English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The European Atherosclerosis Society/European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine recently published a consensus statement promoting the routine use of nonfasting blood samples for the assessment of plasma lipid profiles. That statement follows the consensus recommendation that has been implemented in Denmark since 2009 and in the United Kingdom since 2014, whereas in the United States, the most recent 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline does not require fasting blood samples for estimation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk, but the guideline recommends a fasting lipid panel to calculate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) before initiating statin treatment, and for individuals with non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (non–HDLC) of 220 mg/dL or greater (to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0259) or triglyceride (TG) levels of 500 mg/dL or greater (to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0113). The rationale for the European Atherosclerosis Society/European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine stance is ease of collection and greater compliance in patient preparation for lipid testing. Nonfasting cholesterol levels (total cholesterol, non–HDL-C, and LDL-C) are comparable to fasting cholesterol levels in predicting ASCVD, whereas nonfasting TG levels showed even stronger associations with ASCVD compared with fasting results. This statement addresses the perceived limitations of testing nonfasting samples by referencing data from studies that evaluated lipid variation in postprandial versus fasting states, showing that there is no change in HDL-C, apolipoprotein A1, apolipoprotein B, or lipoprotein(a) levels and minimal changes in TG, total cholesterol, calculated remnant cholesterol, non–HDL-C, and LDL-C values. In addition, this article addresses the influence of the postprandial state on the assessment of cardiovascular disease risk by citing studies in which various nonfasting lipid parameters were monitored relative to clinical outcomes. The conclusion here was that nonfasting lipid testing may actually be superior to fasting lipid profiles for predicting cardiovascular disease. Finally, the consensus statement recommends that the abnormal lipid values obtained from nonfasting samples should be flagged based on desirable lipid cutoffs published by accepted guidelines and consensus statements.

archives of pathology and laboratory medicine

To Fast or Not to Fast?: Comments on the Consensus Statement From the European Atherosclerosis Society/European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine