G. Russell Warnick

Apolipoprotein B and Cardiovascular Disease Risk: Position Statement from the AACC Lipoproteins and Vascular Diseases Division Working Group on Best Practices

BACKGROUND Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) has been the cornerstone measurement for assessing cardiovascular risk for nearly 20 years. CONTENT Recent data demonstrate that apolipoprotein B (apo B) is a better measure of circulating LDL particle number (LDL-P) concentration and is a more reliable indicator of risk than LDL-C, and there is growing support for the idea that addition of apo B measurement to the routine lipid panel for assessing and monitoring patients at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) would enhance patient management. In this report, we review the studies of apo B and LDL-P reported to date, discuss potential advantages of their measurement over that of LDL-C, and present information related to standardization. CONCLUSIONS In line with recently adopted Canadian guidelines, the addition of apo B represents a logical next step to National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATPIII) and other guidelines in the US. Considering that it has taken years to educate physicians and patients regarding the use of LDL-C, changing perceptions and practices will not be easy. Thus, it appears prudent to consider using apo B along with LDL-C to assess LDL-related risk for an interim period until the superiority of apo B is generally recognized.

Seven Direct Methods for Measuring HDL and LDL Cholesterol Compared with Ultracentrifugation Reference Measurement Procedures

BACKGROUND Methods from 7 manufacturers and 1 distributor for directly measuring HDL cholesterol (C) and LDL-C were evaluated for imprecision, trueness, total error, and specificity in nonfrozen serum samples. METHODS We performed each direct method according to the manufacturers instructions, using a Roche/Hitachi 917 analyzer, and compared the results with those obtained with reference measurement procedures for HDL-C and LDL-C. Imprecision was estimated for 35 runs performed with frozen pooled serum specimens and triplicate measurements on each individual sample. Sera from 37 individuals without disease and 138 with disease (primarily dyslipidemic and cardiovascular) were measured by each method. Trueness and total error were evaluated from the difference between the direct methods and reference measurement procedures. Specificity was evaluated from the dispersion in differences observed. RESULTS Imprecision data based on 4 frozen serum pools showed total CVs <3.7% for HDL-C and <4.4% for LDL-C. Bias for the nondiseased group ranged from -5.4% to 4.8% for HDL-C and from -6.8% to 1.1% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from -8.6% to 8.8% for HDL-C and from -11.8% to 4.1% for LDL-C. Total error for the nondiseased group ranged from -13.4% to 13.6% for HDL-C and from -13.3% to 13.5% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from -19.8% to 36.3% for HDL-C and from -26.6% to 31.9% for LDL-C. CONCLUSIONS Six of 8 HDL-C and 5 of 8 LDL-C direct methods met the National Cholesterol Education Program total error goals for nondiseased individuals. All the methods failed to meet these goals for diseased individuals, however, because of lack of specificity toward abnormal lipoproteins.

Reliability of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B measurement

There is little understanding of the reliability of laboratory measurements among clinicians. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) measurement is the cornerstone of cardiovascular risk assessment and prevention, but it is fraught with error. Therefore, we have reviewed issues related to accuracy and precision for the measurement of LDL-C and the related markers non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B. Despite the widespread belief that LDL-C is standardized and reproducible, available data suggest that results can vary significantly as the result of methods from different manufacturers. Similar problems with direct HDL-C assays raise concerns about the reliability of non-HDL-C measurement. The root cause of method-specific bias relates to the ambiguity in the definition of both LDL and HDL, and the heterogeneity of LDL and HDL particle size and composition. Apolipoprotein B appears to provide a more reliable alternative, but assays for it have not been as rigorously tested as direct LDL-C and HDL-C assays.

Association of Apolipoprotein B and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy–Derived LDL Particle Number with Outcomes in 25 Clinical Studies: Assessment by the AACC Lipoprotein and Vascular Diseases Division Working Group on Best Practices

BACKGROUND The number of circulating LDL particles is a strong indicator of future cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, even superior to the concentration of LDL cholesterol. Atherogenic (primarily LDL) particle number is typically determined either directly by the serum concentration of apolipoprotein B (apo B) or indirectly by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy of serum to obtain NMR-derived LDL particle number (LDL-P). CONTENT To assess the comparability of apo B and LDL-P, we reviewed 25 clinical studies containing 85 outcomes for which both biomarkers were determined. In 21 of 25 (84.0%) studies, both apo B and LDL-P were significant for at least 1 outcome. Neither was significant for any outcome in only 1 study (4.0%). In 50 of 85 comparisons (58.8%), both apo B and LDL-P had statistically significant associations with the clinical outcome, whereas in 17 comparisons (20.0%) neither was significantly associated with the outcome. In 18 comparisons (21.1%) there was discordance between apo B and LDL-P. CONCLUSIONS In most studies, both apo B and LDL-P were comparable in association with clinical outcomes. The biomarkers were nearly equivalent in their ability to assess risk for CVD and both have consistently been shown to be stronger risk factors than LDL-C. We support the adoption of apo B and/or LDL-P as indicators of atherogenic particle numbers into CVD risk screening and treatment guidelines. Currently, in the opinion of this Working Group on Best Practices, apo B appears to be the preferable biomarker for guideline adoption because of its availability, scalability, standardization, and relatively low cost.

