Guidelines aim to present all the relevant evidence on a particular issue in order to help physicians to weigh the benefits and risks of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. They should be helpful in everyday clinical decision-making.

A great number of guidelines have been issued in recent years by different organizations-European Society of Cardiology (ESC), American Heart Association (AHA), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and other related societies. By means of links to web sites of National Societies several hundred guidelines are available. This profusion can put at stake the authority and validity of guidelines, which can only be guaranteed if they have been developed by an unquestionable decision-making process. This is one of the reasons why the ESC and others have issued recommendations for formulating and issuing guidelines.

In spite of the fact that standards for issuing good quality guidelines are well defined, recent surveys of guidelines published in peer-reviewed journals between 1985 and 1998 have shown that methodological standards were not complied with in the vast majority of cases. It is therefore of great importance that guidelines and recommendations are presented in formats that are easily interpreted. Subsequently, their implementation programmes must also be well conducted. Attempts have been made to determine whether guidelines improve the quality of clinical practice and the utilization of health resources. In addition, the legal implications of medical guidelines have been discussed and examined, resulting in position documents, which have been published by a specific Task Force.

The ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG) supervises and coordinates the preparation of new Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents produced by Task Forces, expert groups or consensus panels. The Committee is also responsible for the endorsement of these guidelines or statements.

The rationale for an active approach to the prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) is …

/pdf/european-guidelines-on-cardiovascular-disease-prevention-in-4jmbgqa0tn.pdf

European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Third Joint Task Force of European and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice.

CONTEXT: Circulating concentration of lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]), a large glycoprotein attached to a low-density lipoprotein-like particle, may be associated with risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship of Lp(a) concentration with risk of major vascular and nonvascular outcomes. STUDY SELECTION: Long-term prospective studies that recorded Lp(a) concentration and subsequent major vascular morbidity and/or cause-specific mortality published between January 1970 and March 2009 were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE and other databases, manual searches of reference lists, and discussion with collaborators. DATA EXTRACTION: Individual records were provided for each of 126,634 participants in 36 prospective studies. During 1.3 million person-years of follow-up, 22,076 first-ever fatal or nonfatal vascular disease outcomes or nonvascular deaths were recorded, including 9336 CHD outcomes, 1903 ischemic strokes, 338 hemorrhagic strokes, 751 unclassified strokes, 1091 other vascular deaths, 8114 nonvascular deaths, and 242 deaths of unknown cause. Within-study regression analyses were adjusted for within-person variation and combined using meta-analysis. Analyses excluded participants with known preexisting CHD or stroke at baseline. DATA SYNTHESIS: Lipoprotein(a) concentration was weakly correlated with several conventional vascular risk factors and it was highly consistent within individuals over several years. Associations of Lp(a) with CHD risk were broadly continuous in shape. In the 24 cohort studies, the rates of CHD in the top and bottom thirds of baseline Lp(a) distributions, respectively, were 5.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4-5.9) per 1000 person-years and 4.4 (95% CI, 4.2-4.6) per 1000 person-years. The risk ratio for CHD, adjusted for age and sex only, was 1.16 (95% CI, 1.11-1.22) per 3.5-fold higher usual Lp(a) concentration (ie, per 1 SD), and it was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.09-1.18) following further adjustment for lipids and other conventional risk factors. The corresponding adjusted risk ratios were 1.10 (95% CI, 1.02-1.18) for ischemic stroke, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.98-1.05) for the aggregate of nonvascular mortality, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.97-1.04) for cancer deaths, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.95-1.06) for nonvascular deaths other than cancer. CONCLUSION: Under a wide range of circumstances, there are continuous, independent, and modest associations of Lp(a) concentration with risk of CHD and stroke that appear exclusive to vascular outcomes.

/pdf/lipoprotein-a-concentration-and-the-risk-of-coronary-heart-wxfsp2h7pc.pdf

Lipoprotein(a) concentration and the risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and nonvascular mortality.

