Michel R Langlois1, Olivier S Descamps2, Arnoud van der Laarse3, Cas Weykamp4, Hannsjörg Baum5, Kari Pulkki6, Arnold von Eckardstein7, Dirk De Bacquer8, Jan Borén9, Olov Wiklund9, Païvi Laitinen10, Wytze P Oosterhuis11, Christa Cobbaert12. 1. European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group (WG) Cardiac Markers; WG Guidelines, EFLM; Department of Laboratory Medicine, AZ St-Jan Bruges and Ghent University, B-8000 Bruges, Belgium. Electronic address: michel.langlois@azsintjan.be. 2. Centre de Recherche Médicale de Jolimont, Hôpital de Jolimont, 7100 Haine Saint-Paul, Belgium. 3. Department of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 4. Queen Beatrix Hospital, Winterswijk, The Netherlands. 5. European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group (WG) Cardiac Markers; Institut für Laboratoriumsmedizin, Mikrobiologie, Blutdepot und Krankenhaushygiene, Regionale Kliniken Holding RKH GmbH, Posilipostr. 4, D-71640 Ludwigsburg, Germany. 6. European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group (WG) Cardiac Markers; Department of Clinical Chemistry, University of Eastern Finland and Eastern Finland Laboratory Centre, P.O.B. 1700 FIN-70211 Kuopio, Finland. 7. Institute of Clinical Chemistry, University Hospital of Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091 Zürich, Switzerland. 8. Department of Public Health, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. 9. Wallenberg Laboratory, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, SE-413 45 Gothenburg, Sweden. 10. European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group (WG) Cardiac Markers. 11. WG Guidelines, EFLM. 12. Department of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite international standardization programs for LDLc and HDLc measurements, results vary significantly with methods from different manufacturers. We aimed to simulate the impact of analytical error and hypertriglyceridemia on HDLc- and LDLc-based cardiovascular risk classification. METHODS: From the Dutch National EQA-2012 external quality assessment of 200 clinical laboratories, we examined data from normotriglyceridemic (∼ 1 mmol/l) and hypertriglyceridemic (∼ 7 mmol/l) serum pools with lipid target values assigned by the Lipid Reference Laboratory in Rotterdam. HDLc and LDLc were measured using direct methods of Abbott, Beckman, Siemens, Roche, Olympus, or Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. We simulated risk reclassification using HDL- and sex-specific SCORE multipliers considering two fictitious moderate-risk patients with initial SCORE 4% (man) and 3% (woman). Classification into high-risk treatment groups (LDLc >2.50 mmol/l) was compared between calculated LDLc and direct LDLc methods. RESULTS: Overall HDLc measurements in hypertriglyceridemic serum showed negative mean bias of -15%. HDL-multipliers falsely reclassified 70% of women and 43% of men to a high-risk (SCORE >5%) in hypertriglyceridemic serum (P < 0.0001 vs. normotriglyceridemic serum) with method-dependent risk reclassifications. Direct LDLc in hypertriglyceridemic serum showed positive mean bias with Abbott (+16%) and Beckman (+14%) and negative mean bias with Roche (-7%). In hypertriglyceridemic serum, 57% of direct LDLc measurements were above high-risk treatment goal (2.50 mmol/l) vs. 29% of direct LDLc (33% of calculated LDLc) in normotriglyceridemic sera. CONCLUSION: LDLc and HDLc measurements are unreliable in severe hypertriglyceridemia, and should be applied with caution in SCORE risk classification and therapeutic strategies.
BACKGROUND: Despite international standardization programs for LDLc and HDLc measurements, results vary significantly with methods from different manufacturers. We aimed to simulate the impact of analytical error and hypertriglyceridemia on HDLc- and LDLc-based cardiovascular risk classification. METHODS: From the Dutch National EQA-2012 external quality assessment of 200 clinical laboratories, we examined data from normotriglyceridemic (∼ 1 mmol/l) and hypertriglyceridemic (∼ 7 mmol/l) serum pools with lipid target values assigned by the Lipid Reference Laboratory in Rotterdam. HDLc and LDLc were measured using direct methods of Abbott, Beckman, Siemens, Roche, Olympus, or Ortho Clinical Diagnostics. We simulated risk reclassification using HDL- and sex-specific SCORE multipliers considering two fictitious moderate-risk patients with initial SCORE 4% (man) and 3% (woman). Classification into high-risk treatment groups (LDLc >2.50 mmol/l) was compared between calculated LDLc and direct LDLc methods. RESULTS: Overall HDLc measurements in hypertriglyceridemic serum showed negative mean bias of -15%. HDL-multipliers falsely reclassified 70% of women and 43% of men to a high-risk (SCORE >5%) in hypertriglyceridemic serum (P < 0.0001 vs. normotriglyceridemic serum) with method-dependent risk reclassifications. Direct LDLc in hypertriglyceridemic serum showed positive mean bias with Abbott (+16%) and Beckman (+14%) and negative mean bias with Roche (-7%). In hypertriglyceridemic serum, 57% of direct LDLc measurements were above high-risk treatment goal (2.50 mmol/l) vs. 29% of direct LDLc (33% of calculated LDLc) in normotriglyceridemic sera. CONCLUSION:LDLc and HDLc measurements are unreliable in severe hypertriglyceridemia, and should be applied with caution in SCORE risk classification and therapeutic strategies.
Authors: Christina M Parrinello; Morgan E Grams; David Couper; Christie M Ballantyne; Ron C Hoogeveen; John H Eckfeldt; Elizabeth Selvin; Josef Coresh Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Winfried März; Marcus E Kleber; Hubert Scharnagl; Timotheus Speer; Stephen Zewinger; Andreas Ritsch; Klaus G Parhofer; Arnold von Eckardstein; Ulf Landmesser; Ulrich Laufs Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2017-03-24 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Uliana Danilenko; Hubert W Vesper; Gary L Myers; Patric A Clapshaw; Johanna E Camara; W Greg Miller Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 8.490