Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • Standards of Medical Care
    • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • New and Noteworthy
    • Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Special Collections
    • Recent ADA Position Statements
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • Meet the Editors
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Journal Policies
    • For Authors
    • For Reviewers
    • For Advertisers
  • Subscriptions
    • Manage Online Access
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Diabetes Discovery
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • Standards of Medical Care
    • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • New and Noteworthy
    • Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Special Collections
    • Recent ADA Position Statements
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • Meet the Editors
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Journal Policies
    • For Authors
    • For Reviewers
    • For Advertisers
  • Subscriptions
    • Manage Online Access
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Diabetes Discovery
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Peer Review
Epidemiology/Health Services/Psychosocial Research

Joint Distribution of Non-HDL and LDL Cholesterol and Coronary Heart Disease Risk Prediction Among Individuals With and Without Diabetes

  1. Jian Liu, MD, PHD1,
  2. Christopher Sempos, PHD2,
  3. Richard P. Donahue, PHD3,
  4. Joan Dorn, PHD3,
  5. Maurizio Trevisan, MD, MS3 and
  6. Scott M. Grundy, MD, PHD4
  1. 1Brock University, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
  3. 3State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York
  4. 4University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas
  1. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Jian Liu, MD, PhD, Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, Canada. E-mail: jliu{at}brocku.ca
Diabetes Care 2005 Aug; 28(8): 1916-1921. https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.28.8.1916
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—To assess coronary heart disease (CHD) risk within levels of the joint distribution of non-HDL and LDL cholesterol among individuals with and without diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We used four publicly available data sets for this pooled post hoc analysis and confined the eligible subjects to white individuals aged ≥30 years and free of CHD at baseline (12,660 men and 6,721 women). Diabetes status was defined as either “reported by physician-diagnosed and on medication” or having a fasting glucose level ≥126 mg/dl at the baseline examination. The primary end point was CHD death. Within diabetes categories, risk was assessed based on lipid levels (in mg/dl): non-HDL <130 and LDL <100 (group 1); non-HDL <130 and LDL ≥100 (group 2); non-HDL ≥130 and LDL <100 (group 3); and non-HDL ≥130 and LDL ≥100 (group 4). Group 1 within those without diabetes was the overall reference group.

RESULTS—Of the subjects studied, ∼6% of men and 4% of women were defined as having diabetes. A total of 773 CHD deaths occurred during the average 13 years of follow-up time. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate the relative risk (RR) of CHD death. Those with diabetes had a 200% higher RR than those without diabetes. In a multivariate model, CHD risk in those with diabetes did not increase with increasing LDL, whereas it did increase with increasing non-HDL: RR (95% confidence interval) for group 1: 5.7 (2.0–16.8); group 2: 5.7 (1.6–20.7); group 3: 7.2 (2.6–19.8); and group 4: 7.1 (3.7–13.6).

CONCLUSIONS—Non-HDL is a stronger predictor of CHD death among those with diabetes than LDL and should be given more consideration in the clinical approach to risk reduction among diabetic patients.

  • ADA, American Diabetes Association
  • ATP III, Adult Treatment Panel III
  • CHD, coronary heart disease
  • CVD, cardiovascular disease
  • FCS, Framingham Cohort Study
  • FOS, Framingham Offspring Study
  • LRCF, Lipid Research Clinics Prevalence Follow-up Study
  • MRFIT, Multiple Risk Factors Intervention Trial

Patients with diabetes have more than a 200% greater risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) than nondiabetic individuals (1). Growing evidence suggests that dyslipidemia contributes significantly to the excess risk of CVD (2). Retrospective subgroup analysis and prospective studies have shown that lipid-lowering therapy can slow the progression of atherosclerosis and decrease the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes (3).

Common characteristic features of diabetic dyslipidemia are the elevation of plasma triglycerides and triglyceride-rich VLDL cholesterol, reduced HDL cholesterol, and an increased number of small dense LDL cholesterol particles (2). Based on epidemiology studies linking diabetic dyslipidemia to coronary heart disease (CHD), together with preliminary evidence from the major statin trials, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) has updated guidelines that outline the priorities for the treatment of dyslipidemia among patients with diabetes (4). The National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) defined diabetes as a CHD risk equivalent with an LDL treatment goal of <100 mg/dl (5). Although patients are divided into risk categories according to their levels of LDL, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides, both the ADA and the ATP III guidelines emphasized that LDL lowering remains the top priority for lipid lowering, and non-HDL is the secondary goal of treatment when the triglyceride level is >200 mg/dl.

Because diabetic patients typically have an increase in atherogenic triglyceride-rich lipoprotein VLDL levels, there is a suggestion that non-HDL cholesterol, which is defined as the difference between total and HDL cholesterol, may be more appropriate as the therapeutic target in patients with diabetes than LDL cholesterol (2). The rationale for this recommendation is that: 1) non-HDL cholesterol includes all potential athergenic lipoproteins, including LDL, VLDL, and its remnants; 2) estimates of LDL by Friedewald formula (6) become increasingly inaccurate as triglyceride levels increase (7); and therefore, 3) using LDL alone as the therapeutic target may not be sensitive enough to manage dyslipidemia among those diabetic patients.

To address this question, we used four publicly available data sets, including the Framingham Cohort Study (FCS), the Framingham Offspring Study (FOS), the Lipid Research Clinics Prevalence Follow-up Study (LRCF), and the Multiple Risk Factors Intervention Trials (MRFIT) Usual Care Group, to evaluate the role of the joint distribution of non-HDL and LDL cholesterol as predictors of CHD death risk among individuals with and without diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The data sets used in this study are all prospective cohort studies designed to study CVD and its risk factors. We confined our consideration to white men and women because of a limited number of blacks and other minorities, and we focused on participants aged ≥30 and free of CHD at baseline. The details of each of the following studies, in terms of study design and data collection, have been described elsewhere: FCS (8), FOS (9), LRCF (10), and MRFIT (11). A brief summary of each study is shown in online appendix 2 (available from http://care.diabetesjournals.org). Although each study used different questionnaires, similar questions were asked to assess each participant’s lifestyle factors and health outcomes. Diabetes status was defined as either “reported by physician-diagnosed and on medication” or having a fasting glucose level ≥126 mg/dl at the baseline examination based on the ADA’s new definition of diabetes (12).

Laboratory procedures

The glucose and lipid profile were determined from fresh plasma after overnight fast (≥9 h). Glucose level was determined using either the techniques described by Cooper (13) or those of Bathelmai and Czok (14), but they were comparable. Total cholesterol was assayed by the Abell-Kendall method (15) in the FCS and FOS and by a Technicon AutoAnalyzer in the LRCF and MRFIT. The values of total cholesterol in the LRCF and MRFIT were standardized to the Abell-Kendall method. HDL cholesterol in all studies was assayed by manganese-heparin precipitation. Triglycerides were measured using the serum automated Lederer-Kessler method (16) in the FCS and FOS, but a calibration adjustment was applied to the measurements in the lipid study to match the average levels obtained by the Lipid Standardization Laboratory (17). In the LRCF and MRFIT, a preparation of an isopropanol extract of plasma was treated with a zerolite mixture to remove phospholipids, glucose, and bilirubin, and then plasma triglyceride levels were estimated fluorimetrically. All methods of triglyceride measurement are comparable because they were all standardized to the Lipid Research Clinics methods. LDL cholesterol in the FCS and FOS was estimated indirectly by use of the Friedewald formula when triglycerides were <400 mg/dl (6) and was estimated directly for triglycerides ≥400 mg/dl after ultracentrifugation of plasma and measurement of cholesterol in the bottom fraction (plasma density <1.006). In the LRCF, LDL cholesterol was determined by ultracentrifugation. The level of LDL cholesterol in the MRFIT was estimated indirectly using the Friedwald formula when triglycerides were <300 mg/dl and estimated directly by ultracentrifugation for triglycerides ≥300 mg/dl. Non-HDL cholesterol is defined as the difference between total and HDL cholesterol.

