Vasanth Sathiyakumar1, Jihwan Park2, Renato Quispe1, Mohamed B Elshazly3, Erin D Michos1, Maciej Banach4, Peter P Toth1,5,6, Seamus P Whelton1, Roger S Blumenthal1, Steven R Jones1, Seth S Martin7,8. 1. Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Baltimore, MD (V.S., R.Q., E.D.M., P.P.T., S.P.W., R.S.B., S.R.J., S.S.M.). 2. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD (J.P.). 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Weill Cornell Medical College-Qatar, Education City, Doha, Qatar (M.B.E.). 4. Department of Hypertension, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Medical University of Lodz, Poland (M.B.). 5. Department of Preventive Cardiology, CGH Medical Center, Sterling, IL (P.P.T.). 6. College of Medicine, University of Illinois, Peoria, IL (P.P.T.). 7. Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Baltimore, MD (V.S., R.Q., E.D.M., P.P.T., S.P.W., R.S.B., S.R.J., S.S.M.). smart100@jhmi.edu. 8. Welch Center, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD (S.S.M.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Selected dyslipidemia guidelines recommend non-high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B (apoB) as secondary targets to the primary target of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C). After considering 2 LDL-C estimates that differ in accuracy, we examined: (1) how frequently non-HDL-C guideline targets could change management; and (2) the utility of apoB targets after meeting LDL-C and non-HDL-C targets. METHODS: We analyzed 2518 adults representative of the US population from the 2011 to 2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and 126 092 patients from the Very Large Database of Lipids study with apoB. We identified all individuals as well as those with high-risk clinical features, including coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, and metabolic syndrome who met very high- and high-risk guideline targets of LDL-C <70 and <100 mg/dL using Friedewald estimation (LDL-CF) and a novel, more accurate method (LDL-CN). Next, we examined those not meeting non-HDL-C (<100, <130 mg/dL) and apoB (<80, <100 mg/dL) guideline targets. In those meeting dual LDL-C and non-HDL-C targets (<70 and <100 mg/dL, respectively, or <100 and <130 mg/dL, respectively), we determined the proportion of individuals who did not meet guideline apoB targets (<80 or <100 mg/dL). RESULTS: A total of 7% to 9% and 31% to 36% of individuals had LDL-C <70 and <100 mg/dL, respectively. Among those with LDL-CF<70 mg/dL, 14% to 15% had non-HDL-C ≥100 mg/dL, and 7% to 8% had apoB ≥80 mg/dL. Among those with LDL-CF<100 mg/dL, 8% to 10% had non-HDL-C ≥130 mg/dL and 2% to 3% had apoB ≥100 mg/dL. In comparison, among those with LDL-CN<70 or 100 mg/dL, only ≈2% and ≈1% of individuals, respectively, had non-HDL-C and apoB values above guideline targets. Similar trends were upheld among those with high-risk clinical features: ≈0% to 3% of individuals with LDL-CN<70 mg/dL had non-HDL-C ≥100 mg/dL or apoB ≥80 mg/dL compared with 13% to 38% and 9% to 25%, respectively, in those with LDL-CF<70 mg/dL. With LDL-CF or LDL-CN<70 mg/dL and non-HDL-C <100 mg/dL, 0% to 1% had apoB ≥80 mg/dL. Among all dual LDL-CF or LDL-CN<100 mg/dL and non-HDL-C <130 mg/dL individuals, 0% to 0.4% had apoB ≥100 mg/dL. These findings were robust to sex, fasting status, and lipid-lowering therapy status. CONCLUSIONS: After more accurately estimating LDL-C, guideline-suggested non-HDL-C targets could alter management in only a small fraction of individuals, including those with coronary artery disease and other high-risk clinical features. Furthermore, current guideline-suggested apoB targets provide modest utility after meeting cholesterol targets. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01698489.
BACKGROUND: Selected dyslipidemia guidelines recommend non-high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B (apoB) as secondary targets to the primary target of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C). After considering 2 LDL-C estimates that differ in accuracy, we examined: (1) how frequently non-HDL-C guideline targets could change management; and (2) the utility of apoB targets after meeting LDL-C and non-HDL-C targets. METHODS: We analyzed 2518 adults representative of the US population from the 2011 to 2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and 126 092 patients from the Very Large Database of Lipids study with apoB. We identified all individuals as well as those with high-risk clinical features, including coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, and metabolic syndrome who met very high- and high-risk guideline targets of LDL-C <70 and <100 mg/dL using Friedewald estimation (LDL-CF) and a novel, more accurate method (LDL-CN). Next, we examined those not meeting non-HDL-C (<100, <130 mg/dL) and apoB (<80, <100 mg/dL) guideline targets. In those meeting dual LDL-C and non-HDL-C targets (<70 and <100 mg/dL, respectively, or <100 and <130 mg/dL, respectively), we determined the proportion of individuals who did not meet guideline apoB targets (<80 or <100 mg/dL). RESULTS: A total of 7% to 9% and 31% to 36% of individuals had LDL-C <70 and <100 mg/dL, respectively. Among those with LDL-CF<70 mg/dL, 14% to 15% had non-HDL-C ≥100 mg/dL, and 7% to 8% had apoB ≥80 mg/dL. Among those with LDL-CF<100 mg/dL, 8% to 10% had non-HDL-C ≥130 mg/dL and 2% to 3% had apoB ≥100 mg/dL. In comparison, among those with LDL-CN<70 or 100 mg/dL, only ≈2% and ≈1% of individuals, respectively, had non-HDL-C and apoB values above guideline targets. Similar trends were upheld among those with high-risk clinical features: ≈0% to 3% of individuals with LDL-CN<70 mg/dL had non-HDL-C ≥100 mg/dL or apoB ≥80 mg/dL compared with 13% to 38% and 9% to 25%, respectively, in those with LDL-CF<70 mg/dL. With LDL-CF or LDL-CN<70 mg/dL and non-HDL-C <100 mg/dL, 0% to 1% had apoB ≥80 mg/dL. Among all dual LDL-CF or LDL-CN<100 mg/dL and non-HDL-C <130 mg/dL individuals, 0% to 0.4% had apoB ≥100 mg/dL. These findings were robust to sex, fasting status, and lipid-lowering therapy status. CONCLUSIONS: After more accurately estimating LDL-C, guideline-suggested non-HDL-C targets could alter management in only a small fraction of individuals, including those with coronary artery disease and other high-risk clinical features. Furthermore, current guideline-suggested apoB targets provide modest utility after meeting cholesterol targets. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01698489.
Authors: Vincent A Pallazola; Vasanth Sathiyakumar; Jihwan Park; Rachit M Vakil; Peter P Toth; Mariana Lazo-Elizondo; Emily Brown; Renato Quispe; Eliseo Guallar; Maciej Banach; Roger S Blumenthal; Steven R Jones; David Marais; Daniel Soffer; Allan D Sniderman; Seth S Martin Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 3.318
Authors: Gerald F Watts; Samuel S Gidding; Pedro Mata; Jing Pang; David R Sullivan; Shizuya Yamashita; Frederick J Raal; Raul D Santos; Kausik K Ray Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Jéssica Vicky Bernardo de Oliveira; Raquel Patrícia Ataíde Lima; Rafaella Cristhine Pordeus Luna; Alcides da Silva Diniz; Aléssio Tony Cavalcanti de Almeida; Naila Francis Paulo de Oliveira; Maria da Conceição Rodrigues Gonçalves; Roberto Texeira de Lima; Flávia Emília Leite de Lima Ferreira; Sônia Cristina Pereira de Oliveira Ramalho Diniz; Alexandre Sergio Silva; Ana Hermínia Andrade E Silva; Darlene Camati Persuhn; Maria José de Carvalho Costa Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-16 Impact factor: 3.240