http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7353/1570
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
|
|||||||||||
 Collections under
which this article appears: Other
Cardiovascular Medicine Other
Epidemiology Drugs:
cardiovascular system |
M R Law
Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Department of Environmental and Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and Dentistry, London EC1M 6BQ
Correspondence to: M R Law m.r.law@qmul.ac.uk
Interventions to lower blood pressure, serum cholesterol, and other risk factors reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease regardless of initial levels. It follows, say Malcolm Law and Nicholas Wald, that the goal is not to "normalise" risk factors but to reduce them as much as possible. This means targeting everyone at high risk, as determined by age or known cardiovascular disease rather than by the level of the risk factors
Physiological variables such as blood pressure, serum cholesterol, body mass index, and bone mineral density are important in the aetiology of common diseases. They are not direct environmental causes of disease, like smoking, but they may be seen as biochemical or biophysical variables, under partial genetic control, that are intermediates between environmental factors and disease itself. It is known that risk can be reduced by lowering high levels of these variables by drug treatment or lifestyle change. But there is a view that changing the average values of these physiological variables is not worth while, a view that implies the presence of thresholds in the dose-response relations between the level of the variable and the risk of disease. This view is reinforced by terminology that regards extreme values as indicating a disease state (such as hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, osteoporosis, and obesity) and average values as being "normal" (normotensive, normocholesterolaemia). Clinical guidelines specify risk factor thresholds1-5; these have been set at successively lower levels over time and redefined as "action levels" but they still deny treatment below specified values.
We examine seven important dose-response relations to determine whether it is
useful to impose risk factor thresholds or whether there are better
ways to identify patients who should be treated.
| Summary points
|
 |
Methods |
|---|
We examined seven dose-response relations between physiological variables and
risk of disease that are medically important and for which a large
body of data was available: (i-iii) ischaemic heart disease and blood
pressure, serum cholesterol, and body mass index; (iv) stroke and
blood pressure; (v) diabetes and body mass index; (vi) neural tube
defects and maternal plasma folate; and (vii) hip fracture and bone
mineral density. For each relation we used a published meta-analysis
of cohort studies if one was available,6
otherwise the largest single cohort study.7-11
Dividing each cohort into subgroups (usually fifths) defined by
ranked values of the physiological variables, we plotted the risk of
disease (vertical axis) against the level of the risk factor
(horizontal axis), using the subgroups and measure of risk (incidence,
mortality, or relative risk) adopted in the original papers. Randomised
trials of risk factor modification were available for four of
these seven dose-response relations12-24; we
examined these to assess whether they supported the conclusions from
the observational studies.
| |
The dose-response relations |
|---|
Figures 1 and 2 show the seven dose-response relations. The data are from cohort studies because cohort studies best show dose-response relations; unlike randomised trials they show disease incidence across the entire range of values of a risk factor in the population. On the left hand side of the two figures, disease incidence is plotted by using an arithmetical scale, so that in figure 1 rates of 0, 1, 2, and 3 are evenly spaced on the vertical axis. These plots are curved. On the right hand side, incidence is plotted by using a proportional or logarithmic scale, so that in figure 1 rates of 0.25, 0.5, 1, and 2 are evenly spaced on the vertical axis; a given space on the vertical axis indicates a constant proportional change in incidence (such as a doubling). These plots yield reasonably straight lines, and this is so whether the level of the risk factor on the horizontal axis is plotted using an arithmetical or proportional scale. With an arithmetical scale the straight line fit is marginally better, or no worse, in every case but one (maternal plasma folate and neural tube defects). The plots on the right hand side in figures 1 and 2 therefore follow this "semi-logarithmic" approach in all the examples except this one, where a logarithmic scale is used on both axes.
|
In figures 1 and 2 the 95% confidence intervals about the risk estimates exclude a threshold within the population range of values, so that the lower the risk factor the lower the risk: no part of the dose-response relation would fit a horizontal line. This is clear from the plots using logarithmic scales, but the curved plots with an arithmetical scale on the vertical axes may falsely suggest a threshold.
Identifying a straight line dose-response relation has an important advantage: the slope is constant, so a single number can summarise the dose-response relation. With a curved line there is no single summary of effect, so simplicity and generalisability are lost. The implications of a straight line dose-response relation according to whether arithmetical or logarithmic scales are used on the vertical and horizontal axes are set out in figure 3, together with the corresponding mathematical equations. Simple linear models (arithmetical scales on both axes) rarely fit risk factor-disease incidence relations, but the use of logarithmic vertical axes to plot incidence commonly yields a reasonable straight line fit, as is shown in figures 1 and 2. A straight line relation with a logarithmic (proportional) vertical axis scale indicates a constant proportional change in risk for a given change in the risk factor from any starting level.
|
|
The constant proportional relations in the right hand plots indicate that the absolute reduction in risk from changing the risk factor will be large in people who are at high risk for any reason (existing disease or older age, for example), regardless of the starting value of the risk factor. So, for example, halving risk by lowering serum cholesterol would be more important in a man who has an average serum cholesterol concentration but is at high risk because of a previous myocardial infarction than in a man with high serum cholesterol but no history of myocardial infarction.
Table 1 gives the summary "dose-response" estimates for
each of the seven relations
the
percentage change in risk for a specified change in the risk factor
from any starting level. The cohort study estimates are derived from
the slopes of the best fitting straight lines in the right hand plots
in figures 1 and 2, as
illustrated in figure 3 (and explained more fully in the box
on bmj.com). They are adjusted for regression dilution bias
6 26 except where
this was unnecessary because the risk factors show little random
fluctuation (body mass index and bone density). The table also shows
how the results of randomised trials of risk factor modification,
where available, confirm the cohort study estimates of a constant
proportional change in risk for a given change in risk factor. For
different risk factors the randomised trials between them cover all
or most of the range of values in Western populations.
|
Table 2, based on two large randomised trials of serum cholesterol reduction using statins, illustrates that the proportional reduction in risk is similar in groups at high and low risk. Coronary artery disease was recognised in all the participants in one of the trials (4S)22 and none in the other (WOSCOPS),23 but otherwise participants were similar (age, cholesterol, other coronary risk factors). The incidence of major coronary events in the placebo group was four times higher in the trial of people with existing disease (5.2% v 1.4% per year), but the proportional risk reduction in the treated groups was similar in the two trials. Consequently the absolute reduction in risk was greater in those with existing disease (and would have been even greater but for preventive treatment in the high risk group22). Trials of blood pressure lowering drugs show similar proportional reductions in risk in people with and without previous stroke or myocardial infarction.12-19 Another example is the randomised trial of folic acid supplementation in high risk women (with previous neural tube defect pregnancies), which showed the same proportional reduction in risk as that found in the general population with about a tenth of the background risk. 24 25 In general, the constant proportional effect model holds among men and women, people of different ages, and people with and without existing disease.
|
| |
Are average values necessarily normal? |
|---|
Our central conclusion is that the proportional relation between these
physiological variables and their associated diseases is constant
across all levels of the variables and all levels of risk. The lower
the risk factor the lower is the risk of disease, down to levels well
below average Western values. This raises the question as to whether
average Western values should be regarded as "normal." Today's
average levels are not typical of values throughout human evolution.
With the exception of bone density,27
the variables in our ancestors cannot be measured, but indirect
estimates are available from studies of isolated communities with a
hunter-gatherer lifestyle typical of the stone age. Table 3
contrasts typical values of the variables at age 60 in these communities
with present Western values. The rise in the variables with age
that is seen in Western populations 30
31 does not occur in hunter-gatherer
communities: throughout life blood pressure remains at about 110/70
mm Hg, serum cholesterol at 3.0-3.5 mmol/l, and body mass index at
about 22 kg/m2. The shift in the Western distributions makes the
current averages high (or low in the case of bone density and plasma
folate) in relation to the prehistoric values. Differences in
lifestyle (diet and habitual exercise) underlie the differences in
the physiological variables, 32
35 and relatively recent changes are likely to
have been responsible for the emergence of the associated diseases
(ischaemic heart disease, non-insulin dependent diabetes, hip
fracture). Present average values of certain key risk factors in
Western populations should not be regarded as "normal."
| |
Practical implications of continuous dose-response relations |
|---|
We focus mainly on the implications for preventing ischaemic heart disease and stroke.
Treat anyone at high risk
Blood pressure lowering drugs should not be limited to people with
high blood pressure, nor cholesterol lowering drugs to people with
high serum cholesterol concentrations. The constant proportional
relation means that there is value in modifying risk factors in
people at high risk, whatever the reason for the high risk and
regardless of the level of the risk factor.
The major determinant of risk is existing disease. Without preventive treatment, mortality from heart disease in people who have had a myocardial infarction in the past is about 5% per year for the rest of their life.36 Mortality from stroke in people who have had a stroke is similar. 36 37 Both rates are much higher than in people with no history of cardiovascular disease; coronary mortality is 0.3% per year in men aged 60, for example, or about 0.5% per year in men with high cholesterol or blood pressure.7 In people with existing disease, however, the physiological risk factors do not predict recurrent events despite the fact that changing the risk factors alters risk. This is illustrated by data from the 4S trial (table 4): in the placebo group the incidence of recurrent events was similar in groups with high and low concentrations of low density lipoprotein cholesterol.23 This finding, though at first sight surprising, is not unexpected: once an event has occurred and disease is present there is little for a risk factor to predict. Table 4 also shows that the proportional reduction in the incidence of recurrent events in the treated group (about 35%) was, as expected, independent of the initial cholesterol level. Since the initial absolute risk and the proportional risk reduction were not materially related to the initial cholesterol level, neither was the absolute risk reduction of about 2% per year. Similarly, in people who have had a stroke the incidence of recurrent strokes37 and the proportional risk reduction with blood pressure lowering17-19 were not materially related to the initial blood pressure, so the absolute risk reduction will be substantial at any level of blood pressure. The conclusion is clear: anyone with existing disease (a previous myocardial infarction or stroke for example) should be treated irrespective of the level of the risk factors one seeks to modify.
|
In people without known cardiovascular disease, age is the most important
determinant of risk. Mortality from ischaemic heart disease and from
stroke doubles with about every eight years of increasing age.17
In England and Wales 95% of deaths from heart disease occur in the
23% of the population at oldest age (men
55 and women
60). But in people without
existing disease the screening performance of the physiological
variables, while better than in people with disease, is still poor.
The variables are important aetiologically but are poor screening
tests; this apparent paradox has been discussed.38
There is little separation between the distributions of these
variables in people who over a specified period of time do and do not
develop disease; this has been documented for serum cholesterol,39
blood pressure,17 and bone mineral
density.40 Average values are high (table
3) and, as table 5 shows, the 10%
in the population with the most extreme values of the physiological
variables experience only about 20% of the disease events. As Rose
pointed out, offering preventive treatment only to people with
relatively high values of a variable means that only a small
proportion of those destined to have disease events will be targeted.43
People of a given age with relatively high values of the
physiological variables are at similar risk as people a few years
older with average levels, and present practice is illogical in
offering preventive treatment to the former but not the latter. There
are therefore two reasons for not focusing on the tails of the
distributions: the lack of threshold and the fact that they are poor
screening tests.
In people without cardiovascular disease, intervention to change risk factors could be introduced when a person's risk of a disease event over the next few years exceeds a specified value. Risk could be estimated from age alone, or age and sex. Values of the physiological variables might also be taken into account, but the limited additional discrimination may not justify the added complexity.
Change all relevant risk factors together
Because there is substantial benefit from lowering these
physiological variables from any starting value in persons at high
risk, all the reversible risk factors should be changed, not just
those judged "abnormal." Reducing only variables with high values
loses most of the potential benefit.
Aim for a large change to achieve a large benefit
There is an inappropriate tendency to accept small changes in
reversible risk factors. Guidelines recommend the use of drugs to
lower serum cholesterol after a myocardial infarction only if diet
has failed. 1 3 This
is not logical and creates a perverse incentive; those who ignore the
dietary advice receive drugs that lower serum cholesterol four times
as much as any realistic dietary change. 20
22 Similarly, there is no sense in
aiming for a small reduction in blood pressure in a person who has
had a stroke or myocardial infarction; this provides only partial
treatment to those who need treatment most.
|
|
Carry out only necessary randomised trials
Randomised trials have shown that the continuous dose-response
relations, shown in cohort studies, are reversible from values of the
risk factor that are high, average, and, in a few trials,
17 18
22 below average. There is a view that additional
trials are necessary to establish reductions in risk from
successively lower starting values. The evidence from large cohort
studies, however, makes this unnecessary. Randomised trials show that
once the straight line dose-response relation observed in cohort
studies is reversible across the upper portion of the distribution of
the risk factor, it can be judged to be reversible over the whole
distribution: any alternative explanation for the straight line
relation would have to be based on so implausible an assembly of
coincidental observations as to be untenable. In the case of serum
cholesterol and ischaemic heart disease (fig 4),
one would need to postulate an important but unknown cause of heart
disease that is highly correlated with serum cholesterol (no known
cause is) and to postulate that increasing levels of this confounding
factor increased the risk of heart disease and stroke only up to a
plateau. The plateau where the confounding effect would end would
have to coincide with the serum cholesterol threshold above which the
causal association would begin. The magnitude of the relation between
the unknown confounding factor and ischaemic heart disease would have
to be the same as that between serum cholesterol and heart disease
because the slope of the line remains the same, and it would have to
replicate the decreasing slope with age. 7
20 This non-causal alternative
explanation for the straight line relation is so implausible that it
can be rejected.
|
Trials have low statistical power at low risk factor levels (because there are relatively few people at low risk and because the event rates are lower), so their results tend to be inconclusive. In three trials testing cholesterol reduction from low starting levels (<5.2 mmol/l) the confidence intervals were consistent both with no reduction in the event rate and with the expected reduction from the cohort studies.44-47 It is inappropriate to require randomised trials to exclude successively lower thresholds of effect; the trials are large, expensive, and unnecessary. It is inappropriate to restrict cholesterol lowering drugs to people with concentrations above 5 mmol/l or blood pressure lowering drugs to people with pressures above 140 mm Hg systolic or 90 mm Hg diastolic, as currently recommended, 4 5 when cohort studies have shown continuous relations down to cholesterol concentrations of 3.8 mmol/l26 and blood pressure of 118 systolic and 76 diastolic.7 In contrast, it is appropriately recommended that all women with a previous neural tube defect pregnancy take folic acid regardless of their serum folate (which is usually not even measured).
| |
Concern over lowering levels of risk factors too far |
|---|
Thresholds have been excluded down to cholesterol levels (3.8 mmol/l)26
and blood pressure levels (118 systolic/76 diastolic)7
that are close to the prehistoric levels (table 3). The
condition of heterozygous familial hypobetalipoproteinaemia, in which
total serum cholesterol is as low as 2 mmol/l, provides an important
natural experiment: life expectancy is prolonged because coronary
artery disease is avoided, but no adverse effects from the low
cholesterol are recognised. 47
48 There must be lower limits to the physiological
variables we have considered, beyond which harm will arise: everyone
needs blood pressure, and cholesterol is essential for life. These
lower limits are, however, beyond Western values and not reached by
current dietary or drug interventions. They should not be invoked as
obstacles to offering effective preventive treatments.
| |
Conclusions |
|---|
Practical conclusions arise from the simple observations that certain key
dose-response relations have no threshold and yield straight lines
when risk of disease is plotted on a logarithmic scale. The most
important are that, irrespective of the level of the risk factor, a
given change in risk factor results in the same proportional
reduction in risk regardless of the initial risk; the selection of
individuals for preventive treatment should be based only on a
person's absolute level of risk; and individuals at high risk should
receive drug treatment to modify all important reversible risk
factors simultaneously.
| |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank Joan Morris and Neville Young for statistical and computing help and Leo Kinlen, David Wald, George Miller, and John Garrow for their comments on drafts of the manuscript.
| |
Footnotes |
|---|
Funding: None.
Competing interests: The authors have an interest in a patent application for a medical formulation designed to simultaneously reduce four cardiovascular risk factors.
An
expanded version of figure 3 appears on bmj.com
| |
References |
|---|
| 1. | Pyorala K, De Backer G, Poole-Wilson P, Wood D. Prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice. Recommendations of the task force of the European Society of Cardiology, European Atherosclerosis Society and European Society of Hypertension. Eur Heart J 1994; 15: 1300-1331[Medline]. |
| 2. | Wood D, De Backer G, Faergeman O, Graham I, Mancia G, Pyorala K. Prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice: recommendations of the Second Joint Task Force of European and other Societies on Coronary Prevention. Atherosclerosis 1998; 140: 199-270[Medline]. |
| 3. | Oliver M, Poole-Wilson P, Shepherd J, Tikkanen M. Lower patients' cholesterol now. BMJ 1995; 310: 1280-1281[Full Text]. |
| 4. | British Cardiac Society, British Hyperlipidaemia Association, British Hypertension Society, British Diabetic Association. Joint British recommendations on prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice. Heart 1998; 80(suppl 2): S1-29. |
| 5. | Ramsay LE, Williams B, Johnston GD, MacGregor GA, Poston L, Potter JF, et al. British Hypertension Society guidelines for hypertension management 1999: summary. BMJ 1999; 319: 630-635[Full Text]. |
| 6. | MacMahon S, Peto R, Cutler J, Collins R, Sorlie P, Neaton J, et al. Blood pressure, stroke and coronary heart disease. 1. Prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias. Lancet 1990; 335: 765-774[Medline]. |
| 7. | Neaton JD, Wentworth D. Serum cholesterol, blood pressure, cigarette smoking, and death from coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med 1992; 152: 56-64[Medline]. |
| 8. | Willett WC, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Rosner B, Speizer FE, et al. Weight, weight change, and coronary heart disease in women. Risk within the `normal' weight range. JAMA 1995; 273: 461-465[Medline]. |
| 9. | Knowler WC, Pettitt DJ, Savage PJ, Bennett PH. Diabetes incidence in Pima Indians: contributions of obesity and parental diabetes. Am J Epidemiol 1981; 113: 144-156[Abstract]. |
| 10. | Daly LE, Kirke PN, Molloy AM, Weir DG, Scott JM. Folate levels and neural tube defects. JAMA 1995; 274: 1698-1702[Medline]. |
| 11. | Cummings SR, Black DM, Nevitt MC, Browner W, Cauley J, Ensrud K, et al. Bone density at various sites for prediction of hip fractures. Lancet 1993; 341: 72-75[Medline]. |
| 12. | Collins R, Peto R, MacMahon S, Hebert P, Fiebach NH, Eberlein KA, et al. Blood pressure, stroke and coronary heart disease. 2. Short-term reductions in blood pressure: overview of randomised drug trials in their epidemiological context. Lancet 1990; 335: 827-838[Medline]. |
| 13. | SHEP Cooperative Research Group. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. JAMA 1991; 265: 3255-3264[Medline]. |
| 14. | MRC Working Party. Medical Research Council trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results. BMJ 1992; 304: 405-412[Medline]. |
| 15. | Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, Celis H, Arabidze GG, Birkenhäger WH, et al. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Lancet 1997; 350: 757-764[Medline]. |
| 16. | PROGRESS Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of a perindopril-based blood-pressure-lowering regimen among 6105 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Lancet 2001; 358: 1033-1041[Medline]. |
| 17. | Law MR, Wald NJ, Morris JK. Lowering blood pressure to prevent myocardial infarction and stroke: an epidemiological review. Health Technology Assessment (in press). |
| 18. | PATS Collaborating Group. Post-stroke antihypertensive treatment study. Chin Med J 1995; 108: 710-717[Medline]. |
| 19. | Gueyffier F, Boissel J-P, Boutitie F, Pocock S, Coope J, Cutler J, et al. Effect of antihypertensive treatment in patients having already suffered from stroke. INDIANA (INdividual Data ANalysis of Antihypertensive intervention trials) Project Collaborators. Stroke 1997; 28: 2557-2562[Abstract/Full Text]. |
| 20. | Law MR, Wald NJ, Thompson SG. By how much and how quickly does reduction in serum cholesterol concentration lower risk of ischaemic heart disease? BMJ 1994; 308: 367-372[Abstract/Full Text]. |
| 21. | Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, Isles CG, Lorimer AR, MacFarlane, et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolaemia. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 1301-1307[Abstract/Full Text]. |
| 22. | Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1994; 344: 1383-1389[Medline]. |
| 23. | Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Baseline serum cholesterol and treatment effect in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1995; 345: 1274-1275[Medline]. |
| 24. | MRC Vitamin Study Research Group. Prevention of neural tube defects: results of the Medical Research Council vitamin study. Lancet 1991; 338: 131-137[Medline]. |
| 25. | Wald NJ, Law MR, Morris JK, Wald DS. Quantifying the effect of folic acid. Lancet 2001; 358: 2069-2073[Medline]. |
| 26. | Chen Z, Peto R, Collins R, MacMahon S, Lu J, Li W. Serum cholesterol concentration and coronary heart disease in a population with low cholesterol concentrations. BMJ 1991; 303: 276-282[Medline]. |
| 27. | Lees B, Molleson T, Arnett TR, Stevenson JC. Differences in proximal femur bone density over two centuries. Lancet 1993; 341: 673-675[Medline]. |
| 28. | Law MR, Frost CD, Wald NJ. By how much does dietary salt reduction lower blood pressure? I. Analysis of observational data among populations. BMJ 1991; 302: 811-815[Medline]. |
| 29. | Page LB, Damon A, Moellering RC. Antecedents of cardiovascular disease in six Solomon Islands societies. Circulation 1974; 49: 1132-1146[Medline]. |
| 30. | Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Social Survey Division. The dietary and nutritional survey of British adults. London: HMSO, 1990. |
| 31. | Department of Health. Health survey for England 1991-6. London: HMSO, 1993-8. |
| 32. | Eaton SB, Eaton SB, Konner MJ. Paleolithic nutrition revisited: a twelve-year retrospective on its nature and implications. Eur J Clin Nutr 1997; 51: 207[Medline]:16. |
| 33. | Wenxun F, Parker R, Parpia B, Yinsheng Q, Cassano P, Crawford M, et al. Erythrocyte fatty acids, plasma lipids, and cardiovascular disease in rural China. Am J Clin Nutr 1990; 52: 1027-1036[Abstract]. |
| 34. | Law MR, Wald NJ. An ecological study of serum cholesterol and ischaemic heart disease between 1950 and 1990. Eur J Clin Nutr 1994; 48: 305-325[Medline]. |
| 35. | Eaton SB, Konner M. Paleolithic Nutrition. A consideration of its nature and current implications. N Engl J Med 1985; 312: 283-289[Medline]. |
| 36. | Law MR, Watt HC, Wald NJ. The underlying risk of death after myocardial infarction in the absence of treatment. Arch Intern Med (in press). |
| 37. | Meissner I, Whisnant JP, Garraway WM. Hypertension management and stroke recurrence in a community (Rochester, Minnesota, 1950-1979). Stroke 1988; 19: 459-463[Abstract]. |
| 38. | Wald NJ, Hacksaw AK, Frost CD. When can a risk factor be used as a worthwhile screening test? BMJ 1999; 319: 1562-1565[Full Text]. |
| 39. | Wald NJ, Law M, Watt H, Wu T, Bailey A, Johnson M, et al. Apolipoproteins and ischaemic heart disease: implications for screening. Lancet 1994; 343: 75-79[Medline]. |
| 40. | Law MR, Wald NJ, Meade TW. Strategies for prevention of osteoporosis and hip fracture. BMJ 1991; 303: 453-459[Medline]. |
| 41. | Stamler J, Stamler R, Neaton JD. Blood pressure, systolic and diastolic, and cardiovascular risks. Arch Intern Med 1993; 153: 598-615[Medline]. |
| 42. | Stamler J, Wentworth D, Neaton JD. Is relationship between serum cholesterol and risk of premature death from coronary heart disease continuous and graded? JAMA 1986; 256: 2823-2828[Medline]. |
| 43. | Rose G. Strategy prevention: lessons from cardiovascular disease. BMJ 1981; 282: 1847-1851[Medline]. |
| 44. | Sacks FM, Pfeffer MA, Moye LA, Rouleau JL, Rutherford JD, Cole TG, et al. The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1001-1009[Abstract/Full Text]. |
| 45. | Prevention of cardiovascular events and death with pravastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and a broad range of initial cholesterol levels. Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) Study Group. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 1349-1357[Abstract/Full Text]. |
| 46. | Downs JR, Clearfield M, Weis S, Whitney E, Shapiro DR, Beere PA, et al. Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels. JAMA 1998; 279: 1615-1622[Medline]. |
| 47. | Linton MF, Farese RV, Young SG. Familial hypobetalipoproteinemia. J Lipid Res 1993; 34: 521-541[Medline]. |
| 48. | Glueck CJ, Gartside P, Fallat RW, Sielski J, Steiner PM. Longevity syndromes: familial hypobeta and familial hyperalpha lipoproteinemia. J Lab Clin Med 1976; 88: 941-957[Medline]. |
(Accepted 12 December 2001)
|
|||||||||||
|
Collections under
which this article appears:Other
Cardiovascular Medicine Other
Epidemiology Drugs:
cardiovascular system |
Read all Rapid Responses
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
