Measuring Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol: Comparison of Direct Measurement by HiSens Reagents and Friedewald Estimation
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background: Directly measured low density lipoprotein cholesterol (DLDLC) has been reported to be more accurate than calculated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (CLDLC) using the Friedewald equation. However, some limitations of DLDLC have been reported. In this study, we evaluated differences between CLDLC and DLDLC measured using HiSens reagents. Methods: Data were collected from 582 persons undergoing routine physical examinations at a general hospital. LDLC measurements were made directly or estimated using the Friedewald formula, and were classified according to the National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. The relationship between these differences and other clinically relevant factors, such as triglyceride (TG) levels, were examined using multiple logistic regression analysis. Results: The DLDLC and CLDLC were strongly correlated according to simple linear regression analysis (r=0.917, P<0.001) but the mean difference between measurements was -11.0±15.3 (-62 to 90.5) mg/dL (P<0.001). For more than 10 mg/dL of their absolute differences, the DLDLC was typically lower than the CLDLC. The highest discrepancies in LDLC measurements occurred when LDLC was more than 160 mg/dL and less than 190 mg/dL. Differences in LDLC measurements were prone to striking negative and positive biases dependent on CLDLC and TG concentrations, respectively (all r>0.5). Conclusion: Unlike other studies, DLDLC was significantly lower than CLDLC and the large differences in LDLC concentrations were not dependent on TG concentration. Our work suggests that verification of DLDLC accuracy is needed and differences in LDLC measurements should be accounted for in making clinical decisions.
Abstract
Background: Directly measured low density lipoprotein cholesterol (DLDLC) has been reported to be more accurate than calculated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (CLDLC) using the Friedewald equation. However, some limitations of DLDLC have been reported. In this study, we evaluated differences between CLDLC and DLDLC measured using HiSens reagents. Methods: Data were collected from 582 persons undergoing routine physical examinations at a general hospital. LDLC measurements were made directly or estimated using the Friedewald formula, and were classified according to the National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. The relationship between these differences and other clinically relevant factors, such as triglyceride (TG) levels, were examined using multiple logistic regression analysis. Results: The DLDLC and CLDLC were strongly correlated according to simple linear regression analysis (r=0.917, P<0.001) but the mean difference between measurements was -11.0±15.3 (-62 to 90.5) mg/dL (P<0.001). For more than 10 mg/dL of their absolute differences, the DLDLC was typically lower than the CLDLC. The highest discrepancies in LDLC measurements occurred when LDLC was more than 160 mg/dL and less than 190 mg/dL. Differences in LDLC measurements were prone to striking negative and positive biases dependent on CLDLC and TG concentrations, respectively (all r>0.5). Conclusion: Unlike other studies, DLDLC was significantly lower than CLDLC and the large differences in LDLC concentrations were not dependent on TG concentration. Our work suggests that verification of DLDLC accuracy is needed and differences in LDLC measurements should be accounted for in making clinical decisions.
참고문헌 (24)
- 허미나, "균질법에 의한 저밀도지단배콜레스테롤의 측정 및 Frieddwald 계산법과의 비교", Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 23(2), pp.104~108 (2003), 대한진단검사의학회
- Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults, "Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III)", JAMA, 285, pp.2486~2497 (2001)
- Stone NJ, "Treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in adults: synopsis of the 2013 American College of Cardiology", American Heart Association cholesterol guideline, 2014, pp.160, 339~343
- Otokozawa S, "Direct assessment of plasma low density lipoprotein and high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and coronary heart disease:results from the Framingham Offspring Study", Atherosclerosis, 213, pp.251~255 (2010)
- Brunzell JD, "Lipoprotein management in patients with cardiometabolic risk: consensus conference report from the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Cardiology Foundation", J Am Coll Cardiol, 51, pp.1512~1524 (2008)
- Martin SS, "Friedewald-estimated versus directly measured low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and treatment implications", J Am Coll Cardiol, 62, pp.732~739 (2013)
- Smets EM, "Analytical performance of a direct assay for LDL-cholesterol", Clin Chem Lab Med, 39, pp.270~280 (2001)
- Kazi-Aoul T, "The Friedewald formula: another restriction?", Clin Chem, 33, pp.1301~ (1987)
- Matas C, "Limitations of the Friedewald formula for estimating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in alcoholics with liver disease", Clin Chem, 40, pp.404~406 (1994)
- Nauck M, "Methods for measurement of LDL-cholesterol:a critical assessment of direct measurement by homogeneous assays versus calculation", Clin Chem, 48, pp.236~254 (2002)
- Min WK, "Factors affecting the difference between the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations measured directly and calculated using the Friedewald formula", J Lab Med Qual Assur, 30, pp.233~235 (2008)
- "Cholesterol Reference Method Laboratory Network (CRMLN)"[URL]
- Friedewald WT, "Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge", Clin Chem, 18, pp.499~502 (1972)
- Choi SY, "Difference between calculated and direct-measured low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in subjects with diabetes mellitus or taking lipid-lowering medications", J Clin Lipidol, 6, pp.114~120 (2012)
- Sibal L, "Friedewald equation underestimates low-density lipoprotein cholesterol at low concentrations in young people with and without Type 1 diabetes", Diabet Med, 27, pp.37~45 (2010)
- Scharnagl H, "The Friedewald formula underestimates LDL cholesterol at low concentrations", Clin Chem Lab Med, 39, pp.426~431 (2001)
- Jun KR, "Effects of total cholesterol and triglyceride on the percentage difference between the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration measured directly and calculated using the Friedewald formula", Clin Chem Lab Med, 46, pp.371~375 (2008)
- McNamara JR, "Calculated values for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in the assessment of lipid abnormalities and coronary disease risk", Clin Chem, 36, pp.36~42 (1990)
- Woo HY, "Evaluation of HiSense(TM) reagents for chemistry autoanalyzer", J Lab Med Qual Assur, 28, pp.189~198 (2006)
- Can M, "Is direct method of low density lipoprotein cholesterol measurement appropriate for targeting lipid lowering therapy?", Int J Cardiol, 142, pp.105~107 (2010)
- Wagner AM, "The effect of VLDL particles on the accuracy of a direct LDL-cholesterol method in type 2 diabetic patients", Clin Biochem, 36, pp.177~183 (2003)
- Esteban-Salan M, "Analytical and clinical evaluation of two homogeneous assays for LDL-cholesterol in hyperlipidemic patients", Clin Chem, 46(8 Pt 1), pp.1121~1131 (2000)
- Usui S, "Differential reactivity of two homogeneous LDL-cholesterol methods to LDL and VLDL subfractions, as demonstrated by ultracentrifugation and HPLC", Clin Chem, 48, pp.1946~1954 (2002)
- 서병성, "저밀도지단백 콜레스테롤의 실측치와 계산치 비교분석", Korean Journal of Health Promotion, 7(1), pp.17~23 (2007), 대한임상건강증진학회