0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Review |

Association of LDL Cholesterol, Non–HDL Cholesterol, and Apolipoprotein B Levels With Risk of Cardiovascular Events Among Patients Treated With Statins:  A Meta-analysis FREE

S. Matthijs Boekholdt, MD, PhD; Benoit J. Arsenault, PhD; Samia Mora, MD, MHS; Terje R. Pedersen, MD, PhD; John C. LaRosa, MD; Paul J. Nestel, MD; R. John Simes, MD; Paul Durrington, MD; Graham A. Hitman, MD; K. M. A. Welch, MB, ChB; David A. DeMicco, DPharm; Aeilko H. Zwinderman, PhD; Michael B. Clearfield, DO; John R. Downs, MD; Andrew M. Tonkin, MD; Helen M. Colhoun, MD; Antonio M. Gotto, MD, DPhil; Paul M Ridker, MD, MPH; John J. P. Kastelein, MD, PhD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Cardiology (Dr Boekholdt), Vascular Medicine (Drs Arsenault and Kastelein), and Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Dr Zwinderman), Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (Drs Mora and Ridker); Center of Preventive Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Ulleval, and University of Oslo, Norway (Dr Pedersen); State University of New York Health Science Center, Brooklyn (Dr LaRosa); Baker Heart and Diabetes Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia (Dr Nestel); NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (Dr Simes); School of Biomedicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom (Dr Durrington); Centre for Diabetes and Metabolic Medicine, Barts, and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom (Dr Hitman); Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Illinois (Dr Welch); Global Pharmaceuticals Pfizer, New York, New York (Dr DeMicco); Touro University, Mare Island, California (Dr Clearfield); Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center, and VERDICT, South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio (Dr Downs); Medical Research Institute, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom (Dr Colhoun); Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia (Dr Tonkin); and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York (Dr Gotto).


JAMA. 2012;307(12):1302-1309. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.366.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Context The associations of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non–HDL-C), and apolipoprotein B (apoB) levels with the risk of cardiovascular events among patients treated with statin therapy have not been reliably documented.

Objective To evaluate the relative strength of the associations of LDL-C, non–HDL-C, and apoB with cardiovascular risk among patients treated with statin therapy.

Design Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled statin trials in which conventional lipids and apolipoproteins were determined in all study participants at baseline and at 1-year follow-up.

Data Sources Relevant trials were identified by a literature search updated through December 31, 2011. Investigators were contacted and individual patient data were requested and obtained for 62 154 patients enrolled in 8 trials published between 1994 and 2008.

Data Extraction Hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% CIs for risk of major cardiovascular events adjusted for established risk factors by 1-SD increase in LDL-C, non–HDL-C, and apoB.

Results Among 38 153 patients allocated to statin therapy, 158 fatal myocardial infarctions, 1678 nonfatal myocardial infarctions, 615 fatal events from other coronary artery disease, 2806 hospitalizations for unstable angina, and 1029 fatal or nonfatal strokes occurred during follow-up. The adjusted HRs for major cardiovascular events per 1-SD increase were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.10-1.17) for LDL-C, 1.16 (95% CI, 1.12-1.19) for non–HDL-C, and 1.14 (95% CI, 1.11-1.18) for apoB. These HRs were significantly higher for non–HDL-C than LDL-C (P = .002) and apoB (P = .02). There was no significant difference between apoB and LDL-C (P = .21).

Conclusion Among statin-treated patients, on-treatment levels of LDL-C, non–HDL-C, and apoB were each associated with risk of future major cardiovascular events, but the strength of this association was greater for non–HDL-C than for LDL-C and apoB.

Figures in this Article

Quiz Ref IDStatin therapy is the cornerstone of pharmacological therapy for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. All currently available guidelines state that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels should be used as the primary target to initiate and titrate lipid-lowering therapy.1,2 However, trials investigating the efficacy of statin therapy have shown that the cardiovascular benefits of statins may go beyond their influence on LDL-C levels. Thus, LDL-C may not be the best lipid parameter to predict cardiovascular risk or to quantify the atheroprotective effect of statin therapy.3Quiz Ref IDExperimental evidence supports a more important role for apolipoprotein B (apoB) and apoB-containing lipoproteins than for LDL-C content in mediating atherogenesis. Lipoproteins containing apoB must first enter the arterial wall and undergo oxidative modification before they can contribute to atherogenesis. This modification affects the structure of the apoB molecule or the phospholipid membrane of these lipoproteins, yielding ligands for the scavenger receptors of macrophages in the arterial wall.4 Subsequently, cholesterol accumulation and crystallization in macrophage cytoplasm leads to the formation of foam cells and progression to atherosclerotic plaque.5

Several alternative lipid and apolipoprotein parameters have been proposed as alternatives for LDL-C, most prominently apoB and non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non–HDL-C), both markers of the concentration of atherogenic apoB-containing lipoproteins. Several population-based studies have shown that these 2 parameters are more strongly associated with cardiovascular risk than LDL-C.69 Similar observations have been reported in some statin trials, although less extensively.1012 Therefore, the role of lipid or apolipoprotein parameters other than LDL-C as targets for statin therapy remains debated and clinically relevant.

