Comparison of Transatlantic Approaches to Lipid Management: The AHA/ACC/Multisociety Guidelines vs the ESC/EAS Guidelines
The 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety (AHA/ACC) guidelines and the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines on lipid management were published less than a year apart. Both guidelines focus on reducing cardiova...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Mayo Clinic proceedings 2020-05, Vol.95 (5), p.998-1014 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1014 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 998 |
container_title | Mayo Clinic proceedings |
container_volume | 95 |
creator | Singh, Maninder McEvoy, John W. Khan, Safi U. Wood, David A. Graham, Ian M. Blumenthal, Roger S. Mishra, Abhishek K. Michos, Erin D. |
description | The 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety (AHA/ACC) guidelines and the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines on lipid management were published less than a year apart. Both guidelines focus on reducing cardiovascular risk, but they follow different approaches in terms of methods of risk estimation, definitions of at-risk groups, and treatment goals to achieve this common underlying objective. Both recommend achieving risk-based percentage reductions of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels with statin therapy. The ESC/EAS guidelines additionally recommend target LDL-C levels and are more liberal in supporting the use of both statin and nonstatin therapies across broader patient groups. The AHA/ACC guidelines may be considered more conservative, reserving the addition of nonstatins to maximally tolerated statins for only select patient groups based on specific LDL-C thresholds. One of the main reasons for these differences is incorporation of cost value considerations by the AHA/ACC guidelines, whereas the ESC/EAS guidelines consider an ideal setting with unlimited resources while making recommendations. In this review, we discuss similarities and differences between the 2 lipid guidelines to help clinicians become more cognizant of these recommendations and provide the best individualized patient care. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.01.011 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2399237600</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A626743685</galeid><els_id>S0025619620300471</els_id><sourcerecordid>A626743685</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c572t-3b9822cdcd182d46c7ff012a853c8950f05968389034bf09d0961dd29cf045873</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kV1r2zAUhsXYWLNs_2AMw2DsJsmRbMvWLgrGpO0gZRfNroUiyY2CLXmSXMi_n4rb0e1i6IBAet7z9SL0EcMaA6ab03oQZyfHNQECa8Ap8Cu0wKwgq7Is6Gu0ACDlimJGL9C7EE4AUDFWvEUXOckrqMt6gc6tG0bhTXA2c12298IGEXtho5FZM47eCXnUIYsu25nRqOxWWHGvB23jt2x_1Flz02yatt3cTn1MWaTR8ZxdT0bp3tgkfEjahG3v2s22uXvx8x696UQf9Iene4l-Xm337c1q9-P6e9vsVrKsSFzlB1YTIpVUuCaqoLLqOsBE1GUua1ZCByWjdV4zyItDB0wBo1gpwmQHRVlX-RJ9nfOmWX5NOkQ-mCB1n2bUbgqc5IyldVCAhH7-Bz25ydvUHScF4JwUVc0StZ6pe9FrbmznohcyHaUHI53VnUnvDSW0KnKa-lyiLy8ERy36eAyun6JxNvwNFjMovQvB646P3gzCnzkG_mg6P_HZdP5oOgecAifZp6e2p8Og1R_Rs8sJuJwBnfb8YLTnIflkpVbGaxm5cub_FX4Dpfi8JA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2401324789</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Transatlantic Approaches to Lipid Management: The AHA/ACC/Multisociety Guidelines vs the ESC/EAS Guidelines</title><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Singh, Maninder ; McEvoy, John W. ; Khan, Safi U. ; Wood, David A. ; Graham, Ian M. ; Blumenthal, Roger S. ; Mishra, Abhishek K. ; Michos, Erin D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Singh, Maninder ; McEvoy, John W. ; Khan, Safi U. ; Wood, David A. ; Graham, Ian M. ; Blumenthal, Roger S. ; Mishra, Abhishek K. ; Michos, Erin D.</creatorcontrib><description>The 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety (AHA/ACC) guidelines and the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines on lipid management were published less than a year apart. Both guidelines focus on reducing cardiovascular risk, but they follow different approaches in terms of methods of risk estimation, definitions of at-risk groups, and treatment goals to achieve this common underlying objective. Both recommend achieving risk-based percentage reductions of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels with statin therapy. The ESC/EAS guidelines additionally recommend target LDL-C levels and are more liberal in supporting the use of both statin and nonstatin therapies across broader patient groups. The AHA/ACC guidelines may be considered more conservative, reserving the addition of nonstatins to maximally tolerated statins for only select patient groups based on specific LDL-C thresholds. One of the main reasons for these differences is incorporation of cost value considerations by the AHA/ACC guidelines, whereas the ESC/EAS guidelines consider an ideal setting with unlimited resources while making recommendations. In this review, we discuss similarities and differences between the 2 lipid guidelines to help clinicians become more cognizant of these recommendations and provide the best individualized patient care.