scholarly journals Effect of Niacin on Carotid Atherosclerosis in Patients at Low-Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol Goal but High Lipoprotein (a) Level: a 2-Year Follow-Up Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 58
Author(s):  
Shinjeong Song ◽  
Chan Joo Lee ◽  
Jaewon Oh ◽  
Sungha Park ◽  
Seok-Min Kang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carotid Atherosclerosis ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Lipoprotein A ◽  
Follow Up Study ◽  
Cholesterol Goal

scholarly journals Assessing the Accuracy of Estimated Lipoprotein(a) Cholesterol and Lipoprotein(a)‐Free Low‐Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weili Zheng ◽  
Michael Chilazi ◽  
Jihwan Park ◽  
Vasanth Sathiyakumar ◽  
Leslie J. Donato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Particle Number ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Interquartile Range ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Lipoprotein A ◽  
C 50

Background Accurate measurement of the cholesterol within lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]‐C) and its contribution to low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) has important implications for risk assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, as well as in familial hypercholesterolemia. A method for estimating Lp(a)‐C from particle number using fixed conversion factors has been proposed (Lp[a]‐C from particle number divided by 2.4 for Lp(a) mass, multiplied by 30% for Lp[a]‐C). The accuracy of this method, which theoretically can isolate “Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C,” has not been validated. Methods and Results In 177 875 patients from the VLDbL (Very Large Database of Lipids), we compared estimated Lp(a)‐C and Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C with measured values and quantified absolute and percent error. We compared findings with an analogous data set from the Mayo Clinic Laboratory. Error in estimated Lp(a)‐C and Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C increased with higher Lp(a)‐C values. Median error for estimated Lp(a)‐C <10 mg/dL was −1.9 mg/dL (interquartile range, −4.0 to 0.2); this error increased linearly, overestimating by +30.8 mg/dL (interquartile range, 26.1–36.5) for estimated Lp(a)‐C ≥50 mg/dL. This error relationship persisted after stratification by overall high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol subtypes. Similar findings were observed in the Mayo cohort. Absolute error for Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C was +2.4 (interquartile range, −0.6 to 5.3) for Lp(a)‐C<10 mg/dL and −31.8 (interquartile range, −37.8 to −26.5) mg/dL for Lp(a)‐C≥50 mg/dL. Conclusions Lp(a)‐C estimations using fixed conversion factors overestimated Lp(a)‐C and subsequently underestimated Lp(a)‐free LDL‐C, especially at clinically relevant Lp(a) values. Application of inaccurate Lp(a)‐C estimations to correct LDL‐C may lead to undertreatment of high‐risk patients.

scholarly journals Low density lipoprotein cholesterol and all-cause mortality rate: findings from a study on Japanese community-dwelling persons

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryuichi Kawamoto ◽  
Asuka Kikuchi ◽  
Taichi Akase ◽  
Daisuke Ninomiya ◽  
Teru Kumagi
Keyword(s):  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Adjusted Relative Risk ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Background Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) independently impacts aging-related health outcomes and plays a critical role in cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). However, there are limited predictive data on all-cause mortality, especially for the Japanese community population. In this study, it was examined whether LDL-C is related to survival prognosis based on 7 or 10 years of follow-up. Methods Participants included 1610 men (63 ± 14 years old) and 2074 women (65 ± 12 years old) who participated in the Nomura cohort study conducted in 2002 (first cohort) and 2014 (second cohort) and who continued throughout the follow-up periods (follow-up rates: 94.8 and 98.0%). Adjusted relative risk estimates were obtained for all-cause mortality using a basic resident register. The data were analyzed by a Cox regression with the time variable defined as the length between the age at the time of recruitment and that at the end of the study (the age of death or censoring), and risk factors including gender, age, body mass index (BMI), presence of diabetes, lipid levels, renal function, serum uric acid levels, blood pressure, and history of smoking, drinking, and CVD. Results Of the 3684 participants, 326 (8.8%) were confirmed to be deceased. Of these, 180 were men (11.2% of all men) and 146 were women (7.0% of all women). Lower LDL-C levels, gender (male), older age, BMI under 18.5 kg/m2, and the presence of diabetes were significant predictors for all-cause mortality. Compared with individuals with LDL-C levels of 144 mg/dL or higher, the multivariable-adjusted Hazard ratio (and 95% confidence interval) for all-cause mortality was 2.54 (1.58–4.07) for those with LDL-C levels below 70 mg/dL, 1.71 (1.15–2.54) for those with LDL-C levels between 70 mg/dL and 92 mg/dL, and 1.21 (0.87–1.68) for those with LDL-C levels between 93 mg/dL and 143 mg/dL. This association was particularly significant among participants who were male (P for interaction = 0.039) and had CKD (P for interaction = 0.015). Conclusions There is an inverse relationship between LDL-C levels and the risk of all-cause mortality, and this association is statistically significant.

