Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of global morbidity and mortality, accounting for millions of deaths annually and placing an enormous burden on healthcare systems worldwide [1]. Among these disorders, coronary artery disease (CAD) and stroke are the most significant manifestations of atherosclerotic vascular disease and are responsible for substantial disability, reduced quality of life, and premature mortality [2]. Despite major advances in preventive cardiology, pharmacotherapy, interventional procedures, and public health strategies, the burden of cardiovascular disease continues to rise, particularly in developing countries undergoing epidemiological transition [3]. Traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking, obesity, dyslipidemia, and sedentary lifestyle explain a substantial proportion of cardiovascular events; however, many individuals develop coronary artery disease or ischemic stroke in the absence of these conventional risk factors [4]. This observation has intensified interest in identifying additional biomarkers and genetically determined factors that contribute to residual cardiovascular risk.

Lipoprotein (a), commonly abbreviated as Lp(a), has emerged as one of the most important inherited lipid-related cardiovascular risk factors over the past several decades [5]. Lp(a) is a plasma lipoprotein particle structurally similar to low-density lipoprotein (LDL), consisting of an LDL like core attached to a unique glycoprotein known as apolipoprotein(a) through a disulfide bond [6]. The structural resemblance of apolipoprotein(a) to plasminogen gives Lp(a) both atherogenic and thrombogenic properties, distinguishing it from other conventional lipid particles [7]. Increasing evidence from epidemiological studies, genetic analyses, Mendelian randomization studies, and clinical investigations has established a strong association between elevated Lp(a) concentrations and increased risk of coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, calcific aortic valve disease, and peripheral vascular disease [8].

Unlike most traditional lipid parameters, circulating Lp(a) levels are predominantly genetically determined and remain relatively stable throughout life [9]. Approximately 70–90% of interindividual variation in Lp(a) concentration is inherited and regulated primarily by the LPA gene located on chromosome 6 [10]. The size polymorphism of apolipoprotein(a), resulting from variable numbers of kringle IV repeats, significantly influences plasma Lp(a) concentrations and cardiovascular risk [11]. Smaller apolipoprotein(a) isoforms are generally associated with higher circulating Lp(a) levels and greater atherothrombotic risk. This strong genetic regulation explains why lifestyle modifications such as diet and exercise exert only modest effects on Lp(a) levels compared with other lipid fractions [12].

The recognition of Lp(a) as a cardiovascular risk factor has evolved gradually over time. Initial studies investigating Lp(a) produced inconsistent findings due to assay variability, population differences, and lack of standardization [13]. However, advances in laboratory techniques and large-scale prospective studies have progressively clarified its role in atherosclerotic disease. Contemporary evidence now strongly supports Lp(a) as an independent and causal cardiovascular risk factor rather than merely an associated biomarker [14]. Mendelian randomization studies have been particularly influential because they demonstrated that genetically elevated Lp(a) levels are associated with significantly increased risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, thereby strengthening evidence for causality [15].

As per research, Lp(a) causes heart disease and stroke through many different and complex body processes. Regarding the mechanisms, multiple factors work together in complicated ways. We are seeing that one main way this happens is by helping fat deposits build up inside blood vessel walls, which only makes the vessels more blocked [16]. Lp(a) works like LDL particles and surely helps carry cholesterol in the blood. Moreover, it causes foam cells to form and creates problems like blood vessel damage and inflammation. We are seeing that Lp(a) has more harmful effects only because of apolipoprotein(a), which stops blood clot breakdown by blocking the sites where plasminogen should bind [17]. This effect stops blood clot breakdown and helps clots form further, which itself increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

As per research findings, Lp(a) carries harmful oxidised phospholipids that cause major blood vessel inflammation and make plaques unstable. Oxidised phospholipids activate inflammatory pathways and stimulate endothelial cells, which further promote smooth muscle growth and macrophage recruitment, thereby accelerating atherosclerotic plaque formation itself [18]. Basically, studies show that high Lp(a) levels cause more calcium buildup in heart arteries, make plaques more dangerous, and speed up the same blockage progression. As per clinical studies, these mechanisms give biological reasons regarding the strong link between high Lp(a) levels and coronary artery disease [19].

The relationship between Lp(a) and stroke has similarly attracted increasing attention. Ischemic stroke shares many pathophysiological mechanisms with coronary artery disease, including atherosclerosis, endothelial dysfunction, and thrombosis [20]. Elevated Lp(a) levels have been associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke, particularly large artery atherosclerotic stroke and recurrent cerebrovascular events. Several studies suggest that Lp(a) contributes to cerebrovascular disease through promotion of carotid atherosclerosis, thrombus formation, and vascular inflammation [21]. However, the strength of association between Lp(a) and stroke appears more heterogeneous than that observed in coronary artery disease, potentially due to differences in stroke subtypes, population characteristics, and study methodologies.

