Advanced Lipoprotein Testing: Strengths and Limitations
Standard lipid testing, represented by total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglycerides, is a well-established platform for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction and management. Despite the proven clinical utility of standard lipid testing for risk management, a significant burden of CVD events remains unaddressed in primary and secondary prevention populations. Standard lipids are carried within lipoprotein particles that are heterogeneous in size, density, charge, core lipid composition, specific apolipoproteins, and function.1 A variety of lipoprotein assays have been developed that subfractionate lipoprotein particles according to properties such as size, density, or charge. These advanced lipoprotein testing (ALT) assays have been proposed for improving assessment of CVD risk and guiding lipid modifying therapies.
Despite the large amount of information derived from ALT assays, it is unclear how this should be contextualized in relation to standard lipids (e.g. complementing standard lipids or substituting for them). New biomarkers have to meet certain requirements prior to clinical usage, including standardization and comparability, accessibility, conveying new information without data overload, having clear indications, improving clinical management and patient outcomes, and lastly demonstrating cost-effectiveness. As lipoproteins metabolic pathways are highly interconnected, one of the main challenges of ALT is to find effective and applicable situations for ALT testing at a reasonable cost. The clinical consequences of a new test as compared with an older standard are best understood through situations where there is disagreement (discordance) between the two tests.2, 3 As this is a brief review, we will focus here on the most promising ALT tests for potential clinical application.
Alternative LDL Measures
Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) and LDL Particle Number (LDL-P)
Very-low-density lipoprotein, intermediate-density lipoprotein, and LDL particles (VLDL-P, IDL-P, and LDL-P, respectively) are atherogenic lipoproteins in an interrelated metabolic chain. Each of these particles carries one apolipoprotein-B100 (apoB) molecule, which makes them apoB-containing lipoproteins. VLDL-P secretion by the liver is the starting point for the production of the other particles downstream. Under sequential action of lipases and transferases, VLDL-P diminishes its triglyceride content, reduces its size, and increases its density, resulting in smaller VLDL-P, IDL-P, and LDL-P particles.
Among these particles, LDL-P has more robust and independent association with atherosclerosis development and CVD events. Furthermore, smaller LDL particle size appears to be positively associated with CVD, not necessarily because small LDL are inherently more atherogenic than large ones, but because individuals with predominantly small LDL size also have more LDL-P.4 As the amount of cholesterol carried by each LDL-P can vary more than two-fold between individuals,5, 6 estimating LDL-P concentration by LDL-C may be misleading in some circumstances. This is particularly evident in patients with diabetes, metabolic syndrome, hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL-C,7-10 as their LDL-P carry less cholesterol and more triglycerides, and hence LDL-C may underestimate LDL-P.
Currently, LDL-P can be quantified directly by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) or by differential ion mobility analysis.11 ApoB is mostly (~90%) carried within LDL-P in the fasting state;12 hence, apoB concentration is also a good estimator of LDL-P or total atherogenic particle concentration. On the other hand, non-HDL-C (calculated as total cholesterol minus HDL-C), which reflects the cholesterol in all the apoB-containing particles, is readily accessible from standard lipid testing, and is generally a better risk predictor than LDL-C.13, 14 Some studies have found better risk assessment for apoB versus LDL-C or non-HDL-C,15 but other studies found similar risk prediction for apoB and non-HDL-c.16 Similarly, LDL-P may provide better risk prediction than LDL-C and non-HDL-C,17 but this type of analysis does not address the overlapping information of the tests, which is better assessed by the net reclassification index or statistical tests of discrimination.
In general populations, the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration found only slight (<1%) reclassification improvements with the addition of apoB, apoA-I, or lipoprotein(a) to risk scores containing conventional risk factors,18 similar to prior results with apoB or LDL-P in a population of healthy women.19 However, among the subgroup of individuals in whom the tests are discordant with LDL-C, CVD risk discrimination may be better with non-HDL-C, apoB, or LDL-P20, 21 (Figure1).
Lipoprotein(a) is a modified form of LDL whose apoB molecule forms a disulfide bridge with a large glycoprotein called apo(a). Lipoprotein(a) is a well-established and probably causal risk factor for CVD, independent of LDL-C or other risk factors, although it carries a modest incremental magnitude of risk.22 Some have suggested more aggressive LDL-c lowering when lipoprotein(a) is high, and statins are efficacious in reducing overall CVD risk when lipoprotein(a) is high.23
Are ALT Measures Useful for Detecting or Managing "Residual Risk"?