Ascertainment of CHD

In the FCS and FOS, the end point diagnoses were based on a review of medical records by a committee of the FCS investigators. The diagnosis of CHD included fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, sudden cardiovascular death, and acute coronary insufficiency (8). In the LRCF, each participant’s vital status was followed prospectively to provide data on subsequent mortality. The protocol included annual mail and telephone contact with participants, but there was no clinical reexamination or assessment of morbidity. When a death was discovered, a copy of the death certificate was obtained, and the attending physician and next of kin were interviewed. Two members of a panel of five cardiologists, blinded to the participant’s identity and baseline characteristics, coded the cause of death as CHD, CVD (which included CHD), or “other.” Disagreements between the two cardiologists were settled by the entire panel (18). In the MRFIT, the vital status of each man was checked by clinical center staff during the trial and at the termination of active intervention in February 1982. Then, vital status was determined from the National Death Index and Social Security Administration. Cause-specific death rates are based on coding of death certificates by trained nosologists, using the ICD-9 (19). Two nosologists independently coded each death certificate, and a third nosologist adjudicated any disagreement (20). Using the ICD-9, deaths from CHD were denoted by codes 402, 410–414, and 429.2 (21).

Assessment of other potential confounding factors

Age at baseline was calculated by the date of birth and the date of exam when plasma lipoproteins were measured for each cohort. Smoking status was defined as current cigarette smokers and noncurrent smokers based on self-report from the baseline questionnaire. BMI was calculated as the ratio of weight (in kilograms) to height (in meters squared) measured at the baseline examination. Systolic blood pressure (in mmHg) was the average of two readings at the baseline examination.

Statistical analysis

Follow-up time was calculated as the difference between the date of end point and the date of blood draw from each cohort. The end point was defined as either death from CHD or end of study, which varies from cohort to cohort. Means and proportions were calculated for the CHD risk factors at baseline based on diabetes status. Student’s t tests and χ2 tests were used for comparisons of means and the proportions. Because of the limited number of individuals with diabetes in each cohort, only pooled analyses were performed. Based on ATP III guidelines, individuals with diabetes are defined as a CHD risk equivalent, and the therapeutic goal for dyslipidemia management is set as an LDL cholesterol level <100 mg/dl. For non-HDL cholesterol, the cut points are 30 mg/dl higher than that for LDL cholesterol to account for the VLDL cholesterol fraction. Therefore, we divided the distributions of these two lipid parameters in the following way: LDL cholesterol: <100, 100–129, and ≥130 mg/dl; and non-HDL cholesterol: <130, 130–159, and ≥160 mg/dl. For other lipid parameters, we followed the recommendations of the ATP III guidelines as follows: total cholesterol: <200, 200–239, and ≥240 mg/dl; HDL cholesterol: ≥60, 40–59, and <40 mg/dl; triglycerides: <150, 150–199, and ≥200 mg/dl. The risk of CHD death within each level of the various lipid parameters was estimated for individuals with and without diabetes. The lowest category of each lipid parameter from those without diabetes, except for HDL cholesterol, where the highest from those without diabetes was used, was used as the reference group. As a result, five indicator variables were created for each individual in the data set. For example, the reference group for LDL cholesterol was individuals with LDL <100 (mg/dl) and without diabetes, and the five indicator variables were: 1) LDL 100–129 and without diabetes (1 = yes, 0 = no); 2) LDL ≥130 and without diabetes (1 = yes, 0 = no); 3) LDL <100 and with diabetes (1 = yes, 0 = no); 4) LDL 100–129 and with diabetes (1 = yes, 0 = no); and 5) LDL ≥130 with diabetes (1 = yes, 0 = no). For the joint distribution of non-HDL and LDL cholesterol, four groups were created based on lipid levels (in mg/dl): 1) non-HDL <130 and LDL <100; 2) non-HDL <130 and LDL ≥100; 3) non-HDL ≥130 and LDL <100; and 4) non-HDL ≥130 and LDL ≥100.

