Search

CONTEXT: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is the classical target in cardiovascular (CV) disease management and is usually estimated by Friedewald's formula. However, this formula may over- or underestimate LDL-C levels. AIMS: Our aim is to compare eight LDL-C-estimating formulas to the direct LDL-C measurement and validate their use in the Saudi population. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This was a retrospective study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A blood sample of fasting 669 Saudi subjects was tested for lipid profiles in King Abdulaziz University Hospital Laboratory, from which directly measured LDL-C was obtained. LDL-C was then estimated from eight different formulas: Friedewald's, Cordova's, Hata's, Puavilai's, Chen's, Ahmadi's, Hattori's, and Vujovic's, which were all compared to direct LDL-C. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Mean and standard deviation, paired t-test, and Pearson's correlation were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The mean differences between the direct LDL-C and Hattori and Chen's LDL-C were 0.03 and 0.08 mmol/L, respectively; P < 0.001, while the mean difference observed with Hata, Friedewald, Puavilai, and Vujovic's formulas were higher in comparison: 0.15, 0.24, 0.29, and 0.33 mmol/L, respectively, P < 0.001. Ahmadi and Cordova's LDL-C were estimated to be 0.60 and 0.64 mmol/L more than direct LDL-C levels, respectively, which showed the highest discordance with direct LDL-C, P < 0.001. At a triglyceride (TG) level of 4.5 mmol/L, their mean difference was 0.21 mmol/L. All estimated LDL-C strongly correlated with direct LDL-C, except for Ahmadi's. CONCLUSIONS: Hattori's LDL-C had the best agreement with the direct LDL-C, and across all TG levels. However, we recommend directly measuring LDL-C in those with high CV risk.

CONTEXT: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is the classical target in cardiovascular (CV) disease management and is usually estimated by Friedewald's formula. However, this formula may over- or underestimate LDL-C levels. AIMS: Our aim is to compare eight LDL-C-estimating formulas to the direct LDL-C measurement and validate their use in the Saudi population. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This was a retrospective study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A blood sample of fasting 669 Saudi subjects was tested for lipid profiles in King Abdulaziz University Hospital Laboratory, from which directly measured LDL-C was obtained. LDL-C was then estimated from eight different formulas: Friedewald's, Cordova's, Hata's, Puavilai's, Chen's, Ahmadi's, Hattori's, and Vujovic's, which were all compared to direct LDL-C. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Mean and standard deviation, paired t-test, and Pearson's correlation were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The mean differences between the direct LDL-C and Hattori and Chen's LDL-C were 0.03 and 0.08 mmol/L, respectively; P < 0.001, while the mean difference observed with Hata, Friedewald, Puavilai, and Vujovic's formulas were higher in comparison: 0.15, 0.24, 0.29, and 0.33 mmol/L, respectively, P < 0.001. Ahmadi and Cordova's LDL-C were estimated to be 0.60 and 0.64 mmol/L more than direct LDL-C levels, respectively, which showed the highest discordance with direct LDL-C, P < 0.001. At a triglyceride (TG) level of <4.5 mmol/L, Hattori also had the best agreement with direct LDL-C, with a mean difference of 0.04 mmol/L, and with TG >4.5 mmol/L, their mean difference was 0.21 mmol/L. All estimated LDL-C strongly correlated with direct LDL-C, except for Ahmadi's. CONCLUSIONS: Hattori's LDL-C had the best agreement with the direct LDL-C, and across all TG levels. However, we recommend directly measuring LDL-C in those with high CV risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accurate assessment of LDL-C levels is important, as they are often used for treatment recommendations. For many years, plasma LDL-C levels were calculated using the Friedewald equation, but there are limitations to this method compared with direct measurement via beta-quantification (BQ). Here, we assessed differences between the Friedewald, Martin-Hopkins, and NIH equation 2 methods of calculating LDL-C and the “gold standard” BQ method using pooled phase 3 data with alirocumab. All randomized patients were included irrespective of the treatment arm (n = 6,122). We compared pairs of LDL-C values (n = 17,077) determined by each equation and BQ. We found that BQ-derived LDL-C values ranged from 1 to 397 mg/dl (mean 90.68 mg/dl). There were strong correlations between Friedewald-calculated, Martin-Hopkins–calculated, and NIH equation 2–calculated LDL-C with BQ-determined LDL-C values (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.985, 0.981, and 0.985, respectively). Importantly, for BQ-derived LDL-C values ≥70 mg/dl, only 3.2%, 1.4%, and 1.8% of Friedewald-calculated, Martin-Hopkins–calculated, and NIH equation 2–calculated values were 150 mg/dl, NIH equation 2 provided greater accuracy than Friedewald or Martin-Hopkins. When TGs were >250 mg/dl, inaccuracies were seen with all three methods, although NIH equation 2 remained the most accurate. In conclusion, LDL-C calculated by any of the three methods can guide treatment decisions for most patients, including those treated with proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors.