The Canadian Cardiovascular Society and American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists recommend measuring apoB as an alternative to LDL-c for initiating statin therapy or as a goal of therapy in patients with higher risk.28, 29 The National Lipid Association suggests apoB, LDL-P, or lipoprotein(a) could be useful for clinical risk assessment or for statin treatment decisions in patients with intermediate risk for CVD, or who have coronary heart disease (CHD) or its equivalent, family history of early CHD, or recurrent events.30 On the contrary, the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines do not issue any recommendation for apoB, LDL-P, or lipoprotein(a) and cite the lack of randomized trial evidence for these measures as well as non-HDL-C as goals of therapy.31 The European Atherosclerosis Society recommended that lipoprotein(a) measurement should be considered in individuals with intermediate or high CVD risk.32 Finally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention include standard lipids, apoB, and apoA-I, but do not include lipoprotein(a) in its Lipid Standardization Program.33
Despite recommendations from some expert groups, the downstream consequences of a "real world" risk assessment and management based on apoB and LDL-P beyond LDL-c are uncertain. Therefore, apoB, LDL-P, and lipoprotein(a) are promising ALT biomarkers, but they are not currently recommended as routine tools for CVD risk assessment and management until specific indications, reference goals, and related cost- effectiveness issues have been addressed.
Alternative HDL Measures
While HDL-c is a strong inverse indicator of CVD risk, this has not yet translated into clinical benefit. Given the extreme heterogeneity of HDL structure and function, measuring only the cholesterol content of HDL (HDL-C) will at best only partially reflect the potential role of HDL in CVD risk assessment and therapeutic drug development. This has led to interest in developing HDL metrics that may better indicate the atheroprotective functions of HDL. Proposed measurements include apoA-I, HDL particle number (HDL-P), average size, subclasses, and functional assays.34
Apolipoprotein A-I (ApoA-I)
ApoA-I constitutes roughly 65% of the HDL protein mass and is measured by immunonephelometry or immunoturbidimetry assays. With the exception of a few studies such as the case-control AMORIS study,35 most studies have generally found apoA-I not to be associated with CVD risk after accounting for HDL-C.36-39 When used in conjunction with apoB, several studies support the apoB/apoA-I ratio to be a better predictor of CVD risk when compared to individual parameters of standard lipid tests.40 Nonetheless, the value of apo-B/apoA-I ratio in predicting CVD risk is comparable to that of total cholesterol/HDL-C ratio,19, 41 and did not substantially increase risk classification or discrimination beyond total cholesterol and HDL-C.18, 41
HDL Particle Number (HDL-P)
Of the alternate HDL metrics, the number of HDL particles (HDL-P) has potential utility in CVD prevention. At present it can be measured by only nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and ion mobility analysis. Most studies, except the Malmo Cancer and Diet Study,42 have been based on the NMR method. Of the nine studies to-date comparing HDL-P with HDL-C, all 42-49 but two19, 48 found HDL-P to be comparable to or better than HDL-C in predicting CVD. Data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) and the placebo arm of the Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER) show that HDL-C is no longer predictive of CVD after adjusting for HDL-P, while HDL-P remained inversely associated with CVD after adjusting for HDL-C.44, 46
Similar findings were also reported by investigators from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Norfolk study.45 HDL-P may also be of potential value in targeting residual CVD particularly for primary prevention as indicated by data from the rosuvastatin arm of JUPITER, where HDL-P, but not HDL-C, was inversely predictive of CVD.44 However, in the secondary prevention Heart Protection Study, both HDL-P and HDL-C had similar magnitude of association with CHD in the simvastatin and placebo arms.47
HDL Size and Subclasses
HDL subclasses have also been proposed for risk stratification on the premise that the different subclasses are functionally heterogeneous, and a host of ALT subfractionation methods quantify HDL size and/or size subclasses based on distinct physical or chemical HDL subclass properties.34 Recently, the HDL3-C subfraction assessed by the vertical auto profile (VAP) method shows promise for improved risk stratification.50
A recent consensus statement proposed a new unifying nomenclature for HDL size subclasses that harmonizes HDL size data obtained from the various fractionating methods, thus enhancing the comparability of future studies. This nomenclature groups HDL particles based on their size and density into five distinct subclasses (very large, large, medium, small, and very small).34 These five subclasses appear to be differentially associated with CHD risk.51 Finally, the potential clinical relevance of HDL size to cardiovascular risk may depend on the mechanism by which HDL size is modified.
Current limitations of ALT include the lack of: 1) standardization and comparability of information provided by the various tests; 2) accessibility with particular reference to cost and availability of expertise; and 3) evidence and consensus regarding the metrics of ALT that offer proven clinical benefits; this latter point inevitably precludes demonstration of cost effectiveness over standard lipid tests.11
ALT assays have the potential to expand the utility of lipoprotein-targeted initiatives for CVD prevention, particularly within the context of discordance with LDL-C and residual risk after statin therapy (Figure 1). However, current prevention guidelines remain benchmarked against standard lipid tests owing to lack of Grade A level of evidence for ALT. Future studies should assess the range of potential for ALT in CVD prevention and management in addition to addressing the current limitations of ALT for clinical practice.
