Remaley, Alan T.

Abstract Background Patients at high risk for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD), who do not achieve adequate lowering of LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) with maximally tolerated statins or who are statin-intolerant, are often treated with proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin (type 9) serine protease inhibitor (PCSK9-inh) therapy. The LDL-C reference method, Beta-Quantitation (BQ), is not routinely performed in these patients. Because low values are measured less accurately with current methods, a variety of equations have been developed to calculate LDL-C from the standard lipid panel test results (total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C)). We further modified the Sampson LDL-C (S-LDL-C) equation by a novel approach by combining logistic regression (LR) and linear regression to minimize errors when compared to BQ for low LDL-C. Methods A dataset of BQ results from Mayo Medical Labs was divided randomly into a training set (TG ≤ 1500 mg/dL, TC ≤ 1050 mg/dL, n=19,639) and a validation set (TG ≤ 800 mg/dL, BQ-LDL-C ≤ 130 mg/dL, n=12,910). The training dataset was analyzed by LR, using BQ-LDL-C to classify patients as being above or below the 70 mg/dL cut-point. Dependent variables in the LR model were the S-LDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG and an interaction term (TG x NonHDL-C). The sum of the exponential terms in the trained LR equation for the dependent variables were then fitted by least squares linear regression to match BQ-LDL-C to develop the modified S-LDL-C equation (mS-LDL-C). We used the validation dataset to compare Friedewald (F-LDL-C), extended Martin (eM-LDL-C), Sampson (S-LDL-C) and modified Sampson (mS-LDL-C) equations by Cohen’s kappa coefficient for agreement with BQ-LDL-C and normalized Matthew’s correlation coefficient (MCC), which considers any imbalances in the number of false high versus false low results. Results The mS-LDL-C equation (mS-LDL-C = (TC/0.9423 - HDL-C/0.9582 - TG/9.397 - ((TGxNonHDL-C)/1305) + TG2/8569) - 5.688), primarily differs from the S-LDL-C equation in the value of the coefficients that include TG as a variable. For S-LDL-C ≤100 mg/dL, mS-LDL-C had the best concordance with BQ-LDL-C in terms of the total percent of patients misclassified as either high or low (mS-LDL-C: 21.4%, S-LDL-C: 24.4%, eM-LDL-C: 25.4% F-LDL-C: 30.8%). mS-LDL-C also had the best kappa score when compared to BQ (mS-LDL-C: 0.833, S-LDL-C: 0.810, eM-LDL-C: 0.789, F-LDL-C: 0.743). MCC was also the highest for mS-LDL-C (mS-LDL-C: 0.916, S-LDL-C: 0.906, eM-LDL-C: 0.894, F-LDL-C: 0.879). Finally, mS-LDL-C also showed the best concordance with BQ-LDL-C when an alternative lower LDL-C therapeutic decision cut-point of 55 mg/dL is used (kappa of 0.766 versus 0.724) but showed an increasingly poorer performance than S-LDL-C for higher LDL-C whenever it exceeded 150 mg/dL. Conclusions A strategy to maximize the overall accuracy of estimated LDL-C could provide an automatic reflex in a laboratory information system to the mS-LDL-C equation whenever S-LDL-C is <100 mg/dL. By doing so, the use of the more accurate mS-LDL-C equation for low LDL-C should improve PCSK9-inh therapeutic decision making over the other LDL-C equations.

Abstract Background Low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) is the main univariate risk marker recommended for initial atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk stratification. LDL, however, transports other constituents that can serve as pro-atherogenic risk markers. Like LDL-C, the triglyceride content of LDL (LDL-TG) can also be estimated from the lipid panel. Using data from UK Biobank (UKB), we compared LDL-C to LDL-TG for predicting future ASCVD events. Methods A UKB dataset (N=270,436) of primary prevention individuals not on lipid lowering therapy was used for analysis. LDL-C was calculated by the following equations: Friedewald, Extended Martin-Hopkins, Sampson-NIH, and Enhanced Sampson-NIH. LDL-TG was calculated by our newly devised equation (eLDL-TG = TG/38.46 + nonHDL-C/5.75 + (TG/nonHDL-C)/0.103 + (1/HDL-C)/0.0041 - 2.95)), which was derived from a dyslipidemic cohort (N=40,202) analyzed by the beta-quantification reference method. Results Although there was only a modest comparison between eLDL-TG and measured LDL-TG (R2=0.601, slope=0.611), eLDL-TG appeared to be a better risk marker than LDL-C in UKB. When the population was divided into quintiles and analyzed by survival curve analysis, eLDL-TG was better than LDL-C in segregating patients into low- and high-risk groups (Figure). Similar findings on the relative value of LDL-TG over other risk markers were also found when analyzed by ROC analysis (AUC: eLDL-TG>HDL-C>remnant-cholesterol>NonHDL-C>TG>apoB>Sampson-NIH-LDL-C). By Cox-proportional hazard analysis eLDL-TG showed alongside apoB and NonHDL-C the strongest association with future ASCVD events. Discordance analysis showed that when stratified as LDL-TG/LDL-C as High/Low there was an 26% increased risk for ASCVD, and when as High/High showed an 40% increased risk for ASCVD. Conclusions Like LDL-C, LDL-TG levels can also be estimated from the standard lipid panel. If our findings hold in other populations, the superiority of LDL-TG over LDL-C as a risk marker suggest that the reporting of calculated LDL-TG along with LDL-C could be a new strategy for improving ASCVD risk stratification.

