Cited by 104Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsCholesterol and Lipid Metabolism

Discordance between circulating atherogenic cholesterol mass and lipoprotein particle concentration in relation to future coronary events in women

Open access
Lawler, Patrick R, Akinkuolie, Akintunde O, Ridker, Paul M, Sniderman, Allan D, Buring, Julie E, Glynn, Robert J, Chasman, Daniel I, Mora, Samia·2017·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether measurement of circulating total atherogenic lipoprotein particle cholesterol mass [non–HDL cholesterol (nonHDLc)] or particle concentration [apolipoprotein B (apo B) and LDL particle concentration (LDLp)] more accurately reflects risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD). We evaluated CHD risk among women in whom these markers where discordant. METHODS: Among 27533 initially healthy women in the Women's Health Study (NCT00000479), using residuals from linear regression models, we compared risk among women with higher or lower observed particle concentration relative to nonHDLc (highest and lowest residual quartiles, respectively) to individuals with agreement between markers (middle quartiles) using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Although all 3 biomarkers were correlated (r ≥ 0.77), discordance occurred in up to 20.2% of women. Women with discordant high particle concentration were more likely to have metabolic syndrome (MetS) and diabetes (both P < 0.001). Over a median follow-up of 20.4 years, 1246 CHD events occurred (514725 person-years). Women with high particle concentration relative to nonHDLc had increased CHD risk: age-adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) = 1.77 (1.56–2.00) for apo B and 1.70 (1.50–1.92) for LDLp. After adjustment for clinical risk factors including MetS, these risks attenuated to 1.22 (1.07–1.39) for apo B and 1.13 (0.99–1.29) for LDLp. Discordant low apo B or LDLp relative to nonHDLc was not associated with lower risk. CONCLUSIONS: Discordance between atherogenic particle cholesterol mass and particle concentration occurs in a sizeable proportion of apparently healthy women and should be suspected clinically among women with cardiometabolic traits. In such women, direct measurement of lipoprotein particle concentration might better inform CHD risk assessment.

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 · 10.1373/clinchem.2016.264515

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • apoB is a more accurate measure of the adequacy of lipid-lowering therapy than LDL-C or non-HDL-C.

    “given that apoB is a more accurate measure of the adequacy of lipid-lowering therapy than LDL-C or non-HDL-C,1,3–13,27”

    From Discordance among apoB, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides: implications for cardiovascular prevention (2024) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Discussion reports that, in apparently healthy women with discordant measurements, CHD risk tracked better with apoB than with non-HDL-C. The Background also describes evidence that apoB may predict risk better than LDL-C. But the paper examines future coronary risk, not whether apoB measures the adequacy of lipid-lowering therapy more accurately than either cholesterol measure. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • All reports since 2019, with one exception, including observational studies and randomized clinical trials, have confirmed that apoB is a more accurate marker of cardiovascular risk than LDL-C or non-HDL-C.

    “Moreover, all reports since then, with one exception,2 including observational studies and randomized clinical trials,3–13 have confirmed that apoB is a more accurate marker of cardiovascular risk than LDL-C or non-HDL-C, reinforcing the validity of the evaluation by the 2019 EAS/ESC Guidelines as to the superiority of apoB.”

    From Discordance among apoB, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides: implications for cardiovascular prevention (2024) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Discussion (page not supplied) reports that, among women with discordant biomarker levels, coronary risk tracked more closely with particle concentration, particularly apoB, than with non-HDL-C. The paper was published in 2017 and does not establish that all reports since 2019, including randomized trials, confirmed apoB’s superiority across populations. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Prior work shows that apoB concentration is the most predictive parameter of CV risk.

    “This study builds on prior work showing that apoB concentration is the most predictive parameter of CV risk,13,14,15”

    From Association of Apolipoprotein B–Containing Lipoproteins and Risk of Myocardial Infarction in Individuals With and Without Atherosclerosis (2022) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Discussion (page not supplied) reports that, among women whose apoB and non-HDL cholesterol measurements were discordant, coronary heart disease risk tracked more closely with lipoprotein particle concentration, particularly apoB. It does not establish that apoB is the most predictive parameter of cardiovascular risk generally, across populations and risk measures. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lawler, P. R., Akinkuolie, A. O., Ridker, P. M., Sniderman, A. D., Buring, J. E., Glynn, R. J., Chasman, D. I., & Mora, S.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • McGill University Health Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Mora, Samia
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2017-04-01
Volume
63
Issue
4
Pages
870-879
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2586930478
Cited by
104
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
FWCI
10.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Wisconsin Historical Society (CA047988, HL043851, HL080467, HL099355, UM1 CA182913)
  • Molino Family Trust
  • NIH T32 (HL007575)
  • NIH LRP
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the NIH under Award (R01HL117861)
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
non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, coronary heart disease risk, women, metabolic syndrome, Women's Health Study
MeSH terms
Apolipoproteins B, Cholesterol, Coronary Disease, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Biomarkers, Women's Health, Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic, Atherosclerosis, Healthy Volunteers

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