- Mudd JO, Borlaug BA, Johnston PV, et al. Beyond low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: defining the role of low-density lipoprotein heterogeneity in coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol2007;50:1735-41.
- Glasziou P, Irwig L, Deeks JJ. When should a new test become the current reference standard? Ann Intern Med 2008;149:816-22.
- Martin SS, Michos ED. Are we moving towards concordance on the principle that lipid discordance matters? Circulation 2014;129:539-41.
- Mora S, Szklo M, Otvos JD, et al. LDL particle subclasses, LDL particle size, and carotid atherosclerosis in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Atherosclerosis 2007;192:211-17.
- Otvos JD, Jeyarajah EJ, Cromwell WC. Measurement issues related to lipoprotein heterogeneity. Am J Cardiol 2002;90:22i-29i.
- Sniderman AD, Furberg CD, Keech A, et al. Apolipoproteins versus lipids as indices of coronary risk and as targets for statin treatment. Lancet 2003;361:777-80.
- Sniderman AD, Scantlebury T, Cianflone K. Hypertriglyceridemic hyperapob: the unappreciated atherogenic dyslipoproteinemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:447-59.
- Krauss RM, Siri PW. Metabolic abnormalities: triglyceride and low-density lipoprotein. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 2004;33:405-15.
- Genest J, Bard JM, Fruchart JC, Ordovas JM, Schaefer EJ. Familial hypoalphalipoproteinemia in premature coronary artery disease. Arterioscler Thromb 1993;13:1728-37.
- Sniderman AD, Dagenais GR, Cantin B, Després JP, Lamarche B. High apolipoprotein B with low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and normal plasma triglycerides and cholesterol. Am J Cardiol 2001;87:792-793, A798.
- Mora S. Advanced lipoprotein testing and subfractionation are not (yet) ready for routine clinical use. Circulation 2009;119:2396-2404.
- Sniderman AD dGJ, Couture P. ApoB and the atherogenic apoB dyslipoproteinemias. From: The Johns Hopkins Textbook of Dyslipidemia. Philadelphia, PA.: Lippincott Willliams and Wilkins; 2009.
- Pischon T, Girman CJ, Sacks FM, et al Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B in the prediction of coronary heart disease in men. Circulation 2005;112:3375-83.
- Liu J, Sempos CT, Donahue RP, et al. Non-high-density lipoprotein and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and their risk predictive values in coronary heart disease. Am J Cardiol 2006;98:1363-68.
- Sniderman AD, Williams K, Contois JH, et al. A meta-analysis of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B as markers of cardiovascular risk. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2011;4:337-45.
- Di Angelantonio E, Sarwar N, Perry P, et al. Major lipids, apolipoproteins, and risk of vascular disease. JAMA 2009;302:1993-2000.
- Cromwell WC, Otvos JD, Keyes MJ, et al. Ldl particle number and risk of future cardiovascular disease in the framingham offspring study - implications for ldl management. J Clin Lipidol 2007;1:583-92.
- Emerging Risk Factors C, Di Angelantonio E, Gao P, Pennells L, et al. Lipid-related markers and cardiovascular disease prediction. JAMA 2012;307:2499-506.
- Mora S, Otvos JD, Rifai N, et al. Lipoprotein particle profiles by nuclear magnetic resonance compared with standard lipids and apolipoproteins in predicting incident cardiovascular disease in women. Circulation 2009;119:931-39.
- Mora S, Buring JE, Ridker PM. Discordance of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with alternative LDL-related measures and future coronary events. Circulation 2014;129:553-61.
- Otvos JD, Mora S, Shalaurova I, et al. Clinical implications of discordance between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and particle number. J Clin Lipidol 2011;5:105-113.
- Emerging Risk Factors C, Erqou S, Kaptoge S, Perry PL, et al. Lipoprotein(a) concentration and the risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and nonvascular mortality. JAMA 2009;302:412-23.
- Khera AV, Everett BM, Caulfield MP, et al. Lipoprotein(a) concentrations, rosuvastatin therapy, and residual vascular risk: an analysis from the jupiter trial (justification for the use of statins in prevention: an intervention trial evaluating rosuvastatin). Circulation 2014;129:635-42.
- Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, et al. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet 2005;366:1267-78.
- Mora S, Glynn RJ, Boekholdt SM, et al. On-treatment non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein b, triglycerides, and lipid ratios in relation to residual vascular risk after treatment with potent statin therapy: JUPITER (Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin). J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:1521-1528.
- Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, et al. Reduction in C-reactive protein and LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular event rates after initiation of rosuvastatin: a prospective study of the JUPITER trial. Lancet 2009;373:1175-82.
