 |
 |
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Past Issues |
In the Clinic |
ACP Journal Club |
CME |
Collections |
Audio/Video |
Mobile |
Subscribe |
Tools |
Help |
ACP Online
|
1 November 1994 | Volume 121 Issue 9 | Pages 641-647
Objective: Comparison of four measures of cholesterol for predicting men and women who will develop coronary heart disease within 8 to 10 years.
Design: Cohort study.
Patients: 1898 men who received placebo (the placebo group of the Lipid Research Clinics [LRC] Coronary Primary Prevention Trial [CPPT]), 1025 men and 1442 women who participated in the 1970-1971 Framingham Heart Study biennial examination, and 1911 men and 1767 women without coronary heart disease who were from the LRC Population Prevalence Study.
Measurements: Total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, ratio of total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and the ratio of LDL to HDL. Outcomes were coronary heart disease in the CPPT and Framingham studies and death from coronary heart disease in the Prevalence Study.
Results: Independent information in the total cholesterol/HDL ratio added risk-discriminating ability to total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol measures (P < 0.02), but the reverse was not true. Among women, a high-risk threshold of 5.6 for the total cholesterol/HDL ratio identified a 0% to 15% larger group at 25% to 45% greater risk in the Prevalence and Framingham studies, respectively, than did current guidelines. Among men in the same studies, a risk threshold of 6.4 for the total cholesterol/HDL ratio identified a 69% to 95% larger group at 2% to 14% greater risk than did LDL cholesterol levels alone. Eight-year likelihood ratios for coronary heart disease ranged from 0.32 to 3.11 in men and from 0.59 to 2.98 in women for total cholesterol/HDL ratios (grouped from < 3 to
Conclusions: The total cholesterol/HDL ratio is a superior measure of risk for coronary heart disease compared with either total cholesterol or LDL cholesterol levels. Current practice guidelines could be more efficient if risk stratification was based on this ratio rather than primarily on the LDL cholesterol level.
ARTICLE
Cholesterol and Coronary Heart Disease: Predicting Risks by Levels and Ratios
9).
|
0.91 mmol/L [ 35 mg/dL]) and a high HDL cholesterol level ( 1.55 mmol/L [ 60 mg/dL]) to negate the effect of an additional risk factor for coronary heart disease [2]. This HDL cholesterol effect is independent of the LDL cholesterol level, the primary cholesterol measure used for risk stratification [1, 2]. Observational data suggest that the total cholesterol/HDL ratio is a better predictor of subsequent coronary heart disease [5-10]. However, these data have not been incorporated into clinical guidelines, in part because their ability to discriminate the risk for coronary heart disease has not been rigorously compared in a statistical manner with other common cholesterol measures.
Whether to incorporate HDL cholesterol directly into measures of risk for coronary heart disease (for example, the total cholesterol/HDL ratio) or to use HDL cholesterol to modify risk classification based on LDL cholesterol has important therapeutic implications. The primary initial intervention for increased levels of serum cholesterol is a low-fat diet, which tends to decrease levels of total cholesterol, LDL, and HDL and hardly changes the total cholesterol/HDL ratio [11, 12]. Thus post-diet risk assessment to determine subsequent management may misclassify persons if assessment is based on changes in LDL cholesterol levels alone. A total cholesterol/HDL ratio used for post-diet risk stratification, however, would consider persons who have the same ratio to be at similar risk, whether their total cholesterol level is 5.17 mmol/L or 7.24 mmol/L (200 mg/dL or 280 mg/dL).
To better understand the value of the total cholesterol/HDL ratio as a summary measure of risk for coronary heart disease, we examined the ability of this ratio to predict persons who will and will not develop coronary heart disease in three populations, using statistical tests to compare this ratio with other cholesterol measures.
Methods
|
|---|
 Top Methods ResultsDiscussionAuthor & Article InfoReferences |
|---|
We used data from three sources: the placebo group of the Lipid Research Clinics (LRC) Coronary Primary Prevention Trial (CPPT); persons enrolled in the Framingham Heart Study who participated in the 1970-1971 biennial examination; and persons without coronary heart disease at the inception of the LRC Population Prevalence Study. Analyses were done with primary data provided by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. We used a high-risk population (CPPT) and a general population (Framingham Heart Study) that monitored the full spectrum of coronary heart disease to test the discriminating ability of different measures. We used two general populations (Framingham Heart Study and LRC Prevalence Study) to evaluate the risk classification abilities of the measures.
