Testing
81% of US clinicians see Lp(a) as a major risk driver, but only 41% back universal testing, national survey of 2,002 (Am J Prev Cardiol 2026)
Original title: Clinician awareness, testing, and treatment for lipoprotein(a): Results from a large US national survey
National US internet survey of 2002 clinicians in practice 5 years or more (47% primary care, 35% cardiology, 9% endocrinology, 9% neurology; 28% female), assessing awareness, testing and treatment attitudes toward Lp(a). 81% agreed Lp(a) is a significant cardiovascular risk driver, and 77% and 75% agreed knowing Lp(a) would aid risk stratification and patient engagement respectively. Only 41% supported universal Lp(a) testing, though most agreed it should be measured in patients with premature cardiovascular disease (73%), family history of premature disease (71%), or recurrent events (68%). For a new Lp(a)-targeted therapy, 77% rated cardiovascular outcome data as very important, followed by long-term efficacy/safety data (69%), real-world data (53%), magnitude of Lp(a) reduction (21%), dosing frequency (17%) and mechanism of action (12%); clinicians were most likely to consider prescribing such therapy for patients with recurrent (51%) or premature (47%) events. The authors conclude clinicians see clinical value in Lp(a) testing, targeting it especially for high-risk patients.
Original abstract
Background: Data are limited regarding national clinician awareness, testing, and treatment of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]. We conducted a national survey of US clinicians to investigate these issues.
Methods: An internet-based survey of awareness, testing and treatment of Lp(a) was administered by a medical survey company to clinicians who have been in practice ≥5 years in the US or its territories.
Results: 2002 clinicians completed the survey: 47 % were primary care, 35 % cardiology, 9 % endocrinology, and 9 % neurology. 28 % were female, 24 % Asian, 4 % Hispanic, and 3 % Black. Awareness: 81 % of respondents agreed Lp(a) is a significant risk driver for cardiovascular disease (CVD). 77 % and 75 % agreed knowing Lp(a) would help in risk stratification and increase patient engagement, respectively. Testing: 41 % of respondents agreed with universal testing of Lp(a). Most agreed Lp(a) should be measured in those with premature (73 %), family history of premature (71 %), or recurrent CVD events (68 %). Treatment: 77 % reported having CVD outcome data were felt to be very important for a new therapy, followed by long-term efficacy/safety data (69 %), real-world data (53 %), magnitude of Lp(a) reduction (21 %), dosing frequency (17 %), and mechanism of action (12 %). Clinicians reported being most likely to consider prescribing Lp(a)-targeted therapy with proven CVD benefit among patients with premature (47 %) or recurrent (51 %) CVD events.
Conclusion: Most clinicians agree knowing the Lp(a) level can improve risk assessment and patient engagement. Patients with premature or recurrent CVD events are most likely to be targeted for Lp(a) testing and for prescribing possible future Lp(a)-targeted therapies.
Summary written by lp-a.org from the published abstract; figures as published. Page updated 17 August 2026. Methods.