Search

Purpose of reviewLipoprotein(a) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. We review the ongoing shifts in consensus guidelines for the testing and management of Lp(a) and provide insight into whether current evidence suggests that awareness and testing of Lp(a) is clinically actionable.Recent findingsGWAS and Mendelian randomization studies have established causal links between elevated Lp(a) and forms of CVD, including CAD and calcific aortic valve disease. Testing of Lp(a) identifies patients with similar risk to that of heterozygous FH, enhances risk stratification in patients with borderline/intermediate risk as determined through traditional factors, and facilitates the assessment of inherited CVD risk through cascade screening in patients with known family history of elevated Lp(a). Reductions in Lp(a) through non-targeted therapies including PCSK9 inhibition and lipoprotein apheresis have demonstrated reductions in ASCVD risk that are likely attributable to lowering Lp(a). Targeted therapies to potently lower Lp(a) are in clinical development. Lp(a) is actionable, and can be used to identify high risk patients for primary prevention and their family members through cascade screening, and to guide intensification of therapy in primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD.

BackgroundWe sought to determine whether management of LDL-C following invasive angiography and assessment by fractional flow reserve (FFR) differs between those with obstructive vs non-obstructive CAD.MethodsRetrospective study of 721 patients undergoing coronary angiography involving assessment by FFR between 2013 and 2020 at a single academic center. Groups with obstructive vs non-obstructive CAD by index angiographic and FFR findings were compared over 1 year of follow-up.ResultsBased on index angiographic and FFR findings, 421 (58%) patients had obstructive CAD vs 300 (42%) with non-obstructive CAD, mean (±SD) age 66±11 years, 217 (30%) women, and 594 (82%) white. There was no difference in baseline LDL-C. At 3-months follow-up, LDL-C was lower than baseline in both groups, with no between group difference. In contrast, at 6-months, median (Q1, Q3) LDL-C was significantly higher in non-obstructive vs obstructive CAD (LDL-C 73 (60, 93) vs 63 (48, 77) mg/dL, respectively (p = 0.003), (p = 0.001 in multivariable linear regression)). At 12-months, LDL-C remained higher in non-obstructive vs obstructive CAD (LDL-C 73 (49, 86) vs 64 (48, 79) mg/dL, respectively, although not statistically significant (p = 0.104)). The rate of high-intensity statin use was lower among those with non-obstructive CAD vs obstructive CAD at all time points (p

BACKGROUNDA pilot, single-center study showed that first-degree relatives of probands with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) cirrhosis have a high risk of advanced fibrosis. We aimed to validate these findings using 2 independent cohorts from the US and Europe.METHODSThis prospective study included probands with NAFLD with advanced fibrosis, NAFLD without advanced fibrosis, and non-NAFLD, with at least 1 first-degree relative. A total of 396 first-degree relatives - 220 in a derivation cohort and 176 in a validation cohort - were enrolled in the study, and liver fibrosis was evaluated using magnetic resonance elastography and other noninvasive imaging modalities. The primary outcome was prevalence of advanced fibrosis in first-degree relatives.RESULTSPrevalence of advanced fibrosis in first-degree relatives of probands with NAFLD with advanced fibrosis, NAFLD without advanced fibrosis, and non-NAFLD was 15.6%, 5.9%, and 1.3%, respectively (P = 0.002), in the derivation cohort, and 14.0%, 2.6%, and 1.3%, respectively (P = 0.004), in the validation cohort. In multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models, age of ≥50 years (adjusted OR [aOR]: 2.63, 95% CI 1.0-6.7), male sex (aOR: 3.79, 95% CI 1.6-9.2), diabetes mellitus (aOR: 3.37, 95% CI 1.3-9), and a first-degree relative with NAFLD with advanced fibrosis (aOR: 11.8, 95% CI 2.5-57) were significant predictors of presence of advanced fibrosis (all P < 0.05).CONCLUSIONFirst-degree relatives of probands with NAFLD with advanced fibrosis have significantly increased risk of advanced fibrosis. Routine screening should be done in the first-degree relatives of patients with advanced fibrosis.FUNDINGSupported by NCATS (5UL1TR001442), NIDDK (U01DK061734, U01DK130190, R01DK106419, R01DK121378, R01DK124318, P30DK120515, K23DK119460), NHLBI (P01HL147835), and NIAAA (U01AA029019); Academy of Finland grant 309263; the Novo Nordisk, EVO, and Sigrid Jusélius Foundations; and the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement 777377. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and the EFPIA.

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is an established risk factor for multiple cardiovascular diseases. Several lines of evidence including mechanistic, epidemiologic, and genetic studies support the role of Lp(a) as a causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic stenosis/calcific aortic valve disease (AS/CAVD). Limited therapies currently exist for the management of risk associated with elevated Lp(a), but several targeted therapies are currently in various stages of clinical development. In this review, we detail evidence supporting Lp(a) as a causal risk factor for ASCVD and AS/CAVD, and discuss approaches to managing Lp(a)-associated risk.

In animal models, time-restricted feeding (TRF) can prevent and reverse aspects of metabolic diseases. Time-restricted eating (TRE) in human pilot studies reduces the risks of metabolic diseases in otherwise healthy individuals. However, patients with diagnosed metabolic syndrome often undergo pharmacotherapy, and it has never been tested whether TRE can act synergistically with pharmacotherapy in animal models or humans. In a single-arm, paired-sample trial, 19 participants with metabolic syndrome and a baseline mean daily eating window of ≥14 h, the majority of whom were on a statin and/or antihypertensive therapy, underwent 10 h of TRE (all dietary intake within a consistent self-selected 10 h window) for 12 weeks. We found this TRE intervention improves cardiometabolic health for patients with metabolic syndrome receiving standard medical care including high rates of statin and anti-hypertensive use. TRE is a potentially powerful lifestyle intervention that can be added to standard medical practice to treat metabolic syndrome. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

We explore the potential role of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) on isoprene emissions using a global coupled land-atmosphere model [Community Atmospheric Model-Community Land Model (CAM-CLM)] for recent (year 2000, 365 ppm CO₂) and future (year 2100, 717 ppm CO₂) conditions. We incorporate an empirical model of observed isoprene emissions response to both ambient CO₂ concentrations in the long-term growth environment and short-term changes in intercellular CO₂ concentrations into the MEGAN biogenic emission model embedded within the CLM. Accounting for CO₂ inhibition has little impact on predictions of present-day global isoprene emission (increase from 508 to 523 Tg C yr⁻¹). However, the large increases in future isoprene emissions typically predicted in models, which are due to a projected warmer climate, are entirely offset by including the CO₂ effects. Projected global isoprene emissions in 2100 drop from 696 to 479 Tg C yr⁻¹ when this effect is included, maintaining future isoprene sources at levels similar to present day. The isoprene emission response to CO₂ is dominated by the long-term growth environment effect, with modulations of 10% or less due to the variability in intercellular CO₂ concentration. As a result, perturbations to isoprene emissions associated with changes in ambient CO₂ are largely aseasonal, with little diurnal variability. Future isoprene emissions increase by more than a factor of two in 2100 (to 1242 Tg C yr⁻¹) when projected changes in vegetation distribution and leaf area density are included. Changing land cover and the role of nutrient limitation on CO₂ fertilization therefore remain the largest source of uncertainty in isoprene emission prediction. Although future projections suggest a compensatory balance between the effects of temperature and CO₂ on isoprene emission, the enhancement of isoprene emission due to lower ambient CO₂ concentrations did not compensate for the effect of cooler temperatures over the last 400 thousand years of the geologic record (including the Last Glacial Maximum).