Sampson, Maureen

Abstract Background β-Quantification (BQ) is the reference method for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) determination. It is not widely available, making it challenging for laboratories to assess the accuracy of LDL-C methods. Our goal was to develop an indirect graphical approach for comparing LDL-C test results to the BQ reference method. Methods BQ results from Mayo Medical Laboratories (n = 39 969) and the National Institutes of Health (n = 17 825) were used to investigate the interrelationships between lipid panel tests. A plot of LDL-C/non high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (nonHDL-C) vs (triglyceride (TG)/nonHDL-C)0.5 (lipid ratio plot) resulted in a negative linear regression line (y = −34.2x + 115). Based on simulation analysis, the minimum sample size for calculating its slope and intercept with a coefficient of variation of about 7.5% was 80. Results The regression lines for the lipid ratio plot of LDL-C calculated by the Sampson–NIH (y = −37.6x + 118) and enhanced Sampson–NIH (y = −33.1x + 116) equations closely overlapped with the BQ method. In contrast, the Martin–Hopkins equation showed a positive bias with an increasing TG/nonHDL-C ratio and exceeded the recommended bias limit of 4% on hypertriglyceridemic samples (y = −25.5x + 107). The Friedewald equation showed an even larger negative bias with hypertriglyceridemia (y = −47.5x + 126). Lipid ratio plots of the Roche direct assay revealed a fixed positive bias of approximately 4% (y = −33.9x + 120), whereas a much larger proportional positive bias was observed with increasing triglycerides for the Beckman direct assay (y = −14.6x + 97.8). Conclusions The lipid ratio plot is a simple graphical approach that can be readily performed by clinical laboratories for investigating the accuracy of LDL-C assays by calculation methods or direct assays.

Abstract Background Cardiovascular guidelines have long recommended low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) as the primary target for lipid-lowering therapy. Recent guidelines have emphasized the importance of achieving low LDL-C levels; hence, the accurate measurement of low LDL-C is increasingly clinically relevant. Methods Using lipid panel test results from the Mayo Clinic (n = 24 590) and the FOURIER clinical trial of evolocumab (n = 9605), the following modified Sampson equation was developed by least-squares regression to match LDL-C (mg/dL) by the β-quantification reference method, by combining terms into non High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (nonHDLC = Total Cholesterol – High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol) and forcing the coefficient to be one: Results The modified Sampson equation demonstrated significant improvement in its concordance to the reference method compared to other equations (the Lin Concordance Correlation Coefficient 0.992, P < 0.001). By overall kappa analysis, it showed the best agreement to the reference method at the 55 mg/dL cutpoint (1.4 mmol/L, 0.98 [P < 0.001], Sampson–NIH: 0.96, Martin–Hopkins: 0.96, Friedewald: 0.94) and the 70 mg/dL cutpoint (1.8 mmol/L, 0.97 [P < 0.001], Sampson–NIH: 0.94, Martin–Hopkins: 0.95, Friedewald: 0.92). The false classification rate of the modified Sampson equation was also significantly lower compared to the other equations at 55 mg/dL (15%, [P < 0.001], Sampson–NIH: 29%, Martin–Hopkins: 28%, Friedewald: 37%) and 70 mg/dL (18%, [P < 0.001]; Sampson–NIH: 30%, Martin–Hopkins: 28.%, Friedewald: 34%). The new equation increases the percentage of correctly classified patients with low LDL-C by approximately 10% to 20% over the other equations based on its net reclassification index. Conclusions The modified Sampson equation shows improved accuracy compared to other equations for low LDL-C. It more accurately identifies high-risk patients, who are not at their LDL-C goals and could benefit from more intensive lipid-lowering therapy.

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 Beta-quantification (BQ) is the reference method for LDL-C but is not widely available. It is difficult, therefore, for clinical laboratories to independently assess the accuracy of their methods for either calculating or directly measuring LDL-C. Our goal was to investigate if an interrelationship between the tests in the standard lipid panel could be used to compare the performance of different LDL-C methods against BQ, specifically in samples with hypertriglyceridemia, a major cause of bias for LDL-C testing. Methods BQ results from Mayo Medical Labs (n=39,667) and the NIH (n=18,338) were used to identify a linear relationship by least-squares regression analysis between lipid panel test results and LDL-C to facilitate a statistical comparison between different LDL-C methods. Results It is well established that the number of VLDL particles increases as TG increases, because VLDL is the main carrier of TG. As a consequence, the ratio of LDL-C to non-HDL-C is inversely related to TG, which can be made linear by taking the square root of TG (Figure). Nearly identical regression equations were found for this relationship, using two different BQ datasets. When LDL-C was calculated by either Sampson equation, the LDL-C/non-HDL-C regression lines nearly overlapped with the one for BQ. In contrast, the Martin equation showed a positive bias with increasing TG, whereas the Friedewald equation showed a negative bias, consistent with past reports on their LDL-C biases with hypertriglyceridemia. In the UKBiobank, the Beckman direct LDL-C showed a positive bias for TG, which was confirmed in CAP proficiency test surveys. By simulation analysis, approximately 80 samples with high (>200 mg/dL) and low (<100 mg/dL) TG is statistically sufficient to assess if the LDL-C/non-HDL-C regressions lines of LDL-C methods differ from BQ. Conclusions The LDL-C/non-HDL-C ratio method is a simple way to examine LDL-C methods for bias on hypertriglyceridemic samples.

