HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: j.jacc.2006.09.043v1 49/5/547    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (13) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by El Harchaoui, K. Articles by Boekholdt, S. M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by El Harchaoui, K. Articles by Boekholdt, S. M.

CLINICAL RESEARCH: ATHEROSCLEROSIS

Value of Low-Density Lipoprotein Particle Number and Size as Predictors of Coronary Artery Disease in Apparently Healthy Men and Women

The EPIC-Norfolk Prospective Population Study

Karim El Harchaoui, MD^_*, Wim A. van der Steeg, MD^_*, Erik S.G. Stroes, MD, PhD^_*, Jan Albert Kuivenhoven, PhD^_*, James D. Otvos, PhD^||,1, Nicholas J. Wareham, MBBS, PhD, Barbara A. Hutten, PhD, John J.P. Kastelein, MD, PhD^_*,_*, Kay-Tee Khaw, MBBChir and S. Matthijs Boekholdt, MD, PhD^_*

^_* Department of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
^|| LipoScience Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina

Manuscript received August 4, 2006; revised manuscript received September 22, 2006, accepted September 28, 2006.

^_* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. John J. P. Kastelein, F4.159-2, Department of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands. (Email: j.j.kastelein{at}amc.uva.nl).

	Abstract

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion References

 
OBJECTIVES: We assessed relations of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle number (LDL-P) and LDL particle size as measured by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy with LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and the risk of future coronary artery disease (CAD).

BACKGROUND: Whereas LDL-C is an established risk factor for CAD, its discriminative power is limited. Measuring LDL-P and size may have stronger associations with CAD than LDL-C.

METHODS: A nested case-control study was performed in the prospective EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition)-Norfolk study, which comprises 25,663 subjects. Cases (n = 1,003) were individuals who developed CAD during 6 year follow-up. Control subjects (n = 1,885) were matched for age, gender, and enrollment time. Odds ratios (ORs) for future CAD were calculated, and we also evaluated whether LDL-P could improve the Framingham risk score (FRS) to predict CAD.

RESULTS: In univariate analyses, LDL-P (OR 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58 to 2.59) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non–HDL-C) (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.69 to 2.69) were more closely associated with CAD than LDL-C (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.18). The additional value of LDL-P was lost after adjustment for HDL-C and triglyceride levels. Whereas LDL size was inversely related to CAD (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.76), this relation was abolished upon adjustment for LDL-P. In a model adjusted for the FRS, LDL-P retained its association with CAD (p for trend 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS: In this large study of individuals with moderately elevated LDL-C, LDL-P was related to CAD on top of FRS as well as after adjusting for LDL-C. The additional value of LDL-P was comparable to non–HDL-C, and it was abolished after adjusting for triglycerides and HDL-C.

Abbreviations and Acronyms   apoB = apolipoprotein B   BMI = body mass index   CAD = coronary artery disease   CI = confidence interval   FRS = Framingham risk score   HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol   LDL = low-density lipoprotein   LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol   LDL-P = low-density lipoprotein-particle number   NMR = nuclear magnetic resonance   OR = odds ratio

Lipoprotein particle analysis by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy is a relatively new method by which both LDL-P and LDL particle size can be efficiently measured (10). We evaluated the associations between LDL-P and LDL size, in comparison with LDL-C and non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non–HDL-C) as traditional markers, and risk of future CAD in apparently healthy men and women enrolled in a large prospective cohort with moderately elevated LDL-C. Since LDL-P and LDL size are closely related to traditional lipid factors such as HDL-C and triglycerides, we performed multivariable analyses to assess independency of the correlations. We also assessed clinical usefulness of these novel parameters by determining their effect on the discriminative accuracy of the Framingham risk score (FRS).

	Methods

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion References

 
We performed a nested case-control study among participants of the EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition)-Norfolk study, a prospective population study of 25,663 men and women aged between 45 and 79 years, resident in Norfolk, United Kingdom, who completed a baseline questionnaire survey and attended a clinic visit (11). Participants were recruited from age-gender registers of general practices in Norfolk as part of the 10-country collaborative EPIC study designed to investigate dietary and other determinants of cancer. Additional data were obtained in the EPIC-Norfolk study to enable the assessment of determinants of other diseases.

The design and methods of the study have been described in detail (11). In short, eligible participants were recruited by mail. At the baseline survey between 1993 and 1997, participants completed a detailed health and lifestyle questionnaire. Non-fasting blood was taken by vein puncture into plain and citrate bottles. Blood samples were processed for assay at the Department of Clinical Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, or stored at –80°C. All individuals were flagged for death certification at the United Kingdom Office of National Statistics, with vital status ascertained for the entire cohort. In addition, participants admitted to hospital were identified using their unique National Health Service number by data linkage with ENCORE (East Norfolk Health Authority) database. Coronary artery disease was defined as codes 410-414 according to the International Classification of Diseases-9th revision. Participants were identified as having CAD during follow-up if they had a hospital admission and/or died with CAD as underlying cause. We report results with follow-up up to January 2003, an average of about 6 years. The study was approved by the Norwich District Health Authority Ethics Committee, and all participants gave signed informed consent.

Participants.   We excluded all individuals who reported a history of heart attack or stroke at the baseline clinic visit. None of the cases or control subjects was on statin treatment. Cases were individuals who developed a fatal or non-fatal CAD during follow-up. For each case, 2 control subjects matched for gender, age (within 5 years), and time of enrollment (within 3 months) were identified who had remained free of CAD during follow-up.

NMR spectroscopy.   Lipoprotein subclass particle concentrations and average size of LDL particles were measured by proton NMR spectroscopy (LipoScience, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina) as previously described (10). Particle concentrations of lipoprotein subclasses of different size were obtained directly from the measured amplitudes of their spectroscopically distinct lipid methyl group NMR signals. The following LDL subclasses were defined: intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL) (23 to 27 nm), large LDL (21.2 to 23 nm), and small LDL (18 to 21.2 nm). Low-density lipoprotein subclass particle concentrations are given in units of nmol/l. Summation of the LDL subclass levels provides total LDL (including intermediate-density lipoprotein) particle concentrations. Weighted-average LDL particle sizes (in nm diameter units) are computed as the sum of the diameter of each subclass multiplied by its relative mass percentage as estimated from the amplitude of its methyl NMR signal. Low-density lipoprotein subclass distributions determined by NMR and gradient gel electrophoresis are highly correlated (12). Low-density lipoprotein subclass diameters, which are consistent with electron microscopy data (13), are uniformly 5 nm smaller than those estimated by gradient gel electrophoresis.

Biochemical analyses.   Serum levels of total cholesterol, HDL-C, and triglycerides were measured with the RA 1000 (Bayer Diagnostics, Basingstoke, United Kingdom), and LDL-C levels were calculated with the Friedewald formula (14). Nuclear magnetic resonance analysis was performed on stored serum samples that were analyzed in random order to avoid systemic bias. Researchers and laboratory personnel were blinded to identifiable information, and could identify samples by number only.

Statistical analysis.   Baseline characteristics were compared between cases and controls taking into account the matching. A mixed effect model was used for continuous variables, and conditional logistic regression was used for categoric variables. Because triglyceride levels had a skewed distribution, values were log-transformed before being used as continuous variables in statistical analyses.

Spearman correlation coefficients and corresponding p values were calculated to assess associations between the various biomarkers and established continuous CAD risk factors. To assess the strength of association between a risk factor and the occurrence of CAD, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by conditional logistic regression analysis, taking into account matching for gender, age, and enrollment time. The ORs were calculated per quartile of each risk factor, with the first quartile as the referent group. P values represent significance for linearity across the ORs for the 4 quartiles of each risk factor. To compare the individual strengths of disease association of LDL-P, non–HDL-C, LDL-C, HDL-C, and triglycerides, we calculated ORs for future CAD per quartile of each variable in separate models adjusted for smoking (yes/no) and systolic blood pressure. Since our objective was to determine relations of lipids/lipoproteins with CAD, we did not adjust additionally for body mass index (BMI) and diabetes, 2 lipid-altering risk factors. Multivariable models were also examined to determine how relations of each variable were affected by adjustment for the other lipid/lipoprotein variables.

We further assessed the relation of LDL-P and non–HDL-C with future CAD using a model that included the FRS. We calculated this score using a previously reported algorithm (15) based on age, gender, levels of total and HDL cholesterol, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, diabetes, and smoking and categorized subjects into 3 groups: low (<10%), intermediate (10% to 20%), or high (>20%) risk. The ORs for future CAD were calculated per quartile of the risk factor, adjusting for the FRS category.

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 12.0.1, SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois). A p value <0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

	Results

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion References

 
Baseline characteristics.   We identified 1,003 participants who were apparently healthy at baseline and developed CAD during follow-up. A total of 882 cases were matched to 2 controls each, whereas the remaining 121 cases could be matched to 1 control only, giving a total number of 1,885 controls. Baseline characteristics of cases and controls are listed in Table 1. As expected, cases were more likely to be smokers and diabetic subjects, and to have a higher blood pressure and BMI than control subjects. Levels of total cholesterol, LDL-C, non–HDL-C, and triglycerides were significantly higher in cases than in control subjects, whereas HDL-C levels were significantly lower (p < 0.0001 for each). Baseline LDL-P was higher in cases compared with control subjects (p < 0.0001). Levels of the large LDL subclass were not different, but cases had more IDL and small LDL particles. Thus, the increased LDL-C in cases is attributable mainly to increased cholesterol in small LDL. The average LDL particle size was smaller in cases than control subjects.

