Skip to content
CholesterolResearch

Guidelines

Official recommendations, broken into three separate things: the recommendation itself, the evidence it actually rests on, and how serious skeptics respond. Keeping these apart is what lets you see what a recommendation is really based on.

European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) Consensus Panel - 2017

LDL causes ASCVD - EAS Consensus Statement (Part 1: genetic, epidemiologic, and clinical evidence)

Recommendation

LDL should be regarded as a cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, not merely a biomarker, and lowering LDL particle exposure (by amount and duration) is expected to reduce ASCVD risk proportionally.

What it is based on

The statement rests on triangulation across three evidence types appraised against causality criteria: Mendelian randomization (lifelong genetically lower LDL tracks lower ASCVD risk), randomized trials (lowering LDL by any mechanism reduces events proportional to the absolute reduction), and large prospective cohorts - more than 2 million participants and 150,000+ events showing a consistent dose-dependent, log-linear LDL-risk relationship.

How skeptics respond

Skeptics argue the consensus overstates certainty: that Mendelian randomization is confounded by pleiotropy and is not equivalent to mid-life drug therapy (canalization); that randomized-trial benefit is reported in relative rather than absolute terms; that the elderly cholesterol paradox is unexplained by a simple causal model; and that the panel's pharmaceutical ties bias the framing. It is also noted the statement does not address metabolically-healthy very-high-LDL phenotypes such as LMHR.

Conflicts of interest

Several panel members disclose relationships with manufacturers of lipid-lowering drugs (consultancy, honoraria, research funding). Disclosures are listed in the source document.