BACKGROUND: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) is the major measured parameter for cardiovascular risk assessment. The generally accepted formula (LDL-F) for estimating LDL-c developed by Friedewald and colleagues in 1972 using data from 448 individuals suffers from known inaccuracies at extremes of triglyceride (TG) and total cholesterol (TC) values. METHODS: We generated new formulas based on a large Brazilian database containing directly measured lipid values from 10,664 fasted individuals. This database LDL-c was measured by the LDL-C Select FS (DiaSys) system, a homogeneous method without centrifugation. The formulas were generated using linear and non-linear approaches, and the formula with the highest accuracy and simplicity for general clinical use was selected. RESULTS: The simple formula LDL-c = 3/4 (TC - HDL-c) provided an accurate estimate of LDL-c, a higher correlation with directly measured LDL (r = 0.93) compared with LDL-F (r = 0.87), and also a higher accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The new formula outperformed several other LDL-c formulas over a wide range of TC, HDL-c and TG values. The validation and application of this formula in other populations is warranted.
BACKGROUND:Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) is the major measured parameter for cardiovascular risk assessment. The generally accepted formula (LDL-F) for estimating LDL-c developed by Friedewald and colleagues in 1972 using data from 448 individuals suffers from known inaccuracies at extremes of triglyceride (TG) and total cholesterol (TC) values. METHODS: We generated new formulas based on a large Brazilian database containing directly measured lipid values from 10,664 fasted individuals. This database LDL-c was measured by the LDL-C Select FS (DiaSys) system, a homogeneous method without centrifugation. The formulas were generated using linear and non-linear approaches, and the formula with the highest accuracy and simplicity for general clinical use was selected. RESULTS: The simple formula LDL-c = 3/4 (TC - HDL-c) provided an accurate estimate of LDL-c, a higher correlation with directly measured LDL (r = 0.93) compared with LDL-F (r = 0.87), and also a higher accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The new formula outperformed several other LDL-c formulas over a wide range of TC, HDL-c and TG values. The validation and application of this formula in other populations is warranted.
Authors: Boris K G Azantsa; Ntentie F Raissa; Mbong A Mary-Ann; Mafongang Amelie; Kamtchoum Alexine; Momo Cliffbrown; Chimou N Lauriane; Fonkoua Martin; Edoun E Ferdinand; Ngondi J Laure; Julius E Oben Journal: Metabol Open Date: 2022-06-14
Authors: Parmila Dudi; Shashi Ranjan Mani Yadav; Poonam Sharma; Prashant Kumar; Anissa A Mirza; Manisha Naithani; Satyavati Rana; Bela Goyal Journal: J Family Med Prim Care Date: 2022-05-14
Authors: Seth S Martin; Michael J Blaha; Mohamed B Elshazly; Peter P Toth; Peter O Kwiterovich; Roger S Blumenthal; Steven R Jones Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-11-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Maureen Sampson; Clarence Ling; Qian Sun; Roa Harb; Mohmed Ashmaig; Russell Warnick; Amar Sethi; James K Fleming; James D Otvos; Jeff W Meeusen; Sarah R Delaney; Allan S Jaffe; Robert Shamburek; Marcelo Amar; Alan T Remaley Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 14.676