Concordance/discordance between LDL-C and LDL-P.   In a conditional logistic regression model that included both parameters and corrected for smoking and systolic blood pressure, LDL-C was no longer statistically significantly associated with future CAD (Table 4). The LDL-P, however, remained a significant risk factor, such that subjects in the highest quartile had an OR of 1.78 (95% CI, 1.34 to 2.37; p < 0.0001 for linearity) (Table 4).

	Discussion

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion References

LDL-P and risk for future CAD.   The cholesterol content of LDL particles, which can create discordance between levels of LDL-C and LDL-P, is mainly influenced by cholesterol ester transfer protein activity, which is enhanced under circumstances of hypertriglyceridemia (8). This has 2 important consequences. First, transfer of cholesteryl ester from HDL particles to apoB-containing lipoproteins causes low HDL-C levels. Second, cholesterol depletion and triglyceride enrichment of LDL particles facilitates the formation of small dense LDL particles (3,8). As a result, LDL-C levels generally underestimate the number of LDL particles in individuals with elevated triglycerides, as clearly illustrated in the Framingham Study (2,3). Discordance between LDL-C and LDL-P is also a feature of diabetic patients (2,16) and the number of metabolic syndrome components (2,17). Our data in the EPIC-Norfolk study showing that triglyceride and HDL-C levels are much more strongly correlated with LDL-P than LDL-C are in agreement with these findings. Accordingly, it was not unexpected that the relation of LDL-P with CAD risk was to be weakened more than that of LDL-C by multivariate adjustment for triglycerides and HDL-C. Conversely, adjusting for LDL-P weakened relations of CAD with triglycerides and HDL-C, suggesting that some of the risk associated with these non-LDL risk factors may actually stem from elevations of LDL-P not reflected by levels of LDL-C.

We found a moderate degree of discordance between LDL-C and LDL-P in our study population. While the source of this excess risk may not be due entirely to the elevated LDL-P, since those with discordantly high LDL-P often have increased triglycerides and decreased HDL-C, it is biologically plausible that LDL-P makes a contribution. Current understanding of the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic vascular disease is that LDL particles are active participants from the time they enter the artery wall, are retained in the intima by binding to extracellular matrix, become chemically modified by oxidation, and are subsequently ingested by macrophages to create foam cells and increased plaque burden (2,4).

Despite the finding that LDL-P predicted CAD independently of the FRS, our results, showing a loss of discriminative power of LDL-P over LDL-C when HDL-C and triglyceride levels are accounted for, do not argue for the routine implementation of LDL-P assessment for CAD risk assessment. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol particle number may, however, play a useful role in patient management by helping judge the adequacy of LDL lowering therapy, particularly among those with elevated triglycerides and reduced HDL-C. Such a role has been proposed for apoB (4,5), and both non–HDL-C and apoB have been put forward as secondary treatment targets after LDL-C goals have been achieved (1,4). In fact, data supporting LDL-P as an alternative treatment target has gained support from clinical intervention studies showing that on-treatment levels of apoB or NMR-measured LDL-P were more reliable indicators of residual CAD risk than on-treatment LDL-C (2,4,5,18,19).

LDL size and risk for future CAD.   Small LDL size is another factor associated with high triglycerides, low HDL-C, obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome (6–9). Our finding of a relation between smaller LDL size and greater CAD risk is consistent with previous studies reporting that small LDL particles have higher atherogenic potential than large LDL particles (8,9). However, upon adjustment for LDL-P, the relationship of LDL size with CAD was abolished. This result is consistent with findings in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis indicating that NMR-measured numbers of small and large LDL particles are related similarly to carotid atherosclerosis (20).