Group 1 within those without diabetes was the overall reference group, and seven indicator variables were created. Cox proportional hazards models were used in three approaches to estimate the relative risk (RR) of CHD death for non-HDL and LDL with adjustment for age, cohort study, current smoking status, BMI, systolic blood pressure, and sex (when applicable). First, both non-HDL and LDL were added into the model as continuous variables, and their impacts on CHD death were estimated by diabetes status and by sex. Second, non-HDL and LDL were retained as continuous variables, and diabetes status was included as well as interaction terms between diabetes status and non-HDL and between diabetes status and LDL. Finally, the RRs for grouped non-HDL, LDL, and other lipids were estimated. We also conducted receiver operating characteristic analyses and compared the c-statistics for the overall predictive value of non-HDL and LDL as a continuous variable separately as well as the category variables separately in the model, with adjustment for the covariates mentioned above (22). All analyses were performed using SAS statistical software, version 8.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

RESULTS

There were 12,660 men and 6,721 women from the four cohorts included in this analysis (Table 1). The proportion of individuals with diabetes is higher in the FCS than in the other cohorts. Overall, ∼6% of men and ∼4% of women were categorized as having diabetes status.

Overall, individuals with diabetes were older and were more likely to be male; to have higher levels of total, VLDL, and non-HDL cholesterol and triglycerides; to have lower levels of HDL cholesterol; to have higher levels of systolic blood pressure; and to have a larger BMI (Table 2). Except for current smoking status and LDL cholesterol levels, all differences between individuals with and without diabetes were statistically significant.

During the average ∼13 years of follow-up, 114 CHD deaths occurred in 1,018 individuals with diabetes, and there were 659 CHD deaths among the 18,363 individuals without diabetes. Non-HDL and LDL were initially considered in the Cox regression model as continuous variables and examined by diabetes status with adjustment for age, sex, study, BMI, systolic blood pressure, and current smoking status. Among those without diabetes, each increase by 1 mg/dl of non-HDL cholesterol was associated with a 5% increased risk for CHD death (95% CI 1.001–1.008, P < 0,001), and every 1-mg/dl increase of LDL cholesterol was associated with a 4% increased risk for CHD death (1.001–1.008, P = 0.02). These results were nearly identical among those with diabetes. When stratified by sex and diabetic status, both men and women had similar RRs for CHD from non-HDL and LDL. These latter findings reached statistical significance only for non-HDL among men (P = 0.005 for those with diabetes and P = 0.02 for those without diabetes) and for LDL among those without diabetes (P = 0.02). There was no evidence of an interaction between diabetic status and lipid level; the RR estimates were ∼1.0 for the interaction terms (P > 0.5). Overall, the c-statistics from ROC analysis for non-HDL and LDL was similar (0.799 vs. 0.796 as continuous variables; 0.798 vs. 0.797 using the cut points previously described).

When LDL, non-HDL, and other lipid measurements were considered as categorical variables as described above (see research design and methods), all lipid parameters were strongly positively associated with the risk for CHD death among individuals with and without diabetes, except for HDL cholesterol, which was negatively associated with the risk for CHD death (Table 3). The associations were stronger among individuals with diabetes; generally, the RRs for individuals with diabetes were ∼200% higher than that for individuals without diabetes in corresponding lipid levels.

The risk for CHD death for the joint distribution of non-HDL and LDL cholesterol by diabetes status is shown in Fig. 1 (see online Appendix 1 for the RR estimates and 95% CIs for each cell). Compared with the reference group (without diabetes with non-HDL <130 mg/dl and LDL <100 mg/dl), the RR (95% CI) for CHD death among those with diabetes did not increase with increasing level of LDL, whereas it did increase with increasing level of non-HDL: group 1: 5.7 (2.0–16.8); group 2: 5.7 (1.6–20.7); group 3: 7.2 (2.6–19.8); and group 4: 7.1 (3.7–13.6). Among those without diabetes, the risk for CHD death increased with higher levels for both non-HDL and LDL cholesterol: group 2: 3.3 (1.6–6.7); group 3: 2.3 (0.9–5.4); and group 4: 3.8 (2.0–7.1).

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this pooled prospective cohort confirmed that diabetes status is a strong risk factor for CHD death. Our results indicate that the categorical 130 mg/dl cutoff point for non-HDL appears to be a better predictor of the risk for CHD death than the 100 mg/dl cutoff point for LDL among those with diabetes, and it may serve as a useful clinical tool. The failure of the ROC analyses to find one lipid parameter superior to another may not be surprising because the interpretation of the RRs is, at least in part, dependent on the measurement scale, the cut points used, and the manner in which the variables are modeled (23).

Several other studies have shown that the level of non-HDL cholesterol was a stronger predictor of CHD or CVD risk among patients with diabetes. In the Health Professionals’ Follow-up Study (24), non-HDL cholesterol was a strong predictor of CVD in 746 diabetic men aged 46–81 years during a 6-year follow-up. The RR for the highest quartile of non-HDL cholesterol was significantly higher than that for LDL cholesterol: 2.34 (95% CI 1.26–4.43) vs. 1.74 (0.99–3.06). In a Finish cohort study (25), 1,059 middle-aged men and women with type 2 diabetes were followed for 7 years, and it was found that higher levels of non-HDL cholesterol were independently associated with a twofold increase in the risk for CHD death or morbidity, although there was no direct comparison between LDL and non-HDL cholesterol for the predictive values of CHD. In the Strong Heart Study cohort (26) of 2,108 American-Indian men and women aged 45–74 years with diabetes, the hazard ratios for the highest tertile of non-HDL cholesterol were higher than those for LDL cholesterol among both diabetic men and women, although the CIs were overlapping.

This is among the first studies to evaluate the predictive value of the joint distribution of non-HDL and LDL cholesterol among individuals with and without diabetes, although two of the three studies mentioned above performed some comparisons between LDL and non-HDL cholesterol. According to ATP III guidelines, for patients with diabetes, the goal for LDL cholesterol–lowering therapy is an LDL cholesterol level <100 mg/dl. For a baseline LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl among those with diabetes, no further LDL cholesterol–lowering therapy was recommended. Evidence from the subgroup analysis of patients with diabetes from the Heart Protection Study (HPS) trial indicated that even among those diabetic patients with very low LDL cholesterol (<116 mg/dl) at entry, a marginally significant risk reduction of CHD event was observed with LDL cholesterol–lowering therapy (simvastain) (27). This suggested that the goal for LDL cholesterol therapy among patients with diabetes can be set even lower than currently recommended (28). Our results further suggest that non-HDL might be a better primary target for lipid reduction than LDL among patients with diabetes. The potential value of using non-HDL as the dyslipidemia management tool among patients with diabetes needs to be further investigated.

There are several reasons why the level of non-HDL may be superior to that of LDL in CHD risk prediction among individuals with diabetes (29). First, non-HDL cholesterol contains all potential atherogenic lipoproteins, including VLDL, intermediate-density lipoprotein, and LDL, whereas LDL cholesterol does not. The characterized dyslipidemia among diabetic individuals is elevated triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (VLDL and intermediate-density lipoprotein) and decreased HDL. The use of LDL alone will ignore the contribution of those triglyceride-rich lipoproteins in the development of CHD. Second, in the clinical lipoprotein analysis, the level of LDL cholesterol is usually estimated using Friedewald’s formula, based on the measurements of total and HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, which is used to estimate the value of VLDL cholesterol. However, the estimation of LDL by this formula becomes progressively less accurate as the triglyceride level increases, and the formula is no longer considered accurate enough for use when triglyceride levels reach 400 mg/dl. Because of elevated triglyceride levels in patients with diabetes, the level of LDL estimated by this formula is likely to be unreliable. In contrast, the level of non-HDL can be easily calculated from the difference between the levels of total and HDL cholesterol. In addition, there is no assumption about the composition of VLDL particles; thus, the non-HDL level can be calculated in the nonfasting state or in the setting of hypertriglyceridemia.

