Testing
Ancestry-specific Lp(a) risk thresholds may prevent over- and under-classification of cardiovascular risk (Ann Med 2026)
Original title: Lipoprotein(a)-dependent cardiovascular risk in different populations: are thresholds the same?
This narrative commentary discusses how Lp(a) concentrations vary by ancestry, with African populations showing the highest median levels, followed by South Asian, East Asian, and European groups. While proportional atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk appears similar across ancestries, absolute risk at specific Lp(a) thresholds differs. Applying a universal threshold may over-classify risk in some groups and under-classify it in others, potentially causing unnecessary medicalisation or preventable events. The authors argue that Lp(a) measurements require interpretation within a broader clinical and population context rather than relying on a single cutoff.
Original abstract
Background: Lipoprotein(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.
Conclusion: This 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.
ancestryepidemiologyrisktesting
Summary written by lp-a.org from the published abstract; figures as published. Page updated 11 October 2026. Methods.