ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2026
High-density lipoprotein cholesterol: function, dysfunction, and clinical implications.
Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large observational studies demonstrate a U-shaped association between high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, challenging the traditional view of HDL-C as uniformly cardioprotective. In clinical practice, elevated HDL-C often creates uncertainty regarding whether a patient is protected or at increased CVD risk. Mendelian randomization studies of myocardial infarction do not support a genomic causal protective role for higher HDL-C. In contrast, candidate gene analyses have identified common and rare variants associated with both elevated HDL-C and increased CVD risk, reinforcing the concept of HDL-C as a heterogeneous biomarker rather than a treatment target. Patients with elevated HDL-C should therefore be evaluated in a clinical context using established risk assessment tools, including traditional risk factors, personal and family history and other tests to assess global CVD risk. Additional tests that assess residual inflammatory risk can include high-sensitive C-reactive protein and/or coronary artery calcium scans. Pharmacologic strategies aimed at raising HDL-C, including niacin and investigative cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors, have not demonstrated clear cardiovascular benefit. Anti-inflammatory low dose colchicine could be added as an adjunct therapy to standard LDL-C lowering therapies in patients with multiple CVD risk factors or established atherosclerotic disease. Before clinical practice guidelines can be developed and issued by scientific organizations, double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trials in patients with elevated HDL-C are needed to determine the role of HDL-C as a biomarker of residual inflammatory CVD risk. It is time to meet the moment for the benefit of patients and practitioners.
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.