- Boekholdt SM, Arsenault BJ, Mora S, et al. Association of LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B levels with risk of cardiovascular events among patients treated with statins: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2012;307:1302-09.
- Genest J, McPherson R, Frohlich J, et al. 2009 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease in the adult - 2009 recommendations. Can J Cardiol 2009;25:567-79.
- Garber AJ, Abrahamson MJ, Barzilay JI, et al. AACE comprehensive diabetes management algorithm 2013. Endocr Pract 2013;19:327-36.
- Davidson MH, Ballantyne CM, Jacobson TA, et al. Clinical utility of inflammatory markers and advanced lipoprotein testing: advice from an expert panel of lipid specialists. J Clin Lipidol 2011;5:338-67.
- Stone NJ, Robinson J, Lichtenstein AH, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013.
- Catapano AL, Reiner Z, De Backer G, et al. ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias The Task Force for the Management of Dyslipidaemias of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS). Atherosclerosis 2011;217:3-46.
- Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Lipid Standardization Program. 2014
- Rosenson RS, Brewer HB, Jr., Chapman MJ, et al. HDL measures, particle heterogeneity, proposed nomenclature, and relation to atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. Clin Chem 2011;57:392-410.
- Walldius G, Jungner I, Holme I, et al. High apolipoprotein B, low apolipoprotein A-I, and improvement in the prediction of fatal myocardial infarction (AMORIS study): A prospective study. Lancet 2001;358:2026-2033.
- Sharrett AR, Ballantyne CM, Coady SA, et al. Coronary heart disease prediction from lipoprotein cholesterol levels, triglycerides, lipoprotein(a), apolipoproteins a-i and b, and hdl density subfractions: The atherosclerosis risk in communities (aric) study. Circulation 2001;104:1108-13.
- Stampfer MJ, Sacks FM, Salvini S, Willett WC, Hennekens CH. A prospective study of cholesterol, apolipoproteins, and the risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1991;325:373-81.
- Lamarche B, Moorjani S, Lupien PJ, et al. Apolipoprotein A-I and B levels and the risk of ischemic heart disease during a five-year follow-up of men in the Quebec Cardiovascular Study. Circulation 1996;94:273-78.
- Talmud PJ, Hawe E, Miller GJ, Humphries SE. Nonfasting apolipoprotein b and triglyceride levels as a useful predictor of coronary heart disease risk in middle-aged UK men. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2002;22:1918-23.
- Dallmeier D, Koenig W. Strategies for vascular disease prevention: The role of lipids and related markers including apolipoproteins, low-density lipoproteins (LDL)-particle size, high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 (Lp-PLA2) and lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)). Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2014;28:281-94.
- Ingelsson E, Schaefer EJ, Contois JH, et al. Clinical utility of different lipid measures for prediction of coronary heart disease in men and women. JAMA 2007;298:776-85.
- Musunuru K, Orho-Melander M, Caulfield MP, et al. Ion mobility analysis of lipoprotein subfractions identifies three independent axes of cardiovascular risk. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2009;29:1975-1980.
- Kuller LH, Grandits G, Cohen JD, et al. Lipoprotein particles, insulin, adiponectin, c-reactive protein and risk of coronary heart disease among men with metabolic syndrome. Atherosclerosis 2007;195:122-28.
- Mora S, Glynn RJ, Ridker PM. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol, size, particle number, and residual vascular risk after potent statin therapy. Circulation 2013;128:1189-97.
- El Harchaoui K, Arsenault BJ, Franssen R, et al. High-density lipoprotein particle size and concentration and coronary risk. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:84-93.
- 46. Mackey RH, Greenland P, Goff DC, Jr., et al. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and particle concentrations, carotid atherosclerosis, and coronary events: MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis). J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:508-16.
- Parish S, Offer A, Clarke R, et al. Lipids and lipoproteins and risk of different vascular events in the mrc/bhf heart protection study. Circulation 2012;125:2469-78.
- Hsia J, Otvos JD, Rossouw JE, et al. Lipoprotein particle concentrations may explain the absence of coronary protection in the women's health initiative hormone trials. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2008;28:1666-71.
- Otvos JD, Collins D, Freedman DS, et al. Low-density lipoprotein and high-density lipoprotein particle subclasses predict coronary events and are favorably changed by gemfibrozil therapy in the veterans affairs high-density lipoprotein intervention trial. Circulation. 2006;113:1556-63.
- Martin SS, Jones SR, Toth PP. High-density lipoprotein subfractions: Current views and clinical practice applications. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2014;25:329-36.
- Akinkuolie AO, Paynter NP, Padmanabhan L, Mora S. High-density lipoprotein particle subclass heterogeneity and incident coronary heart disease. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2014;7:55-63.
< Back to Listings