Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2013 Nov 19;62(21):1960-1965.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.07.045. Epub 2013 Aug 21.

Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, guideline targets, and population percentiles for secondary prevention in 1.3 million adults: the VLDL-2 study (very large database of lipids)

Affiliations
Free article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, guideline targets, and population percentiles for secondary prevention in 1.3 million adults: the VLDL-2 study (very large database of lipids)

Mohamed B Elshazly et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. .
Free article

Abstract

Objectives: This study sought to examine patient-level discordance between population percentiles of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).

Background: Non-HDL-C is an alternative to LDL-C for risk stratification and lipid-lowering therapy. The justification for the present guideline-based non-HDL-C cutpoints of 30 mg/dl higher than the LDL-C cutpoints remains largely untested.

Methods: We assigned population percentiles to non-HDL-C and Friedewald-estimated LDL-C values of 1,310,440 U.S. adults with triglyceride levels <400 mg/dl who underwent lipid testing by vertical spin density gradient ultracentrifugation (Atherotech, Birmingham, Alabama) from 2009 to 2011.

Results: LDL-C cutpoints of 70, 100, 130, 160, and 190 mg/dl were in the same population percentiles as non-HDL-C values of 93, 125, 157, 190, and 223 mg/dl, respectively. Non-HDL-C values reclassified a significant proportion of patients within or to a higher treatment category compared with Friedewald LDL-C values, especially at LDL-C levels in the treatment range of high-risk patients and at triglyceride levels ≥150 mg/dl. Of patients with LDL-C levels <70 mg/dl, 15% had a non-HDL-C level ≥ 100 mg/dl (guideline-based cutpoint) and 25% had a non-HDL-C level ≥ 93 mg/dl (percentile-based cutpoint); if triglyceride levels were 150 to 199 mg/dl concurrently, these values were 22% and 50%, respectively.

Conclusions: There is significant patient-level discordance between non-HDL-C and LDL-C percentiles at lower LDL-C and higher triglyceride levels, which has implications for the treatment of high-risk patients. Current non-HDL-C cutpoints for high-risk patients may need to be lowered to match percentiles of LDL-C cutpoints. Relatively small absolute reductions in non-HDL-C cutpoints result in substantial reclassification of patients to higher treatment categories with potential implications for risk assessment and treatment.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01698489.

Keywords: CVD; HDL-C; LDL cholesterol; LDL-C; VAP; VLDL; cardiovascular disease; discordance; high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; lipids; low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; non–HDL cholesterol; percentiles; secondary prevention; vertical auto profile; very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources