Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy
Background: Elevated remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) levels increase cardiovascular disease risk. However, RLP-C measurement methods are not standardized, leading to variations across studies.Objective: To evaluate the effect of ezetimibe (Eze) + statins vs statin monotherapy on RLP-C using...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Toth, Peter P. [verfasserIn] Bays, Harold E. [verfasserIn] Brown, W. Virgil [verfasserIn] Catapano, Alberico L. [verfasserIn] Davidson, Michael H. [verfasserIn] Farnier, Michel [verfasserIn] Tomassini, Joanne E. [verfasserIn] Jensen, Erin [verfasserIn] Polis, Adam B. [verfasserIn] Tershakovec, Andrew M. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2019 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Journal of clinical lipidology - Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2007, 13, Seite 997-1007.e8 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:13 ; pages:997-1007.e8 |
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.jacl.2019.09.001 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV003290328 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV003290328 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230524151635.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230430s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.jacl.2019.09.001 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV003290328 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S1933-2874(19)30273-9 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q DE-600 |
| 084 | |a 35.78 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Toth, Peter P. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Background: Elevated remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) levels increase cardiovascular disease risk. However, RLP-C measurement methods are not standardized, leading to variations across studies.Objective: To evaluate the effect of ezetimibe (Eze) + statins vs statin monotherapy on RLP-C using immunoseparation (IM), vertical auto profile (VAP) ultracentrifugation, and calculated RLP-C measurement methods.Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated data pooled from 3 first-line (all-statin [simvastatin 10/20/40/80 mg] vs Eze + statin [Eze 10 mg + simvastatin]) and 2 second-line (statin [atorvastatin uptitrated to 40/80 mg] vs statin + Eze [atorvastatin 20/40 mg + Eze 10 mg]) studies. Similarity of RLP-C methods was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RLP-C changes and percent changes from baseline were measured by all 3 methods in first-line and VAP and calculated methods in second-line studies.Results: Correlations between methods were generally moderate to strong for RLP-C levels, changes, and percent changes across treatment groups (r = 0.29–0.79) but with little evidence of agreement by Bland-Altman plots. Baseline RLP-C levels for Eze + statin vs all-statin groups were lower by IM (14.0 vs 14.0) compared with VAP (36.9 vs 35.9) and calculated (32.8 vs 33.3) methods. RLP-C changes (mg/dL) and percent changes from baseline were significantly greater (P < .01) with Eze + statins vs statins by VAP, calculated, and IM methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −12.0, −2.0 and −5.4, and −1.5 and −12.1, respectively) in first-line, and VAP and calculated methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −19.9 and −2.0 and −7.3) in second-line studies.Conclusion: Although the 3 methods showed little agreement, each supported Eze + statins for achieving greater RLP-C reductions vs statin monotherapy; variability of results reinforces urgent need to standardize RLP-C measurements. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Ezetimibe | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Immunoseparation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Remnant lipoprotein cholesterol | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Statin | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Vertical auto profile ultracentrifugation | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bays, Harold E. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Brown, W. Virgil |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Catapano, Alberico L. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Davidson, Michael H. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Farnier, Michel |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tomassini, Joanne E. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jensen, Erin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Polis, Adam B. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tershakovec, Andrew M. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of clinical lipidology |d Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2007 |g 13, Seite 997-1007.e8 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)534059252 |w (DE-600)2365061-8 |w (DE-576)284926973 |x 1876-4789 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:13 |g pages:997-1007.e8 |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_32 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_90 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_100 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_101 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_224 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_370 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_702 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2001 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2004 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2006 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2008 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2015 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2020 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2021 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2025 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2026 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2027 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2034 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2038 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2044 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2048 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2049 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2050 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2056 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2059 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2061 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2064 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2065 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2068 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2088 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2113 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2118 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2122 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2129 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2143 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2147 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2148 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2152 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2153 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2190 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2232 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2470 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2507 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2522 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4035 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4046 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4242 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4251 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4326 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4333 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4334 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4335 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4393 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 35.78 |j Lipide |x Biochemie |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 13 |h 997-1007.e8 | ||
| author_variant |
p p t pp ppt h e b he heb w v b wv wvb a l c al alc m h d mh mhd m f mf j e t je jet e j ej a b p ab abp a m t am amt |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:18764789:2019----::oprnrmatiorticoetrlesrmnmtosovlaefiayfz |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2019 |
| bklnumber |
35.78 |
| publishDate |
2019 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.jacl.2019.09.001 doi (DE-627)ELV003290328 (ELSEVIER)S1933-2874(19)30273-9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 35.78 bkl Toth, Peter P. verfasserin aut Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy 2019 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Elevated remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) levels increase cardiovascular disease risk. However, RLP-C measurement methods are not standardized, leading to variations across studies.Objective: To evaluate the effect of ezetimibe (Eze) + statins vs statin monotherapy on RLP-C using immunoseparation (IM), vertical auto profile (VAP) ultracentrifugation, and calculated RLP-C measurement methods.Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated data pooled from 3 first-line (all-statin [simvastatin 10/20/40/80 mg] vs Eze + statin [Eze 10 mg + simvastatin]) and 2 second-line (statin [atorvastatin uptitrated to 40/80 mg] vs statin + Eze [atorvastatin 20/40 mg + Eze 10 mg]) studies. Similarity of RLP-C methods was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RLP-C changes and percent changes from baseline were measured by all 3 methods in first-line and VAP and calculated methods in second-line studies.Results: Correlations between methods were generally moderate to strong for RLP-C levels, changes, and percent changes across treatment groups (r = 0.29–0.79) but with little evidence of agreement by Bland-Altman plots. Baseline RLP-C levels for Eze + statin vs all-statin groups were lower by IM (14.0 vs 14.0) compared with VAP (36.9 vs 35.9) and calculated (32.8 vs 33.3) methods. RLP-C changes (mg/dL) and percent changes from baseline were significantly greater (P < .01) with Eze + statins vs statins by VAP, calculated, and IM methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −12.0, −2.0 and −5.4, and −1.5 and −12.1, respectively) in first-line, and VAP and calculated methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −19.9 and −2.0 and −7.3) in second-line studies.Conclusion: Although the 3 methods showed little agreement, each supported Eze + statins for achieving greater RLP-C reductions vs statin monotherapy; variability of results reinforces urgent need to standardize RLP-C measurements. Ezetimibe Immunoseparation Remnant lipoprotein cholesterol Statin Vertical auto profile ultracentrifugation Bays, Harold E. verfasserin aut Brown, W. Virgil verfasserin aut Catapano, Alberico L. verfasserin aut Davidson, Michael H. verfasserin aut Farnier, Michel verfasserin aut Tomassini, Joanne E. verfasserin aut Jensen, Erin verfasserin aut Polis, Adam B. verfasserin aut Tershakovec, Andrew M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Journal of clinical lipidology Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2007 13, Seite 997-1007.e8 Online-Ressource (DE-627)534059252 (DE-600)2365061-8 (DE-576)284926973 1876-4789 nnns volume:13 pages:997-1007.e8 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 35.78 Lipide Biochemie AR 13 997-1007.e8 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.jacl.2019.09.001 doi (DE-627)ELV003290328 (ELSEVIER)S1933-2874(19)30273-9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 35.78 bkl Toth, Peter P. verfasserin aut Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy 2019 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Elevated remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) levels increase cardiovascular disease risk. However, RLP-C measurement methods are not standardized, leading to variations across studies.Objective: To evaluate the effect of ezetimibe (Eze) + statins vs statin monotherapy on RLP-C using immunoseparation (IM), vertical auto profile (VAP) ultracentrifugation, and calculated RLP-C measurement methods.Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated data pooled from 3 first-line (all-statin [simvastatin 10/20/40/80 mg] vs Eze + statin [Eze 10 mg + simvastatin]) and 2 second-line (statin [atorvastatin uptitrated to 40/80 mg] vs statin + Eze [atorvastatin 20/40 mg + Eze 10 mg]) studies. Similarity of RLP-C methods was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RLP-C changes and percent changes from baseline were measured by all 3 methods in first-line and VAP and calculated methods in second-line studies.Results: Correlations between methods were generally moderate to strong for RLP-C levels, changes, and percent changes across treatment groups (r = 0.29–0.79) but with little evidence of agreement by Bland-Altman plots. Baseline RLP-C levels for Eze + statin vs all-statin groups were lower by IM (14.0 vs 14.0) compared with VAP (36.9 vs 35.9) and calculated (32.8 vs 33.3) methods. RLP-C changes (mg/dL) and percent changes from baseline were significantly greater (P < .01) with Eze + statins vs statins by VAP, calculated, and IM methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −12.0, −2.0 and −5.4, and −1.5 and −12.1, respectively) in first-line, and VAP and calculated methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −19.9 and −2.0 and −7.3) in second-line studies.Conclusion: Although the 3 methods showed little agreement, each supported Eze + statins for achieving greater RLP-C reductions vs statin monotherapy; variability of results reinforces urgent need to standardize RLP-C measurements. Ezetimibe Immunoseparation Remnant lipoprotein cholesterol Statin Vertical auto profile ultracentrifugation Bays, Harold E. verfasserin aut Brown, W. Virgil verfasserin aut Catapano, Alberico L. verfasserin aut Davidson, Michael H. verfasserin aut Farnier, Michel verfasserin aut Tomassini, Joanne E. verfasserin aut Jensen, Erin verfasserin aut Polis, Adam B. verfasserin aut Tershakovec, Andrew M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Journal of clinical lipidology Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2007 13, Seite 997-1007.e8 Online-Ressource (DE-627)534059252 (DE-600)2365061-8 (DE-576)284926973 1876-4789 nnns volume:13 pages:997-1007.e8 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 35.78 Lipide Biochemie AR 13 997-1007.e8 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.jacl.2019.09.001 doi (DE-627)ELV003290328 (ELSEVIER)S1933-2874(19)30273-9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 35.78 bkl Toth, Peter P. verfasserin aut Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy 2019 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Elevated remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) levels increase cardiovascular disease risk. However, RLP-C measurement methods are not standardized, leading to variations across studies.Objective: To evaluate the effect of ezetimibe (Eze) + statins vs statin monotherapy on RLP-C using immunoseparation (IM), vertical auto profile (VAP) ultracentrifugation, and calculated RLP-C measurement methods.Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated data pooled from 3 first-line (all-statin [simvastatin 10/20/40/80 mg] vs Eze + statin [Eze 10 mg + simvastatin]) and 2 second-line (statin [atorvastatin uptitrated to 40/80 mg] vs statin + Eze [atorvastatin 20/40 mg + Eze 10 mg]) studies. Similarity of RLP-C methods was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RLP-C changes and percent changes from baseline were measured by all 3 methods in first-line and VAP and calculated methods in second-line studies.Results: Correlations between methods were generally moderate to strong for RLP-C levels, changes, and percent changes across treatment groups (r = 0.29–0.79) but with little evidence of agreement by Bland-Altman plots. Baseline RLP-C levels for Eze + statin vs all-statin groups were lower by IM (14.0 vs 14.0) compared with VAP (36.9 vs 35.9) and calculated (32.8 vs 33.3) methods. RLP-C changes (mg/dL) and percent changes from baseline were significantly greater (P < .01) with Eze + statins vs statins by VAP, calculated, and IM methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −12.0, −2.0 and −5.4, and −1.5 and −12.1, respectively) in first-line, and VAP and calculated methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −19.9 and −2.0 and −7.3) in second-line studies.Conclusion: Although the 3 methods showed little agreement, each supported Eze + statins for achieving greater RLP-C reductions vs statin monotherapy; variability of results reinforces urgent need to standardize RLP-C measurements. Ezetimibe Immunoseparation Remnant lipoprotein cholesterol Statin Vertical auto profile ultracentrifugation Bays, Harold E. verfasserin aut Brown, W. Virgil verfasserin aut Catapano, Alberico L. verfasserin aut Davidson, Michael H. verfasserin aut Farnier, Michel verfasserin aut Tomassini, Joanne E. verfasserin aut Jensen, Erin verfasserin aut Polis, Adam B. verfasserin aut Tershakovec, Andrew M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Journal of clinical lipidology Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2007 13, Seite 997-1007.e8 Online-Ressource (DE-627)534059252 (DE-600)2365061-8 (DE-576)284926973 1876-4789 nnns volume:13 pages:997-1007.e8 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 35.78 Lipide Biochemie AR 13 997-1007.e8 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.jacl.2019.09.001 doi (DE-627)ELV003290328 (ELSEVIER)S1933-2874(19)30273-9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 35.78 bkl Toth, Peter P. verfasserin aut Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy 2019 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Elevated remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) levels increase cardiovascular disease risk. However, RLP-C measurement methods are not standardized, leading to variations across studies.Objective: To evaluate the effect of ezetimibe (Eze) + statins vs statin monotherapy on RLP-C using immunoseparation (IM), vertical auto profile (VAP) ultracentrifugation, and calculated RLP-C measurement methods.Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated data pooled from 3 first-line (all-statin [simvastatin 10/20/40/80 mg] vs Eze + statin [Eze 10 mg + simvastatin]) and 2 second-line (statin [atorvastatin uptitrated to 40/80 mg] vs statin + Eze [atorvastatin 20/40 mg + Eze 10 mg]) studies. Similarity of RLP-C methods was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RLP-C changes and percent changes from baseline were measured by all 3 methods in first-line and VAP and calculated methods in second-line studies.Results: Correlations between methods were generally moderate to strong for RLP-C levels, changes, and percent changes across treatment groups (r = 0.29–0.79) but with little evidence of agreement by Bland-Altman plots. Baseline RLP-C levels for Eze + statin vs all-statin groups were lower by IM (14.0 vs 14.0) compared with VAP (36.9 vs 35.9) and calculated (32.8 vs 33.3) methods. RLP-C changes (mg/dL) and percent changes from baseline were significantly greater (P < .01) with Eze + statins vs statins by VAP, calculated, and IM methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −12.0, −2.0 and −5.4, and −1.5 and −12.1, respectively) in first-line, and VAP and calculated methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −19.9 and −2.0 and −7.3) in second-line studies.Conclusion: Although the 3 methods showed little agreement, each supported Eze + statins for achieving greater RLP-C reductions vs statin monotherapy; variability of results reinforces urgent need to standardize RLP-C measurements. Ezetimibe Immunoseparation Remnant lipoprotein cholesterol Statin Vertical auto profile ultracentrifugation Bays, Harold E. verfasserin aut Brown, W. Virgil verfasserin aut Catapano, Alberico L. verfasserin aut Davidson, Michael H. verfasserin aut Farnier, Michel verfasserin aut Tomassini, Joanne E. verfasserin aut Jensen, Erin verfasserin aut Polis, Adam B. verfasserin aut Tershakovec, Andrew M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Journal of clinical lipidology Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2007 13, Seite 997-1007.e8 Online-Ressource (DE-627)534059252 (DE-600)2365061-8 (DE-576)284926973 1876-4789 nnns volume:13 pages:997-1007.e8 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 35.78 Lipide Biochemie AR 13 997-1007.e8 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.jacl.2019.09.001 doi (DE-627)ELV003290328 (ELSEVIER)S1933-2874(19)30273-9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rda eng 610 DE-600 35.78 bkl Toth, Peter P. verfasserin aut Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy 2019 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Elevated remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) levels increase cardiovascular disease risk. However, RLP-C measurement methods are not standardized, leading to variations across studies.Objective: To evaluate the effect of ezetimibe (Eze) + statins vs statin monotherapy on RLP-C using immunoseparation (IM), vertical auto profile (VAP) ultracentrifugation, and calculated RLP-C measurement methods.Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated data pooled from 3 first-line (all-statin [simvastatin 10/20/40/80 mg] vs Eze + statin [Eze 10 mg + simvastatin]) and 2 second-line (statin [atorvastatin uptitrated to 40/80 mg] vs statin + Eze [atorvastatin 20/40 mg + Eze 10 mg]) studies. Similarity of RLP-C methods was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RLP-C changes and percent changes from baseline were measured by all 3 methods in first-line and VAP and calculated methods in second-line studies.Results: Correlations between methods were generally moderate to strong for RLP-C levels, changes, and percent changes across treatment groups (r = 0.29–0.79) but with little evidence of agreement by Bland-Altman plots. Baseline RLP-C levels for Eze + statin vs all-statin groups were lower by IM (14.0 vs 14.0) compared with VAP (36.9 vs 35.9) and calculated (32.8 vs 33.3) methods. RLP-C changes (mg/dL) and percent changes from baseline were significantly greater (P < .01) with Eze + statins vs statins by VAP, calculated, and IM methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −12.0, −2.0 and −5.4, and −1.5 and −12.1, respectively) in first-line, and VAP and calculated methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −19.9 and −2.0 and −7.3) in second-line studies.Conclusion: Although the 3 methods showed little agreement, each supported Eze + statins for achieving greater RLP-C reductions vs statin monotherapy; variability of results reinforces urgent need to standardize RLP-C measurements. Ezetimibe Immunoseparation Remnant lipoprotein cholesterol Statin Vertical auto profile ultracentrifugation Bays, Harold E. verfasserin aut Brown, W. Virgil verfasserin aut Catapano, Alberico L. verfasserin aut Davidson, Michael H. verfasserin aut Farnier, Michel verfasserin aut Tomassini, Joanne E. verfasserin aut Jensen, Erin verfasserin aut Polis, Adam B. verfasserin aut Tershakovec, Andrew M. verfasserin aut Enthalten in Journal of clinical lipidology Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2007 13, Seite 997-1007.e8 Online-Ressource (DE-627)534059252 (DE-600)2365061-8 (DE-576)284926973 1876-4789 nnns volume:13 pages:997-1007.e8 GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 35.78 Lipide Biochemie AR 13 997-1007.e8 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Journal of clinical lipidology 13, Seite 997-1007.e8 volume:13 pages:997-1007.e8 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Journal of clinical lipidology 13, Seite 997-1007.e8 volume:13 pages:997-1007.e8 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Lipide |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Ezetimibe Immunoseparation Remnant lipoprotein cholesterol Statin Vertical auto profile ultracentrifugation |
| dewey-raw |
610 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Journal of clinical lipidology |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Toth, Peter P. @@aut@@ Bays, Harold E. @@aut@@ Brown, W. Virgil @@aut@@ Catapano, Alberico L. @@aut@@ Davidson, Michael H. @@aut@@ Farnier, Michel @@aut@@ Tomassini, Joanne E. @@aut@@ Jensen, Erin @@aut@@ Polis, Adam B. @@aut@@ Tershakovec, Andrew M. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2019-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
534059252 |
| dewey-sort |
3610 |
| id |
ELV003290328 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV003290328</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230524151635.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230430s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.jacl.2019.09.001</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV003290328</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S1933-2874(19)30273-9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">35.78</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Toth, Peter P.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Elevated remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) levels increase cardiovascular disease risk. However, RLP-C measurement methods are not standardized, leading to variations across studies.Objective: To evaluate the effect of ezetimibe (Eze) + statins vs statin monotherapy on RLP-C using immunoseparation (IM), vertical auto profile (VAP) ultracentrifugation, and calculated RLP-C measurement methods.Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated data pooled from 3 first-line (all-statin [simvastatin 10/20/40/80 mg] vs Eze + statin [Eze 10 mg + simvastatin]) and 2 second-line (statin [atorvastatin uptitrated to 40/80 mg] vs statin + Eze [atorvastatin 20/40 mg + Eze 10 mg]) studies. Similarity of RLP-C methods was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RLP-C changes and percent changes from baseline were measured by all 3 methods in first-line and VAP and calculated methods in second-line studies.Results: Correlations between methods were generally moderate to strong for RLP-C levels, changes, and percent changes across treatment groups (r = 0.29–0.79) but with little evidence of agreement by Bland-Altman plots. Baseline RLP-C levels for Eze + statin vs all-statin groups were lower by IM (14.0 vs 14.0) compared with VAP (36.9 vs 35.9) and calculated (32.8 vs 33.3) methods. RLP-C changes (mg/dL) and percent changes from baseline were significantly greater (P < .01) with Eze + statins vs statins by VAP, calculated, and IM methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −12.0, −2.0 and −5.4, and −1.5 and −12.1, respectively) in first-line, and VAP and calculated methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −19.9 and −2.0 and −7.3) in second-line studies.Conclusion: Although the 3 methods showed little agreement, each supported Eze + statins for achieving greater RLP-C reductions vs statin monotherapy; variability of results reinforces urgent need to standardize RLP-C measurements.