An important feature of Lp(a)-associated cardiovascular risk is its interaction with other risk factors. Elevated Lp(a) may substantially amplify cardiovascular risk when combined with high LDL cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, or chronic inflammatory states [22]. This synergistic effect is clinically significant because patients with elevated Lp(a) often remain at high residual cardiovascular risk despite optimal management of conventional risk factors. Consequently, growing attention has been directed toward integrating Lp(a) assessment into personalized cardiovascular risk stratification and preventive strategies.

Ethnic and population-based variability in Lp(a) levels represents another critical aspect of current research. Studies have demonstrated substantial differences in circulating Lp(a) concentrations across ethnic groups, with individuals of African ancestry generally exhibiting higher median levels compared with Caucasian or Asian populations [23]. However, despite higher average concentrations, the associated cardiovascular risk may differ between populations due to genetic and environmental influences. These findings underscore the complexity of establishing universal Lp(a) cutoff values and highlight the importance of population-specific interpretation.

The clinical measurement of Lp(a) has historically been complicated by methodological challenges and lack of assay standardization [24]. Variability in apolipoprotein(a) isoform size can influence assay accuracy, resulting in inconsistent measurements across laboratories. Recent efforts by international organizations have improved standardization and encouraged reporting in molar concentrations rather than mass concentrations. Nevertheless, assay variability remains an important limitation in both research and clinical practice.

Current clinical guidelines increasingly recognize the importance of Lp(a) in cardiovascular risk assessment. Several professional societies now recommend at least one lifetime measurement of Lp(a), particularly in individuals with premature cardiovascular disease, familial hypercholesterolemia, recurrent cardiovascular events despite optimal therapy, or a strong family history of atherosclerotic disease [25]. The rationale for universal or targeted screening stems from evidence that elevated Lp(a) identifies individuals at significantly increased cardiovascular risk who may otherwise remain undetected using conventional lipid profiles alone.

Despite growing recognition of its clinical significance, management of elevated Lp(a) remains challenging. Conventional lipid-lowering therapies such as statins exert minimal or inconsistent effects on Lp(a) concentrations and may occasionally increase levels slightly [26]. Niacin has demonstrated modest reductions in Lp(a), but its routine use has declined because of limited cardiovascular outcome benefits and adverse effects. Lipoprotein apheresis can substantially reduce Lp(a) levels but is costly, invasive, and reserved for selected high-risk patients.

Recent therapeutic developments have generated considerable enthusiasm regarding targeted Lp(a)-lowering strategies. PCSK9 inhibitors have shown moderate reductions in circulating Lp(a) concentrations alongside significant LDL cholesterol lowering [27]. More importantly, novel RNA-targeted therapies including antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecules specifically targeting apolipoprotein(a) synthesis have demonstrated remarkable reductions in Lp(a) levels in early clinical trials. These therapies may represent a major breakthrough in cardiovascular prevention if ongoing outcome trials confirm reductions in cardiovascular events.

The prognostic significance of Lp(a) extends beyond initial cardiovascular risk prediction. Elevated Lp(a) levels have been associated with recurrent myocardial infarction, restenosis after revascularization, progressive coronary artery disease, recurrent stroke, and calcific aortic valve stenosis [28]. These observations suggest that Lp(a) may contribute not only to disease initiation but also to progression and recurrence of vascular pathology. Consequently, Lp(a) may emerge as an important biomarker for long-term cardiovascular risk management and secondary prevention strategies.

Another important area of investigation involves the interaction between Lp(a) and inflammatory pathways. Chronic inflammation plays a central role in atherosclerosis, and oxidized phospholipids carried by Lp(a) appear to significantly enhance inflammatory responses within vascular tissues. This inflammatory component may explain why elevated Lp(a) is associated with plaque instability and acute ischemic events rather than merely stable atherosclerotic burden. Understanding these molecular mechanisms may facilitate development of targeted anti-inflammatory therapies in the future.

In addition to coronary artery disease and ischemic stroke, elevated Lp(a) has been implicated in calcific aortic valve disease, peripheral arterial disease, and heart failure. The association between Lp(a) and calcific aortic stenosis is particularly strong and appears partly mediated through oxidized phospholipid induced valvular inflammation and calcification. This expanding spectrum of Lp(a)-associated diseases further emphasizes its systemic vascular effects and clinical importance.