Background Clinical risk scores are used to identify those at high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Despite preventative efforts, residual risk remains for many individuals. Very low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL‐C) and lipid discordance could be contributors to the residual risk of ASCVD. Methods and Results Cardiovascular disease–free residents, aged ≥40 years, living in Olmsted County, Minnesota, were identified through the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) and VLDL‐C were estimated from clinically ordered lipid panels using the Sampson equation. Participants were categorized into concordant and discordant lipid pairings based on clinical cut points. Rates of incident ASCVD, including percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, stroke, or myocardial infarction, were calculated during follow‐up. The association of LDL‐C and VLDL‐C with ASCVD was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression. Interaction between LDL‐C and VLDL‐C was assessed. The study population (n=39 098) was primarily White race (94%) and female sex (57%), with a mean age of 54 years. VLDL‐C (per 10‐mg/dL increase) was significantly associated with an increased risk of incident ASCVD (hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.05–1.09]; P <0.001]) after adjustment for traditional risk factors. The interaction between LDL‐C and VLDL‐C was not statistically significant ( P =0.11). Discordant individuals with high VLDL‐C and low LDL‐C experienced the highest rate of incident ASCVD events, 16.9 per 1000 person‐years, during follow‐up. Conclusions VLDL‐C and lipid discordance are associated with a greater risk of ASCVD and can be estimated from clinically ordered lipid panels to improve ASCVD risk assessment.

Background Frailty is common in heart failure (HF) and is associated with death but not routinely captured clinically. Frailty is linked with inflammation and malnutrition, which can be assessed by a novel plasma multimarker score: the metabolic vulnerability index (MVX). We sought to evaluate the associations between frailty and MVX and their prognostic impact. Methods and Results In an HF community cohort (2003–2012), we measured frailty as a proportion of deficits present out of 32 physical limitations and comorbidities, MVX by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and collected extensive longitudinal clinical data. Patients were categorized by frailty score (≤0.14, >0.14 and ≤0.27, >0.27) and MVX score (≤50, >50 and ≤60, >60 and ≤70, >70). Cox models estimated associations of frailty and MVX with death, adjusted for Meta‐Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) score and NT‐proBNP (N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide). Uno's C‐statistic measured the incremental value of MVX beyond frailty and clinical factors. Weibull's accelerated failure time regression assessed whether MVX mediated the association between frailty and death. We studied 985 patients (median age, 77; 48% women). Frailty and MVX were weakly correlated (Spearman's ρ=0.21). The highest frailty group experienced an increased rate of death, independent of MVX, MAGGIC score, and NT‐proBNP (hazard ratio, 3.3 [95% CI, 2.5–4.2]). Frailty improved Uno's c‐statistic beyond MAGGIC score and NT‐proBNP (0.69–0.73). MVX only mediated 3.3% and 4.5% of the association between high and medium frailty groups and death, respectively. Conclusions In this HF cohort, frailty and MVX are weakly correlated. Both independently contribute to stratifying the risk of death, suggesting that they capture distinct domains of vulnerability in HF.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is heterogeneous syndrome with persistently high mortality. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy enables high-throughput metabolomics, suitable for precision phenotyping. We aimed to use targeted metabolomics to derive a metabolic risk score (MRS) that improved mortality risk stratification in heart failure. METHODS: Nuclear magnetic resonance was used to measure 21 metabolites (lipoprotein subspecies, branched-chain amino acids, alanine, GlycA (glycoprotein acetylation), ketone bodies, glucose, and citrate) in plasma collected from a heart failure community cohort. The MRS was derived using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator penalized Cox regression and temporal validation. The association between the MRS and mortality and whether risk stratification was improved over the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure clinical risk score and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels were assessed. RESULTS: The study included 1382 patients (median age, 78 years, 52% men, 43% reduced ejection fraction) with a 5-year survival rate of 48% (95% CI, 46%–51%). The MRS included 9 metabolites measured. In the validation data set, a 1 standard deviation increase in the MRS was associated with a large increased rate of death (hazard ratio, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.9–2.5]) that remained after adjustment for Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure score and NT-proBNP (hazard ratio, 1.6 [95% CI, 1.3–1.9]). These associations did not differ by ejection fraction. The integrated discrimination and net reclassification indices, and Uno’s C statistic, indicated that the addition of the MRS improved discrimination over Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure and NT-proBNP. CONCLUSIONS: This MRS developed in a heart failure community cohort was associated with a large excess risk of death and improved risk stratification beyond an established risk score and clinical markers.

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.