Letters to the Editor

Fasting vs. Nonfasting Lipid Profile for Assessing Cardiovascular Risk

 

Am Fam Physician. 2019 Jul 15;100(2):72-73.

Original Article: The Adult Well-Male Examination

Issue Date: December 15, 2018

See additional reader comments at: https://www.aafp.org/afp/2018/1215/p729.html

To the Editor: In this article, Dr. Heidelbaugh describes a fasting lipid profile as the preferred screening test for assessing cardiovascular risk. This is not correct and should be updated to reflect current guidance. Nonfasting samples are more convenient for patients, and there is no appreciable difference between fasting and nonfasting results for total cholesterol or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Because these are the parameters that are used to assess cardiovascular risk, a fasting lipid profile should not be called “preferred.”

The article cites the National Cholesterol Education Panel guidance from 2001 and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guideline on statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease from 2016. The article acknowledges that nonfasting total cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol are sufficient for using most cardiovascular risk calculators, but the article is clear in both the text and Table 3 that fasting is preferred. Recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence,1 Canadian Cardiovascular Society,2 and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association3 all consider a nonfasting test to be an equal alternative to a fasting test for screening unless the patient is known to have significantly elevated triglycerides. I was unable to find any support in the 2016 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guideline for the claim that fasting is preferred.4

I could not help but be struck by the irony that in the very same issue of American Family Physician, there was an editorial regarding the slow adoption of evidence-based practice.5 The authors cited the continued use of fasting lipid profiles, rather than nonfasting testing, as one of the examples of practice changes that have not been widely adopted. They note that “measurement of nonfasting lipids is a more accurate predictor of cardiovascular risk.”5 Their editorial could not have been more timely.

Author disclosure: No relevant financial affiliations.

References

show all references

1. National Clinical Guideline Centre (UK) Lipid modification: cardiovascular risk assessment and the modification of blood lipids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. NICE clinical guideline no. 181 Accessed January 17, 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK248067/...

2. Anderson TJ, Grégoire J, Pearson GJ, et al. 2016 Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in the adult. Can J Cardiol. 2016;32(11):1263–1282.

3. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, et al. AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018:S0735–S1097.

4. Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al. Statin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;316(19):1997–2007.

5. Ebell MH, Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC. Why are we so slow to adopt some evidence-based practices? Am Fam Physician. 2018;98(12):709–710.

In Reply: Many thanks to Dr. Ehrlich for his thoughtful and referenced discussion regarding fasting vs. nonfasting lipid panels to assess cardiovascular risk. His arguments are acknowledged, and I agree that either fasting or nonfasting lipids are acceptable for this purpose.

Author disclosure: No relevant financial affiliations.

Send letters to afplet@aafp.org, or 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211-2680. Include your complete address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Letters should be fewer than 400 words and limited to six references, one table or figure, and three authors.

Letters submitted for publication in AFP must not be submitted to any other publication. Possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed at time of submission. Submission of a letter will be construed as granting the AAFP permission to publish the letter in any of its publications in any form. The editors may edit letters to meet style and space requirements.

This series is coordinated by Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, Associate Deputy Editor for AFP Online.

 

 

Copyright © 2019 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions

MOST RECENT ISSUE


Aug 15, 2019

Access the latest issue of American Family Physician

Read the Issue


Email Alerts

Don't miss a single issue. Sign up for the free AFP email table of contents.

Sign Up Now

Navigate this Article