Elliott Wolin1, Justin White1, James V Pottala2, Maciek Sasinowski1, Tara Dall1, Thomas D Dayspring1, Joseph P McConnell1, Daniel M Hoefner1, Stephen A Varvel1, Dawn L Thiselton1, G Russell Warnick1, William S Harris3. 1. Department of Research and Development, Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc., Richmond, VA, USA. 2. Department of Research and Development, Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc., Richmond, VA, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, SD, USA. 3. Department of Research and Development, Health Diagnostic Laboratory, Inc., Richmond, VA, USA; Department of Internal Medicine, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, SD, USA. Electronic address: bharris@hdlabinc.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical laboratory patient databases are an untapped source of valuable diagnostic and prognostic information. However, the lack of associated clinical and/or demographic information and questionable generalizability to nonpatient populations often limit utility of these data. OBJECTIVES: This study compared levels of cardiometabolic biomarkers between a national clinical laboratory patient cohort (Health Diagnostic Laboratory [HD Lab]) and the US population as inferred from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 2011-2012). METHODS: Sample sizes for HD Lab ranged from 199,000 to 739,000 and for NHANES from 2200 to 5300. The latter were weighted to represent the adult US population (∼220 million). Descriptive statistics were compared for body mass index, 5 lipid biomarkers, and 3 glycemic biomarkers. RESULTS: Using age- and sex-matched data, mean biomarker values (mg/dL unless noted) and percent differences (%) for HD Lab vs NHANES were body mass index (kg/m(2)), 29.1 vs 28.6 (1.7%); total cholesterol, 185 vs 193 (-4.1%); apolipoprotein B, 92 vs 90 (2.2%); low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, 107 vs 115 (-7%); high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, 53 vs 53 (0%); triglycerides, 128 vs 127 (0.8%); glucose, 99 vs 108 (-8.3%); insulin (uU/mL), 13.7 vs 13.4 (2.2%); and hemoglobin A1c (%), 5.6 vs 5.8 (-3.4%). Although all differences were statistically significant, only low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and glucose differed by more than 5%. These may reflect a greater use of medications among HD Lab patients and/or preanalytical factors. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiometabolic risk markers from a national clinical laboratory were broadly similar to those of the US population; thus, with certain caveats, data from the former may be generalizable to the latter.
BACKGROUND: Clinical laboratory patient databases are an untapped source of valuable diagnostic and prognostic information. However, the lack of associated clinical and/or demographic information and questionable generalizability to nonpatient populations often limit utility of these data. OBJECTIVES: This study compared levels of cardiometabolic biomarkers between a national clinical laboratory patient cohort (Health Diagnostic Laboratory [HD Lab]) and the US population as inferred from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 2011-2012). METHODS: Sample sizes for HD Lab ranged from 199,000 to 739,000 and for NHANES from 2200 to 5300. The latter were weighted to represent the adult US population (∼220 million). Descriptive statistics were compared for body mass index, 5 lipid biomarkers, and 3 glycemic biomarkers. RESULTS: Using age- and sex-matched data, mean biomarker values (mg/dL unless noted) and percent differences (%) for HD Lab vs NHANES were body mass index (kg/m(2)), 29.1 vs 28.6 (1.7%); total cholesterol, 185 vs 193 (-4.1%); apolipoprotein B, 92 vs 90 (2.2%); low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, 107 vs 115 (-7%); high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, 53 vs 53 (0%); triglycerides, 128 vs 127 (0.8%); glucose, 99 vs 108 (-8.3%); insulin (uU/mL), 13.7 vs 13.4 (2.2%); and hemoglobin A1c (%), 5.6 vs 5.8 (-3.4%). Although all differences were statistically significant, only low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and glucose differed by more than 5%. These may reflect a greater use of medications among HD Lab patients and/or preanalytical factors. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiometabolic risk markers from a national clinical laboratory were broadly similar to those of the US population; thus, with certain caveats, data from the former may be generalizable to the latter.