Huimin Zhou1,2, Shaozhao Zhang1,2, Xiuting Sun1,2, Daya Yang1,2, Xiaodong Zhuang1,2,3, Yue Guo1,2, Xun Hu1,2, Zhimin Du1,2, Meifen Zhang4, Xinxue Liao1,2. 1. Cardiology Department, First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China. 2. Key Laboratory on Assisted Circulation, Ministry of Health, Guangzhou 510080, China. 3. Center for Information Technology & Statistics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China. 4. School of Nursing, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide many recommendations for hyperlipidemia management, but some of them are still debatable. METHODS: We applied the six-domain Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument to evaluate the quality of guidelines with lipid management recommendations for coronary heart disease (CHD), including dyslipidemia and CHD guidelines published from 2009 to 2019. Meanwhile, we synthesized and compared major recommendations and present the consistency and controversy in current dyslipidemia management. RESULTS: Among 19 guidelines included, ten guidelines ("strongly recommended" with AGREE scores 61-94%) performed better than the other nine (38-65% as "recommended with some modification") For blood lipid tests, most CHD guidelines simply required fasting sample while dyslipidemia guidelines preferred non-fasting sample except in high triglycerides state. Most guidelines consistently chose low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as the primary lipid-lowering target (LLT), while non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B were mainly selected as secondary LLTs. The specific goals of LDL-C lowering were either to lower than 70 mg/dL or with at least 50% reduction. All guidelines recommended high intensity or maximally tolerable doses of statins, while ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors were recommended as second-line therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The general quality of guidelines for lipid management is satisfactory. Consensus has been reached on the specific goal of lipid reduction and the intensity of statins therapy. Further research is needed to validate the application of non-fasting sample and non-HDL-C target, as well as the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors.
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide many recommendations for hyperlipidemia management, but some of them are still debatable. METHODS: We applied the six-domain Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument to evaluate the quality of guidelines with lipid management recommendations for coronary heart disease (CHD), including dyslipidemia and CHD guidelines published from 2009 to 2019. Meanwhile, we synthesized and compared major recommendations and present the consistency and controversy in current dyslipidemia management. RESULTS: Among 19 guidelines included, ten guidelines ("strongly recommended" with AGREE scores 61-94%) performed better than the other nine (38-65% as "recommended with some modification") For blood lipid tests, most CHD guidelines simply required fasting sample while dyslipidemia guidelines preferred non-fasting sample except in high triglycerides state. Most guidelines consistently chose low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as the primary lipid-lowering target (LLT), while non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B were mainly selected as secondary LLTs. The specific goals of LDL-C lowering were either to lower than 70 mg/dL or with at least 50% reduction. All guidelines recommended high intensity or maximally tolerable doses of statins, while ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors were recommended as second-line therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The general quality of guidelines for lipid management is satisfactory. Consensus has been reached on the specific goal of lipid reduction and the intensity of statins therapy. Further research is needed to validate the application of non-fasting sample and non-HDL-C target, as well as the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors.
Authors: L David Hillis; Peter K Smith; Jeffrey L Anderson; John A Bittl; Charles R Bridges; John G Byrne; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Verdi J DiSesa; Loren F Hiratzka; Adolph M Hutter; Michael E Jessen; Ellen C Keeley; Stephen J Lahey; Richard A Lange; Martin J London; Michael J Mack; Manesh R Patel; John D Puskas; Joseph F Sabik; Ola Selnes; David M Shahian; Jeffrey C Trost; Michael D Winniford; Alice K Jacobs; Jeffrey L Anderson; Nancy Albert; Mark A Creager; Steven M Ettinger; Robert A Guyton; Jonathan L Halperin; Judith S Hochman; Frederick G Kushner; E Magnus Ohman; William Stevenson; Clyde W Yancy Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Sidney C Smith; Emelia J Benjamin; Robert O Bonow; Lynne T Braun; Mark A Creager; Barry A Franklin; Raymond J Gibbons; Scott M Grundy; Loren F Hiratzka; Daniel W Jones; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Margo Minissian; Lori Mosca; Eric D Peterson; Ralph L Sacco; John Spertus; James H Stein; Kathryn A Taubert Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Allan D Sniderman; Ken Williams; John H Contois; Howard M Monroe; Matthew J McQueen; Jacqueline de Graaf; Curt D Furberg Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2011-04-12
Authors: A Langsted; J J Freiberg; A Tybjaerg-Hansen; P Schnohr; G B Jensen; B G Nordestgaard Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2010-12-27 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Salim Yusuf; Steven Hawken; Stephanie Ounpuu; Tony Dans; Alvaro Avezum; Fernando Lanas; Matthew McQueen; Andrzej Budaj; Prem Pais; John Varigos; Liu Lisheng Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Sep 11-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: C Baigent; L Blackwell; J Emberson; L E Holland; C Reith; N Bhala; R Peto; E H Barnes; A Keech; J Simes; R Collins Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-11-08 Impact factor: 79.321