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ezetimibe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Immunoseparation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Remnant lipoprotein cholesterol</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Statin</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Vertical auto profile ultracentrifugation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bays, Harold E.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Brown, W. Virgil</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Catapano, Alberico L.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Davidson, Michael H.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Farnier, Michel</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tomassini, Joanne E.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jensen, Erin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Polis, Adam B.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tershakovec, Andrew M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of clinical lipidology</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2007</subfield><subfield code="g">13, Seite 997-1007.e8</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)534059252</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2365061-8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)284926973</subfield><subfield code="x">1876-4789</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:13</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:997-1007.e8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">35.78</subfield><subfield code="j">Lipide</subfield><subfield code="x">Biochemie</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">13</subfield><subfield code="h">997-1007.e8</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Toth, Peter P. |
| spellingShingle |
Toth, Peter P. ddc 610 bkl 35.78 misc Ezetimibe misc Immunoseparation misc Remnant lipoprotein cholesterol misc Statin misc Vertical auto profile ultracentrifugation Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy |
| authorStr |
Toth, Peter P. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)534059252 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
610 - Medicine & health |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1876-4789 |
| topic_title |
610 DE-600 35.78 bkl Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy Ezetimibe Immunoseparation Remnant lipoprotein cholesterol Statin Vertical auto profile ultracentrifugation |
| topic |
ddc 610 bkl 35.78 misc Ezetimibe misc Immunoseparation misc Remnant lipoprotein cholesterol misc Statin misc Vertical auto profile ultracentrifugation |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 610 bkl 35.78 misc Ezetimibe misc Immunoseparation misc Remnant lipoprotein cholesterol misc Statin misc Vertical auto profile ultracentrifugation |
| topic_browse |
ddc 610 bkl 35.78 misc Ezetimibe misc Immunoseparation misc Remnant lipoprotein cholesterol misc Statin misc Vertical auto profile ultracentrifugation |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Journal of clinical lipidology |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
534059252 |
| dewey-tens |
610 - Medicine & health |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Journal of clinical lipidology |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)534059252 (DE-600)2365061-8 (DE-576)284926973 |
| title |
Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV003290328 (ELSEVIER)S1933-2874(19)30273-9 |
| title_full |
Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy |
| author_sort |
Toth, Peter P. |
| journal |
Journal of clinical lipidology |
| journalStr |
Journal of clinical lipidology |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2019 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
997 |
| author_browse |
Toth, Peter P. Bays, Harold E. Brown, W. Virgil Catapano, Alberico L. Davidson, Michael H. Farnier, Michel Tomassini, Joanne E. Jensen, Erin Polis, Adam B. Tershakovec, Andrew M. |
| container_volume |
13 |
| class |
610 DE-600 35.78 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Toth, Peter P. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.jacl.2019.09.001 |
| dewey-full |
610 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy |
| title_auth |
Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy |
| abstract |
