Dataset Information

Longitudinal associations of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with metabolic syndrome in the Chinese population: a prospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Currently, most studies only reveal the relationship between baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) levels and metabolic syndrome (MetS). The relationship between dynamic changes in HDL-c or LDL-c and MetS remains unclear. We aimed to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between the dynamic changes in HDL-c or LDL-c and MetS.

Design

A prospective study.

Setting

The Medical Centre of the Second Hospital affiliated with Dalian Medical University from 2010 to 2016.

Participants

A total of 4542 individuals who were initially MetS-free and completed at least two follow-up examinations as part of the longitudinal population were included.

Methods

The Joint Interim Statement criteria 2009 were used to define MetS. We used the Joint model to estimate the relative risks (RRs) of incident MetS.

Results

The cumulative incidence of MetS was 17.81% and was 14.86% in men and 5.36% in women during the 7 years of follow-up. In the Joint models, the RRs of the longitudinal decrease in HDL-c and the longitudinal increase in LDL-c for the development of MetS were 18.8781-fold (95% CI 12.5156 to 28.4900) and 1.3929-fold (95% CI 1.2283 to 1.5795), respectively.

Conclusions

The results highlight that the dynamic longitudinal decrement of HDL-c or the increment of LDL-c is associated with an elevated risk of MetS.

SUBMITTER: Wang XR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5942466 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is an important modifiable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. It is unclear whether the percentage LDL-C lowering with pharmacotherapies differs on the basis of baseline LDL-C levels. To evaluate the association between baseline LDL-C levels and the percentage LDL-C reduction with a statin, ezetimibe, and a PCSK9 inhibitor. This secondary exploratory study analyzed data from 3 randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials (Aggrastat to Zocor-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 21 [A to Z-TIMI 21], Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial [IMPROVE-IT], and Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk [FOURIER]) of lipid-lowering therapies (statin, ezetimibe, and a PCSK9 inhibitor) and included participants with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Analyses took place form April to October 2020. In A to Z-TIMI 21, 1:1 randomization to simvastatin, 40 mg, daily for 30 days followed by 80 mg daily thereafter vs placebo for 4 months followed by simvastatin, 20 mg, daily thereafter. In IMPROVE-IT, 1:1 randomization to ezetimibe, 10 mg, daily plus simvastatin, 40 mg, daily vs placebo plus simvastatin, 40 mg, daily. In FOURIER, 1:1 randomization to evolocumab, 140 mg, every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly vs matching placebo. The percentage LDL-C reduction at either 1 month (A to Z-TIMI 21, IMPROVE-IT) or 3 months (FOURIER) as a function of baseline LDL-C level. Data were modeled using a generalized linear regression model. A total of 3187 patients from A to Z-TIMI 21, 10 680 patients from IMPROVE-IT, and 25 847 patients from FOURIER were analyzed. There was a higher percentage reduction in LDL-C levels with evolocumab in patients with lower baseline LDL-C levels, ranging from 59.4% (95% CI, 59.1%-59.8%) in patients with a baseline LDL-C level of 130 mg/dL to 66.1% (95% CI, 65.6%-66.6%) in patients with a baseline LDL-C level of 70 mg/dL (P < .001). In contrast, across the same range of baseline LDL-C level, there was a more modest difference for simvastatin (44.6% [95% CI, 43.9%-45.2%] vs 47.8% [95% CI, 46.4%-49.2%]; P < .001) and minimal difference with ezetimibe (25.0% [95% CI, 23.3%-26.6%] vs 26.2% [95% CI, 24.2%-28.1%]; P = .007). The percentage LDL-C reduction with statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 inhibition is not attenuated in patients starting with lower baseline LDL-C levels and is 6.6% greater for PCSK9 inhibition. These data are encouraging for the use of intensive LDL-C-lowering therapy even for patients with lower LDL-C levels.

Project description:Background Conventional "low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)" assays measure cholesterol content in both low-density lipoprotein and lipoprotein(a) particles. To clarify the consequences of this methodological limitation for clinical care, our study aimed to compare associations of "LDL-C" and corrected LDL-C with risk of cardiovascular disease and to assess the impact of this correction on the classification of patients into guideline-recommended LDL-C categories. Methods and Results Lipoprotein(a) cholesterol content was estimated as 30% of lipoprotein(a) mass and subtracted from "LDL-C" to obtain corrected LDL-C values (LDL-Ccorr30). Hazard ratios for cardiovascular disease (defined as coronary heart disease, stroke, or coronary revascularization) were quantified by individual-patient-data meta-analysis of 5 statin landmark trials from the Lipoprotein(a) Studies Collaboration (18 043 patients; 5390 events; 4.7 years median follow-up). When comparing top versus bottom quartiles, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio for cardiovascular disease was significant for "LDL-C" (1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.31; P=0.005) but not for LDL-Ccorr30 (1.07; 95% CI, 0.93-1.22; P=0.362). In a routine laboratory database involving 531 144 patients, reclassification of patients across guideline-recommended LDL-C categories when using LDL-Ccorr30 was assessed. In "LDL-C" categories of 70 to <100, 100 to <130, 130 to <190, and ≥190 mg/dL, significant proportions (95% CI) of participants were reassigned to lower LDL-C categories when LDL-Ccorr30 was used: 30.2% (30.0%-30.4%), 35.1% (34.9%-35.4%), 32.9% (32.6%-33.1%), and 41.1% (40.0%-42.2%), respectively. Conclusions "LDL-C" was associated with incident cardiovascular disease only when lipoprotein(a) cholesterol content was included in its measurement. Refinement in techniques to accurately measure LDL-C, particularly in patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels, is warranted to assign risk to the responsible lipoproteins.