Abstract Background The accurate measurement of blood lipids and lipoproteins is crucial for the clinical management of atherosclerotic disease risk. Despite progress in standardization, there are still significant variations in pre-analytical requirements, methods, nomenclature, and reporting work flows. Content The guidance document aims to improve standardization of clinical lipid testing work flows. It provides recommendations for the components of the lipid panel, fasting requirements, reporting of results, and specific recommendations for non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], apolipoprotein B (apo B), point-of-care lipid testing, and LDL subfraction testing. Summary Lipid panels should always report non-HDL-C and LDL-C calculations if possible. Fasting is not routinely required except in specific cases. Modern equations should be utilized for LDL-C calculation. These equations allow for LDL-C reporting at elevated concentrations of triglycerides and obviate the need for direct measured LDL-C in most cases.

Abstract Background There is growing evidence that low-density lipoprotein-triglyceride (LDL-TG) may be a better biomarker to define atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk than LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C), which is currently used to stratify risk and as a treatment goal. Because LDL-TG typically requires additional advanced lipid testing, we developed an equation for estimating LDL-TG (eLDL-TG) from the results of the standard lipid panel. Methods Results from a general dyslipidemic population (N = 40 202), which were obtained with beta-quantification (BQ) reference method, were randomly divided into a training and validation datasets and used to develop the equation for estimating LDL-TG shown in Fig. 1A. Association of Sampson-NIH-LDL-C (NIH-LDL-C) and eLDL-TG with ASCVD risk markers was done in the National Heart and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (N = 37 053) and with ASCVD events in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study (N = 14 749). Results The comparison between eLDL-TG and measured LDL-TG was only modest (R2 = 0.601, slope = 0.611), but eLDL-TG (Fig. 1B) showed better risk stratification than NIH-LDL-C (Fig. 1C) by survival curve analysis in ARIC. Moreover, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that eLDL-TG was better than all other lipid-marker tests for ASCVD events (AUC: eLDL-TG = 0.633, HDL-C = 0.627, sdLDL-C = 0.621, remnant-cholesterol = 0.613, NonHDL-C = 0.613, TG = 0.603, apoB = 0.598, NIH-LDL-C = 0.590, TC = 0.568). In NHANES, eLDL-TG was more strongly associated with hypertriglyceridemia, obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and increased high-sensitivity C-reactive protein than NIH-LDL-C. Inclusion of eLDL-TG in a Cox-Proportional Hazards Model along with other conventional risk factors (age, sex, race, diabetes, systolic blood pressure, smoking, HDL-C, and total cholesterol) did not further improve risk prediction. Conclusions Like LDL-C, LDL-TG can also be estimated from the results of the standard lipid panel. It is a better univariate risk marker than LDL-C and hence can be useful for initial ASCVD risk stratification.

