{"title":"The low-density lipoprotein debate: indirect methods vs direct measurement in the Nepalese population.","authors":"Ranjan Suwal, Vivek Pant, Sushil Ram Shrestha, Prakash Poudel, Sujan Shrestha, Santosh Pradhan, Shital Bhandary","doi":"10.1093/labmed/lmaf016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Many clinical laboratories use indirect estimation methods for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) because of cost and practicality. This study compared the accuracy of indirect LDL-C estimates derived from the Friedewald, Puavilai, Hatta, and Martin equations in a Nepalese population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective analysis included 7750 patients who underwent lipid profile testing at the Norvic International Hospital, Kathmandu, from February 1 to July 31, 2021. Participants were categorized based on triglyceride levels (<400 mg/dL and ≥400 mg/dL). Pearson correlation, paired t tests, and analysis of variance were employed to assess relationships and differences between directly measured and estimated LDL-C values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Puavilai equation demonstrated the highest concordance with directly measured LDL-C (92%), followed by the Martin (89%), Friedewald (88%), and Hatta (81%) equations. The Puavilai equation exhibited the smallest discrepancies (mean difference = 8.9 mg/dL) for triglyceride values below 150 mg/dL. The Martin equation was most accurate for triglyceride values above 150 mg/dL (mean difference = 10.0 mg/dL) and remained reliable, even for triglyceride values above 400 mg/dL. The Hatta equation showed the largest estimation errors.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The Puavilai equation is recommended for estimating LDL-C when triglyceride levels are below 150 mg/dL, while the Martin equation is preferred for levels above this threshold in the Nepalese population.</p>","PeriodicalId":94124,"journal":{"name":"Laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/labmed/lmaf016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Many clinical laboratories use indirect estimation methods for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) because of cost and practicality. This study compared the accuracy of indirect LDL-C estimates derived from the Friedewald, Puavilai, Hatta, and Martin equations in a Nepalese population.
Methods: This retrospective analysis included 7750 patients who underwent lipid profile testing at the Norvic International Hospital, Kathmandu, from February 1 to July 31, 2021. Participants were categorized based on triglyceride levels (<400 mg/dL and ≥400 mg/dL). Pearson correlation, paired t tests, and analysis of variance were employed to assess relationships and differences between directly measured and estimated LDL-C values.
Results: The Puavilai equation demonstrated the highest concordance with directly measured LDL-C (92%), followed by the Martin (89%), Friedewald (88%), and Hatta (81%) equations. The Puavilai equation exhibited the smallest discrepancies (mean difference = 8.9 mg/dL) for triglyceride values below 150 mg/dL. The Martin equation was most accurate for triglyceride values above 150 mg/dL (mean difference = 10.0 mg/dL) and remained reliable, even for triglyceride values above 400 mg/dL. The Hatta equation showed the largest estimation errors.
Discussion: The Puavilai equation is recommended for estimating LDL-C when triglyceride levels are below 150 mg/dL, while the Martin equation is preferred for levels above this threshold in the Nepalese population.