Objectives: In 2009, the Japan Society of Clinical Chemistry (JSCC) recommended a reference method for the measurement of serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. This automated method uses cholesterol esterase-cholesterol dehydrogenase to measure cholesterol levels in fractions obtained after ultracentrifugation and dextran sulfate/magnesium chloride precipitation. In the present study, using fresh samples, we compared the LDL-C and HDL-C levels measured using this method with those measured using the traditional Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-beta-quantification (BQ) method. Design: and methods: Using both the JSCC and CDC-BQ methods, LDL-C/HDL-C levels were measured in 47 non-diseased and 126 diseased subjects, whose triglyceride levels were lower than 11.29 ​mmol/L (1000 ​mg/dL). Results: For LDL-C, the equation of the line representing the correlation between the two methods was y ​= ​0.991x + 0.009 ​mmol/L; r ​= ​0.999; and Sy/x ​= ​0.025 ​mmol/L, where x is the mean LDL-C level measured using the CDC-BQ method. Similarly, for HDL-C, the equation of the line representing the correlation between the two methods was y ​= ​0.988x + 0.041 ​mmol/L, r ​= ​0.999, and Sy/x ​= ​0.019 ​mmol/L, where x is the mean HDL-C level measured using the CDC-BQ method. Conclusions: The JSCC method agreed with the CDC-BQ method in cases of both non-diseased and diseased subjects, including those with dyslipidemia.

Abstract: Background: Homogeneous assays for low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) have good precision and are pretreatment-free procedures. However, their accuracies have been questioned, especially in diseased subjects. In this study, we aimed to verify whether LDL-C levels determined by homogeneous assays [LDL-C (H)] agree with those determined by a beta-quantification method [LDL-C (BQ)] in fresh clinical samples. Methods: We determined LDL-C levels in 49 non-diseased and 124 diseased subjects whose triglyceride (TG) levels were less than 11.29 mmol/L (1000 mg/dL) using 12 homogeneous assays and a BQ method simultaneously. Results: In total, 30.6% of non-diseased subjects and 46.0% of diseased subjects were in the postprandial state. The maximum inter- and intra-assay CVs were 1.8% and 1.5%, and 8 reagents had a CV of 1.0% or less. The mean bias ranged from −0.5% to 1.8% for non-diseased subjects and from −0.7% to 1.6% for diseased subjects. For non-diseased subjects, all but one reagent achieved the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) total error requirement in more than 90% of samples. However, for diseased subjects, the number of reagents that met this requirement was low. With some reagents, LDL-C (H) was higher than LDL-C (BQ), especially in subjects with hypertriglyceridemia. While for other reagents, the difference between the two methods was not associated with hypertriglyceridemia except for type I (n = 2) and type III hyperlipidemia (n = 1). Postprandial sampling was not the main factor for discordant results. Conclusions: LDL-C (H) agrees with LDL-C (BQ) in non-diseased subjects, but exhibits positive bias for subjects with hypertriglyceridemia in diseased subjects for some reagents. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Diabet. Med. 27, 37–45 (2010) Aims Although the limitations of the Friedewald-calculated serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) are well recognized, many diabetes and lipid guidelines propose LDL-C as a therapeutic target. The validity of calculated LDL-C in people with Type 1 diabetes (T1DM) is uncertain and the use of alternatives such as non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) or apolipoprotein measurement unexplored. We have therefore measured LDL-C with the designated reference method and examined some of the potential sources of such bias, including plasma concentrations of other lipids and apolipoproteins. Methods Seventy-four people with T1DM and 80 healthy control subjects were recruited. Fasting samples were collected for analysis of lipid profiles by a beta-quantification (BQ) reference method and by routine laboratory methods including direct HDL-C and calculation of LDL-C using the Friedewald formula. Results Overall, Friedewald LDL-C was 0.29 ± 0.02 (mean ± se) mmol/l ( P < 0.001) lower in the two groups than by the BQ method. This resulted in misclassification of approximately 50% of people with a calculated LDL-C < 2.0 mmol/l. Overestimation of HDL-C by the routine assay [0.08 ± 0.01 mmol/l ( P < 0.001)] accounted for ∼28% of the error in calculation of LDL-C and the remainder appeared to be as a result of triglyceride in lipoprotein particles other than very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL). Correlation of non-HDL-C with apolipoprotein B was better than LDL-C with apolipoprotein B for both assays in both diabetic and non-diabetic populations. Conclusions Calculated LDL-C is unsuitable as a therapeutic target in T1DM. Consideration should be give to the greater use of apolipoprotein B or non-HDL-C in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accurate assessment of LDL-C levels is important, as they are often used for