 Original investigation
 Open Access
Discriminant ratio and biometrical equivalence of measured vs. calculated apolipoprotein B_{100} in patients with T2DM
 Michel P Hermans^{1}Email author,
 Sylvie A Ahn^{2} and
 Michel F Rousseau^{2}
https://doi.org/10.1186/147528401239
© Hermans et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
 Received: 18 December 2012
 Accepted: 22 February 2013
 Published: 27 February 2013
Abstract
Background
Apolipoprotein B_{100} (ApoB_{100}) determination is superior to lowdensity lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) to establish cardiovascular (CV) risk, and does not require prior fasting. ApoB_{100} is rarely measured alongside standard lipids, which precludes comprehensive assessment of dyslipidemia.
Objectives
To evaluate two simple algorithms for apoB_{100} as regards their performance, equivalence and discrimination with reference apoB_{100} laboratory measurement.
Methods
Two apoB_{100}predicting equations were compared in 87 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients using the Discriminant ratio (DR). Equation 1: apoB_{100} = 0.65*nonhighdensity lipoprotein cholesterol + 6.3; and Equation 2: apoB_{100} = −33.12 + 0.675*LDLC + 11.95*ln[triglycerides]. The underlying betweensubject standard deviation (SD_{U}) was defined as SD_{U} = √ (SD^{2}_{B}  SD^{2}_{W}/2); the withinsubject variance (V_{w}) was calculated for m (2) repeat tests as (V_{w}) = Σ(x_{j} x_{i})^{2}/(m1)), the withinsubject SD (SD_{w}) being its square root; the DR being the ratio SD_{U}/SD_{W}.
Results
All SD_{u}, SD_{w} and DR’s values were nearly similar, and the observed differences in discriminatory power between all three determinations, i.e. measured and calculated apoB_{100} levels, did not reach statistical significance. Measured Pearson’s productmoment correlation coefficients between all apoB_{100} determinations were very high, respectively at 0.94 (measured vs. equation 1); 0.92 (measured vs. equation 2); and 0.97 (equation 1 vs. equation 2), each measurement reaching unity after adjustment for attenuation.
Conclusion
Both apoB_{100} algorithms showed biometrical equivalence, and were as effective in estimating apoB_{100} from routine lipids. Their use should contribute to better characterize residual cardiometabolic risk linked to the number of atherogenic particles, when direct apoB_{100} determination is not available.
Keywords
 ApoB_{100}
 LDLC
 NonHDLC
 Discriminant ratio
 Type 2 diabetes
 Cardiovascular risk
Introduction
Lowdensity lipoproteins (LDL) and their verylow density lipoprotein (VLDL) precursors represent the major atherogenic particles. Each contains a single apolipoprotein B_{100} (apoB_{100}) molecule, which ensures the structural integrity of the lipoprotein, and binds to the hepatic receptor for catabolic removal of LDL. The “smalldense” LDL phenotype confers a higher cardiovascular (CV) risk than that resulting from their cholesterol load. Therefore circulating apoB_{100} level more accurately reflects the number of atherogenic particles, 90% of apoB_{100} belonging to LDL irrespective of their size. The determination of apoB_{100} does not require prior fasting, unlike estimation of LDLcholesterol (LDLC) by Friedewald’s formula [1–8].
Numerous studies have demonstrated the superiority of apoB_{100} relative to LDLC to establish CV risk, and improvement of outcomes after lipidlowering drug (LLD) therapy [2–6, 9]. The Adult Treatment Panel III proposed that in individuals with elevated triglycerides (TG), nonhighdensity lipoprotein cholesterol (nonHDLC) should be treated as secondary therapy goal, after targeting LDLC; moreover nonHDLC appears a better predictor of CV risk than LDLC, especially in statintreated patients [2, 6]. However, the relationships between LDLC, nonHDLC and apoB_{100} are often less convergent than expected, and therefore less predictable in patients at high cardiometabolic risk, including those with high TG and/or the metabolic syndrome. In these patients, including those with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), nonHDLC and apoB100 are therefore less interchangeable than the reading of the general recommendations for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia would suggest.
In the absence of consensual guidelines, the current recommendation for hypercholesterolemic patients at high cardiometabolic risk is to bring at target three key modifiable variables: (i) LDLC; (ii) nonHDLC; and (iii) apoB_{100}[6, 10]. In real life however, apoB_{100} determination is rarely performed alongside routine lipids, which precludes such comprehensive assessment of residual dyslipidemia. Consequently, simple algorithms were proposed to estimate apoB_{100} level from routine lipids, based on LDLC and nonHDLC as freelyavailable biometrical equivalent to apoB_{100}[7, 8].
The aim of this study was to compare the performance and true equivalence of two apoB_{100}predicting algorithms in T2DM patients considered at high cardiometabolic risk, with reference to laboratory determination of apoB_{100} and against each other. We used the Discriminant Ratio (DR) methodology, which standardises comparisons between measurements by taking into account fundamental properties for assessing imprecision and practical performance of tests designed to quantify similar variables [7, 11–14]. Crossvalidation of these algorithms should prompt potential users to increasingly rely on them, to derive unbiased apoB_{100} values from landmark epidemiological or interventional databases, or from current standard lipids in specific situations where it is desirable to know the levels of nonHDLC and that of apoB_{100}.
Methods and statistical analysis
We studied 87 consecutive (84% white Caucasians; 6% NorthAfricans; 5% subSaharan Africans) patients with T2DM, treated or not with lipidlowering drug(s) (LLD). All lipid values were obtained in the fasting state, on two nonconsecutive days. The timespan between sampling, obtained during regular outpatients’ followup visits, was 2–6 months. The following biologic variables were recorded: glycated hemoglobin (HbA_{1c}), fasting lipids (total cholesterol [C], HDLC, and TG). Fasting duration was ≥10hours, with last intake of food allowed at dinner the day before sampling. No change in LLD(s) was allowed during the interval that separated the two days of sampling.
Total C and TG were determined using the SYNCHRON system (Beckman Coulter Inc., Brea, CA). HDLC was determined with the ULTRANgeneous reagent (Genzyme Corporation, Cambridge, MA). ApoB_{100} was measured with immunonephelometry on BNII Analyzer (Siemens Healthcare Products GmbH, Marburg, Germany) from the same blood samples destined for routine lipids determination. The withinsubject coefficients of variation were as follows: 5.4% [total C]; 7.1% [HDLC]; and 6.9% [apoB_{100}]. LDLC was computed with Friedewald’s formula [1]; nonHDLC by subtracting HDLC from total C.
The presence of atherogenic dyslipidemia (AD) was defined as the combined occurrence of decreased HDLC (<40 [males] or <50 mg/dL [females]) plus elevated fasting TG (≥150 mg/dL) using baseline lipid values (ie, before any LLD(s) in treated patients) [15]. Glomerular filtration rate was estimated using the Modified Diet in Renal Disease formula [16].
The Discriminant Ratio (DR) methodology compares different tests measuring the same underlying physiological variable by determining the ability of a test to discriminate between different subjects, and the comparison of discrimination between different tests as well as the underlying correlation between pairs of tests adjusting for the attenuating effect of withinsubject variation [7, 11–14]. In a comparison study where duplicates measurements are performed in each subject, the measured betweensubject standard deviation (SD_{B}) is calculated as the SD of the subject mean values calculated from the 2 replicates.

The standard mathematical adjustment to yield the underlying betweensubject SD (SD_{U}) is: SD_{U} = √ (SD^{2}_{B}  SD^{2}_{W}/2);

The withinsubject variance (V_{w}) is calculated for m repeat tests as (V_{w}) = Σ(x_{j} x_{i})^{2}/(m1)), the withinsubject SD (SD_{w}) being its square root;

The DR represents the ratio SD_{U}/SD_{W}
Confidence limits for DR’s and the testing for equivalence of different DR’s were calculated and differences were considered significant for p < 0.05. Given sample size and number of replicates, the minimal detectable significant difference in DR for the present study was 0.42. Coefficients of correlation between pairs of tests used to estimate apoB_{100} (measured vs. estimated) were adjusted to include an estimate of the underlying correlation, as standard coefficients tend to underestimate the true correlation between tests, due to withinsubject variation [13].
The study was performed in accordance with the institutional review board of StLuc Academic Hospital.
