RT Journal
A1 Williams K, Monroe HM
T1 CArdiovascular disease risk prediction factors
JF JAMA
JO JAMA
YR 2012
FD November 21
VO 308
IS 19
SP 1969
OP 1969
DO 10.1001/jama.2012.14042
UL http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.14042
AB 
To the Editor:  The recent ERFC meta-analysis1 indicated that the standard hazard ratio (HR) for cardiovascular disease using baseline levels of non-HDL-C was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.22 to 1.33) vs 1.24 (1.19 to 1.29) using apolipoprotein B. In a head-to-head comparison, the HR for apolipoprotein B relative to the HR for non-HDL-C was lower: −2.4% (95% CI, −4.1% to −0.6%), assuming a correlation (r = 0.91) between the 2 markers.2 This contrasts with the within-study comparisons in our meta-analysis,2 which found the standard HR for coronary heart disease of apolipoprotein B averaged 5.7% (95% CI, 2.4% to 9.1%) higher than that of non-HDL-C. Our meta-analysis focused on HRs rather than the C statistic or the Cohen d statistic to aid assessment of the relative utility of each marker to target treatment rather than to just assess risk. Thus each meta-analysis estimated statistically significant associations in opposite directions with different but related outcomes. We wonder how there could be such a systematic difference in findings.