treatment recommendations. For many years, plasma LDL-C levels were calculated using the Friedewald equation, but there are limitations to this method compared with direct measurement via beta-quantification (BQ). Here, we assessed differences between the Friedewald, Martin-Hopkins, and NIH equation 2 methods of calculating LDL-C and the "gold standard" BQ method using pooled phase 3 data with alirocumab. All randomized patients were included irrespective of the treatment arm (n = 6,122). We compared pairs of LDL-C values (n = 17,077) determined by each equation and BQ. We found that BQ-derived LDL-C values ranged from 1 to 397 mg/dl (mean 90.68 mg/dl). There were strong correlations between Friedewald-calculated, Martin-Hopkins-calculated, and NIH equation 2-calculated LDL-C with BQ-determined LDL-C values (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.985, 0.981, and 0.985, respectively). Importantly, for BQ-derived LDL-C values ≥70 mg/dl, only 3.2%, 1.4%, and 1.8% of Friedewald-calculated, Martin-Hopkins-calculated, and NIH equation 2-calculated values were <70 mg/dl, respectively. When triglyceride (TG) levels were <150 mg/dl, differences between calculated and BQ-derived LDL-C values were minimal, regardless of the LDL-C level (<40, <55, or <70 mg/dl). However, when TG levels were >150 mg/dl, NIH equation 2 provided greater accuracy than Friedewald or Martin-Hopkins. When TGs were >250 mg/dl, inaccuracies were seen with all three methods, although NIH equation 2 remained the most accurate. In conclusion, LDL-C calculated by any of the three methods can guide treatment decisions for most patients, including those treated with proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest H. N. G. has received research grants from Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Amgen and modest consultant/advisory board fees from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Ionis, Janssen, Kowa, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Pfizer Inc. R. S. R. has received research grants through his institution from Amgen, Arrowhead, Novartis, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. G. K. H. is a holder of a Vidi Grant (016.156.445) from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and Klinkerpad, has received research support through his institution from Aegerion, Amgen, and Sanofi and speaker fees from Amgen, Aegerion, Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Pfizer. C. P. C. has received research grants from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer and consulting fees from Aegerion, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Ascendia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvidia, HLS Therapeutics, Innovent, Janssen, Kowa, Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi. R. S. R. serves on advisory boards from Amgen, Amyrt, C5, CVS Caremark, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., receives honoraria from Amgen, Kowa, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., receives royalties from UpToDate, and has stock ownership in MediMergent. G. K. H. has served as a consultant for Amgen, Aegerion, Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Pfizer and has been employed part-time by Novo Nordisk AS and Copenhagen, Denmark, since April 2019. A. L. is an employee of and stockholder in Sanofi. R. S. is an employee of and stockholder in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Y. P. is employed by a company that is contracted to Sanofi. All other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with the contents of this article., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: In 2009, the Japan Society of Clinical Chemistry (JSCC) recommended a reference method for the measurement of serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. This automated method uses cholesterol esterase-cholesterol dehydrogenase to measure cholesterol levels in fractions obtained after ultracentrifugation and dextran sulfate/magnesium chloride precipitation. In the present study, using fresh samples, we compared the LDL-C and HDL-C levels measured using this method with those measured using the traditional Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-beta-quantification (BQ) method., Design: and methods: Using both the JSCC and CDC-BQ methods, LDL-C/HDL-C levels were measured in 47 non-diseased and 126 diseased subjects, whose triglyceride levels were lower than 11.29 ​mmol/L (1000 ​mg/dL)., Results: For LDL-C, the equation of the line representing the correlation between the two methods was y ​= ​0.991x + 0.009 ​mmol/L; r ​= ​0.999; and Sy/x ​= ​0.025 ​mmol/L, where x is the mean LDL-C level measured using the CDC-BQ method. Similarly, for HDL-C, the equation of the line representing the correlation between the two methods was y ​= ​0.988x + 0.041 ​mmol/L, r ​= ​0.999, and Sy/x ​= ​0.019 ​mmol/L, where x is the mean HDL-C level measured using the CDC-BQ method., Conclusions: The JSCC method agreed with the CDC-BQ method in cases of both non-diseased and diseased subjects, including those with dyslipidemia., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists., (© 2021 The Author(s).)