Results
Patients’ characteristics
n  87  
age  years  65 (10) 
diabetes duration  years  15 (8) 
male : female  %  75 : 25 
smoking ^{ § }  384715  
body mass index  kg.m^{2}  29.3 (5.9) 
waist circumference  cm  104 (15) 
metabolic syndrome  %  87 
hypertension  %  91 
antidyslipidemic drug(s)  %  90 
statinfibrateezetimibe  %  74432 
HbA _{ 1c }  mmol.mol^{1}  62 (11) 
glomerular filtration rate  mL.min^{1}1.73m^{2}  80 (32) 
albuminuria  μg.mg creatinine^{1}  67 (126) 
total cholesterol  mg.dL^{1}  161 (35) 
LDLcholesterol  mg.dL^{1}  80 (30) 
nonHDLcholesterol  mg.dL^{1}  113 (36) 
HDLcholesterol  mg.dL^{1}  49 (15) 
apoB _{ 100 }  mg.dL^{1}  81 (23) 
estimated apoB_{ 100 } (equation 1)*  mg.dL^{1}  80 (23) 
estimated apoB_{ 100 } (equation 2)**  mg.dL^{1}  80 (22) 
triglycerides  mg.dL^{1}  169 (105) 
atherogenic dyslipidemia  %  49 
coronary artery disease  %  25 
peripheral artery disease  %  11 
transient ischemic attack/stroke  %  5 
Precision and discrimination of three apoB _{ 100 } estimates, expressed as underlying betweensubject Standard Deviation (SD _{ u } ), global within subject Standard Deviation (SD _{ w } ), and Discriminant Ratio (DR)
SD_{u}  SD_{w}  DR  Cls  

measured apoB_{100} (mg/dL)  17.8  19.9  0.90  0.631.19 
equation 1:apoB_{100}(mg/dL) = [0. 65 × non − HDL − C (mg/dL)] + 6. 3 (mg/dL)  15.8  19.7  0.80  0.531.10 
equation 2:apoB_{100} (mg/dL) = − 33. 12 (mg/dL) + [0. 675 × LDL − C (mg/dL) + [11. 95 × ln[TG] (mg/dL)]  14.5  19.4  0.75  0.471.04 
Measured pearson correlation coefficients between measured and estimated apoB _{ 100 } levels with values adjusted for attenuation (between brackets)
equation 1 apoB_{100}*  equation 2 apoB_{100}**  

measured apoB _{ 100 }  0.94 [1.00]  0.92 [1.00] 
equation 1 apoB _{ 100 } *  0.97 [1.00] 
Discussion
This study demonstrates that in patients with T2DM, two simple equations published to date were as effective to calculate apoB_{100} concentration from routine lipids [7, 8]. In addition, as the underlying correlation between apoB_{100} levels estimated by the two formulas reached unity, once preanalytical and analytical attenuation was taken into account, these two algorithms may be used interchangeably to assess an equivalent underlying biological variable. Even though the two algorithms were developed from lipid values obtained in different populations and conditions, each formula can substitute for each other, being as precise and interchangeable.
Although equation 1 was computed using lipid values from a small cohort (n = 45) of Caucasian T2DM patients, and equation 2 used fasting lipids from an extensive cohort (n = 73047) of healthy Koreans representative of a general Asian population, the two means of estimating apoB_{100} were perfectly correlated, and as effective and precise. This illustrates the performance of the comparison of measurements methods based on the DR methodology, which requires only limited samples (n ≥20 for 2 replicates), as long as the sample represents a meaningful clinical range for the variable under study [see appendix of [13] for a detailed discussion on sample size requirements for estimating DRs].
ApoB_{100} metabolism and physiology are comparable in diabetic and nondiabetic subjects, as well as in different ethnic groups. The equations appear applicable across the two major ethnic groups that provided the source data, and uninfluenced by baseline TG values. An inherent advantage of equation 1 is the inclusion of lipid values that do not require sampling in the fasting state, whereas equation 2 requires a fasting lipid panel [7, 8]. Another limitation of equation 2, in terms of routine clinical practice, is that LDLC is usually calculated from Friedewald’s formula, which induces systematic and linear underestimation once fasting TG rise above 200 mg/dl, confining the applicability of equation 2 to patients with fasting TG <400 mg/dL, unless direct LDLC measurement is available [2].
For use in equation 1, nonHDLC offers the added advantage of being derived from the compute of two robust, wellestablished measurements methods, namely total cholesterol and HDLC [7]. Although Cho et al. used direct, and hence more expensive measurements of LDLC, contributing to enhance accuracy of their algorithm [8], there is an intrinsic rationale to opt for equation 1 in populations with high prevalence of hypertriglyceridemia, such as patients with AD [6, 10, 15, 17–19]. They belong to the highest cardiometabolic risk category, for which it is recommended to assess (and bring to target), both nonHDLC and apoB_{100}, on top of LDLC [6, 10, 20].
There is still no consensus among the various players on the ultimate relevance to measure apoB_{100}, nonHDLC, or both, for baseline or residual CV risk classification, One might wonder what is the advantage of being able to dispose of apoB_{100} from an equation that incorporates nonHDLC, since the latter is considered by ATPIII as adequate and sufficient. Notwithstanding the ongoing debate, the apoB_{100} concept is intrinsically easier to apprehend than nonHDLC, which contains in itself a ferment of educational failure because it represents a state of otherness defined by a nonnumber, instead of a single atherogenic lipid variable [21].
In conclusion, this study demonstrates the biometrical equivalence of two original apoB_{100} algorithms, which are as effective in estimating the concentration of apoB_{100} from routine lipids, and may be used interchangeably. One approach requires fasting blood lipids, while the other is not influenced by fasting status, and therefore independent of food intake prior to sampling. These algorithms should contribute to better characterize residual cardiometabolic risk linked to the number of atherogenic particles in patients with available standard lipids, but in whom apoB_{100} assay was not performed for various reasons. The practical implications of these findings are directly relevant to routine clinical practice.