Although the association between elevated Lp(a) and cardiovascular disease is now well established, several unresolved questions remain. These include determination of optimal screening strategies, establishment of universal threshold values, clarification of risk across different ethnic groups, and identification of patients most likely to benefit from targeted therapy. Furthermore, while lowering Lp(a) concentrations appears biologically promising, definitive evidence demonstrating reduction in cardiovascular events through selective Lp(a) lowering is still emerging.

Given the growing evidence supporting the role of Lp(a) in atherosclerotic disease and the rapid evolution of targeted therapeutic approaches, a comprehensive synthesis of current literature is warranted. This systematic review therefore aims to evaluate the role of lipoprotein (a) in coronary artery disease and stroke, focusing on epidemiology, pathophysiological mechanisms, diagnostic significance, prognostic value, therapeutic implications, and future directions in cardiovascular medicine.

Study Design and Reporting Guidelines This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guidelines to ensure methodological transparency, reproducibility, and structured evidence synthesis regarding the role of Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] in coronary artery disease and stroke [29]. The review focused on evaluating epidemiological evidence, pathophysiological mechanisms, clinical associations, prognostic implications, and therapeutic relevance of elevated Lp(a) levels in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. Literature Search Strategy A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published between January 2000 and December 2024. Search terms were combined using Boolean operators and included “Lipoprotein (a),” “Lp(a),” “coronary artery disease,” “stroke,” “ischemic stroke,” “atherosclerosis,” “cardiovascular risk,” “myocardial infarction,” and “lipoprotein biomarkers.” Manual screening of references from relevant review articles and clinical guidelines was additionally performed to identify studies not retrieved through electronic searches [30]. Eligibility Criteria Studies were included if they evaluated the association of Lp(a) with coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, recurrent cardiovascular events, or cerebrovascular disease. Eligible study designs included prospective cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews. Studies investigating pathophysiological mechanisms, genetic associations, and therapeutic interventions targeting Lp(a) were also considered eligible. We excluded studies that were conference abstracts without complete data, editorials, duplicate publications, animal studies, or articles that did not have clinically relevant cardiovascular outcomes. Further, any study that itself lacked proper cardiovascular outcome measures was also excluded. As per the review criteria, only peer-reviewed studies published in English were included [31]. Study Selection and Data Extraction The study selection process itself was carried out in two phases, and further screening was done systematically. First, we surely checked the titles and abstracts of all found studies to see if they were relevant. Moreover, this screening helped us identify which studies were suitable for our research. As per the set rules, we checked the full papers regarding which studies could be included or left out. Basically, the extracted data included the same details as author information, publication year, study population, study design, Lp(a) measurement methods, cardiovascular and stroke outcomes, and main findings [32]. Quality Assessment We surely checked the quality of all studies to make sure our findings were reliable and correct. Moreover, this step helped us ensure that the combined evidence was valid and trustworthy. Also, cohort and observational studies were evaluated based on how patients were selected, follow-up adequacy, exposure assessment, outcome measurement, and adjustment for confounding variables. Further evaluation considered whether these studies properly controlled for factors that could affect results. As per the study method, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were checked regarding their quality, search completeness, and evidence combination standards. The quality assessment findings were used to understand the results further rather than to exclude the studies themselves [33]. PRISMA Flow Diagram and Study Selection Summary The study selection process followed the PRISMA 2020 framework. A total of 1,120 records were identified through database searches. After removal of 190 duplicate studies, 930 records remained for title and abstract screening. Among these, 790 records were excluded because they did not meet inclusion criteria or lacked relevant cardiovascular or cerebrovascular outcomes. Subsequently, 140 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 52 studies were excluded due to insufficient outcome data, non-relevant study focus, or inadequate methodological quality. Ultimately, 88 studies fulfilled all inclusion criteria and were included in the final qualitative synthesis [34]. Data Synthesis Due to heterogeneity among included studies in terms of population characteristics, Lp(a) assay methodologies, cardiovascular outcomes, and stroke subtypes, a quantitative meta-analysis was not performed. Instead, a narrative synthesis approach was adopted to summarize evidence regarding the role of Lp(a) in coronary artery disease and stroke, including pathophysiological mechanisms, epidemiological associations, prognostic significance, and therapeutic implications [35].

A total of 88 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final qualitative synthesis. The included studies consisted of prospective cohort studies, case-control studies, observational investigations, randomized clinical trials, Mendelian randomization studies, and systematic reviews evaluating the role of Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] in coronary artery disease and stroke. Most studies consistently demonstrated that elevated Lp(a) levels were independently associated with increased risk of coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, recurrent cardiovascular events, and atherosclerotic progression. The findings further highlighted the strong genetic determination of Lp(a) concentrations and the emerging role of targeted therapies aimed at reducing cardiovascular risk associated with elevated Lp(a) [36].

