Cited by 74Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsLipid metabolism and disorders

Identifying an optimal cutpoint for the diagnosis of hypertriglyceridemia in the nonfasting state

Open access
White, Khendi T, Moorthy, M V, Akinkuolie, Akintunde O, Demler, Olga, Ridker, Paul M, Cook, Nancy R, Mora, Samia·2015·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nonfasting triglycerides are similar or superior to fasting triglycerides at predicting cardiovascular events. However, diagnostic cutpoints are based on fasting triglycerides. We examined the optimal cutpoint for increased nonfasting triglycerides. METHODS: We obtained baseline nonfasting (<8 h since last meal) samples from 6391 participants in the Women's Health Study who were followed prospectively for ≤17 years. The optimal diagnostic threshold for nonfasting triglycerides, determined by logistic regression models by use of c-statistics and the Youden index (sum of sensitivity and specificity minus 1), was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for incident cardiovascular events. Performance was compared to thresholds recommended by the American Heart Association (AHA) and European guidelines. RESULTS: The optimal threshold was 175 mg/dL (1.98 mmol/L), with a c-statistic of 0.656, statistically better than the AHA cutpoint of 200 mg/dL (c-statistic 0.628). For nonfasting triglycerides above and below 175 mg/dL, after adjusting for age, hypertension, smoking, hormone use, and menopausal status, the HR for cardiovascular events was 1.88 (95% CI 1.52–2.33, P < 0.001), and for triglycerides measured at 0–4 and 4–8 h since the last meal, 2.05 (1.54– 2.74) and 1.68 (1.21–2.32), respectively. We validated performance of this optimal cutpoint by use of 10-fold cross-validation and bootstrapping of multivariable models that included standard risk factors plus total and HDL cholesterol, diabetes, body mass index, and C-reactive protein. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of middle-aged and older apparently healthy women, we identified a diagnostic threshold for nonfasting hypertriglyceridemia of 175 mg/dL (1.98 mmol/L), with the potential to more accurately identify cases than the currently recommended AHA cutpoint.

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 · 10.1373/clinchem.2015.241752

Cites

45 of 45 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?

  • For nonfasting samples, the threshold for abnormal TG concentrations is ≥2 mmol/L according to the Women's Health Study, which found that this threshold was optimal for ASCVD prediction.

    “For nonfasting samples, laboratories should flag abnormal TG concentrations as ≥2 mmol/L according to the Women's Health Study, which found that this threshold was optimal for ASCVD prediction [91].”

    From Quantifying atherogenic lipoproteins for lipid-lowering strategies: Consensus-based recommendations from EAS and EFLM (2020) · cites this paper as [91]

    The Results and Discussion identify 175 mg/dL (1.98 mmol/L, approximately 2 mmol/L) as the optimal nonfasting triglyceride cutpoint for predicting incident CVD in the Women’s Health Study. The paper proposes a diagnostic cutpoint, but does not specifically direct laboratories to flag results at that level; its measured outcome is a composite of CVD events rather than an outcome expressly defined as ASCVD. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
White, K. T., Moorthy, M. V., Akinkuolie, A. O., Demler, O., Ridker, P. M., Cook, N. R., & Mora, S.
Affiliations
  • Division of Preventive Medicine
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Mora, Samia
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2015-09-01
Volume
61
Issue
9
Pages
1156-1163
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2109221833
Cited by
74
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1
FWCI
7.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Women's Health Study (HL117861, HL43851, HL 080467, CA 47988)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32 HL007575)
  • National Cancer Institute
  • Novartis
  • AstraZeneca
  • Aegerion
  • ISIS
  • Boehringer Ingelheim
  • Pfizer
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Lipid metabolism and disorders
Keywords
hypertriglyceridemia, cardiovascular risk, Women's Health Study, middle-aged and older women, cardiovascular events
MeSH terms
Cardiovascular Diseases, Fasting, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, ROC Curve, Triglycerides, Hypertriglyceridemia, Postprandial Period

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