Declarations
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS: Estimation of the concentration of lowdensity lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem. 1972, 18: 499502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults: 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: 31433221.Google Scholar
 Sniderman AD: NonHDL cholesterol versus apolipoprotein B in diabetic dyslipoproteinemia. Alternatives and surrogates versus the real thing. Diabetes Care. 2003, 26: 22072208. 10.2337/diacare.26.7.2207.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Denke MA: Weighing in before the fight. Lowdensity lipoprotein cholesterol and nonhighdensity lipoprotein cholesterol versus Apolipoprotein B as the best predictor for coronary heart disease and the best measure of therapy. Circulation. 2005, 112: 33683370. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.588178.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Sniderman AD: Apolipoprotein B versus nonhighdensity lipoprotein cholesterol. And the winner is…. Circulation. 2005, 112: 33663367. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.583336.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Brunzell JD, Davidson M, Furberg CD, Goldberg RB, Howard BV, Stein JH, Witztum JL: American Diabetes Association; American College of Cardiology Foundation. Lipoprotein management in patients with cardiometabolic risk. Consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Diabetes Care. 2008, 31: 811822. 10.2337/dc089018.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Hermans MP, Sacks FM, Ahn SA, Rousseau MF: NonHDLcholesterol as valid surrogate to apolipoprotein B_{100} measurement in diabetes: Discriminant Ratio and unbiased equivalence. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2011, 10: 2010.1186/147528401020.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Cho DS, Woo S, Kim S, Byrne CD, Sung KC, Kong JH: Estimation of plasma apolipoprotein B concentration using routinely measured lipid biochemical tests in apparently healthy Asian adults. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2012, 18: 55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Genest J, McPherson R, Frohlich J, Anderson T, Campbell N, Carpentier A, Couture P, Dufour R, Fodor G, Francis GA, Grover S, Gupta M, Hegele RA, Lau DC, Leiter L, Lewis GF, Lonn E, Mancini GB, Ng D, Pearson GJ, Sniderman A, Stone JA, Ur E: Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease in the adult – 2009 recommendations. Can J Cardiol. 2009, 25: 567579. 10.1016/S0828282X(09)707159.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Querton L, Buysschaert M, Hermans MP: Hypertriglyceridemia and residual dyslipidemia in statintreated, patients with diabetes at the highest risk for cardiovascular disease and achieving verylow lowdensity lipoproteincholesterol levels. J Clin Lipidol. 2012, published online 16 April 2012Google Scholar
 Hermans MP, Levy JC, Morris RJ, Turner RC: Comparison of tests of betacell function across a range of glucose tolerance from normal to diabetes. Diabetes. 1999, 48: 177986. 10.2337/diabetes.48.9.1779.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Hermans MP, Levy JC, Morris RJ, Turner RC: Comparison of insulin sensitivity tests across a range of glucose tolerance form normal to diabetes. Diabetologia. 1999, 42: 67887. 10.1007/s001250051215.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Levy JC, Morris RJ, Hammersley M, Turner RC: Discrimination, adjusted correlation, and equivalence of imprecise tests: application to glucose tolerance. Am J Physiol. 1999, 276: E36575.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Hermans MP, Ahn SA, Rousseau MF: The nonHDLC/HDLC ratio provides cardiovascular risk stratification similar to the ApoB/ApoA1 ratio in diabetics: Comparison with reference lipid markers. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2007, 1: 2328. 10.1016/j.dsx.2006.11.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Hermans MP, Ahn SA, Rousseau MF: Log(TG)/HDLC is related to both residual cardiometabolic risk and βcell function loss in type 2 diabetes males. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2010, 9: 8810.1186/14752840988.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D: A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: A new prediction equation. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1999, 130: 46170.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Hermans MP, Fruchart JC: Reducing residual vascular risk in patients with atherogenic dyslipidaemia: where do we go from here?. Clin Lipidol. 2010, 5: 81126. 10.2217/clp.10.65.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Hermans MP, Ahn SA, Rousseau MF: Residual vascular risk in T2DM: the next frontier. Recent Advances in the Pathogenesis, Prevention and Management of Type 2 Diabetes and its Complications. Edited by: Mark B. 2011, Croatia: Zimering, Intech, Rijeka, 4566.Google Scholar
 Hermans MP, Fruchart JC: Reducing vascular events risk in patients with dyslipidaemia: an update for clinicians. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2011, 2: 307323. 10.1177/2040622311413952.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Wägner AM, Pérez A, Zapico E, OrdóñezLlanos J: NonHDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B in the dyslipidemic classification of type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 2003, 26: 204851. 10.2337/diacare.26.7.2048.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Jacobson TA: Opening a new lipid “apothecary”: incorporating apolipoproteins as potential risk factors and treatment targets to reduce cardiovascular risk. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011, 86: 76280. 10.4065/mcp.2011.0128.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.