Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

The Expected Cardiovascular Benefit of Plasma Cholesterol Lowering with or Without LDL-C Targets in Healthy Individuals at Higher Cardiovascular Risk.

Background:: There is controversy whether management of blood cholesterol should be based or not on LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) target concentrations.

Objectives:: To compare the estimated impact of different lipid-lowering strategies, based or not on LDL-c targets, on the risk of major cardiovascular events in a population with higher cardiovascular risk.

Methods:: We included consecutive individuals undergoing a routine health screening in a single center who had a 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) ≥ 7.5% (pooled cohort equations, ACC/AHA, 2013). For each individual, we simulated two strategies based on LDL-c target (≤ 100 mg/dL [Starget-100] or ≤ 70 mg/dL [Starget-70]) and two strategies based on percent LDL-c reduction (30% [S30%] or 50% [S50%]).

Results:: In 1,897 subjects (57 ± 7 years, 96% men, 10-year ASCVD risk 13.7 ± 7.1%), LDL-c would be lowered from 141 ± 33 mg/dL to 99 ± 23 mg/dL in S30%, 71 ± 16 mg/dL in S50%, 98 ± 9 mg/dL in Starget-100, and 70 ± 2 mg/dL in Starget-70. Ten-year ASCVD risk would be reduced to 8.8 ± 4.8% in S50% and 8.9 ± 5.2 in Starget-70. The number of major cardiovascular events prevented in 10 years per 1,000 individuals would be 32 in S30%, 31 in Starget-100, 49 in S50%, and 48 in Starget-70. Compared with Starget-70, S50% would prevent more events in the lower LDL-c tertile and fewer events in the higher LDL-c tertile.

Conclusions:: The more aggressive lipid-lowering approaches simulated in this study, based on LDL-c target or percent reduction, may potentially prevent approximately 50% more hard cardiovascular events in the population compared with the less intensive treatments. Baseline LDL-c determines which strategy (based or not on LDL-c target) is more appropriate at the individual level.

Fundamentos:: Há controvérsias sobre se o controle do colesterol plasmático deve ou não se basear em metas de concentração de colesterol LDL (LDL-c).

Objetivos:: Comparar o impacto estimado de diferentes estratégias hipolipemiantes, baseadas ou não em metas de LDL-c, sobre o risco de eventos cardiovasculares maiores em uma população de risco cardiovascular mais elevado.

Métodos:: Foram incluídos indivíduos consecutivamente submetidos a uma avaliação rotineira de saúde em um único centro e que apresentavam um risco em 10 anos de doença cardiovascular aterosclerótica (DCVAS) ≥ 7,5% ("pooled cohort equations", ACC/AHA, 2013). Para cada indivíduo, foram simuladas duas estratégias baseadas em meta de LDL-c (≤ 100 mg/dL [Emeta-100] ou ≤ 70 mg/dL [Emeta-70]) e duas estratégias baseadas em redução percentual do LDL-c (30% [E30%] ou 50% [E50%]).

Resultados:: Em 1.897 indivíduos (57 ± 7 anos, 96% homens, risco em 10 anos de DCVAS 13,7 ± 7,1%), o LDL-c seria reduzido de 141 ± 33 mg/dL para 99 ± 23 mg/dL na E30%, 71 ± 16 mg/dL na E50%, 98 ± 9 mg/dL na Emeta-100 e 70 ± 2 mg/dL na Emeta-70. O risco em 10 anos de DCVAS seria reduzido para 8,8 ± 4,8% na E50% e para 8,9 ± 5,2 na Emeta-70. O número de eventos cardiovasculares maiores prevenidos em 10 anos por 1.000 indivíduos seria de 32 na E30%, 31 na Emeta-100, 49 na E50% e 48 na Emeta-70. Em comparação com a Emeta-70, a E50% evitaria mais eventos no tercil inferior de LDL-c e menos eventos no tercil superior de LDL-c.

Conclusões:: As abordagens hipolipemiantes mais agressivas simuladas neste estudo, com base em meta de LDL-c ou redução percentual, podem potencialmente prevenir cerca de 50% mais eventos cardiovasculares graves na população em comparação com os tratamentos menos intensivos. Os níveis basais de LDL-c determinam qual estratégia (baseada ou não em meta de LDL-c) é mais apropriada para cada indivíduo.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app