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。

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
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":" ","pages":""},"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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:虽然可以直接测量血液中的低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C),但有多种估算公式。哥伦比亚尚未对这些公式的性能和一致性进行评估:确定使用酶解技术直接测量的 LDL-C 与现有计算方法之间的一致性:诊断测试和一致性研究。我们分析了圣伊格纳西奥大学医院(哥伦比亚波哥大)2014 年至 2022 年的完整血脂概况样本,其中包括直接测量的 LDL-C。直接测量的低密度脂蛋白胆固醇与使用 DeLong、Sampson、Friedewald、扩展马丁/霍普金斯、Anandaraja 和 Cordova 方法估算的结果进行了比较。采用林氏一致性相关系数(CCC)和布兰-阿尔特曼图,根据甘油三酯(TG)和低密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平进行亚组分析。卡帕系数根据血脂异常指南评估了低密度脂蛋白胆固醇风险类别的一致性:共评估了 2144 个样本。CCC最佳的公式是DeLong(0.971)和Sampson(0.969),两者没有相关差异。扩展的马丁/霍普金斯公式(0.964)和弗里德瓦尔德公式(0.964)也表现良好。Anandaraja 公式(0.921)和 Cordova 公式(0.881)表现较差。对于所有公式,当甘油三酯≥400 mg/dL 或低密度脂蛋白胆固醇得出结论时,一致性下降:德隆公式、桑普森公式、扩展马丁/霍普金斯公式和弗里德瓦尔德公式与直接测量的低密度脂蛋白胆固醇显示出最佳的一致性,因此在大多数情况下,可以认为这些结果是可以互换的。不过,不推荐使用阿南达拉贾公式和科尔多瓦公式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
6.80%
发文量
209
审稿时长
49 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信