You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Epidemiology
Research
Which lipid measurement should we monitor? An analysis of the LIPID study
  1. Paul P Glasziou1,
  2. Les Irwig2,
  3. Adrienne C Kirby3,
  4. Andrew M Tonkin4,
  5. R John Simes3
  1. 1Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
  2. 2Screening and Test Evaluation Program, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  4. 4Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Paul P Glasziou; Paul_Glasziou{at}bond.edu.au

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate the optimal lipid to measure in monitoring patients, we assessed three factors that influence the choice of monitoring tests: (1) clinical validity; (2) responsiveness to therapy changes and (3) the size of the long-term ‘signal-to-noise’ ratio.

Design Longitudinal analyses of repeated lipid measurement over 5 years.

Setting Subsidiary analysis of a Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) study—a clinical trial in Australia, New Zealand and Finland.

Participants 9014 patients aged 31–75 years with previous acute coronary syndromes.

Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to 40 mg daily pravastatin or placebo.

Primary and secondary outcome measures We used data on serial lipid measurements—at randomisation, 6 months and 12 months, and then annually to 5 years—of total cholesterol; low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and their ratios; triglycerides; and apolipoproteins A and B and their ratio and their ability to predict coronary events.

Results All the lipid measures were statistically significantly associated with future coronary events, but the associations between each of the three ratio measures (total or LDL cholesterol to HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B to apolipoprotein A1) and the time to a coronary event were better than those for any of the single lipid measures. The two cholesterol ratios also ranked highly for the long-term signal-to-noise ratios. However, LDL cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol showed the most responsiveness to treatment change.

Conclusions Lipid monitoring is increasingly common, but current guidelines vary. No single measure was best on all three criteria. Total cholesterol did not rank highly on any single criterion. However, measurements based on cholesterol subfractions—non-HDL cholesterol (total cholesterol minus HDL cholesterol) and the two ratios—appeared superior to total cholesterol or any of the apolipoprotein options. Guidelines should consider using non-HDL cholesterol or a ratio measure for initial treatment decisions and subsequent monitoring.

  • Public Health
  • Epidemiology
  • Vascular Medicine

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003512

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text