Cargando…
Are post-treatment low-density lipoprotein subclass pattern analyses potentially misleading?
BACKGROUND: Some patients administered cholesterol-lowering therapies may experience an increase in the proportion of small LDL particles, which may be misinterpreted as a worsening of atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk. This study assessed the lipid effects of adding ezetimibe to atorvasta...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012666/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21118495 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-511X-9-136 |
_version_ | 1782195151412658176 |
---|---|
author | Bays, Harold Conard, Scott Leiter, Lawrence A Bird, Steven Jensen, Erin Hanson, Mary E Shah, Arvind Tershakovec, Andrew M |
author_facet | Bays, Harold Conard, Scott Leiter, Lawrence A Bird, Steven Jensen, Erin Hanson, Mary E Shah, Arvind Tershakovec, Andrew M |
author_sort | Bays, Harold |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Some patients administered cholesterol-lowering therapies may experience an increase in the proportion of small LDL particles, which may be misinterpreted as a worsening of atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk. This study assessed the lipid effects of adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin or doubling the atorvastatin dose on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (and the cholesterol content of LDL subclasses), LDL particle number (approximated by apolipoprotein B), and LDL particle size. This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study of hypercholesterolemic, high atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk patients. After stabilization of atorvastatin 40 mg, 579 patients with LDL-C >70 mg/dL were randomized to 6 weeks of ezetimibe + atorvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg. Efficacy parameters included changes from baseline in LDL-C, apolipoprotein B, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), and lipoprotein subclasses (Vertical Auto Profile II) and pattern for the overall population, as well as patient subgroups with baseline triglyceride levels <150 mg/dL or ≥150 mg/dL. RESULTS: Both treatments significantly reduced LDL-C (and the cholesterol content of most LDL subfractions [LDL(1-4)]) apolipoprotein B, non-HDL-C levels, but did not reduce the proportion of smaller, more dense LDL particles; in fact, the proportion of Pattern B was numerically increased. Results were generally similar in patients with triglyceride levels <150 or ≥150 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: When assessing the effects of escalating cholesterol-lowering therapy, effects upon Pattern B alone to assess coronary heart disease risk may be misleading when interpreted without considerations of other lipid effects, such as reductions in LDL-C, atherogenic lipoprotein particle concentration, and non-HDL-C levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (Registered at clinicaltrials.gov: Clinical trial # NCT00276484) |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-3012666 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-30126662010-12-31 Are post-treatment low-density lipoprotein subclass pattern analyses potentially misleading? Bays, Harold Conard, Scott Leiter, Lawrence A Bird, Steven Jensen, Erin Hanson, Mary E Shah, Arvind Tershakovec, Andrew M Lipids Health Dis Research BACKGROUND: Some patients administered cholesterol-lowering therapies may experience an increase in the proportion of small LDL particles, which may be misinterpreted as a worsening of atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk. This study assessed the lipid effects of adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin or doubling the atorvastatin dose on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (and the cholesterol content of LDL subclasses), LDL particle number (approximated by apolipoprotein B), and LDL particle size. This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study of hypercholesterolemic, high atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk patients. After stabilization of atorvastatin 40 mg, 579 patients with LDL-C >70 mg/dL were randomized to 6 weeks of ezetimibe + atorvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg. Efficacy parameters included changes from baseline in LDL-C, apolipoprotein B, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), and lipoprotein subclasses (Vertical Auto Profile II) and pattern for the overall population, as well as patient subgroups with baseline triglyceride levels <150 mg/dL or ≥150 mg/dL. RESULTS: Both treatments significantly reduced LDL-C (and the cholesterol content of most LDL subfractions [LDL(1-4)]) apolipoprotein B, non-HDL-C levels, but did not reduce the proportion of smaller, more dense LDL particles; in fact, the proportion of Pattern B was numerically increased. Results were generally similar in patients with triglyceride levels <150 or ≥150 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: When assessing the effects of escalating cholesterol-lowering therapy, effects upon Pattern B alone to assess coronary heart disease risk may be misleading when interpreted without considerations of other lipid effects, such as reductions in LDL-C, atherogenic lipoprotein particle concentration, and non-HDL-C levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (Registered at clinicaltrials.gov: Clinical trial # NCT00276484) BioMed Central 2010-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC3012666/ /pubmed/21118495 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-511X-9-136 Text en Copyright ©2010 Bays et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (<url>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0</url>), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Bays, Harold Conard, Scott Leiter, Lawrence A Bird, Steven Jensen, Erin Hanson, Mary E Shah, Arvind Tershakovec, Andrew M Are post-treatment low-density lipoprotein subclass pattern analyses potentially misleading? |
title | Are post-treatment low-density lipoprotein subclass pattern analyses potentially misleading? |
title_full | Are post-treatment low-density lipoprotein subclass pattern analyses potentially misleading? |
title_fullStr | Are post-treatment low-density lipoprotein subclass pattern analyses potentially misleading? |
title_full_unstemmed | Are post-treatment low-density lipoprotein subclass pattern analyses potentially misleading? |
title_short | Are post-treatment low-density lipoprotein subclass pattern analyses potentially misleading? |
title_sort | are post-treatment low-density lipoprotein subclass pattern analyses potentially misleading? |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012666/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21118495 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-511X-9-136 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT baysharold areposttreatmentlowdensitylipoproteinsubclasspatternanalysespotentiallymisleading AT conardscott areposttreatmentlowdensitylipoproteinsubclasspatternanalysespotentiallymisleading AT leiterlawrencea areposttreatmentlowdensitylipoproteinsubclasspatternanalysespotentiallymisleading AT birdsteven areposttreatmentlowdensitylipoproteinsubclasspatternanalysespotentiallymisleading AT jensenerin areposttreatmentlowdensitylipoproteinsubclasspatternanalysespotentiallymisleading AT hansonmarye areposttreatmentlowdensitylipoproteinsubclasspatternanalysespotentiallymisleading AT shaharvind areposttreatmentlowdensitylipoproteinsubclasspatternanalysespotentiallymisleading AT tershakovecandrewm areposttreatmentlowdensitylipoproteinsubclasspatternanalysespotentiallymisleading |