The CPPT was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled intervention trial that included 3806 men with primary hypercholesterolemia (type IIA) and without coronary heart disease, hypertension, hypertriglyceridemia (triglycerides >3.39 mmol/L [> 300 mg/dL]), or diabetes at trial inception. We restricted our analysis to the 1898 patients who received placebo and for whom there were complete data to minimize the confounding effects of the intervention on subsequent risk for coronary heart disease. The design of the CPPT and its results have been described previously [13, 14]. Data from this cohort of high-risk men were suitable for evaluating the ability of various cholesterol measures to discriminate among men according to their levels of risk for coronary heart disease, but these data could not be used for assessing the performance of those measures to classify risk for intervention in a more general population. Cholesterol levels (including LDL cholesterol levels) were directly measured by a central laboratory [13].
One of the general patient populations used in our analysis was made up of men and women in the Framingham Heart Study, a longitudinal observational study with biennial follow-up of 5209 men and women, 28 to 62 years of age at study inception. High-density lipoprotein and LDL cholesterol measurements were available only during the 1970-1971 examination, therefore, we studied 1025 men and 1442 women without coronary heart disease at that time who were all older than 50 years of age. The cohort study and methods for cholesterol measurement have been described previously [15]. Because the Framingham Study is a community-based inception cohort with excellent outcome assessment for the full spectrum of coronary heart disease events, data from the cohort are useful for evaluating the discriminating ability of various cholesterol measures as well as the performance of those measures in classifying risk for intervention in a population.
The LRC Prevalence Study, conducted between 1972 and 1976, used a previously described two-stage screening procedure to assemble a mixed cohort with and without existing coronary heart disease [16-18]. Our second general patient population was the subsample of this cohort who were screened in the second stage (1767 women, 1911 men), were free of existing coronary heart disease at the time of assessment, and were available for follow-up. The risk-factor distribution for coronary heart disease in this sample was similar to that of persons in the general population who were 35 to 72 years of age. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was directly measured for all participants. Although this subsample is representative of the general population of persons who do not have coronary heart disease, restricting the outcome to death from coronary heart disease meant the LRC Prevalence Study had inadequate power to statistically test the discriminating ability of alternative cholesterol measures, but could be used to classify risk for intervention.
Outcomes
The outcomes we used were coronary heart disease observed during 8 years of follow-up in the CPPT and Framingham studies and death from coronary heart disease observed during 10 years of follow-up in the LRC Prevalence Study, diagnosed using previously described assessment methods [13-16]. Coronary heart disease events in the CPPT included primary myocardial infarction, angina requiring hospitalization, Rose-questionnaire-defined angina, positive findings on an exercise tolerance test, coronary revascularization, and resuscitated coronary collapse. Deaths were classified as either coronary heart disease or non-coronary heart disease, with coronary heart disease-related deaths subclassified as sudden or nonsudden. Events in the Framingham Heart Study included myocardial infarction, angina, coronary insufficiency, and sudden and nonsudden death from coronary heart disease. In the LRC Prevalence Study, events were restricted to mortality follow-up, with vital status reported for more than 99% of the cohort.
Analysis Overview
We tested the hypothesis that the total cholesterol/HDL ratio is a superior measure of risk for coronary heart disease when compared with the total cholesterol level or LDL cholesterol level and that the total cholesterol/HDL ratio is an equal or better measure when compared with the LDL/HDL ratio, using grouped (stratified) and logistic regression (parametric) analyses.
To compare measures used for risk discrimination, we defined a superior measure as one that identifies low- and high-risk persons within risk groups identified by an inferior measure of risk for coronary heart disease. The corollary is that an inferior discriminating measure is unable to identify low- and high-risk persons within risk groups identified by a superior measure.
To compare measures used for risk classification, we defined a superior cholesterol measure as one that identifies a larger proportion of a population at the same or greater risk than the current classification based on LDL cholesterol levels or as one that identifies the same proportion of the population at greater risk.
Grouped (Stratified) Analysis
We evaluated four pairs of cholesterol variables in the CPPT and the Framingham populations: total cholesterol compared with the total cholesterol/HDL ratio, LDL cholesterol compared with the LDL/HDL ratio, LDL cholesterol compared with the total cholesterol/HDL ratio, and the LDL/HDL ratio compared with the total cholesterol/HDL ratio.
We developed two sets of three-way contingency tables for each pair of cholesterol measures. Thus, we divided the population into deciles using the first measure in the pair (for example, total cholesterol). We then divided the population in each decile into tertiles using the second measure in the pair (for example, within each total cholesterol decile, we divided observations according to the total cholesterol/HDL ratio). Within each tertile, patients were separated into those who had a coronary heart disease event and those who did not.
We tested whether the total cholesterol/HDL ratio was able to identify different risks that were statistically significant within each of the deciles of total cholesterol or LDL cholesterol and whether any other measure identified differences in risk within deciles of the total cholesterol/HDL ratio, using a two-tailed P value of 0.05 for the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic [19]. Details of the grouped (stratified) analyses are provided in the Appendix.
Logistic Regression Analyses
We used three sets of 12 logistic regressions to evaluate the unique explanatory information about risk for coronary heart disease contained in the four measures of cholesterol. The same populations from the grouped (stratified) analysis were used.
