Citations

Purpose of review The success of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) as a predictor of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and a therapeutic target is indisputable. Apolipoprotein B (apoB) is a more contemporary and physiologically relevant measure of atherogenic lipoproteins. This report summarizes recent comparisons of apoB and LDL-C as biomarkers of cardiovascular risk. Recent findings Multiple recent reports have found that LDL-C methods perform poorly at low concentrations (<70 mg/dl). Several meta-analyses from randomized controlled trials and large prospective observational studies have found that apoB and LDL-C provide equivalent information on risk of cardiovascular disease. More innovative analyses have asserted that apoB is a superior indicator of actual risk when apoB and LDL-C disagree. Summary ApoB is more analytically robust and standardized biomarker than LDL-C. Large population studies have found that apoB is at worst clinically equivalent to LDL-C and likely superior when disagreement exists. Realistically, many obstacles prevent the wide spread adoption of apoB and for now providers and their patients must weigh the costs and benefits of apoB.

Background: We retrospectively studied the impact of glucose meter error on the efficacy of glycemic control after cardiovascular surgery. Method: Adult patients undergoing intravenous insulin glycemic control therapy after cardiovascular surgery, with 12-24 consecutive glucose meter measurements used to make insulin dosing decisions, had glucose values analyzed to determine glycemic variability by both standard deviation (SD) and continuous overall net glycemic action (CONGA), and percentage glucose values in target glucose range (110-150 mg/dL). Information was recorded for 70 patients during each of 2 periods, with different glucose meters used to measure glucose and dose insulin during each period but no other changes to the glycemic control protocol. Accuracy and precision of each meter were also compared using whole blood specimens from ICU patients. Results: Glucose meter 1 (GM1) had median bias of 11 mg/dL compared to a laboratory reference method, while glucose meter 2 (GM2) had a median bias of 1 mg/dL. GM1 and GM2 differed little in precision (CV = 2.0% and 2.7%, respectively). Compared to the period when GM1 was used to make insulin dosing decisions, patients whose insulin dose was managed by GM2 demonstrated reduced glycemic variability as measured by both SD (13.7 vs 21.6 mg/dL, P < .0001) and CONGA (13.5 vs 19.4 mg/dL, P < .0001) and increased percentage glucose values in target range (74.5 vs 66.7%, P = .002). Conclusions: Decreasing glucose meter error (bias) was associated with decreased glycemic variability and increased percentage of values in target glucose range for patients placed on intravenous insulin therapy following cardiovascular surgery.

Abstract BACKGROUND The Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guideline recommends use of a cystatin C–based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to confirm creatinine-based eGFR between 45 and 59 mL · min−1 · (1.73 m2)−1. Prior studies have demonstrated that comorbidities such as solid-organ transplant strongly influence the relationship between measured GFR, creatinine, and cystatin C. Our objective was to evaluate the performance of cystatin C–based eGFR equations compared with creatinine-based eGFR and measured GFR across different clinical presentations. METHODS We compared the performance of the CKD-EPI 2009 creatinine-based estimated GFR equation (eGFRCr) and the newer CKD-EPI 2012 cystatin C–based equations (eGFRCys and eGFRCr-Cys) with measured GFR (iothalamate renal clearance) across defined patient populations. Patients (n = 1652) were categorized as transplant recipients (n = 568 kidney; n = 319 other organ), known chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients (n = 618), or potential kidney donors (n = 147). RESULTS eGFRCr-Cys showed the most consistent performance across different clinical populations. Among potential kidney donors without CKD [stage 2 or higher; eGFR &gt;60 mL · min−1 · (1.73 m2)−1], eGFRCys and eGFRCr-Cys demonstrated significantly less bias than eGFRCr; however, all 3 equations substantially underestimated GFR when eGFR was &lt;60 mL · min−1 · (1.73 m2)−1. Among transplant recipients with CKD stage 3B or greater [eGFR &lt;45 mL · min−1 · (1.73 m2)−1], eGFRCys was significantly more biased than eGFRCr. No clear differences in eGFR bias between equations were observed among known CKD patients regardless of eGFR range or in any patient group with a GFR between 45 and 59 mL · min−1 · (1.73 m2)−1. CONCLUSIONS The performance of eGFR equations depends on patient characteristics that are readily apparent on presentation. Among the 3 CKD-EPI equations, eGFRCr-Cys performed most consistently across the studied patient populations.

Abstract BACKGROUND Aggressive LDL cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering strategies are recommended for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. A newly derived equation for LDL-C estimation was recently published that addressed limitations in the commonly used Friedewald LDL-C calculation method. The novel method was reported to classify patients with superior concordance to measured LDL-C compared to the Friedewald method, particularly in patients with LDL-C &lt;70 mg/dL. METHODS We evaluated the performance of the novel method within an independent cohort of 23 055 patients with LDL-C measured by the gold standard β-quantification reference method. RESULTS Overall Friedewald underestimated and the novel method overestimated measured LDL-C. Both estimations significantly deviated from the reference method when LDL-C was &lt;70 mg/dL. Overall, the Friedewald and novel calculations correctly classified 77% and 78% of patients, respectively. The largest discrepancy in classification was observed in individuals with measured LDL-C &lt;70 mg/dL. For this group the novel calculation would reclassify 8.7% of patients as &gt;70 mg/dL compared to the Friedewald equation. CONCLUSIONS We compared both novel and Friedewald estimated LDL-C against the LDL-C reference method; in contrast, the prior study relied on validation of a subset of samples by β-quantification to allow the use of the vertical autoprofile method for LDL-C measurement. We conclude that the novel method has some benefits but it is unclear whether improvements over the Friedewald calculation are substantive enough to justify making the change in routine clinical practice and to improve patient outcomes.