4.7 Review

The macrophage and its related cholesterol efflux as a HDL function index in atherosclerosis

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 457, 期 -, 页码 117-122

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2016.04.012

关键词

Cardiovascular disease; High-density lipoprotein; HDL-cholesterol; Reverse cholesterol transport; Statin

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan [25460776, 15K09249]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K09249, 25460776] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The macrophage and its related cholesterol efflux are considered to be a key player in atherosclerotic formation in relation to the function of high-density lipoprotein (HDL). The HDL function can be evaluated by the reaction between lipid-loaded macrophages and lipid-acceptors in the HDL fraction from the plasma, apolipoprotein B-depleted serum, and/or whole serum/plasma. Recent studies have reported that an impaired cholesterol efflux of HDL is observed in patients with cardiometabolic diseases, such as dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease. A population-based cohort study has reported an inverse association between the cholesterol efflux capacity of HDL and the incidence of atherosclerotic disease, regardless of the serum HDL-cholesterol level. Moreover, in this paper, when we summarized several clinical interventional studies of statin treatment that examined cholesterol efflux, a potential increase in the efflux in patients treated with statins was implied. However, the effect was not fully defined in the current situation because of the small sample sizes, lack of a unified protocol for measuring the efflux, and short-term intervention periods without cardiovascular outcomes in available studies. Further investigation is necessary to determine the effect of drugs on cholesterol efflux. With additional advanced studies, cholesterol efflux is a promising laboratory index to understand the HDL function. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据