Key result
Adding 0.8 mmol/L to calculated LDL-C misclassifies non-HDL-C goal achievement, especially at low triglycerides.
Why the study?
Does the common practice of adding 0.8 mmol/L to calculated LDL-C to determine non-HDL-C lead to inaccuracies in patients at very high cardiovascular risk?
Observational (n=3,017)
Does the common practice of adding 0.8 mmol/L to calculated LDL-C to determine non-HDL-C lead to inaccuracies in patients at very high cardiovascular risk?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Automatically adding 0.8 mmol/L to calculated LDL-C to determine non-HDL-C targets leads to inaccuracies in patients with lower triglyceride levels.
: Our findings suggest that the consistent use of fixed high-intensity statin and ezetimibe combinations can improve lipid goal achievement. However, comparing the achievement of LDL-C goals (calculated by three methods) and non-HDL-C goals also confirmed that the common practice of automatically adding 0.8 mmol/L to the calculated LDL-C value to determine non-HDL-C leads to inaccuracies, particularly in the lower triglyceride ranges.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reiber et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Very high cardiovascular risk (n=3,017). Automatically adding 0.8 mmol/L to calculated LDL-C was evaluated on Achievement of LDL-C and non-HDL-C goals. Automatically adding 0.8 mmol/L to calculated LDL-C to determine non-HDL-C leads to inaccuracies in lipid goal assessment, particularly in lower triglyceride ranges.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: