PS- the "answer please" is for non-clinicians to see the poll results, otherwise they dont show up unless one votes. This is a way to get around that.

That is very well said. We need to do a better job teaching that the (small) discordance of apoB to LDL-C (usually r=0.85-90) is mostly due to high TG/remnants (more apoB particles) and/or high Lp(a) (more apoB particles), so if you know these, the apoB will be higher than

Now you know....😀

Here are the results of apoB polls- fair amt of use. Not sure if this reflects the "people with hammers" or if it represents the real numbers. I suspect it's much, much lower in a more representative sample.

apoB poll #2. For those that voted yes, it would be informative to describe what new information you received beyond defining risk for LDL-C, TG and Lp(a).

Results of Poll # 3- for those that were more aggressive, what prevented you from being more aggressive when you knew LDL-C, Tg and Lp(a). I will add a corollary poll next

A follow-up apoB poll. When I check apoB, it changes my aggressiveness of lowering LDL-C by:

I am at ESC. Lots of interest in Lp(a). I will summarize meeting on Lp(a) topics when it's over. Hoping our Brazilian friends get X back Sergio Kaiser MD, PhD, FACC, FESC 🇧🇷🇮🇱🇷🇴🇺🇦

Just when you thought stents could not get any better, this study using a stent of creative and unique design suggests a significant advance. Congrats to David Erlinge for leading the study.

The world of OxPL Sam Tsimikas has expanded to many areas beyond Lp(a). Inhibiting OxPL with our E06 antibody discovered UC San Diego UC San Diego Cardiology in various models improves aortic stenosis, ischemia/reperfusion injury, MASH, metabolic disorders CNS DZ, bone metabolism,

Could this be the next GLP-1a story?. 😀

It would be good if those that find apoB useful send some brief clinical case studies, otherwise discussion is too abstract to interpret impact. Show lipid panel and therapy pre apoB measure, then show apopB, the show change in Rx and repeat lipid panel. I asked for this before,

For those interested in research studies, OxPL-apoB and OxPL-apo(a) are now be available at Medpace. We will continue doing the tests UC San Diego for academic collaborations. For clinical care, OxPL-apoB is available BostonHeartDX

The non-HDL-C (which comes free) here is 94, so you already knew discordance was present (vs LDL-C 67) before you checked apoB. So, the pt must have high Lp(a), which likely should have been checked before apoB. So it's an incomplete case and does not make the point an apoB was

This large study give average levels of LDL-C, apoB and non-HDL-C depending in baseline values.

Tom, this is an excellent graphic, thanks for the important point. Where is it from?

This is risky business when one does not know the potential hundreds of compounds in there, what it does to your liver, and if it interacts with other drugs. Drugs that damage the liver can lower all liver proteins, incl. Lp(a). Best to wait for the trials to read out as they

This is a hypothetical, show me a real case where you could not decide to be more aggressive based on non-HDL-C, Tg and Lp(a). So far only 1 was sent in but was not from someone's clinic, and it had no Lp(a). I am still waiting....My point is apoB should be used selectively, not

The case that was sent in was apparently from NHANEs data, so it was n=1 out of several thousand pts, so <0.1%. There is a saying in medicine, when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.... 😀