Non–HDL Cholesterol Shows Improved Accuracy for Cardiovascular Risk Score Classification Compared to Direct or Calculated LDL Cholesterol in a Dyslipidemic Population

BACKGROUND Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score classification by direct LDL cholesterol (dLDL-C), calculated LDL cholesterol (cLDL-C), and non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDL-C) compared to classification by reference measurement procedures (RMPs) performed at the CDC. METHODS We examined 175 individuals, including 138 with CVD or conditions that may affect LDL-C measurement. dLDL-C measurements were performed using Denka, Kyowa, Sekisui, Serotec, Sysmex, UMA, and Wako reagents. cLDL-C was calculated by the Friedewald equation, using each manufacturers direct HDL-C assay measurements, and total cholesterol and triglyceride measurements by Roche and Siemens (Advia) assays, respectively. RESULTS For participants with triglycerides<2.26 mmol/L (<200 mg/dL), the overall misclassification rate for the CVD risk score ranged from 5% to 17% for cLDL-C methods and 8% to 26% for dLDL-C methods when compared to the RMP. Only Wako dLDL-C had fewer misclassifications than its corresponding cLDL-C method (8% vs 17%; P<0.05). Non-HDL-C assays misclassified fewer patients than dLDL-C for 4 of 8 methods (P<0.05). For participants with triglycerides≥2.26 mmol/L (≥200 mg/dL) and<4.52 mmol/L (<400 mg/dL), dLDL-C methods, in general, performed better than cLDL-C methods, and non-HDL-C methods showed better correspondence to the RMP for CVD risk score than either dLDL-C or cLDL-C methods. CONCLUSIONS Except for hypertriglyceridemic individuals, 7 of 8 dLDL-C methods failed to show improved CVD risk score classification over the corresponding cLDL-C methods. Non-HDL-C showed overall the best concordance with the RMP for CVD risk score classification of both normal and hypertriglyceridemic individuals.

Comparative effects of an acute dose of fish oil on omega-3 fatty acid levels in red blood cells versus plasma: Implications for clinical utility

BACKGROUND Omega-3 fatty acid (n-3 FA) biostatus can be estimated with red blood cell (RBC) membranes or plasma. The matrix that exhibits the lower within-person variability and is less affected by an acute dose of n-3 FA is preferred in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE We compared the acute effects of a large dose of n-3 FA on RBC and plasma levels of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). METHODS Healthy volunteers (n = 20) were given 4 capsules containing 3.6 g of n-3 FA with a standardized breakfast. Blood samples were drawn at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 24 hours. The EPA + DHA content of RBC membranes and plasma (the latter expressed as a percentage of total FA and as a concentration) were determined. General linear mixed models were used to analyze the mean response profiles in FA changes over time for plasma and RBCs. RESULTS At 6 hours after load, the plasma concentration of EPA + DHA had increased by 47% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24% to 73%) and the plasma EPA + DHA percentage of total FA by 19% (95% CI, 4.7% to 36%). The RBC EPA + DHA percentage of composition was unchanged [-0.6% (95% CI, -2.6% to 1.5%)]. At 24 hours, the change in both of the plasma EPA + DHA markers was 10-fold greater than that in RBCs. CONCLUSIONS An acute dose of n-3 FA (eg, a meal of oily fish or fish oil supplements) taken within a day before a doctors visit can elevate levels of EPA + DHA in plasma, whether expressed as a percentage or a concentration, but not in RBC membranes. Similar to hemoglobin A1c, which is not affected by an acute glycemic deviation, RBCs provide a more reliable estimate of a patients chronic EPA + DHA status than does plasma.

Standardization of Measurements for Cholesterol, Triglycerides, and Major Lipoproteins

This review evaluates the status of standardization of lipids and lipoproteins. Prerequisites and some basic principles for standardization are provided. The reference systems for cholesterol, HDL cholesterol (HDL-C), LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), triglycerides (TG), apolipoprotein A-I (apoA-I), apolipoprotein B (apoB), and lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) are described. Brief descriptions of the standardization programs available for each of these analytes are also provided. Finally, the review addresses some of the challenges in standardizing these markers of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The standardization programs described have contributed to improvements in laboratory measurements of lipids and lipoproteins. Our intention is that clinical laboratory professionals and manufacturers of in vitro diagnostics will use these resources to standardize lipid and lipoprotein measurements. Manufacturers must take the initiative to thoroughly evaluate their products and ensure traceability to the reference systems.

