scholarly journals Adherence to Current Lipid Guidelines by Physicians in Kuwait

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 436-443
Author(s):  
Salwa Alhajji ◽  
Segun Mojiminiyi
Keyword(s):  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 40-45
Author(s):  
Evan M. Sisson
Keyword(s):  

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 447-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Smriti Saraf ◽  
Kausik K. Ray
Keyword(s):  

Climacteric ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-108
Author(s):  
Anna Fenton ◽  
Nick Panay
Keyword(s):  

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eun Ji Kim ◽  
Anthony S Wierzbicki

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Alper Sonmez ◽  

Dyslipidemia is the major risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases. A multitude of lipid guidelines exist, with several controversies, and the best approach in dyslipidemia management is not clear. The tools and lipoproteins used for risk assessment, whether to use a treatment target and implementing drugs other than statins are all controversial points. Until the time for the publication of an agreeable lipid guideline, physicians should choose their way by considering the advantages and disadvantages of the existing guidelines.


2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 558-563
Author(s):  
George Thanassoulis ◽  
Jean Gregoire ◽  
Glen J. Pearson
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Haoyu Wu ◽  
Jian’an Luan ◽  
Vincenzo Forgetta ◽  
James C. Engert ◽  
George Thanassoulis ◽  
...  

Background: Current lipid guidelines suggest measurement of Lp(a) (lipoprotein[a]) and ApoB (apolipoprotein B) for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk assessment. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for Lp(a) and ApoB may identify individuals unlikely to have elevated Lp(a) or ApoB and thus reduce such suggested testing. Methods: PRSs were developed using LASSO regression among 273 222 and 356 958 UK Biobank participants of white British ancestry for Lp(a) and ApoB, respectively, and validated in separate sets of 60 771 UK Biobank and 15 050 European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Norfolk participants. We then assessed the proportion of participants who, based on these PRSs, were unlikely to benefit from Lp(a) or ApoB measurements, according to current lipid guidelines. Results: In the UK Biobank and European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Norfolk cohorts, the area under the receiver operating curve for the PRS-predicted Lp(a) and ApoB to identify individuals with elevated Lp(a) and ApoB was at least 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90–0.92) and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.73–0.75), respectively. The Lp(a) PRS and measured Lp(a) showed comparable association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease incidence, whereas the ApoB PRS was in general less predictive of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk than measured ApoB. In the context of the ESC/EAS lipid guidelines, at a 95% sensitivity to identify individuals with elevated Lp(a) and ApoB levels, at least 54% of Lp(a) and 24% of ApoB testing could be reduced by prescreening with a PRS while maintaining a low false-negative rate. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of suggested testing for elevated Lp(a) and a modest proportion of testing for elevated ApoB could potentially be reduced by prescreening individuals with PRSs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document