Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Biomedicum, Haartmaninkatu 8, Helsinki, Finland.
Diabetologia. 2010 Sep;53(9):1846-55. doi: 10.1007/s00125-010-1806-9. Epub 2010 Jun 6.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The apolipoprotein B (ApoB):apolipoprotein A (ApoA)-I ratio may be a better indicator of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in people with type 2 diabetes than traditional lipid risk markers (LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol and triacylglycerol), but whether the ApoB:ApoA-I ratio should be used to indicate lipid-lowering therapy is still debated.
The Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study randomised 9,795 patients with type 2 diabetes to fenofibrate (200 mg daily) or placebo and followed them up for a median of 5 years. We compared ApoB, ApoA-I, ApoAII and the ApoB:ApoA-I ratio with traditional lipid variables as predictors of CVD risk. We estimated the HR of the effect of 1 SD difference in baseline concentrations of lipids, apolipoproteins and respective ratios on the risk of CVD events and also used receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.
In the placebo group, the variables best predicting CVD events were non-HDL-cholesterol:HDL-cholesterol, total cholesterol:HDL-cholesterol (HR 1.21, p < 0.001 for both), ApoB:ApoA-I (HR 1.20, p < 0.001), LDL-cholesterol:HDL-cholesterol (HR 1.17, p < 0.001), HDL-cholesterol (HR 0.84, p < 0.001) and ApoA-I (HR 0.85, p < 0.001). In the fenofibrate group, the first four predictors were very similar (but ApoB:ApoA-I was fourth), followed by non-HDL-cholesterol and ApoB. Lipid ratios and ApoB:ApoA-I performed better than any single lipid or apolipoprotein in predicting CVD risk.
CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: In patients with type 2 diabetes in the FIELD study, traditional lipid ratios were as strong as the ApoB:ApoA-I ratio in predicting CVD risk. The data provide little evidence for replacement of traditional lipids and their ratios with measures of ApoB, ApoA-I and their ratio.
目的/假设:载脂蛋白 B(ApoB)与载脂蛋白 A(ApoA)的比值可能比传统脂质风险标志物(LDL-胆固醇、HDL-胆固醇和三酰甘油)更能反映 2 型糖尿病患者的心血管疾病(CVD)风险,但载脂蛋白 B 与载脂蛋白 A 的比值是否应该用于指示降脂治疗仍存在争议。
非诺贝特干预和糖尿病事件降低(FIELD)研究将 9795 例 2 型糖尿病患者随机分为非诺贝特(每日 200mg)或安慰剂组,并随访中位数为 5 年。我们将载脂蛋白 B、载脂蛋白 A-I、载脂蛋白 A-II 和载脂蛋白 B 与载脂蛋白 A 的比值与传统脂质变量进行比较,以预测 CVD 风险。我们估计基线时脂质、载脂蛋白和各自比值的 1 SD 差异对 CVD 事件风险的 HR,并使用接收者操作特征曲线分析。
在安慰剂组中,预测 CVD 事件的最佳变量是非高密度脂蛋白胆固醇:高密度脂蛋白胆固醇、总胆固醇:高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(HR 1.21,p<0.001),载脂蛋白 B 与载脂蛋白 A 的比值(HR 1.20,p<0.001),低密度脂蛋白胆固醇:高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(HR 1.17,p<0.001),高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(HR 0.84,p<0.001)和载脂蛋白 A-I(HR 0.85,p<0.001)。在非诺贝特组中,前四个预测因素非常相似(但载脂蛋白 B 与载脂蛋白 A 的比值排名第四),其次是非高密度脂蛋白胆固醇和载脂蛋白 B。脂质比值和载脂蛋白 B 与载脂蛋白 A 的比值在预测 CVD 风险方面优于任何单一脂质或载脂蛋白。
结论/解释:在 FIELD 研究中,2 型糖尿病患者的传统脂质比值与载脂蛋白 B 与载脂蛋白 A 的比值一样能准确预测 CVD 风险。数据几乎没有证据表明用载脂蛋白 B、载脂蛋白 A 及其比值来替代传统脂质及其比值。