ReviewAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2025
Lipoprotein(a) at a "Tipping Point": case to move to universal screening.
Review in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is well established as a common risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Lp(a) levels are >90 % genetically determined. However, Lp(a) remains very underrecognized as a cardiovascular risk factor with low rates of testing. In this article, the case for universal Lp(a) screening is outlined including the high yield of a single test and the relative stability in levels and risk categories over time resulting in a need to test most people once. Additionally, Lp(a) testing impacts clinical management. At a minimum, elevated Lp(a) is associated with multiple cardiovascular diseases and Lp(a) measurement may be incorporated into more precise individual risk assessment. Elevated Lp(a) should prompt more aggressive risk factor modification, particularly low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering and a preference for Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i). There may also be a role for aspirin use in primary prevention based on currently available evidence. Identification of elevated Lp(a) also enables cascade screening to further identify affected individuals and helps to enable further research and individuals who may be candidates for novel therapies. While there are strategies to address increased cardiovascular risk in individuals with elevated Lp(a) today, it is clear that residual risk remains, and there are several novel, targeted therapies for lowering Lp(a) that are in advanced stages of development, which are also reviewed. Lp(a) remains underappreciated and undertested in clinical practice, and there are several arguments in favor of testing today with hope for potent targeted therapies for Lp(a)-lowering in the very near future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.