ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2023
Lipoprotein(a) as a Higher Residual Risk for Coronary Artery Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus than without.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular Implications of Lipoprotein(a) and its Genetic Variants: A Critical Review From the Middle East.JACC. Asia · 2025Review
- Impaired sensitivity to thyroid hormones is associated with high lipoprotein(a) level in euthyroid patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Lipoprotein(a) as a cardiovascular risk factor among patients with and without diabetes Mellitus: the Mass General Brigham Lp(a) Registry.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is well-known as a residual risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the different adverse effects of Lp(a) about CAD in patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are unclear. This study aimed to investigate the Lp(a) thresholds for CAD diagnosis in T2DM and non-T2DM patients, and further compare the Lp(a) alarm values along with optimal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level. Methods: This retrospective study consecutively enrolled patients with suspected CAD who underwent coronary angiography in Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital between September 2014 and July 2015. A logistic regression model was established to explore the association of Lp(a) and CAD in patients. Restricted cubic splines were used to compare the threshold values of Lp(a) for CAD in patients with and without T2DM, and further in optimal LDL-C level situation. Results: There were 1522 patients enrolled finally. After multivariable adjustment, Lp(a) was an independent risk factor for CAD in patients with T2DM (odds ratio [OR]: 1.98, 95% CI]: 1.12-3.49, p = 0.019) and without T2DM (OR: 3.42, 95% CI: 2.36-4.95, p < 0.001). In the whole population, the Lp(a) threshold of CAD was 155, while 145 mg/L for T2DM and 162 mg/L for non-T2DM ones, respectively. In patients with LDL-C<1.8 mmol/l, the alarm value of Lp(a) was even lower in T2DM than non-T2DM patients (155 vs 174 mg/L). Conclusion: Lp(a) was a significant residual risk for CAD in patients whether with T2DM or not. And Lp(a) had a lower alarm value in T2DM patients, especially in optimal LDL-C level.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.