The European Atherosclerosis Society-European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Consensus Panel aims to provide recommendations to optimize atherogenic lipoprotein ...quantification for cardiovascular risk management.
We critically examined LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B (apoB), and LDL particle number assays based on key criteria for medical application of biomarkers. (
) Analytical performance: Discordant LDL cholesterol quantification occurs when LDL cholesterol is measured or calculated with different assays, especially in patients with hypertriglyceridemia >175 mg/dL (2 mmol/L) and low LDL cholesterol concentrations <70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L). Increased lipoprotein(a) should be excluded in patients not achieving LDL cholesterol goals with treatment. Non-HDL cholesterol includes the atherogenic risk component of remnant cholesterol and can be calculated in a standard nonfasting lipid panel without additional expense. ApoB more accurately reflects LDL particle number. (
) Clinical performance: LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apoB are comparable predictors of cardiovascular events in prospective population studies and clinical trials; however, discordance analysis of the markers improves risk prediction by adding remnant cholesterol (included in non-HDL cholesterol) and LDL particle number (with apoB) risk components to LDL cholesterol testing. (
) Clinical and cost-effectiveness: There is no consistent evidence yet that non-HDL cholesterol-, apoB-, or LDL particle-targeted treatment reduces the number of cardiovascular events and healthcare-related costs than treatment targeted to LDL cholesterol.
Follow-up of pre- and on-treatment (measured or calculated) LDL cholesterol concentration in a patient should ideally be performed with the same documented test method. Non-HDL cholesterol (or apoB) should be the secondary treatment target in patients with mild to moderate hypertriglyceridemia, in whom LDL cholesterol measurement or calculation is less accurate and often less predictive of cardiovascular risk. Laboratories should report non-HDL cholesterol in all standard lipid panels.
EFLM European Urinalysis Guideline Langlois, Michel R; Kouri, Timo T
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine,
2024-May-30, 2024-05-30, 20240530
Journal Article
The joint consensus panel of the
(EAS) and the
(EFLM) recently addressed present and future challenges in the laboratory diagnostics of atherogenic lipoproteins. Total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides ...(TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), LDL cholesterol (LDLC), and calculated non-HDLC (=total – HDLC) constitute the primary lipid panel for estimating risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and can be measured in the nonfasting state. LDLC is the primary target of lipid-lowering therapies. For on-treatment follow-up, LDLC shall be measured or calculated by the same method to attenuate errors in treatment decisions due to marked between-method variations. Lipoprotein(a) Lp(a)-cholesterol is part of measured or calculated LDLC and should be estimated at least once in all patients at risk of ASCVD, especially in those whose LDLC declines poorly upon statin treatment. Residual risk of ASCVD even under optimal LDL-lowering treatment should be also assessed by non-HDLC or apolipoprotein B (apoB), especially in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (2–10 mmol/L). Non-HDLC includes the assessment of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol and shall be reported in all standard lipid panels. Additional apoB measurement can detect elevated LDL particle (LDLP) numbers often unidentified on the basis of LDLC alone. Reference intervals of lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins are reported for European men and women aged 20–100 years. However, laboratories shall flag abnormal lipid values with reference to therapeutic decision thresholds.
Purpose of Review
Guidelines propose using non-HDL cholesterol or apolipoprotein (apo) B as a secondary treatment target to reduce residual cardiovascular risk of LDL-targeted therapies. This review ...summarizes the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of using apoB compared with non-HDL cholesterol.
Recent Findings
Non-HDL cholesterol, calculated as total-HDL cholesterol, includes the assessment of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol, an additional risk factor independent of LDL cholesterol. ApoB is a direct measure of circulating numbers of atherogenic lipoproteins, and its measurement can be standardized across laboratories worldwide. Discordance analysis of non-HDL cholesterol versus apoB demonstrates that apoB is the more accurate marker of cardiovascular risk. Baseline and on-treatment apoB can identify elevated numbers of small cholesterol-depleted LDL particles that are not reflected by LDL and non-HDL cholesterol.
Summary
ApoB is superior to non-HDL cholesterol as a secondary target in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (175–880 mg/dL), diabetes, obesity or metabolic syndrome, or very low LDL cholesterol < 70 mg/dL. When apoB is not available, non-HDL cholesterol should be used to supplement LDLC.
Concern continues about whether the measurement of apolipoprotein B (apoB) is adequately standardized, and therefore, whether apoB should be applied widely in clinical care. This concern is ...misplaced. Our objective is to explain why and what the term "standardization" means. To produce clinically valid results, a test must accurately, precisely, and selectively measure the marker of interest. That is, it must be standardized. Accuracy refers to how closely the result obtained with 1 method corresponds to the result obtained with the standard method, precision to how reproducible the result is on repeated testing, and selectivity to how susceptible the method is to error by inclusion of other classes of lipoprotein particles. Multiple expert groups have determined that the measurement of apoB is adequately standardized for clinical care, and that apoB can be measured inexpensively, using widely available automated methods, more accurately, precisely, and selectively than low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. ApoB is a standard superior to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol because it is a defined molecule, whereas the cholesterol markers are the mass of cholesterol within lipoprotein particles defined by their density, not by their molecular structure. Nevertheless, the standardization of apoB is being further improved by the application of mass spectrophotometric methods, whereas the limitations in the standardization and, therefore, the accurate, precise, and selective measurement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol are unlikely to be overcome. We submit that greater accuracy, precision, and selectivity in measurement is a decisive advantage for apoB in the modern era of intensive lipid-lowering therapies.
Two new formulas, the Martin-Hopkins and the Sampson formula, were recently developed to overcome shortcomings of the Friedewald formula for calculating LDL-cholesterol. We aimed to compare the ...concordance of the two formulas with apolipoprotein B (apoB), a surrogate marker of the number of LDL particles.
In a study of serum lipid data of 1179 patients who consulted the AZ St-Jan Hospital Bruges for cardiovascular risk assessment, the correlation and concordance of the Friedewald, Martin-Hopkins and Sampson formulas with apoB concentration, measured by immunonephelometry, were determined and compared.
The Martin-Hopkins formula showed significantly higher correlation coefficient than the Friedewald formula with apoB in the entire dataset and in patients with low LDL-cholesterol < 1.8 mmol/L. Both Martin-Hopkins and Sampson formulas yielded > 70% concordance of LDL-cholesterol with regard to treatment group classification based on population-equivalent thresholds of apoB in hypertriglyceridemic patients (2-4.5 mmol/L), with the highest concordance (75.6%) obtained using Martin-Hopkins formula
. 60.5% with Friedewald formula.
The Martin-Hopkins (and, to a lesser extent, Sampson) formula is more closely associated with the number of LDL particles than Friedewald formula. This, in combination with literature evidence of lesser accuracy of the Friedewald formula, is an argument to switch from Friedewald to a modified, improved formula.
Why are clinical practice guidelines not followed? Barth, Julian H.; Misra, Shivani; Aakre, Kristin Moberg ...
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine,
07/2016, Letnik:
54, Številka:
7
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are written with the aim of collating the most up to date information into a single document that will aid clinicians in providing the best practice for their ...patients. There is evidence to suggest that those clinicians who adhere to CPG deliver better outcomes for their patients. Why, therefore, are clinicians so poor at adhering to CPG? The main barriers include awareness, familiarity and agreement with the contents. Secondly, clinicians must feel that they have the skills and are therefore able to deliver on the CPG. Clinicians also need to be able to overcome the inertia of “normal practice” and understand the need for change. Thirdly, the goals of clinicians and patients are not always the same as each other (or the guidelines). Finally, there are a multitude of external barriers including equipment, space, educational materials, time, staff, and financial resource. In view of the considerable energy that has been placed on guidelines, there has been extensive research into their uptake. Laboratory medicine specialists are not immune from these barriers. Most CPG that include laboratory tests do not have sufficient detail for laboratories to provide any added value. However, where appropriate recommendations are made, then it appears that laboratory specialist express the same difficulties in compliance as front-line clinicians.
PDF
