Cited by 281Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsAtherosclerosis and Cardiovascular Diseases

Lipoprotein(a) Levels and Risk of Future Coronary Heart Disease<subtitle>Large-Scale Prospective Data</subtitle>

Bennet, Anna·2008·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Large-scale prospective data are needed to determine whether associations between lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) and coronary heart disease (CHD) risk are independent of established risk factors, to characterize the shape of this relationship, and to quantify associations in relevant subgroups. METHODS: Levels of Lp(a) were measured in samples obtained at baseline from 2047 patients who had first-ever nonfatal myocardial infarction or who died of CHD during the study and from 3921 control participants in the Reykjavik Study (n=18 569), as well as in paired samples obtained 12 years apart from 372 participants to quantify within-person fluctuations. RESULTS: Baseline Lp(a) levels had little or no correlation with known cardiovascular risk factors, such as age, sex, total cholesterol level, and blood pressure. The Lp(a) values were highly consistent from decade to decade, with a regression dilution ratio (calculated on the log scale) of 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.99). The odds ratio for CHD, unaltered after adjustment for several established risk factors (age, sex, smoking status, blood pressure, total cholesterol, triglycerides level, diabetes mellitus, and body mass index), was 1.60 (95% confidence interval, 1.38-1.85) in a comparison of extreme thirds of baseline Lp(a) levels. Odds ratios were progressively higher with increasing Lp(a) levels and did not vary materially by several individual- or study-level characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: There are independent, continuous associations between Lp(a) levels and risk of future CHD in a broad range of individuals. Levels of Lp(a) are highly stable within individuals across many years and are only weakly correlated with known risk factors. Further assessment of their possible role in CHD prevention is warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.168.6.598

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bennet, A.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Bennet, Anna
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2008-03-24
Volume
168
Issue
6
Pages
598
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2064043401
Cited by
281
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 17
FWCI
25.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • JAMA Internal Medicine
Funders
British Heart Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Atherosclerosis and Cardiovascular Diseases
Keywords
lipoprotein(a), coronary artery disease, cardiovascular risk factors, myocardial infarction, Reykjavik Study, regression dilution, within-person variability
MeSH terms
Aged, Coronary Disease, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Lipoprotein(a)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review