Cargando…
Utility of non-HDL-C and apoB targets in the context of new more aggressive lipid guidelines
OBJECTIVE: Major guidelines recommend the use of secondary targets, such as non-HDL-C and apoB, to further reduce cardiovascular risk. We aimed to evaluate the proportion at which newer, more aggressive secondary lipid targets are exceeded in patients with LDL-C < 70 mg/dL estimated by Friedewald...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8387302/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34611642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpc.2021.100203 |
_version_ | 1783742434098806784 |
---|---|
author | Quispe, Renato Brownstein, Adam J. Sathiyakumar, Vasanth Park, Jihwan Chang, Blair Sajja, Aparna Guallar, Eliseo Lazo, Mariana Jones, Steven R. Martin, Seth S. |
author_facet | Quispe, Renato Brownstein, Adam J. Sathiyakumar, Vasanth Park, Jihwan Chang, Blair Sajja, Aparna Guallar, Eliseo Lazo, Mariana Jones, Steven R. Martin, Seth S. |
author_sort | Quispe, Renato |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Major guidelines recommend the use of secondary targets, such as non-HDL-C and apoB, to further reduce cardiovascular risk. We aimed to evaluate the proportion at which newer, more aggressive secondary lipid targets are exceeded in patients with LDL-C < 70 mg/dL estimated by Friedewald (LDLf-C) and Martin/Hopkins equations (LDLm-C). METHODS: We analyzed patients from the Very Large Database of Lipids with fasting lipids and estimated LDL-C <70 mg/dL by the Friedewald equation and Martin/Hopkins algorithm. Patients were categorized into three groups: LDL-C <40, 40–54 and 55–69 mg/dL. We calculated the proportion of patients with non-HDL-C and apoB above high-risk targets (non-HDL-C ≥ 100 and apoB ≥ 80mg/dL) for those with LDL-C 55-69 mg/dL and very high-risk targets (non-HDL-C ≥ 85 and apoB ≥ 65mg/dL) for those with LDL-C < 40 mg/dL and 40-54 mg/dL. RESULTS: In patients with LDLf-C < 40 mg/dL, ~8 and ~4% did not meet high-risk secondary targets and ~21 and 25% did not meet very high-risk secondary targets for non-HDL-C and apoB, respectively. However, in patients with LDLm-C < 40 mg/dL <1% did not meet high-risk targets, while only 3% did not meet the very-high risk secondary target for apoB and none exceeded the very-high risk secondary target for non-HDL-C. Among individuals with LDL-C< 40 mg/dL, there were increasing proportions of individuals not meeting the very high-risk secondary apoB target at greater triglyceride levels, reaching up to ~19% using LDLm-C compared to ~60% using LDLf-C when triglyceride levels were 200–399 mg/dL. There were higher proportions of individuals not meeting high and very-high risk targets as triglyceride levels increased among those with LDL-C 40–54 and 55–69 mg/dL. CONCLUSION: In a large, US cross-sectional sample of individuals with LDL-C < 70 mg/dL, secondary non-HDL-C and apoB targets overall provide modest utility. However, attainment of very high-risk cutpoints for non-HDL-C and apoB is not achieved in a significant fraction of patients with triglycerides 200–399 mg/dL, even when using a more accurate calculation of LDL-C. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8387302 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83873022021-10-04 Utility of non-HDL-C and apoB targets in the context of new more aggressive lipid guidelines Quispe, Renato Brownstein, Adam J. Sathiyakumar, Vasanth Park, Jihwan Chang, Blair Sajja, Aparna Guallar, Eliseo Lazo, Mariana Jones, Steven R. Martin, Seth S. Am J Prev Cardiol Short Report OBJECTIVE: Major guidelines recommend the use of secondary targets, such as non-HDL-C and apoB, to further reduce cardiovascular risk. We aimed to evaluate the proportion at which newer, more aggressive secondary lipid targets are exceeded in patients with LDL-C < 70 mg/dL estimated by Friedewald (LDLf-C) and Martin/Hopkins equations (LDLm-C). METHODS: We analyzed patients from the Very Large Database of Lipids with fasting lipids and