ReviewAnnals of medicine2026
Lipoprotein(a)-dependent cardiovascular risk in different populations: are thresholds the same?
Review in Annals of medicine, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a genetically determined, independent and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic stenosis. Large prospective cohort studies together with Mendelian Randomization studies have established its role in cardiovascular risk which has led to the introduction of screening and the development of Lp(a)-lowering therapies. However, interpretation of Lp(a) results in clinical practice remains a challenge, particularly across populations with significantly different baseline levels. DISCUSSION: Lp(a) levels vary according to ancestry. People of African ancestry having the highest median Lp(a) levels, followed by people from South Asia, East Asia and Europe, respectively. However, despite these differences, current Lp(a) risk thresholds are derived from populations of predominantly European ancestry and broadly applied across underrepresented population groups.Available evidence from multi-ancestry cohort studies have shown that while proportional risk for ASCVD may be similar across ancestries, the absolute risk associated with specific thresholds may differ. The application of a universal threshold may lead to over-classification of risk in some populations, resulting in unnecessary edicalization and strain on healthcare systems. Conversely, some populations may be under-classified by a universal threshold potentially resulting in avoidable ASCVD events.
conclusionThis commentary explores the epidemiological, biological and methodological factors underlying variability in Lp(a) levels and their association with ASCVD across populations. We discuss the advantages and limitations of applying ancestry-specific Lp(a) risk thresholds. Lp(a) measurements in clinical practice should be interpreted in within a broader clinical and population context rather than in isolation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.