BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: For normotriglyceridemic samples (TG<200mg/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. CONCLUSION: 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. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: For normotriglyceridemic samples (TG<200mg/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. CONCLUSION: 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. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Authors: André J Tremblay; Hugo Morrissette; Jean-Marc Gagné; Jean Bergeron; Claude Gagné; Patrick Couture Journal: Clin Biochem Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 3.281
Authors: Scott M Grundy; James I Cleeman; C Noel Bairey Merz; H Bryan Brewer; Luther T Clark; Donald B Hunninghake; Richard C Pasternak; Sidney C Smith; Neil J Stone Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-08-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: P W Wilson; L A Zech; R E Gregg; E J Schaefer; J M Hoeg; D L Sprecher; H B Brewer Journal: Clin Chim Acta Date: 1985-10-15 Impact factor: 3.786
Authors: Samia Mora; Michael P Caulfield; Jay Wohlgemuth; Zhihong Chen; H Robert Superko; Charles M Rowland; Robert J Glynn; Paul M Ridker; Ronald M Krauss Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 29.690
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
Authors: Michelle A Mendez; Carmen González-Horta; Blanca Sánchez-Ramírez; Lourdes Ballinas-Casarrubias; Roberto Hernández Cerón; Damián Viniegra Morales; Francisco A Baeza Terrazas; María C Ishida; Daniela S Gutiérrez-Torres; R Jesse Saunders; Zuzana Drobná; Rebecca C Fry; John B Buse; Dana Loomis; Gonzalo G García-Vargas; Luz M Del Razo; Miroslav Stýblo Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Hansol Choi; Jee-Seon Shim; Myung Ha Lee; Young Mi Yoon; Dong Phil Choi; Hyeon Chang Kim Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 3.243