Table 1A.

Prospective studies of apo B and LDL-P: comparison with LDL-C. (Continued from page 411)

StudyComparisonapo BLDL-CMatching and/or adjustment variables
Ingelsson et al. (57)1 SDM, 1.35 (1.18–1.55); W, 1.42 (1.18–1.73)M, 1.10 (0.96–1.27); W, 1.19 (0.98–1.45)Age, SBP, antihypertension medications, diabetes, smoking
Benn et al. (60)Tertile 3 vs 1M, 1.4 (1.1–1.8); W, 1.5 (1.1–2.1)“less predictive”Age, TC, LDL-C, HDL-C, TG, BMI, hypertension, diabetes, smoking
Mora et al. (59)Quintile 5 vs 12.57 (1.98–3.33)1.74 (1.40–2.16)Age, treatment group, smoking, menopausal hormone use, BP, BMI, diabetes
Pedersen et al. (61)–10 mg/dL−5.3% risk (placebo)−3.3% risk (placebo)Sex, age, qualifying MI, smoking, hypertension
−5.1% risk (baseline)2.9% risk (baseline)
−8.8% risk (on-trial)−7.2% risk (on-trial)
Moss et al. (62)Quartile 4 vs 1–31.82 (1.10–3.00)No dataDiabetes, MI, electrocardiogram infarct type, pulmonary congestion, sex, ejection fraction
van Lennep et al. (63)On-trial, 1 unit3.21 (1.10–9.35)1.16 (0.80–1.67)Age [LDL-C, mmol/L; apo B, g/L]
Simes et al. (64)Baseline, 1 unit2.07 (1.32–3.22)1.28 (1.10–1.46)Age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, stroke or TIA, PVD, previous revascularization, stable angina, and qualifying event. [LDL-C, mmol/L; apo B, g/L]
On-trial, 1 unit2.10 (1.21–3.64)1.20 (1.00–1.45)
Corsetti et al. (65)1 unit2.02 (1.10–3.69)No dataCalcium channel blockers
Otvos et al. (66)Baseline, 1 SD1.12 (0.99–1.27)1.10 (0.97–1.25)Treatment group, age, hypertension, smoking, BMI, diabetes
On-trial, 1 SD1.07 (0.94–1.23)1.08 (0.95–1.23)