No abstract

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: Because LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) is a modifiable risk for coronary heart disease, its routine measurement is recommended in the evaluation and management of hypercholesterolemia. We critically examine here the new homogeneous assays for direct determination of LDL-C. Approach: This review relies on published studies and data of the authors using research and routine methods for LDL-C determination. We review experience with methods from their earlier use in lipid research laboratories through the transition to routine clinical testing and the recent development of homogeneous assays. We focus on comparative evaluations and characterizations and the performance of the assays. Content: Homogeneous assays seem to be able to meet current National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) requirements for LDL-C testing for precision (CV &lt;4%) and accuracy (bias &lt;4%), when samples collected from nonfasting individuals are used. In addition, all five currently available assays have been certified by the Cholesterol Reference Methods Laboratory Network. The homogeneous methods also appear to better classify individuals into NCEP cutpoints than the Friedewald calculation. However, the limited evaluations to date raise questions about their reliability and specificity, especially in samples with atypical lipoproteins. Conclusions: Available evidence supports recommending the homogeneous assays for LDL-C to supplement the Friedewald calculation in those cases where the calculation is known to be unreliable, e.g., triglycerides &gt;4000 mg/L. Before the homogeneous assays can be confidently recommended to replace the calculation in routine practice, more evaluation is needed.

BACKGROUND: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) has been the cornerstone measurement for assessing cardiovascular risk for nearly 20 years.CONTENT: Recent data demonstrate that apolipoprotein B (apo B) is a better measure of circulating LDL particle number (LDL-P) concentration and is a more reliable indicator of risk than LDL-C, and there is growing support for the idea that addition of apo B measurement to the routine lipid panel for assessing and monitoring patients at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) would enhance patient management. In this report, we review the studies of apo B and LDL-P reported to date, discuss potential advantages of their measurement over that of LDL-C, and present information related to standardization.

We compared low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) values obtained by the Friedewald formula--i.e., total cholesterol minus high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol minus very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol (estimated as triglyceride divided by 5)--with those obtained by lipoprotein fractionation, using 4736 specimens. When triglycerides were less than 2.0 g/L, greater than 90% of estimated LDL cholesterol values were acceptable, within +/- 10% of measured values. At triglyceride concentrations of 2.0-4.0 g/L and 4.0-6.0 g/L, only 72% and 39%, respectively, of the estimates were acceptable. LDL values derived from an alternative formula, estimating VLDL as triglycerides divided by 6, were even less accurate. Nevertheless, the use of estimated LDL for risk classification based on the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel cutpoints of 1.30 and 1.60 g/L was considered acceptable. At triglyceride concentrations less than or equal to 5.0 g/L, 88% of classifications based on estimated LDL (using triglycerides divided by 5) were concordant with those by measured LDL. Eleven percent of classifications were shifted across one cutpoint, evenly distributed between high and low. Fewer than 1% of classifications, all with Type III hyperlipoproteinemia, were misclassified two cutpoints high. Refinements in the estimation model did not substantially improve LDL estimation or concordance of risk classification.