Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Our analysis presents an alternative hypothesis to the prevailing view that low-density lipoprotein-C is the only important target of lipid therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: Two recently published studies showed surprising results. In the Armed Forces Regression Study, low-density lipoprotein-C was lowered only 22% with cholystyramine, niacin and gemfibrozil. Coronary stenosis regressed, however, and the primary clinical event rate was reduced by 54%. Conversely, in the FIELD trial, the primary event rate reduction was only 11% (P = NS). These differences appeared to be explained largely by the difference in high-density lipoprotein response to these regimens (38 vs. 3%). This meta-analysis of 23 trials strongly supports the notion that the sum of percent reduction in low-density lipoprotein-C plus percent increase in high-density lipoprotein-C predicts benefits much more effectively than either lipoprotein component. SUMMARY: Epidemiology suggests that the cardiovascular event rate is reduced by nearly 1% for each 1% reduction in low-density lipoprotein-C and by at least 1% for each 1% increase in high-density lipoprotein. These effects are statistically independent; thus, for moderate lipid changes, they are additive. If this simple algorithm is proven accurate, a 30% high-density lipoprotein-C increase and a 40% low-density lipoprotein-C reduction would result in a nearly 70% CHD risk reduction - and a revolution in cardiovascular prevention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brown et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: