Tóth, Peter P.

Background Accurate measurement of the cholesterol within lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]‐C) and its contribution to low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) has important implications for risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, as well as in familial hypercholesterolemia. A method for estimating Lp(a)‐C from particle number using fixed conversion factors has been proposed (Lp[a]‐C from particle number divided by 2.4 for Lp(a) mass, multiplied by 30% for Lp[a]‐C). The accuracy of this method, which theoretically can isolate “Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C,” has not been validated. Methods and Results In 177 875 patients from the VLDbL (Very Large Database of Lipids), we compared estimated Lp(a)‐C and Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C with measured values and quantified absolute and percent error. We compared findings with an analogous data set from the Mayo Clinic Laboratory. Error in estimated Lp(a)‐C and Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C increased with higher Lp(a)‐C values. Median error for estimated Lp(a)‐C <10 mg/dL was −1.9 mg/dL (interquartile range, −4.0 to 0.2); this error increased linearly, overestimating by +30.8 mg/dL (interquartile range, 26.1–36.5) for estimated Lp(a)‐C ≥50 mg/dL. This error relationship persisted after stratification by overall high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol subtypes. Similar findings were observed in the Mayo cohort. Absolute error for Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C was +2.4 (interquartile range, −0.6 to 5.3) for Lp(a)‐C<10 mg/dL and −31.8 (interquartile range, −37.8 to −26.5) mg/dL for Lp(a)‐C≥50 mg/dL. Conclusions Lp(a)‐C estimations using fixed conversion factors overestimated Lp(a)‐C and subsequently underestimated Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C, especially at clinically relevant Lp(a) values. Application of inaccurate Lp(a)‐C estimations to correct LDL‐C may lead to undertreatment of high‐risk patients.

Introduction: Big data techniques offer a novel opportunity to characterize individuals with extreme phenotypes. In this context, we aimed to describe the prevalence of classical Fredrickson-Levy dyslipidemia phenotypes at the extremes of HDL-C levels in a cross-sectional big data study. Methods: We examined 848,801 U.S. adults and children from the Very Large Database of Lipids 1.0 who were referred for lipoprotein testing from 2009 to 2011. We categorized patients into HDL-C percentile categories (<0.1th, 0.1th to 99th to 99.9th, and >99.9th). We examined the prevalence of Fredrickson-Levy dyslipidemia phenotypes (I, IIa, IIb, III, IV and V) within these categories. We identified those who did not meet criteria for any classical dyslipidemia phenotype as the continuum group. Results: Type I and V were mostly present at extremely low HDL-C levels. Type IIa was more prevalent in high vs. low HDL-C levels. Type III was 2-fold more prevalent in extremely low vs. high HDL-C levels. Type IV was the most prevalent classical dyslipidemia phenotype in our population, and was the most frequent at low HDL-C percentiles. About 50% of the extremely low and 90% of the extremely high HDL-C levels were classified into the continuum group. Conclusion: In our cross-sectional big data analysis, there was a significantly higher prevalence of most classical dyslipidemia phenotypes at extremely low HDL-C compared with extremely high HDL-C levels. Only types I and V were more prevalent in extreme groups than general population. To some extent, very low HDL-C levels may be determined by inheritable, highly atherogenic dyslipidemias.