Cited by 22Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsLipid metabolism and disorders

A Translational Tool to Facilitate Use of Apolipoprotein B for Clinical Decision-Making

Open access
Cole, Justine, Otvos, James Dorian, Remaley, Alan Thomas·2023·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Background: Despite recent large-scale discordance studies showing definitively that atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk correlates better with apolipoprotein B (apoB) than with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), the latter remains the recommended metric for guiding lipid-lowering treatment decisions in the United States. A major barrier to change, in this regard, is the lack of guideline-recommended apoB treatment targets. We developed a simple method to “translate” apoB values into population-equivalent LDL-C units, allowing apoB-based treatment decisions to be made using LDL-C targets. Methods: Sequentially collected, population-based samples underwent standard lipid panel analysis and apoB testing by immunoassay. Those with triglycerides greater than 1000 mg/dl were excluded, leaving a study cohort of 15 153 individuals. Results: Linear regression of calculated LDL-C values against percentile-equivalent apoB values yielded an equation to convert apoB into percentile-equivalent LDL-C units: [LDL-C equivalents = 1.38(apoB) – 29] (R2 = 0.999). The extent of discordance between LDL-C and apoB was examined in subgroups with similar LDL-C, ranging from very low (55–70 mg/dL) to very high (175–190 mg/dL). Among individuals with very low LDL-C, 40% had discordantly higher apoB, indicating higher ASCVD risk. Of those with very high LDL-C, 49% had discordantly lower apoB. Across the range, a minority of patients (25%–40%) had concordant levels of apoB, confirming that discordance between these biomarkers is highly prevalent. Similar results were found in discordance analysis between apoB and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). Conclusions: Providing visibility to discrepancies among LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and apoB should help to facilitate more rapid and widespread adoption of apoB for managing ASCVD risk.

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 · 10.1093/clinchem/hvac161

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • Our results extend the analysis of Cole et al., who demonstrated substantial differences between measured levels of LDL-C and calculated levels of non-HDL-C and values of LDL-C and non-HDL-C determined from population percentile equivalents of apoB.

    “Our results extend the analysis of Cole et al.,20 who demonstrated substantial differences between measured levels of LDL-C and calculated levels of non-HDL-C and values of LDL-C and non-HDL-C determined from population percentile equivalents of apoB.”

    From Discordance among apoB, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides: implications for cardiovascular prevention (2024) · cites this paper as [20]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    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: 20

  1. Cantey EP, Wilkins JT. Discordance be- tween lipoprotein particle number and cholesterol content: an update. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2018;25:130-6.
  2. Sniderman A, Williams K, Cobbaert C. Apob versus non-HDL-C: what to do when they disagree. Curr Atheroscler Rep 2009;11:358-63.
  3. Sniderman AD, St-Pierre AC, Cantin B, Dagenais GR, Després J-P, Lamarche B. Concordance/discordance between plas- ma apolipoprotein B levels and the choles- terol indexes of atherosclerotic risk. Am J Cardiol 2003;91:1173-7.
  4. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, Beam C, Birtcher KK, Blumenthal RS, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2019;139: e1082-143.
  5. Mach F, Baigent C, Catapano AL, Koskinas KC, Casula M, Badimon L, et al. ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipi- daemias: lipid modification to reduce car- diovascular risk. Eur Heart J 2019;2020: 111-88.
  6. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. Estimation of the concentration of low- density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentri- fuge. Clin Chem 1972;18:499-502.
  7. Sampson M, Ling C, Sun Q, Harb R, Ashmaig M, Warnick R, et al. A new equa- tion for calculation of low-density lipopro- tein cholesterol in patients with normolipidemia and/or hypertriglyceride- mia. JAMA Cardiol 2020;5:540-8.
  8. Martin SS, Blaha MJ, Elshazly MB, Toth PP, Kwiterovich PO, Blumenthal RS, et al. Comparison of a novel method vs the Friedewald equation for estimating low- density lipoprotein cholesterol levels from the standard lipid profile. JAMA 2013;310:2061-8.
  9. Nathan DM, Kuenen J, Borg R, Zheng H, Schoenfeld D, Heine RJ, et al. Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glu- cose values. Diabetes Care 2008;31: 1473-8.
  10. Garcia E, Bennett DW, Connelly MA, Jeyarajah EJ, Warf FC, Shalaurova I, et al. The extended lipid panel assay: a clinically deployed high-throughput nuclear mag- netic resonance method for the simultan- eous measurement of lipids and apolipoprotein B. Lipids Health Dis 2020; 19:247.
  11. Jeyarajah EJ, Cromwell WC, Otvos JD. Lipoprotein particle analysis by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Clin Lab Med 2006;26:847-70.
  12. Shalaurova I, Connelly MA, Garvey WT, Otvos JD. Lipoprotein insulin resistance in- dex: a lipoprotein particle-derived meas- ure of insulin resistance. Metab Syndr Relat Disord 2014;12:422-9.
  13. Cromwell WC, Otvos JD, Keyes MJ, Pencina MJ, Sullivan L, Vasan RS, et al. LDL Particle number and risk of future car- diovascular disease in the Framingham Offspring Study-implications for LDL management. J Clin Lipidol 2007;1:583-92.
  14. Waldmann E, Wu L, Busygina K, Altenhofer J, Henze K, Folwaczny A, et al. Effect of PCSK9 inhibition with evolocumab on lipo- protein subfractions in familial dysbetali- poproteinemia (type III hyperlipidemia). PLoS One 2022;17:e0265838.
  15. Robinson JG, Ballantyne CM, Hsueh W, Rosen J, Lin J, Shah A, et al. Achievement of specified low-density lipoprotein choles- terol, non-high-density lipoprotein choles- terol apolipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels with ezetimibe/ simvastatin or atorvastatin in metabolic syn- drome patients with and without atherosclerotic vascular disease (from the VYMET study). J Clin Lipidol 2011;5:474-82.
  16. Sniderman AD. Differential response of cholesterol and particle measures of atherogenic lipoproteins to LDL-lowering therapy: implications for clinical practice. J Clin Lipidol 2008;2: 36-42.
  17. Otvos JD, Jeyarajah EJ, Cromwell WC. Measurement issues related to lipoprotein heterogeneity. Am J Cardiol 2002;90: 22i-9i.
  18. Kohli-Lynch CN, Thanassoulis G, Moran AE, Sniderman AD. The clinical utility of apoB versus LDL-C/non-HDL-C. Clin Chim Acta 2020;508:103-8.
  19. Pearson GJ, Thanassoulis G, Anderson TJ, Barry AR, Couture P, Dayan N, et al. Canadian Cardiovascular Society guide- lines for the management of dyslipidemia for the prevention of cardiovascular dis- ease in adults. Can J Cardiol 2021;2021: 1129-50.
  20. Flores M, Glusman G, Brogaard K, Price ND, Hood L. P4 medicine: how systems medicine will transform the healthcare sector and society. Per Med 2013;10: 565-76. Clinical Chemistry 69:1 (2023) 47

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cole, J., Otvos, J. D., & Remaley, A. T.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • LabCorp (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Cole, Justine
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2022-11-11
Volume
69
Issue
1
Pages
41-47
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W4308767520
Cited by
22
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2
FWCI
4.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • 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 › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Lipid metabolism and disorders
Keywords
apolipoprotein B, LDL cholesterol, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, non-HDL cholesterol, clinical decision-making, lipid biomarkers
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Apolipoproteins B, Cholesterol, Humans, Lipoproteins, Cholesterol, HDL, Cholesterol, LDL, Triglycerides, Atherosclerosis

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