ABSTRACT
Background: Meaningful underestimation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol is an important shortcoming of Friedewald’s formula (FF) at higher triglyceride (TG) levels. Recently a regression equation (RE) has been developed using lipid profiles in one setting and validated externally for the calculation of LDL cholesterol. This newly developed RE requires more studies in different settings. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the regression equation against direct measurement. Materials and Methods: Lipid profiles of 600 subjects attending a tertiary healthcare center were included in this study. Specimens were collected and lipid profiles were measured by standard methods. Sixty two lipid profiles with TG above 400 mg/dL were excluded. Calculated LDL cholesterol values using FF and RE were compared with measured LDL cholesterol by Pearson’s correlation test, Passing & Bablok regression, accuracy within ±5% and ±12% of measured LDL cholesterol and two-tailed paired t test at various TG ranges. Results: The mean value of LDL cholesterol was 148.6 ± 37.2 mg/dL for direct measurement, 146.9 ± 42.4 mg/dL for FF and 148.6 ± 34.7 mg/dL for RE. The correlation coefficients of calculated LDL cholesterol values with measured LDL cholesterol were 0.949 (p<0.001) for FF and 0.959 (p<0.001) for RE. Passing & Bablok regression equation against measured LDL cholesterol was y = 0.897x + 16.2 for FF and y = 1.0842x – 13.1 for RE. Accuracy within ±5% of measured LDL cholesterol was 45% for FF, 57% for RE and within ±12% of measured LDL cholesterol was 84% for FF, 93% for RE. When calculated LDL cholesterol was compared with measured LDL cholesterol at different TG ranges, FF significantly underestimated LDL cholesterol at TG concentrations above 200 mg/dL whereas no significant difference was observed for RE. Conclusion: This study reveals that RE equation has similar performance to direct measurement for calculation of LDL cholesterol.
ABSTRACT
Background: Friedewald’s formula (FF) is used worldwide to calculate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-chol). But it has several shortcomings: overestimation at lower triglyceride (TG) concentrations and underestimation at higher concentrations. In FF, TG to very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-chol) ratio (TG/VLDL-chol) is considered as constant, but practically it is not a fixed value. Recently, by analyzing lipid profiles in a large population, continuously adjustable values of TG/VLDL-chol were used to derive a novel method (NM) for the calculation of LDL-chol. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the novel method compared with direct measurement and regression equation (RE) developed for Bangladeshi population. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional comparative study we used lipid profiles of 955 adult Bangladeshi subjects. Total cholesterol (TC), TG, HDL-chol and LDL-chol were measured by direct methods using automation. LDL-chol was also calculated by NM and RE. LDL-chol calculated by NM and RE were compared with measured LDL-chol by twotailed paired t test, Pearson’s correlation test, bias against measured LDL-chol by Bland-Altman test, accuracy within ±5% and ±12% of measured LDL-chol and by inter-rater agreements with measured LDL-chol at different cut-off values. Results: The mean values of LDL-chol were 110.7 ± 32.0 mg/dL for direct measurement, 111.9 ± 34.8 mg/dL for NM and 113.2 ± 31.7 mg/dL for RE. Mean values of calculated LDL-chol by both NM and RE differed from that of measured LDL-chol (p<0.01 for NM and p<0.0001 for RE). The correlation coefficients of calculated LDL-chol values with measured LDL-chol were 0.944 (p<0.0001) for NM and 0.945 (p<0.0001) for RE. Bland- Altman plots showed good agreement between calculated and measured LDL-chol. Accuracy within ±5% of measured LDL-chol was 49% for NM, 46% for RE and within ±12% of measured LDL-chol was 79% for both NM and RE. Inter-rater agreements (κ) between calculated and measured LDL-chol at LDL-chol <100 mg/dL, 100–130 mg/dL and >130 mg/dL were 0.816 vs 0.815, 0.637 vs 0.649 and 0.791 vs 0.791 for NM and RE respectively. Conclusion: This study reveals that NM and RE developed for Bangladeshi population have similar performance and can be used for the calculation of LDL-chol.