Non–HDL-C and risk for future CAD.   The present findings confirm that non–HDL-C is a better predictor of CAD than LDL-C (21,22). Previous studies have also found that the number of most atherogenic lipoprotein particles, as measured by apoB, were more strongly related to CAD risk than was non–HDL-C (21,22). In the present study, we show that the association of LDL-P with CAD is almost equal to that of non–HDL-C. The fact that apoB captures all atherogenic apoB particles (including very low-density lipoprotein and LDL), whereas LDL-P only measures LDL particles, may have contributed to this distinction. There has been an intense debate concerning clinical relevance of measuring particle numbers (apoB/LDL-P) and/or cholesterol content of the particles (non–HDL-C). In the present study, we observed that both LDL-P as well as non–HDL-C conferred predictive value on top of the FRS. Since the association between LDL-P and CAD was equal to that of non–HDL-C, the present findings do not advocate routine use of LDL-P in CAD risk assessment. The potential value of LDL-P measurement for monitoring patients on lipid-lowering medication needs to be addressed in separate intervention trials.

Study limitations.   Our study has several limitations. The study population was relatively elderly, which may limit the generalizability of our results. Case-control differences in CAD among older populations are more weakly related to lipoprotein levels than in younger populations because many of the control subjects have extensive subclinical disease, yet have not experienced a coronary event (23). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in the study population were also considerably higher than in the general U.S. population, with a mean LDL-C value in the EPIC-Norfolk study corresponding to the 80th percentile of Framingham subjects of similar age and gender (24). Coronary artery disease events in our study were ascertained through death certification and hospital admission data, which may lead both to under ascertainment and to misclassification of cases. Previous validation studies in this cohort, however, indicate high specificity of such case ascertainment (25).

In conclusion, in this large cohort of apparently healthy men and women, LDL-P and non–HDL-C were more closely associated than LDL cholesterol with the occurrence of future CAD. After adjustment for HDL-C and triglycerides, LDL-P was no longer more predictive than LDL-C. These findings do not support routine use of LDL-P in CAD risk assessment strategies in primary prevention strategies. However, recognition that patients with low HDL-C and/or high triglycerides often have elevated numbers of LDL particles without having elevated LDL-C may enable their LDL-related CAD risk to be managed more effectively.

	Acknowledgments

 
The authors would like to thank the participants, general practitioners, and staff in the EPIC-Norfolk study and at LipoScience Inc. (Jim Otvos) for kindly performing all NMR spectroscopy measurements in the cohort.

	Footnotes

 
The EPIC-Norfolk study is supported by programmed grants from the Medical Research Council UK and Cancer Research UK, with additional support from the European Union, Stroke Association, British Heart Foundation, Department of Health, Food Standards Agency, and the Welcome Trust.

¹ Dr. Otvos is an employee of LipoScience, Inc.

	References

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion References

 

1. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report Circulation 2002;106:3143-3421.
2. Cromwell WC, Otvos JD. Low-density lipoprotein particle number and risk for cardiovascular disease Curr Atheroscler Rep 2004;6:381-387.[Medline]
3. Otvos JD, Jeyarajah EJ, Cromwell WC. Measurement issues related to lipoprotein heterogeneity Am J Cardiol 2002;90:22i-29i.[ISI][Medline]
4. Barter PJ, Ballantyne CM, Carmena R, et al. Apo B versus cholesterol in estimating cardiovascular risk and in guiding therapy: report of the thirty-person/ten-country panel J Intern Med 2006;259:247-258.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
5. Sniderman AD, Furberg CD, Keech A, et al. Apolipoproteins versus lipids as indices of coronary risk and as targets for statin treatment Lancet 2003;361:777-780.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
6. Gardner CD, Fortmann SP, Krauss RM. Association of small low-density lipoprotein particles with the incidence of coronary artery disease in men and women JAMA 1996;276:875-881.[Abstract]
7. Lamarche B, Tchernof A, Moorjani S, et al. Small, dense low-density lipoprotein particles as a predictor of the risk of ischemic heart disease in men: prospective results from the Quebec Cardiovascular Study Circulation 1997;95:69-75.
8. Berneis KK, Krauss RM. Metabolic origins and clinical significance of LDL heterogeneity J Lipid Res 2002;43:1363-1379.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Sacks FM, Campos H. Clinical review 163: cardiovascular endocrinology: low-density lipoprotein size and cardiovascular disease: a reappraisal J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:4525-4532.[Free Full Text]
10. Otvos JD. Measurement of lipoprotein subclass profiles by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy Clin Lab 2002;48:171-180.[Medline]
11. Day N, Oakes S, Luben R, et al. EPIC-Norfolk: study design and characteristics of the cohortEuropean Prospective Investigation of Cancer. Br J Cancer 1999;80(Suppl 1):95-103.
12. Blake GJ, Otvos JD, Rifai N, Ridker PM. Low-density lipoprotein particle concentration and size as determined by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy as predictors of cardiovascular disease in women Circulation 2002;106:1930-1937.
13. Rumsey SC, Galeano NF, Arad Y, Deckelbaum RJ. Cryopreservation with sucrose maintains normal physical and biological properties of human plasma low density lipoproteins J Lipid Res 1992;33:1551-1561.[Abstract]
14. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge Clin Chem 1972;18:499-502.[Abstract]
15. Wilson PWF, D’Agostino RB, Levy D, Belanger AM, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories Circulation 1998;97:1837-1847.[Medline]
16. Garvey WT, Kwon S, Zheng D, et al. Effects of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes on lipoprotein subclass particle size and concentration determined by nuclear magnetic resonance Diabetes 2003;52:453-462.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Kathiresan S, Otvos JD, Sullivan LM, et al. Increased small low-density lipoprotein particle number: a prominent feature of the metabolic syndrome in the Framingham Heart Study Circulation 2006;113:20-29.
18. Otvos JD, Collins D, Freedman DS, et al. Low-density lipoprotein and high-density lipoprotein particle subclasses predict coronary events and are favorably changed by gemfibrozil therapy in the Veterans Affairs High-Density Lipoprotein Intervention Trial Circulation 2006;113:1556-1563.
19. Rosenson RS, Otvos JD, Freedman DS. Relations of lipoprotein subclass levels and low-density lipoprotein size to progression of coronary artery disease in the Pravastatin Limitation of Atherosclerosis in the Coronary Arteries (PLAC-I) trial Am J Cardiol 2002;90:89-94.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
20. Mora S, Szklo M, Otvos JD, et al. LDL particle subclasses, LDL particle size, and carotid atherosclerosis in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) Atherosclerosis. 2006Jun 9; [Epub ahead of print].
21. Pischon T, Girman CJ, Sacks FM, Rifai N, Stampfer MJ, Rimm EB. Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B in the prediction of coronary heart disease in men Circulation 2005;112:3375-3383.
22. Cui Y, Blumenthal RS, Flaws JA, et al. Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level as a predictor of cardiovascular disease mortality Arch Intern Med 2001;161:1413-1419.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Kuller L, Arnold A, Tracy R, et al. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of lipoproteins and risk of coronary heart disease in the cardiovascular health study Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2002;22:1175-1180.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Freedman DS, Otvos JD, Jeyarajah EJ, et al. Sex and age differences in lipoprotein subclasses measured by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy: the Framingham Study Clin Chem 2004;50:1189-1200.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. Boekholdt SM, Peters RJ, Day NE, et al. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor and the risk of myocardial infarction or death due to coronary artery disease in adults without prior myocardial infarction or stroke: the EPIC-Norfolk Prospective Population Study Am J Med 2004;117:390-397.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. D. Sniderman We Must Prevent Disease, Not Predict Events J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 22, 2008; 52(4): 300 - 301. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. D. Brunzell, M. Davidson, C. D. Furberg, R. B. Goldberg, B. V. Howard, J. H. Stein, and J. L. Witztum Lipoprotein Management in Patients With Cardiometabolic Risk: Consensus Conference Report From the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Cardiology Foundation J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., April 15, 2008; 51(15): 1512 - 1524. [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Kaess, M. Fischer, A. Baessler, K. Stark, F. Huber, W. Kremer, H. R. Kalbitzer, H. Schunkert, G. Riegger, and C. Hengstenberg The lipoprotein subfraction profile: heritability and identification of quantitative trait loci J. Lipid Res., April 1, 2008; 49(4): 715 - 723. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. D. Brunzell, M. Davidson, C. D. Furberg, R. B. Goldberg, B. V. Howard, J. H. Stein, and J. L. Witztum Lipoprotein Management in Patients With Cardiometabolic Risk: Consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Cardiology Foundation Diabetes Care, April 1, 2008; 31(4): 811 - 822. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. N. DeMaria, J. J. Bax, O. Ben-Yehuda, P. Clopton, G. K. Feld, G. S. Ginsburg, B. H. Greenberg, J. D. Knoke, W. Y.W. Lew, J. A.C. Lima, et al. Highlights of the year in JACC 2007. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 29, 2008; 51(4): 490 - 512. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. O. Mudd, B. A. Borlaug, P. V. Johnston, B. G. Kral, R. Rouf, R. S. Blumenthal, and P. O. Kwiterovich Jr Beyond Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol: Defining the Role of Low-Density Lipoprotein Heterogeneity in Coronary Artery Disease J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 30, 2007; 50(18): 1735 - 1741. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: j.jacc.2006.09.043v1 49/5/547    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (13) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by El Harchaoui, K. Articles by Boekholdt, S. M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by El Harchaoui, K. Articles by Boekholdt, S. M.