2011 Goldberg, et al, and Triglyceride: a conspicuous reversal

It is unclear to me … who decided to reduce concern for triglyceride levels when identifying the FH? But it is equally clear that such a reversal took place. A very big push on several fronts occurs in 2011, in a series of papers, with Pharma’s heavy footprint. It includes a blatant de-emphasis of triglyceride. Left, in 1993 Williams et al go to great lengths to warn doctors about possible mix-ups with FCH and FH.  Williams presented many distinguishing criteria, and triglyceride is one of them. When identifying the FH, he tried to “close the door” on the FCH to prevent misdiagnosis. Now in 2011, in Pharma-funded work, instead of presenting high triglyceride as a red flag when diagnosing FH, the door is actually left open to the FCH – with no warning or concern for misdiagnosis. Taking a step up to the inclusion of FCH involved taking a step down from triglyceride emphasis.

2011 Goldberg, et al, and Triglyceride: a conspicuous reversal