The clinical utility of apoB versus LDL-C/non-HDL-C

Abstract

Background: The ESC/EAS Guidelines and the EAS/EFLM consensus reports state that apoB is a more accurate marker of cardiovascular risk than LDL-C or non-HDL-C and that apoB can be measured accurately and precisely than LDL-C or non-HDL-C. Nevertheless, EAS/EFLM called for a randomized clinical trial and a cost-effective analysis before widespread implementation of apoB.

Objective: To analyse these issues from the perspective of clinical utility as clinical utility would be considered by an informed patient and physician.

Methods and results: We highlight the biological inaccuracies as well as the laboratory inaccuracies of LDL-C/non-HDL-C versus apoB. We demonstrate why the biological variance in the cholesterol loading per apoB particle makes it impossible to design a randomized clinical trial to compare apoB to LDL-C/non-HDL-C. We further demonstrate that even in the context of the United States, adding apoB to a lipid panel would have only a trivial effect on costs.

Conclusion: We submit that no informed patient or physician would choose a less accurate test over a more accurate test if the more accurate test added only trivially to the total cost of care. For these reasons, the clinical utility of apoB far exceeds the clinical utility of LDL-C/non-HDL-C.

Keywords: Cardiovascular disease; LDL-C; Prevention; apoB; non-HDL-C.