Allan D Sniderman1, Peter P Toth2, George Thanassoulis3, Curt D Furberg4. 1. McGill University Health Centre-Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: allansniderman@hotmail.com. 2. The Department of Preventive Cardiology, CH Medical Center, Sterling, Illinois and Ciccarone Center for Cardiovascular Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. McGill University Health Centre-Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 4. Division of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The National Lipid Association (NLA) selected non-HDL-C as its prime index of the cardiovascular risk associated with the apoB lipoproteins. ApoB was recommended only as an optional secondary target after low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) targets were achieved. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this analysis were to determine whether (1) all relevant uses of apoB were considered by the NLA; (2) all the relevant evidence was considered by the NLA panel; and (3) all the evidence that was considered was interpreted correctly. RESULTS: (1) The utility of apoB in the diagnosis of the atherogenic dyslipoproteinemias was not considered. (2) All the relevant observational studies were not identified, and some that were cited were incorrectly interpreted. In particular, an equal hazard ratio for two markers in a group does not mean they will predict risk equally in individuals within the group in whom they are discordant. This matters because discordance analysis consistently demonstrates apoB and LDL particle number are more accurate measures of cardiovascular risk than LDL-C/non-HDL-C. (3) The target levels of apoB selected by the NLA are too high relative to the levels selected for LDL-C and non-HDL-C. CONCLUSIONS: The review of the evidence by the NLA was incomplete. More complete examination of the evidence indicates that apoB is a more accurate marker of cardiovascular risk than non-HDL-C and that the practice of lipidology would be improved by inclusion of apoB along with lipoprotein lipids in routine clinical care.
BACKGROUND: The National Lipid Association (NLA) selected non-HDL-C as its prime index of the cardiovascular risk associated with the apoB lipoproteins. ApoB was recommended only as an optional secondary target after low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) targets were achieved. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this analysis were to determine whether (1) all relevant uses of apoB were considered by the NLA; (2) all the relevant evidence was considered by the NLA panel; and (3) all the evidence that was considered was interpreted correctly. RESULTS: (1) The utility of apoB in the diagnosis of the atherogenic dyslipoproteinemias was not considered. (2) All the relevant observational studies were not identified, and some that were cited were incorrectly interpreted. In particular, an equal hazard ratio for two markers in a group does not mean they will predict risk equally in individuals within the group in whom they are discordant. This matters because discordance analysis consistently demonstrates apoB and LDL particle number are more accurate measures of cardiovascular risk than LDL-C/non-HDL-C. (3) The target levels of apoB selected by the NLA are too high relative to the levels selected for LDL-C and non-HDL-C. CONCLUSIONS: The review of the evidence by the NLA was incomplete. More complete examination of the evidence indicates that apoB is a more accurate marker of cardiovascular risk than non-HDL-C and that the practice of lipidology would be improved by inclusion of apoB along with lipoprotein lipids in routine clinical care.
Authors: Karol M Pencina; George Thanassoulis; John T Wilkins; Ramachandran S Vasan; Ann Marie Navar; Eric D Peterson; Michael J Pencina; Allan D Sniderman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Claire Welsh; Carlos A Celis-Morales; Rosemary Brown; Daniel F Mackay; James Lewsey; Patrick B Mark; Stuart R Gray; Lyn D Ferguson; Jana J Anderson; Donald M Lyall; John G Cleland; Pardeep S Jhund; Jason M R Gill; Jill P Pell; Naveed Sattar; Paul Welsh Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Nasir H Bhanpuri; Sarah J Hallberg; Paul T Williams; Amy L McKenzie; Kevin D Ballard; Wayne W Campbell; James P McCarter; Stephen D Phinney; Jeff S Volek Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 9.951
Authors: Piers Blackett; Kerry Farrell; Minh Truong; Minu George; Peggy Turner; Joane Less; Jonathan D Baldwin; Allen W Knehans Journal: Adv Prev Med Date: 2018-06-12
Authors: Katharina Lechner; Amy L McKenzie; Nicolle Kränkel; Clemens Von Schacky; Nicolai Worm; Uwe Nixdorff; Benjamin Lechner; Johannes Scherr; Oliver Weingärtner; Ronald M Krauss Journal: Metab Syndr Relat Disord Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 1.894