Guidelines aim to present all the relevant evidence on a particular issue in order to help physicians to weigh the benefits and risks of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. They should be helpful in everyday clinical decision-making. A great number of guidelines have been issued in recent years by different organisations--European Society of Cardiology (ESC), American Heart Association (AHA), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and other related societies. By means of links to web sites of National Societies several hundred guidelines are available. This profusion can put at stake the authority and validity of guidelines, which can only be guaranteed if they have been developed by an unquestionable decision-making process. This is one of the reasons why the ESC and others have issued recommendations for formulating and issuing guidelines. In spite of the fact that standards for issuing good quality guidelines are well defined, recent surveys of guidelines published in peer-reviewed journals between 1985 and 1998 have shown that methodological standards were not complied with in the vast majority of cases. It is therefore of great importance that guidelines and recommendations are presented in formats that are easily interpreted. Subsequently, their implementation programmes must also be well conducted. Attempts have been made to determine whether guidelines improve the quality of clinical practice and the utilisation of health resources. In addition, the legal implications of medical guidelines have been discussed and examined, resulting in position documents, which have been published by a specific task force. The ESC Committee for practice guidelines (CPG) supervises and coordinates the preparation of new guidelines and expert consensus documents produced by task forces, expert groups or consensus panels. The Committee is also responsible for the endorsement of these guidelines or statements.

European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Third Joint Task Force Of European and other societies on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (constituted by representatives of eight societies and by invited experts).

Importance Human genetic studies have indicated that plasma lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is causally associated with the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), but randomized trials of several therapies that reduce Lp(a) levels by 25% to 35% have not provided any evidence that lowering Lp(a) level reduces CHD risk. Objective To estimate the magnitude of the change in plasma Lp(a) levels needed to have the same evidence of an association with CHD risk as a 38.67-mg/dL (ie, 1-mmol/L) change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level, a change that has been shown to produce a clinically meaningful reduction in the risk of CHD. Design, Setting, and Participants A mendelian randomization analysis was conducted using individual participant data from 5 studies and with external validation using summarized data from 48 studies. Population-based prospective cohort and case-control studies featured 20 793 individuals with CHD and 27 540 controls with individual participant data, whereas summarized data included 62 240 patients with CHD and 127 299 controls. Data were analyzed from November 2016 to March 2018. Exposures GeneticLPA score and plasma Lp(a) mass concentration. Main Outcomes and Measures Coronary heart disease. Results Of the included study participants, 53% were men, all were of white European ancestry, and the mean age was 57.5 years. The association of genetically predicted Lp(a) with CHD risk was linearly proportional to the absolute change in Lp(a) concentration. A 10-mg/dL lower genetically predicted Lp(a) concentration was associated with a 5.8% lower CHD risk (odds ratio [OR], 0.942; 95% CI, 0.933-0.951;P = 3 × 10−37), whereas a 10-mg/dL lower genetically predicted LDL-C level estimated using an LDL-C genetic score was associated with a 14.5% lower CHD risk (OR, 0.855; 95% CI, 0.818-0.893;P = 2 × 10−12). Thus, a 101.5-mg/dL change (95% CI, 71.0-137.0) in Lp(a) concentration had the same association with CHD risk as a 38.67-mg/dL change in LDL-C level. The association of genetically predicted Lp(a) concentration with CHD risk appeared to be independent of changes in LDL-C level owing to genetic variants that mimic the relationship of statins, PCSK9 inhibitors, and ezetimibe with CHD risk. Conclusions and Relevance The clinical benefit of lowering Lp(a) is likely to be proportional to the absolute reduction in Lp(a) concentration. Large absolute reductions in Lp(a) of approximately 100 mg/dL may be required to produce a clinically meaningful reduction in the risk of CHD similar in magnitude to what can be achieved by lowering LDL-C level by 38.67 mg/dL (ie, 1 mmol/L).

