The prevalence, patients' characteristics, and hyper-Lp(a)-emia risk factors in the Polish population. The first results from the PMMHRI-Lp(a) Registry

Background

The knowledge on the prevalence of elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), patients' characteristics, and nongenetic risk factors is scarce in some regions including Poland, the largest Central and Eastern European country. Thus, we aimed to present the results from the Lp(a) registry established in Poland's 2nd largest, supra-regional hospital - the Polish Mother's Memorial Hospital Research Institute (PMMHRI).

Methods

The PMMHRI-Lp(a)-Registry was established in January 2022. Since that time all consecutive patients of the Departments of Cardiology, Endocrinology, and outpatient cardiology, diabetology and metabolic clinics have been included. The indications for Lp(a) measurement in the registry are based on the 2021 Polish Lipid Guidelines and new Polish recommendations on the management of elevated Lp(a) (2024). Lp(a) was determined using Sentinel's Lp(a) Ultra, an Immunoturbidimetric quantitative test (Sentinel, Milan, Italy), and the results are presented in mg/dL.

Results

511 patients were included in the registry between Jan 2022 and 15th May 2024. The mean age of patients was 48.21 years. Female patients represented 53.42 % of the population. Elevated Lp(a) levels above 30 and 50 mg/dL were detected in 142 (27.79 %), and 101 (19.8 %) patients, respectively. The mean Lp(a) level was 30.45 ± 42.50 mg/dL, with no significant sex differences [mean for men: 28.80 mg/dL; women: 31.89 mg/dL]. There were also no significant differences between those with and without: coronary artery disease (CAD), dyslipidemia, stroke, heart failure, cancer, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and thyroid disease. The significant Lp(a) level difference was observed in those with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) vs those without (51.47 ± 55.16 vs 28.09 ± 37.51 mg/dL, p < 0.001). However, when we divided those with premature vs no premature MI, no significant difference in Lp(a) level was observed (51.43 ± 57.82 vs 51.52 ± 53.18 mg/dL, p = 0.95). Lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) at baseline did not significantly affect Lp(a) level, with only significant differences for the highest doses of rosuvastatin (p < 0.05) and in those treated with ezetimibe (as a part of the combination therapy; 44.73 ± 54.94 vs 26.84 ± 37.11 mg/dL, p < 0.001). For selected patients (n = 43; 8.42 %) with at least two Lp(a) measurements (mean time distance: 7 ± 5 months, range 1–20 months) we did not observe statistically significant visit-to-visit variability (mean difference: 3.25 mg/dL; r = 0.079, p = 0.616). While dividing the whole population into those with Lp(a) ≤30 mg/dL and > 30 mg/dL, the only hyper-Lp(a)-emia prevalence differences were seen for FH diagnosis (12.88 vs 21.43; p = 0.017), MI prevalence (6.52 vs 16.90 %; p < 0.001), thyroid disease diagnosis (18.14 vs 26.76 %; p = 0.033) and ezetimibe treatment (18.58 vs 30.77 %, p = 0.036). A similar pattern was observed while dividing the whole population on those with Lp(a) ≤50 mg/dL (125 nmol/L) and > 50 mg/dL (125 nmol/L) except for no statistical difference for thyroid disease.

Conclusions

These results strongly emphasize that Lp(a) should be measured commonly, as its high level is highly prevalent (even every 3rd patient) in patients at cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in primary and secondary prevention, requiring risk re-stratification and optimization of the treatment. This is especially important in the regions that characterize baseline high CVD risk, which refers to most CEE countries, including Poland.