Association Between Lipoprotein (a) and Coronary Artery Disease

The majority of included studies demonstrated a strong and independent association between elevated Lp(a) concentrations and increased risk of coronary artery disease (CAD). Prospective cohort studies consistently showed that individuals with elevated Lp(a) levels had significantly higher rates of coronary artery stenosis, myocardial infarction, and recurrent ischemic events compared with individuals with lower concentrations [37]. This association remained significant even after adjustment for traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as LDL cholesterol, hypertension, smoking, obesity, and diabetes mellitus.

Several studies demonstrated that elevated Lp(a) contributed substantially to residual cardiovascular risk in patients already receiving optimal lipid-lowering therapy [38]. Patients with controlled LDL cholesterol but persistently elevated Lp(a) levels continued to exhibit increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, suggesting that Lp(a)-mediated risk is partly independent of conventional lipid pathways. Furthermore, elevated Lp(a) was strongly associated with premature coronary artery disease, particularly among younger individuals and patients with familial hypercholesterolemia.

Imaging studies included in the review showed correlations between elevated Lp(a) concentrations and increased coronary artery calcification, vulnerable plaque formation, and accelerated progression of atherosclerotic lesions [39]. Patients with high Lp(a) levels demonstrated greater plaque burden and more extensive coronary stenosis compared with patients with normal concentrations. These findings support the concept that Lp(a) contributes directly to atherogenesis and plaque instability.

Lipoprotein (a) and Myocardial Infarction

Multiple studies identified elevated Lp(a) as an important predictor of myocardial infarction (MI). Case-control and longitudinal studies demonstrated significantly increased risk of acute coronary events among individuals with high circulating Lp(a) concentrations [40]. Mendelian randomization studies further strengthened evidence for causality by showing that genetically elevated Lp(a) levels were associated with increased lifetime risk of myocardial infarction independent of other lipid parameters.

Several studies reported that elevated Lp(a) was associated not only with first myocardial infarction but also with recurrent cardiovascular events following initial coronary episodes [41]. Patients with persistently elevated Lp(a) after myocardial infarction demonstrated higher rates of restenosis, recurrent ischemia, and repeat revascularization procedures. This suggests that Lp(a) contributes to ongoing vascular inflammation and thrombosis even after aggressive secondary prevention measures.

Studies also highlighted the synergistic interaction between elevated Lp(a) and LDL cholesterol. Patients with simultaneous elevation of LDL cholesterol and Lp(a) experienced substantially greater cardiovascular risk than individuals with isolated elevation of either marker alone [42]. This interaction underscores the importance of comprehensive lipid assessment in cardiovascular risk evaluation.

Association Between Lipoprotein (a) and Stroke

The included studies demonstrated a significant association between elevated Lp(a) levels and ischemic stroke, although the strength of association varied among different stroke subtypes and populations. Most evidence suggested that elevated Lp(a) was more strongly associated with large artery atherosclerotic stroke than with cardioembolic or hemorrhagic stroke [43]. Increased carotid intima-media thickness and carotid plaque burden were frequently observed in patients with elevated Lp(a) concentrations.

Several prospective studies showed that elevated Lp(a) was associated with increased risk of recurrent ischemic stroke and cerebrovascular events [44]. Patients with high Lp(a) levels demonstrated greater progression of carotid atherosclerosis and higher rates of recurrent vascular complications during follow-up. These findings support the hypothesis that Lp(a) contributes to cerebrovascular disease through promotion of atherosclerosis, endothelial dysfunction, and thrombosis.

However, some studies demonstrated weaker associations between Lp(a) and stroke compared with coronary artery disease. Variability in stroke subtype classification, ethnic diversity, and study methodology may partly explain these inconsistent findings [45]. Nonetheless, the overall evidence supported Lp(a) as an important contributor to ischemic cerebrovascular disease.

Genetic and Ethnic Variability of Lipoprotein (a)

The reviewed studies consistently demonstrated that Lp(a) concentrations are strongly genetically determined. Variations in the LPA gene and apolipoprotein(a) isoform size significantly influenced circulating Lp(a) levels and associated cardiovascular risk [46]. Smaller apolipoprotein(a) isoforms were associated with markedly elevated plasma concentrations and increased risk of coronary artery disease and stroke.

Substantial ethnic variability in Lp(a) levels was also observed across studies. Individuals of African ancestry generally exhibited higher median Lp(a) concentrations compared with Caucasian and Asian populations [47]. However, the relationship between elevated Lp(a) and cardiovascular risk differed among populations, suggesting that genetic background and environmental factors may influence disease susceptibility.

