比较Friedewald、Martin和Sampson公式估算低密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平的准确性。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Vânia Benido Silva, Catarina Chaves, José Carlos Oliveira, Isabel Palma
{"title":"比较Friedewald、Martin和Sampson公式估算低密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平的准确性。","authors":"Vânia Benido Silva,&nbsp;Catarina Chaves,&nbsp;José Carlos Oliveira,&nbsp;Isabel Palma","doi":"10.5603/EP.a2023.0025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Martin (MF) and Sampson (SF) formulas have shown greater accuracy for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) < 70 mg/dL compared to the Friedewald formula (FF); however, some disagreement is maintained. Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B (ApoB) are alternatives to assessing cardiovascular risk in patients with very low LDL-C. The objective was to evaluate the accuracy of FF, MF, and SF formulas to estimate LDL-C < 70 mg/dL vs. directly measured LDL-C (LDLd-C) and to compare non-HDL-C and Apo-B levels between the groups of patients with concordant vs. discordant LDL-C.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This was a prospective clinical study with measurements of lipid profile and LDLd-C in 214 patients with triglycerides < 400 mg/dL. For each formula, the estimated LDL-C was compared with the LDLd-C, and the correlation, the median difference, and the discordance rate were evaluated. Non-HDL-C and Apo-B levels were compared between the groups with concordant and discordant LDL-C.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The estimated LDL-C was < 70 mg/dL in 130 (60.7%) patients by FF, 109 (50.9%) by MF, and 113 (52.8%) by SF. The strongest correlation was found between LDLd-C and Sampson estimated LDL-C (LDLs-C) (R2 = 0.778), followed by Friedewald-estimated LDL-C (LDLf-C) (R2 = 0.680) and Martin estimated LDL-C (LDLm-C) (R2 = 0.652). Estimated LDL-C < 70 mg/dL was lower than LDLd-C, with the largest median absolute difference (25-75th) of -15 (-19 to -10) with FF. For estimated LDL-C < 70 mg/dL, the discordant rate was 43.8%, 38.1%, and 35.1%, reaching for 62.3%, 50.9%, and 50% when LDL-C < 55 mg/dL by FF, SF, and MF, respectively. Patients in the discordant group presented significantly higher levels of non-HDL-C and ApoB for all 3 formulas (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FF was the most inaccurate formula to estimate very low LDL-C. Despite MF and SF showing better results, their frequency in underestimating LDL-C was still considerable. In patients with falsely low estimated LDL-C, apoB and non-HDL-C were significantly higher, reflecting its true high atherogenic burden.</p>","PeriodicalId":11551,"journal":{"name":"Endokrynologia Polska","volume":"74 2","pages":"203-210"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the accuracy of the Friedewald, Martin, and Sampson formulas to estimate very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.\",\"authors\":\"Vânia Benido Silva,&nbsp;Catarina Chaves,&nbsp;José Carlos Oliveira,&nbsp;Isabel Palma\",\"doi\":\"10.5603/EP.a2023.0025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Martin (MF) and Sampson (SF) formulas have shown greater accuracy for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) < 70 mg/dL compared to the Friedewald formula (FF); however, some disagreement is maintained. Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B (ApoB) are alternatives to assessing cardiovascular risk in patients with very low LDL-C. The objective was to evaluate the accuracy of FF, MF, and SF formulas to estimate LDL-C < 70 mg/dL vs. directly measured LDL-C (LDLd-C) and to compare non-HDL-C and Apo-B levels between the groups of patients with concordant vs. discordant LDL-C.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This was a prospective clinical study with measurements of lipid profile and LDLd-C in 214 patients with triglycerides < 400 mg/dL. For each formula, the estimated LDL-C was compared with the LDLd-C, and the correlation, the median difference, and the discordance rate were evaluated. Non-HDL-C and Apo-B levels were compared between the groups with concordant and discordant LDL-C.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The estimated LDL-C was < 70 mg/dL in 130 (60.7%) patients by FF, 109 (50.9%) by MF, and 113 (52.8%) by SF. The strongest correlation was found between LDLd-C and Sampson estimated LDL-C (LDLs-C) (R2 = 0.778), followed by Friedewald-estimated LDL-C (LDLf-C) (R2 = 0.680) and Martin estimated LDL-C (LDLm-C) (R2 = 0.652). Estimated LDL-C < 70 mg/dL was lower than LDLd-C, with the largest median absolute difference (25-75th) of -15 (-19 to -10) with FF. For estimated LDL-C < 70 mg/dL, the discordant rate was 43.8%, 38.1%, and 35.1%, reaching for 62.3%, 50.9%, and 50% when LDL-C < 55 mg/dL by FF, SF, and MF, respectively. Patients in the discordant group presented significantly higher levels of non-HDL-C and ApoB for all 3 formulas (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FF was the most inaccurate formula to estimate very low LDL-C. Despite MF and SF showing better results, their frequency in underestimating LDL-C was still considerable. In patients with falsely low estimated LDL-C, apoB and non-HDL-C were significantly higher, reflecting its true high atherogenic burden.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11551,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Endokrynologia Polska\",\"volume\":\"74 2\",\"pages\":\"203-210\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Endokrynologia Polska\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5603/EP.a2023.0025\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endokrynologia Polska","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/EP.a2023.0025","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

与Friedewald公式(FF)相比,Martin (MF)和Sampson (SF)公式对< 70 mg/dL的低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)具有更高的准确性;然而,仍然存在一些分歧。非高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(non-HDL-C)和载脂蛋白B (ApoB)是评估极低LDL-C患者心血管风险的替代方法。目的是评估FF、MF和SF公式在估计LDL-C < 70 mg/dL与直接测量LDL-C (LDL-C)时的准确性,并比较LDL-C一致性与不一致性患者组之间的非hdl - c和载脂蛋白b水平。材料和方法:这是一项前瞻性临床研究,测量了214例甘油三酯< 400mg /dL的患者的血脂和ldl - c。对于每个公式,将估计的LDL-C与LDL-C进行比较,并评估相关性、中位数差和不一致率。比较LDL-C不一致组和LDL-C不一致组的非hdl - c和载脂蛋白b水平。结果:FF组130例(60.7%)、MF组109例(50.9%)、SF组113例(52.8%)患者的LDL-C估计值< 70 mg/dL。LDL-C与Sampson估计的LDL-C (LDL-C)相关性最强(R2 = 0.778),其次是friedewald估计的LDL-C (R2 = 0.680)和Martin估计的LDL-C (R2 = 0.652)。估计LDL-C < 70 mg/dL低于LDL-C,与FF的绝对中位数差异最大(25-75)为-15(-19至-10)。对于估计的LDL-C < 70 mg/dL,不一致性率分别为43.8%,38.1%和35.1%,当LDL-C < 55 mg/dL时,FF, SF和MF分别达到62.3%,50.9%和50%。不协调组患者在所有3种配方中均表现出较高的非hdl - c和ApoB水平(p < 0.001)。结论:FF是估计极低LDL-C最不准确的公式。尽管MF和SF表现出更好的结果,但它们低估LDL-C的频率仍然相当高。在低LDL-C的患者中,载脂蛋白ob和非hdl - c显著升高,反映了其真正的高动脉粥样硬化负担。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the accuracy of the Friedewald, Martin, and Sampson formulas to estimate very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Introduction: The Martin (MF) and Sampson (SF) formulas have shown greater accuracy for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) < 70 mg/dL compared to the Friedewald formula (FF); however, some disagreement is maintained. Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B (ApoB) are alternatives to assessing cardiovascular risk in patients with very low LDL-C. The objective was to evaluate the accuracy of FF, MF, and SF formulas to estimate LDL-C < 70 mg/dL vs. directly measured LDL-C (LDLd-C) and to compare non-HDL-C and Apo-B levels between the groups of patients with concordant vs. discordant LDL-C.

Material and methods: This was a prospective clinical study with measurements of lipid profile and LDLd-C in 214 patients with triglycerides < 400 mg/dL. For each formula, the estimated LDL-C was compared with the LDLd-C, and the correlation, the median difference, and the discordance rate were evaluated. Non-HDL-C and Apo-B levels were compared between the groups with concordant and discordant LDL-C.

Results: The estimated LDL-C was < 70 mg/dL in 130 (60.7%) patients by FF, 109 (50.9%) by MF, and 113 (52.8%) by SF. The strongest correlation was found between LDLd-C and Sampson estimated LDL-C (LDLs-C) (R2 = 0.778), followed by Friedewald-estimated LDL-C (LDLf-C) (R2 = 0.680) and Martin estimated LDL-C (LDLm-C) (R2 = 0.652). Estimated LDL-C < 70 mg/dL was lower than LDLd-C, with the largest median absolute difference (25-75th) of -15 (-19 to -10) with FF. For estimated LDL-C < 70 mg/dL, the discordant rate was 43.8%, 38.1%, and 35.1%, reaching for 62.3%, 50.9%, and 50% when LDL-C < 55 mg/dL by FF, SF, and MF, respectively. Patients in the discordant group presented significantly higher levels of non-HDL-C and ApoB for all 3 formulas (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: FF was the most inaccurate formula to estimate very low LDL-C. Despite MF and SF showing better results, their frequency in underestimating LDL-C was still considerable. In patients with falsely low estimated LDL-C, apoB and non-HDL-C were significantly higher, reflecting its true high atherogenic burden.

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
Endokrynologia Polska
Endokrynologia Polska ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
9.50%
发文量
129
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: "Endokrynologia Polska" publishes papers in English on all aspects of clinical and experimental endocrinology. The following types of papers may be submitted for publication: original articles, reviews, case reports, postgraduate education, letters to the Editor (Readers’ Forum) and announcements of scientific meetings, conferences and congresses.
×
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