It was the objective of this meta-analysis to assess whether among statin-treated patients, non–HDL-C and apoB were more strongly associated with the risk of future cardiovascular events than LDL-C. The secondary objective was to explore whether non–HDL-C and apoB explained a larger proportion of the atheroprotective effects of statin therapy than LDL-C. These objectives were addressed by performing a meta-analysis of individual patient data from large randomized controlled statin trials.

Study Eligibility and Data Collection

The literature was searched to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assigned study participants in at least 1 of the study groups to statin therapy. Trials in which total cholesterol, LDL-C, HDL-C, triglycerides, and apolipoproteins were measured at baseline and during statin therapy in the entire study population were selected. Trials with a mean follow-up for cardiovascular events shorter than 2 years and those including fewer than 1000 participants were excluded.

The literature search was undertaken in PubMed using the following search terms: statin, hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor, simvastatin, lovastatin, fluvastatin, pravastatin, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, cholesterol, apolipoprotein, coronary heart disease, coronary artery disease and cardiovascular disease. The results were limited to randomized trials and English language. The first search was performed on January 4, 2009, and the updated search until December 31, 2011, was performed on January 20, 2012. Two authors (B.J.A. and S.M.B.) independently screened all abstracts for randomized controlled trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria. If an abstract described a subanalysis of a potentially relevant trial, the original publication was traced. Results were compared and inconsistencies were resolved by consensus. Investigators were contacted and asked to provide individual patient data. The requested patient characteristics included sex, age, smoking status, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, fasting glucose, total cholesterol, LDL-C, HDL-C, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein A-I and B at baseline and at 1-year follow-up, study medication, and patient history of stable coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass grafting. The following outcomes (and time to event) were also collected: fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal other coronary artery disease, hospitalization for unstable angina, fatal and nonfatal stroke, peripheral artery disease, and congestive heart failure. Data were harmonized into a pooled database and this database was independently validated against the original files. Quality of the included trials was assessed by the Delphi score.13 This meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and a checklist was provided at the time of manuscript submission.14

Lipids, Apolipoproteins, and Outcome Definition

Lipid and apolipoprotein levels at baseline and at 1-year follow-up were obtained from the participating trials. For on-statin measurements, the 1-year time point was chosen because this was the first uniform time point when apolipoproteins were measured in all participating trials. Quiz Ref IDNon–HDL-C was calculated as total minus HDL-C. Cholesterol levels reported in mmol/L were converted to mg/dL by multiplying by 38.7, and triglycerides levels reported in mmol/L were converted to mg/dL by multiplying by 88.5. The primary disease outcome of this meta-analysis was time to first major cardiovascular event, which was defined as fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal other coronary artery disease, hospitalization for unstable angina, and fatal or nonfatal stroke. Additional analyses were performed for the prediction of time to first major coronary events (fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal other coronary artery disease, and hospitalization for unstable angina) and time to major cerebrovascular event (fatal or nonfatal stroke).

Statistical Analysis

Baseline characteristics, levels of lipids and apolipoproteins at baseline and on-trial, as well as absolute changes and percentage changes between on-trial and baseline levels were calculated for each trial separately. The risk of major cardiovascular events, major coronary events, and major cerebrovascular events associated with on-statin lipid and apolipoprotein levels was quantified using Cox proportional hazards models. Study participants allocated to placebo were excluded. Analyses were performed for LDL-C, non–HDL-C, and apoB separately. Hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% CIs were calculated per 1-SD increase of the respective on-statin lipid or apolipoprotein; this was the principal outcome on which conclusions were based.

Similar analyses were performed for patients in the top quartile of the on-statin lipid or apolipoprotein distribution, using those in the bottom quartile as the reference standard. A trend test was used to test for linear trend across quartiles. Analyses were adjusted for sex, age, smoking (current vs not), diabetes mellitus, systolic blood pressure, and trial. Analyses were not additionally adjusted for prevalent coronary artery disease since all trials enrolled either 0% or 100% patients with prevalent disease, so adjustment for trial implies adjustment for prevalent coronary artery disease.

Analyses were performed for the outcomes major cardiovascular events, major coronary events, and major cerebrovascular events. Because the Cox proportional hazards models were based on identical populations and included LDL-C, non–HDL-C, or apoB in addition to identical covariates, they were highly correlated and not independent. Therefore the approach to test for a significant difference between 2 models should be to assess whether the 95% CI of the difference between 2 models excludes zero. Bootstrapping was therefore performed on the difference between log-transformed HR of the adjusted Cox regression models (both by 1-SD increase and for top vs bottom quartile) for non–HDL-C vs LDL-C, non–HDL-C vs apoB, and apoB vs LDL-C. This approach yields a mean difference and its 95% CI, and thus an estimate of the statistical significance of this difference. HRs were also calculated for 4 categories of statin-treated patients based on whether or not they reached the LDL-C target 100 mg/dL and the non–HDL-C target 130 mg/dL. Forest plots were constructed and interaction terms were calculated to assess whether adjusted HRs per 1-SD increase of each lipid or apolipoprotein parameter differed significantly between subgroups based on baseline characteristics, lipid levels, or trial.

The proportion of the treatment effect of the statin intervention (either statin vs placebo or high-dose vs usual-dose statin) that was explained by LDL-C, non–HDL-C, or apoB was calculated as previously described.12 Bootstrapping was performed on the difference between the proportions of treatment effect explained by non–HDL-C vs LDL-C, non–HDL-C vs apoB, and apoB vs LDL-C.

Statistical heterogeneity across studies was quantified using the Cochran Q statistic and I2 statistic. The I2 statistic is derived from the Q statistic ([Qdf /Q ]*100) and provides a measure of the proportion of the overall variation attributable to between-study heterogeneity.15 The potential for publication bias was addressed by drawing funnel plots and visual assessment. Proportionality of hazards over time was graphically checked by plotting the cumulative hazards over time for all quartiles against each other. This was done for LDL-C, non–HDL-C, and apoB separately. A P value of less than .05 was considered statistically significant. Bootstrapping was performed in R. All other statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 17.0).

Literature Search and Data Handling

The literature search yielded a total of 1643 potentially relevant abstracts (eFigure). The large majority of articles were excluded because they were not primary reports on an RCT fulfilling the inclusion criteria.

We identified 28 potentially relevant RCTs. A total of 17 were excluded because apolipoprotein levels were not measured. One RCT was excluded because apolipoprotein levels were not measured during statin therapy, and 2 additional RCTs were excluded because apolipoproteins were measured in only a subset. A total of 8 trials fulfilled all inclusion criteria: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S),16 the Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study (AFCAPS-TexCAPS),17 the Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) trial,18 the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS),19 the Treating to New Targets (TNT) trial,20 the Incremental Decrease in Endpoints through Aggressive Lipid Lowering (IDEAL) trial,21 the Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels (SPARCL) trial,22 and the Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER).23 Individual patient data were obtained from all 8 trials. Study characteristics of these 8 trials are presented in eTable 1.

Trials were of high quality with a median Delphi score of 9 (range 6-9). Heterogeneity between trials with regard to the association with risk of major cardiovascular events was low for LDL-C (Q  = 6.94, P = .43, I2 = 0), non–HDL-C (Q  = 6.05, P = .53, I2 = 0) and apoB (Q  = 9.55, P = .22, I2 = 26%). Visual assessment of funnel plots suggested bias, although it is unlikely that this was publication bias since the primary objective of our meta-analysis was different from the primary objective of the included trials (statin efficacy). Bias was based on the fact that the associations between all 3 lipid parameters and risk of cardiovascular events were stronger in 2 trials contributing low numbers of events (AFCAPS-TexCAPS, JUPITER), which may have been related to their inclusion criteria. The proportionality assumptions were satisfied.

Baseline Characteristics and Events

Data were available from 62 154 study participants of the 8 included trials. Baseline characteristics are presented in eTable 2. Levels of lipids and apolipoproteins at baseline and at 1-year on trial, as well as the absolute changes and percentage changes between baseline and on-trial levels for each trial separately are presented in eTable 3. A total of 38 153 study participants were randomized to a statin group and had a complete set of lipid and apolipoprotein levels during statin treatment available. Among these individuals, a total of 158 (0.4%) developed a fatal myocardial infarction and 1678 (4.4%) developed a non-fatal myocardial infarction during follow-up. Fatal other coronary artery disease occurred in 615 study participants (1.6%) and fatal or nonfatal stroke occurred in 1029 study participants (2.7%). A total of 2806 participants (7.4%) were hospitalized for unstable angina. A total of 6286 major cardiovascular events occurred in 5387 study participants (event rate 14.1%). Of these, 4577 experienced 1 event, 728 experienced 2 events, 75 experienced 3 events, and 7 experienced 4 events.

On-Statin Lipids and Apolipoproteins and Risk of Events

All studied lipid and apolipoprotein parameters were statistically significantly associated with the risk of major cardiovascular events. The HRs per 1-SD increase in LDL-C (32 mg/dL), non–HDL-C (36 mg/dL), and apoB (27 mg/dL) were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.10-1.17), 1.16 (95% CI, 1.12-1.19) and 1.14 (95% CI, 1.11-1.18), respectively (Table 1). Patients in the top quartile of the LDL-C distribution had an HR of 1.26 (95% CI, 1.14-1.39) compared with those in the bottom quartile. Associations were stronger for non–HDL-C (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.29-1.56) and for apoB (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.22-1.45) (P for linear trend across quartiles <.001 for each). Bootstrap analyses showed that the difference between LDL-C and non–HDL-C in predicting the risk of major cardiovascular events per 1-SD increase was statistically significant (P = .002). The difference between non–HDL-C and apoB was also statistically significant (P = .02), whereas the difference between LDL-C and apoB was not statistically significant (P = .21). Analyses for the major coronary events outcome showed similar associations as for major cardiovascular events (eTable 4). Associations with risk of major cerebrovascular events were not as strong.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Lipid and Apolipoprotein Levels and Risk of Major Cardiovascular Events in Statin-Treated Patientsa

Subgroup analyses showed that the associations between lipid or apolipoprotein parameters and risk of major cardiovascular events did not have statistically significant difference between primary and secondary prevention trials (P for interaction >.78 for each; Figure 1). The strength of the associations with LDL-C, non–HDL-C, or apoB also did not differ between clinically relevant subgroups, including those with vs without diabetes mellitus, hypertriglyceridemia, and low HDL-C (P for interaction >.10 for each). There was also no overall statistically significant difference between the individual trials (P for interaction >.26 for each; Figure 2).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1. Association Between on-Statin Lipid or Apolipoprotein Levels and Risk of Major Cardiovascular Events Stratified by Baseline Characteristics
Graphic Jump Location

Data markers indicate hazard ratios for risk of major cardiovascular events per 1-SD increase of the lipid or apolipoprotein and 95% CIs. Dashed line indicates point estimate for all participants combined. All interaction terms were by presence or absence of the listed characteristics and were nonsignificant. BMI indicates body mass index; CHD, coronary heart disease; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; and TG, triglyceride.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2. Association Between on-Statin Lipid or Apolipoprotein Levels and Risk of Major Cardiovascular Events Stratified by Study
Graphic Jump Location

Data markers indicate hazard ratios (HRs) for risk of major cardiovascular events per 1-SD increase of on-statin low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non–HDL-C), or apolipoprotein B (apoB) and 95% CIs. For placebo-controlled trials, data from the placebo group were not used in this analysis. Dashed line indicates point estimate for all participants combined. All interaction terms by study were nonsignificant.

In Figure 3, HRs for the risk of major cardiovascular events are presented for 4 patient categories divided by the LDL-C target of 100 mg/dL and the non–HDL-C target of 130 mg/dL. Statin-treated patients reaching the non–HDL-C target but not the LDL-C target had an HR of 1.01 (95% CI, 0.92-1.12; P = .85) compared with those reaching both targets. Patients reaching the LDL-C target but not the non–HDL-C target had an HR of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.17-1.50; P < .001).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3. Risk of Major Cardiovascular Events by LDL and non-HDL Cholesterol Categories
Graphic Jump Location

Data markers indicate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for risk of major cardiovascular events. Results are shown for 4 categories of statin-treated patients based on whether or not they reached the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target of 100 mg/dL and the non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non–HDL-C) target of 130 mg/dL. HRs were adjusted for sex, age, smoking, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, and trial.

Proportion of Treatment Effect Explained by Lipid or Apolipoprotein Levels

The proportions of the treatment effect of the respective trial interventions (either statin vs placebo or high-dose vs moderate-dose statin therapy) that are explained by changes in LDL-C, non–HDL-C, and apoB are shown in Table 2. Statin-induced changes in LDL-C levels explained 50% of the effect of statin treatment, whereas non–HDL-C explained 64% and apoB explained 54%. The proportion of treatment effect explained by non–HDL-C was larger than by LDL-C (P < .001) and by apoB (P = .007). The proportion of treatment effect explained did not differ between LDL-C and apoB (P = .44).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Proportion of Treatment Effect Explained by Lipid or Apolipoprotein Levelsa

Quiz Ref IDWe performed a meta-analysis to determine the association between on-statin LDL-C, non–HDL-C, and apoB and risk of future cardiovascular events. The main finding of this study is that among statin-treated patients, non–HDL-C had a stronger association with risk of major cardiovascular events than LDL-C and apoB. Changes in non–HDL-C also explained a larger proportion of the atheroprotective effect of statin intervention than did LDL-C and apoB.

The predictive value of different lipid and apolipoprotein parameters has been a topic of debate for decades. As early as 1980, Sniderman et al24 suggested that apoB levels were more closely associated with the presence of coronary atherosclerosis compared with either LDL-C levels or triglyceride levels. The strong predictive value of apoB was confirmed in the apolipoprotein-related mortality risk (AMORIS) study,25 which included more than 175 000 individuals. Although LDL-C was not measured by established methods in AMORIS, it was shown to correlate well with LDL-C as quantified by conventional methods in a subgroup. The INTERHEART study26 has shown that the association between deciles of apoB and risk of first myocardial infarction was stronger than for non–HDL-C, but these 2 parameters were not compared with LDL-C. Another important limitation of INTERHEART resides in its cross-sectional design. A recent large-scale meta-analysis on individual patient data from 68 prospective studies showed that the HRs for risk of coronary artery disease were similar for non–HDL-C and apoB.9 These parameters were not compared with LDL-C as calculated by the Friedewald formula, as is commonly used in prospective studies and in clinical practice. More recently, another meta-analysis, which used study level data and a different set of inclusion criteria, addressed the same question. This meta-analysis concluded that apoB was superior to non–HDL-C and that both were superior to LDL-C as a predictor of cardiovascular risk.27

In contrast to the extensive literature on the predictive value of lipids and apolipoproteins in population studies, the body of evidence on statin-treated patients is more limited. Investigators of the AFCAPS-TexCAPS trial10 were the first to report that among patients treated with statin therapy, apoB may be a more accurate predictor of risk of major cardiovascular events than LDL-C. Our results suggest that the association in AFCAPS-TexCAPS was somewhat stronger than in the other participating trials (although not significantly), which may have been caused by the fact that the inclusion criteria of AFCAPS-TexCAPS differed substantially from those of other trials. A subanalysis of the LIPID trial12 confirmed that apoB was more strongly associated with cardiovascular risk than LDL-C, but non–HDL-C was not evaluated in that analysis. A combined analysis of the TNT and IDEAL trials11 also confirmed a stronger predictive value of both apoB and non–HDL-C compared with LDL-C. A subanalysis of CARDS also reported that LDL-C was inferior to apoB and non–HDL-C but concluded that apoB was the most consistent goal for statin therapy.28 In JUPITER,29 on-treatment concentrations of non–HDL-C and apoB were comparable with LDL-C in the prediction of residual risk. In summary, our observations in statin-treated patients extend prior results from large population-based studies showing that non–HDL-C is more strongly associated with risk of future major cardiovascular events than LDL-C, but we did not find evidence that apoB performed better than non–HDL-C or LDL-C. We found no evidence that the predictive power of these 3 parameters differed between subgroups based on other characteristics such as diabetes mellitus or hypertriglyceridemia.

In participating trials, HDL-C was measured in the supernatant after heparin-manganese precipitation of apoB-containing lipoproteins according to the protocol of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.30 This is important to recognize in extrapolating the results of our meta-analysis to clinical practice because many clinical laboratories do not currently use this method to measure HDL-C.31 Rather, they use homogeneous methods that can be fully automated. Although the majority of these assays perform reasonably well and generally meet the National Cholesterol Education Program criteria for precision, accuracy, and total error, some assays show discrepant results compared with reference methods. This means that the use of HDL-C as measured in clinical practice could result in the calculation of non–HDL-C, which may not provide an index of cardiovascular risk as accurate as that in clinical trials. Nevertheless, given the fact that HDL-C is used to calculate LDL-C as well, these limitations similarly apply to LDL-C. Quiz Ref IDConversely, the standardized methods for the measurement of apoB used in statin trials are similar to those that can be used in clinical laboratories. Implementation of apoB assays in routine clinical practice is suboptimal but this is not due to the quality of the assays but due to the limited attention given in clinical guidelines. Thus, the final rating on the comparative accuracy of the methods used to measure apoB and non–HDL-C in clinical practice may therefore depend on other information. Such a conclusion should consider not just biological and statistical evidence, but also financial, logistic, and feasibility arguments.

Several aspects of the design of this meta-analysis warrant comment. An important strength is the availability of individual patient data, which enabled individual-level patient analyses—a more appropriate and accurate option than study-level analyses. A limitation is the fact that the participating trials had different inclusion criteria. The different distributions across trials of baseline characteristics, and lipid levels in particular, may have affected the results of our meta-analysis. In addition, outcome definitions may have differed slightly between trials. Subgroup analyses, however, showed that the associations did not differ significantly between trials. It should also be noted that the results are based on patients included in trials and that these results cannot necessarily be extrapolated to patients in routine clinical practice. Another limitation is the use of on-statin lipid and apolipoprotein levels measured at 1-year follow-up. This time point was chosen because it was the first uniform time point when lipids and apolipoproteins were measured in all participating trials. Therefore, fatal cardiovascular events occurring in the first year of therapy are not accounted for in this analysis.

In conclusion, among statin-treated patients, levels of LDL-C, non–HDL-C, and apoB were each strongly associated with the risk of major cardiovascular events, but non–HDL-C was more strongly associated than LDL-C and apoB. Given the fact that many other arguments for the clinical applicability of non–HDL-C and LDL-C are identical, non–HDL-C may be a more appropriate target for statin therapy than LDL-C.

Corresponding Author: John J. P. Kastelein, MD, PhD, Department of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (j.j.kastelein@amc.uva.nl).

Author Contributions: Drs Boekholdt and Kastelein had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Boekholdt, Kastelein.

Acquisition of data: Pedersen, LaRosa, Nestel, Simes, Durrington, Hitman, Welch, DeMicco, Clearfield, Downs, Tonkin, Colhoun, Gotto, Ridker, Kastelein.

Analysis and interpretation of data: Boekholdt, Arsenault, Mora, Pedersen, LaRosa, Nestel, Simes, Durrington, Hitman, Welch, DeMicco, Zwinderman, Clearfield, Downs, Tonkin, Colhoun, Gotto, Ridker, Kastelein.

Drafting of the manuscript: Boekholdt, Arsenault, Kastelein.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Mora, Pedersen, LaRosa, Nestel, Simes, Durrington, Hitman, Welch, DeMicco, Clearfield, Downs, Tonkin, Colhoun, Gotto, Ridker.

Statistical analysis: Boekholdt, Arsenault, Zwinderman.

Administrative, technical, or material support: DeMicco, Kastelein.