First, for each pair, we chose one of the measures as our primary explanatory variable (all information shared between the two measures would be captured by the primary variable, for example, total cholesterol). Second, we developed a measure of the additional information provided by the second cholesterol variable, termed the residual (for example, information in the total cholesterol/HDL ratio that is not shared with total cholesterol), using ordinary least-squares regression analysis. Last, we used logistic regression to predict risk for coronary heart disease as a function of the primary explanatory variable and of the remaining, unique information provided by the second variable (residual). Details of the two-step regression approach are provided in the Appendix.
We tested whether the unique information provided by the total cholesterol/HDL ratio (total cholesterol/HDL residuals) was a statistically significant predictor of risk for coronary heart disease when added to the total cholesterol level, LDL cholesterol level, or LDL/HDL ratio used as the primary variable, whereas the unique information provided by total cholesterol level, LDL cholesterol level, or LDL/HDL ratio were not significant predictors of risk for coronary heart disease, when the total cholesterol/HDL ratio was the primary variable. A two-tailed P value of 0.05 for the residuals was used to indicate whether or not they added statistically significant information to the explanatory power of the primary variables.
Risk Classification for Intervention
To determine if using the total cholesterol/HDL ratio would have an effect on the risk classification of a population, we identified the proportion of men and women older than 45 years of age in the LRC Prevalence and the Framingham Heart studies who were classified as high risk using either the first set of guidelines from the National Cholesterol Education Program for initiating pharmacologic treatment regardless of other risk factors for coronary heart disease (LDL >4.91 mmol/L [>190 mg/dL] after diet treatment) or revised guidelines for persons older than 45 years, incorporating HDL cholesterol (LDL 4.91 mmol/L [ 190 mg/dL] or LDL 4.14 mmol/L ( 160 mg/dL) with other coronary heart disease risk factors including an HDL 0.91 mmol/L [ 35 mg/dL] after diet treatment) [2]. For those persons identified as high risk, we calculated the 10-year risk for death from coronary heart disease (LRC Prevalence Study) and the 8-year risk for coronary heart disease (the Framingham Study).
We also identified proportions of the population classified as high risk using several total cholesterol/HDL ratio thresholds. These thresholds, empirically derived based on the above definition of a superior measure for risk classification, ranged from 6.0 to 7.0 in men and from 5.6 to 6.0 in women. We estimated the risk for coronary heart disease events in these high-risk groups and evaluated whether the total cholesterol/HDL ratio satisfied the criteria for a superior measure for risk classification for either coronary heart disease or death from coronary heart disease.
Individual Risk Classification
We report average 8-year risks for coronary heart disease and likelihood ratios for five total cholesterol/HDL ratio strata derived from men and women in the Framingham Study (ratios <3, 3 and <5, 5 and <7, 7 and <9, and 9). Likelihood ratios were calculated as the proportion of persons developing coronary heart disease who had ratio values in the stratum divided by the proportion of those without coronary heart disease who had ratios in the stratum. Likelihood ratios can be combined with pretest probabilities of disease to develop an estimate of the post-test probability of disease.
Results
|
|---|
|
TopMethodsResultsDiscussionAuthor & Article InfoReferences |
|---|
Table 1 presents the results of our analysis when we divide men in the CPPT Study and men and women in the Framingham Study into deciles using a primary cholesterol measure and then divide the deciles into tertiles using a secondary cholesterol measure. It reports the absolute difference in risk between the highest and lowest tertiles averaged across the deciles in instances where the P value for the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic for the difference was 0.15.
|
When total cholesterol and LDL were used as the primary measures, the total cholesterol/HDL and LDL/HDL ratios identified statistically significant high- and low-risk groups within the deciles. For example, when CPPT men were divided into deciles based on LDL cholesterol (row 3, column 1), the absolute risk difference within the LDL deciles between those with the highest and lowest thirds of total cholesterol/HDL ratios was 13.0% (95% CI, 8.2% to 17.7%). Among men in the Framingham Study (row 3, column 2), the risk difference between the highest and lowest thirds of total cholesterol/HDL ratios within the LDL deciles was 4.3% (CI, –1.3% to 9.9%); among women in the Framingham Study (row 3, column 3), the risk difference was 9.3% (CI, 5.6% to 13.1%).
Little difference was noted between risk stratification using the total cholesterol/HDL and LDL/HDL ratios except among women in the Framingham Study. When the LDL/HDL ratio was used as the primary measure in this population, the total cholesterol/HDL ratio identified high- and low-risk groups among the LDL/HDL ratio deciles (risk difference, 7.9%; CI, 4.1% to 11.7%). When the total cholesterol/HDL and LDL/HDL ratios were used as the primary measures, neither total nor LDL cholesterol identified high- and low-risk groups among the deciles.