Abstract Background Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is used to assess atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk and to manage lipid-lowering therapy. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin (type 9) serine protease (PCSK9) inhibitors decrease LDL-C by up to 70% when used in conjunction with statins. Due to cost, insurance companies restrict their use. To be eligible for PCSK9 therapy, a patient must have pre-existing ASCVD and LDL-C > 70 mg/dL, while on a maximally tolerated dose of statins. Most clinical laboratories calculate LDL-C by the Friedewald Equation (FWLDL-C), which utilizes results from the standard lipid panel (total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C)). However, this often leads to an underestimation of LDL-C, especially when TG concentrations are elevated. More accurate equations have recently been developed, such as the Martin (MLDL-C), Sampson-NIH (SLDL-C) and extended Martin (ext-MLDL-C) equations. Using LDL-C determined by the beta-quantification reference method (BQ), we developed the following enhanced version of the Sampson-NIH Equation (eSLDL-C), which includes apoB as an independent variable: eSLDL-C = TC/1.15-(HDL-C)/1.25-TG/6.98-(TG × NonHDL-C)/1115 + TG2/8903.23 + (TG × ApoB)/1237 + ApoB/4.54–4.73 Methods Results for clinically ordered ApoB, BQ, and lipid panels were used. To test the accuracy of the various equations, we compared BQLDL-C to FWLDL-C, MLDL-C, extMLDL-C, SLDL-C and eSLDL-C by regression analysis (N = 12 101, TG < 800). Accuracy of each equation was compared to the BQ reference method for classifying patients (LDL-C ≤ 150, n = 9374) as either being below or above the 70 mg/dL treatment decision threshold for PCSK9 therapy. Results The eSLDL-C equation performed substantially better than the other equations for estimating low LDL-C (BQLDL-C ≤ 100 mg/dL, TG 5–800 mg/dL, n = 4115), with a mean absolute difference (MAD) of 3.80 mg/dL (compared to SLDL-C: 6.05; FWLDL-C: 8.71; MLDL-C: 6.43; extMLDL-C: 6.39). It also had the best overall normalized Matthew’s Correlation Coefficient (nMCC) for the best balance of sensitivity and specificity for identifying patients that are above the 70 mg/dL treatment threshold (eSLDL-C-94.7% (92.2% spec, 98.5% sen), SLDL-C-90.7% (94.8% spec, 95.5% sen), FWLDL-C-88.2% (98.0% spec, 92.7% sen), MLDL-C-90.3% (88.9% spec, 96.5% sen), and extMLDL-C-90.1% (88.4% spec, 96.5% sen)). In our dataset with 1125 subjects being below the 70 mg/dL threshold by BQLDL-C, FWLDL-C misclassified an additional 601 subjects below this threshold (Negative Predictive Value 65%). MLDL-C and extMLDL-C misclassified 289 subjects falsely low, whereas eSLDL-C only has 126 subjects falsely classified lower than the 70 mg/dL threshold. Conclusion We show that the enhanced Sampson-NIH equation, which includes apoB, estimates low LDL-C more accurately than other equations. The use of the new equation would improve access to those patients who might benefit from PCSK9 therapy but have falsely low LDL-C by the FWLDL-C equation or other LDL-C equations. The new equation is also more specific than the MLDL-C and extMLDL-C equations and would, therefore, also reduce the overutilization of PCSK9 therapy by these particular equations for those patients who do not require it, according to the reference BQ method and current guidelines.

Introduction: Over 6 million people in the U.S. have heart failure (HF), less than half are expected to survive beyond 5 years. The need to better stratify mortality risk in HF is recognized. Frailty is associated with mortality in HF but not routinely measured clinically. As frailty is linked to inflammation and malnutrition, we hypothesized that the Metabolic Vulnerability Index (MVX) a multimarker score of systemic inflammation (small HDL particles, GlycA) and malnutrition (leucine, valine, isoleucine, citrate), could serve as a biomarker of frailty to predict mortality risk. Methods: Clinical data and plasma were collected from 1,389 patients from a HF community cohort between 2003-2012. We measured frailty using the Rockwood Index as the proportion of deficits present out of 32 physical limitations and comorbidities. MVX was calculated from the nuclear magnetic resonance LipoProfile® test. Patients were categorized by frailty (0-0.15; 0.16-0.27; 0.28-0.78) and MVX (33.4-50, 50-60, 60-70, 70-85.8) cutpoints. Cox models estimated the association of frailty and MVX assignment with mortality, adjusted for Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic HF (MAGGIC) score, a validated clinical risk score for HF mortality. Results: Frailty and MVX scores were available in 985 patients (median age 77, IQR: 67-84; 48% women). Higher frailty was associated with higher MVX (p-trend < 0.001). The highest frailty and MVX groups experienced large increases in risk of death, after adjustment for MAGGIC score (HR=3.3, 95% CI=2.6-4.2) and (HR=2.7, 95% CI=2.1-3.5), respectively. When adjusted for one another and MAGGIC score, MVX and frailty associations with death were only minimally attenuated: frailty (HR=3.2, 95% CI=2.5-4.0) and MVX (HR=2.4, 95% CI=1.9-3.2) (Figure 1). Conclusion: In this community cohort of patients with HF, frailty and MVX are positively associated with one another. However, both indicators are independently associated with an increased risk of death and can contribute to risk stratification.