Study supervision: Boekholdt, Kastelein.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Drs Boekholdt and Arsenault report receipt of consultancy fees from Pfizer. Dr Mora reports receipt of research grant support through her institution from Merck Sharpe & Dohme and AstraZeneca; consultancy fees from Pfizer and Quest Diagnostics; lecture honoraria from AstraZeneca and Abbott; and travel accommodations/meeting expenses from Pfizer. Dr Pedersen reports receipt of research grant support and lecture fees from Pfizer. Dr LaRosa reports receipt of consultancy fees from Pfizer and Amgen; and travel expenses from Pfizer. Dr Nestel reports serving as a board member for AstraZeneca and Merck Sharpe & Dohme; receipt of consultancy fees from AstraZeneca; lecture honoraria from Merck Sharpe & Dohme; and travel expenses from AstraZeneca and Merck Sharpe & Dohme. Dr Durrington reports provision of consulting services to Hoffman-La Roche; delivering lectures or serving on the speakers bureau for Pfizer; and receipt of royalties from Hodder Arnold Health Press. Dr Hitman reports receipt of lecture fees and travel expenses from Pfizer; provision of consulting services on advisory panels to GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk; receipt of a grant from Eli Lilly; and delivering lectures or serving on the speakers bureau for GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and Merck Sharpe & Dohme. Dr Welch reports receipt of a grant, consulting fees, travel support, payment for writing or manuscript review, and provision of writing assistance, medicines, equipment, or administrative support from Pfizer; and provision of consultancy services to Edwards, MAP, and NuPathe. Dr Demicco reports having stock/stock options with and being a full-time employee of Pfizer. Dr Clearfield reports provision of consulting services on advisory committees to Merck Sharpe & Dohme and AstraZeneca. Dr Tonkin reports receipt of consultancy fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, CSL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Pfizer; delivering lectures or serving on the speakers bureau for AstraZeneca, CSL, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, and Roche; and having stock/stock options with CSL and Sonic Health Care. Dr Colhoun reports receipt of research grant support through the EU Innovative Medicines Initiative from Roche, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Boehringer-Ingelheim, sanofi-aventis, and AstraZeneca; consultancy fees from Pfizer, sanofi-aventis, Novartis, and Eli Lilly; stocks from Roche; and lecture honoraria and travel expenses from Pfizer. Dr Gotto reports serving on the board of directors for Aegerion Pharmaceuticals and Arisaph Pharmaceuticals; being a member of advisory boards for DuPont and Vatera Capital; and receiving consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Kowa, and Merck Sharpe & Dohme. Dr Ridker reports receipt of research grant funding from Novartis and AstraZeneca; serving as a consultant to ISIS, Vascular Biogenics, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Abbott, and Boerringer-Ingelheim; board membership with Merck Sharpe & Dohme; receipt of a grant or pending grant to his institution from Amgen; and being listed as a coinventor on patents held by the Brigham and Women's Hospital that relate to the use of inflammatory biomarkers in cardiovascular disease and diabetes that have been licensed to AstraZeneca and Siemens. Dr Kastelein reports receipt of lecture honoraria from Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Roche, Novartis, ISIS, Genzyme, Pfizer, Kowa, and AstraZeneca. Drs Simes, Zwinderman, and Downs reported no conflicts of interest.

Funding/Support: This study was not supported by any funding. The contributing trials were funded by their respective sponsors.

Role of the Sponsors: The sponsors of the contributing trials provided the requested data. They did not play any role in the statistical analysis, interpretation of the data, writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the manuscript.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.

This article was corrected for errors on March 29, 2012.

Conroy RM, Pyörälä K, Fitzgerald AP,  et al; SCORE Project Group.  Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project.  Eur Heart J. 2003;24(11):987-1003
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults.  Executive summary of the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults.  JAMA. 2001;285(19):2486-2497
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Arsenault BJ, Boekholdt SM, Kastelein JJ. Lipid parameters for measuring risk of cardiovascular disease.  Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011;8(4):197-206
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Witztum JL, Steinberg D. Role of oxidized low density lipoprotein in atherogenesis.  J Clin Invest. 1991;88(6):1785-1792
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Duewell P, Kono H, Rayner KJ,  et al.  NLRP3 inflammasomes are required for atherogenesis and activated by cholesterol crystals.  Nature. 2010;464(7293):1357-1361
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Liu J, Sempos CT, Donahue RP, Dorn J, Trevisan M, Grundy SM. Non-high-density lipoprotein and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and their risk predictive values in coronary heart disease.  Am J Cardiol. 2006;98(10):1363-1368
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pischon T, Girman CJ, Sacks FM, Rifai N, Stampfer MJ, Rimm EB. Non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B in the prediction of coronary heart disease in men.  Circulation. 2005;112(22):3375-3383
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ridker PM, Rifai N, Cook NR, Bradwin G, Buring JE. Non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoproteins A-I and B100, standard lipid measures, lipid ratios, and CRP as risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women.  JAMA. 2005;294(3):326-333
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Di Angelantonio E, Sarwar N, Perry P,  et al; Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration.  Major lipids, apolipoproteins, and risk of vascular disease.  JAMA. 2009;302(18):1993-2000
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gotto AM Jr, Whitney E, Stein EA,  et al.  Relation between baseline and on-treatment lipid parameters and first acute major coronary events in the Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study (AFCAPS/TexCAPS).  Circulation. 2000;101(5):477-484
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kastelein JJ, van der Steeg WA, Holme I,  et al; TNT Study Group; IDEAL Study Group.  Lipids, apolipoproteins, and their ratios in relation to cardiovascular events with statin treatment.  Circulation. 2008;117(23):3002-3009
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Simes RJ, Marschner IC, Hunt D,  et al; LIPID Study Investigators.  Relationship between lipid levels and clinical outcomes in the Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease (LIPID) Trial: to what extent is the reduction in coronary events with pravastatin explained by on-study lipid levels?  Circulation. 2002;105(10):1162-1169
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA,  et al.  The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(12):1235-1241
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG.PRISMA Group.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.  PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.  BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group.  Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S).  Lancet. 1994;344(8934):1383-1389
PubMed
Downs JR, Clearfield M, Weis S,  et al.  Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels: results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study.  JAMA. 1998;279(20):1615-1622
PubMed   |  Link to Article
The Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) Study Group.  Prevention of cardiovascular events and death with pravastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and a broad range of initial cholesterol levels.  N Engl J Med. 1998;339(19):1349-1357
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Colhoun HM, Betteridge DJ, Durrington PN,  et al; CARDS investigators.  Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 diabetes in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS): multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial.  Lancet. 2004;364(9435):685-696
PubMed   |  Link to Article
LaRosa JC, Grundy SM, Waters DD,  et al; Treating to New Targets (TNT) Investigators.  Intensive lipid lowering with atorvastatin in patients with stable coronary disease.  N Engl J Med. 2005;352(14):1425-1435
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pedersen TR, Faergeman O, Kastelein JJ,  et al; Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering (IDEAL) Study Group.  High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction: the IDEAL study: a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA. 2005;294(19):2437-2445
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Amarenco P, Bogousslavsky J, Callahan A III,  et al; Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels (SPARCL) Investigators.  High-dose atorvastatin after stroke or transient ischemic attack.  N Engl J Med. 2006;355(6):549-559
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA,  et al;  JUPITER Study Group.  Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein.  N Engl J Med. 2008;359(21):2195-2207
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sniderman A, Shapiro S, Marpole D, Skinner B, Teng B, Kwiterovich PO Jr. Association of coronary atherosclerosis with hyperapobetalipoproteinemia [increased protein but normal cholesterol levels in human plasma low density (beta) lipoproteins].  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980;77(1):604-608
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Walldius G, Jungner I, Holme I, Aastveit AH, Kolar W, Steiner E. High apolipoprotein B, low apolipoprotein A-I, and improvement in the prediction of fatal myocardial infarction (AMORIS study): a prospective study.  Lancet. 2001;358(9298):2026-2033
PubMed   |  Link to Article
McQueen MJ, Hawken S, Wang X,  et al;  INTERHEART Study Investigators.  Lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins as risk markers of myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): a case-control study.  Lancet. 2008;372(9634):224-233
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sniderman AD, Williams K, Contois JH,  et al.  A meta-analysis of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B as markers of cardiovascular risk.  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4(3):337-345
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Charlton-Menys V, Betteridge DJ, Colhoun H,  et al.  Targets of statin therapy: LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B in type 2 diabetes in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS).  Clin Chem. 2009;55(3):473-480
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mora S, Glynn RJ, Boekholdt SM, Nordestgaard B, Kastelein JJ, Ridker PM. On-treatment non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, triglycerides, and lipid ratios in relation to residual vascular risk after treatment with potent statin therapy: the JUPITER trial. Abstract presented at: European Society of Cardiology Congress 2011; August 27-31, 2011; Paris France 
Myers GL, Cooper GR, Winn CL, Smith SJ. The Centers for Disease Control-National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Lipid Standardization Program: an approach to accurate and precise lipid measurements.  Clin Lab Med. 1989;9(1):105-135
PubMed
Warnick GR, Nauck M, Rifai N. Evolution of methods for measurement of HDL-cholesterol: from ultracentrifugation to homogeneous assays.  Clin Chem. 2001;47(9):1579-1596
PubMed