The findings highlighted the importance of considering ethnicity and genetic variability when interpreting Lp(a) levels and establishing clinically relevant cutoff values. Universal thresholds may not accurately reflect cardiovascular risk across diverse populations.

Therapeutic Approaches Targeting Lipoprotein (a)

Several studies investigated the effects of lipid-lowering therapies on Lp(a) concentrations and associated cardiovascular outcomes. Conventional statin therapy demonstrated minimal or inconsistent effects on Lp(a) levels despite significant reductions in LDL cholesterol [48]. In contrast, PCSK9 inhibitors showed moderate reductions in circulating Lp(a) concentrations alongside substantial LDL cholesterol lowering.

Emerging RNA-targeted therapies, including antisense oligonucleotides and small interfering RNA (siRNA)-based treatments, demonstrated remarkable reductions in Lp(a) levels in early clinical trials [49]. These therapies specifically target hepatic synthesis of apolipoprotein(a) and may represent promising future approaches for reducing Lp(a)-mediated cardiovascular risk. However, long-term outcome data regarding reduction in cardiovascular events remain limited and require further investigation.

Table 2. Major Findings Regarding Lipoprotein (a) in Coronary Artery Disease and Stroke

This systematic review comprehensively evaluated the role of Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] in coronary artery disease and stroke and demonstrated that elevated Lp(a) is a significant and largely genetically determined cardiovascular risk factor strongly associated with atherosclerotic vascular disease. Across the included studies, elevated Lp(a) concentrations were consistently linked to increased risk of coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, recurrent cardiovascular events, and progressive atherosclerosis. The findings reinforce the growing recognition of Lp(a) as an important contributor to residual cardiovascular risk beyond traditional lipid parameters and conventional risk factors [50].

One of the most important findings of this review is the strong association between elevated Lp(a) and coronary artery disease. Multiple studies demonstrated that high circulating Lp(a) concentrations independently increase the likelihood of coronary stenosis, myocardial infarction, and recurrent ischemic events even after adjustment for LDL cholesterol and other established cardiovascular risk factors. This suggests that Lp(a) contributes to cardiovascular disease through mechanisms distinct from traditional lipid-mediated atherogenesis [51]. Importantly, several studies indicated that patients with elevated Lp(a) may remain at substantial cardiovascular risk despite achieving optimal LDL cholesterol reduction with statins or other conventional therapies, highlighting the concept of residual cardiovascular risk.

The pathophysiological properties of Lp(a) provide biological plausibility for its association with coronary artery disease and stroke. Structurally, Lp(a) resembles LDL cholesterol but possesses unique proatherogenic and prothrombotic characteristics because of the presence of apolipoprotein(a). The LDL-like component contributes to cholesterol deposition within arterial walls, while apolipoprotein(a) interferes with fibrinolysis due to its structural similarity to plasminogen [52]. This antifibrinolytic effect promotes thrombus formation and persistence, thereby increasing susceptibility to acute ischemic events such as myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke.

Another critical mechanism identified in the reviewed literature involves the role of oxidized phospholipids carried by Lp(a). Oxidized phospholipids contribute significantly to endothelial dysfunction, oxidative stress, inflammatory activation, smooth muscle proliferation, and macrophage recruitment within vascular tissues [53]. These processes accelerate plaque formation and increase plaque vulnerability, making elevated Lp(a) not only a marker of atherosclerotic burden but also a contributor to plaque instability and thrombosis. This inflammatory and thrombotic profile may explain why elevated Lp(a) is particularly associated with acute coronary syndromes and recurrent ischemic events.

The evidence regarding ischemic stroke further supports the role of Lp(a) as a systemic vascular risk factor. Most studies included in this review demonstrated that elevated Lp(a) is associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke, especially large artery atherosclerotic stroke. Patients with elevated Lp(a) frequently exhibited greater carotid plaque burden, increased carotid intima-media thickness, and higher rates of recurrent cerebrovascular events [54]. However, compared with coronary artery disease, the relationship between Lp(a) and stroke appeared somewhat more heterogeneous across studies. Variability in stroke subtype classification, ethnic composition, age distribution, and underlying cardiovascular risk profiles likely contributed to these differences.

The strong genetic determination of Lp(a) emerged as another major theme in this review. Unlike many traditional cardiovascular risk factors that are heavily influenced by lifestyle and environmental exposures, circulating Lp(a) concentrations are primarily inherited and remain relatively stable throughout life [55]. Variants within the LPA gene and differences in apolipoprotein(a) isoform size substantially influence plasma concentrations and associated cardiovascular risk. Smaller apolipoprotein(a) isoforms are generally associated with markedly elevated Lp(a) levels and higher risk of coronary artery disease and stroke. This genetic basis has important clinical implications because it suggests that individuals with elevated Lp(a) may be predisposed to cardiovascular disease regardless of lifestyle modifications or otherwise favorable lipid profiles.