Background: Elevated remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) levels increase cardiovascular disease risk. However, RLP-C measurement methods are not standardized, leading to variations across studies.Objective: To evaluate the effect of ezetimibe (Eze) + statins vs statin monotherapy on RLP-C using immunoseparation (IM), vertical auto profile (VAP) ultracentrifugation, and calculated RLP-C measurement methods.Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated data pooled from 3 first-line (all-statin [simvastatin 10/20/40/80 mg] vs Eze + statin [Eze 10 mg + simvastatin]) and 2 second-line (statin [atorvastatin uptitrated to 40/80 mg] vs statin + Eze [atorvastatin 20/40 mg + Eze 10 mg]) studies. Similarity of RLP-C methods was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RLP-C changes and percent changes from baseline were measured by all 3 methods in first-line and VAP and calculated methods in second-line studies.Results: Correlations between methods were generally moderate to strong for RLP-C levels, changes, and percent changes across treatment groups (r = 0.29–0.79) but with little evidence of agreement by Bland-Altman plots. Baseline RLP-C levels for Eze + statin vs all-statin groups were lower by IM (14.0 vs 14.0) compared with VAP (36.9 vs 35.9) and calculated (32.8 vs 33.3) methods. RLP-C changes (mg/dL) and percent changes from baseline were significantly greater (P < .01) with Eze + statins vs statins by VAP, calculated, and IM methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −12.0, −2.0 and −5.4, and −1.5 and −12.1, respectively) in first-line, and VAP and calculated methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −19.9 and −2.0 and −7.3) in second-line studies.Conclusion: Although the 3 methods showed little agreement, each supported Eze + statins for achieving greater RLP-C reductions vs statin monotherapy; variability of results reinforces urgent need to standardize RLP-C measurements. |
| abstractGer |
Background: Elevated remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) levels increase cardiovascular disease risk. However, RLP-C measurement methods are not standardized, leading to variations across studies.Objective: To evaluate the effect of ezetimibe (Eze) + statins vs statin monotherapy on RLP-C using immunoseparation (IM), vertical auto profile (VAP) ultracentrifugation, and calculated RLP-C measurement methods.Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated data pooled from 3 first-line (all-statin [simvastatin 10/20/40/80 mg] vs Eze + statin [Eze 10 mg + simvastatin]) and 2 second-line (statin [atorvastatin uptitrated to 40/80 mg] vs statin + Eze [atorvastatin 20/40 mg + Eze 10 mg]) studies. Similarity of RLP-C methods was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RLP-C changes and percent changes from baseline were measured by all 3 methods in first-line and VAP and calculated methods in second-line studies.Results: Correlations between methods were generally moderate to strong for RLP-C levels, changes, and percent changes across treatment groups (r = 0.29–0.79) but with little evidence of agreement by Bland-Altman plots. Baseline RLP-C levels for Eze + statin vs all-statin groups were lower by IM (14.0 vs 14.0) compared with VAP (36.9 vs 35.9) and calculated (32.8 vs 33.3) methods. RLP-C changes (mg/dL) and percent changes from baseline were significantly greater (P < .01) with Eze + statins vs statins by VAP, calculated, and IM methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −12.0, −2.0 and −5.4, and −1.5 and −12.1, respectively) in first-line, and VAP and calculated methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −19.9 and −2.0 and −7.3) in second-line studies.Conclusion: Although the 3 methods showed little agreement, each supported Eze + statins for achieving greater RLP-C reductions vs statin monotherapy; variability of results reinforces urgent need to standardize RLP-C measurements. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Background: Elevated remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) levels increase cardiovascular disease risk. However, RLP-C measurement methods are not standardized, leading to variations across studies.Objective: To evaluate the effect of ezetimibe (Eze) + statins vs statin monotherapy on RLP-C using immunoseparation (IM), vertical auto profile (VAP) ultracentrifugation, and calculated RLP-C measurement methods.Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated data pooled from 3 first-line (all-statin [simvastatin 10/20/40/80 mg] vs Eze + statin [Eze 10 mg + simvastatin]) and 2 second-line (statin [atorvastatin uptitrated to 40/80 mg] vs statin + Eze [atorvastatin 20/40 mg + Eze 10 mg]) studies. Similarity of RLP-C methods was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RLP-C changes and percent changes from baseline were measured by all 3 methods in first-line and VAP and calculated methods in second-line studies.Results: Correlations between methods were generally moderate to strong for RLP-C levels, changes, and percent changes across treatment groups (r = 0.29–0.79) but with little evidence of agreement by Bland-Altman plots. Baseline RLP-C levels for Eze + statin vs all-statin groups were lower by IM (14.0 vs 14.0) compared with VAP (36.9 vs 35.9) and calculated (32.8 vs 33.3) methods. RLP-C changes (mg/dL) and percent changes from baseline were significantly greater (P < .01) with Eze + statins vs statins by VAP, calculated, and IM methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −12.0, −2.0 and −5.4, and −1.5 and −12.1, respectively) in first-line, and VAP and calculated methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −19.9 and −2.0 and −7.3) in second-line studies.Conclusion: Although the 3 methods showed little agreement, each supported Eze + statins for achieving greater RLP-C reductions vs statin monotherapy; variability of results reinforces urgent need to standardize RLP-C measurements. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U SYSFLAG_U GBV_ELV SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_101 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 |