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1. Association Between on-Statin Lipid or Apolipoprotein Levels and Risk of Major Cardiovascular Events Stratified by Baseline Characteristics
Graphic Jump Location

Data markers indicate hazard ratios for risk of major cardiovascular events per 1-SD increase of the lipid or apolipoprotein and 95% CIs. Dashed line indicates point estimate for all participants combined. All interaction terms were by presence or absence of the listed characteristics and were nonsignificant. BMI indicates body mass index; CHD, coronary heart disease; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; and TG, triglyceride.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2. Association Between on-Statin Lipid or Apolipoprotein Levels and Risk of Major Cardiovascular Events Stratified by Study
Graphic Jump Location

Data markers indicate hazard ratios (HRs) for risk of major cardiovascular events per 1-SD increase of on-statin low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non–HDL-C), or apolipoprotein B (apoB) and 95% CIs. For placebo-controlled trials, data from the placebo group were not used in this analysis. Dashed line indicates point estimate for all participants combined. All interaction terms by study were nonsignificant.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3. Risk of Major Cardiovascular Events by LDL and non-HDL Cholesterol Categories
Graphic Jump Location

Data markers indicate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for risk of major cardiovascular events. Results are shown for 4 categories of statin-treated patients based on whether or not they reached the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target of 100 mg/dL and the non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non–HDL-C) target of 130 mg/dL. HRs were adjusted for sex, age, smoking, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, and trial.

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Lipid and Apolipoprotein Levels and Risk of Major Cardiovascular Events in Statin-Treated Patientsa
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Proportion of Treatment Effect Explained by Lipid or Apolipoprotein Levelsa