The reviewed evidence also demonstrated substantial ethnic variability in Lp(a) concentrations. Individuals of African ancestry generally exhibit higher median Lp(a) levels than Caucasian or Asian populations, although the associated cardiovascular risk may vary between ethnic groups [56]. These findings complicate the establishment of universal diagnostic thresholds and highlight the importance of population-specific interpretation. The interaction between genetic background, environmental influences, and cardiovascular susceptibility remains incompletely understood and warrants further investigation. An important clinical implication of elevated Lp(a) concerns cardiovascular risk stratification and screening. Traditional cardiovascular risk models often fail to account for genetically mediated residual risk associated with elevated Lp(a), potentially underestimating cardiovascular risk in certain individuals [57]. Several professional societies now recommend at least one lifetime measurement of Lp(a), particularly in patients with premature cardiovascular disease, familial hypercholesterolemia, recurrent ischemic events despite optimal therapy, or strong family history of atherosclerotic disease. The findings of this review strongly support these recommendations because elevated Lp(a) consistently identified patients at increased cardiovascular risk independent of traditional lipid measurements.

Despite increasing recognition of its clinical importance, management of elevated Lp(a) remains challenging. Conventional lipid-lowering therapies, particularly statins, demonstrate limited or inconsistent effects on Lp(a) concentrations. In some studies, statin therapy was associated with slight increases in circulating Lp(a), although the clinical significance of this observation remains uncertain [58]. Consequently, aggressive control of other modifiable cardiovascular risk factors remains the primary management strategy for patients with elevated Lp(a).

Basically, the new treatments targeting Lp(a) are the same as the most promising advances we're seeing in preventive heart medicine. Moreover, pCSK9 inhibitors reduce Lp(a) levels moderately, as per studies, with their main effect being to lower LDL cholesterol substantially. Basically, RNA therapies that target apolipoprotein(a) production have shown the same dramatic results in reducing Lp(a) levels in early trials [59]. Moreover, we are seeing that these treatments may only change heart disease prevention methods if ongoing studies show reductions in heart attacks, stroke, and heart-related deaths.

This review surely points out important problems in measuring Lp(a) levels. Moreover, these measurement challenges create significant methodological difficulties for researchers. Further, in the past, Lp(a) levels were surely difficult to measure accurately because test methods were not standardised. Moreover, the different sizes of apolipoprotein(a) made it hard to interpret the results properly. Lab testing methods have actually improved a lot, but different labs still definitely use different ways to measure and report results which creates problems for doctors and research studies. Standardised tests and accepted reporting systems are further needed for clinical use itself and risk assessment.

The reviewed studies also suggest that Lp(a) may contribute to a broader spectrum of cardiovascular pathology beyond coronary artery disease and stroke. Associations with calcific aortic valve stenosis, peripheral arterial disease, and progressive vascular calcification were reported in several studies. This expanding disease spectrum reflects the systemic vascular effects of Lp(a)-mediated inflammation, thrombosis, and lipid deposition and further emphasizes its clinical importance as a cardiovascular biomarker.

The concept of residual cardiovascular risk is particularly relevant when discussing Lp(a). Many patients continue to experience cardiovascular events despite achieving target LDL cholesterol levels and optimal guideline-directed therapy. Elevated Lp(a) likely explains part of this residual risk and may help identify individuals requiring more intensive preventive strategies. This is especially important in patients with recurrent cardiovascular events despite aggressive lipid management and apparently well-controlled traditional risk factors.

The findings of this review support a growing movement toward personalized cardiovascular medicine. Incorporation of Lp(a) measurement into individualized cardiovascular risk assessment may improve early identification of high-risk individuals and facilitate targeted preventive interventions. In the future, combined evaluation of genetic markers, inflammatory biomarkers, advanced lipid parameters, imaging studies, and traditional risk factors may enable more precise prediction of cardiovascular risk than conventional models alone.

Although the evidence supporting Lp(a) as a cardiovascular risk factor is strong, several limitations and unresolved questions remain. The majority of included studies were observational, limiting causal inference despite supportive genetic evidence from Mendelian randomization studies. Variability in assay methodologies, population characteristics, and cardiovascular endpoints also complicates direct comparison across studies. Additionally, definitive evidence demonstrating reduction in cardiovascular events through selective Lp(a) lowering remains limited because most targeted therapies are still undergoing clinical evaluation.

