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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Quispe, Renato, Brownstein, Adam J., Sathiyakumar, Vasanth, Park, Jihwan, Chang, Blair, Sajja, Aparna, Guallar, Eliseo, Lazo, Mariana, Jones, Steven R., Martin, Seth S.
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