Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 21, 2025
Cell-free Biochemical Fluorometric Enzymatic Assay for High-throughput Measurement of Lipid Peroxidation in High Density Lipoprotein
Published on: October 12, 2017
The clinical utility of apoB versus LDL-C/non-HDL-C
Ciaran N Kohli-Lynch1, George Thanassoulis2, Andrew E Moran3
1Division of General Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Insights
Apolipoprotein B (apoB) is a more accurate cardiovascular risk marker than LDL-C or non-HDL-C. Its superior clinical utility justifies wider adoption, as it offers greater accuracy with minimal cost impact.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Clinical Chemistry
- Biomarker Analysis
Background:
- Established guidelines recognize apolipoprotein B (apoB) as a superior cardiovascular risk marker compared to LDL-C and non-HDL-C.
- Current recommendations suggest apoB offers greater accuracy and precision in risk assessment.
- However, widespread apoB implementation awaits further evidence from randomized trials and cost-effectiveness analyses.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the clinical utility of apoB versus LDL-C and non-HDL-C from the perspective of informed patients and physicians.
- To address the need for a deeper understanding of apoB's practical application in cardiovascular risk assessment.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of biological and laboratory inaccuracies associated with LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and apoB measurements.
- Demonstration of inherent biological variance in LDL-C/non-HDL-C that precludes direct comparative randomized clinical trials against apoB.
- Assessment of the cost implications of incorporating apoB testing into standard lipid panels.
Main Results:
- Significant biological and laboratory inaccuracies were identified for LDL-C and non-HDL-C when compared to apoB.
- The inherent variability in cholesterol content per apoB particle makes direct RCT comparison to LDL-C/non-HDL-C biologically infeasible.
- Integrating apoB into lipid panels incurs only a marginal increase in overall healthcare costs.
Conclusions:
- The superior accuracy and minimal additional cost of apoB testing present a compelling case for its clinical utility.
- Informed healthcare decisions favor the more accurate apoB test over less accurate alternatives like LDL-C and non-HDL-C.
- The clinical utility of apoB significantly surpasses that of LDL-C and non-HDL-C for cardiovascular risk assessment.
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.
Related Concept Videos
01:16Bioequivalence Data: Statistical Interpretation
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:20Measurement of Bioavailability: Pharmacodynamic Methods
01:27Bioavailability Study Design: Absolute Versus Relative Bioavailability
01:26Atherosclerosis III: Management
01:25Pharmacokinetics in Obese Patients: Drug Absorption and Distribution