OBJECTIVE: To compare direct measurement of LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) determined by a homogeneous method with LDL-cholesterol estimation determined by the Friedewald formula in a large heterogeneous population. METHODS: The measurements of total cholesterol (TC) and triglycerides (TG) were performed using traditional enzymatic methods. The measurements of HDL-C and LDL-C were performed using direct methods with no precipitation, and the estimation of the LDL-C fraction was calculated using the Friedewald formula. RESULTS: On linear regression analysis, the 2 methods had extremely significant correlation coefficients (P < 0.001). However, the Friedewald formula had a positive bias in regard to the direct method, more pronounced with TC levels > 201 mg/dL. This positive bias also occurred in regard to TG levels < or =150 mg/dL. No bias was observed between the methods for TG levels ranging from 151 to 200 mg/dL and from 201 to 300 mg/dL. On the other hand, for TG levels ranging from 301 to 400 mg/dL, this bias of the Friedewald formula became negative. CONCLUSION: The Friedewald formula did not have a homogeneous performance for estimating LDL-C levels in samples with different TG levels as compared with that of the direct method, what could launch doubts on patients classification on the risk of developing coronary artery disease.
OBJECTIVE: To compare direct measurement of LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) determined by a homogeneous method with LDL-cholesterol estimation determined by the Friedewald formula in a large heterogeneous population. METHODS: The measurements of total cholesterol (TC) and triglycerides (TG) were performed using traditional enzymatic methods. The measurements of HDL-C and LDL-C were performed using direct methods with no precipitation, and the estimation of the LDL-C fraction was calculated using the Friedewald formula. RESULTS: On linear regression analysis, the 2 methods had extremely significant correlation coefficients (P < 0.001). However, the Friedewald formula had a positive bias in regard to the direct method, more pronounced with TC levels > 201 mg/dL. This positive bias also occurred in regard to TG levels < or =150 mg/dL. No bias was observed between the methods for TG levels ranging from 151 to 200 mg/dL and from 201 to 300 mg/dL. On the other hand, for TG levels ranging from 301 to 400 mg/dL, this bias of the Friedewald formula became negative. CONCLUSION: The Friedewald formula did not have a homogeneous performance for estimating LDL-C levels in samples with different TG levels as compared with that of the direct method, what could launch doubts on patients classification on the risk of developing coronary artery disease.
Authors: Mikołaj Kamiński; Michał Kulecki; Paweł Lachowski; Dominika Kasprzak; Ania Kulczycka; Maria Kozłowska; Daria Klause; Aleksandra Uruska; Mateusz Michalski; Dorota Zozulińska-Ziółkiewicz Journal: Int J Angiol Date: 2022-01-13
Authors: David J Cote; Stephanie A Smith-Warner; Jordan H Creed; Jeremy Furtado; Travis Gerke; Molin Wang; Youngchul Kim; Meir J Stampfer; Kathleen M Egan Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: P B Benil; R Lekshmi; N Viswanathan; E Jollykutty; R Rajakrishnan; J Thomas; A H Alfarhan Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci Date: 2017-03-07 Impact factor: 4.219