JCL: LDL-P levels may better predict CVD risk than cholesterol
LDL-particles (LDL-P) can better predict atherosclerotic risk and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk when LDL-P and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) were discordant, according to a study published in the March-April issue of the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.

“The amount of cholesterol per low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle is variable and related in part to particle size, with smaller particles carrying less cholesterol. This variability causes concentrations of LDL-C and LDL-P to be discordant in many individuals,” the authors wrote.

James D. Otvos, PhD, of LipoScience in Raleigh, N.C., and colleagues used MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), a cohort of 6,814 people free of CVD, to evaluate LDL-P measured by MR spectroscopy, to calculate LDL-C and carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) and report the incidence rates of CVD events at baseline and during the 5.5-year follow-up.

Of the study cohort, 39 percent were white, 13 percent were Chinese American, 25 percent were African-American and 23 percent were Hispanic. The patients had a mean age of 62 and 51 percent were women.

Otvos and colleagues reported that LDL-C and LDL-P levels were correlated but often discordant. “Although many individuals had concordant levels of LDL-C and LDL-P, many others with low LDL-C percentile rank had much higher LDL-P, and vice versa,” the authors noted.

The researchers separately evaluated concordant and discordant subgroups and defined discordance as a difference of at least 12 percentile units to make half the population ‘‘concordant.’’

The results showed that 319 CVD events occurred during the follow-up period of 5.5 years, and that both LDL-C and LDL-P levels were associated with future CVD events. Between the concordant and discordant subgroups, 160 CVD events were experienced by patients with concordant LDL-C and LDL-P. In comparison, these numbers were 101 and 58 for patients with “LDL-P > LDL-C and LDL-P < LDL-C discordance.”

While the authors reported that mean levels of LDL-P in the three subgroups tracked positively for risk, however, LDL-C levels were inversely related to risk. Of the 1,631 patients with LDL-C, 1,115 patients had low levels of LDL-P.

In addition, of the 516 patients with low LDL-C but with discordantly greater LDL-P, 33 events occurred, compared with only 18 events in patients with low levels of LDL-P and discordantly higher levels of LDL-C.

Lastly, the researchers found that both LDL-C and LDL-P were associated with increased CIMT.

“The results indicate that when the cholesterol and particle measures of LDL disagree, the clinical and subclinical outcomes track with LDL-P more so than with LDL-C,” the authors wrote.

“It remains uncertain whether the mechanism(s) responsible for this risk are related primarily to elevations of LDL-P or whether other variables are associated with LDL-P. LDL-C discordance is more relevant than LDL-P from an etiologic perspective,” the authors wrote.

“The results of this study support the speculation that this risk is not as independent of LDL as studies equating LDL- C with 'LDL’ have suggested.”

Additionally, Otvos and colleagues suggested that the elevated LDL-P concentrations could identify patients who are likely to benefit from LDL lowering treatment strategies.

The FDA only considers LDL-C levels as a surrogate endpoint, suggesting that a clinical benefit can be recognized from LDL-C lowering; however, the authors noted that a flaw to this could be the fact that LDL-C changes can result from either LDL-P or cholesterol content. Therefore, the authors noted that future studies should assess whether LDL-P could be a better surrogate CVD endpoint than LDL-C.

The authors concluded: “When LDL-P and LDL-C were discordant, LDL-P was more strongly associated with risk of CVD events and with [increased] CIMT than was LDL-C. This finding has potentially important implications regarding our understanding of the etiology of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

Around the web

Eleven medical societies have signed on to a consensus statement aimed at standardizing imaging for suspected cardiovascular infections.

Kate Hanneman, MD, explains why many vendors and hospitals want to lower radiology's impact on the environment. "Taking steps to reduce the carbon footprint in healthcare isn’t just an opportunity," she said. "It’s also a responsibility."

Philips introduced a new CT system at ECR aimed at the rapidly growing cardiac CT market, incorporating numerous AI features to optimize workflow and image quality.

Trimed Popup
Trimed Popup