Morton Leibowitz1, Chandra Cohen-Stavi2, Sanjay Basu3, Ran D Balicer2. 1. Clalit Research Institute, Chief Physician's Office, Clalit Health Services, 101 Arlozorov Street, Tel Aviv, Israel. LeibowM@clalit.org.il. 2. Clalit Research Institute, Chief Physician's Office, Clalit Health Services, 101 Arlozorov Street, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. Stanford University, Medical School Office Building X-322, 1265 Welch Road, Mail Code 5411, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this study was to review and assess the evidence for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment goals as presented in current guidelines for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Different sets of guidelines and clinical studies for secondary prevention have centered on lower absolute LDL-C targets [<70 mg/dL (<1.8 mmol/L)], greater percent reductions of LDL-C (≥50%), or more intense treatment to achieve greater reductions in cardiovascular risk. Population-based risk models serve as the basis for statin initiation in primary prevention. Reviews of current population risk models for primary prevention show moderate ability to discriminate [with c-statistics ranging from 0.67 to 0.77 (95% CIs from 0.62 to 0.83) for men and women] with poor calibration and overestimation of risk. Individual clinical trial data are not compelling to support specific LDL-C targets and percent reductions in secondary prevention. Increasing utilization of electronic health records and data analytics will enable the development of individualized treatment goals in both primary and secondary prevention.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this study was to review and assess the evidence for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment goals as presented in current guidelines for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Different sets of guidelines and clinical studies for secondary prevention have centered on lower absolute LDL-C targets [<70 mg/dL (<1.8 mmol/L)], greater percent reductions of LDL-C (≥50%), or more intense treatment to achieve greater reductions in cardiovascular risk. Population-based risk models serve as the basis for statin initiation in primary prevention. Reviews of current population risk models for primary prevention show moderate ability to discriminate [with c-statistics ranging from 0.67 to 0.77 (95% CIs from 0.62 to 0.83) for men and women] with poor calibration and overestimation of risk. Individual clinical trial data are not compelling to support specific LDL-C targets and percent reductions in secondary prevention. Increasing utilization of electronic health records and data analytics will enable the development of individualized treatment goals in both primary and secondary prevention.
Authors: Annie L Culver; Ira S Ockene; Raji Balasubramanian; Barbara C Olendzki; Deidre M Sepavich; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Joann E Manson; Yongxia Qiao; Simin Liu; Philip A Merriam; Catherine Rahilly-Tierny; Fridtjof Thomas; Jeffrey S Berger; Judith K Ockene; J David Curb; Yunsheng Ma Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-01-09
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: James A de Lemos; Michael A Blazing; Stephen D Wiviott; Eldrin F Lewis; Keith A A Fox; Harvey D White; Jean-Lucien Rouleau; Terje R Pedersen; Laura H Gardner; Robin Mukherjee; Karen E Ramsey; Joanne Palmisano; David W Bilheimer; Marc A Pfeffer; Robert M Califf; Eugene Braunwald Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-08-30 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: Salim Yusuf; Jackie Bosch; Gilles Dagenais; Jun Zhu; Denis Xavier; Lisheng Liu; Prem Pais; Patricio López-Jaramillo; Lawrence A Leiter; Antonio Dans; Alvaro Avezum; Leopoldo S Piegas; Alexander Parkhomenko; Katalin Keltai; Matyas Keltai; Karen Sliwa; Ron J G Peters; Claes Held; Irina Chazova; Khalid Yusoff; Basil S Lewis; Petr Jansky; Kamlesh Khunti; William D Toff; Christopher M Reid; John Varigos; Gregorio Sanchez-Vallejo; Robert McKelvie; Janice Pogue; Hyejung Jung; Peggy Gao; Rafael Diaz; Eva Lonn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Bernhard Lehofer; Maksym Golub; Karin Kornmueller; Manfred Kriechbaum; Nicolas Martinez; Gergely Nagy; Joachim Kohlbrecher; Heinz Amenitsch; Judith Peters; Ruth Prassl Journal: Part Part Syst Charact Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 3.310