Samia Mora1, Julie E Buring, Paul M Ridker. 1. Divisions of Preventive (S.M., J.E.B., P.M.R.) and Cardiovascular Medicine (S.M., P.M.R.), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is the traditional measure of risk attributable to LDL. Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (NHDL-C), apolipoprotein B (apoB), and LDL particle number (LDL-P) are alternative measures of LDL-related risk. However, the clinical utility of these measures may only become apparent among individuals for whom levels are inconsistent (discordant) with LDL-C. METHODS AND RESULTS: LDL-C was measured directly, NHDL-C was calculated, apoB was measured with immunoassay, and LDL-P was measured with nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy among 27 533 healthy women (median follow-up 17.2 years; 1070 incident coronary events). Participants were grouped by median LDL-C (121 mg/dL) and each of NHDL-C, apoB, and LDL-P. Discordance was defined as LDL-C greater than or equal to the median and the alternative measure less than the median, or vice versa. Despite high LDL-C correlations with NHDL-C, apoB, and LDL-P (r=0.910, 0.785, and 0.692; all P<0.0001), prevalence of LDL-C discordance as defined by median cut points was 11.6%, 18.9%, and 24.3% for NHDL-C, apoB, and LDL-P, respectively. Among women with LDL-C less than the median, coronary risk was underestimated for women with discordant (greater than or equal to the median) NHDL-C (age-adjusted hazard ratio, 2.92; 95% confidence interval, 2.33-3.67), apoB (2.48, 2.01-3.07), or LDL-P (2.32, 1.88-2.85) compared with women with concordant levels. Conversely, among women with LDL-C greater than or equal to the median, risk was overestimated for women with discordant (less than the median) NHDL-C (0.40, 0.29-0.57), apoB (0.34, 0.26-0.46), or LDL-P (0.42, 0.33-0.53). After multivariable adjustment for potentially mediating factors, including HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary risk remained underestimated or overestimated by ≈20% to 50% for women with discordant levels. CONCLUSIONS: For women with discordant LDL-related measures, coronary risk may be underestimated or overestimated when LDL-C alone is used. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000479.
BACKGROUND: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is the traditional measure of risk attributable to LDL. Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (NHDL-C), apolipoprotein B (apoB), and LDL particle number (LDL-P) are alternative measures of LDL-related risk. However, the clinical utility of these measures may only become apparent among individuals for whom levels are inconsistent (discordant) with LDL-C. METHODS AND RESULTS:LDL-C was measured directly, NHDL-C was calculated, apoB was measured with immunoassay, and LDL-P was measured with nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy among 27 533 healthy women (median follow-up 17.2 years; 1070 incident coronary events). Participants were grouped by median LDL-C (121 mg/dL) and each of NHDL-C, apoB, and LDL-P. Discordance was defined as LDL-C greater than or equal to the median and the alternative measure less than the median, or vice versa. Despite high LDL-C correlations with NHDL-C, apoB, and LDL-P (r=0.910, 0.785, and 0.692; all P<0.0001), prevalence of LDL-C discordance as defined by median cut points was 11.6%, 18.9%, and 24.3% for NHDL-C, apoB, and LDL-P, respectively. Among women with LDL-C less than the median, coronary risk was underestimated for women with discordant (greater than or equal to the median) NHDL-C (age-adjusted hazard ratio, 2.92; 95% confidence interval, 2.33-3.67), apoB (2.48, 2.01-3.07), or LDL-P (2.32, 1.88-2.85) compared with women with concordant levels. Conversely, among women with LDL-C greater than or equal to the median, risk was overestimated for women with discordant (less than the median) NHDL-C (0.40, 0.29-0.57), apoB (0.34, 0.26-0.46), or LDL-P (0.42, 0.33-0.53). After multivariable adjustment for potentially mediating factors, including HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, coronary risk remained underestimated or overestimated by ≈20% to 50% for women with discordant levels. CONCLUSIONS: For women with discordant LDL-related measures, coronary risk may be underestimated or overestimated when LDL-C alone is used. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000479.
Authors: Philip Greenland; Joseph S Alpert; George A Beller; Emelia J Benjamin; Matthew J Budoff; Zahi A Fayad; Elyse Foster; Mark A Hlatky; John McB Hodgson; Frederick G Kushner; Michael S Lauer; Leslee J Shaw; Sidney C Smith; Allen J Taylor; William S Weintraub; Nanette K Wenger; Alice K Jacobs Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John D Brunzell; Michael Davidson; Curt D Furberg; Ronald B Goldberg; Barbara V Howard; James H Stein; Joseph L Witztum Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Iris Shai; Eric B Rimm; Susan E Hankinson; Gary Curhan; JoAnn E Manson; Nader Rifai; Meir J Stampfer; Jing Ma Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-10-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: James D Otvos; Samia Mora; Irina Shalaurova; Philip Greenland; Rachel H Mackey; David C Goff Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2011 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.766
Authors: Paul M Ridker; Nancy R Cook; I-Min Lee; David Gordon; J Michael Gaziano; Joann E Manson; Charles H Hennekens; Julie E Buring Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Todd J Anderson; Jean Grégoire; Robert A Hegele; Patrick Couture; G B John Mancini; Ruth McPherson; Gordon A Francis; Paul Poirier; David C Lau; Steven Grover; Jacques Genest; André C Carpentier; Robert Dufour; Milan Gupta; Richard Ward; Lawrence A Leiter; Eva Lonn; Dominic S Ng; Glen J Pearson; Gillian M Yates; James A Stone; Ehud Ur Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 5.223
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: 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: Audrey Y Chu; Franco Giulianini; Bryan J Barratt; Bo Ding; Fredrik Nyberg; Samia Mora; Paul M Ridker; Daniel I Chasman Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2015-08-13
Authors: Renato Quispe; Mohamed B Elshazly; Di Zhao; Peter P Toth; Rishi Puri; Salim S Virani; Roger S Blumenthal; Seth S Martin; Steven R Jones; Erin D Michos Journal: Eur J Prev Cardiol Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 7.804
Authors: Ann J Melvin; Grace Montepiedra; Lisa Aaron; William A Meyer; Hans M Spiegel; William Borkowsky; Mark J Abzug; Brookie M Best; Marilyn J Crain; Peggy R Borum; Bobbie Graham; Patricia Anthony; Katherine Shin; George K Siberry Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Safi U Khan; Muhammad U Khan; Shahul Valavoor; Muhammad Shahzeb Khan; Victor Okunrintemi; Mamas A Mamas; Thorsten M Leucker; Michael J Blaha; Erin D Michos Journal: Eur J Prev Cardiol Date: 2019-09-02 Impact factor: 7.804
Authors: Elaine M Urbina; Connie E McCoy; Zhiqian Gao; Philip R Khoury; Amy S Shah; Lawrence M Dolan; Thomas R Kimball Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2017-06-03 Impact factor: 4.766
Authors: Brian T Steffen; Weihua Guan; Alan T Remaley; James H Stein; Mathew C Tattersall; Joel Kaufman; Michael Y Tsai Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 4.766
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