Logistic Regression Analyses
These analyses confirmed results from the grouped (stratified) analysis. In all logistic regressions that used total cholesterol or LDL cholesterol levels as the primary explanatory variable along with residuals of total cholesterol/HDL ratios or LDL/HDL ratios (which captured the residual information that was not shared with total or LDL cholesterol), the residual was statistically significant (Table 2). When the total cholesterol/HDL ratio was used as the primary variable in the regression and residuals for total cholesterol level, LDL cholesterol level, and LDL/HDL ratios were each added to the regressions, only in one instance (total cholesterol in the CPPT Study) did the residual tend toward adding statistically significant explanatory information to the predictive ability of the total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio. When the LDL/HDL ratio was used as the primary measure, only in the CPPT did the total cholesterol/HDL ratio add substantial information.
|
Population Risk Classification for Intervention
We applied the current LDL threshold and HDL-modified LDL threshold [1, 2] as well as several total cholesterol/HDL ratio thresholds to two populations: the Framingham Study (measuring 8-year risk for coronary heart disease) and the LRC Prevalence Study (measuring 10-year risk for coronary heart disease death) (Table 3).
|
In the Framingham population, an LDL threshold of 4.91 mmol/L or more ( 190 mg/dL) identified groups of men (10.2%) and women (18.1%) whose risks for coronary heart disease were increased only slightly more than the average risk in the population (16.4% compared with 14.7% for men, 10.3% compared with 9.2% for women). The HDL-modified LDL threshold identified a larger proportion of the population (12.4% for men, 18.8% for women) who had lower risks for coronary heart disease (15% for men, 9.9% for women).
In contrast, in the LRC Prevalence Study Table 3, the LDL threshold identified a group at substantially greater risk for death from coronary heart disease than in the general population (7.9% compared with 2.9% for men, 4.7% compared with 1.3% for women). The HDL-modified LDL threshold identified a larger group at higher risk (10% risk for men, and 5.3% risk for women).
In the Framingham and the LRC Prevalence Studies, a total cholesterol/HDL ratio threshold of 6.0 or more identified substantially more men as high risk than were identified by using either an LDL threshold or HDL-modified LDL threshold. This ratio met the criterion for a superior measure in the Framingham Study, identifying a larger proportion of the population (26.5% compared with 10.2%) at similar or greater risk (16.9% compared with 16.4%). However, participants in the LRC Prevalence Study, identified as high risk using a total cholesterol/HDL ratio threshold of 6.0, were at lower risk for death from coronary heart disease. A total cholesterol/HDL ratio threshold of 6.4 or more satisfied the criteria for a superior measure for men in the Framingham Study and men in the LRC Prevalence Study using the LDL threshold. However, no ratio threshold satisfied these criteria for men in the LRC Prevalence Study, using the HDL-modified LDL threshold.
In the Framingham and the LRC Prevalence studies, at total cholesterol/HDL ratios of 6.0 or more, a smaller proportion of women were identified as high risk than were identified using either LDL threshold, but these women were at substantially higher risk for coronary heart disease or death from coronary heart disease. Decreasing the total cholesterol/HDL ratio threshold for women to 5.6 identified similar or larger proportions of the population at greater risk for coronary heart disease and death from coronary heart disease when compared with either LDL threshold.
Individual Risk Classification
Among men in the Framingham Study who were grouped (stratified) by total cholesterol/HDL ratios ranging from less than 3.0 to 9.0 or more, a general increase was noted in 8-year risk for coronary heart disease and in likelihood ratios for coronary heart disease (Table 4). Among women, the stratum-specific risks and likelihood ratios always increased. Stratum-specific risks for men ranged from a low of 5.3% (likelihood ratio, 0.32) for total cholesterol/HDL ratios less than 3.0 to a high of 35% (likelihood ratio, 3.12) for total cholesterol/HDL ratios of 9.0 or more. Among women, risks ranged between 5.6% (ratio, 0.59) and 23.1% (ratio, 2.98).
|
Discussion
|
|---|
|
TopMethodsResultsDiscussionAuthor & Article InfoReferences |
|---|
Our results suggest that the total cholesterol/HDL ratio is better for discriminating risk than is the LDL cholesterol level. Using stratified analyses, neither total nor LDL cholesterol levels conveyed additional information when ratios were used to predict coronary heart disease risk in a general and a high-risk population. However, ratios had additional predictive value when total cholesterol and LDL levels were used to predict risk. The results from the logistic regression analysis confirmed the stratified analyses: The total cholesterol/HDL ratio added discriminating ability to total and LDL cholesterol measures, although no measure added discriminating ability to the total cholesterol/HDL ratio.
