Lp(a) Market and Industry Landscape

Introduction

The Lp(a) market is emerging from decades of relative neglect. For years, the combination of limited treatment options and inadequate awareness kept Lp(a) on the periphery of cardiovascular care. That dynamic is changing rapidly as pharmaceutical companies invest billions in Lp(a)-lowering therapies, diagnostic companies refine assay standards, and guidelines increasingly mandate testing.

This article examines the competitive landscape of Lp(a) drug development, the evolution of diagnostic testing, guideline trajectories, and advocacy efforts shaping the field. Understanding these market forces helps patients anticipate when treatments will become available and how access will be determined.

Which companies are leading Lp(a) drug development?

Two pharmaceutical giants dominate late-stage Lp(a) drug development. Novartis, in partnership with Ionis Pharmaceuticals, is developing pelacarsen, an antisense oligonucleotide currently in the Phase 3 HORIZON trial. Amgen is advancing olpasiran, a small interfering RNA agent in the Phase 3 OCEAN(a) trial. Both trials enroll patients with established cardiovascular disease and elevated Lp(a), with results expected in 2025-2027.

Behind these leaders, several other companies are developing competing therapies. Silence Therapeutics has advanced SLN360 through Phase 1 with promising efficacy data. Eli Lilly is developing LY3819469, another siRNA candidate. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals has lepodisiran in Phase 2 development. This competitive landscape suggests that if the first entrants succeed, multiple treatment options will eventually reach the market.

The pharmaceutical investment reflects the substantial market opportunity. With roughly one billion people globally estimated to have elevated Lp(a), and growing recognition of Lp(a) as an undertreated risk factor, analysts project the Lp(a) therapeutic market could reach several billion dollars annually if outcomes trials succeed.

What is Novartis versus Amgen’s competitive position?

Novartis and Amgen have approached Lp(a) with different molecular platforms that may ultimately differentiate their products. Pelacarsen uses antisense oligonucleotide technology requiring monthly subcutaneous injections. Olpasiran uses siRNA technology that produces more profound Lp(a) lowering with quarterly dosing. The siRNA approach achieves greater than 95% Lp(a) reduction compared to approximately 80% with the ASO approach (Tsimikas et al., 2021).

From a commercial standpoint, dosing frequency and efficacy magnitude could influence market share, though clinical outcomes data will ultimately determine value. If both trials succeed, payers and physicians will consider efficacy, safety, convenience, and cost. If only one succeeds, that platform will establish the standard of care.

Both companies have extensive cardiovascular portfolios and established relationships with cardiologists. Novartis markets Entresto for heart failure and Leqvio (inclisiran) for LDL lowering. Amgen markets Repatha (evolocumab), a PCSK9 inhibitor that modestly reduces Lp(a) in addition to LDL. These existing franchises provide infrastructure for Lp(a) therapy commercialization.

How does Lp(a) fit into each company’s cardiovascular portfolio?

For Novartis, pelacarsen represents an expansion of their nucleic acid therapeutics platform developed with Ionis. The company has already navigated FDA approval and commercial launch with inclisiran, providing relevant experience for pelacarsen’s potential trajectory. Lp(a) fits logically alongside their existing lipid-lowering assets.

Amgen’s PCSK9 inhibitor Repatha already provides modest Lp(a) lowering alongside its primary LDL effects. Post-hoc analysis from the FOURIER trial showed that higher baseline Lp(a) patients derived greater benefit from evolocumab (Szarek et al., 2020). Olpasiran would complement Repatha by providing dedicated Lp(a) lowering for patients whose residual risk stems primarily from Lp(a).

For both companies, Lp(a) represents a significant commercial opportunity with high scientific validity. The genetic evidence supporting Lp(a) causality is strong, meaning the probability of outcomes trial success may be higher than for less-validated targets. This favorable risk-benefit calculation has attracted substantial investment.

What is the total addressable market for Lp(a) therapies?

Market sizing for Lp(a) therapies depends on several assumptions: prevalence of elevated Lp(a), proportion who will be tested, proportion who qualify for treatment based on labeling, pricing, and uptake rates. Conservative estimates suggest 60-80 million people globally have both elevated Lp(a) and established cardiovascular disease, representing the initial target population.

Analyst projections for peak annual sales range from $3-10 billion depending on assumptions. For context, PCSK9 inhibitors reached approximately $2 billion in annual sales after initial access barriers moderated. Lp(a) therapies might follow a similar trajectory, with initial restrictions giving way to broader use as evidence accumulates and guidelines evolve.