| title_short |
Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Bays, Harold E. Brown, W. Virgil Catapano, Alberico L. Davidson, Michael H. Farnier, Michel Tomassini, Joanne E. Jensen, Erin Polis, Adam B. Tershakovec, Andrew M. |
| author2Str |
Bays, Harold E. Brown, W. Virgil Catapano, Alberico L. Davidson, Michael H. Farnier, Michel Tomassini, Joanne E. Jensen, Erin Polis, Adam B. Tershakovec, Andrew M. |
| ppnlink |
534059252 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.jacl.2019.09.001 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T19:07:53.625Z |
| _version_ |
1803857820256305152 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV003290328</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230524151635.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230430s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.jacl.2019.09.001</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV003290328</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S1933-2874(19)30273-9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rda</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">35.78</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Toth, Peter P.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Elevated remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) levels increase cardiovascular disease risk. However, RLP-C measurement methods are not standardized, leading to variations across studies.Objective: To evaluate the effect of ezetimibe (Eze) + statins vs statin monotherapy on RLP-C using immunoseparation (IM), vertical auto profile (VAP) ultracentrifugation, and calculated RLP-C measurement methods.Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated data pooled from 3 first-line (all-statin [simvastatin 10/20/40/80 mg] vs Eze + statin [Eze 10 mg + simvastatin]) and 2 second-line (statin [atorvastatin uptitrated to 40/80 mg] vs statin + Eze [atorvastatin 20/40 mg + Eze 10 mg]) studies. Similarity of RLP-C methods was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RLP-C changes and percent changes from baseline were measured by all 3 methods in first-line and VAP and calculated methods in second-line studies.Results: Correlations between methods were generally moderate to strong for RLP-C levels, changes, and percent changes across treatment groups (r = 0.29–0.79) but with little evidence of agreement by Bland-Altman plots. Baseline RLP-C levels for Eze + statin vs all-statin groups were lower by IM (14.0 vs 14.0) compared with VAP (36.9 vs 35.9) and calculated (32.8 vs 33.3) methods. RLP-C changes (mg/dL) and percent changes from baseline were significantly greater (P < .01) with Eze + statins vs statins by VAP, calculated, and IM methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −12.0, −2.0 and −5.4, and −1.5 and −12.1, respectively) in first-line, and VAP and calculated methods (between-treatment differences: −5.0 and −19.9 and −2.0 and −7.3) in second-line studies.Conclusion: Although the 3 methods showed little agreement, each supported Eze + statins for achieving greater RLP-C reductions vs statin monotherapy; variability of results reinforces urgent need to standardize RLP-C measurements.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ezetimibe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Immunoseparation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Remnant lipoprotein cholesterol</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Statin</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Vertical auto profile ultracentrifugation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bays, Harold E.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Brown, W. Virgil</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Catapano, Alberico L.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Davidson, Michael H.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Farnier, Michel</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tomassini, Joanne E.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jensen, Erin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Polis, Adam B.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tershakovec, Andrew M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of clinical lipidology</subfield><subfield code="d">Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2007</subfield><subfield code="g">13, Seite 997-1007.e8</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)534059252</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2365061-8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)284926973</subfield><subfield code="x">1876-4789</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:13</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:997-1007.e8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_101</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">35.78</subfield><subfield code="j">Lipide</subfield><subfield code="x">Biochemie</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">13</subfield><subfield code="h">997-1007.e8</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399417 |