David Gabriel David-Pardo, Álvaro J Ruiz, Óscar Mauricio Muñoz Velandia, Ángel Alberto García Peña, Diana Ximena Salgado García, Julieth Andrea Arcila Matiz
{"title":"各种公式估算的低密度脂蛋白胆固醇与直接测量的低密度脂蛋白胆固醇之间的一致性。","authors":"David Gabriel David-Pardo, Álvaro J Ruiz, Óscar Mauricio Muñoz Velandia, Ángel Alberto García Peña, Diana Ximena Salgado García, Julieth Andrea Arcila Matiz","doi":"10.1016/j.jacl.2024.08.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although direct measurement of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) in blood is possible, there are several formulas for its estimation. The performance and concordance of these formulas have not been evaluated in Colombia.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the concordance between LDL-C directly measured using the enzymatic technique and existing methods to calculate it.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Study of diagnostic tests, and concordance. We analyzed complete lipid profile samples, which included direct measurement of LDL-C, from 2014 to 2022 at Hospital Universitario San Ignacio (Bogotá, Colombia). The direct LDL-C measurements were compared with estimations using the DeLong, Sampson, Friedewald, extended Martin/Hopkins, Anandaraja, and Cordova methods. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots were employed, conducting subgroup analyses based on triglycerides (TG), and LDL-C levels. Kappa coefficients assessed agreement in LDL-C risk categories according to dyslipidemia guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2144 samples were evaluated. The formulas with the best CCC were DeLong (0.971) and Sampson (0.969), with no relevant differences. The extended Martin/Hopkins formula (0.964) and the Friedewald formula (0.964) also performed well. The Anandaraja (0.921) and Cordova (0.881) equations exhibited inferior performance. For all formulas, a decrease in concordance was observed when triglycerides were ≥400 mg/dL or when LDL-C was <100 mg/dL. Most formulas demonstrated optimal agreement when assessed using risk categories according to dyslipidemia guidelines, except for Anandaraja and Cordova.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The DeLong, Sampson, extended Martin/Hopkins, and Friedewald formulas show the best concordance with directly measured LDL-C, so in most cases the results can be considered interchangeable. However, the Anandaraja and Cordova formulas are not recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":15392,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical lipidology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concordance between LDL-C estimated by various formulas and directly measured LDL-C.\",\"authors\":\"David Gabriel David-Pardo, Álvaro J Ruiz, Óscar Mauricio Muñoz Velandia, Ángel Alberto García Peña, Diana Ximena Salgado García, Julieth Andrea Arcila Matiz\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jacl.2024.08.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although direct measurement of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) in blood is possible, there are several formulas for its estimation. The performance and concordance of these formulas have not been evaluated in Colombia.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the concordance between LDL-C directly measured using the enzymatic technique and existing methods to calculate it.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Study of diagnostic tests, and concordance. We analyzed complete lipid profile samples, which included direct measurement of LDL-C, from 2014 to 2022 at Hospital Universitario San Ignacio (Bogotá, Colombia). The direct LDL-C measurements were compared with estimations using the DeLong, Sampson, Friedewald, extended Martin/Hopkins, Anandaraja, and Cordova methods. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots were employed, conducting subgroup analyses based on triglycerides (TG), and LDL-C levels. Kappa coefficients assessed agreement in LDL-C risk categories according to dyslipidemia guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2144 samples were evaluated. The formulas with the best CCC were DeLong (0.971) and Sampson (0.969), with no relevant differences. The extended Martin/Hopkins formula (0.964) and the Friedewald formula (0.964) also performed well. The Anandaraja (0.921) and Cordova (0.881) equations exhibited inferior performance. For all formulas, a decrease in concordance was observed when triglycerides were ≥400 mg/dL or when LDL-C was <100 mg/dL. Most formulas demonstrated optimal agreement when assessed using risk categories according to dyslipidemia guidelines, except for Anandaraja and Cordova.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The DeLong, Sampson, extended Martin/Hopkins, and Friedewald formulas show the best concordance with directly measured LDL-C, so in most cases the results can be considered interchangeable. However, the Anandaraja and Cordova formulas are not recommended.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical lipidology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical lipidology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacl.2024.08.009\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical lipidology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacl.2024.08.009","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Concordance between LDL-C estimated by various formulas and directly measured LDL-C.
Background: Although direct measurement of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) in blood is possible, there are several formulas for its estimation. The performance and concordance of these formulas have not been evaluated in Colombia.
Objective: To determine the concordance between LDL-C directly measured using the enzymatic technique and existing methods to calculate it.
Methods: Study of diagnostic tests, and concordance. We analyzed complete lipid profile samples, which included direct measurement of LDL-C, from 2014 to 2022 at Hospital Universitario San Ignacio (Bogotá, Colombia). The direct LDL-C measurements were compared with estimations using the DeLong, Sampson, Friedewald, extended Martin/Hopkins, Anandaraja, and Cordova methods. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and Bland-Altman plots were employed, conducting subgroup analyses based on triglycerides (TG), and LDL-C levels. Kappa coefficients assessed agreement in LDL-C risk categories according to dyslipidemia guidelines.
Results: A total of 2144 samples were evaluated. The formulas with the best CCC were DeLong (0.971) and Sampson (0.969), with no relevant differences. The extended Martin/Hopkins formula (0.964) and the Friedewald formula (0.964) also performed well. The Anandaraja (0.921) and Cordova (0.881) equations exhibited inferior performance. For all formulas, a decrease in concordance was observed when triglycerides were ≥400 mg/dL or when LDL-C was <100 mg/dL. Most formulas demonstrated optimal agreement when assessed using risk categories according to dyslipidemia guidelines, except for Anandaraja and Cordova.
Conclusions: The DeLong, Sampson, extended Martin/Hopkins, and Friedewald formulas show the best concordance with directly measured LDL-C, so in most cases the results can be considered interchangeable. However, the Anandaraja and Cordova formulas are not recommended.
期刊介绍:
Because the scope of clinical lipidology is broad, the topics addressed by the Journal are equally diverse. Typical articles explore lipidology as it is practiced in the treatment setting, recent developments in pharmacological research, reports of treatment and trials, case studies, the impact of lifestyle modification, and similar academic material of interest to the practitioner. While preference is given to material of immediate practical concern, the science that underpins lipidology is forwarded by expert contributors so that evidence-based approaches to reducing cardiovascular and coronary heart disease can be made immediately available to our readers. Sections of the Journal will address pioneering studies and the clinicians who conduct them, case studies, ethical standards and conduct, professional guidance such as ATP and NCEP, editorial commentary, letters from readers, National Lipid Association (NLA) news and upcoming event information, as well as abstracts from the NLA annual scientific sessions and the scientific forums held by its chapters, when appropriate.