Standardization of lipoprotein reporting

Lack of Age-Appropriate Reference Intervals Causing Potentially Missed Alerts in Clinical Reports of Dyslipidemia

This study shows that only 12.5% of laboratory reports (2/16) included age-appropriate pediatric reference ranges for all lipid and lipoproteins. The use of erroneous reference range(s) could lead to missed alerts of dyslipidemia in up to 97.3% (total cholesterol), 93.6% (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol), 94.8% (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), and 87.8% (triglycerides) of youth in the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey cohort. These findings highlight the potential missed opportunities for reinforcing lifestyle counseling for dyslipidemia in addition to obesity in youth.

Estimated Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Score: An Automated Decision Aid for Statin Therapy

BACKGROUND

Estimation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk is a key step in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, but it requires entering additional risk factor information into a computer. We developed a simplified ASCVD risk score that can be automatically calculated by the clinical laboratory when a fasting standard lipid panel is reported.

METHODS

Equations for an estimated ASCVD (eASCVD) risk score were developed for 4 race/sex groups (non-Hispanic White/Black, men/women), using the following variables: total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and age. The eASCVD score was derived using regression analysis to yield similar risk estimates as the standard ASCVD risk equations for non-diabetic individuals not on lipid-lowering therapy in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (n = 6027).

RESULTS

At a cutpoint of 7.5%/10-year, the eASCVD risk score had an overall sensitivity of 69.1% and a specificity of 97.5% for identifying statin-eligible patients with at least intermediate risk based on the standard risk score. By using the sum of other risk factors present (systolic blood pressure >130 mmHg, blood pressure medication use, and cigarette use), the overall sensitivity of the eASCVD score improved to 93.7%, with a specificity of 92.3%. Furthermore, it showed 90% concordance with the standard risk score in predicting cardiovascular events in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study (n = 14 742).

CONCLUSIONS

Because the automated eASCVD risk score can be computed for all patients with a fasting standard lipid panel, it could be used as an adjunctive tool for the primary prevention of ASCVD and as a decision aid for statin therapy.

Appropriateness of cholesterol and triglycerides reporting checked by External Quality Assessment programs

BACKGROUND

The recommendations of the Second Joint Task Force of European and Other Societies on Coronary Prevention and the third Adult Treatment Panel report (ATPIII) released by the National Cholesterol Education Program are based on accumulating evidence concerning the contribution of lipoproteins and other risk factors in the development of coronary heart disease (CHD). The laboratories play an important role in the successful adoption of these guidelines.

METHODS

In External Quality Assessment (EQA) programs managed by the Center of Biomedical Research, results and respective reference intervals (RI) are sent as laboratory's medical form. We assessed how well the 200 participants to EQA scheme 2002 for clinical biochemistry reported total cholesterol (TC) and triglycerides (TGs) results according to either European or National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines.

RESULTS

Only 18% of laboratories reported total cholesterol concentrations correctly in terms of desirable, borderline-high, and high risk for the CHD development, 12% reported a single desirable value (180, 190, or 200 mg/dl), and 70% reported the RI (85 laboratories in the whole interval, 34 are the only upper reference limit and 15 are the desirable value in addition to RI). The upper reference limit was 200 mg/dl in 65% of cases, but 32% of laboratories presented higher limits, reaching values as high as 250-260 mg/dl. Only the 3.7% of laboratories reported triglyceride concentrations in terms of risk-oriented ranges for the CHD development, 6.8% the single desirable value, and 89.5% the RI.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that the current practice of reporting results for cholesterol and triglycerides does not follow the guidelines, and appropriate changes are required to be made.

Impact of the Third Cholesterol Report from the Adult Treatment Panel of the National Cholesterol Education Program on the Clinical Laboratory

Background: The US National Cholesterol Education Program has recently released the third report of the Adult Treatment Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. Incorporating new evidence and more consistent with other international intervention programs, these more complex guidelines will considerably expand indications for treatment. The implications for clinical laboratories are summarized in this report.

Content: LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) remains the major focus for classification and treatment, whereas diabetes, the presence of multiple risk factors, including the metabolic syndrome, and increased triglycerides (TGs), will now require more intensive management. For screening, a fasting lipoprotein profile is recommended, adding LDL-C and TGs to the previous measurements of total cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C). Lowering the cutpoints defining optimal LDL-C [100 mg/dL (2.58 mmol/L)] and normal TGs [150 mg/dL (1.70 mmol/L)] and raising the cutpoint for low HDL-C to 40 mg/dL (1.03 mmol/L) will select more patients for treatment. A new marker, non-HDL-C, becomes a secondary target in treating high TGs.

Conclusions: Laboratories will need to adjust reporting formats and interpretations and can expect more requests for tests to characterize secondary causes of dyslipidemia, e.g., diabetes, and for the so-called “emerging risk factors”, e.g., lipoprotein(a), homocysteine, and C-reactive protein.