Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase (Lp-PLA2)
Lp-PLA2: An Inflammatory Biomarker
As previously stated, increasing evidence has suggested that
cardiovascular and other metabolic diseases are inflammatory
diseases. The enzyme Lp-PLA2 circulates in the blood, and
attaches to LDL cholesterol particles in the bloodstream.
Sometimes these particles containing the Lp-PLA2 adhere to
the arterial walls, where a process known as oxidation takes
place (Libby, Ridker, & Maseri, 2002; Macphee, et al.,
2001; Suckling, et al., 2003; Tsimihodimos, et al., 2003).
Oxidized LDL is susceptible to enzymatic attack, which promotes
pro-inflammatory markers capable of triggering the atherogenic
process. These inflammatory molecules help promote the build-up
of fatty deposits (plaque) in the arteries, as well as produce
molecules that attract immune cells to the arterial walls.
These molecules bind to the cells called monocytes, which
are large white blood cells, and are converted to macrophages,
increasing the amount of atherosclerotic build-up.
Lp-PLA2: Risk Marker or Risk Factor
As previously stated, recent studies show that inflammation
does play a role in cardiovascular disease (Castelli, et al.,
1996; Libby, Ridker, & Maseri, 2002; Ridker, et al., 2000).
It has been found that many persons with cardiovascular disease
do not display traditional risk factors such as elevated cholesterol
levels (Castelli, et al, 1996; Ridker, et al, 2000). Lp-PLA2
is considered currently considered a risk marker rather than
a risk factor. However, the use of Lp-PLA2 in determining
elevated risks for cardiovascular disease is relatively new.
Two clinical studies have found that Lp-PLA2 to be independently
linked to cardiovascular disease (Ballantyne, et al., 2003;
Packard, et al., 2000). Several studies are underway regarding
the importance of Lp-PLA2 as an inflammatory marker. However,
very little is currently known regarding what role Lp-PLA2
plays in determining cardiovascular disease and what course
of action is appropriate to improve Lp-PLA2 levels.
Lp-PLA2: The PLAC Test
Lp-PLA2 is measured through a simple blood test. The assay
that is used is the Enzyme-linked sandwich immunosorbent assay
(ELISA). This is called the PLAC test, and detects the presence
of Lp-PLA2 in the blood. Currently Mayo Medical Laboratories,
part of Mayo Clinic, support the PLAC test to determine Lp-PLA2
levels. The blood sample sent to one of their laboratories
and the results are sent back to the physician.
The expected values are measured in ng/mL. Average value for
females is 174 ng/mL (range 5th - 95th percentile: 120-342),
and the average value for males is 251 (range 5th - 95th percentile:
131-376).
Lp-PLA2: Future Significance
Lp-PLA2 is not included in the CDC/AHA Expert Panel Recommendations
for Inflammatory Markers that was published in 2003. The clinical
research is still being evaluated as to the future significance
of this inflammatory marker. Several studies have demonstrated
the importance of CRP in the development of cardiovascular
disease. More recently, the Lp-PLA2 has been linked to the
atherogenic process. Two studies specifically have shown an
associated between Lp-PLA2 with the development of cardiovascular
disease (Both of these studies focused on Lp-PLA2 levels and
found that those with elevated levels of Lp-PLA2 were at greater
risk of an event compared to those with lower levels of Lp-PLA2
independent of traditional cardiovascular risk factors. Additionally,
they found that Lp-PLA2 was individually and independently
predictive of future cardiovascular events (Ballantyne, et
al., 2003; Packard, et al., 2000).
CDC/AHA Expert Panel Recommendations for Inflammatory Markers
As a result of this increased interest in hs-CRP, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the American
Heart Association (AHA) appointed a panel of experts (the
Working Group) to examine inflammatory markers and their relevance
to prevention and treatment practices (Pearson, Mensah, et
al., 2003). One of the main objectives of this expert committee
was to review measurement standards with respect to inflammatory
markers and their potential for routine risk assessment. The
Working Group published a scientific statement on markers
of inflammation and cardiovascular disease summarizing their
findings for clinical and public health strategies (Pearson,
Mensah, et al., 2003). A summary of the Working Group’s
findings are outlined below:
— The Working Group limited current assays to metabolically
stable patients, using highly sensitive C-reactive Protein
(hs-CRP), measured twice (ideally 2 weeks apart) with the
average expressed in mg/L. The findings to be interpreted
as follows …
Low risk < 1.0 mg/L
Average Risk 1.0 to 3.0 mg/L
High Risk >3.0 mg/L
The hs-CRP was chosen because it is a commercially available
assay sensitive enough (low detection limit) for the detection
of vascular disease (Pepys & Hirshfield, 2003; Pearson,
Mensah , et al., 2003; Ridker, 2003).
— The Working Group recommended against general screening
of adults, but suggested limiting the use of hs-CRP as an
adjunct to major risk factors for primary prevention screening
augmenting risk stratification. That is, physicians have the
option to use hs-CRP to help detect an elevated risk in individuals
with a low to moderate risk (defined as having between a 10%
to 20% relative risk for coronary artery disease with the
next 10 years).
— The Working Group concluded that in persons with stable
cardiovascular disease or acute coronary syndromes, hs-CRP
can be useful as an independent marker for identifying potential
recurring events. However, physicians should not base secondary
prevention strategies solely on the results of hs-CRP. Further,
hs-CRP should not be the marker used to monitor effects of
secondary treatment strategies.
— At this time, the Working Group cautioned against
using hs-CRP in the absence of traditional risk factors, because
of the limited data available to support its use as a sole
marker. Further, it is not recommended in individuals with
a high risk, defined as having greater than a 20% relative
risk for cardiovascular disease within the next 10 years,
because these individuals would already be targeted for intensive
secondary or tertiary treatment (Parson, 2002).
— An untested future potential use of hs-CRP is as a
motivational tool. The Working Group suggests that persons
with an elevated risk need encouragement to change behaviors
or comply with pharmacological therapies (Pearson, Mensah,
et al., 2003). Future studies will need to be conducted to
see if hs-CRP could be an effective tool during counseling
in motivating behavioral change.
NOTE: The Working Group cautions professionals regarding these
recommendations, because the scientific evidence is not yet
fully adequate.
©2004 Aerobics and Fitness Association of America |