Lipoprotein Assessment in the twenty-first Century

Optimization of time interval for the measurement of plasma lipids for cardiovascular disease risk assessment

BACKGROUND

Lipid testing for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk is often performed every 4-6 years, but we hypothesized that the optimum time interval may vary depending on baseline risk.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Using lipid values and other risk factors from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (n = 9,704), we calculated a 10-year risk score with the pooled-cohort equations. Future risk scores were predicted by increasing age and projecting systolic blood pressure (SBP) and lipid changes, using the mean-percentile age group change in NHANES for SBP (n = 17,329) and the Lifelines Cohort study for lipids (n = 133,540). The crossing of high and intermediate-risk thresholds were calculated by time to determine optimum intervals for lipid testing.

RESULTS

Time to crossing risk thresholds depends on baseline risk, but the mean increase in the risk score plateaus at 1% per year for those with a baseline 10-year risk greater than 15%. Based on these findings, we recommend the following maximum time intervals for lipid testing: baseline risk < 15%: 5-years, 16%: 4-years, 17%: 3-years, 18%: 2-years, and 19%: ≤1-year.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing patients for lipids who have a higher baseline risk more often could identify high-risk patients sooner, allowing for earlier and more effective therapeutic intervention.

Use of Apolipoprotein B in the Era of Precision Medicine: Time for a Paradigm Change?

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide and the risk of a major cardiovascular event is highest among those with established disease. Ongoing management of these patients relies on the accurate assessment of their response to any prescribed therapy, and their residual risk, in order to optimize treatment. Recent international guidelines and position statements concur that the plasma concentration of apolipoprotein B (apoB) is the most accurate measure of lipoprotein associated ASCVD risk. This is especially true for the growing number of individuals with diabetes, obesity, or the metabolic syndrome, and those on statin therapy. Most guidelines, however, continue to promote LDL-C as the primary risk marker due to uncertainty as to whether the greater accuracy of apoB is sufficient to warrant a paradigm shift. Recommendations regarding apoB measurement vary, and the information provided on how to interpret apoB results is sometimes insufficient, particularly for non-lipid specialists. Misinformation regarding the reliability of the assays is also frequently repeated despite its equivalent or better standardization than many other diagnostic assays. Thus, demand for apoB testing is relatively low, which means there is little incentive to increase its availability or reduce its cost. In this review, we examine the results of recent clinical outcomes studies and meta-analyses on the relative values of apoB, LDL-C, and non-HDL-C as markers of ASCVD risk. Although there is seemingly minimal difference among these markers when only population-based metrics are considered, it is evident from our analysis that, from a personalized or precision medicine standpoint, many individuals would benefit, at a negligible total cost, if apoB measurement were better integrated into the diagnosis and treatment of ASCVD.

Approach to the Patient With a Suboptimal Statin Response: Causes and Algorithm for Clinical Management

CONTEXT

Statins are the lipid-lowering therapy of choice for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) but their effectiveness in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) can substantially differ between individuals. In this mini-review, we describe the different causes for a suboptimal statin response and an algorithm for the diagnosis and clinical management of these patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A PubMed search using the terms "statin resistance," "statin sensitivity," "statin pharmacokinetics," "cardiovascular disease," and "lipid-lowering therapies" was performed. Published papers in the past 10 years that were relevant to the topic were examined to provide content for this mini-review.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Suboptimal lowering of LDL-C by statins is a major problem in the clinical management of patients and limits the value of this therapeutic approach. There are multiple causes of statin hyporesponsiveness with compliance being the most common explanation. Other causes, such as analytical issues with LDL-C measurement and the presence of common lipid disorders (familial hypercholesterolemia, elevated lipoprotein[a] and secondary dyslipidemias) should be excluded before considering primary statin resistance from rare genetic variants in lipoprotein-related or drug-metabolism genes. A wide variety of nonstatin lipid-lowering drugs are now available and can be added to statins to achieve more effective LDL-C lowering.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of statin hyporesponsiveness is a multistep process that can lead to the optimization of lipid-lowering therapy for the prevention of ASCVD. It may also lead to the identification of distinct types of dyslipidemias that require specific therapies and/or the genetic screening of family members.