Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (887 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
Cholesterol which is contained in or bound to low density lipoproteins (LDL), including cholesterol esters and free cholesterol.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: beta-Lipoprotein Cholesterol; beta Lipoprotein Cholesterol; Cholesterol, beta-Lipoprotein; LDL Cholesterol; Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol; Cholesteryl Linoleate, LDL; LDL Cholesteryl Linoleate.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Cholesterol; Lipoproteins, LDL
Related concepts
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 35,359 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Cholesterol, LDL” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 7,796 of them (22.0%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 11,824 records.
Reviews account for 5,014 records (14.2%) and meta-analyses for 1,108. Randomized controlled trials number 4,932 (13.9%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up a comparatively large share of this literature, which means many treatment questions have been tested directly.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 6,090 |
| 2000-2009 | 9,649 |
| 2010-2019 | 11,824 |
| 2020 onward | 7,796 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 5,014 | 14.2% |
| Meta-analyses | 1,108 | 3.1% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 4,932 | 13.9% |
Method: PubMed query "Cholesterol, LDL"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Reading the evidence in drugs and chemicals
Studies of a chemical or drug can answer very different questions: what it is and how it behaves in cells and animals, how the body handles it, and whether it changes outcomes in people. Laboratory and animal findings often do not carry over to patients, and observational studies of exposures are confounded by who uses a substance and why. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to use, avoid, start or stop any substance or medicine; talk to a qualified clinician or pharmacist about your own situation. Check the dose, the species, the comparison group and whether a patient-relevant outcome was measured.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independence of Lipoprotein(a) and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol-Mediated Cardiovascular Risk: A Participant-Level Meta-Analysis | 2025 | Meta-analysis Design not recorded in structured metadata | 98 | cc by PMID 39492722 · DOI · PMC11771346 |
| Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, C-reactive protein, and lipoprotein(a) universal one-time screening in primary prevention: the EPIC-Norfolk study | 2025 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 43 | cc by PMID 40167249 · DOI · PMC12517748 |
| Inclisiran, Reasons for a Novel Agent in a Crowded Therapeutic Field | 2025 | Review article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 26 | cc by PMID 39786678 · DOI · PMC11717820 |
| Inclisiran in Patients with CKD: Post Hoc Pooled Analysis of Three Phase 3 Trials | 2026 | Randomized controlled trial Design not recorded in structured metadata | 4 | cc by PMID 41604274 · DOI · PMC13337159 |
Independence of Lipoprotein(a) and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol-Mediated Cardiovascular Risk: A Participant-Level Meta-Analysis [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundLow-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels are independently associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
- Closing excerpt
- ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate the independent and additive nature of Lp(a) and LDL-C levels for ASCVD risk, and that LDL-C lowering does not fully offset Lp(a)-mediated risk.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (268 words)
BackgroundLow-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels are independently associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, the relationship between Lp(a) level, LDL-C level, and ASCVD risk at different thresholds is not well defined.MethodsA participant-level meta-analysis of 27 658 participants enrolled in 6 placebo-controlled statin trials was performed to assess the association of LDL-C and Lp(a) levels with risk of fatal or nonfatal coronary heart disease events, stroke, or any coronary or carotid revascularization (ASCVD). The multivariable-adjusted association between baseline Lp(a) level and ASCVD risk was modeled continuously using generalized additive models, and the association between baseline LDL-C level and ASCVD risk by baseline Lp(a) level by Cox proportional hazards models with random effects. The joint association between Lp(a) level and statin-achieved LDL-C level with ASCVD risk was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models.ResultsCompared with an Lp(a) level of 5 mg/dL, increasing levels of Lp(a) were log-linearly associated with ASCVD risk in statin- and placebo-treated patients. Among statin-treated individuals, those with Lp(a) level >50 mg/dL (≈125 nmol/L) had increased risk across all quartiles of achieved LDL-C level and absolute change in LDL-C level. Even among those with the lowest quartile of achieved LDL-C level (3.1-77.0 mg/dL), those with Lp(a) level >50 mg/dL had greater ASCVD risk (hazard ratio, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.06-1.79]) than those with Lp(a) level ≤50 mg/dL. The greatest risk was observed with both Lp(a) level >50 mg/dL and LDL-C level in the fourth quartile (hazard ratio, 1.90 [95% CI, 1.46-2.48]).ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate the independent and additive nature of Lp(a) and LDL-C levels for ASCVD risk, and that LDL-C lowering does not fully offset Lp(a)-mediated risk.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 39492722 · DOI · PMC11771346
Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, C-reactive protein, and lipoprotein(a) universal one-time screening in primary prevention: the EPIC-Norfolk study [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Background and aimsRecent data from a large American cohort of women strongly support universal one-time screening for LDL cholesterol, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), and lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in primary prevention.