The threshold value for LDL cholesterol (>4.91 mmol/L [>190 mg/dL]) used by the National Cholesterol Education Program was compared with revised guidelines (decreasing the LDL threshold to 4.14 mmol/L [ 160 mg/dL] if the HDL were 0.91 mmol/L [ 35 mg/dL]) and thresholds for total cholesterol/HDL ratios that varied from 6.0 to 7.0 for men and from 5.6 to 6.0 for women. We found that for men in Framingham and women in both studies ratio thresholds identified groups with a 2% to 5% greater absolute risk for coronary heart disease or death from coronary heart disease. These absolute risks are 20% to 50% greater than comparable LDL-threshold-defined risks.
In all populations other than men in the LRC Prevalence Study, the total cholesterol/HDL ratio identified a similar-sized or larger group at the same or greater risk for subsequent coronary heart disease events than did either LDL or HDL-modified LDL thresholds; thus, the ratio was a superior cholesterol measure for risk stratification. The improved performance of the HDL-modified LDL threshold among men in the LRC Prevalence Study may be related to the limited coronary heart disease outcome that was reported (death from coronary heart disease), but this performance needs to be studied in other populations [10].
The analyses provide less support for choosing the total cholesterol/HDL ratio instead of the LDL/HDL ratio as a discriminator of risk for coronary heart disease. However, results among women in the stratified analyses tend to support using the total cholesterol/HDL ratio, which is consistent with several recent analyses suggesting that the triglyceride level (included in the total cholesterol/HDL ratio but not in the LDL/HDL ratio) is an independent predictor of coronary heart disease and death from coronary heart disease among women [20-22]. Further, total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol can be measured in the nonfasting state, with reduced analytic variability, decreasing the cost of screening when compared with an LDL criterion [23, 24].
Several clinical lessons can be derived from our work. For example, among persons with similar ratios, those with total cholesterol or LDL levels classified as "high risk" (using guidelines from the National Cholesterol Education Program) have risks for coronary heart disease that are similar to risks of those persons with total cholesterol or LDL levels classified as "low risk" or "desirable" (as defined by the guidelines). Thus, a justification may not exist for providing either the low- or high-risk group with different treatments. In addition, meaningful changes in risk predictions (from 60% to 200% of the average risk for coronary heart disease) can be made for individual patients based on total cholesterol/HDL likelihood ratios that are stratum specific. For 2% of men with the highest ratios (consistent with HDL levels from 0.78 to 0.91 mmol/L [30 to 35 mg/dL] and total cholesterol levels >7.24 mmol/L [>280 mg/dL]), one in three men will likely have a coronary heart disease event during the subsequent 8 years.
We intentionally considered cholesterol levels alone in our analysis in order to address specific controversies surrounding claims that the total cholesterol/HDL ratio should be the preferred means of risk stratification [5-10]. Additionally, our results do not address whether changes in the total cholesterol/HDL ratio are better predictors of change in risk for coronary heart disease than are changes in total cholesterol or LDL levels [2]. Answering this question requires analysis of clinical trial data [25]. However, because guidelines from the National Cholesterol Education Program use post-diet risk classification to decide on subsequent pharmacologic interventions, our results should prompt serious scrutiny of interventions that leave the total cholesterol/HDL ratio unchanged by lowering LDL and HDL cholesterol levels [26, 27].
In two general populations as well as in a population of high-risk men, the total cholesterol/HDL ratio was superior to either the total cholesterol level or the LDL cholesterol level for identifying people at greater risk for developing subsequent coronary heart disease events. Current practice guidelines could be more efficient if risk stratification were based on the total cholesterol/HDL ratio rather than primarily on the LDL cholesterol level.
Appendix
|
|---|
For each of the four pairs of cholesterol measures (for example, total cholesterol compared with the total cholesterol/HDL ratio), we started with one of the measures (for example, total cholesterol), and we rank-ordered observations from the lowest cholesterol value to the highest. We then divided the sample into deciles, such that the first decile contained the 10% of observations with lowest cholesterol values and the tenth decile contained the 10% with highest cholesterol values.
Within each decile of cholesterol values, we rank-ordered the observations from lowest to highest based on the second cholesterol measure (for example, within the total cholesterol strata, we rank-ordered the observations according to the total cholesterol/HDL ratio). We then divided the sample within each decile into thirds, or tertiles, such that the first tertile contained the third of observations with the lowest total cholesterol/HDL ratios and the third tertile contained the third with the highest ratios. Within each tertile, patients either had a coronary heart disease event or they did not. Thus, we constructed ten 3 x 2 tables (10 strata; three tertiles within each stratum, event or no event).
The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistical test determines whether tertiles of the second cholesterol measure discriminate risk across the 10 strata of the first cholesterol measure. After completing the evaluation for one of two measures of cholesterol (for example, the total cholesterol/HDL ratio within the total cholesterol strata), we used the second measure (for example, total cholesterol/HDL ratio) to develop the 10 strata and used the first measure (for example, total cholesterol) to determine whether the first measure was able to discriminate risk within the strata of the second by using the same evaluation tests.
Logistic Regression Analysis
We used three sets of 12 logistic regressions to evaluate the unique explanatory information about risk for coronary heart disease contained in four measures of cholesterol values. First, for each pair (for example, total cholesterol level compared with total cholesterol/HDL ratio), we chose one of the measures as our primary explanatory variable (that is, all information shared between the two variables would be captured by the primary variable). Second, we developed a measure of the unique information in the second cholesterol variable (for example, information in the total cholesterol/HDL ratio that is not shared, or residual, with the total cholesterol value) by regressing the primary cholesterol variable on the second (that is, making the primary cholesterol variable the independent predictor of the second cholesterol variable) and by computing a set of residuals (for example, the actual total cholesterol/HDL ratio minus the predicted total cholesterol/HDL ratio). By definition, residuals have zero correlation (are orthogonal) with the primary cholesterol measure. Last, we ran a logistic regression that predicted risk for coronary heart disease as a function of the primary cholesterol measure and the residual secondary measure. The P value on the residual indicates whether or not it added statistical significance to the explanatory power of the primary cholesterol measure.
After completing the evaluation for one of the two measures of cholesterol (for example, total cholesterol level and the total cholesterol/HDL residual), we repeated the analysis using the second cholesterol measure as the primary explanatory variable and using the residual of the first cholesterol measure (for example, the total cholesterol/HDL ratio and the residual for total cholesterol).
Author and Article Information
|
|---|
|
TopMethodsResultsDiscussionAuthor & Article InfoReferences |
|---|
References
|
|---|
|
TopMethodsResultsDiscussionAuthor & Article InfoReferences |
|---|
1. The Expert Panel. Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. Arch Intern Med. 1988; 148:36-69.
2. The Expert Panel. Summary of the second report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 1993; 269:3015-23.
3. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel on Triglyceride, High-Density Lipoprotein and Coronary Heart Disease. JAMA. 1993; 269:505-10.
4. Manninen V, Elo MO, Frick MH, Haapa K, Heinonen OP, Heinsalmi P, et al. Lipid alterations and the decline in the incidence of coronary heart disease in the Helsinki Heart Study. JAMA. 1988; 260:641-51.
5. Castelli WP, Garrison RJ, Wilson PW, Abbott RD, Kalousdian S, Kannel WB. Incidence of coronary heart disease and lipoprotein cholesterol levels. The Framingham Study. JAMA. 1986; 256:2835-8.
6. Levy D, Wilson PW, Anderson KM, Castelli WP. Stratifying the patient at risk from coronary disease: new insights from the Framingham Heart Study. Am Heart J. 1990; 119:712-7.
7. Anderson KM, Wilson PW, Odell PM, Kannel WB. An updated coronary risk profile. A statement for health professionals. Circulation. 1991; 83:356-62.
8. Kannel WB, Wilson PW. Efficacy of lipid profiles in prediction of coronary disease. Am Heart J. 1992; 124:768-74.
9. Gordon DJ, Probstfield JL, Garrison RJ, Neaton JD, Castelli WP, Knoke JD, et al. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular disease. Four prospective American studies. Circulation. 1989; 79:8-15.
10. Grover SA, Palmer CS, Coupall L. Serum lipid screening to identify high risk individuals for coronary death. The results of the Lipid Research Clinics prevalence cohort. Arch Intern Med. 1994; 154:679-84.
11. Patsch JR, Prasad S, Gotto AM Jr, Patsch W. High density lipoprotein2. Relationship of the plasma levels of this lipoprotein species to its composition, to the magnitude of the postprandial lipemia, and to the activities of lipoprotein lipase and hepatic lipase. J Clin Invest. 1987; 80:341-7.
12. Sacks FM, Handysides GH, Marais GE, Rosner B, Kass EH. Effects of a low-fat diet on plasma lipoprotein levels. Arch Intern Med. 1986; 146:1573-7.
13. Lipid Research Clinics Program. Pre-entry characteristics of participants in the Lipid Research Clinics' Coronary Primary Prevention Trial. J Chronic Dis. 1983; 36:467-79.
14. Lipid Research Clinics Program. The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial results. I. Reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease. JAMA. 1984; 251:351-64.
15. Shurtleff D. Some characteristics related to the incidence of cardiovascular disease and death. Framingham Study, 18-year follow-up. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1974; DHEW publication no. NIH 75-599.
16. Williams OD, Mowery RL, Waldman GT. Common methods, different populations. The Lipid Research Clinics Program Prevalence Study. Circulation. 1980; 62(4 Pt 2):IV18-23.
17. Heiss G, Tamir I, Davis CE, Tyroler HA, Rifkind BM, Schonfeld G, et al. Lipoprotein-cholesterol distributions in selected North American populations: the lipid research clinics' program prevalence study. Circulation. 1980; 61:302-15.
