Dataset Information

Comparison of Two Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Methods for the Measurement of Lipoprotein Particle Concentrations.

ABSTRACT: Background: Measuring lipoprotein particle concentrations may help to improve cardiovascular risk stratification. Both the lipofit (Numares) and lipoprofile (LabCorp) NMR methods are widely used for the quantification of lipoprotein particle concentrations. Objective: The aim of the present work was to perform a method comparison between the lipofit and lipoprofile NMR methods. In addition, there was the objective to compare lipofit and lipoprofile measurements of standard lipids with clinical chemistry-based results. Methods: Total, LDL, and HDL cholesterol and triglycerides were measured with ß-quantification in serum samples from 150 individuals. NMR measurements of standard lipids and lipoprotein particle concentrations were performed by Numares and LabCorp. Results: For both NMR methods, differences of mean concentrations compared to ß-quantification-derived measurements were ≤5.5% for all standard lipids. There was a strong correlation between ß-quantification- and NMR-derived measurements of total and LDL cholesterol and triglycerides (all r > 0.93). For both, the lipofit (r = 0.81) and lipoprofile (r = 0.84) methods, correlation coefficients were lower for HDL cholesterol. There was a reasonable correlation between LDL and HDL lipoprotein particle concentrations measured with both NMR methods (both r > 0.9). However, mean concentrations of major and subclass lipoprotein particle concentrations were not as strong. Conclusions: The present analysis suggests that reliable measurement of standard lipids is possible with these two NMR methods. Harmonization efforts would be needed for better comparability of particle concentration data.

SUBMITTER: Rief M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9312544 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the association between lipoprotein particle concentrations in pregnancy and gestational age at delivery.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingThe study was conducted in the USA at the University of North Carolina.PopulationWe assessed 715 women enrolled in the Pregnancy, Infection, and Nutrition study from 2001 to 2005.MethodsFasting blood was collected at two time points (<20 and 24-29 weeks of gestation). Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) quantified lipoprotein particle concentrations [low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), very-low density lipoprotein (VLDL)] and 10 subclasses of lipoproteins. Concentrations were assessed as continuous measures, with the exception of medium HDL which was classified as any or no detectable level, given its distribution. Cox proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios (HR) for gestational age at delivery adjusting for covariates.Main outcome measuresGestational age at delivery, preterm birth (<37 weeks of gestation), and spontaneous preterm birth.ResultsAt <20 weeks of gestation, three lipoproteins were associated with later gestational ages at delivery [large LDLNMR (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.96), total VLDLNMR (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.98), and small VLDLNMR (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98], whereas large VLDLNMR (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.41) was associated with a greater hazard of earlier delivery. At 24-28 weeks of gestation, average VLDLNMR (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.03-1.51) and a detectable level of medium HDLNMR (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.19-3.02) were associated with earlier gestational ages at delivery.ConclusionIn this sample of pregnant women, particle concentrations of VLDLNMR , LDLNMR , IDLNMR , and HDLNMR were each independently associated with gestational age at delivery for all deliveries or spontaneous deliveries <37 weeks of gestation. These findings may help formulate hypotheses for future studies of the complex relationship between maternal lipoproteins and preterm birth.Tweetable abstractNuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy may identify lipoprotein particles associated with preterm delivery.

Project description:BackgroundRemnant cholesterol (RC) can partly explain the residual risk in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). A consensus method of measuring RC levels has not been established yet. In clinical practice, RC levels are usually calculated from the standard lipid profile, which are not true RC. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) can measure RC levels directly. This study aimed to characterize RC at fasting and non-fasting states in more details and establish the performance of calculated RC and NMR-measured RC.MethodsBlood samples at fasting state and at 2 h and 4 h postprandial states were collected in 98 subjects. Lipid parameters including total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglycerides (TG), subfractions 3, 4, and 5 of very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL3-C, VLDL4-C, and VLDL5-C, respectively), and intermediate-density lipoprotein cholesterol (IDL-C) were measured by enzymatic method and NMR. RC levels calculated from the standard lipid profile or measured by NMR were referred here as RCe or RCn.ResultsThe RCe and RCn levels were different, but both of them increased after a meal (P < 0.05), especially at 4 h postprandial state. Low correlations were found between RCe and RCn in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quartiles of TG, but RCn showed great correlation with RCe in the highest quartile regardless of the fasting or non-fasting state (R = 0.611, 0.536, and 0.535 for 0 h, 2 h, and 4 h, respectively). However, across the 2nd and 3rd quartiles, RCe levels were nearly close to RCn levels. RCe levels tended to overestimate RCn levels in the 1st quartile of TGe levels with median differences of 0.23(- 0.13, 0.63) and underestimate RCn levels with median differences of - 0.23(- 0.33, 0.07) in the highest quartile of TGe levels.ConclusionsRC calculated from the standard lipid profile as TC minus LDL-C minus HDL-C is different from the NMR-measured RC. According to different TG levels, RC could overestimate or underestimate the actual RC level. Developing a consensus clinical method to measure RC levels is necessary, so that results from different studies and platforms can be more directly compared.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1900020873. Registered in 21 January 2019 - Retrospectively registered.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Two Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Methods for the Measurement of Lipoprotein Particle Concentrations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets