My lp(a) readings came in at a whopping 147. The normal range according to the lab is 5 - 40.

My cholestrol readings on the other hand are decent:
Total = 180
LDL = 118
HDL = 46
Triglycerides = 82

There is a lot of literature and research out there that says a high LP(a) is risk factor for early cardiovascular disease.

So I decided to take action now before trouble finds me later in life. Given heart disease runs in the family my cardiologist is starting me on a niacin regiment now as a preventative measure. We are starting with 500MG time release Niaspan. We will adjust the dose as we see how my LP(a) responds.

Also on the web I came across the Pauling/Rath theory on heart disease and the pivotal role that Lp(a) plays in starting it. They suggest the use of Vitamin C along with Lysine/Proline to combat LP(a).

Anyone else heard of this theory and LP(a) treatment approach?

I also have a high lp(a) as I found out when going for a EBCT scan last year. My calcium score was very high for my age (267 at 41) and my blood tests OK except LDL at 156 and lp(a) at 51.

The Cariologist at the centre (in Australia)there seems a fairly enlightened guy who likes to combine regular and alternative medicine.

He put me on Inositol Hexanicotinate (niacin)and also Vit C @ 2gr and Lysine @ 1gr (i also take 1gr proline).

He thinks the Niacin is good for lowering LDL and lp(a) and raising HDL. The C/Lysine is supposed to coat the lp(a) and reduce its adhesive nature.

After 12 months my LDL is down to 113 (HDL up to 63) but lp(a) unchanged at 49.

I've done lots of reseach on this and the only other product I can find that claims to reduce lp(a) is policosonal which I my try next.

This Pauling regime is unproven but seems to have a lot of good things said about it - it also has no known side effects and is cheap. My cardiologist considers it a fair disgrace that this regime has not been better examined over the last ten years and is effectively blaming the Pharm Industry who are not interested in such a regime as it can't be patented and would compromise exsisting revenues from statins etc!!!!

I don't know but I suspect in the absesce of alternatives anyone with high lp(a) should be on the Pauling Regime.

Anyone else care to comment??

hi..i took that scan and my score was 136, hubbies 165.dr. wasnt happy, what did your dr. say about test?do you have other risk factors besides LP(a)(what is that?). do you smoke or have family history?thanks

Thank you for your reply paulus_greg.

It makes me feel a lot better that there are others out there who are having to make decisions around something that is considered a "suspected but not quite proven" threat i.e. LP(a).

Upon my results being high, I have asked my father to check his LP(a) as well. He has had moderately elavated Cholestrol for some years now and had been taking a cholestrol lowering drug (I am not sure which). And to our surprise his LP(a) upon his first time testing of measured at 100. Now my concern is whether he should start Niacin like me, and also consider starting "therapeutic" doses of Pauling therapy (3-6 gr of Vitamin C + 3-6 gr of Lysine/Proline per day). He also tested for Homocysteine for the first time ever, and that was also slightly elevated at 11. For that he is going to need a B-Complex supplement.

So these LP(a) and Homocysteine levels, combined with his chronically high blood pressure for the last 18 years, say in theory my father should be a ticking timebomb for a heart attack (he is now 57). The only thing he's got going for him is being a regular excerciser for the last 15 years and being a regular mealtime red-wine drinker since early adulthood.

But now I want to know for sure where he really stands before something awful happens to let us know. I also think we should now before unleashing this "crazy" pill/supplement regiment on him for the rest of his life. But my concern for him is not something to scoff at. His grandfather died at 33 from heart attack, and his 2 uncles died in their early 40s. His own father lived until 73 and died from Stroke.

So I am thinking about sending him to get checked via CT. How effective is this Ultrafast CT in detecting the current state of a possible heart disease? I heard that it exposes one to a radiation level equal to 3 chest exrays. Is this level of any concern?

By the way, I myself have started the Pauling Regiment for my LP(a) levels (147). I am going for now with a "preventative doze" of 3gr-C, 1.5gr-Lysine, 1.5gr-Proline, 3gr-FishOilTablets (not pauling but still good). These are daily totals, which I spread over 3 times a day. The daily mutlti-vitamin I take also has enough B-vitamins to do the trick against homocysein.

Too bad as paulus_greg stated, we can't even really know of all this preventative nutritional supplementation is really working, especially the Pauling therapy as they don't have any human trials other than subjetive testimonials of already sick people fighting to extend their life. (Or can we actually see a therapy effect via repeated future UltrafastCT readings?).

phja,

LP(a) is an LDL molecule coated with a sticky-protein glue called Apo(a). It is often referred to as a "sticky cholestrol" as the Apo(a) has a strong tendency to bind to cracks in the arteries. The levels of it in your body are not effected by diet as normal cholestrol is. It is manufactured in our liver by our own body and its levels are genetically determined.

There was no clear consencus on what it means to one's cardiovascular health until recently when a number of reputable studies (Oxford heart study, Framingham study, Quebec men's study etc.) have confirmed it as a n independent risk for heart disease.

Thanks for your comments.

To answer a couple of your questions:

My only other risk factor is a father who died from an MI at 53. I would guess he had high LDL and lp(a). Strangy enough though there seems no other heart disease in the family. His brother died only this year at 78 from an infection and had no hint of heart disease.

All my other test results - HDL(63),Trigs(31),Homocystiene(6.3),CRP( 0.33), BP (130/80)etc are supposed to be good. I don't smoke and do excercise and am slim.

My LDL is reasonable now at 113 but even previously was only moderately high. However despite all the above I still scored at high 266 on EBCT and my Cardiologist thinks it's a direct result of high lp(a) at 51.

To try to counter the problem I now take vitimin C @2gr, Vit E @ 500iu, Lysine and proline at 2Gr/1Gr,
CoQ10 @100mg, Niacin at 1000mg, and Ginko Biloba. Plus a good Multi Vit/Mineral tablet. I feel it is a hugh benifit to me. I know I feel better and that me BP and pulse rate are lower than they use to be.

As for the EBCT... i have read that a lot of doctors still consider it controversal. My cardiologist considers it valuable but notes that it does deliver a higher radiation than x-ray. I think it's limitation is that it does'nt actually measure fat in the arteries but just calcium. It treats calcium as a marker for fat. Limitation is that plaque that has calcified is generally regarded as 'stable' and not normally a problem. It is the non calcified 'vulnerable' plaque which tends to rupture and cause heart attacks. The EBCT assumes that where there is calcified plaque then there is also 'vulnerable' plaque. I guess that is a fair assumption but the exact relationship between the two is not really known and hence all the controversy. I guess that makes it a less the ideal tool for the on-going tracking of plaque build up.

anyhow .. good luck to you all