BACKGROUND Methods from 7 manufacturers and 1 distributor for directly measuring HDL cholesterol (C) and LDL-C were evaluated for imprecision, trueness, total error, and specificity in nonfrozen serum samples. METHODS We performed each direct method according to the manufacturer’s instructions, using a Roche/Hitachi 917 analyzer, and compared the results with those obtained with reference measurement procedures for HDL-C and LDL-C. Imprecision was estimated for 35 runs performed with frozen pooled serum specimens and triplicate measurements on each individual sample. Sera from 37 individuals without disease and 138 with disease (primarily dyslipidemic and cardiovascular) were measured by each method. Trueness and total error were evaluated from the difference between the direct methods and reference measurement procedures. Specificity was evaluated from the dispersion in differences observed. RESULTS Imprecision data based on 4 frozen serum pools showed total CVs <3.7% for HDL-C and <4.4% for LDL-C. Bias for the nondiseased group ranged from −5.4% to 4.8% for HDL-C and from −6.8% to 1.1% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from −8.6% to 8.8% for HDL-C and from −11.8% to 4.1% for LDL-C. Total error for the nondiseased group ranged from −13.4% to 13.6% for HDL-C and from −13.3% to 13.5% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from −19.8% to 36.3% for HDL-C and from −26.6% to 31.9% for LDL-C. CONCLUSIONS Six of 8 HDL-C and 5 of 8 LDL-C direct methods met the National Cholesterol Education Program total error goals for nondiseased individuals. All the methods failed to meet these goals for diseased individuals, however, because of lack of specificity toward abnormal lipoproteins.

BACKGROUND Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score classification by direct LDL cholesterol (dLDL-C), calculated LDL cholesterol (cLDL-C), and non–HDL cholesterol (non–HDL-C) compared to classification by reference measurement procedures (RMPs) performed at the CDC. METHODS We examined 175 individuals, including 138 with CVD or conditions that may affect LDL-C measurement. dLDL-C measurements were performed using Denka, Kyowa, Sekisui, Serotec, Sysmex, UMA, and Wako reagents. cLDL-C was calculated by the Friedewald equation, using each manufacturer’s direct HDL-C assay measurements, and total cholesterol and triglyceride measurements by Roche and Siemens (Advia) assays, respectively. RESULTS For participants with triglycerides <2.26 mmol/L (<200 mg/dL), the overall misclassification rate for the CVD risk score ranged from 5% to 17% for cLDL-C methods and 8% to 26% for dLDL-C methods when compared to the RMP. Only Wako dLDL-C had fewer misclassifications than its corresponding cLDL-C method (8% vs 17%; P <0.05). Non–HDL-C assays misclassified fewer patients than dLDL-C for 4 of 8 methods (P < 0.05). For participants with triglycerides ≥2.26 mmol/L (≥200 mg/dL) and <4.52 mmol/L (<400 mg/dL), dLDL-C methods, in general, performed better than cLDL-C methods, and non–HDL-C methods showed better correspondence to the RMP for CVD risk score than either dLDL-C or cLDL-C methods. CONCLUSIONS Except for hypertriglyceridemic individuals, 7 of 8 dLDL-C methods failed to show improved CVD risk score classification over the corresponding cLDL-C methods. Non–HDL-C showed overall the best concordance with the RMP for CVD risk score classification of both normal and hypertriglyceridemic individuals.

A b s t r a c tWe report a case of patient with a moderate haemophilia A and myocardial infarction. The patient underwent a successful coronary angioplasty preceded by factor VIII administration, nevertheless the double antiplatelet therapy was complicated by gastrointestinal bleeding, which occurred after the discharge. Additionally, the article discusses the treatment strategies of acute coronary syndrome in patients with haemophilia.

No abstract