We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, guideline targets, and population percentiles for secondary prevention in 1.3 million adults: the VLDL-2 study (very large database of lipids).
Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2013 November 20
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine patient-level discordance between population percentiles of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).
BACKGROUND: Non-HDL-C is an alternative to LDL-C for risk stratification and lipid-lowering therapy. The justification for the present guideline-based non-HDL-C cutpoints of 30 mg/dl higher than the LDL-C cutpoints remains largely untested.
METHODS: We assigned population percentiles to non-HDL-C and Friedewald-estimated LDL-C values of 1,310,440 U.S. adults with triglyceride levels <400 mg/dl who underwent lipid testing by vertical spin density gradient ultracentrifugation (Atherotech, Birmingham, Alabama) from 2009 to 2011.
RESULTS: LDL-C cutpoints of 70, 100, 130, 160, and 190 mg/dl were in the same population percentiles as non-HDL-C values of 93, 125, 157, 190, and 223 mg/dl, respectively. Non-HDL-C values reclassified a significant proportion of patients within or to a higher treatment category compared with Friedewald LDL-C values, especially at LDL-C levels in the treatment range of high-risk patients and at triglyceride levels ≥150 mg/dl. Of patients with LDL-C levels <70 mg/dl, 15% had a non-HDL-C level ≥ 100 mg/dl (guideline-based cutpoint) and 25% had a non-HDL-C level ≥ 93 mg/dl (percentile-based cutpoint); if triglyceride levels were 150 to 199 mg/dl concurrently, these values were 22% and 50%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: There is significant patient-level discordance between non-HDL-C and LDL-C percentiles at lower LDL-C and higher triglyceride levels, which has implications for the treatment of high-risk patients. Current non-HDL-C cutpoints for high-risk patients may need to be lowered to match percentiles of LDL-C cutpoints. Relatively small absolute reductions in non-HDL-C cutpoints result in substantial reclassification of patients to higher treatment categories with potential implications for risk assessment and treatment.
BACKGROUND: Non-HDL-C is an alternative to LDL-C for risk stratification and lipid-lowering therapy. The justification for the present guideline-based non-HDL-C cutpoints of 30 mg/dl higher than the LDL-C cutpoints remains largely untested.
METHODS: We assigned population percentiles to non-HDL-C and Friedewald-estimated LDL-C values of 1,310,440 U.S. adults with triglyceride levels <400 mg/dl who underwent lipid testing by vertical spin density gradient ultracentrifugation (Atherotech, Birmingham, Alabama) from 2009 to 2011.
RESULTS: LDL-C cutpoints of 70, 100, 130, 160, and 190 mg/dl were in the same population percentiles as non-HDL-C values of 93, 125, 157, 190, and 223 mg/dl, respectively. Non-HDL-C values reclassified a significant proportion of patients within or to a higher treatment category compared with Friedewald LDL-C values, especially at LDL-C levels in the treatment range of high-risk patients and at triglyceride levels ≥150 mg/dl. Of patients with LDL-C levels <70 mg/dl, 15% had a non-HDL-C level ≥ 100 mg/dl (guideline-based cutpoint) and 25% had a non-HDL-C level ≥ 93 mg/dl (percentile-based cutpoint); if triglyceride levels were 150 to 199 mg/dl concurrently, these values were 22% and 50%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: There is significant patient-level discordance between non-HDL-C and LDL-C percentiles at lower LDL-C and higher triglyceride levels, which has implications for the treatment of high-risk patients. Current non-HDL-C cutpoints for high-risk patients may need to be lowered to match percentiles of LDL-C cutpoints. Relatively small absolute reductions in non-HDL-C cutpoints result in substantial reclassification of patients to higher treatment categories with potential implications for risk assessment and treatment.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app