AIM: The Friedewald equation is the standard method for estimating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels [LDL-C(F)] and fixes the ratio of triglyceride (TG) to very LDL-C at 5. However, this has been reported to underestimate LDL-C, particularly in patients with LDL-C ＜70 mg/dL. A novel method for LDL-C estimation [LDL-C(M)] using an adjustable factor instead of a fixed value of 5 has recently been proposed. The purpose of this study was to validate LDL-C(M) in Japanese patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) treated with statins. METHODS: In 385 consecutive CVD patients treated with statins, LDL-C(M) and LDL-C(F) levels were compared with directly measured LDL-C [LDL-C(D)]. RESULTS: Mean LDL-C(D), LDL-C(F), and LDL-C(M) were 81.7±25.5, 76.4±24.6, and 79.9±24.5 mg/dL, respectively. In all patients, both LDL-C(F) and LDL-C(M) were significantly correlated with LDL-C(D) [LDL-C(F) vs. LDL-C(D): R=0.974, p＜0.001; LDL-C(M) vs. LDL-C(D): R=0.987, p＜0.001]. In patients with LDL-C(D) ＜70 mg/dL, LDL-C(M) showed a better correlation with LDLC(D) compared with LDL-C(F) [LDL-C(M) vs. LDL-C(D): R=0.935, p＜0.001; LDL-C(F) vs. LDLC(D): R=0.868, p＜0.001]. In contrast, the correlation of LDL-C(D) with LDL-C(M) or LDL-C(F) was similar in patients with LDL-C(D) ≥70 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: In Japanese patients with CVD treated with statins, LDL-C level estimated by this novel method might be more accurate than those estimated using the Friedewald equation for LDL-C levels ＜70 mg/dL.
AIM: The Friedewald equation is the standard method for estimating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels [LDL-C(F)] and fixes the ratio of triglyceride (TG) to very LDL-C at 5. However, this has been reported to underestimate LDL-C, particularly in patients with LDL-C ＜70 mg/dL. A novel method for LDL-C estimation [LDL-C(M)] using an adjustable factor instead of a fixed value of 5 has recently been proposed. The purpose of this study was to validate LDL-C(M) in Japanese patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) treated with statins. METHODS: In 385 consecutive CVD patients treated with statins, LDL-C(M) and LDL-C(F) levels were compared with directly measured LDL-C [LDL-C(D)]. RESULTS: Mean LDL-C(D), LDL-C(F), and LDL-C(M) were 81.7±25.5, 76.4±24.6, and 79.9±24.5 mg/dL, respectively. In all patients, both LDL-C(F) and LDL-C(M) were significantly correlated with LDL-C(D) [LDL-C(F) vs. LDL-C(D): R=0.974, p＜0.001; LDL-C(M) vs. LDL-C(D): R=0.987, p＜0.001]. In patients with LDL-C(D) ＜70 mg/dL, LDL-C(M) showed a better correlation with LDLC(D) compared with LDL-C(F) [LDL-C(M) vs. LDL-C(D): R=0.935, p＜0.001; LDL-C(F) vs. LDLC(D): R=0.868, p＜0.001]. In contrast, the correlation of LDL-C(D) with LDL-C(M) or LDL-C(F) was similar in patients with LDL-C(D) ≥70 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: In Japanese patients with CVD treated with statins, LDL-C level estimated by this novel method might be more accurate than those estimated using the Friedewald equation for LDL-C levels ＜70 mg/dL.
Authors: Antonio J Vallejo-Vaz; Michele Robertson; Alberico L Catapano; Gerald F Watts; John J Kastelein; Chris J Packard; Ian Ford; Kausik K Ray Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Zeljko Reiner; Alberico L Catapano; Guy De Backer; Ian Graham; Marja-Riitta Taskinen; Olov Wiklund; Stefan Agewall; Eduardo Alegria; M John Chapman; Paul Durrington; Serap Erdine; Julian Halcox; Richard Hobbs; John Kjekshus; Pasquale Perrone Filardi; Gabriele Riccardi; Robert F Storey; David Wood Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2011-06-28 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Todd J Anderson; Jean Grégoire; Robert A Hegele; Patrick Couture; G B John Mancini; Ruth McPherson; Gordon A Francis; Paul Poirier; David C Lau; Steven Grover; Jacques Genest; André C Carpentier; Robert Dufour; Milan Gupta; Richard Ward; Lawrence A Leiter; Eva Lonn; Dominic S Ng; Glen J Pearson; Gillian M Yates; James A Stone; Ehud Ur Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Cameron C Lindsey; Maqual R Graham; Thomas P Johnston; Chelsea G Kiroff; Anna Freshley Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.705