{"title":"Non-HDL Cholesterol May Be Preferred over Apolipoprotein B-100 for Risk Assessment when Evaluated by Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve Analysis.","authors":"Stanley S Levinson","doi":"10.1093/jalm/jfae125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most studies found that apolipoprotein B (apo B)-100 is a superior marker for coronary risk to non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (C). Usually, studies use multivariant analysis with single-point odds/risk ratios. In multivariant analysis, when variables are highly correlated they are difficult to interpret. Effects cannot be well discriminated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Brief review and examination of diagnostic sensitivity and specificity by receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves at decision levels so that discrimination can be well compared. Since apo B has additional expense, clinical value should be compared in an appropriate format. Apo B and cholesterols were measured in 382 angiographically defined patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Non-HDLC and apo B were stronger markers than low-density lipoprotein (LDL)C, when examined by logistic regression, but as a result of strong collinearity, non-HDLC appeared weaker than LDLC in the presence of apo B, based on P values. This was true when analyzed with and without nonlipid risk factors. On ROC analysis, apo B and non-HDLC showed stronger C statistics than LDLC and total C. When analyzed alone apo B showed about 6.1% greater sensitivity than non-HDLC. After adjustment for nonlipid risk factors, the C statistics for apo B and non-HDLC were 0.74 and 0.73, and there was little difference in diagnostic specificity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Risk is calculated from an algorithm that includes nonlipid risk factors similar to those examined here along with cholesterols. When assessed by the 10-year screening algorithm, these data support the view that non-HDLC would be less expensive than apo B with similar clinical efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":46361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae125","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:大多数研究发现,载脂蛋白 B(载脂蛋白 B)-100 是一种优于非高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(C)的冠心病风险标志物。研究通常使用多变量分析和单点几率/风险比。在多变量分析中,当变量高度相关时,很难对其进行解释。方法:方法:通过接收器操作者特征曲线(ROC)对诊断灵敏度和特异性进行简要回顾和检查,以便对判定水平进行比较。由于载脂蛋白 B 有额外的费用,因此应以适当的形式比较其临床价值。对 382 名血管造影确定的患者进行了载脂蛋白 B 和胆固醇的测量:通过逻辑回归分析,非高密度脂蛋白胆固醇和载脂蛋白 B 是比低密度脂蛋白(LDL)C 更强的标志物,但由于强烈的共线性,根据 P 值,非高密度脂蛋白胆固醇在有载脂蛋白 B 的情况下似乎比低密度脂蛋白胆固醇更弱。在分析有无非血脂风险因素时,情况也是如此。在 ROC 分析中,载脂蛋白 B 和非 HDLC 比 LDLC 和总 C 显示出更强的 C 统计量。对非脂质风险因素进行调整后,载脂蛋白 B 和非 HDLC 的 C 统计量分别为 0.74 和 0.73,诊断特异性差别不大:结论:风险是通过一种算法计算出来的,该算法包括与本文研究结果类似的非血脂风险因素和胆固醇。当采用 10 年筛查算法进行评估时,这些数据支持这样的观点,即非高密度脂蛋白胆固醇比载脂蛋白 B 成本低,临床疗效相似。
Non-HDL Cholesterol May Be Preferred over Apolipoprotein B-100 for Risk Assessment when Evaluated by Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve Analysis.
Background: Most studies found that apolipoprotein B (apo B)-100 is a superior marker for coronary risk to non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (C). Usually, studies use multivariant analysis with single-point odds/risk ratios. In multivariant analysis, when variables are highly correlated they are difficult to interpret. Effects cannot be well discriminated.
Methods: Brief review and examination of diagnostic sensitivity and specificity by receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves at decision levels so that discrimination can be well compared. Since apo B has additional expense, clinical value should be compared in an appropriate format. Apo B and cholesterols were measured in 382 angiographically defined patients.
Results: Non-HDLC and apo B were stronger markers than low-density lipoprotein (LDL)C, when examined by logistic regression, but as a result of strong collinearity, non-HDLC appeared weaker than LDLC in the presence of apo B, based on P values. This was true when analyzed with and without nonlipid risk factors. On ROC analysis, apo B and non-HDLC showed stronger C statistics than LDLC and total C. When analyzed alone apo B showed about 6.1% greater sensitivity than non-HDLC. After adjustment for nonlipid risk factors, the C statistics for apo B and non-HDLC were 0.74 and 0.73, and there was little difference in diagnostic specificity.
Conclusions: Risk is calculated from an algorithm that includes nonlipid risk factors similar to those examined here along with cholesterols. When assessed by the 10-year screening algorithm, these data support the view that non-HDLC would be less expensive than apo B with similar clinical efficacy.