Literature DB >> 21777740

Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol versus apolipoprotein B in cardiovascular risk stratification: do the math.

Vimal Ramjee1, Laurence S Sperling, Terry A Jacobson.   

Abstract

With the emergence of new lipid risk markers and a growing cardiometabolic risk burden in the United States, there is a need to better integrate residual risk into cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk stratification. In anticipation of the Adult Treatment Panel IV (ATP IV) guidelines from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP), there exists controversy regarding the comparative performance of the 2 foremost markers, apolipoprotein B (apoB) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), as they relate to the current standard of risk assessment and treatment: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Although some emerging markers may demonstrate better performance compared with LDL-C, certain fundamental characteristics intrinsic to a beneficial biomarker must be met prior to routine use. Collectively, studies have found that non-HDL-C and apoB perform better than LDL-C in CVD risk prediction, both on- and off-treatment, as well as in subclinical CVD risk prediction. The performance of non-HDL-C compared with apoB, however, has been a point of ongoing debate. Although both offer the practical benefits of accuracy independent of triglyceride level and prandial state, non-HDL-C proves to be the better marker of choice at this time, given established cutpoints with safe and achievable goals, no additional cost, and quick time to result with an easy mathematical calculation. The purpose of this review is to assess the performance of these parameters in this context and to discuss the considerations of implementation into clinical practice.
Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21777740     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.05.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  44 in total

Review 1.  Molecular sources of residual cardiovascular risk, clinical signals, and innovative solutions: relationship with subclinical disease, undertreatment, and poor adherence: implications of new evidence upon optimizing cardiovascular patient outcomes.

Authors:  Richard Kones
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2013-10-21

Review 2.  Emerging risk biomarkers in cardiovascular diseases and disorders.

Authors:  Ravi Kant Upadhyay
Journal:  J Lipids       Date:  2015-04-08

3.  Non-HDL Cholesterol Levels in Childhood and Carotid Intima-Media Thickness in Adulthood.

Authors:  Markus Juonala; Feitong Wu; Alan Sinaiko; Jessica G Woo; Elaine M Urbina; David Jacobs; Julia Steinberger; Ronald Prineas; Juha Koskinen; Matthew A Sabin; David P Burgner; Trudy L Burns; Lydia Bazzano; Alison Venn; Jorma S A Viikari; Nina Hutri-Kähönen; Stephen R Daniels; Terence Dwyer; Olli T Raitakari; Costan G Magnussen
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2020-03-24       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 4.  Cardiovascular risk.

Authors:  Rupert A Payne
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 5.  The role of non-HDL cholesterol in risk stratification for coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Jamal S Rana; S Matthijs Boekholdt; John J P Kastelein; Prediman K Shah
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 5.113

6.  Relation of Combined Non-High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Apolipoprotein B With Atherosclerosis in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus.

Authors:  Petter Bjornstad; Robert H Eckel; Laura Pyle; Marian Rewers; David M Maahs; Janet K Snell-Bergeon
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 2.778

Review 7.  Approach to identifying and managing atherogenic dyslipidemia: a metabolic consequence of obesity and diabetes.

Authors:  N John Bosomworth
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.275

8.  Comparative impact of implementing the 2013 or 2014 cholesterol guideline on vascular events in a quality improvement network.

Authors:  Brent M Egan; Susan E Sutherland; William F Childers; Ruthanne M Dahlheimer; George A Helmrich; Daryl A Lapeyrolerie; Nancy Markle; Dennis W Murphy; Locke Simmons; Robert A Davis; Peter Tilkemeier; Angelo Sinopoli
Journal:  Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis       Date:  2016-01-04

9.  Health coaching by medical assistants to improve control of diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia in low-income patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Rachel Willard-Grace; Ellen H Chen; Danielle Hessler; Denise DeVore; Camille Prado; Thomas Bodenheimer; David H Thom
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 5.166

10.  Discordance between non-HDL-cholesterol and LDL-particle measurements: results from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.

Authors:  Emil M Degoma; Mat D Davis; Richard L Dunbar; Emile R Mohler; Philip Greenland; Benjamin French
Journal:  Atherosclerosis       Date:  2013-03-26       Impact factor: 5.162

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.