18. National Institutes of Health. The Lipid Research Clinics' Population Studies Data Book: The Prevalence Study. Bethesda, Maryland: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1980; publication no. (NIH)80-1527.
19. Landis RJ, Heyman ER, Koll GG. Average partial association in three-way contingency tables: A review and discussion of alternative tests. Int Stat Rev. 1978; 46:237-54.
20. Bass KM, Newschaffer CJ, Klag MJ, Bush TL. Plasma lipoprotein levels as predictors of cardiovascular death in women. Arch Intern Med. 1993; 153:2209-16.
21. Barrett-Connor E, Khaw KT, Wingard DL. A ten year prospective study of coronary heart disease mortality among Rancho Bernardo women. In: Eaker ED, Packard B, Wender NK, eds. Coronary Heart Disease in Women. New York: Haymarket Doyma; 1987:117-21.
22. Jacobs DR Jr, Mebane IL, Bandiwala SI, Criqui MH, Tyroler HA. High density lipoprotein cholesterol as a predictor of cardiovascular disease mortality in men and women: the follow-up study of the Lipid Research Clinics' Prevalence Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1990; 131:32-47.
23. Brookstein L, Gidding SS, Donovan M, Smith FA. Day-to-day variability of serum cholesterol, triglyceride, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. JAMA. 150:1653-7.
24. Cooper GR, Myers GL, Smith SJ, Schlant RC. Blood lipid measurements. Variations and practical utility. JAMA. 1992; 267:1652-60.
25. Glick H, Kinosian B, Garland G. Effectiveness and efficiency of lipid modification directly estimated from the Coronary Primary Prevention Trial (CPPT). Medical Decision Making. 1993; 13:386.
26. Sempos CT, Cleeman JI, Carroll MD, Johnson CL, Bachorik PS, Gordon DJ, et al. Prevalence of high blood cholesterol among US adults. An update based on guidelines from the second report of the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel. JAMA. 1993; 269:3009-14.
27. Sacks FM, Willett WW. More on chewing the fat. The good fat and the good cholesterol (Editorial). N Engl J Med. 1991; 325:1740-2.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  J. H. Ix, M. A. Allison, J. O. Denenberg, M. Cushman, and M. H. Criqui Novel cardiovascular risk factors do not completely explain the higher prevalence of peripheral arterial disease among African Americans. The San Diego Population Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 17, 2008; 51(24): 2347 - 2354. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. S. Owens, R. Katz, E. Johnson, D. M. Shavelle, J. L. Probstfield, J. Takasu, J. R. Crouse, J. J. Carr, R. Kronmal, M. J. Budoff, et al. Interaction of Age With Lipoproteins as Predictors of Aortic Valve Calcification in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis Arch Intern Med, June 9, 2008; 168(11): 1200 - 1207. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. S. L. Tan, P. Mitchell, A. Kifley, V. Flood, W. Smith, and J. J. Wang Smoking and the Long-term Incidence of Age-Related Macular Degeneration: The Blue Mountains Eye Study Arch Ophthalmol, August 1, 2007; 125(8): 1089 - 1095. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M J L Peters, M Vis, V P van Halm, G J Wolbink, A E Voskuyl, W F Lems, B A C Dijkmans, J W R Twisk, M H M T de Koning, R J van de Stadt, et al. Changes in lipid profile during infliximab and corticosteroid treatment in rheumatoid arthritis Ann Rheum Dis, July 1, 2007; 66(7): 958 - 961. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. A. Modest Lack of Evidence for Recommended Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Treatment Targets Ann Intern Med, April 17, 2007; 146(8): 614 - 614. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. J. Sheridan, J. N. Cooper, M. Erario, and C. E. Cheifetz Pistachio Nut Consumption and Serum Lipid Levels J. Am. Coll. Nutr., April 1, 2007; 26(2): 141 - 148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. C Major, F. Alarie, J. Dore, S. Phouttama, and A. Tremblay Supplementation with calcium + vitamin D enhances the beneficial effect of weight loss on plasma lipid and lipoprotein concentrations Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, January 1, 2007; 85(1): 54 - 59. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. J. Wenzel, C. Gerweck, D. Barbato, R. J. Nicolosi, G. J. Handelman, and J. Curran-Celentano A 12-Wk Egg Intervention Increases Serum Zeaxanthin and Macular Pigment Optical Density in Women J. Nutr., October 1, 2006; 136(10): 2568 - 2573. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. PEASEY, M. BOBAK, S. MALYUTINA, A. PAJAK, R. KUBINOVA, H. PIKHART, S. KURILOVITCH, R. POLEDNE, and M. MARMOT DO LIPIDS CONTRIBUTE TO THE LACK OF CARDIO-PROTECTIVE EFFECT OF BINGE DRINKING: ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION AND LIPIDS IN THREE EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES Alcohol Alcohol., September 1, 2005; 40(5): 431 - 435. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. M Ridker, N. Rifai, N. R. Cook, G. Bradwin, and J. E. Buring Non-HDL Cholesterol, Apolipoproteins A-I and B100, Standard Lipid Measures, Lipid Ratios, and CRP as Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease in Women JAMA, July 20, 2005; 294(3): 326 - 333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Auer, G. Lamm, B. Eber, C. P. Cannon, S. A. Murphy, E. Braunwald, U. Ravnskov, P. J. Rosch, M. C. Sutter, G. A. Modest, et al. Intensive lipid lowering with atorvastatin in coronary disease. N. Engl. J. Med., July 7, 2005; 353(1): 93 - 96. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. L. Montes, F. Pulido, C. Barros, E. Condes, R. Rubio, C. Cepeda, F. Dronda, A. Antela, J. Sanz, E. Navas, et al. Lipid disorders in antiretroviral-naive patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir-based HAART: frequency, characterization and risk factors J. Antimicrob. Chemother., May 1, 2005; 55(5): 800 - 804. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Meisinger, H. Loewel, W. Mraz, and W. Koenig Prognostic value of apolipoprotein B and A-I in the prediction of myocardial infarction in middle-aged men and women: results from the MONICA/KORA Augsburg cohort study Eur. Heart J., February 1, 2005; 26(3): 271 - 278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C Popa, M G Netea, T Radstake, J W M Van der Meer, A F H Stalenhoef, P L C M van Riel, and P Barerra Influence of anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy on cardiovascular risk factors in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis Ann Rheum Dis, February 1, 2005; 64(2): 303 - 305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Z. Li, R. Yang, G. Xu, and T. Xia Serum Lipid Concentrations and Prevalence of Dyslipidemia in a Large Professional Population in Beijing Clin. Chem., January 1, 2005; 51(1): 144 - 150. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Brehm, G. Pfeiler, G. Pacini, H. Vierhapper, and M. Roden Relationship between Serum Lipoprotein Ratios and Insulin Resistance in Obesity Clin. Chem., December 1, 2004; 50(12): 2316 - 2322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. A. Ajani, E. S. Ford, and A. H. Mokdad Prevalence of High C-Reactive Protein in Persons with Serum Lipid Concentrations within Recommended Values Clin. Chem., September 1, 2004; 50(9): 1618 - 1622. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Jiang, M. B. Schulze, T. Li, N. Rifai, M. J. Stampfer, E. B. Rimm, and F. B. Hu Non-HDL Cholesterol and Apolipoprotein B Predict Cardiovascular Disease Events Among Men With Type 2 Diabetes Diabetes Care, August 1, 2004; 27(8): 1991 - 1997. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Armstrong, J. S. Schwartz, T. Randall, S. C. Rubin, and B. Weber Hormone Replacement Therapy and Life Expectancy After Prophylactic Oophorectomy in Women With BRCA1/2 Mutations: A Decision Analysis J. Clin. Oncol., March 15, 2004; 22(6): 1045 - 1054. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Buhlin, A. Gustafsson, A.G. Pockley, J. Frostegard, and B. Klinge Risk factors for cardiovascular disease in patients with periodontitis Eur. Heart J., December 1, 2003; 24(23): 2099 - 2107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. S. Bowman, H. D. Sesso, J. Ma, T. Kurth, C. S. Kase, M. J. Stampfer, and J. M. Gaziano Cholesterol and the Risk of Ischemic Stroke Stroke, December 1, 2003; 34(12): 2930 - 2934. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. McLaughlin, F. Abbasi, K. Cheal, J. Chu, C. Lamendola, and G. Reaven Use of Metabolic Markers To Identify Overweight Individuals Who Are Insulin Resistant Ann Intern Med, November 18, 2003; 139(10): 802 - 809. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Fisac, N. Virgili, E. Ferrer, M. J. Barbera, E. Fumero, C. Vilarasau, and D. Podzamczer A Comparison of the Effects of Nevirapine and Nelfinavir on Metabolism and Body Habitus in Antiretroviral-Naive Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Patients: A Randomized Controlled Study J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., November 1, 2003; 88(11): 5186 - 5192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. H. Wheaton, D. R. Hoffman, K. G. Locke, R. B. Watkins, and D. G. Birch Biological Safety Assessment of Docosahexaenoic Acid Supplementation in a Randomized Clinical Trial for X-Linked Retinitis Pigmentosa Arch Ophthalmol, September 1, 2003; 121(9): 1269 - 1278. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Sabate, E. Haddad, J. S Tanzman, P. Jambazian, and S. Rajaram Serum lipid response to the graduated enrichment of a Step I diet with almonds: a randomized feeding trial Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, June 1, 2003; 77(6): 1379 - 1384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
Article
