Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: Historically, lipids and lipoproteins were measured in the fasting state for cardiovascular risk prediction; however, since 2009 use of nonfasting lipid profiles has increased substantially worldwide. For patients, nonfasting lipid profiles are convenient and avoid any risk of hypoglycemia. For laboratories, blood sampling in the morning and extra visits for patients who have not fasted are avoided. For patients, clinicians, hospitals, and society, nonfasting sampling allows same-day visits with first blood sampling followed by a short wait for test results before clinical consultation. Therefore, nonfasting compared to fasting lipid profiles will save money and time and may improve patient compliance with cardiovascular prevention programs. CONTENT: We report on the progression of endorsement and implementation of nonfasting lipid profiles for cardiovascular risk prediction worldwide and summarize the recommendations from major medical societies and health authorities in different countries. We also describe practical advantages and disadvantages for using nonfasting lipid profiles. Further, we include a description of why fasting has been the standard historically, the barriers against implementation of nonfasting lipid profiles, and finally we suggest the optimal content of a nonfasting lipid profile. SUMMARY: Lipid, lipoprotein, and apolipoprotein concentrations vary minimally in response to normal food intake and nonfasting lipid profiles are equal or superior to fasting profiles for cardiovascular risk prediction. Major guidelines and consensus statements in Europe, the United States, Canada, Brazil, Japan, India, and Australia now endorse use of nonfasting lipid profiles in some or all patients; however, there are still gaps in endorsement and implementation of nonfasting lipid profiles worldwide.
Langsted et al. (Mon,) studied this question.