Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37685804›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023

Use of Apolipoprotein B in the Era of Precision Medicine: Time for a Paradigm Change?

Justine Cole, Rafael Zubirán, Anna Wolska, Ishwarlal Jialal, Alan T Remaley

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Cardiovascular disease lipids and lipoproteins biomarker standardization.Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Justine ColeLipoprotein Metabolism Laboratory, Translational Vascular Medicine Branch, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0278-4094
Rafael ZubiránLipoprotein Metabolism Laboratory, Translational Vascular Medicine Branch, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4274-3585
Anna WolskaLipoprotein Metabolism Laboratory, Translational Vascular Medicine Branch, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9479-0741
Ishwarlal JialalDepartment of Pathology and Internal Medicine, University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9113-2604
Alan T RemaleyLipoprotein Metabolism Laboratory, Translational Vascular Medicine Branch, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.
National Institutes of Health · USUniversity of California, Davis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide and the risk of a major cardiovascular event is highest among those with established disease. Ongoing management of these patients relies on the accurate assessment of their response to any prescribed therapy, and their residual risk, in order to optimize treatment. Recent international guidelines and position statements concur that the plasma concentration of apolipoprotein B (apoB) is the most accurate measure of lipoprotein associated ASCVD risk. This is especially true for the growing number of individuals with diabetes, obesity, or the metabolic syndrome, and those on statin therapy. Most guidelines, however, continue to promote LDL-C as the primary risk marker due to uncertainty as to whether the greater accuracy of apoB is sufficient to warrant a paradigm shift. Recommendations regarding apoB measurement vary, and the information provided on how to interpret apoB results is sometimes insufficient, particularly for non-lipid specialists. Misinformation regarding the reliability of the assays is also frequently repeated despite its equivalent or better standardization than many other diagnostic assays. Thus, demand for apoB testing is relatively low, which means there is little incentive to increase its availability or reduce its cost. In this review, we examine the results of recent clinical outcomes studies and meta-analyses on the relative values of apoB, LDL-C, and non-HDL-C as markers of ASCVD risk. Although there is seemingly minimal difference among these markers when only population-based metrics are considered, it is evident from our analysis that, from a personalized or precision medicine standpoint, many individuals would benefit, at a negligible total cost, if apoB measurement were better integrated into the diagnosis and treatment of ASCVD.

Indexed as

apolipoprotein BASCVDatherosclerosiscardiovascular diseasedyslipidemiaLDL-Cnon-HDL-CPCSK9 inhibitorresidual riskstatin

Identifiers

PMID37685804
PMCPMC10488498
OpenAlexW4386421245

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.