Journal
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 55, Issue 19, Pages 2160-2167Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.10.080
Keywords
lipoprotein(a); apolipoprotein(a) isoforms; cardiovascular disease; meta-analysis; epidemiology
Categories
Funding
- Gates Cambridge Trust
- UK Medical Research Council
- British Heart Foundation
- BUPA Foundation
- diaDexus
- European Union
- Evelyn Trust
- Fogarty International Center
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Medical Research Council
- Merck Sharp
- Dohme
- National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
- Novartis
- Roche
- UK Biobank
- Wellcome Trust
- British Heart Foundation [RG/08/014/24067] Funding Source: researchfish
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Objectives The purpose of this study was to assess the association of apolipoprotein(a) (apo[a]) isoforms with cardiovascular disease risk. Background Although circulating lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is likely to be a causal risk factor in coronary heart disease (CHD), the magnitude of this association is modest. Lipoprotein(a) particles with smaller, rather than larger, apo(a) isoforms may be stronger risk factors. Methods Information was collated from 40 studies published between January 1970 and June 2009 that reported on associations between apo(a) isoforms and risk of CHD or ischemic stroke (involving a total of 11,396 patients and 46,938 controls). Results Thirty-six studies used broadly comparable phenotyping and analytic methods to assess apo(a) isoform size. These studies yielded a combined relative risk for CHD of 2.08 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.67 to 2.58) for individuals with smaller versus larger apo(a) isoforms (corresponding approximately to 22 or fewer kringle IV type 2 repeats vs. >22 repeats or analogously an apo[a] molecular weight of < 640 kDa vs. < 640 kDa). There was substantial heterogeneity among these studies (I-2 = 85%, 80% to 89%), which was mainly explained by differences in the laboratory methods and analytic approaches used. In the 6 studies of ischemic stroke that used comparable phenotypic methods, the combined relative risk was 2.14 (1.85 to 2.97). Overall, however, only 3 studies made allowances for Lp(a) concentration. Conclusions People with smaller apo(a) isoforms have an approximately 2-fold higher risk of CHD or ischemic stroke than those with larger proteins. Further studies are needed to determine whether the impact of smaller apo(a) isoforms is independent from Lp(a) concentration and other risk factors. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2160-7) (C) 2010 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available