Isn't that an interesting question - especially for people who have proven Coronary Artery DIsease? If you've been reading recent posts, you may take a guess at this one. Ok, I'll put you out of hanging in suspenders there, and show you the results of this nice little study; again small sampling mathematical theory applies - the stats take care of the moderate numbers, so don't be whining unless you think you know better: The Study:
"Insulin Resistance and Fasting Hyperinsulinemia Are Risk Factors for New Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Disease and Normal Glucose Tolerance" Circ J 2004; 68: 47 –52
The Results - let's see how these coronary diseased people fared, when followed over three years - versus the careful measurements taken up front. Was it the statin treatment? Eh, no - more event people were on the statins. Was it the LDL? Eh, no again - they were lower if anything. Was it the HDL? sorta - not shown here, but it made the grade in the univariate analysis as can be guessed from the table. So what hammered every other variable into the ground, in giving you that second event???
Right - it was the Insulin Resistance - quelle surprise.
We don't have their LDL-P, but I'm guessing it would have shown up as significant in the 'event people'....what with their low HDL and all. But still just an associational surrogate for the real thing. Slightly less farcical than LDLc maybe... ;-)