Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that $444 billion was spent on cardiovascular diseases alone, about $1 of every $6 spent on health care. As life expectancy continues to increase, this annual cost will also increase, making cost-effective primary prevention of cardiovascular disease highly desirable. Because of its role in development of atherosclerosis and clinical events, dyslipidemia management is a high priority in cardiovascular prevention. Multiple major dyslipidemia guidelines have been published around the world recently, four of them by independent organizations in the United States alone. They share the goal of providing clinical guidance on optimal dyslipidemia management, but guidelines differ in their emphasis on pharmacotherapy, stratification of groups, emphasis on lifestyle modification, and use of a fixed target or percentage reduction in low density lipoprotein cholesterol. This review summarizes eight major guidelines for dyslipidemia management and considers the basis for their recommendations. Our primary aim is to enhance understanding of dyslipidemia management guidelines in patient care for primary prevention of future cardiovascular risk.

BackgroundAs the approach to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering becomes increasingly intensive, accurate assessment of LDL-C at very low levels warrants closer attention in individualized clinical efficacy and safety evaluation. We aimed to assess the accuracy of LDL-C estimation at very low levels by the Friedewald equation, the de facto clinical standard, and compare its accuracy with a novel, big data-derived LDL-C estimate.MethodsIn 191,333 individuals with Friedewald LDL-C < 70 mg/dL, we compared the accuracy of Friedewald and novel LDL-C values in relation to direct measurements by Vertical Auto Profile ultracentrifugation. We examined differences (estimate minus ultracentrifugation) and classification according to levels initiating additional safety precautions per clinical practice guidelines.ResultsFriedewald values were less than ultracentrifugation measurement, with a median difference (25th to 75th percentile) of –2.4 (–7.4 to 0.6) at 50–69 mg/dL, –7.0 (–16.2 to –1.2) at 25–39 mg/dL, and –29.0 (–37.4 to –19.6) at < 15 mg/dL. The respective values by novel estimation were –0.1 (–1.5 to 1.3), –1.1 (–2.5 to 0.3), and –2.7 (–4.9 to 0.0) mg/dL. Among those with Friedewald LDL–C < 15, 15 to < 25, and 25 to < 40 mg/dL, the classification was discordantly low in 94.9%, 82.6%, and 59.9% of individuals as compared with 48.3%, 42.4%, and 22.4% by novel estimation.ConclusionsEstimation of even lower LDL-C values (by Friedewald and novel methods) is even more inaccurate. More often than not, a Friedewald value < 40 mg/dL is underestimated, which translates into unnecessary safety alarms that could be reduced in half by estimation using our novel method.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0852-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Treatment with aldosterone antagonists is recommended and has been shown to have beneficial effects in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 40%. However, the role of aldosterone antagonists in patients with ejection fraction greater than 40% or without congestive heart failure is not well known. OBJECTIVES To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis using standard techniques to determine the role of therapy with aldosterone antagonists in this patient population. DATA SOURCES PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central databases were searched and a manual search for relevant references from the selected articles and published reviews was performed from database inception through June 2017. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials that evaluated treatment with aldosterone antagonists in patients with STEMI without clinical heart failure or LVEF greater than 40% were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were used to conduct and report the meta-analysis, which used a random-effects model. Two investigators independently performed the database search and agreed on the final study selection. A manual search was performed for relevant references from the selected articles and published reviews. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The outcomes analyzed were mortality, new congestive heart failure, recurrent myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmia, and changes in LVEF, serum potassium level, and creatinine level at follow-up. RESULTS In all, 10 randomized clinical trials with a total of 4147 unique patients were included in the meta-analysis. In patients who presented with STEMI without heart failure, treatment with aldosterone antagonists compared with control was associated with lower risk of mortality (2.4% vs 3.9%; odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.91; P = .01) and similar risks of myocardial infarction (1.6% vs 1.5%; OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.57-1.86; P = .91), new congestive heart failure (4.3% vs 5.4%; OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.56-1.20; P = .31), and ventricular arrhythmia (4.1% vs 5.1%; OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.45-1.31; P = .33). Similarly, treatment with aldosterone antagonists compared with control was associated with a small yet significant increase in LVEF (mean difference, 1.58%; 95% CI, 0.18%-2.97%; P = .03), a small increase in serum potassium level (mean difference, 0.07 mEq/L; 95% CI, 0.01-0.13 mEq/L; P = .02), and no change in serum creatinine level (standardized mean difference, 1.4; 95% CI, −0.43 to 3.24; P = .13). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Treatment with aldosterone antagonists is associated with a mortality benefit in patients with STEMI with LVEF greater than 40% or without heart failure.