Underestimation of low density lipoprotein-cholesterol with the friedewald equation versus a direct homogenous low density lipoprotein-cholesterol assay

Ishwarlal Jialal, Michael Inn, David Siegel, Sridevi Devaraj

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations are the primary therapeutic target in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, at low LDL-C concentrations, there is a significant underestimation using the Friedewald equation compared with ultracentrifugation. Methods: In this pilot study, we compared LDL-C concentrations obtained using the Friedewald equation (LDL-F) vs those concentrations from a direct LDL-C (LDL-D) assay in 152 consecutive specimens from patients with triglyceride levels between 200-399 mg/dL and LDL-F <100 mg/dL. Also, we compared LDL-F and LDL-D results to the novel formula (LDL-N). Results: The LDL-F value was significantly lower than that of LDL-D when LDL concentrations were 70-99 mg/dL (P <.001, 14% negative bias), and this decrease was accentuated in specimens with LDL <70 mg/dL, (P <.001, 27% negative bias). When compared with the LDL-N value, LDL-F and LDL-D values showed a 17% and 2% negative bias for specimens with LDL-C values of 70-99 mg/dL and 36% and 1% negative bias, respectively, at LDL-C <70 mg/dL (P <.001 for comparisons of LDL-F and LDL-N values). Conclusions: To provide accurate LDL-C levels in patients at high risk for ASCVD, if beta quantification by ultracentrifugation is unavailable and if LDL-C is <100 mg/dL and triglycerides are 200-399 mg/dL, laboratories should revert to direct LDL-C measurements or use the novel formula. Although LDL-N is more cost-effective, LDL-D can be run on most platforms, does not require a specimen from a fasting individual, is standardized, and has the advantage of being validated in large trials such as the Heart Protection Study.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)220-224
Number of pages5
JournalLab Medicine
Volume48
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

LDL Cholesterol
Assays
oxidized low density lipoprotein
Ultracentrifugation
Triglycerides
Cardiovascular Diseases
Fasting

Keywords

  • Direct LDL-cholesterol
  • Friedewald equation
  • Heart disease
  • Homogenous assays
  • LDL
  • Triglycerides

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Biochemistry
  • Biochemistry, medical

Cite this

Underestimation of low density lipoprotein-cholesterol with the friedewald equation versus a direct homogenous low density lipoprotein-cholesterol assay. / Jialal, Ishwarlal; Inn, Michael; Siegel, David; Devaraj, Sridevi.

In: Lab Medicine, Vol. 48, No. 3, 01.08.2017, p. 220-224.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ab9d1cf9e5e446e4b1079649113c323b,
title = "Underestimation of low density lipoprotein-cholesterol with the friedewald equation versus a direct homogenous low density lipoprotein-cholesterol assay",
abstract = "Background: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations are the primary therapeutic target in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, at low LDL-C concentrations, there is a significant underestimation using the Friedewald equation compared with ultracentrifugation. Methods: In this pilot study, we compared LDL-C concentrations obtained using the Friedewald equation (LDL-F) vs those concentrations from a direct LDL-C (LDL-D) assay in 152 consecutive specimens from patients with triglyceride levels between 200-399 mg/dL and LDL-F <100 mg/dL. Also, we compared LDL-F and LDL-D results to the novel formula (LDL-N). Results: The LDL-F value was significantly lower than that of LDL-D when LDL concentrations were 70-99 mg/dL (P <.001, 14{\%} negative bias), and this decrease was accentuated in specimens with LDL <70 mg/dL, (P <.001, 27{\%} negative bias). When compared with the LDL-N value, LDL-F and LDL-D values showed a 17{\%} and 2{\%} negative bias for specimens with LDL-C values of 70-99 mg/dL and 36{\%} and 1{\%} negative bias, respectively, at LDL-C <70 mg/dL (P <.001 for comparisons of LDL-F and LDL-N values). Conclusions: To provide accurate LDL-C levels in patients at high risk for ASCVD, if beta quantification by ultracentrifugation is unavailable and if LDL-C is <100 mg/dL and triglycerides are 200-399 mg/dL, laboratories should revert to direct LDL-C measurements or use the novel formula. Although LDL-N is more cost-effective, LDL-D can be run on most platforms, does not require a specimen from a fasting individual, is standardized, and has the advantage of being validated in large trials such as the Heart Protection Study.",
keywords = "Direct LDL-cholesterol, Friedewald equation, Heart disease, Homogenous assays, LDL, Triglycerides",
author = "Ishwarlal Jialal and Michael Inn and David Siegel and Sridevi Devaraj",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/labmed/lmx023",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "48",
pages = "220--224",
journal = "Laboratory Medicine",
issn = "0007-5027",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Pathologists",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Underestimation of low density lipoprotein-cholesterol with the friedewald equation versus a direct homogenous low density lipoprotein-cholesterol assay

AU - Jialal, Ishwarlal

AU - Inn, Michael

AU - Siegel, David

AU - Devaraj, Sridevi

PY - 2017/8/1

Y1 - 2017/8/1

N2 - Background: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations are the primary therapeutic target in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, at low LDL-C concentrations, there is a significant underestimation using the Friedewald equation compared with ultracentrifugation. Methods: In this pilot study, we compared LDL-C concentrations obtained using the Friedewald equation (LDL-F) vs those concentrations from a direct LDL-C (LDL-D) assay in 152 consecutive specimens from patients with triglyceride levels between 200-399 mg/dL and LDL-F <100 mg/dL. Also, we compared LDL-F and LDL-D results to the novel formula (LDL-N). Results: The LDL-F value was significantly lower than that of LDL-D when LDL concentrations were 70-99 mg/dL (P <.001, 14% negative bias), and this decrease was accentuated in specimens with LDL <70 mg/dL, (P <.001, 27% negative bias). When compared with the LDL-N value, LDL-F and LDL-D values showed a 17% and 2% negative bias for specimens with LDL-C values of 70-99 mg/dL and 36% and 1% negative bias, respectively, at LDL-C <70 mg/dL (P <.001 for comparisons of LDL-F and LDL-N values). Conclusions: To provide accurate LDL-C levels in patients at high risk for ASCVD, if beta quantification by ultracentrifugation is unavailable and if LDL-C is <100 mg/dL and triglycerides are 200-399 mg/dL, laboratories should revert to direct LDL-C measurements or use the novel formula. Although LDL-N is more cost-effective, LDL-D can be run on most platforms, does not require a specimen from a fasting individual, is standardized, and has the advantage of being validated in large trials such as the Heart Protection Study.

AB - Background: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations are the primary therapeutic target in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, at low LDL-C concentrations, there is a significant underestimation using the Friedewald equation compared with ultracentrifugation. Methods: In this pilot study, we compared LDL-C concentrations obtained using the Friedewald equation (LDL-F) vs those concentrations from a direct LDL-C (LDL-D) assay in 152 consecutive specimens from patients with triglyceride levels between 200-399 mg/dL and LDL-F <100 mg/dL. Also, we compared LDL-F and LDL-D results to the novel formula (LDL-N). Results: The LDL-F value was significantly lower than that of LDL-D when LDL concentrations were 70-99 mg/dL (P <.001, 14% negative bias), and this decrease was accentuated in specimens with LDL <70 mg/dL, (P <.001, 27% negative bias). When compared with the LDL-N value, LDL-F and LDL-D values showed a 17% and 2% negative bias for specimens with LDL-C values of 70-99 mg/dL and 36% and 1% negative bias, respectively, at LDL-C <70 mg/dL (P <.001 for comparisons of LDL-F and LDL-N values). Conclusions: To provide accurate LDL-C levels in patients at high risk for ASCVD, if beta quantification by ultracentrifugation is unavailable and if LDL-C is <100 mg/dL and triglycerides are 200-399 mg/dL, laboratories should revert to direct LDL-C measurements or use the novel formula. Although LDL-N is more cost-effective, LDL-D can be run on most platforms, does not require a specimen from a fasting individual, is standardized, and has the advantage of being validated in large trials such as the Heart Protection Study.

KW - Direct LDL-cholesterol

KW - Friedewald equation

KW - Heart disease

KW - Homogenous assays

KW - LDL

KW - Triglycerides

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028505390&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028505390&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/labmed/lmx023

DO - 10.1093/labmed/lmx023

M3 - Article

C2 - 28398496

AN - SCOPUS:85028505390

VL - 48

SP - 220

EP - 224

JO - Laboratory Medicine

JF - Laboratory Medicine

SN - 0007-5027

IS - 3

ER -