estimated LDL-C <70 mg/dL by the Friedewald equation and Martin/Hopkins algorithm. Patients were categorized into three groups: LDL-C <40, 40–54 and 55–69 mg/dL. We calculated the proportion of patients with non-HDL-C and apoB above high-risk targets (non-HDL-C ≥ 100 and apoB ≥ 80mg/dL) for those with LDL-C 55-69 mg/dL and very high-risk targets (non-HDL-C ≥ 85 and apoB ≥ 65mg/dL) for those with LDL-C < 40 mg/dL and 40-54 mg/dL. RESULTS: In patients with LDLf-C < 40 mg/dL, ~8 and ~4% did not meet high-risk secondary targets and ~21 and 25% did not meet very high-risk secondary targets for non-HDL-C and apoB, respectively. However, in patients with LDLm-C < 40 mg/dL <1% did not meet high-risk targets, while only 3% did not meet the very-high risk secondary target for apoB and none exceeded the very-high risk secondary target for non-HDL-C. Among individuals with LDL-C< 40 mg/dL, there were increasing proportions of individuals not meeting the very high-risk secondary apoB target at greater triglyceride levels, reaching up to ~19% using LDLm-C compared to ~60% using LDLf-C when triglyceride levels were 200–399 mg/dL. There were higher proportions of individuals not meeting high and very-high risk targets as triglyceride levels increased among those with LDL-C 40–54 and 55–69 mg/dL. CONCLUSION: In a large, US cross-sectional sample of individuals with LDL-C < 70 mg/dL, secondary non-HDL-C and apoB targets overall provide modest utility. However, attainment of very high-risk cutpoints for non-HDL-C and apoB is not achieved in a significant fraction of patients with triglycerides 200–399 mg/dL, even when using a more accurate calculation of LDL-C. Elsevier 2021-05-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8387302/ /pubmed/34611642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpc.2021.100203 Text en © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Short Report Quispe, Renato Brownstein, Adam J. Sathiyakumar, Vasanth Park, Jihwan Chang, Blair Sajja, Aparna Guallar, Eliseo Lazo, Mariana Jones, Steven R. Martin, Seth S. Utility of non-HDL-C and apoB targets in the context of new more aggressive lipid guidelines |
title | Utility of non-HDL-C and apoB targets in the context of new more aggressive lipid guidelines |
title_full | Utility of non-HDL-C and apoB targets in the context of new more aggressive lipid guidelines |
title_fullStr | Utility of non-HDL-C and apoB targets in the context of new more aggressive lipid guidelines |
title_full_unstemmed | Utility of non-HDL-C and apoB targets in the context of new more aggressive lipid guidelines |
title_short | Utility of non-HDL-C and apoB targets in the context of new more aggressive lipid guidelines |
title_sort | utility of non-hdl-c and apob targets in the context of new more aggressive lipid guidelines |
topic | Short Report |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8387302/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34611642 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpc.2021.100203 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT quisperenato utilityofnonhdlcandapobtargetsinthecontextofnewmoreaggressivelipidguidelines AT brownsteinadamj utilityofnonhdlcandapobtargetsinthecontextofnewmoreaggressivelipidguidelines AT sathiyakumarvasanth utilityofnonhdlcandapobtargetsinthecontextofnewmoreaggressivelipidguidelines AT parkjihwan utilityofnonhdlcandapobtargetsinthecontextofnewmoreaggressivelipidguidelines AT changblair utilityofnonhdlcandapobtargetsinthecontextofnewmoreaggressivelipidguidelines AT sajjaaparna utilityofnonhdlcandapobtargetsinthecontextofnewmoreaggressivelipidguidelines AT guallareliseo utilityofnonhdlcandapobtargetsinthecontextofnewmoreaggressivelipidguidelines AT lazomariana utilityofnonhdlcandapobtargetsinthecontextofnewmoreaggressivelipidguidelines AT jonesstevenr utilityofnonhdlcandapobtargetsinthecontextofnewmoreaggressivelipidguidelines AT martinseths utilityofnonhdlcandapobtargetsinthecontextofnewmoreaggressivelipidguidelines |