Among the main limitations of this study are that it is a post hoc analysis based on the new ADA definition of diabetes applied to this pooled cohort and also that only ∼11% of population met the ATP III goal for an LDL level <100 mg/dl, whereas 15% of the population experienced a non-HDL level <130 mg/dl. Thus, the results from this analysis may not be generalizable to the general population. However, the ATP III recommendations for screening and treatment were established for those with an elevated absolute risk of CHD, which the majority of participants in this analysis would most likely meet by today’s standards. There was no information for us to distinguish type 2 from type 1 diabetes, although the majority of these adults likely had type 2 diabetes, given its much higher prevalence in the general population (1). There are several significant strengths to this investigation, including the large sample size from this pooled cohort and also that each of the studies included was originally designed to examine the etiologies of CHD risk and that our end point (CHD death) was well documented.

In conclusion, these results suggest that non-HDL cholesterol level is a stronger predictor of CHD death than LDL cholesterol among those with diabetes, and they further suggest that VLDL cholesterol (and/or VLDL triglyceride) may play a critical role in the development of CHD among those with diabetes. These findings should be considered in the clinical approach to risk reduction among diabetic patients.

Figure 1—
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1—

RR of CHD mortality for joint distribution of non-HDL and LDL cholesterol measured at baseline by diabetes status (pooled analysis). RR are from proportional hazard model adjusted for age, sex, systolic blood pressure, BMI, current smoking, and study sources.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1—

Baseline characteristics of participants by study sources and sex

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2—

Comparison of selected variables at baseline by diabetes status

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3—

Relative risk of coronary heart disease mortality for various levels of lipids measured at baseline by diabetes status, pooled analysis

Acknowledgments

The Framingham Heart Study, LRCF, and MRFIT are conducted and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) in collaboration with the study investigators.

This article was prepared using a limited-access dataset obtained from the NHLBI and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the individual studies or the NHLBI.

Footnotes

  • S.M.G. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Sankyo, Schering Plough, Fournier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca and honoraria and grant support from Merk, Abbott, and Kos.

    Additional information for this article can be found in an online appendix at http://care.diabetesjournals.org.

