Back to Search Start Over

Impact of Lipoprotein(a) Level on Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol– or Apolipoprotein B–Related Risk of Coronary Heart Disease.

Authors :
Arnold, Natalie
Blaum, Christopher
Goßling, Alina
Brunner, Fabian J.
Bay, Benjamin
Zeller, Tanja
Ferrario, Marco M.
Brambilla, Paolo
Cesana, Giancarlo
Leoni, Valerio
Palmieri, Luigi
Donfrancesco, Chiara
Ojeda, Francisco
Linneberg, Allan
Söderberg, Stefan
Iacoviello, Licia
Gianfagna, Francesco
Costanzo, Simona
Sans, Susana
Veronesi, Giovanni
Source :
Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC). Jul2024, Vol. 84 Issue 2, p165-177. 13p.
Publication Year :
2024

Abstract

Conventional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) quantification includes cholesterol attributable to lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)-C) due to their overlapping densities. The purposes of this study were to compare the association between LDL-C and LDL-C corrected for Lp(a)-C (LDL Lp(a)corr) with incident coronary heart disease (CHD) in the general population and to investigate whether concomitant Lp(a) values influence the association of LDL-C or apolipoprotein B (apoB) with coronary events. Among 68,748 CHD-free subjects at baseline LDL Lp(a)corr was calculated as "LDL-C—Lp(a)-C," where Lp(a)-C was 30% or 17.3% of total Lp(a) mass. Fine and Gray competing risk-adjusted models were applied for the association between the outcome incident CHD and: 1) LDL-C and LDL Lp(a)corr in the total sample; and 2) LDL-C and apoB after stratification by Lp(a) mass (≥/<90th percentile). Similar risk estimates for incident CHD were found for LDL-C and LDL-C Lp(a) corr30 or LDL-C Lp(a) corr17.3 (subdistribution HR with 95% CI) were 2.73 (95% CI: 2.34-3.20) vs 2.51 (95% CI: 2.15-2.93) vs 2.64 (95% CI: 2.26-3.10), respectively (top vs bottom fifth; fully adjusted models). Categorization by Lp(a) mass resulted in higher subdistribution HRs for uncorrected LDL-C and incident CHD at Lp(a) ≥90th percentile (4.38 [95% CI: 2.08-9.22]) vs 2.60 [95% CI: 2.21-3.07]) at Lp(a) <90th percentile (top vs bottom fifth; P interaction 0.39). In contrast, apoB risk estimates were lower in subjects with higher Lp(a) mass (2.43 [95% CI: 1.34-4.40]) than in Lp(a) <90th percentile (3.34 [95% CI: 2.78-4.01]) (P interaction 0.49). Correction of LDL-C for its Lp(a)-C content provided no meaningful information on CHD-risk estimation at the population level. Simple categorization of Lp(a) mass (≥/<90th percentile) influenced the association between LDL-C or apoB with future CHD mostly at higher Lp(a) levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
07351097
Volume :
84
Issue :
2
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC)
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
178045228
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2024.04.050