BACKGROUND: The amount of cholesterol per low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle is variable and related in part to particle size, with smaller particles carrying less cholesterol. This variability causes concentrations of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and LDL particles (LDL-P) to be discordant in many individuals. METHODS: LDL-P measured by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, calculated LDL-C, and carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) were assessed at baseline in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, a community-based cohort of 6814 persons free of clinical cardiovascular disease (CVD) at entry and followed for CVD events (n = 319 during 5.5-year follow-up). Discordance, defined as values of LDL-P and LDL-C differing by ≥ 12 percentile units to give equal-sized concordant and discordant subgroups, was related to CVD events and to carotid IMT in models predicting outcomes for a 1 SD difference in LDL-C or LDL-P, adjusted for age, gender, and race. RESULTS: LDL-C and LDL-P were associated with incident CVD overall: hazard ratios (HR 1.20, 95% CI [CI] 1.08-1.34; and 1.32, 95% CI 1.19-1.47, respectively, but for those with discordant levels, only LDL-P was associated with incident CVD (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19-1.78; LDL-C HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88-1.30). IMT also tracked with LDL-P rather than LDL-C, ie, adjusted mean IMT of 958, 932, and 917 microm in the LDL-P > LDL-C discordant, concordant, and LDL-P < LDL-C discordant subgroups, respectively, with the difference persisting after adjustment for LDL-C (P = .002) but not LDL-P (P = .60). CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with discordant LDL-C and LDL-P levels, the LDL-attributable atherosclerotic risk is better indicated by LDL-P.
BACKGROUND: The amount of cholesterol per low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle is variable and related in part to particle size, with smaller particles carrying less cholesterol. This variability causes concentrations of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and LDL particles (LDL-P) to be discordant in many individuals. METHODS:LDL-P measured by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, calculated LDL-C, and carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) were assessed at baseline in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, a community-based cohort of 6814 persons free of clinical cardiovascular disease (CVD) at entry and followed for CVD events (n = 319 during 5.5-year follow-up). Discordance, defined as values of LDL-P and LDL-C differing by ≥ 12 percentile units to give equal-sized concordant and discordant subgroups, was related to CVD events and to carotid IMT in models predicting outcomes for a 1 SD difference in LDL-C or LDL-P, adjusted for age, gender, and race. RESULTS:LDL-C and LDL-P were associated with incident CVD overall: hazard ratios (HR 1.20, 95% CI [CI] 1.08-1.34; and 1.32, 95% CI 1.19-1.47, respectively, but for those with discordant levels, only LDL-P was associated with incident CVD (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19-1.78; LDL-C HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88-1.30). IMT also tracked with LDL-P rather than LDL-C, ie, adjusted mean IMT of 958, 932, and 917 microm in the LDL-P > LDL-C discordant, concordant, and LDL-P < LDL-C discordant subgroups, respectively, with the difference persisting after adjustment for LDL-C (P = .002) but not LDL-P (P = .60). CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with discordant LDL-C and LDL-P levels, the LDL-attributable atherosclerotic risk is better indicated by LDL-P.
Authors: John D Brunzell; Michael Davidson; Curt D Furberg; Ronald B Goldberg; Barbara V Howard; James H Stein; Joseph L Witztum Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-04-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: William E Kraus; Joseph A Houmard; Brian D Duscha; Kenneth J Knetzger; Michelle B Wharton; Jennifer S McCartney; Connie W Bales; Sarah Henes; Gregory P Samsa; James D Otvos; Krishnaji R Kulkarni; Cris A Slentz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-11-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Allan D Sniderman; Annie C St-Pierre; Bernard Cantin; Gilles R Dagenais; Jean-Pierre Després; Benoît Lamarche Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2003-05-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: D H O'Leary; J F Polak; R A Kronmal; P J Savage; N O Borhani; S J Kittner; R Tracy; J M Gardin; T R Price; C D Furberg Journal: Stroke Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: William C Cromwell; James D Otvos; Michelle J Keyes; Michael J Pencina; Lisa Sullivan; Ramachandran S Vasan; Peter W F Wilson; Ralph B D'Agostino Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 4.766
Authors: Anuja Dokras; Martin Playford; Penny M Kris-Etherton; Allen R Kunselman; Christy M Stetter; Nancy I Williams; Carol L Gnatuk; Stephanie J Estes; David B Sarwer; Kelly C Allison; Christos Coutifaris; Nehal Mehta; Richard S Legro Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: Anastasia-Stefania Alexopoulos; Ali Qamar; Kathryn Hutchins; Matthew J Crowley; Bryan C Batch; John R Guyton Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 4.810
Authors: Janet M Catov; Rachel H Mackey; Christina M Scifres; Marnie Bertolet; Hyagriv N Simhan Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Ron C Hoogeveen; John W Gaubatz; Wensheng Sun; Rhiannon C Dodge; Jacy R Crosby; Jennifer Jiang; David Couper; Salim S Virani; Sekar Kathiresan; Eric Boerwinkle; Christie M Ballantyne Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2014-02-20 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Ying Zhang; Alicia J Jenkins; Arpita Basu; Julie A Stoner; Maria F Lopes-Virella; Richard L Klein; Timothy J Lyons Journal: J Lipid Res Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 5.922
Authors: Alexis Nasr; Karen A Matthews; Maria M Brooks; Daniel S McConnell; Trevor J Orchard; Jeffrey Billheimer; Daniel J Rader; Samar R El Khoudary Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 4.766