Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2022;7(10):e159577. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.159577.
Abstract
Background Although traditional lipid parameters and coronary imaging techniques are valuable for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction, better diagnostic tests are still needed.Methods In a prospective, observational study, 795 individuals had extensive cardiometabolic profiling, including emerging biomarkers, such as apolipoprotein E–containing HDL-cholesterol (ApoE-HDL-C). Coronary artery calcium (CAC) score was assessed in the entire cohort, and quantitative coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) characterization of total burden, noncalcified burden (NCB), and fibrous plaque burden (FB) was performed in a subcohort (n = 300) of patients stratified by concentration of ApoE-HDL-C. Total and HDL-containing apolipoprotein C-III (ApoC-III) were also measured.Results Most patients had a clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) (n = 80.4% of 795), with mean age of 59 years, a majority being male (57%), and about half on statin treatment. The low ApoE-HDL-C group had more severe stenosis (11% vs. 2%, overall P < 0.001), with higher CAC as compared with high ApoE-HDL-C. On quantitative CCTA, the high ApoE-HDL-C group had lower NCB (β = –0.24, P = 0.0001), which tended to be significant in a fully adjusted model (β = –0.32, P = 0.001) and altered by ApoC-III in HDL levels. Low ApoE-HDL-C was significantly associated with LDL particle number (β = 0.31; P = 0.0001). Finally, when stratified by FB, ApoC-III in HDL showed a more robust predictive value of CAD over ApoE-HDL-C (AUC: 0.705, P = 0.0001) in a fully adjusted model.Conclusion ApoE-containing HDL-C showed a significant association with early coronary plaque characteristics and is affected by the presence of ApoC-III, indicating that low ApoE-HDL-C and high ApoC-III may be important markers of CVD severity.Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01621594.Funding This work was supported by the NHLBI at the NIH Intramural Research Program.
Authors
Alexander V. Sorokin, Nidhi Patel, Khaled M. Abdelrahman, Clarence Ling, Mart Reimund, Giorgio Graziano, Maureen Sampson, Martin P. Playford, Amit K. Dey, Aarthi Reddy, Heather L. Teague, Michael Stagliano, Marcelo Amar, Marcus Y. Chen, Nehal N. Mehta, Alan T. Remaley
Usage data is cumulative from April 2022 through August 2022.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 3,792 | 0 |
| 592 | 0 | |
| Figure | 17 | 0 |
| Table | 66 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 56 | 0 |
| Citation downloads | 22 | 0 |
| Totals | 4,545 | 0 |
| Total Views | 4,545 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
