A central pillar of the Lp(a) International Taskforce’s work is the generation of robust health economic evidence to support policy and implementation. In this context, a landmark international study—commissioned by the Taskforce and published in Atherosclerosis - provides the first comprehensive evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of routine Lp(a) testing in primary prevention populations.
The study addresses a longstanding barrier to implementation: while scientific evidence has consistently demonstrated the causal role of Lp(a) in cardiovascular disease, the absence of economic data has limited its integration into policy frameworks and national screening strategies.
Using a state-of-the-art microsimulation model based on real-world and genetic data, the study demonstrates that incorporating Lp(a) testing into cardiovascular risk assessment enables more accurate risk stratification and earlier intervention, even in the absence of Lp(a)-specific therapies.
In practical terms, testing allows individuals with elevated Lp(a) to be reclassified into higher-risk categories, prompting earlier initiation of established preventive measures such as lipid-lowering and blood pressure therapies. This approach aligns with current scientific consensus, as outlined in international statements and reinforced through initiatives such as the Brussels International Declaration.
The findings provide clear and policy-relevant evidence of both clinical benefit and economic value.
In a representative cohort of 10,000 individuals:
From an economic perspective, the results are equally compelling. The study demonstrates that Lp(a) testing is:
At an individual level, this translates into net savings of approximately AU$85 and £263 per person, when both healthcare and societal costs are considered.
To assess generalisability, the analysis was extended to multiple high-income countries through cost adaptation modelling. The results were consistent across jurisdictions, with Lp(a) testing projected to be cost-saving in all evaluated healthcare systems, including those in Europe and North America.
This consistency is particularly relevant for policymakers, indicating that the value proposition of Lp(a) testing is not context-specific but scalable across diverse health system structures.
The findings directly address a critical policy question: whether routine Lp(a) testing represents an efficient allocation of healthcare resources. As demonstrated in this analysis, Lp(a) testing is not only clinically warranted but also delivers measurable return on investment, particularly when considered from a societal perspective.
As highlighted in the study and reinforced in accompanying policy discussions, this evidence supports:
Importantly, the study challenges the perception that screening is only valuable when a condition is directly treatable. Instead, it demonstrates that risk identification alone, when linked to existing preventive interventions, can deliver substantial health and economic benefits.
The cost-effectiveness analysis represents a critical milestone in the evolution of the Lp(a) field. Together with global initiatives such as the Brussels International Declaration [link] and the Global Lp(a) Summit [link], it provides a comprehensive foundation for moving from scientific consensus to policy implementation.
The evidence is now clear: routine Lp(a) testing is a scalable, cost-effective, and system-ready intervention. The remaining challenge lies in translating this evidence into coordinated policy action.