References

Conroy RM, Pyörälä K, Fitzgerald AP,  et al; SCORE Project Group.  Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project.  Eur Heart J. 2003;24(11):987-1003
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults.  Executive summary of the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults.  JAMA. 2001;285(19):2486-2497
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Arsenault BJ, Boekholdt SM, Kastelein JJ. Lipid parameters for measuring risk of cardiovascular disease.  Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011;8(4):197-206
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Witztum JL, Steinberg D. Role of oxidized low density lipoprotein in atherogenesis.  J Clin Invest. 1991;88(6):1785-1792
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Duewell P, Kono H, Rayner KJ,  et al.  NLRP3 inflammasomes are required for atherogenesis and activated by cholesterol crystals.  Nature. 2010;464(7293):1357-1361
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Liu J, Sempos CT, Donahue RP, Dorn J, Trevisan M, Grundy SM. Non-high-density lipoprotein and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and their risk predictive values in coronary heart disease.  Am J Cardiol. 2006;98(10):1363-1368
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pischon T, Girman CJ, Sacks FM, Rifai N, Stampfer MJ, Rimm EB. Non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B in the prediction of coronary heart disease in men.  Circulation. 2005;112(22):3375-3383
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ridker PM, Rifai N, Cook NR, Bradwin G, Buring JE. Non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoproteins A-I and B100, standard lipid measures, lipid ratios, and CRP as risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women.  JAMA. 2005;294(3):326-333
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Di Angelantonio E, Sarwar N, Perry P,  et al; Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration.  Major lipids, apolipoproteins, and risk of vascular disease.  JAMA. 2009;302(18):1993-2000
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gotto AM Jr, Whitney E, Stein EA,  et al.  Relation between baseline and on-treatment lipid parameters and first acute major coronary events in the Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study (AFCAPS/TexCAPS).  Circulation. 2000;101(5):477-484
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kastelein JJ, van der Steeg WA, Holme I,  et al; TNT Study Group; IDEAL Study Group.  Lipids, apolipoproteins, and their ratios in relation to cardiovascular events with statin treatment.  Circulation. 2008;117(23):3002-3009
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Simes RJ, Marschner IC, Hunt D,  et al; LIPID Study Investigators.  Relationship between lipid levels and clinical outcomes in the Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease (LIPID) Trial: to what extent is the reduction in coronary events with pravastatin explained by on-study lipid levels?  Circulation. 2002;105(10):1162-1169
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA,  et al.  The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus.  J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(12):1235-1241
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG.PRISMA Group.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.  PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.  BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group.  Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S).  Lancet. 1994;344(8934):1383-1389
PubMed
Downs JR, Clearfield M, Weis S,  et al.  Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels: results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study.  JAMA. 1998;279(20):1615-1622
PubMed   |  Link to Article
The Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) Study Group.  Prevention of cardiovascular events and death with pravastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and a broad range of initial cholesterol levels.  N Engl J Med. 1998;339(19):1349-1357
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Colhoun HM, Betteridge DJ, Durrington PN,  et al; CARDS investigators.  Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 diabetes in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS): multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial.  Lancet. 2004;364(9435):685-696
PubMed   |  Link to Article
LaRosa JC, Grundy SM, Waters DD,  et al; Treating to New Targets (TNT) Investigators.  Intensive lipid lowering with atorvastatin in patients with stable coronary disease.  N Engl J Med. 2005;352(14):1425-1435
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pedersen TR, Faergeman O, Kastelein JJ,  et al; Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering (IDEAL) Study Group.  High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction: the IDEAL study: a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA. 2005;294(19):2437-2445
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Amarenco P, Bogousslavsky J, Callahan A III,  et al; Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels (SPARCL) Investigators.  High-dose atorvastatin after stroke or transient ischemic attack.  N Engl J Med. 2006;355(6):549-559
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA,  et al;  JUPITER Study Group.  Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein.  N Engl J Med. 2008;359(21):2195-2207
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sniderman A, Shapiro S, Marpole D, Skinner B, Teng B, Kwiterovich PO Jr. Association of coronary atherosclerosis with hyperapobetalipoproteinemia [increased protein but normal cholesterol levels in human plasma low density (beta) lipoproteins].  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980;77(1):604-608
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Walldius G, Jungner I, Holme I, Aastveit AH, Kolar W, Steiner E. High apolipoprotein B, low apolipoprotein A-I, and improvement in the prediction of fatal myocardial infarction (AMORIS study): a prospective study.  Lancet. 2001;358(9298):2026-2033
PubMed   |  Link to Article
McQueen MJ, Hawken S, Wang X,  et al;  INTERHEART Study Investigators.  Lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins as risk markers of myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): a case-control study.  Lancet. 2008;372(9634):224-233
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sniderman AD, Williams K, Contois JH,  et al.  A meta-analysis of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B as markers of cardiovascular risk.  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4(3):337-345
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Charlton-Menys V, Betteridge DJ, Colhoun H,  et al.  Targets of statin therapy: LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B in type 2 diabetes in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS).  Clin Chem. 2009;55(3):473-480
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Mora S, Glynn RJ, Boekholdt SM, Nordestgaard B, Kastelein JJ, Ridker PM. On-treatment non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, triglycerides, and lipid ratios in relation to residual vascular risk after treatment with potent statin therapy: the JUPITER trial. Abstract presented at: European Society of Cardiology Congress 2011; August 27-31, 2011; Paris France 
Myers GL, Cooper GR, Winn CL, Smith SJ. The Centers for Disease Control-National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Lipid Standardization Program: an approach to accurate and precise lipid measurements.  Clin Lab Med. 1989;9(1):105-135
PubMed
Warnick GR, Nauck M, Rifai N. Evolution of methods for measurement of HDL-cholesterol: from ultracentrifugation to homogeneous assays.  Clin Chem. 2001;47(9):1579-1596
PubMed

Letters

July 11, 2012
Seth S. Martin, MD; Steven R. Jones, MD
JAMA. 2012;308(2):131-133. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.6614.
July 11, 2012
Robert D. Brook, MD; Melvyn Rubenfire, MD
JAMA. 2012;308(2):131-133. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.6616.
CME


You need to register in order to view this quiz.

Multimedia

Data Supplements
Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 85

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles