| Summary: | Abstract Background Current guidelines suggest screening for dyslipidemia in early adulthood. In Thailand, a screening total cholesterol level is most commonly used potentially due to the costs of the test. However, the appropriate TC cut-off point that correlates with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (Non-HDL-C) levels for the low cardiovascular risk younger population have not been examined extensively in the literature. Methods This study identified 1754 subjects with low cardiovascular risk. All participants had a physical examination and a venous blood sample sent for laboratory assessment of fasting blood glucose, TC, LDL-C, HDL-C levels. A non-HDL-C level for everyone was calculated by subtracting HDL-C levels from their total cholesterol levels. Sensitivity and specificity of different TC cutoff points in detection of abnormal LDL-C levels (≥ 130 mg/dL and ≥ 160 mg/dL) and abnormal non-HDL-C levels (≥ 160 mg/dL and ≥ 190 mg/dL) were calculated. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the predictive utility of TC for the abnormal LDL-C and abnormal non-HDL-C levels. Results The conventional range TC cut off point, between 200 to 240, had varying diagnostic properties for detection of elevated LDL-C and Non-HDL-C within this low risk population. A TC cut off point 210 would have a sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 92.5% for detection of LDL-C ≥ 130 and a sensitivity of 96.7% and specificity of 85.6% for identifying those with Non-HDL-C ≥ 160. The TC cut off point of 230 had a sensitivity of 74.9% and specificity of 92.0% in identifying those with LDL-C ≥ 160 and a sensitivity of 98.6% and specificity of 89.8% in detection of non-HDL-C ≥ 190. Conclusions Early screening for dyslipidemia in young adults is suggested by many guidelines. This population is likely to be those with lower cardiovascular risk and may needed to have repeated screening over time. Screening using TC with appropriate a cut off points may be a more cost-effective screening test in settings with limited resources, coverage and accessibility.
|
|---|