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0025-6196</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1942-5546</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.01.011</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32370858</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Arteriosclerosis ; Atherosclerosis ; Cardiology ; Cardiovascular disease ; Cardiovascular diseases ; Cholesterol ; Disease prevention ; Lipids ; Low density lipoprotein ; Low density lipoproteins ; Methods ; Mortality ; Risk assessment ; Risk groups ; Statins</subject><ispartof>Mayo Clinic proceedings, 2020-05, Vol.95 (5), p.998-1014</ispartof><rights>2020 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Frontline Medical Communications Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research May 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c572t-3b9822cdcd182d46c7ff012a853c8950f05968389034bf09d0961dd29cf045873</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c572t-3b9822cdcd182d46c7ff012a853c8950f05968389034bf09d0961dd29cf045873</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1951-1612 ; 0000-0003-1559-6911 ; 0000-0002-5547-5084</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2401324789?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924,64384,64386,64388,72240</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32370858$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Singh, Maninder</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McEvoy, John W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khan, Safi U.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, David A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graham, Ian M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blumenthal, Roger S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mishra, Abhishek K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michos, Erin D.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Transatlantic Approaches to Lipid Management: The AHA/ACC/Multisociety Guidelines vs the ESC/EAS Guidelines</title><title>Mayo Clinic proceedings</title><addtitle>Mayo Clin Proc</addtitle><description>The 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety (AHA/ACC) guidelines and the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines on lipid management were published less than a year apart. Both guidelines focus on reducing cardiovascular risk, but they follow different approaches in terms of methods of risk estimation, definitions of at-risk groups, and treatment goals to achieve this common underlying objective. Both recommend achieving risk-based percentage reductions of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels with statin therapy. The ESC/EAS guidelines additionally recommend target LDL-C levels and are more liberal in supporting the use of both statin and nonstatin therapies across broader patient groups. The AHA/ACC guidelines may be considered more conservative, reserving the addition of nonstatins to maximally tolerated statins for only select patient groups based on specific LDL-C thresholds. One of the main reasons for these differences is incorporation of cost value considerations by the AHA/ACC guidelines, whereas the ESC/EAS guidelines consider an ideal setting with unlimited resources while making recommendations. In this review, we discuss similarities and differences between the 2 lipid guidelines to help clinicians become more cognizant of these recommendations and provide the best individualized patient care.</description><subject>Arteriosclerosis</subject><subject>Atherosclerosis</subject><subject>Cardiology</subject><subject>Cardiovascular disease</subject><subject>Cardiovascular diseases</subject><subject>Cholesterol</subject><subject>Disease prevention</subject><subject>Lipids</subject><subject>Low density lipoprotein</subject><subject>Low density lipoproteins</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Risk groups</subject><subject>Statins</subject><issn>0025-6196</issn><issn>1942-5546</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kV1r2zAUhsXYWLNs_2AMw2DsJsmRbMvWLgrGpO0gZRfNroUiyY2CLXmSXMi_n4rb0e1i6IBAet7z9SL0EcMaA6ab03oQZyfHNQECa8Ap8Cu0wKwgq7Is6Gu0ACDlimJGL9C7EE4AUDFWvEUXOckrqMt6gc6tG0bhTXA2c12298IGEXtho5FZM47eCXnUIYsu25nRqOxWWHGvB23jt2x_1Flz02yatt3cTn1MWaTR8ZxdT0bp3tgkfEjahG3v2s22uXvx8x696UQf9Iene4l-Xm337c1q9-P6e9vsVrKsSFzlB1YTIpVUuCaqoLLqOsBE1GUua1ZCByWjdV4zyItDB0wBo1gpwmQHRVlX-RJ9nfOmWX5NOkQ-mCB1n2bUbgqc5IyldVCAhH7-Bz25ydvUHScF4JwUVc0StZ6pe9FrbmznohcyHaUHI53VnUnvDSW0KnKa-lyiLy8ERy36eAyun6JxNvwNFjMovQvB646P3gzCnzkG_mg6P_HZdP5oOgecAifZp6e2p8Og1R_Rs8sJuJwBnfb8YLTnIflkpVbGaxm5cub_FX4Dpfi8JA</recordid><startdate>202005</startdate><enddate>202005</enddate><creator>Singh, Maninder</creator><creator>McEvoy, John W.</creator><creator>Khan, Safi U.</creator><creator>Wood, David A.</creator><creator>Graham, Ian M.</creator><creator>Blumenthal, Roger S.</creator><creator>Mishra, Abhishek K.</creator><creator>Michos, Erin D.