Cited by 136Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsCholesterol and Lipid Metabolism

Beyond Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

Open access
Mudd, James O., Borlaug, Barry A., Johnston, Peter V., Kral, Brian G., Rouf, Rosanne, Blumenthal, Roger S., Kwiterovich, Peter O.·2007·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

Recent clinical trials in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) provide evidence that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels should be lowered even further to prevent recurrent CAD. However, despite more aggressive interventions for lowering LDL-C levels, the majority of CAD events go undeterred, perhaps related to the fact that intervention was not started earlier in life or that LDL-C levels represent an incomplete picture of atherogenic potential. Nevertheless, LDL-C remains the contemporary standard as the primary goal for aggressive LDL reduction. If triglycerides are >200 mg/dl, the measurement of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) is recommended. Measurement of apolipoprotein (apo)B has been shown in nearly all studies to outperform LDL-C and non-HDL-C as a predictor of CAD events and as an index of residual CAD risk. This is because apoB reflects the total number of atherogenic apoB-containing lipoproteins and is a superior predictor of the number of low-density lipoprotein particles (LDL-P). Estimates of LDL-P and size can also be made by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, density gradient ultracentrifugation, and gradient gel electrophoresis. Although a number of studies show that such estimates predict CAD, LDL-P, and size often accompany low HDL-C and high triglyceride levels, and therefore such additional lipoprotein testing has not been recommended for routine screening and follow-up. Because apoB is a superior predictor of LDL-P, we recommend that apoB and the apoB/apoA-I ratio be determined after measurement of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and the ratio of total cholesterol/HDL-C to better predict CAD and assess efficacy of treatment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.07.045

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The number of LDL particles (LDLP) measured by lipoprotein subfractionation techniques is more strongly causally related to ASCVD than the cholesterol content of the particles.

    “This residual risk indicates that a focus solely on the measurement of LDLC is not an optimal strategy for all patients, in part explained by accumulating evidence that the number of LDL particles (LDLP) measured by lipoprotein subfractionation techniques is more strongly causally related to ASCVD than the cholesterol content of the particles [9,10].”

    From Quantifying atherogenic lipoproteins for lipid-lowering strategies: Consensus-based recommendations from EAS and EFLM (2020) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Abstract and “Beyond LDL-C and Non-HDL-C” sections say LDL-C can underrepresent particle number and that particle-number-related measures can better predict CAD risk. The “Other assessments of LDL particle number and size” section reports associations between LDL-P and atherosclerosis, but the paper does not establish the claim’s stronger causal comparison with cholesterol content. The “Treatment Implications” section says it remains unresolved whether CAD risk is related to LDL-P itself or also independently to particle size; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Many individuals experience ASCVD-related events or progression of atherosclerosis despite not having elevated LDLC or even concentrations <1.8 mmol/L.

    “Despite the overwhelming evidence that LDLC-targeted therapies effectively reduce ASCVD in the population, many individuals experience ASCVD-related events or progression of atherosclerosis despite not having elevated LDLC or even concentrations < 1.8 mmol/L [9].”

    From Quantifying atherogenic lipoproteins for lipid-lowering strategies: Consensus-based recommendations from EAS and EFLM (2020) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Abstract says that most CAD events were not prevented despite aggressive LDL-C lowering, and Treatment Implications of LDL Heterogeneity explains that patients can have elevated risk with low or normal LDL-C. The paper discusses a 70 mg/dL (approximately 1.8 mmol/L) treatment goal, but these passages do not establish that many people experienced events or atherosclerosis progression while their LDL-C was below that level. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [18]18. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. Estimation of low-density lipoprotein in plasma without use of preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem 1972;18:499 -502.
  2. [54]54. Keech A, Simes RJ, Barter P, et al., FIELD Study Investigators. Effects of long-term fenofibrate therapy on cardiovascular events in 9795 people with type 2 diabetes (the FIELD study): randomized placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2003;361:2005-16.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mudd, J. O., Borlaug, B. A., Johnston, P. V., Kral, B. G., Rouf, R., Blumenthal, R. S., & Kwiterovich, P. O.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Kwiterovich, Peter O.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-10
Volume
50
Issue
18
Pages
1735-1741
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W16445148
Cited by
136
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 12
FWCI
12.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cholesterol and Lipid Metabolism
Keywords
LDL cholesterol, coronary artery disease, apolipoprotein B, non-HDL cholesterol, LDL particle number, LDL particle size, triglycerides, residual cardiovascular risk, atherogenic lipoproteins, cardiovascular risk prediction
MeSH terms
Apolipoproteins B, Coronary Artery Disease, Humans, Lipoproteins, LDL, Particle Size, Predictive Value of Tests, Risk Factors, Biomarkers, Apolipoprotein A-I

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review