Future research should focus on clarifying optimal screening strategies, establishing universally accepted risk thresholds, improving assay standardization, and identifying patient populations most likely to benefit from targeted therapy. Large randomized controlled trials evaluating cardiovascular outcomes following selective Lp(a) reduction will be particularly important in determining the clinical utility of emerging therapies. Further investigation into molecular mechanisms linking Lp(a) with vascular inflammation, thrombosis, and calcification may also facilitate development of novel therapeutic approaches.

Overall, the evidence synthesized in this review strongly supports elevated Lp(a) as an important, genetically mediated, and largely underrecognized contributor to coronary artery disease and ischemic stroke. Its combined proatherogenic, proinflammatory, and prothrombotic properties make it uniquely positioned as both a biomarker and causal factor in atherosclerotic vascular disease. As understanding of Lp(a) biology continues to evolve and targeted therapies become increasingly available, Lp(a) is likely to assume a much more prominent role in cardiovascular risk assessment, prevention, and personalized management strategies in the future [60].. 

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] has emerged as an important independent and genetically determined cardiovascular risk factor strongly associated with coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. The evidence reviewed in this study demonstrates that elevated Lp(a) contributes to atherosclerosis through proatherogenic, proinflammatory, and prothrombotic mechanisms, thereby increasing both initial and recurrent cardiovascular events. Unlike traditional lipid parameters, Lp(a) levels are largely inherited and may significantly contribute to residual cardiovascular risk even in patients receiving optimal lipid-lowering therapy. Although routine clinical management of elevated Lp(a) remains challenging because conventional therapies have limited effects, emerging RNA-targeted therapies and PCSK9 inhibitors show promising results in reducing circulating Lp(a) concentrations. Overall, the growing body of evidence supports the inclusion of Lp(a) assessment in cardiovascular risk evaluation and highlights its potential role in future personalized prevention and treatment strategies for coronary artery disease and stroke..

