Impact of novel low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol assessment on the utility of secondary non-high-density lipoprotein-c and apolipoprotein b targets in selected worldwide dyslipidemia guidelines

Vasanth Sathiyakumar, Jihwan Park, Renato Quispe, Mohamed B. Elshazly, Erin Donnelly Michos, Maciej Banach, Peter P. Toth, Seamus Whelton, Roger S Blumenthal, Steven Jones, Seth Martin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle


BACKGROUND: Selected dyslipidemia guidelines recommend non-high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B (apoB) as secondary targets to the primary target of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C). After considering 2 LDL-C estimates that differ in accuracy, we examined: (1) how frequently non-HDL-C guideline targets could change management; and (2) the utility of apoB targets after meeting LDL-C and non-HDL-C targets. METHODS: We analyzed 2518 adults representative of the US population from the 2011 to 2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and 126 092 patients from the Very Large Database of Lipids study with apoB. We identified all individuals as well as those with high-risk clinical features, including coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, and metabolic syndrome who met very high- and highrisk guideline targets of LDL-C <70 and <100 mg/dL using Friedewald estimation (LDL-CF) and a novel, more accurate method (LDL-CN). Next, we examined those not meeting non-HDL-C (<100, <130 mg/dL) and apoB (<80, <100 mg/dL) guideline targets. In those meeting dual LDL-C and non-HDL-C targets (<70 and <100 mg/dL, respectively, or <100 and <130 mg/dL, respectively), we determined the proportion of individuals who did not meet guideline apoB targets (<80 or <100 mg/dL). RESULTS: A total of 7% to 9% and 31% to 36% of individuals had LDL-C <70 and <100 mg/dL, respectively. Among those with LDL-CF <70 mg/dL, 14% to 15% had non-HDL-C ≥100 mg/dL, and 7% to 8% had apoB ≥80 mg/dL. Among those with LDL-CF <100 mg/dL, 8% to 10% had non-HDL-C ≥130 mg/dL and 2% to 3% had apoB ≥100 mg/dL. In comparison, among those with LDL-CN <70 or 100 mg/dL, only ∼2% and ∼1% of individuals, respectively, had non-HDL-C and apoB values above guideline targets. Similar trends were upheld among those with high-risk clinical features: ∼0% to 3% of individuals with LDL-CN <70 mg/dL had non-HDL-C ≥100 mg/dL or apoB ≥80 mg/dL compared with 13% to 38% and 9% to 25%, respectively, in those with LDL-CF <70 mg/dL. With LDL-CF or LDL-CN <70 mg/dL and non-HDL-C <100 mg/dL, 0% to 1% had apoB ≥80 mg/dL. Among all dual LDL-CF or LDL-CN <100 mg/dL and non-HDL-C <130 mg/dL individuals, 0% to 0.4% had apoB ≥100 mg/dL. These findings were robust to sex, fasting status, and lipid-lowering therapy status. CONCLUSIONS: After more accurately estimating LDL-C, guideline-suggested non-HDL-C targets could alter management in only a small fraction of individuals, including those with coronary artery disease and other high-risk clinical features. Furthermore, current guideline-suggested apoB targets provide modest utility after meeting cholesterol targets.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)244-254
Number of pages11
Issue number3
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018



  • ApoB
  • LDL-C
  • Non-HDL-C

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this