Evaluation of four different equations for calculating LDL-C with eight different direct HDL-C assays

Autor: William J. Korzun, Gary L. Myers, Mary M. Kimberly, W. Greg Miller, Robert D. Shamburek, Masakasu Nakamura, G. Russell Warnick, Katsuyuki Nakajima, Marcelol Jose Andrade Oliveira, Hendrick E. van Deventer, Lorin M. Bachmann, Ikunosuke Sakurabayashi, Alan T. Remaley
Rok vydání: 2013
Předmět:
Zdroj: Clinica Chimica Acta. 423:135-140
ISSN: 0009-8981
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2013.04.009
Popis: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is often calculated (cLDL-C) by the Friedewald equation, which requires high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and triglycerides (TG). Because there have been considerable changes in the measurement of HDL-C with the introduction of direct assays, several alternative equations have recently been proposed.We compared 4 equations (Friedewald, Vujovic, Chen, and Anandaraja) for cLDL-C, using 8 different direct HDL-C (dHDL-C) methods. LDL-C values were calculated by the 4 equations and determined by the β quantification reference method procedure in 164 subjects.For normotriglyceridemic samples (TG200mg/dl), between 6.2% and 24.8% of all results exceeded the total error goal of 12% for LDL-C, depending on the dHDL-C assay and cLDL-C equation used. Friedewald equation was found to be the optimum equation for most but not all dHDL-C assays, typically leading to less than 10% misclassification of cardiovascular risk based on LDL-C. Hypertriglyceridemic samples (200mg/dl) showed a large cardiovascular risk misclassification rate (30%-50%) for all combinations of dHDL-C assays and cLDL-C equations.The Friedewald equation showed the best performance for estimating LDL-C, but its accuracy varied considerably depending on the specific dHDL-C assay used. None of the cLDL-C equations performed adequately for hypertriglyceridemic samples.
Databáze: OpenAIRE