This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Paul M. Ridker, MD; Meir J. Stampfer, MD; Charles H. Hennekens, MD
Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston, Mass

JAMA. 1995;274(15):1198-1199.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.

—We agree with Drs Craig and Bostom that apparent differences in outcome from available prospective studies of Lp(a) and atherothrombotic disease deserve close attention. We also believe, however, that differences in the results of available studies are in fact more apparent than real. For example, the case and control distributions in the "positive" Lipid Research Clinics data¹ and the "null" Physicians Health Study data^2,3 are almost identical. Specifically, the narrow 95% confidence interval for the risk estimate associated with a 10 mg/dL increase in Lp(a) in the Lipid Research Clinics analysis (1.03 to 1.20) overlaps that of the equally narrow 95% confidence interval of the Physicians' Health Study analysis (0.95 to 1.13). Moreover, the estimates of the relative risks associated with such a change in Lp(a) in these two studies are 1.12 and 1.03, respectively. Since the distribution of Lp(a) is markedly skewed in most populations . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?