/pdf/association-of-lpa-variants-with-risk-of-coronary-disease-3jhkntlbsi.pdf

Association of LPA Variants With Risk of Coronary Disease and the Implications for Lipoprotein(a)-Lowering Therapies A Mendelian Randomization Analysis

Objective. —To assess prospectively the risk of myocardial infarction (Ml) associated with elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]). Design. —Nested case-control study using prospectively collected plasma samples. Setting. —Participants in the Physicians' Health Study. Participants. —A total of 14916 male physicians aged 40 to 84 years with no prior history of Ml or stroke provided plasma samples at baseline and were followed up prospectively for an average period of 60.2 months. Samples from 296 physicians who subsequently developed Ml were analyzed for Lp(a) level together with paired controls, matched for smoking status and age. Main Outcome Measure. —Fatal or nonfatal acute Ml. Results. —The distribution of Lp(a) level among cases was virtually identical to that of controls (P=.88), and there was no significant difference between groups for median Lp(a) levels (103.0 mg/L vs 102.5 mg/L;P=.73). In analyses controlling for age and smoking status, we found no evidence of association between increasing level of Lp(a) and risk of Ml (relative risks from lowest to highest quintiles of Lp(a): 1.00, 0.97, 0.83, 0.88, and 1.07;Pfor trend=.93) or a threshold effect at any prespecified cutoff of Lp(a) level (relative risks associated with Lp[a] levels above the 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, and 95th percentiles of the control distribution, respectively: 1.04,1.00,1.19,1.00, and 1.07; allPvalues nonsignificant). Further adjustment for both lipid and nonlipid cardiovascular risk factors had no material impact. Conclusions. —In this prospective study of predominantly middle-aged white men, we found no evidence of association between Lp(a) level and risk of future Ml. These data do not support the use of Lp(a) level as a screening tool to define cardiovascular risk among this population. (JAMA. 1993;270:2195-2199)

A Prospective Study of Lipoprotein(a) and the Risk of Myocardial Infarction

Plasma lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], a low density lipoprotein particle with an attached apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)], varies widely in concentration between individuals. These concentration differences are heritable and inversely related to the number of kringle 4 repeats in the apo(a) gene. To define the genetic determinants of plasma Lp(a) levels, plasma Lp(a) concentrations and apo(a) genotypes were examined in 48 nuclear Caucasian families. Apo(a) genotypes were determined using a newly developed pulsed-field gel electrophoresis method which distinguished 19 different genotypes at the apo(a) locus. The apo(a) gene itself was found to account for virtually all the genetic variability in plasma Lp(a) levels. This conclusion was reached by analyzing plasma Lp(a) levels in siblings who shared zero, one, or two apo(a) genes that were identical by descent (ibd). Siblings with both apo(a) alleles ibd (n = 72) have strikingly similar plasma Lp(a) levels (r = 0.95), whereas those who shared no apo(a) alleles (n = 52), had dissimilar concentrations (r = -0.23). The apo(a) gene was estimated to be responsible for 91% of the variance of plasma Lp(a) concentration. The number of kringle 4 repeats in the apo(a) gene accounted for 69% of the variation, and yet to be defined cis-acting sequences at the apo(a) locus accounted for the remaining 22% of the inter-individual variation in plasma Lp(a) levels. During the course of these studies we observed the de novo generation of a new apo(a) allele, an event that occurred once in 376 meioses.

/pdf/apolipoprotein-a-gene-accounts-for-greater-than-90-of-the-5cix0arhtf.pdf

Apolipoprotein(a) gene accounts for greater than 90 % of the variation in plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

We encountered an error while loading the panel. Please try refreshing the page.

Something went wrong

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

Anyone with the link can view this chat. You can switch it back to private anytime.

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Jingping Lin

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Apolipoprotein(a) gene accounts for greater than 90 % of the variation in plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations