Article

Waiting for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel IV Guidelines, and in the meantime, some challenges and recommendations.

Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Heart Disease, Baltimore, Maryland.
The American journal of cardiology (Impact Factor: 3.58). 04/2012; 110(2):307-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.03.023
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) has provided education and guidance for decades on the management of hypercholesterolemia. Its third report (ATP III) was published 10 years ago, with a white paper update in 2004. There is a need for translation of more recent evidence into a revised guideline. To help address the significant challenges facing the ATP IV writing group, this statement aims to provide balanced recommendations that build on ATP III. The authors aim for simplicity to increase the likelihood of implementation in clinical practice. To move from ATP III to ATP IV, the authors recommend the following: (1) assess risk more accurately, (2) simplify the starting algorithm, (3) prioritize statin therapy, (4) relax the follow-up interval for repeat lipid testing, (5) designate <70 mg/dl as an "ideal" low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target, (6) endorse targets beyond low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, (7) refine therapeutic target levels to the equivalent population percentile, (8) remove misleading descriptors such as "borderline high," and (9) make lifestyle messages simpler. In conclusion, the solutions offered in this statement represent ways to translate the totality of published reports into enhanced hyperlipidemia guidelines to better combat the devastating impact of hyperlipidemia on cardiovascular health.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
136 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Considerable progress has been achieved in the treatment of dyslipidemias. However, half of cardiovascular events occur in individuals with average or low cholesterol levels and there is still a considerable residual risk with 70% of patients having an event despite statin treatment. In the era of personalized medicine there is increased interest in the incorporation of individual biomarkers in risk score algorithms in order to improve cardiovascular risk stratification followed by the prompt initiation of preventive measures. Since the 2001 third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment on High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (ATP III) several studies have evaluated the prognostic value of lipid related biomarkers such as non-HDL-cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, apolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein A1 ratio, lipoprotein(a), lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2, and C-reactive protein. This article summarizes the most relevant results, trying to elucidate the scenario prior to the upcoming ATP IV guidelines.
    Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 01/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is highly prevalent and is the primary cause of death for both men and women, worldwide. Because the disease develops over many years, there are opportunities to intervene and alter the course of CHD, assuming that there are reliable means for determining which individuals with coronary atherosclerosis will develop symptomatic CHD. CT provides 2 distinct means for coronary artery disease assessment-coronary artery calcium (CAC) measurement using noncontrast CT and coronary CT angiography (cCTA). The recent refinement of electrocardiographic triggering and gating with CT has enabled these techniques to be performed with greater reliability and substantially lower radiation exposure. This has led to widening availability of these diagnostic techniques and rapid expansion of our understanding of their potential clinical use. Within the context of CHD, 2 applications are particularly compelling-risk stratification of asymptomatic individuals with the intent of targeting therapy to prevent CHD and as gatekeeper to cardiac catheterization to minimize unnecessary invasive diagnostic coronary procedures. This review highlights key insights from recent investigations of CHD development and CT application toward the management of individuals at risk of developing or suspected of having CHD.
    Journal of the American College of Radiology: JACR 12/2013; 10(12):943-8.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite population-based improvements in cardiovascular risk factors, such as blood pressure, cholesterol and smoking, cardiovascular disease still remains the number-one cause of mortality in the United States. In 1989, Kaplan coined the term "Deadly Quartet" to represent a combination of risk factors that included upper body obesity, glucose intolerance, hypertriglyceridemia and hypertension [Kaplan in Arch Int Med 7:1514-1520, 1989]. In 2002, the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP-ATP III) essentially added low HDL-C criteria and renamed this the "metabolic syndrome." [The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) in JAMA 285:2486-2497, 2001] However, often forgotten was that a pro-inflammatory state and pro-thrombotic state were also considered components of the syndrome, albeit the panel did not find enough evidence at the time to recommend routine screening for these risk factors [The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) in JAMA 285:2486-2497, 2001]. Now over a decade later, it may be time to reconsider this deadly quartet by reevaluating the roles of obesity and subclinical inflammation as they relate to the metabolic syndrome. To complete this new quartet, the addition of increased exposure to elevated levels of particulate matter in the atmosphere may help elucidate why this cardiovascular pandemic continues, despite our concerted efforts. In this article, we will summarize the evidence, focusing on how statin therapy may further impact this new version of the "deadly quartet".
    Current Atherosclerosis Reports 01/2014; 16(1):380. · 2.92 Impact Factor