This Article Free upon publication Full Text Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content Related Collections AHA Statements and Guidelines Related Article

(Circulation. 2002;106:3157.)
© 2002 American Heart Association, Inc.

ATP III Final Report

I. Background and Introduction

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

	Introduction

 
The Third Report of the Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III, or ATP III) presents the National Cholesterol Education Program's (NCEP's) updated recommendations for cholesterol testing and management. It is similar to Adult Treatment Panel II (ATP II)^1,2 in general outline and fundamental approach to therapy. It focuses on the role of the clinical approach to prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD).^* This report continues to identify low-density lipoprotein (LDL) as the primary target of cholesterol-lowering therapy. Since ATP II, a number of controlled clinical trials with newer cholesterol-lowering drugs have been reported. These trials demonstrated remarkable reductions in risk for CHD, in both primary and secondary prevention. Their results enrich the evidence base upon which the new guidelines are founded.

	1. Development of an evidence-based report

 
The ATP III panel extensively analyzed the results of recent clinical trials whose findings strongly influenced the development of the new guidelines. The panel's major goals were to review the literature objectively and to document and display the scientific evidence for ATP III recommendations. Prior to the appointment of the ATP III panel, the NCEP Coordinating Committee developed a list of important issues for the panel's consideration. This list was presented to the panel, discussed, and modified appropriately. The literature pertaining to each defined issue was identified by the panel members and by a MEDLINE search. Panel members produced a series of issue papers that carefully reviewed the literature; these issue papers became the foundation for writing the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related Article:

References
Circulation 2002 106: 3373-3421. [Extract] [Full Text]