Stephen D Persell1, Donald M Lloyd-Jones, David W Baker. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, and the Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611-2927, USA. spersell@nmff.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Modifications to the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines lowered optional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment goals. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the implications of widely adopting these optional goals in clinical practice. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a cross-sectional study using 1999 to 2002 data from 3,281 U.S. adults aged 20 to 79 years participating the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcomes were the proportions of adults whose fasting LDL-C levels exceeded NCEP recommended and optional targets from 2001 and 2004. We used survey weights to estimate the size of the U.S. population exceeding targets. We examined outcomes for 4 coronary disease risk subgroups described by the NCEP. RESULTS: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values exceeded 2001 NCEP goals for 30.0% of adults, and 35.8% had levels above optional 2004 goals. An estimated 24,900,000 individuals (14.2%) exceeded 2001 thresholds for drug therapy, 46,200,000 (26.3%) exceeded optional 2001 thresholds for drug therapy, and 56,500,000 (32.2%) were above the optional 2004 thresholds for drug therapy. For lower, moderate, moderately high, and high-risk groups, 13.4%, 44.2%, 58.8%, and 71.8%, respectively, exceeded 2001 NCEP goals; 13.4%, 15.7%, 87.4%, and 96.0% of these groups exceeded optional 2004 thresholds for drug therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In 1999 to 2002, LDL-C levels commonly exceeded 2001 NCEP goals, especially for moderately high and high-risk individuals, and cholesterol-lowering medications were underused. Optional goals promulgated by the NCEP in 2001 and 2004 moderately increased the number of adults with LDL-C above their goal, and greatly increased the number of low, moderately high, and high-risk adults who exceeded LDL-C thresholds, for cholesterol-lowering medication.
BACKGROUND: Modifications to the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines lowered optional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment goals. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the implications of widely adopting these optional goals in clinical practice. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a cross-sectional study using 1999 to 2002 data from 3,281 U.S. adults aged 20 to 79 years participating the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcomes were the proportions of adults whose fasting LDL-C levels exceeded NCEP recommended and optional targets from 2001 and 2004. We used survey weights to estimate the size of the U.S. population exceeding targets. We examined outcomes for 4 coronary disease risk subgroups described by the NCEP. RESULTS: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values exceeded 2001 NCEP goals for 30.0% of adults, and 35.8% had levels above optional 2004 goals. An estimated 24,900,000 individuals (14.2%) exceeded 2001 thresholds for drug therapy, 46,200,000 (26.3%) exceeded optional 2001 thresholds for drug therapy, and 56,500,000 (32.2%) were above the optional 2004 thresholds for drug therapy. For lower, moderate, moderately high, and high-risk groups, 13.4%, 44.2%, 58.8%, and 71.8%, respectively, exceeded 2001 NCEP goals; 13.4%, 15.7%, 87.4%, and 96.0% of these groups exceeded optional 2004 thresholds for drug therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In 1999 to 2002, LDL-C levels commonly exceeded 2001 NCEP goals, especially for moderately high and high-risk individuals, and cholesterol-lowering medications were underused. Optional goals promulgated by the NCEP in 2001 and 2004 moderately increased the number of adults with LDL-C above their goal, and greatly increased the number of low, moderately high, and high-risk adults who exceeded LDL-C thresholds, for cholesterol-lowering medication.
Authors: B Pitt; D Waters; W V Brown; A J van Boven; L Schwartz; L M Title; D Eisenberg; L Shurzinske; L S McCormick Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-07-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: F M Sacks; M A Pfeffer; L A Moye; J L Rouleau; J D Rutherford; T G Cole; L Brown; J W Warnica; J M Arnold; C C Wun; B R Davis; E Braunwald Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-10-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David J Graham; Judy A Staffa; Deborah Shatin; Susan E Andrade; Stephanie D Schech; Lois La Grenade; Jerry H Gurwitz; K Arnold Chan; Michael J Goodman; Richard Platt Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-11-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J R Downs; M Clearfield; S Weis; E Whitney; D R Shapiro; P A Beere; A Langendorfer; E A Stein; W Kruyer; A M Gotto Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-05-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J Shepherd; S M Cobbe; I Ford; C G Isles; A R Lorimer; P W MacFarlane; J H McKillop; C J Packard Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anselm K Gitt; Claus Jünger; Christina Jannowitz; Barbara Karmann; Jochen Senges; Kurt Bestehorn Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2010-10-21 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: William J Gordon; Jesse M Polansky; W John Boscardin; Kathy Z Fung; Michael A Steinman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-09-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kenneth A Lichtenstein; Carl Armon; Kate Buchacz; Joan S Chmiel; Kern Buckner; Ellen Tedaldi; Kathleen Wood; Scott D Holmberg; John T Brooks Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2013 Impact factor: 2.830