- Closing excerpt
- These data replicate findings from a recent American cohort and strongly support universal screening for all three biomarkers in primary prevention.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (259 words)
Background and aimsRecent data from a large American cohort of women strongly support universal one-time screening for LDL cholesterol, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), and lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in primary prevention. This study addresses the validity and generalizability of this novel primary prevention strategy in a large prospective European cohort of initially healthy men and women.MethodsPlasma levels of LDL cholesterol, hsCRP, and Lp(a) were measured at study entry in 17 087 participants from the EPIC-Norfolk study who were subsequently followed over a period of 20 years for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). Competing risk- and multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incident MACE across quintiles of each biomarker and sought evidence of independent as well as additive effects over time were calculated.ResultsDuring the 20-year follow-up, a total of 3249 MACEs occurred. Increasing quintiles of baseline LDL cholesterol, hsCRP, and Lp(a) all predicted 20-year risks; the multivariable-adjusted HRs in a comparison of the top to bottom quintile were 1.78 (95% CI: 1.57-2.00) for LDL cholesterol, 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37-1.74) for hsCRP, and 1.19 (95% CI: 1.07-1.33) for Lp(a). Compared with individuals with no biomarker elevations, the multivariable-adjusted HRs for incident MACE were 1.33, 1.68, and 2.41 for those with one, two, or three biomarkers in the top quintile, respectively (all P ConclusionsA single combined measure of LDL cholesterol, hsCRP, and Lp(a) among initially healthy European men and women was predictive of incident MACE during a 20-year period. These data replicate findings from a recent American cohort and strongly support universal screening for all three biomarkers in primary prevention.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40167249 · DOI · PMC12517748
Inclisiran, Reasons for a Novel Agent in a Crowded Therapeutic Field [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Purpose of the reviewA significant number of patients fail to achieve target LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels.
- Closing excerpt
- Due to its pharmacokinetic properties, is likely to improve adherence to LLT and persistently maintain low LDL-C levels.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (148 words)
Purpose of the reviewA significant number of patients fail to achieve target LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. This review aims to explore why inclisiran, a novel class of LLT, should be considered a valuable addition to the current treatment options.Recent findingsInclisiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) that targets PCSK9 synthesis specifically in the hepatocytes. The drug remains in circulation for less than 48 h, but its effect lasts for over six months. Two subcutaneous injections per year consistently lowers LDL-C by approximately 55% with a favorable safety profile. In combination with other LLTs, it can achieve LDL-C reductions of over 80%, supporting its role in high-intensity LLT strategies. Inclisiran represents a novel class of LLT. Administered biannually, reduces baseline LDL-C levels by half. Additionally, it has a strong safety profile. Due to its pharmacokinetic properties, is likely to improve adherence to LLT and persistently maintain low LDL-C levels.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 39786678 · DOI · PMC11717820
Inclisiran in Patients with CKD: Post Hoc Pooled Analysis of Three Phase 3 Trials [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Key pointsInclisiran for LDL cholesterol reduction was analyzed post hoc in patients with CKD.
- Closing excerpt
- gov, ORION-9 ( NCT03397121 ), ORION-10 ( NCT03399370 ), and ORION-11 ( NCT03400800 ).
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (212 words)
Key pointsInclisiran for LDL cholesterol reduction was analyzed post hoc in patients with CKD. Mean percentage LDL cholesterol reduction from baseline was around 50% regardless of eGFR in phase 3 trials. Inclisiran showed sustained and effective LDL cholesterol-lowering in patients across various levels of eGFR values, without new safety findings.BackgroundLowering LDL cholesterol reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in patients with CKD. The efficacy and safety of inclisiran versus placebo in patients without and with CKD were investigated in a post hoc pooled analysis of three phase 3 trials (ORION-9, ORION-10, and ORION-11).MethodsPatients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or its risk equivalent, and elevated LDL cholesterol were randomized 1:1 to subcutaneous inclisiran or placebo on days 1 and 90 and every 6 months thereafter for 540 days. Patients were stratified based on baseline eGFR (by CKD Epidemiology Collaboration equation): ≥90, 60 to ResultsOf 3660 patients, 1610 (44%) had eGFR ≥90, 1608 (44%) 60 to ConclusionsInclisiran demonstrated sustained and effective LDL cholesterol reduction in patients with or at risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, regardless of baseline eGFR as low as 15 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 , without new safety findings.Clinical trial registry name and registration numberClinicalTrials.gov, ORION-9 ( NCT03397121 ), ORION-10 ( NCT03399370 ), and ORION-11 ( NCT03400800 ).
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41604274 · DOI · PMC13337159
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins [5]
- Research article Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials [6]
- Research article The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials [7]
- Research article Quantifying effect of statins on low density lipoprotein cholesterol, ischaemic heart disease, and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis [8]
- Research article Association Between Lowering LDL-C and Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Among Different Therapeutic Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis [9]
- Research article Efficacy and safety of LDL-lowering therapy among men and women: meta-analysis of individual data from 174,000 participants in 27 randomised trials [10]
References
- Bhatia HS, Wandel S, Willeit P, Lesogor A, Bailey K, Ridker PM, et al.. Independence of Lipoprotein(a) and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol-Mediated Cardiovascular Risk: A Participant-Level Meta-Analysis. . 2025. PMID 39492722 · DOI · PMC11771346
- Kraaijenhof JM, Nurmohamed NS, Nordestgaard AT, Reeskamp LF, Stroes ESG, Hovingh GK, et al.. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, C-reactive protein, and lipoprotein(a) universal one-time screening in primary prevention: the EPIC-Norfolk study. . 2025. PMID 40167249 · DOI · PMC12517748
- Di Giacomo-Barbagallo F, Andreychuk N, Scicali R, Gonzalez-Lleó A, Piro S, Masana L, et al.. Inclisiran, Reasons for a Novel Agent in a Crowded Therapeutic Field. . 2025. PMID 39786678 · DOI · PMC11717820
- Landmesser U, Ray KK, Raal FJ, Garcia Conde L, Han J, Koenig W, et al.. Inclisiran in Patients with CKD: Post Hoc Pooled Analysis of Three Phase 3 Trials. . 2026. PMID 41604274 · DOI · PMC13337159
- Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, Blackwell L, Buck G, Pollicino C, et al.. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet. 2005. PMID 16214597 · DOI
- Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration, Baigent C, Blackwell L, Emberson J, Holland LE, Reith C, et al.. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials. Lancet. 2010. PMID 21067804 · DOI · PMC2988224
- Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaborators, Mihaylova B, Emberson J, Blackwell L, Keech A, Simes J, et al.. The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials. Lancet. 2012. PMID 22607822 · DOI · PMC3437972
- Law MR, Wald NJ, Rudnicka AR. Quantifying effect of statins on low density lipoprotein cholesterol, ischaemic heart disease, and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003. PMID 12829554 · DOI
- Silverman MG, Ference BA, Im K, Wiviott SD, Giugliano RP, Grundy SM, et al.. Association Between Lowering LDL-C and Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Among Different Therapeutic Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA. 2016. PMID 27673306 · DOI
- Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration, Fulcher J, O'Connell R, Voysey M, Emberson J, Blackwell L, et al.. Efficacy and safety of LDL-lowering therapy among men and women: meta-analysis of individual data from 174,000 participants in 27 randomised trials. Lancet. 2015. PMID 25579834 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-31.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.