Evaluation of current indirect methods for measuring LDL-cholesterol

• Verfasst von: Drobnik, Sophia [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Scharnagl, Hubert [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Samani, Nilesh J. [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Braund, Peter S. [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Nelson, Christopher P. [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Hollstein, Tim [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Kassner, Ursula [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Dressel, Alexander [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Drobnik, Wolfgang [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: März, Winfried [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Evaluation of current indirect methods for measuring LDL-cholesterol
• Verf.angabe: Sophia Drobnik, Hubert Scharnagl, Nilesh J. Samani, Peter S. Braund, Christopher P. Nelson, Tim Hollstein, Ursula Kassner, Alexander Dressel, Wolfgang Drobnik und Winfried März
• E-Jahr: 2025
• Jahr: 1. Mai 2025
• Umfang: 10 S.
• Fussnoten: Online veröffentlicht: 19. Februar 2025 ; Gesehen am 11.06.2025
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine
• Ort Quelle: Berlin [u.a.] : De Gruyter, 1998
• Jahr Quelle: 2025
• Band/Heft Quelle: 63(2025), 6, Seite 1099-1108
• ISSN Quelle: 1437-4331
• DOI: doi:10.1515/cclm-2025-0024
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• Sach-SW: beta quantification
• Sach-SW: Friedewald equation
• Sach-SW: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol
• Sach-SW: Martin/Hopkins equation
• Sach-SW: Sampson equation
• K10plus-PPN: 192793494X

Abstract

Objectives Accurately quantifying low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is crucial for precise cardiovascular disease risk assessment and treatment decisions. The commonly used Friedewald equation (LDL-C FW ) has faced criticism for its tendency to underestimate LDL-C, particularly at high triglycerides (TG) or low LDL-C, potentially leading to undertreatment. Newer equations, such as those by Martin and Hopkins (LDL-C MH ) or Sampson (LDL-C SN ), have been proposed as alternatives. Our study aimed to assess the validity of LDL-C FW , LDL-C MH , and LDL-C SN compared to ß-quantification (LDL-C UC ), the reference method recommended by the Lipid Research Clinics. Methods Using data from three studies comprising 5,738 datasets, LDL-C was determined with the four methods in samples with TG up to 5.65mmol/L. We calculated median and mean differences, correlations, and used the Passing and Bablok regression for comparisons. Concordance/discordance analyses were conducted. Results All equations provided generally accurate LDL-C estimations with slight differences among them. At TG<1.69mmol/L, no clinically significant divergences were observed. As TG values increased, LDL-C FW offered the most accurate estimation, followed by LDL-C SN , while LDL-C MH exhibited increasingly strong positive bias. LDL-C FW was not inferior to LDL-C SN and LDL-C MH in terms of concordance/discordance. Conclusions LDL-C FW generally provided reliable estimates of LDL-C in most samples, showing non-inferiority to LDL-C SN or LDL-C MH , thereby confirming its legitimacy for routine use. Since current treatment recommendations are based on studies employing LDL-C FW , its replacement by alternatives is not justified.