The prevalence, patients characteristics and risk factors of hyper-Lp(a)-emia in the Polish population. The first results from the PMMHRI-Lp(a) Registry
Authors: Sosnowska B , Lewek J , Adach W , Bielecka-Dabrowa A , Banach M 
Published: October 2024

Abstract

Background
Based on the recent data and existing guidelines Lp(a) is recognized, independent CVD risk factor. However, the knowledge on the prevalence of elevated Lp(a) levels, patients characteristics as well as non-genetic risk factors is scarce from some world regions including from Poland, the largest CEE country.

Purpose
We aim to present the first results from the Lp(a) registry established in the 2nd largest hospital in Poland - Polish Mother’s Memorial Hospital Research Institute (PMMHRI).

Methods
The PMMHRI-Lp(a)-Registry was established in 2022. The indications for Lp(a) measurement in the registry are based on the 2021 Polish Lipid Guidelines and new Polish recommendations on the management with elevated Lp(a) (2024). The PMMHRI-Lp(a)-Registry is a part of the being founded Lp(a) National Registry of the Polish Lipid Association.

Results
Based on the data from 302 consecutive patients (mean age 52.18 years; women 53%) the mean Lp(a) level was 30.3±39.4 mg/dl; it was numerically higher in woman (32.8 mg/dl), but there were no significant sex differences (men: 27.5 mg/dl; p=0.245). There were also no significant differences between those with and without CAD, stroke, HF, cancer, diabetes, kidney disease, and thyroid disease. The significant Lp(a) level difference was observed in those with diagnosed dyslipidemia in comparison to those without (31.9±40.6 vs 17.7±25.8 mg/dl, p=0.044) and in those with the history of myocardial infarction (MI) vs those without (50.1±50.3 vs 28.1±37.5 mg/dl, p=0.004). However, when we divided those with MI on premature vs no premature, no significant difference in Lp(a) level was observed (41,6±41.9 vs 57.6±56.7 mg/dl, p=0.39). Lipid lowering therapy did not significantly affect Lp(a) level, with only significant differences in those treated with ezetimibe (as a part of the combination therapy; 39.5±47.6 vs 27.5±36.3 mg/dl, p=0.027). For selected patients (n=31; 10.3%) with two Lp(a) measurements (mean time distance: 7±5 months) we did not observe any significant visit-to-visit variability (mean difference: 0.81 mg/dl; z=0.256, p=0.262) (Fig. 1). We did not also observe any percentage differences in variables (besides MI history, p=0.017) for different Lp(a) risk groups: 0-30, &gt;30-50, &gt;50-180 and &gt;180 mg/dl. While dividing the population on those with Lp(a) ≤30 mg/dl vs &gt;30 mg/dl, the only differences were seen for dyslipidemia diagnosis (p=0.044) and MI occurrence (6.98 vs 17.24%; p=0.007). Similar pattern was observed while dividing the whole population on those with Lp(a) ≤50 vs &gt;50 mg/dl (Fig. 2).

Conclusions
These results strongly emphasize that Lp(a) should be measured commonly, as its high level is highly prevalent in patients at the risk both in primary and secondary prevention, what require risk re-stratification and treatment optimization. This is especially important in the regions that characterize of baseline high CVD risk, what refers to most of the CEE countries, including Poland.