Bethany Doran1, Yu Guo1, Jinfeng Xu1, Howard Weintraub1, Samia Mora1, David J Maron1, Sripal Bangalore2. 1. From New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (B.D., Y.G., J.X., H.W., S.B.); Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA (S.M.); and Stanford University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford, CA (D.J.M.). 2. From New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY (B.D., Y.G., J.X., H.W., S.B.); Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA (S.M.); and Stanford University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford, CA (D.J.M.). sripalbangalore@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: National and international guidelines recommend fasting lipid panel measurement for risk stratification of patients for prevention of cardiovascular events. However, the prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey performed from 1988 to 1994, were stratified on the basis of fasting status (≥8 or <8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14.0 (±0.22) years. Propensity score matching was used to assemble fasting and nonfasting cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. The risk of outcomes as a function of LDL-C and fasting status was assessed with the use of receiver operating characteristic curves and bootstrapping methods. The interaction between fasting status and LDL-C was assessed with Cox proportional hazards modeling. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. One-to-one matching based on propensity score yielded 4299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting individuals. For the primary outcome, fasting LDL-C yielded prognostic value similar to that for nonfasting LDL-C (C statistic=0.59 [95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.61] versus 0.58 [95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.60]; P=0.73), and LDL-C by fasting status interaction term in the Cox proportional hazards model was not significant (Pinteraction=0.11). Similar results were seen for the secondary outcome (fasting versus nonfasting C statistic=0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.66] versus 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.66]; P=0.96; Pinteraction=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Nonfasting LDL-C has prognostic value similar to that of fasting LDL-C. National and international agencies should consider reevaluating the recommendation that patients fast before obtaining a lipid panel.
BACKGROUND: National and international guidelines recommend fasting lipid panel measurement for risk stratification of patients for prevention of cardiovascular events. However, the prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS:Patients enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey performed from 1988 to 1994, were stratified on the basis of fasting status (≥8 or <8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14.0 (±0.22) years. Propensity score matching was used to assemble fasting and nonfasting cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. The risk of outcomes as a function of LDL-C and fasting status was assessed with the use of receiver operating characteristic curves and bootstrapping methods. The interaction between fasting status and LDL-C was assessed with Cox proportional hazards modeling. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. One-to-one matching based on propensity score yielded 4299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting individuals. For the primary outcome, fasting LDL-C yielded prognostic value similar to that for nonfasting LDL-C (C statistic=0.59 [95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.61] versus 0.58 [95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.60]; P=0.73), and LDL-C by fasting status interaction term in the Cox proportional hazards model was not significant (Pinteraction=0.11). Similar results were seen for the secondary outcome (fasting versus nonfasting C statistic=0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.66] versus 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.66]; P=0.96; Pinteraction=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Nonfasting LDL-C has prognostic value similar to that of fasting LDL-C. National and international agencies should consider reevaluating the recommendation that patients fast before obtaining a lipid panel.
Authors: Sheldon W Tobe; James A Stone; Todd Anderson; Simon Bacon; Alice Y Y Cheng; Stella S Daskalopoulou; Justin A Ezekowitz; Jean C Gregoire; Gord Gubitz; Rahul Jain; Karim Keshavjee; Patty Lindsay; Mary L'Abbe; David C W Lau; Lawrence A Leiter; Eileen O'Meara; Glen J Pearson; Doreen M Rabi; Diana Sherifali; Peter Selby; Jack V Tu; Sean Wharton; Kimberly M Walker; Diane Hua-Stewart; Peter P Liu Journal: CMAJ Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 8.262