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.

Quality specifications and the assessment of the biochemical risk of atherosclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the major cause of death in the western world and biochemical markers have been used to identify those individuals who are at increased risk. Although numerous markers have been considered, only total, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride and C-reactive protein (CRP) have been recommended for assessing CHD risk in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Specific performance goals have been established for the lipid markers and for the measurement of CRP considering both some significant pre-analytical and analytical issues which could affect the quality of their measurements. RESULTS: The target for quality specifications for LDL-C with the reference method are CV < or =4% and bias < or =4%. Regarding the measurement of CRP, total imprecision should be <10% across the linear range of the assay and the analytical sensitivity may allow a reliable measurement at values lower than 0.3 mg/l. CONCLUSIONS: Although national guidelines do exist for LDL-C measurement, additional studies are needed to better characterize the performances of routine methods. As more data are available for CRP, guidelines for its measurement will be soon developed.

Assessment and recommendations on factors contributing to preanalytical variability of urinary pyridinoline and deoxypyridinoline.

BACKGROUND: Pyridinoline (PYD) and deoxypyridinoline (DPD) are two of the most extensively characterized biochemical bone markers, but the interpretation of results is hampered by biologic and other preanalytical variability. We reviewed factors contributing to preanalytical variation of pyridinium cross-links in urine. METHODS: We searched four databases for English-language reports on PYD and/or DPD in urine. Searches were restricted to humans, except for studies of stability, when the search was expanded to other species. The 599 identified articles were supplemented with references from those articles and with articles known to the authors. RESULTS: The mean reported within-day variability was 71% for PYD (range, 57-78%) and 67% for DPD (range, 53-75%). The mean interday variability was 16% for both DPD and PYD (range for PYD, 12-21%; range for DPD, 5-24%). The mean intersubject variabilities across studies were 26% for PYD (range, 12-63%) and 34% for DPD (range, 8-98%) for healthy premenopausal women and 36% (range, 22-61%) and 40%, (range, 27-54%) for postmenopausal women, respectively. Specimen instability and errors in creatinine measurements were additional sources of variability. CONCLUSIONS: Intra- and intersubject variability can be reduced by collecting specimens at a specific time of the day and by maintaining similar patient status at each specimen collection regarding factors such as medications and dietary supplements.

Methods for measurement of LDL-cholesterol: a critical assessment of direct measurement by homogeneous assays versus calculation.

BACKGROUND: Because LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) is a modifiable risk for coronary heart disease, its routine measurement is recommended in the evaluation and management of hypercholesterolemia. We critically examine here the new homogeneous assays for direct determination of LDL-C. APPROACH: This review relies on published studies and data of the authors using research and routine methods for LDL-C determination. We review experience with methods from their earlier use in lipid research laboratories through the transition to routine clinical testing and the recent development of homogeneous assays. We focus on comparative evaluations and characterizations and the performance of the assays. CONTENT: Homogeneous assays seem to be able to meet current National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) requirements for LDL-C testing for precision (CV <4%) and accuracy (bias <4%), when samples collected from nonfasting individuals are used. In addition, all five currently available assays have been certified by the Cholesterol Reference Methods Laboratory Network. The homogeneous methods also appear to better classify individuals into NCEP cutpoints than the Friedewald calculation. However, the limited evaluations to date raise questions about their reliability and specificity, especially in samples with atypical lipoproteins. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence supports recommending the homogeneous assays for LDL-C to supplement the Friedewald calculation in those cases where the calculation is known to be unreliable, e.g., triglycerides >4000 mg/L. Before the homogeneous assays can be confidently recommended to replace the calculation in routine practice, more evaluation is needed.