Cited by 659Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsCholesterol and Lipid Metabolism

A meta-analysis of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B as markers of cardiovascular risk

Sniderman, Allan D., Williams, Ken, Contois, John H., Monroe, Howard M., McQueen, Matthew J., de Graaf, Jacqueline, Furberg, Curt D.·2011·Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

Abstract

Background—: Whether apolipoprotein B (apoB) or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) adds to the predictive power of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) for cardiovascular risk remains controversial. Methods and Results—: This meta-analysis is based on all the published epidemiological studies that contained estimates of the relative risks of non-HDL-C and apoB of fatal or nonfatal ischemic cardiovascular events. Twelve independent reports, including 233 455 subjects and 22 950 events, were analyzed. All published risk estimates were converted to standardized relative risk ratios (RRRs) and analyzed by quantitative meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Whether analyzed individually or in head-to-head comparisons, apoB was the most potent marker of cardiovascular risk (RRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.51), LDL-C was the least (RRR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.33), and non-HDL-C was intermediate (RRR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.44). The overall comparisons of the within-study differences showed that apoB RRR was 5.7%>non-HDL-C ( P <0.001) and 12.0%>LDL-C ( P <0.0001) and that non-HDL-C RRR was 5.0%>LDL-C ( P =0.017). Only HDL-C accounted for any substantial portion of the variance of the results among the studies. We calculated the number of clinical events prevented by a high-risk treatment regimen of all those >70th percentile of the US adult population using each of the 3 markers. Over a 10-year period, a non-HDL-C strategy would prevent 300 000 more events than an LDL-C strategy, whereas an apoB strategy would prevent 500 000 more events than a non-HDL-C strategy. Conclusions—: These results further validate the value of apoB in clinical care.

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 · 10.1161/circoutcomes.110.959247

Cites

41 of 41 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?

  • Assessing apo B-containing lipoproteins is favored to account for remnant and small dense lipoproteins that contribute to residual ASCVD risk not captured by a standard lipid panel.

    “Accumulating evidence favors the need to assess apo Becontaining lipoproteins to account for remnant lipoproteins and small dense lipoproteins responsible for residual ASCVD risk not seen with a standard lipid panel of total cholesterol, LDL-C, and HDL-C.”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [316]

    The Summary (page unavailable) favors routine apoB measurement and says it can reveal elevated LDL particle numbers when LDL-C is normal, improving cardiovascular-risk assessment. The paper also discusses VLDL and cholesterol-depleted LDL particles, but the cited passages do not establish the claim’s more specific account of remnant and small dense lipoproteins as causes of residual ASCVD risk. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Systematic reviews found that Apo B100 and the Apo B100/Apo A1 ratio improved prediction of cardiovascular risk.

    “Systematic reviews have examined the risk prediction power of Apo A1, A2 and B100 for cardiovascular risk and found Apo B100 and the Apo B100/Apo A1 ratio improved prediction [12–14].”

    From Estimating the Effect of Aerobic Exercise Training on Novel Lipid Biomarkers: A Systematic Review and Multivariate Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2023) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Summary (page not provided) concludes that apoB is a better predictor of cardiovascular risk than non-HDL-C or LDL-C. The paper does not report a finding that the apoB/apoA-I ratio improves prediction, and its analysis does not examine apoA-I or apoA-II as predictors. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • These cardiovascular disease risk biomarkers appear to be superior predictors of cardiovascular disease risk compared to the standard lipid profile.

    “which appear to be superior predictors of CVD risk compared to the SLP [4, 5, 9–14].”

    From Estimating the Effect of Aerobic Exercise Training on Novel Lipid Biomarkers: A Systematic Review and Multivariate Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2023) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Discussion reports that apoB predicts cardiovascular risk more accurately than non-HDL-C, which in turn outperforms LDL-C. The paper compares these individual markers, principally against LDL-C; it does not establish that the biomarkers outperform the standard lipid profile as a whole. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • These results explain why treatment of subjects for primary or secondary prevention based on apoB should be more effective than treatment based on LDL-C or non-HDL-C.

    “These results also explain why treatment of subjects for primary or secondary prevention based on apoB should be more effective than treatment based on LDL-C or non-HDL-C.28”

    From Discordance among apoB, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides: implications for cardiovascular prevention (2024) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Summary (page not provided) says apoB-based diagnosis and therapy would prevent more events than approaches based on LDL-C or non-HDL-C. Population Implications (page not provided) models that advantage under a preventive treatment strategy, but does not establish it separately for both primary and secondary prevention; the authors also caution that the calculations illustrate clinical implications rather than advocate the modeled strategy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In another meta-analysis, apolipoprotein B was superior to LDL-C and non-HDL-C as a marker of cardiovascular risk.

    “In contrast, in another meta-analysis of LDL-C, non-HDL-C and apoB, the latter was superior as a marker of CV risk. 103”

    From 2016 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidaemias (2016) · cites this paper as [103]

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: 1

  1. [4]4. Sniderman AD, McQueen MJ, Contois JH, Williams K, Couture P, Furberg CD. Why is non-HDL-cholesterol a better marker of cardiovas- cular risk than LDL-cholesterol? J Clin Lipidol. 2010;4:152-155.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sniderman, A. D., Williams, K., Contois, J. H., Monroe, H. M., McQueen, M. J., de Graaf, J., & Furberg, C. D.
Affiliations
  • Our Lady of the Lake University (US)
  • From the Mike Rosenbloom Laboratory for Cardiovascular Research, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (A.D.S.); KenAnCo Biostatistics and University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX (K.W.); Maine Standards Company, Windham, ME (J.H.C.); KenAnCo Biostatistics and Department of Mathematics, Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, TX (H.M.M.); Population Health Research Institute and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario...
Venue
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Published
2011-05
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
337-345
ISSN
  • 1941-7705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7713
OpenAlex
W2158901329
Cited by
659
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 56 · 2012: 40
FWCI
8.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • McGill University
  • McGill University Health Centre
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
apolipoprotein B, non-HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, cardiovascular risk prediction, ischemic cardiovascular events, relative risk, HDL cholesterol, cardiovascular disease prevention
MeSH terms
Apolipoproteins B, Cardiovascular Diseases, Humans, Cholesterol, HDL, Cholesterol, LDL, Predictive Value of Tests, Risk Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Biomarkers

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