Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Reading: Fasting versus Non-fasting Lipid profile in the clinical practice


A- A+
Alt. Display

Review Articles

Fasting versus Non-fasting Lipid profile in the clinical practice


M. Umakanth

Eastern university Sri Lanka, LK
About M.
Faculty of Health care sciences
X close


There are pros and cons doing fasting and random non-fasting lipid profile test. However, when we consider cardio vascular risk, non-fasting lipid test more reliable than fasting test. In current practice, using fasting lipid profile was challenged in 2007 by two studies that showed that random non-fasting triglyceride (TG) could be superior than fasting TG in predicting risk of cardiovascular risk. Postprandial concentrations of triglyceride were higher than fasting. However, levels of non-fasting triglycerides are better at predicting future cardiovascular events than levels of fasting triglycerides. Random non-fasting lipid test is not a new phenomenon, it already practicing in Denmark since 2009. Moreover, NICE guidelines have recommended non-fasting test in the primary prevention setting since 2014. As the major shift in newer guidelines reflects the changing focus of risk assessment from LDL to non-HDL cholesterol (apolipoprotein B) as a better predictor of cardiovascular risk, indirectly tell us non-fasting lipid level superior than fasting lipid. The aim of the review is to compare both fasting and non-fasting measurements in our clinical practice.
How to Cite: Umakanth, M., 2018. Fasting versus Non-fasting Lipid profile in the clinical practice. Sri Lanka Journal of Diabetes Endocrinology and Metabolism, 8(2), pp.32–38. DOI:
Published on 29 Aug 2018.
Peer Reviewed


  • PDF (EN)

    comments powered by Disqus