    A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

    • Accepted May 11, 2005.
    • Received February 24, 2005.
  • DIABETES CARE

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    Grundy SM, Howard B, Smith S Jr, Eckel R, Redberg R, Bonow RO: Prevention Conference VI: Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease: executive summary: conference proceeding for healthcare professionals from a special writing group of the American Heart Association. Circulation 105: 2231–2239, 2002
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Garg A, Grundy SM: Management of dyslipidemia in NIDDM. Diabetes Care 13: 153–169, 1990
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Haffner SM: Management of dyslipidemia in adults with diabetes (Technical Review). Diabetes Care 21: 160–178, 1998
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    American Diabetes Association: Management of dyslipidemia in adults with diabetes (Position Statement). Diabetes Care 25: S74–S77, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  5. ↵
    Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults: Executive Summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA 285: 2486–2497, 2001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS: Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem 18: 499–502, 1972
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    Demacker PN, Hijmans AG, Brenninkmeijer BJ, Jansen AP, van ’t Laar A: Five methods for determining low-density lipoprotein cholesterol compared. Clin Chem 30: 1797–1800, 1984
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Dawber TR: The Framingham Study. The Epidemiology of Atherosclerotic Disease. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1980
  9. ↵
    Kannel WB, Feinleib M, McNamara PM, Garrison RJ, Castelli WP: An investigation of coronary heart disease in families: the Framingham Offspring Study. Am J Epidemiol 110: 281–290, 1979
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    The Lipid Research Clinics Program Epidemiology Committee: Plasma lipid distributions in selected North American populations: the lipid Research Clinics Program Prevalence Study. Circulation 60: 427–439, 1979
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group: Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: risk factor changes and mortality results. JAMA 248: 1465–1477, 1982
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    The Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus: Report of Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 20: 1183–1197, 1997
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    Cooper GR: Methods for Determining the Amount of Glucose in Blood. CRC Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 4: 101–145, 1973
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Barthelmai W, Czok R: [Enzymatic determinations of glucose in the blood, cerebrospinal fluid and urine.] Klin Wochenschr 40: 585–589, 1962 [article in German]
  15. ↵
    Abell LL, Levy RI, Brodie BB, Kendall FE: Simplified method for the estimation of total cholesterol in serum and demonstration of its specificity. J Biol Chem 195: 357–366, 1952
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    Kessler G, Lederer H: Flourometric measurements of triglycerides of triglycerides. In Technicon Symposia: Automation in Analytical Chemistry. Skeggs LT, Ed. New York, 1965, p. 341–344
  17. ↵
    LRC Program: Manual of Laboratory Options, Manual of Laboratory Operations: Lipid and Lipoprotein Analysis. Vol 1. Bethesda, MD, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Dept of Health, Education and Welfare, 1982
  18. ↵
    Califf RM, Mark DB, Harrell FE Jr, Hlatky MA, Lee KL, Rosati RA, Pryor DB: Importance of clinical measure of ischemia in the prognosis of patients with documented coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 11: 20–26, 1988
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    World Health Organization: International Classification of Diseases: Manual of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death, Ninth revision. Vol. 1. Geneva, World Health Organization, 1977, p. 15–17
  20. ↵
    Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group: Mortality after 10 1/2 years for hypertensive participants in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Circulation 82: 1616–1628, 1990
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    Sempos C, Cooper R, Kovar MG, McMillen M: Divergence of the recent trends in coronary mortality for the four major race-sex groups in the United States. Am J Public Health 78: 1422–1427, 1988
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    Pepe MS, Janes H, Longton G, Leisenring W, Newcomb P: Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening maker. Am J Epidemiol 159: 882–890, 2004
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    Kattan MW: Judging new markers by their ability to improve predictive accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 95: 634–635, 2003
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    Jiang R, Schulze MB, Li T, Rifai N, Stampfer MJ, Rimm EB, Hu FB: Non-HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B predict cardiovascular disease events among men with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 27: 1991–1997, 2004
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    Lehto S, Rönnemaa T, Haffner SM, Kallio V, Laakso M: Dyslipidemia and hyperglycemia predict coronary heart disease events in middle-aged patients with NIDDM. Diabetes 46: 1354–1359, 1997
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    Lu W, Resnick HE, Jablonski KA, Jones KL, Jain AK, Howard WJ, Robbins DC, Howard BV: Non-HDL cholesterol as a predictor of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes: the Strong Heart Study. Diabetes Care 26: 16–23, 2003
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    Collins R, Armitage J, Parish S, Sleigh P, Peto R, Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group: MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol-lowering with simvastatin in 5963 people with diabetes: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 361: 2005–2016, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, Brewer HB Jr, Clark LT, Hunninghake DB, Pasternak RC, Smith SC Jr, Stone NJ, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Heart Association: Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation 110: 227–239, 2004 [erratum Circulation110:763, 2004].
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    Grundy SM: Low-density lipoprotein, non-high-density lipoprotein, and apolipoprotein B as targets of lipid-lowering therapy. Circulation 106: 2526–2529, 2002
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 28 (8)

In this Issue

August 2005, 28(8)
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Joint Distribution of Non-HDL and LDL Cholesterol and Coronary Heart Disease Risk Prediction Among Individuals With and Without Diabetes
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
Citation Tools
Joint Distribution of Non-HDL and LDL Cholesterol and Coronary Heart Disease Risk Prediction Among Individuals With and Without Diabetes
Jian Liu, Christopher Sempos, Richard P. Donahue, Joan Dorn, Maurizio Trevisan, Scott M. Grundy
Diabetes Care Aug 2005, 28 (8) 1916-1921; DOI: 10.2337/diacare.28.8.1916

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Joint Distribution of Non-HDL and LDL Cholesterol and Coronary Heart Disease Risk Prediction Among Individuals With and Without Diabetes
Jian Liu, Christopher Sempos, Richard P. Donahue, Joan Dorn, Maurizio Trevisan, Scott M. Grundy
Diabetes Care Aug 2005, 28 (8) 1916-1921; DOI: 10.2337/diacare.28.8.1916
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Suboptimal Use of Cardioprotective Drugs in Newly Treated Elderly Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes
  • Disparities in Diabetes Care Between Smokers and Nonsmokers
  • Updated and Revised Diabetes Family Conflict Scale
Show more Epidemiology/Health Services/Psychosocial Research

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2018 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.