Journal
CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 56, Issue 5, Pages 789-798Publisher
AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2009.140939
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- Medical Research Council UK
- Cancer Research UK
- European Union
- Stroke Association
- British Heart Foundation
- Department of Health
- Food Standards Agency
- Wellcome Trust
- Future Forum
- Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec
- Fondation de l'Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Quebec
- Sanofi Aventis
- Medical Research Council [G0401527, MC_U106179471] Funding Source: researchfish
Ask authors/readers for more resources
BACKGROUND: Gradient gel electrophoresis (GGE) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy are both widely accepted methods for measuring LDL and HDL particle size. However, whether or not GGE- or NMR-measured LDL or HDL particle size predicts coronary heart disease (CHD) risk to a similar extent is currently unknown. METHODS: We used GGE and NMR to measure LDL and HDL particle size in a nested case-control study of 1025 incident cases of CHD and 1915 controls from the EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition)-Norfolk study. The study sample included apparently healthy men and women age 45-79 years followed for an average of 6 years. RESULTS: Pearson correlation coefficients showed that the overall agreement between NMR and GGE was better for the measurement of HDL size (r = 0.78) than for LDL size (r = 0.47). The odds ratio for future CHD among participants in the bottom tertile of LDL size (smallest LDL particles) was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.12-1.63) for GGE and 1.74 (1.41-2.15) for NMR. For HDL size, these respective odds ratios were 1.41 (1.16-1.72) and 1.85 (1.47-2.32). After adjustment for potential confounders, the relationship between small LDL or HDL particles and CHD was no longer significant, irrespective of the method. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective population study, we found that the relationships between NMR-measured LDL and HDL sizes and CHD risk were slightly higher than those obtained with GGE. (C) 2010 American Association for Clinical Chemistry
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available