Cited by 368Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthCholesterol and Lipid MetabolismDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Non–High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Coronary Heart Disease Risk

Open access
Robinson, Jennifer G., Wang, Songfeng, Smith, Brian J., Jacobson, Terry A.·2009·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

Objectives To determine the relationship between non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) lowering and coronary heart disease (CHD) risk reduction for various lipid-modifying therapies.Background Non-HDL-C is the second lipid target of therapy after low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).Methods Randomized placebo or active-controlled trials were evaluated. The effect of mean non-HDL-C reduction on the relative risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction and CHD death was estimated using Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis models adjusted for study duration. Cochrane's Q was used to test for heterogeneity.Results Inclusion criteria were met by 14 statin (n = 100,827), 7 fibrate (n = 21,647), and 6 niacin (n = 4,445) trials, and 1 trial each of a bile acid sequestrant (n = 3,806), diet (n = 458), and ileal bypass surgery (n = 838). For statins, each 1% decrease in non-HDL-C resulted in an estimated 4.5-year CHD relative risk of 0.99 (95% Bayesian confidence interval: 0.98 to 1.00). The fibrate model did not differ from the statin model (Bayes factor K = 0.49) with no evidence of heterogeneity. The niacin model was moderately different from the statin model (K = 7.43), with heterogeneity among the trials (Q = 11.8, 5 df; p = 0.038). The only niacin monotherapy trial (n = 3,908) had a 1:1 relationship between non-HDL-C and risk reduction. No consistent relationships were apparent for the 5 small trials of niacin in combination. The 95% confidence intervals for the single trials of diet, bile acid sequestrants, and surgery also included the 1:1 relationship.Conclusions Non-HDL-C is an important target of therapy for CHD prevention. Most lipid-modifying drugs used as monotherapy have an approximately 1:1 relationship between percent non-HDL-C lowering and CHD reduction.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.10.024

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is a direct, consistent relationship between the magnitude of non-HDLC lowering and cardiovascular risk reduction observed in meta-analyses and trials with statins and other lipid-lowering agents.

    “Like LDLC, non-HDLC is treatable with existing lipid-lowering agents and there is a direct, consistent relationship between the magnitude of non-HDLC lowering and cardiovascular risk reduction observed in meta-analyses and trials with statins and other lipid-lowering agents [56,57].”
  • Non-HDL-C may estimate risk better than LDL-C, especially in hypertriglyceridaemia with diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or CKD.

    “Non-HDL-C can provide a better risk estimation compared with LDL-C, in particular in HTG combined with diabetes, the MetS, or CKD.This is supported by a recent meta-analysis including 14 statin trials, seven fibrate trials, and six nicotinic acid trials.44”

    From ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias (2011) · cites this paper as [44]

  • Non-HDL cholesterol predicts cardiovascular disease risk similarly to or even better than LDL cholesterol.

    “Non-HDL cholesterol predicts CVD risk similarly to or even better than LDL cholesterol.483”
  • A meta-analysis demonstrated that non-HDL-C lowering translates into a reduction in cardiovascular risk independent of the mechanisms (statins, resins, diet, ileal bypass).

    “In this respect, it is relevant that a meta-analysis of the relationship between improvement of the plasma lipoprotein profile and the rate of CV events has demonstrated that non-HDL-C lowering translates into a reduction in risk independent of the mechanisms (statins, resins, diet and ileal bypass) involved. 131”

    From 2016 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidaemias (2016) · cites this paper as [131]

  • The meta-analysis of Robinson et al. indicates that LDL cholesterol reduction translates into cardiovascular benefits, independent of the mechanism involved.

    “However, the meta-analysis of Robinson et al . 131 indicates that LDL-C reduction translates into CV benefits, independent of the mechanism involved.”

    From 2016 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidaemias (2016) · cites this paper as [131]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [24]24. Pedersen TR, Faergeman O, Kastelein JJP, et al. High-dose atorva- statin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myo- cardial infarction. The IDEAL study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;294:2437-45.
  2. [46]46. Leren P. The effect of plasma cholesterol lowering diet in male survivors of myocardial infarction. Acta Med Scand 1966;466:5-92.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robinson, J. G., Wang, S., Smith, B. J., & Jacobson, T. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
Robinson, Jennifer G.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-01
Volume
53
Issue
4
Pages
316-322
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1996592745
Cited by
368
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 33
FWCI
5.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • Pfizer
  • AstraZeneca
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Sanofi
  • Daiichi-Sankyo
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cholesterol and Lipid Metabolism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
non-HDL cholesterol, coronary artery disease, lipid-lowering therapy, statins, fibrates, nicotinic acid, bile acid sequestrants, myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease mortality, relative risk
MeSH terms
Clofibric Acid, Coronary Disease, Female, Humans, Cholesterol, HDL, Cholesterol, LDL, Male, Niacin, Risk Factors, Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review