[76] HPS2-THRIVE Collaborative Group, Landray MJ, Haynes R, Hopewell JC, Parish S, Aung T, et al. Effects of extended-release niacin with laropiprant in high-risk patients. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2014; 371: 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1300955.

[77] Gianos E, Duell PB, Toth PP, Moriarty PM, Thompson GR, Brinton EA, et al. Lipoprotein Apheresis: Utility, Outcomes, and Implementation in Clinical Practice: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2024; 44: e304–e321. https://doi.org/10.1161/ATV.0000000000000177.

[78] Bhatia HS, Trainor P, Carlisle S, Tsai MY, Criqui MH, DeFilippis A, et al. Aspirin and Cardiovascular Risk in Individuals With Elevated Lipoprotein(a): The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2024; 13: e033562. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.123.033562.

[79] Swerdlow DI, Rider DA, Yavari A, Wikström Lindholm M, Campion GV, Nissen SE. Treatment and prevention of lipoprotein(a)-mediated cardiovascular disease: the emerging potential of RNA interference therapeutics. Cardiovascular Research. 2022; 118: 1218–1231. https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvab100.

[80] Sosnowska B, Surma S, Banach M. Targeted Treatment against Lipoprotein (a): The Coming Breakthrough in Lipid Lowering Therapy. Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland). 2022; 15: 1573. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15121573.

[81] Lp(a)HORIZON. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04023552. 2022. Available at: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04023552 (Accessed: 1 October 2025).

[82] O’Donoghue ML, Rosenson RS, López JAG, Lepor NE, Baum SJ, Stout E, et al. The Off-Treatment Effects of Olpasiran on Lipoprotein(a) Lowering: OCEAN(a)-DOSE Extension Period Results. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2024; 84: 790–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2024.05.058.

[83] OCEAN(a)-Outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05581303. 2023. Available at: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05581303 (Accessed: 1 October 2025).

[84] Nissen SE, Ni W, Shen X, Wang Q, Navar AM, Nicholls SJ, et al. Lepodisiran - A Long-Duration Small Interfering RNA Targeting Lipoprotein(a). The New England Journal of Medicine. 2025; 392: 1673–1683. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2415818.

[85] ACCLAIM-Lp(a). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06292013. 2023. Available at: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06292013 (Accessed: 1 October 2025).

[86] Nicholls SJ, Ni W, Rhodes GM, Nissen SE, Navar AM, Michael LF, et al. Oral Muvalaplin for Lowering of Lipoprotein(a): A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2025; 333: 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.24017.

[87] Cho L, Nicholls SJ, Nordestgaard BG, Landmesser U, Tsimikas S, Blaha MJ, et al. Design and Rationale of Lp(a)HORIZON Trial: Assessing the Effect of Lipoprotein(a) Lowering With Pelacarsen on Major Cardiovascular Events in Patients With CVD and Elevated Lp(a). American Heart Journal. 2025; 287: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2025.03.019.