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Frontline Medical Communications Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1951-1612</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1559-6911</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5547-5084</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202005</creationdate><title>Comparison of Transatlantic Approaches to Lipid Management: The AHA/ACC/Multisociety Guidelines vs the ESC/EAS Guidelines</title><author>Singh, Maninder ; McEvoy, John W. ; Khan, Safi U. ; Wood, David A. ; Graham, Ian M. ; Blumenthal, Roger S. ; Mishra, Abhishek K. ; Michos, Erin D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c572t-3b9822cdcd182d46c7ff012a853c8950f05968389034bf09d0961dd29cf045873</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Arteriosclerosis</topic><topic>Atherosclerosis</topic><topic>Cardiology</topic><topic>Cardiovascular disease</topic><topic>Cardiovascular diseases</topic><topic>Cholesterol</topic><topic>Disease prevention</topic><topic>Lipids</topic><topic>Low density lipoprotein</topic><topic>Low density lipoproteins</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Risk groups</topic><topic>Statins</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Singh, Maninder</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McEvoy, John W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khan, Safi U.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, David A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graham, Ian M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Blumenthal, Roger S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mishra, Abhishek K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michos, Erin D.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Mayo Clinic proceedings</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Singh, Maninder</au><au>McEvoy, John W.</au><au>Khan, Safi U.</au><au>Wood, David A.</au><au>Graham, Ian M.</au><au>Blumenthal, Roger S.</au><au>Mishra, Abhishek K.</au><au>Michos, Erin D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Transatlantic Approaches to Lipid Management: The AHA/ACC/Multisociety Guidelines vs the ESC/EAS Guidelines</atitle><jtitle>Mayo Clinic proceedings</jtitle><addtitle>Mayo Clin Proc</addtitle><date>2020-05</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>95</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>998</spage><epage>1014</epage><pages>998-1014</pages><issn>0025-6196</issn><eissn>1942-5546</eissn><abstract>The 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety (AHA/ACC) guidelines and the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines on lipid management were published less than a year apart. Both guidelines focus on reducing cardiovascular risk, but they follow different approaches in terms of methods of risk estimation, definitions of at-risk groups, and treatment goals to achieve this common underlying objective. Both recommend achieving risk-based percentage reductions of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels with statin therapy. The ESC/EAS guidelines additionally recommend target LDL-C levels and are more liberal in supporting the use of both statin and nonstatin therapies across broader patient groups. The AHA/ACC guidelines may be considered more conservative, reserving the addition of nonstatins to maximally tolerated statins for only select patient groups based on specific LDL-C thresholds. One of the main reasons for these differences is incorporation of cost value considerations by the AHA/ACC guidelines, whereas the ESC/EAS guidelines consider an ideal setting with unlimited resources while making recommendations. In this review, we discuss similarities and differences between the 2 lipid guidelines to help clinicians become more cognizant of these recommendations and provide the best individualized patient care.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>32370858</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.01.011</doi><tpages>17</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1951-1612</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1559-6911</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5547-5084</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0025-6196 |
ispartof | Mayo Clinic proceedings, 2020-05, Vol.95 (5), p.998-1014 |
issn | 0025-6196 1942-5546 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2399237600 |
source | ProQuest Central UK/Ireland; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Arteriosclerosis Atherosclerosis Cardiology Cardiovascular disease Cardiovascular diseases Cholesterol Disease prevention Lipids Low density lipoprotein Low density lipoproteins Methods Mortality Risk assessment Risk groups Statins |
title | Comparison of Transatlantic Approaches to Lipid Management: The AHA/ACC/Multisociety Guidelines vs the ESC/EAS Guidelines |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T23%3A37%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Transatlantic%20Approaches%20to%20Lipid%20Management:%20The%20AHA/ACC/Multisociety%20Guidelines%20vs%20the%20ESC/EAS%20Guidelines&rft.jtitle=Mayo%20Clinic%20proceedings&rft.au=Singh,%20Maninder&rft.date=2020-05&rft.volume=95&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=998&rft.epage=1014&rft.pages=998-1014&rft.issn=0025-6196&rft.eissn=1942-5546&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.01.011&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA626743685%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2401324789&rft_id=info:pmid/32370858&rft_galeid=A626743685&rft_els_id=S0025619620300471&rfr_iscdi=true |