Ference · European heart journal 2017 · consensus statement and narrative review · n=>200 studies

Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. 1. Evidence from genetic, epidemiologic, and clinical studies. A consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel.

Cited 3973 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Expert consensus statement and narrative synthesis of existing meta-analyses, trials, and genetic studies

PubMed 28444290 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx144 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

The European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel evaluated the clinical and genetic evidence establishing causality between low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). They synthesized evidence across rare genetic mutations, Mendelian randomization studies, prospective epidemiological cohorts, and randomized controlled trials of LDL-lowering interventions.

What was found

Rare mutations affecting LDL receptor function showed dose-dependent increases or decreases in ASCVD risk concordant with LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Meta-analyses across more than 200 prospective cohort studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and randomized trials (encompassing >2 million participants, >20 million person-years of follow-up, and >150,000 cardiovascular events) demonstrated a consistent, dose-dependent, log-linear relationship between absolute magnitude and duration of LDL-C exposure and ASCVD risk. Risk reduction from LDL lowering was proportional to absolute LDL-C reduction and duration of exposure across all mechanisms, provided particle reduction was concordant without off-target effects.

Why it matters

This consensus clarifies that LDL is a direct causal driver of atherosclerosis rather than merely a correlated biomarker, reinforcing the clinical rationale for lowering LDL-C to prevent cardiovascular events.

Limits

The abstract does not provide specific numerical effect sizes, odds ratios, or confidence intervals. As an expert consensus statement and narrative synthesis, it aggregates existing studies rather than executing a novel, preregistered systematic review protocol.

Cited by