Background: Heart failure (HF) is associated with metabolic alterations, including ketogenesis. However, determinants of ketogenesis and risk of mortality in HF is not defined. Total ketone bodies (KB) include β-hydroxybutyrate, acetoacetate, and acetone and can be measured in plasma by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). The aim of this study is to determine the relationship between KB and clinical characteristics in a community HF cohort and to assess the association between KB and all-cause mortality. Methods: A population-based cohort of 1,389 HF patients was prospectively enrolled between 2003 and 2012. Plasma KB was measured by LP4 NMR LipoProfile ® assay/test on the Vantera® NMR analyzer platform. A conditional inference tree method (ctree R Package) was used to determine optimal KB group cut points. Associations between clinical characteristics and KB were measured with Wilcoxon rank sum test and Pearson’s Chi-squared test. Kaplan-Meier method estimated survival. Cox regression analyses were used to estimate associations between KB concentrations and mortality. Results: Among the 1,382 HF patients with KB measurements, the median age was 78 years (IQR 68-84) and 52% were men. Median KB was 180 μM (IQR 134-308). Patients were divided into two groups with lower KB (≤471.5 μM) and higher KB (>471.5 μM). Patients with higher KB (N=210) had lower BMI, higher BNP, and were more likely to be in the New York Heart Association class III-IV; however, these patients were less likely to have hyperlipidemia, coronary disease, or diabetes mellitus (P < 0.05). Age, sex, creatinine, ejection fraction, or Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic HF (MAGGIC) score did not differ by KB group. Higher KB was associated with worse survival (figure). After adjustment for the MAGGIC score, higher KB was associated with increased risk of mortality (HR 1.3; 95% CI, 1.08-1.48). Conclusions: In this community HF cohort, higher KB was associated with increased mortality, independent of the MAGGIC score.

Background Larger within‐patient variability of lipid levels has been associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, measures of lipid variability require ≥3 measurements and are not currently used clinically. We investigated the feasibility of calculating lipid variability within a large electronic health record–based population cohort and assessed associations with incident CVD. Methods and Results We identified all individuals ≥40 years of age who resided in Olmsted County, MN, on January 1, 2006 (index date), without prior CVD, defined as myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention, or CVD death. Patients with ≥3 measurements of total cholesterol, low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, or triglycerides during the 5 years before the index date were retained. Lipid variability was calculated using variability independent of the mean. Patients were followed through December 31, 2020 for incident CVD. We identified 19 652 individuals (mean age 61 years; 55% female), who were CVD‐free and had variability independent of the mean calculated for at least 1 lipid type. After adjustment, those with highest total cholesterol variability had a 20% increased risk of CVD (Q5 versus Q1 hazard ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.06–1.37]). Results were similar for low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol. Conclusions In a large electronic health record–based population cohort, high variability in total cholesterol, high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, and low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol was associated with an increased risk of CVD, independent of traditional risk factors, suggesting it may be a possible risk marker and target for intervention. Lipid variability can be calculated in the electronic health record environment, but more research is needed to determine its clinical utility.

New more effective lipid-lowering therapies have made it important to accurately determine Low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) at both high and low levels. LDL-C was measured by the β-quantification reference method (BQ) (N = 40,346) and compared to Friedewald (F-LDL-C), Martin (M-LDL-C), extended Martin (eM-LDL-C) and Sampson (S-LDL-C) equations by regression analysis, error-grid analysis, and concordance with the BQ method for classification into different LDL-C treatment intervals. For triglycerides (TG) < 175 mg/dL, the four LDL-C equations yielded similarly accurate results, but for TG between 175 and 800 mg/dL, the S-LDL-C equation when compared to the BQ method had a lower mean absolute difference (mg/dL) (MAD = 10.66) than F-LDL-C (MAD = 13.09), M-LDL-C (MAD = 13.16) or eM-LDL-C (MAD = 12.70) equations. By error-grid analysis, the S-LDL-C equation for TG > 400 mg/dL not only had the least analytical errors but also the lowest frequency of clinically relevant errors at the low (<70 mg/dL) and high (>190 mg/dL) LDL-C cut-points (S-LDL-C: 13.5%, F-LDL-C: 23.0%, M-LDL-C: 20.5%) and eM-LDL-C: 20.0%) equations. The S-LDL-C equation also had the best overall concordance to the BQ reference method for classifying patients into different LDL-C treatment intervals. The S-LDL-C equation is both more analytically accurate than alternative equations and results in less clinically relevant errors at high and low LDL-C levels.