RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LIPOPROTEIN(A) AND CARDIOVASCULAR EVENTS- A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Author(s)
Quek RG1, Forbes CA2, Deshpande S2, Worthy G2, Wolff R3, Stirk L2, Kleijnen J4, Gandra SR5, Djedjos S1, Wong N6
1Amgen, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York, UK, 3Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd., York, CA, USA, 4Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 5Amgen Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 6University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
OBJECTIVES: Robust associations between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] and cardiovascular events (CVE) have been noted in previous studies conducted in general population. However, the relationship between Lp(a) and subsequent CVE is uncertain especially among high cardiovascular risk patients. This was investigated in a systematic review. METHODS: Published systematic review methodology, including extensive literatures searches were used to identify prospective studies, which assessed the relationship between Lp(a) levels and CVE, using multivariable analyses. Additional information was gathered on Lp(a) assays (e.g. isoform independence), model variables (including LDL-C levels) and population characteristics (e.g. race). RESULTS: Searches of electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE and EMBASE), conference abstracts, and grey literature up to February 2015, retrieved 2,472 records. From these 53 studies (102 citations) were included. The overall level of bias across the studies was moderate, as assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool. The studies used varied CVE outcomes and multivariable models. Heterogeneity was evident in the assessment of Lp(a) values. LDL-C was included as a variable in 17 studies; 16 reported a significant positive correlation between Lp(a) and CVE. Across the 36 primary prevention studies in the general population (hazard ratios ranged from 1.16 to 2.97) and the six primary prevention studies in high risk patients (hazard ratios ranged from 1.21 to 3.7), there was evidence of a statistically significant relationship between increased Lp(a) and an increased risk of future CVD. Evidence in secondary prevention populations (11 studies) was also suggestive of a modest statistically significant relationship (hazard ratios ranged from 0.75 to 3.7). CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to suggest that increased Lp(a) levels are associated with an increase in CVE in high-risk populations. However, heterogeneity hampers the interpretation of evidence across specific populations. Further studies are warranted to investigate CVE reduction by therapies aimed at lowering Lp(a) levels among high risk patients.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2016-05, ISPOR 2016, Washington DC, USA
Value in Health, Vol. 19, No. 3 (May 2016)
Code
PCV21
Topic
Epidemiology & Public Health
Disease
Cardiovascular Disorders, Multiple Diseases