The correlation between TG vs remnant lipoproteins in the fasting and postprandial plasma of 23 volunteers.

BACKGROUND Two recent publications report that non-fasting triglycerides concentrations in plasma are more predictive of cardiovascular events than conventional measurements of fasting triglycerides. While these observations are consistent with the previous studies, direct correlations between remnant lipoprotein triglyceride (RLP-TG) and remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C), which are also considered to be risk factors for cardiovascular disease, and fasting and postprandial TG have not been investigated. METHODS On four different days, both fasting and postprandial blood samples were collected from twenty-three overweight to obese men and women at UC Davis and analyzed for plasma concentrations of TG, RLP-C and RLP-TG. RESULTS Significantly higher correlations between plasma TG and RLPs were observed in the postprandial state (RLP-C r2 = 0.85; RLP-TG r2 = 0.92) than in the fasting state (RLP-C r2 = 0.61; RLP-TG r2 = 0.73). The differences in the correlations between the fasting and postprandial TG and RLPs were statistically significant (p < 0.001). The increase of RLP-TG (postprandial RLP-TG minus fasting RLP-TG) consisted of approximately 80% of the total increase of TG (postprandial TG minus fasting TG). CONCLUSION Postprandial TG vs remnant lipoprotein concentrations were significantly more correlated when compared with fasting TG vs RLP concentrations. The increased TG in the postprandial state mainly consisted of TG in remnant lipoproteins. Therefore, the increased sensitivity of non-fasting TG in predicting the risk for cardiovascular events may be directly explained by the increase of remnant lipoproteins in the postprandial state.

Evaluation of Four Different Equations for Calculating LDL-C with Eight Different Direct HDL-C Assays

BACKGROUND Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is often calculated (cLDL-C) by the Friedewald equation, which requires high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and triglycerides (TG). Because there have been considerable changes in the measurement of HDL-C with the introduction of direct assays, several alternative equations have recently been proposed. METHODS We compared 4 equations (Friedewald, Vujovic, Chen, and Anandaraja) for cLDL-C, using 8 different direct HDL-C (dHDL-C) methods. LDL-C values were calculated by the 4 equations and determined by the β quantification reference method procedure in 164 subjects. RESULTS For normotriglyceridemic samples (TG<200mg/dl), between 6.2% and 24.8% of all results exceeded the total error goal of 12% for LDL-C, depending on the dHDL-C assay and cLDL-C equation used. Friedewald equation was found to be the optimum equation for most but not all dHDL-C assays, typically leading to less than 10% misclassification of cardiovascular risk based on LDL-C. Hypertriglyceridemic samples (>200mg/dl) showed a large cardiovascular risk misclassification rate (30%-50%) for all combinations of dHDL-C assays and cLDL-C equations. CONCLUSION The Friedewald equation showed the best performance for estimating LDL-C, but its accuracy varied considerably depending on the specific dHDL-C assay used. None of the cLDL-C equations performed adequately for hypertriglyceridemic samples.

Validation of a lipoprotein(a) particle concentration assay by quantitative lipoprotein immunofixation electrophoresis.

BACKGROUND Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle (P, or molar) concentration has been shown to be a more sensitive marker of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk than LDL cholesterol. Although elevated circulating lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] cholesterol and mass have been associated with CV risk, no practicable method exists to measure Lp(a)-P. We have developed a method of determining Lp(a)-P suitable for routine clinical use. METHODS Lipoprotein immunofixation electrophoresis (Lipo-IFE) involves rigidly controlled electrophoretic separation of serum lipoproteins, probing with polyclonal apolipoprotein B antibodies, then visualization after staining with a nonspecific protein stain (Acid Violet). Lipo-IFE was compared to the Lp(a) mass assay for 1086 randomly selected patient samples, and for 254 samples stratified by apo(a) isoform size. RESULTS The Lipo-IFE method was shown to be precise (CV <10% above the 50 nmol/l limit of quantitation) and linear across a 16-fold range. Lipo-IFE compared well with the mass-based Lp(a) assay (r=0.95), but was not affected by variations in apo(a) isoform size. With a throughput of 100 samples in 90 min, the assay is suitable for use in the clinical laboratory. CONCLUSIONS The Lipo-IFE method will allow Lp(a)-P to be readily tested as a CVD risk factor in large-scale clinical trials.