BACKGROUND: Methods from 7 manufacturers and 1 distributor for directly measuring HDL cholesterol (C) and LDL-C were evaluated for imprecision, trueness, total error, and specificity in nonfrozen serum samples. METHODS: We performed each direct method according to the manufacturer's instructions, using a Roche/Hitachi 917 analyzer, and compared the results with those obtained with reference measurement procedures for HDL-C and LDL-C. Imprecision was estimated for 35 runs performed with frozen pooled serum specimens and triplicate measurements on each individual sample. Sera from 37 individuals without disease and 138 with disease (primarily dyslipidemic and cardiovascular) were measured by each method. Trueness and total error were evaluated from the difference between the direct methods and reference measurement procedures. Specificity was evaluated from the dispersion in differences observed. RESULTS: Imprecision data based on 4 frozen serum pools showed total CVs <3.7% for HDL-C and <4.4% for LDL-C. Bias for the nondiseased group ranged from -5.4% to 4.8% for HDL-C and from -6.8% to 1.1% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from -8.6% to 8.8% for HDL-C and from -11.8% to 4.1% for LDL-C. Total error for the nondiseased group ranged from -13.4% to 13.6% for HDL-C and from -13.3% to 13.5% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from -19.8% to 36.3% for HDL-C and from -26.6% to 31.9% for LDL-C. CONCLUSIONS: Six of 8 HDL-C and 5 of 8 LDL-C direct methods met the National Cholesterol Education Program total error goals for nondiseased individuals. All the methods failed to meet these goals for diseased individuals, however, because of lack of specificity toward abnormal lipoproteins.
BACKGROUND: Methods from 7 manufacturers and 1 distributor for directly measuring HDL cholesterol (C) and LDL-C were evaluated for imprecision, trueness, total error, and specificity in nonfrozen serum samples. METHODS: We performed each direct method according to the manufacturer's instructions, using a Roche/Hitachi 917 analyzer, and compared the results with those obtained with reference measurement procedures for HDL-C and LDL-C. Imprecision was estimated for 35 runs performed with frozen pooled serum specimens and triplicate measurements on each individual sample. Sera from 37 individuals without disease and 138 with disease (primarily dyslipidemic and cardiovascular) were measured by each method. Trueness and total error were evaluated from the difference between the direct methods and reference measurement procedures. Specificity was evaluated from the dispersion in differences observed. RESULTS: Imprecision data based on 4 frozen serum pools showed total CVs <3.7% for HDL-C and <4.4% for LDL-C. Bias for the nondiseased group ranged from -5.4% to 4.8% for HDL-C and from -6.8% to 1.1% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from -8.6% to 8.8% for HDL-C and from -11.8% to 4.1% for LDL-C. Total error for the nondiseased group ranged from -13.4% to 13.6% for HDL-C and from -13.3% to 13.5% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from -19.8% to 36.3% for HDL-C and from -26.6% to 31.9% for LDL-C. CONCLUSIONS: Six of 8 HDL-C and 5 of 8 LDL-C direct methods met the National Cholesterol Education Program total error goals for nondiseased individuals. All the methods failed to meet these goals for diseased individuals, however, because of lack of specificity toward abnormal lipoproteins.
Authors: M Esteban-Salán; A Guimón-Bardesi; J M de La Viuda-Unzueta; M N Azcarate-Ania; P Pascual-Usandizaga; E Amoroto-Del-Río Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Hedwig C M Stepman; Ulla Tiikkainen; Dietmar Stöckl; Hubert W Vesper; Selvin H Edwards; Harri Laitinen; Jonna Pelanti; Linda M Thienpont Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Paramjit K Sandhu; Salma M A Musaad; Alan T Remaley; Stephanie S Buehler; Sonya Strider; James H Derzon; Hubert W Vesper; Anne Ranne; Colleen S Shaw; Robert H Christenson Journal: J Appl Lab Med Date: 2016-08-01
Authors: Marcelo Jose Andrade Oliveira; Hendrick E van Deventer; Lorin M Bachmann; G Russell Warnick; Katsuyuki Nakajima; Masakasu Nakamura; Ikunosuke Sakurabayashi; Mary M Kimberly; Robert D Shamburek; William J Korzun; Gary L Myers; W Greg Miller; Alan T Remaley Journal: Clin Chim Acta Date: 2013-04-27 Impact factor: 3.786
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
Authors: Seongah Han; Amy M Flattery; David McLaren; Richard Raubertas; Sang Ho Lee; Vivienne Mendoza; Ray Rosa; Neil Geoghagen; Jose M Castro-Perez; Thomas P Roddy; Gail Forrest; Douglas Johns; Brian K Hubbard; Jing Li Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 4.132