4.7 Article

Nonfasting apolipoprotein B and triglyceride levels as a useful predictor of coronary heart disease risk in middle-aged UK men

Journal

ARTERIOSCLEROSIS THROMBOSIS AND VASCULAR BIOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 11, Pages 1918-1923

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000035521.22199.C7

Keywords

follow-up studies; apolipoprotein B; triglycerides; HDL cholesterol; apolipoprotein A-I

Funding

  1. PHS HHS [33014] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective-The Apolipoprotein-related Mortality Risk (AMORIS) study concluded that the apolipoprotein (apo)B/apoA-I ratio was the best predictor of coronary heart disease (CHID) risk. We have compared the pairwise combinations of total cholesterol, triglycerides (TGs), apoB, high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, low density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apoA-I on CHD risk prediction in middle-aged men. Methods and Results-Healthy middle-aged men (n = 2508), free of CHD at baseline, were examined prospectively. Over 6 years of follow-up, there were 163 CHD events (including acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery surgery, and ECG evidence of silent myocardial infarction). The relative risk (RR) of CHD associated with cholesterol, TGs, apoB, apoA-I, apoB/apoA-I, low density lipoprotein cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol were examined by survival analysis. The apoB/apoA-I ratio was associated with the strongest effect on the RR (3.58, 95% CI 2.08 to 6.19). In multivariate analysis, apoA-I had no significant effect on risk. Examining RR by quartiles, apoB and HDL in combination (RR 8.38, 95% CI 3.21 to 21.92) Were better predictors of CHD risk than apoB and TGs (RR 4.05, 95% CI 1.57 to 6.23). However, apoB and TGs in combination added risk information over and above lifestyle factors, whereas apoB and HDL cholesterol did not. Conclusions-The combined evaluation of apoB with TGs provides useful diagnostic criteria for CHD risk.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available