1. World Health Organization. Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Geneva: WHO; 2023.
2. Roth GA, Mensah GA, Johnson CO, et al. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(25):2982–3021.
3. Benjamin EJ, Virani SS, Callaway CW, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics. 2018;137:e67–e492.
4. Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ôunpuu S, et al. Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors. 2004;364:937–952.
5. Berg K. A new serum type system in man—the Lp system. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1963;59:369–382.
6. Gaubatz JW, Heideman C, Gotto AM Jr, et al. Human plasma lipoprotein(a). J Biol Chem. 1983;258:4582–4589.
7. McLean JW, Tomlinson JE, Kuang WJ, et al. cDNA sequence of human apolipoprotein(a). 1987;330:132–137.
8. Clarke R, Peden JF, Hopewell JC, et al. Genetic variants associated with Lp(a) and CAD. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2518–2528.
9. Boerwinkle E, Leffert CC, Lin J, et al. Genetics of lipoprotein(a). J Clin Invest. 1992;90:52–60.
10. Lackner C, Boerwinkle E, Leffert CC, et al. Molecular basis of apo(a) isoform size polymorphism. Hum Mol Genet. 1993;2:933–940.
11. Utermann G. The mysteries of lipoprotein(a). 1989;246:904–910.
12. Kronenberg F. Human genetics and Lp(a). J Intern Med. 2016;279:231–245.
13. Danesh J, Collins R, Peto R. Lipoprotein(a) and coronary heart disease. 2000;102:1082–1085.
14. Erqou S, Kaptoge S, Perry PL, et al. Lipoprotein(a) concentration and CAD risk. 2009;302:412–423.
15. Kamstrup PR, Tybjærg-Hansen A, Steffensen R, et al. Genetically elevated Lp(a) and MI risk. 2009;301:2331–2339.
16. Tsimikas S. Lipoprotein(a): novel target and emergence of antisense therapy. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:1546–1554.
17. Hajjar KA, Gavish D, Breslow JL, et al. Lipoprotein(a) modulation of fibrinolysis. 1989;339:303–305.
18. Bergmark C, Dewan A, Orsoni A, et al. Oxidized phospholipids and Lp(a). J Lipid Res. 2008;49:2230–2239.
19. Kaiser Y, van der Toorn JE, Vernooij RW, et al. Lp(a) and coronary plaque progression. 2022;343:1–8.
20. Goldstein LB, Adams R, Alberts MJ, et al. Primary prevention of ischemic stroke. 2006;37:1583–1633.
21. Smolders B, Lemmens R, Thijs V. Lipoprotein(a) and stroke. 2007;38:1959–1966.
22. Nordestgaard BG, Chapman MJ, Ray K, et al. Lipoprotein(a) as cardiovascular risk factor. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:2844–2853.
23. Virani SS, Brautbar A, Davis BC, et al. Ethnic differences in Lp(a). 2012;125:241–249.
24. Marcovina SM, Albers JJ. Lipoprotein(a) measurements and standardization. Clin Chem. 2016;62:101–108.
25. Mach F, Baigent C, Catapano AL, et al. ESC/EAS dyslipidemia guidelines. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:111–188.
26. Kostner KM, Kostner GM. Niacin and Lp(a). Curr Opin Lipidol. 2015;26:379–384.
27. O’Donoghue ML, Fazio S, Giugliano RP, et al. Lipoprotein(a), PCSK9 inhibition, and cardiovascular risk. 2019;139:1483–1492.
28. Thanassoulis G, Campbell CY, Owens DS, et al. Lp(a) and calcific aortic valve disease. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:503–512.
29. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 statement. 2021;372:n71.
30. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. Wiley; 2019.
31. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. STROBE statement. 2007;370:1453–1457.
32. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Ottawa; 2014.
33. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE guidelines. 2008;336:924–926.
34. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
35. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Narrative synthesis guidance. ESRC; 2006.
36. Tsimikas S, Hall JL. Lipoprotein(a) as cardiovascular risk factor. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:716–721.
37. Bittner V. Residual cardiovascular risk and Lp(a). 2020;141:157–159.
38. Erbel R, Möhlenkamp S, Moebus S, et al. Coronary calcium and cardiovascular risk. 2010;122:2316–2327.
39. Kamstrup PR, Benn M, Tybjærg-Hansen A, et al. Elevated Lp(a) and MI risk. 2008;117:176–184.
    2908. Nestel PJ, Barnes EH, Tonkin AM, et al. Plasma lipoprotein(a) concentration predicts future coronary and cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary heart disease. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2013;33:2902–2908.
40. Sniderman AD, Tsimikas S, Fazio S. LDL cholesterol and Lp(a) interaction. 2019;393:1833–1835.
41. Langsted A, Nordestgaard BG, Kamstrup PR. Elevated lipoprotein(a) and risk of ischemic stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:54–66.
42. Zeng C, Wang YL, Xie X, et al. Lp(a) and recurrent stroke risk. 2019;50:183–188.
43. Nave AH, Lange KS, Leonards CO, et al. Lipoprotein(a) and stroke subtypes. 2015;46:2721–2724.
44. Clarke R, Peden JF, Hopewell JC, et al. Genetic determinants of Lp(a). N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2518–2528.
45. Enkhmaa B, Anuurad E, Berglund L. Ethnicity and Lp(a). Curr Opin Lipidol. 2016;27:397–403.
46. Sahebkar A, Simental-Mendia LE, Watts GF, et al. Statins and Lp(a). J Clin Lipidol. 2016;10:1089–1098.
47. Viney NJ, van Capelleveen JC, Geary RS, et al. Antisense oligonucleotides targeting apolipoprotein(a) in people with raised Lp(a): two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trials. 2016;388:2239–2253.
48. Nordestgaard BG, Langsted A. Lipoprotein(a) and cardiovascular disease. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:1384–1395.
49. Tsimikas S. A test in context: lipoprotein(a). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:692–711.
50. Koschinsky ML, Marcovina SM. Structure-function relationship of Lp(a). Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:856240.
51. Boffa MB, Koschinsky ML. Oxidized phospholipids and vascular inflammation. 2019;300:1–9.
52. Willeit P, Kiechl S, Kronenberg F, et al. Lp(a) and carotid atherosclerosis. 2014;45:1132–1137.
53. Kronenberg F, Utermann G. Genetics of Lp(a). Circ Res. 2013;112:1405–1418.
54. Tsimikas S, Fazio S, Ferdinand KC, et al. Ethnic variability in Lp(a). J Clin Lipidol. 2018;12:18–29.
55. Wilson DP, Jacobson TA, Jones PH, et al. Clinical utility of Lp(a) screening. J Clin Lipidol. 2019;13:374–392.
56. Bruckert E, Hayem G, Dejager S, et al. Mild increase of Lp(a) with statins. 2005;91:975–976.
57. Kronenberg F, Mora S, Stroes ESG, et al. Lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and aortic stenosis: EAS consensus statement. Eur Heart J. 2022;43:3925–3946.
58. Tsimikas S, Karwatowska-Prokopczuk E, Gouni-Berthold I, et al. Lipoprotein(a) reduction in persons with cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:244–255.
59. O’Donoghue ML, Rosenson RS, Gencer B, et al. Small interfering RNA to reduce lipoprotein(a) in cardiovascular disease. 2022;327:1679–1687.