Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

JBS2 is not the problem – its critics are

From Dr George Kassianos, Bracknell, Berkshire

Your report on the second Joint British Societies Guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice (JBS2) attempts to diminish the importance of JBS2 by calling them 'controversial' (News,

5 April). In fact, controversial are the critics of JBS2 because they have not understood what these guidelines are for and how they were put together.

JBS2 were developed by a working party with members taken from the following organisations: British Cardiovascular Society; British Hypertension Society; Diabetes UK; HEART UK; Primary Care Cardiovascular Society; The Stroke Association.

As you can see, primary and secondary care as well as patients were represented. All sections of the JBS2 document represent an evidence-based consensus by all professional societies involved. Being a consensus document, JBS2 was not concerned with grading of its recommendations. That is the job of NICE and SIGN.

JBS2 is a document that clearly and simply tells us, on the basis of current multiple evidence, what is best practice and how best to help our patients. The scientific literature that informs the

JBS2 recommendations is referenced throughout the document.

The aim of JBS2 is 'to promote a consistent multidisciplinary approach

to the management of

people with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and those with high risk of developing symptomatic atherosclerotic disease'. This is stated right from the start of the JBS2 document.

Your report states that

since the release of JBS2, it

'has been mired in controversy over its ultra-low cholesterol targets'. In fact, what is controversial in my mind and that of many physicians, is

the relatively high levels of cholesterol currently recommended in the UK.

When treating a patient with established cardiovascular disease, I would be failing my patient if I was to keep his/her total cholesterol at 5mmol/l and LDL-C at 3mmol/l. I remember in the early 1990s, we were ignoring cholesterol levels until the 4S study was announced. From then on, we realised the importance of lowering cholesterol. We now have increasingly a number of studies available showing that provided we reduce LDL cholesterol to low levels, such as 2mmol/l or below (the JBS2 recommendation), in patients with established and symptomatic atherosclerotic disease, we can reduce, halt, or even reverse the process of atherosclerosis. A LDL-C level

of 2mmol/l or below in a patient with established atherosclerotic disease is not an 'ultra-low cholesterol target' but a clinical must.

The JBS2 document is an excellent practical guide

and reflects best practice.

It plays a different role to

NICE and SIGN. It is good practice for the patient and I do wholeheartedly recommend it.

Rate this article 

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Have your say