Applied Evidence
Pitfalls & pearls for 8 common lab tests
It can be tough to incorporate concepts like sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value into everyday practice, but lab...
Michael Wootten, MD
Debra B. Stulberg, MD
Shailendra Prasad, MBBS, MPH
Kate Rowland, MD, MS
North Memorial Family Medicine Residency, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (Drs. Wootten and Prasad); University of Chicago Department of Family Medicine (Dr. Stulberg); Rush-Copley Medical Center, Chicago (Dr. Rowland)
PURLs EDITOR
Anne Mounsey, MD
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
As expected, compared to individuals in the first LDL tertile (<100 mg/dL), those with a higher LDL had an increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-2.08 [second tertile] and HR=2.10; 95% CI, 1.70-2.61 [third tertile]). The prognostic value of fasting vs nonfasting status for predicting all-cause mortality was similar, as suggested by the C-statistics (0.59 [95% CI, 0.56-0.61] vs 0.58 [95% CI, 0.56-0.60]; P=.73).
The risk of cardiovascular mortality also increased with increasing LDL tertiles. As was the case with all-cause mortality, the prognostic value of fasting vs nonfasting status was similar for predicting cardiovascular mortality as observed by similar C-statistics (0.64 [95% CI, 0.62-0.66] vs 0.63 [95% CI, 0.60-0.65]; P=.49). In addition, fasting vs nonfasting C-statistics were similar for both diabetic and non-diabetic patients.
WHAT’S NEW: Results suggest fasting may no longer be necessary
While obtaining a fasting lipid panel is recommended by multiple guidelines and has become traditional practice, the need for fasting originated primarily out of concern for the effect of postprandial triglycerides on calculating LDL. This is the first study that compared the prognostic value of fasting and nonfasting LDL values for predicting mortality; it demonstrated that they are essentially the same.
CAVEATS: Fasting and nonfasting measurements were taken from different patients
The only challenge: It may be difficult for physicians to change a longstanding practice of checking fasting lipid profiles.The fasting and nonfasting lipids were not collected from the same individuals. However, to decrease confounding, Doran et al1 factored in multiple cardiovascular risk factors as covariables.
Another caveat is that individuals with triglyceride levels >400 mg/dL were excluded. However, investigators ran a sensitivity analysis that included individuals with triglycerides >400 mg/dL and found no significant difference in C-statistics between the fasting and nonfasting groups.
CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: Dropping the requirement to fast goes against established practice
It may be difficult for physicians to change a longstanding practice of checking fasting lipid profiles, but we see no other barriers to adopting this recommendation.
* The C-statistic is the probability that predicting the outcome is better than chance and is used to compare the goodness of fit of logistic regression models. Values for this measure range from 0.5 to 1.0. A value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction of membership in a group and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.
Copyright © 2015 Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
JFP06402113_methodology | 52.03 KB |
It can be tough to incorporate concepts like sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value into everyday practice, but lab...