Comparability of calculated LDL-C with directly measured LDL-C in selected paediatric and adult cohorts

Steyn, Nicolene; Rossouw, H. Muller; Martins, Janine; Pillay, Tahir S

doi:10.1016/j.cca.2022.10.003

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many research studies have been conducted worldwide for these formulas for LDL-C calculation. However, no consensus has yet been reached on the most accurate and reliable formula for estimating LDL-C, especially for these two new formulas (15). Direct measurement of LDL-C is costly and not commonly performed by clinical laboratories.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson formulae with direct LDL measurement in hyperlipidaemic and normolipidaemic adults

ALPDEMİR

2024

J Med Biochem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT Objective: In our study, we aimed to compare and validate the performance of the Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson formulae with direct LDL-C measurement. Material and Methods: The study was a retrospective investigation which by the Department of Medical Biochemistry of the Ankara Training and Research Hospital between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2022. Our study evaluated the results of 6297 patients aged 18-99 years who underwent cholesterol panel TC, TG, HDL-C and direct LDL-C in our laboratory. Estimated LDL-C calculated according to Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson formulae. Results: All three formulae showed a stronger positive correlation with d-LDL-C (0.905, 0.897, and 0.886, respectively, for all data, p<0.001). In addition, when we compared the total median difference (1st-3rd quartile) of all formulae, it was it was -0.69 (-1.62-0.39) for Friedewald, 0.034 (-0.74 -1.14) for Martin/Hopkins and -0.40 (-1.19-0.55) for Sampson. According to Passing Bablok regression analyses, the intercept was determined as -0.97 (95% CI = -1.01 to -0.93), 0.41 (95%=0.37 to 0.44) and -0.05 (-0.08 to -0. 03) and slopes were calculated as 1.083 (95% CI = 1.07-1.09), 0.88 (0.88 to 0.89) and 0. 90 (95% = 0.89 to 0.90) for Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins and Sampson, respectively. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that Martin/Hopkins formula indicated a better performance than Friedewald and Sampson formulae. We figured out utilizing the Martin/Hopkins formula as a good alternative for estimated LDL-C in Turkish adults.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson formulae with direct LDL measurement in hyperlipidaemic and normolipidaemic adults

ALPDEMİR

2024

J Med Biochem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A good deal of external validations confirm that Martin/Hopkins equation outperforms others in accuracy. 11 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many external validation studies have been conducted and showed superiority of the Martin/Hopkins 11 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 or NIH Equation 2 25 27 37 38 in relation to the Friedewald formula. Here, the purpose of this study was to assess the practical differences 39 40 in LDL-C estimates calculated by Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, or NIH equation 2 in a population-based, random-sampled, noninstitutionalized general U.S. sample.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Practical Differences in LDL-C Estimates Calculated by Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, or NIH Equation 2: An Observation Cross-Sectional Study

Wang,

Rahman,

Hou

et al. 2023

J Lipid Atheroscler

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) remains a clinically important cholesterol target in primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The present study aimed to assess the practical differences among three equations utilized for the estimation of LDL-C: the Friedewald, the Martin/Hopkins, and the NIH equation 2. Methods Blood lipid measurements from 4,556 noninstitutionalized participants, aged 12 to 80, were obtained from the 2017-2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey study. We 1) assessed the differences between three calculated LDL-C estimates, 2) examined the correlations between LDL-C estimates using correlation coefficients and regression, and 3) investigated the degree of agreement in classifying individuals into the LDL-C category using weighted Kappa and percentage of agreement. Results The differences in LDL-C estimates between equations varied by sex and triglyceride levels ( p <0.001). Overall, the mean of absolute differences between Friedewald and Martin/Hopkins was 3.17 mg/dL (median=2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] [3.07–3.27]). The mean of absolute differences between Friedewald and NIH Equation 2 was 2.08 mg/dL (median=2.0, 95% CI [2.03–2.14]). Friedewald correlated highly with Martin/Hopkins (r=0.991, rho=0.989) and NIH Equation 2 (r=0.998, rho=0.997). Cohen’s weighted Kappa=0.92 between Friedewald and Martin/Hopkins, and 0.95 between Friedewald and NIH equation 2. The percentage of agreement in classifying individuals into the same LDL-C category was 93.0% between Friedewald and Martin/Hopkins, and 95.4% between Friedewald and NIH equation 2. Conclusion Understanding the practical differences in LDL-C calculations can be helpful in facilitating decision-making during a paradigm shift.

show abstract

“…The Friedewald equation showed poor performance in large varied South African (SA) cohorts, including children and patients with diabetes, particularly in samples with hypertriglyceridaemia (TG >4.5 mmol/L). [13,14] The Friedewald equation has, to date, been the only equation used in SA laboratories for routine calculation of LDL-C with TG <4.5 mmol/L. Hypertriglyceridaemic samples are referred for direct assay, and this increases turnaround time and has logistical obstacles.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In SA, using big data analysis, differences in instrument performance are also of concern. [13][14][15] The Friedewald equation performed poorly when compared with the direct LDL-C assay in an outpatient cohort, misclassifying 12% of all patients across different LDL-C cut-offs. [13] Dissatisfaction with the performance of the Friedewald equation has led to the development of newer equations, of which two have been found to be robust and accurate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS) changes the method of LDL-cholesterol calculation in South Africa

Pillay,

Rossouw,

Steyn

et al. 2023

S Afr Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparability of calculated LDL-C with directly measured LDL-C in selected paediatric and adult cohorts

Cited by 9 publications

References 31 publications

Comparison of Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson formulae with direct LDL measurement in hyperlipidaemic and normolipidaemic adults

Comparison of Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and Sampson formulae with direct LDL measurement in hyperlipidaemic and normolipidaemic adults

Assessing the Practical Differences in LDL-C Estimates Calculated by Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, or NIH Equation 2: An Observation Cross-Sectional Study

National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS) changes the method of LDL-cholesterol calculation in South Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About