Abstract P43: Frequency and Predictors of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Control and Appropriate Response to Elevated LDL-C Levels in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Salim S Virani ◽  
Lechauncy D Woodard ◽  
Supicha Sookanan ◽  
Cassie R Landrum ◽  
Tracy H Urech ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Medication Possession Ratio ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
To Receive

Background: Although current cholesterol performance measures define good quality as low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels < 100mg/dl in cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients, they provide a snap shot at one time point and do not inform whether an appropriate action was taken to manage elevated LDL-C levels. We assessed frequency and predictors of this appropriate response (AR). Methods: We used administrative data to assess 22,902 CVD patients receiving care in a Veterans Affairs network of 7 hospitals and affiliated clinics. We determined the proportion of CVD patients at LDL-C goal <100 mg/dl, and the proportion of patients with uncontrolled LDL-C levels (>100 mg/dl) who had an AR [defined as the initiation or dosage increase of a lipid lowering medication (LLM), addition of a new LLM, receipt of maximum dosage or >1 LLM, or LDL-C reading <100 mg/dl] at 45 days follow-up. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate facility, provider and patient characteristics associated with AR. Results: LDL-C levels were at goal in 16,350 (71.4%) patients. An additional 2,110 (9.2%) had an AR at 45 days of follow-up. Controlling for clustering between facilities and patient's illness severity, history of diabetes (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03-1.35), hypertension (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02-1.44), patients showing good medication adherence (medication possession ratio > 0.8) [OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.99-2.64] were associated with AR. Older CVD patients (age >75 years) were less likely to receive AR (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.52-0.70). Teaching vs. non-teaching facility (p=0.40), physician vs. non-physician provider (p=0.14), specialist vs. non-specialist primary care provider (p=0.12), and patient's race (p=0.12) were not predictors of AR. Conclusion: Among patients with CVD and LDL-C above guideline recommended levels, only one-third receive AR. Diabetic and hypertensive CVD patients are more likely to receive AR, whereas older Veterans with CVD receive AR less often likely reflecting providers' belief of lack of efficacy from treatment intensification in older CVD patients. Our findings are important for quality improvement and policy making initiatives as they provide more actionable information compared with isolated LDL-C goal attainment as a quality indicator.

scholarly journals Low‐Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Corrected for Lipoprotein(a) Cholesterol, Risk Thresholds, and Cardiovascular Events

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (23) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Willeit ◽  
Calvin Yeang ◽  
Patrick M. Moriarty ◽  
Lena Tschiderer ◽  
Stephen A. Varvel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Cholesterol Content ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Lipoprotein A ◽  
The Impact

Background Conventional "low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C)" assays measure cholesterol content in both low‐density lipoprotein and lipoprotein(a) particles. To clarify the consequences of this methodological limitation for clinical care, our study aimed to compare associations of “LDL‐C” and corrected LDL‐C with risk of cardiovascular disease and to assess the impact of this correction on the classification of patients into guideline‐recommended LDL‐C categories. Methods and Results Lipoprotein(a) cholesterol content was estimated as 30% of lipoprotein(a) mass and subtracted from “LDL‐C” to obtain corrected LDL‐C values (LDL‐C corr30 ). Hazard ratios for cardiovascular disease (defined as coronary heart disease, stroke, or coronary revascularization) were quantified by individual‐patient‐data meta‐analysis of 5 statin landmark trials from the Lipoprotein(a) Studies Collaboration (18 043 patients; 5390 events; 4.7 years median follow‐up). When comparing top versus bottom quartiles, the multivariable‐adjusted hazard ratio for cardiovascular disease was significant for “LDL‐C” (1.17; 95% CI, 1.05–1.31; P =0.005) but not for LDL‐C corr30 (1.07; 95% CI, 0.93–1.22; P =0.362). In a routine laboratory database involving 531 144 patients, reclassification of patients across guideline‐recommended LDL‐C categories when using LDL‐C corr30 was assessed. In “LDL‐C” categories of 70 to <100, 100 to <130, 130 to <190, and ≥190 mg/dL, significant proportions (95% CI) of participants were reassigned to lower LDL‐C categories when LDL‐C corr30 was used: 30.2% (30.0%–30.4%), 35.1% (34.9%–35.4%), 32.9% (32.6%–33.1%), and 41.1% (40.0%–42.2%), respectively. Conclusions “ LDL‐C” was associated with incident cardiovascular disease only when lipoprotein(a) cholesterol content was included in its measurement. Refinement in techniques to accurately measure LDL‐C, particularly in patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels, is warranted to assign risk to the responsible lipoproteins.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document