The primary prevention market remains uncertain. Initial approvals will likely be limited to secondary prevention based on trial populations. Expansion to primary prevention would dramatically increase the addressable population but would require additional evidence and guideline support.

Who are the leading Lp(a) assay manufacturers?

Laboratory testing for Lp(a) is offered by multiple diagnostic companies using various methodologies. Roche, Siemens, and Beckman Coulter produce widely used immunoassays available in hospital and reference laboratories. Specialized lipid testing laboratories like Boston Heart Diagnostics and Quest offer dedicated Lp(a) panels with detailed reporting.

The critical technical challenge is isoform sensitivity. Because apolipoprotein(a) varies dramatically in size, some assays over- or under-estimate Lp(a) concentration depending on the individual’s predominant isoform. The European Atherosclerosis Society has called for isoform-insensitive assays and standardization to improve clinical utility (Kronenberg et al., 2022).

For patients, the practical implication is that results from different laboratories may not be directly comparable. When tracking Lp(a) over time (which is rarely necessary given genetic stability), using the same laboratory and assay method improves consistency.

---

Discover the tests and treatments that could save your life

Get our unbiased and comprehensive report on the latest techniques for heart disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.

---

Is there movement toward standardized assays?

The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry has established a reference material for Lp(a) measurement, and efforts to harmonize assays across manufacturers are ongoing. The goal is to enable consistent results regardless of which laboratory performs the test, similar to how cholesterol measurements have been standardized.

Progress has been gradual. Manufacturers have commercial incentives to differentiate their assays rather than commoditize them. However, the prospect of Lp(a) therapies with specific treatment thresholds is accelerating standardization efforts. If drug labeling specifies treatment initiation at a particular Lp(a) level, consistent measurement becomes essential.

The 2022 EAS consensus statement explicitly recommends using assays calibrated against WHO/IFCC reference material and reporting results in nmol/L when possible (Kronenberg et al., 2022). As guideline recommendations strengthen, laboratory compliance with these standards should improve.

Will companion diagnostics be required for new therapies?

Companion diagnostics are tests required alongside a therapeutic to identify patients who qualify for treatment. For Lp(a) therapies, a companion diagnostic seems likely given that the drugs specifically target patients with elevated Lp(a). The practical question is whether existing laboratory assays will suffice or whether FDA will require a specific approved diagnostic.

The precedent from PCSK9 inhibitor approvals suggests that standard laboratory testing may be acceptable if measurement is reliable. Evolocumab and alirocumab were approved without formal companion diagnostics, though LDL cholesterol testing was obviously required to identify patients meeting treatment thresholds.

For pharmaceutical companies, navigating companion diagnostic requirements adds complexity and cost to development programs. For patients, the ultimate goal is ensuring that those with elevated Lp(a) can be reliably identified and offered appropriate treatment.

What do current ACC/AHA guidelines say about Lp(a) testing?

American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines have progressively strengthened recommendations for Lp(a) testing. The 2018 cholesterol management guideline designated Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor” that could inform treatment intensity decisions for intermediate-risk patients. More recent expert consensus documents have recommended broader testing.

The 2024 NLA scientific statement on Lp(a) recommends measuring Lp(a) at least once in all adults to identify those with elevated levels (Koschinsky et al., 2024). This represents a significant strengthening of prior recommendations and aligns with European guidance. Implementation remains uneven, but the direction is clear.

For patients, current guidelines provide strong justification for requesting Lp(a) testing even if physicians don’t routinely order it. Reference to guideline recommendations can help when navigating insurance coverage or convincing providers of testing value.

What do European ESC/EAS guidelines recommend?

European guidelines have generally been more aggressive than American guidelines regarding Lp(a). The 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines on dyslipidemia recommended that Lp(a) be measured at least once in each adult’s lifetime to identify those with very high inherited Lp(a) levels. The 2022 EAS consensus statement reinforced this recommendation and provided detailed guidance on measurement and clinical interpretation (Kronenberg et al., 2022).

European recommendations specifically identify Lp(a) above 50 mg/dL (125 nmol/L) as conferring cardiovascular risk comparable to heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. This framing emphasizes that elevated Lp(a) represents a serious, inherited condition warranting aggressive risk factor management.

The transatlantic gap in guideline strength has narrowed in recent years. As Lp(a)-specific therapies approach approval, guidelines in both regions will likely converge on strong testing recommendations with specific treatment thresholds.

How are guidelines likely to evolve after outcomes trials?

If the HORIZON and OCEAN(a) trials demonstrate that Lp(a) lowering reduces cardiovascular events, guidelines will likely add specific treatment recommendations for elevated Lp(a). The pattern following PCSK9 inhibitor outcomes trials provides a template: initial recommendations focused on high-risk patients with subsequent expansion as evidence and experience accumulated.

Guideline updates typically occur within 1-2 years of pivotal trial publication. Professional societies convene writing committees, review evidence, achieve consensus, and publish updated recommendations. The ACC/AHA and ESC/EAS guideline cycles may not perfectly align with drug approval timing.

For patients with elevated Lp(a), the practical implication is that guidelines will likely lag behind FDA approval. Early access may require proactive engagement with specialists who stay current with emerging evidence rather than waiting for formal guideline updates.

---

Discover the tests and treatments that could save your life

Get our unbiased and comprehensive report on the latest techniques for heart disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.

---

Who are the key opinion leaders shaping Lp(a) guidelines?

Several researchers and clinicians have been instrumental in advancing Lp(a) science and clinical practice. Sotirios Tsimikas at UC San Diego has led much of the translational research connecting Lp(a) and oxidized phospholipids to cardiovascular outcomes. Florian Kronenberg in Innsbruck has been central to European guideline development. Marlys Koschinsky in Canada has contributed fundamental biochemistry research.

Clinical trial leadership includes investigators at major academic medical centers conducting the HORIZON and OCEAN(a) trials. These individuals shape how evidence is generated, interpreted, and translated into practice recommendations. For patients seeking the most current care, identifying physicians connected to these research networks can be valuable.

The Lp(a) research community remains relatively small compared to fields like LDL cholesterol management. This concentration of expertise means that guideline recommendations often reflect consensus among a defined group of specialists with deep understanding of the evidence.

What patient advocacy organizations exist for Lp(a)?

Patient advocacy for Lp(a) awareness has grown alongside scientific recognition of its importance. The Lipoprotein(a) Foundation, founded by patients and researchers, provides educational resources and supports research funding. Family Heart Foundation, focused primarily on familial hypercholesterolemia, also addresses Lp(a) given the overlap in affected populations.

These organizations serve multiple functions: educating patients about their condition, connecting affected individuals into communities, advocating for improved screening and treatment access, and supporting research through fundraising and patient registry development. Engaged patients often learn about emerging therapies and clinical trials through these networks.

For patients newly diagnosed with elevated Lp(a), advocacy organizations provide accessible information and peer support. For those seeking to influence the pace of change, these organizations offer channels for collective advocacy that can influence payer policies, guideline priorities, and research investment.

How can patients influence screening recommendations?

Patient voices increasingly matter in healthcare policy. Professional societies often include patient representatives in guideline development. Regulatory agencies like FDA consider patient testimony in approval decisions. Payers respond to member complaints about coverage denials. These channels provide opportunities for patients to advocate for improved Lp(a) care.

Specific actions include: providing public comments during guideline updates, participating in FDA advisory committee meetings, appealing insurance denials and documenting the appeals process, sharing personal stories with legislators, and contributing to patient registries that generate real-world evidence.

Collective advocacy through patient organizations amplifies individual voices. The history of rare disease advocacy demonstrates that organized patient communities can accelerate drug development, influence regulatory decisions, and improve insurance coverage. While elevated Lp(a) affects roughly one billion people globally, it remains under-recognized, creating opportunities for advocacy to make a difference.

Conclusion

The Lp(a) market is at an inflection point. Decades of scientific research are converging with pharmaceutical investment to produce what may be the first effective Lp(a)-lowering therapies. Diagnostic standards are improving. Guidelines are strengthening. Patient awareness is growing.

For patients with elevated Lp(a), understanding this landscape provides context for personal healthcare decisions. The companies developing therapies, the timelines for trial results and approvals, the guideline bodies that will shape practice, and the advocacy organizations working to improve care all factor into what options will be available and when.

The next several years will be decisive for the Lp(a) field. Outcomes trials will either validate the treatment hypothesis or force reconsideration. Guidelines will update. Coverage policies will evolve. Staying informed about these dynamics helps patients advocate for themselves within a rapidly changing healthcare environment. The resources section provides guidance on tracking these developments over time.