Scholarlink

Background <p>Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a known independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, yet awareness and management remain limited. The psychosocial implications of elevated Lp(a)-levels have been poorly characterized.</p> Objectives <p>To compare cardiovascular outcomes and cardiovascular risk factor (CVRF) modification in individuals with normal vs. elevated Lp(a) levels, and to assess the impact of individualized prevention recommendations. For the first time, the individual psychological stress caused by Lp(a) is being surveyed.</p> Methods <p>The ELITE study is a prospective, interventional cohort study conducted in north-western Germany. Participants were regularly assessed for CVRFs, including Lp(a), hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, weight, nicotine – as well as lipoprotein (a), physical activity, dietary habits, depression and stress. They received written, personalized prevention recommendations. Follow-up averaged 4.4 years. Two groups were analyzed: Group 1 (Gr1, n=3,241) with normal Lp(a), and Group 2 (Gr2, n=841) with elevated Lp(a ≥75 nmol/l).</p> Results <p> Gr2 (mean Lp(a) 154.8 nmol/l) and Gr1 (mean Lp(a) 16.4 nmol/l) were comparable in age (~53 years) and sex distribution (~49% female). Most participants with elevated Lp(a) were previously unaware of their levels; 30% were referred to specialists, and ~40% reported concern or anxiety. Combined cardiovascular endpoints (CHD, stroke, heart failure, PAD, carotid stenosis, AF) occurred significantly more often in Gr2 (p&lt;0.001), despite similar CVRF profiles, except for higher baseline LDL-C in Gr2 (p&lt;0.001). Hypertension (61%) and physical inactivity (57%) were the most prevalent CVRFs. Personalized prevention measures led to significant improvements in blood pressure, LDL-C, smoking, physical activity, and weight in both groups. Lipid-lowering therapy improved markedly in Gr2 (12% to 23%).</p> Conclusions <p>Elevated Lp(a) is associated with a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular events, independent of traditional CVRFs. This confirms a causal role of Lp(a) in CV morbidity. Personalized written prevention recommendations improved CVRFs across both groups, though further optimization is needed. Notably, elevated Lp(a) also imposes a psychosocial burden, underlining the need for enhanced education, counseling, and clinical pathways.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Cardiovascular endpoints and psychosocial challenges of lipoprotein(a) of 5726 participants in the ELITE-study over 5 years

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月14日

查看全文
  • Bastian Schrader,
  • Friedrich Lorenz,
  • Armin Weers,
  • Matteo Scorcelletti,
  • Stephan Lüders,
  • Bernhard Vaske,
  • Sandra Garstecki,
  • Joachim Schrader,
  • Albrecht Elsässer

摘要

Background

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a known independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, yet awareness and management remain limited. The psychosocial implications of elevated Lp(a)-levels have been poorly characterized.

Objectives

To compare cardiovascular outcomes and cardiovascular risk factor (CVRF) modification in individuals with normal vs. elevated Lp(a) levels, and to assess the impact of individualized prevention recommendations. For the first time, the individual psychological stress caused by Lp(a) is being surveyed.

Methods

The ELITE study is a prospective, interventional cohort study conducted in north-western Germany. Participants were regularly assessed for CVRFs, including Lp(a), hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, weight, nicotine – as well as lipoprotein (a), physical activity, dietary habits, depression and stress. They received written, personalized prevention recommendations. Follow-up averaged 4.4 years. Two groups were analyzed: Group 1 (Gr1, n=3,241) with normal Lp(a), and Group 2 (Gr2, n=841) with elevated Lp(a ≥75 nmol/l).

Results

Gr2 (mean Lp(a) 154.8 nmol/l) and Gr1 (mean Lp(a) 16.4 nmol/l) were comparable in age (~53 years) and sex distribution (~49% female). Most participants with elevated Lp(a) were previously unaware of their levels; 30% were referred to specialists, and ~40% reported concern or anxiety. Combined cardiovascular endpoints (CHD, stroke, heart failure, PAD, carotid stenosis, AF) occurred significantly more often in Gr2 (p<0.001), despite similar CVRF profiles, except for higher baseline LDL-C in Gr2 (p<0.001). Hypertension (61%) and physical inactivity (57%) were the most prevalent CVRFs. Personalized prevention measures led to significant improvements in blood pressure, LDL-C, smoking, physical activity, and weight in both groups. Lipid-lowering therapy improved markedly in Gr2 (12% to 23%).

Conclusions

Elevated Lp(a) is associated with a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular events, independent of traditional CVRFs. This confirms a causal role of Lp(a) in CV morbidity. Personalized written prevention recommendations improved CVRFs across both groups, though further optimization is needed. Notably, elevated Lp(a) also imposes a psychosocial burden, underlining the need for enhanced education, counseling, and clinical pathways.