Paramjit K Sandhu1, Salma M A Musaad2, Alan T Remaley3, Stephanie S Buehler4, Sonya Strider1, James H Derzon5, Hubert W Vesper6, Anne Ranne1, Colleen S Shaw1, Robert H Christenson7. 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Laboratory Research and Evaluation Branch, Division of Laboratory Systems, Atlanta, GA. 2. Family Resiliency Center, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Champaign, IL. 3. National Institutes of Health, Lipoprotein Metabolism Laboratory, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, MD. 4. Battelle Health & Analytics, Columbus, OH. 5. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC. 6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Clinical Standardization Programs, Protein Biomarker and Lipid Reference Laboratory, Atlanta, GA. 7. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists about the incremental utility of nontraditional lipid biomarkers [e.g., apolipoprotein (apo) B, apo A-I, and non-HDL-C] in improving cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction when added to a conventional model of traditional risk factors (e.g., total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, sex, age, smoking status, and blood pressure). Here we present a systematic review that was conducted to assess the use of nontraditional lipid biomarkers including apo B, apo A-I, apo B/A-I ratio, and non-HDL-C in improving CVD risk prediction after controlling for the traditional risk factors in populations at risk for cardiovascular events. CONTENT: This systematic review used the Laboratory Medicine Best Practices (LMBP™) A-6 methods. A total of 9 relevant studies published before and including July 2015 comprised the evidence base for this review. Results from this systematic review indicated that after the adjustment for standard nonlipid and lipid CVD risk factors, nontraditional apolipoprotein biomarkers apo B (overall effect = relative risk: 1.31; 95% CI, 1.22-1.40; 4 studies) and apo B/apo A-I ratio (overall effect = relative risk: 1.31; 95% CI, 1.11-1.38; 7 studies) resulted in significant improvement in long-term CVD risk assessment. SUMMARY: Available evidence showed that nontraditional lipid biomarkers apo B and apo B/apo I ratio can improve the risk prediction for cardiovascular events after controlling for the traditional risk factors for the populations at risk. However, because of insufficient evidence, no conclusions could be made for the effectiveness of apo A-I and non-HDL-C lipid markers to predict the CVD events, indicating a need for more research in this field.
BACKGROUND: Controversy exists about the incremental utility of nontraditional lipid biomarkers [e.g., apolipoprotein (apo) B, apo A-I, and non-HDL-C] in improving cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction when added to a conventional model of traditional risk factors (e.g., total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, sex, age, smoking status, and blood pressure). Here we present a systematic review that was conducted to assess the use of nontraditional lipid biomarkers including apo B, apo A-I, apo B/A-I ratio, and non-HDL-C in improving CVD risk prediction after controlling for the traditional risk factors in populations at risk for cardiovascular events. CONTENT: This systematic review used the Laboratory Medicine Best Practices (LMBP™) A-6 methods. A total of 9 relevant studies published before and including July 2015 comprised the evidence base for this review. Results from this systematic review indicated that after the adjustment for standard nonlipid and lipid CVD risk factors, nontraditional apolipoprotein biomarkers apo B (overall effect = relative risk: 1.31; 95% CI, 1.22-1.40; 4 studies) and apo B/apo A-I ratio (overall effect = relative risk: 1.31; 95% CI, 1.11-1.38; 7 studies) resulted in significant improvement in long-term CVD risk assessment. SUMMARY: Available evidence showed that nontraditional lipid biomarkers apo B and apo B/apo I ratio can improve the risk prediction for cardiovascular events after controlling for the traditional risk factors for the populations at risk. However, because of insufficient evidence, no conclusions could be made for the effectiveness of apo A-I and non-HDL-C lipid markers to predict the CVD events, indicating a need for more research in this field.
Authors: Bruna Gigante; Karin Leander; Max Vikstrom; Paolo Frumento; Axel C Carlsson; Matteo Bottai; Ulf de Faire Journal: Heart Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 5.994
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: 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: Juan Xavier Masjoan Juncos; Shazia Shakil; Aamir Ahmad; Duha Aishah; Charity J Morgan; Louis J Dell'Italia; David A Ford; Aftab Ahmad; Shama Ahmad Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Alana E O'Mara; James W Johnson; Joyce D Linderman; Robert J Brychta; Suzanne McGehee; Laura A Fletcher; Yael A Fink; Devika Kapuria; Thomas M Cassimatis; Nathan Kelsey; Cheryl Cero; Zahraa Abdul Sater; Francesca Piccinini; Alison S Baskin; Brooks P Leitner; Hongyi Cai; Corina M Millo; William Dieckmann; Mary Walter; Norman B Javitt; Yaron Rotman; Peter J Walter; Marilyn Ader; Richard N Bergman; Peter Herscovitch; Kong Y Chen; Aaron M Cypess Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Nedra S Whitehead; Laurina Williams; Sreelatha Meleth; Sara Kennedy; Nneka Ubaka-Blackmoore; Michael Kanter; Kevin J O'Leary; David Classen; Brian Jackson; Daniel R Murphy; James Nichols; David Stockwell; Thomas Lorey; Paul Epner; Jennifer Taylor; Mark L Graber Journal: J Appl Lab Med Date: 2019-03-11
Authors: Lauren L O'Mahoney; Jamie Matu; Oliver J Price; Karen M Birch; Ramzi A Ajjan; Diane Farrar; Robyn Tapp; Daniel J West; Kevin Deighton; Matthew D Campbell Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2018-07-07 Impact factor: 9.951