Literature DB >> 11861439

Performance of four homogeneous direct methods for LDL-cholesterol.

W Greg Miller1, Parvin P Waymack, F Philip Anderson, Steven F Ethridge, Eduviges C Jayne.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Homogeneous LDL-cholesterol methods from Genzyme, Reference Diagnostics, Roche, and Sigma were evaluated for precision, accuracy, and specificity for LDL in the presence of abnormal lipoproteins.
METHODS: Each homogeneous method was performed by a Roche/Hitachi 911 according to the vendors' instructions, and the results were compared with the beta-quantification reference method. We measured precision over 20 days using quality-control and frozen serum specimens. Sera from 100 study participants, including 60 with hyperlipidemias, were assayed by each method. Accuracy was evaluated from regression and total error analysis. Specificity was evaluated from the bias (as a percentage) vs concentration of triglycerides.
RESULTS: The total CV was <2% for all methods. Regression slope and intercept (with 95% confidence intervals) were as follows: Genzyme, 0.955 (0.92 to 0.99) and 30.3 (-12 to 73) mg/L; Reference Diagnostics, 0.975 (0.93 to 1.02) and -8 (-63 to 47) mg/L; Roche, 1.067 (1.02 to 1.11) and -101 (-161 to -42) mg/L; and Sigma, 0.964 (0.91 to 1.02) and 164 (89 to 239) mg/L. The percentages of individual results with >12% bias were as follows: Genzyme, 8.0%; Reference Diagnostics, 11.0%; Roche, 10.0%; and Sigma, 30.0%. Total error calculated from mean systematic bias and all-sources random bias was as follows: Genzyme, 12.6%; Reference Diagnostics, 16.5%; Roche, 41.6%; and Sigma, 38.3%. Slopes of bias (as a percentage) vs triglycerides were P <0.001 for all methods except the Roche method, which was P = 0.094.
CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated methods show nonspecificity toward abnormal lipoproteins, thus compromising their ability to satisfy the National Cholesterol Education Program goal for a total error of <12%. These homogeneous LDL-cholesterol results do not improve on the performance of LDL-cholesterol calculated by the Friedewald equation at triglyceride concentrations <4000 mg/L.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11861439

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chem        ISSN: 0009-9147            Impact factor:   8.327


  19 in total

1.  Serum LDL- and HDL-cholesterol determined by ultracentrifugation and HPLC.

Authors:  Jun Dong; Hanbang Guo; Ruiyue Yang; Hongxia Li; Shu Wang; Jiangtao Zhang; Wenxiang Chen
Journal:  J Lipid Res       Date:  2010-11-01       Impact factor: 5.922

2.  Seven direct methods for measuring HDL and LDL cholesterol compared with ultracentrifugation reference measurement procedures.

Authors:  W Greg Miller; Gary L Myers; Ikunosuke Sakurabayashi; Lorin M Bachmann; Samuel P Caudill; Andrzej Dziekonski; Selvin Edwards; Mary M Kimberly; William J Korzun; Elizabeth T Leary; Katsuyuki Nakajima; Masakazu Nakamura; Göran Nilsson; Robert D Shamburek; George W Vetrovec; G Russell Warnick; Alan T Remaley
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 8.327

3.  Does LDL-C Estimation Using Anandaraja's Formula Give a Better Agreement with Direct LDL-C Estimation than the Friedewald's Formula?

Authors:  Shalini Gupta; Minni Verma; Kamaljit Singh
Journal:  Indian J Clin Biochem       Date:  2012-03-24

4.  Non-HDL cholesterol shows improved accuracy for cardiovascular risk score classification compared to direct or calculated LDL cholesterol in a dyslipidemic population.

Authors:  Hendrick E van Deventer; W Greg Miller; Gary L Myers; Ikunosuke Sakurabayashi; Lorin M Bachmann; Samuel P Caudill; Andrzej Dziekonski; Selvin Edwards; Mary M Kimberly; William J Korzun; Elizabeth T Leary; Katsuyuki Nakajima; Masakazu Nakamura; Robert D Shamburek; George W Vetrovec; G Russell Warnick; Alan T Remaley
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 8.327

5.  Comparison of direct and indirect measurement of LDL-C in HIV-infected individuals: ACTG 5087.

Authors:  Scott R Evans; Carl J Fichtenbaum; Judith A Aberg
Journal:  HIV Clin Trials       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb

Review 6.  Method of LDL cholesterol measurement influences classification of LDL cholesterol treatment goals: clinical research study.

Authors:  Mayank Agrawal; Horace J Spencer; Fred H Faas
Journal:  J Investig Med       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.895

7.  Comparison of LDL cholesterol concentrations by Friedewald calculation and direct measurement in relation to cardiovascular events in 27,331 women.

Authors:  Samia Mora; Nader Rifai; Julie E Buring; Paul M Ridker
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 8.327

8.  Comparison of two methods of estimation of low density lipoprotein cholesterol, the direct versus friedewald estimation.

Authors:  Suchanda Sahu; Rajinder Chawla; Bharti Uppal
Journal:  Indian J Clin Biochem       Date:  2005-07

9.  Are we moving towards concordance on the principle that lipid discordance matters?

Authors:  Seth S Martin; Erin D Michos
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2013-12-17       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  Comparison of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Assessment by Martin/Hopkins Estimation, Friedewald Estimation, and Preparative Ultracentrifugation: Insights From the FOURIER Trial.

Authors:  Seth S Martin; Robert P Giugliano; Sabina A Murphy; Scott M Wasserman; Evan A Stein; Richard Ceška; José López-Miranda; Borislav Georgiev; Alberto J Lorenzatti; Matti J Tikkanen; Peter S Sever; Anthony C Keech; Terje R Pedersen; Marc S Sabatine
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 14.676

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.