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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bays, Harold, Conard, Scott, Leiter, Lawrence A, Bird, Steven, Jensen, Erin, Hanson, Mary E, Shah, Arvind, Tershakovec, Andrew M
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