估计低密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平和心血管疾病发病率的方程的比较性能:ATTICA研究(2002-2022)

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q4 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Lipids Pub Date : 2023-05-08 DOI:10.1002/lipd.12371
Tzortzis Nomikos, Michael Georgoulis, Christina Chrysohoou, Evangelia Damigou, Fotios Barkas, Ioannis Skoumas, Evangelos Liberopoulos, Christos Pitsavos, Costas Tsioufis, Petros P. Sfikakis, Alexandros Tselepis, Demosthenes B. Panagiotakos
{"title":"估计低密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平和心血管疾病发病率的方程的比较性能:ATTICA研究(2002-2022)","authors":"Tzortzis Nomikos,&nbsp;Michael Georgoulis,&nbsp;Christina Chrysohoou,&nbsp;Evangelia Damigou,&nbsp;Fotios Barkas,&nbsp;Ioannis Skoumas,&nbsp;Evangelos Liberopoulos,&nbsp;Christos Pitsavos,&nbsp;Costas Tsioufis,&nbsp;Petros P. Sfikakis,&nbsp;Alexandros Tselepis,&nbsp;Demosthenes B. Panagiotakos","doi":"10.1002/lipd.12371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Accurate estimation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is important for monitoring cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and guiding lipid-lowering therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the magnitude of discordance of LDL-C levels calculated by different equations and its effect on CVD incidence. The study sample consisted of 2354 CVD-free individuals (49% males, mean age 45 ± 14 years); 1600 were re-evaluated at 10 years and 1570 at 20 years. LDL-C was estimated using the Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson equations. Participants were categorized as discordant if estimated LDL-C was below the CVD-risk specific cut-off for one equation and equal/above for its comparator. The Friedewald and Martin/Hopkins equations presented a similar performance in estimating LDL-C; however, both yielded lower values compared to the Sampson. In all pairwise comparisons, differences were more pronounced at lower LDL-C levels, while the Friedewald equation significantly underestimated LDL-C in hypertriglyceridemic participants. Discordance was evident in 11% of the study population, and more specifically 6%, 22%, and 20% for Friedewald versus Martin/Hopkins, Friedewald versus Sampson and Martin/Hopkins versus Sampson equations, respectively. Among discordant participants, median (1st, 3rd quartile) difference in LDL-C was −4.35 (−10.1, 1.95), −10.6 (−12.3, −9.53) and −11.3 (−11.9, −10.6) mg/dL for Friedewald versus Martin/Hopkins, Friedewald versus Sampson and Martin/Hopkins versus Sampson equations, respectively. The 10- and 20-year CVD survival model that included LDL-C values of the Martin-Hopkins equation outperformed the predictive ability of those based on the Friedewald or Sampson equations. Significant differences in estimated LDL-C exist among equations, which may result in LDL-C underestimation and undertreatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":18086,"journal":{"name":"Lipids","volume":"58 4","pages":"159-170"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lipd.12371","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative performance of equations to estimate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and cardiovascular disease incidence: The ATTICA study (2002–2022)\",\"authors\":\"Tzortzis Nomikos,&nbsp;Michael Georgoulis,&nbsp;Christina Chrysohoou,&nbsp;Evangelia Damigou,&nbsp;Fotios Barkas,&nbsp;Ioannis Skoumas,&nbsp;Evangelos Liberopoulos,&nbsp;Christos Pitsavos,&nbsp;Costas Tsioufis,&nbsp;Petros P. Sfikakis,&nbsp;Alexandros Tselepis,&nbsp;Demosthenes B. Panagiotakos\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/lipd.12371\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Accurate estimation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is important for monitoring cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and guiding lipid-lowering therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the magnitude of discordance of LDL-C levels calculated by different equations and its effect on CVD incidence. The study sample consisted of 2354 CVD-free individuals (49% males, mean age 45 ± 14 years); 1600 were re-evaluated at 10 years and 1570 at 20 years. LDL-C was estimated using the Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson equations. Participants were categorized as discordant if estimated LDL-C was below the CVD-risk specific cut-off for one equation and equal/above for its comparator. The Friedewald and Martin/Hopkins equations presented a similar performance in estimating LDL-C; however, both yielded lower values compared to the Sampson. In all pairwise comparisons, differences were more pronounced at lower LDL-C levels, while the Friedewald equation significantly underestimated LDL-C in hypertriglyceridemic participants. Discordance was evident in 11% of the study population, and more specifically 6%, 22%, and 20% for Friedewald versus Martin/Hopkins, Friedewald versus Sampson and Martin/Hopkins versus Sampson equations, respectively. Among discordant participants, median (1st, 3rd quartile) difference in LDL-C was −4.35 (−10.1, 1.95), −10.6 (−12.3, −9.53) and −11.3 (−11.9, −10.6) mg/dL for Friedewald versus Martin/Hopkins, Friedewald versus Sampson and Martin/Hopkins versus Sampson equations, respectively. The 10- and 20-year CVD survival model that included LDL-C values of the Martin-Hopkins equation outperformed the predictive ability of those based on the Friedewald or Sampson equations. Significant differences in estimated LDL-C exist among equations, which may result in LDL-C underestimation and undertreatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18086,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lipids\",\"volume\":\"58 4\",\"pages\":\"159-170\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/lipd.12371\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lipids\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lipd.12371\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lipids","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lipd.12371","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

准确估计低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)对监测心血管疾病(CVD)风险和指导降脂治疗具有重要意义。本研究旨在评估不同方程计算的LDL-C水平的不一致程度及其对心血管疾病发病率的影响。研究样本包括2354例无cvd个体(49%为男性,平均年龄45±14岁);1600人在10年后重新评估,1570人在20年后重新评估。使用Friedewald、Martin/Hopkins和Sampson方程估计LDL-C。如果估计的LDL-C低于一个方程的cvd风险特定截止值,而其比较值等于或高于该截止值,则参与者被归类为不一致。Friedewald和Martin/Hopkins方程在估计LDL-C时也有类似的表现;然而,与Sampson相比,两者都产生了较低的值。在所有两两比较中,低LDL-C水平的差异更为明显,而Friedewald方程显著低估了高甘油三酯血症参与者的LDL-C。在11%的研究人群中存在明显的不一致性,更具体地说,Friedewald与Martin/Hopkins、Friedewald与Sampson、Martin/Hopkins与Sampson的方程分别为6%、22%和20%。在不一致的参与者中,Friedewald与Martin/Hopkins、Friedewald与Sampson和Martin/Hopkins与Sampson的LDL-C中位数(第1、第3四分位数)差异分别为- 4.35(- 10.1,1.95)、- 10.6(- 12.3,- 9.53)和- 11.3 (- 11.9,- 10.6)mg/dL。包含Martin-Hopkins方程LDL-C值的10年和20年心血管疾病生存模型的预测能力优于基于Friedewald或Sampson方程的预测能力。各方程之间LDL-C估计值存在显著差异,这可能导致LDL-C低估和处理不足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparative performance of equations to estimate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and cardiovascular disease incidence: The ATTICA study (2002–2022)

Comparative performance of equations to estimate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and cardiovascular disease incidence: The ATTICA study (2002–2022)

Accurate estimation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is important for monitoring cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and guiding lipid-lowering therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the magnitude of discordance of LDL-C levels calculated by different equations and its effect on CVD incidence. The study sample consisted of 2354 CVD-free individuals (49% males, mean age 45 ± 14 years); 1600 were re-evaluated at 10 years and 1570 at 20 years. LDL-C was estimated using the Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson equations. Participants were categorized as discordant if estimated LDL-C was below the CVD-risk specific cut-off for one equation and equal/above for its comparator. The Friedewald and Martin/Hopkins equations presented a similar performance in estimating LDL-C; however, both yielded lower values compared to the Sampson. In all pairwise comparisons, differences were more pronounced at lower LDL-C levels, while the Friedewald equation significantly underestimated LDL-C in hypertriglyceridemic participants. Discordance was evident in 11% of the study population, and more specifically 6%, 22%, and 20% for Friedewald versus Martin/Hopkins, Friedewald versus Sampson and Martin/Hopkins versus Sampson equations, respectively. Among discordant participants, median (1st, 3rd quartile) difference in LDL-C was −4.35 (−10.1, 1.95), −10.6 (−12.3, −9.53) and −11.3 (−11.9, −10.6) mg/dL for Friedewald versus Martin/Hopkins, Friedewald versus Sampson and Martin/Hopkins versus Sampson equations, respectively. The 10- and 20-year CVD survival model that included LDL-C values of the Martin-Hopkins equation outperformed the predictive ability of those based on the Friedewald or Sampson equations. Significant differences in estimated LDL-C exist among equations, which may result in LDL-C underestimation and undertreatment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Lipids
Lipids 生物-生化与分子生物学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
33
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Lipids is a journal of the American Oil Chemists'' Society (AOCS) that focuses on publishing high-quality peer-reviewed papers and invited reviews in the general area of lipid research, including chemistry, biochemistry, clinical nutrition, and metabolism. In addition, Lipids publishes papers establishing novel methods for addressing research questions in the field of lipid research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信