Lab Med Online.  2011 Jul;1(3):121-131.

Translation: Non-HDL Cholesterol Shows Improved Accuracy for Cardiovascular Risk Score Classification Compared to Direct or Calculated LDL Cholesterol in a Dyslipidemic Population

Affiliations
  • 1National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
  • 2Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
  • 3Centers for Disease Control Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
  • 4Jichi Medical University, Tochigi-ken, Japan.
  • 5Pacific Biomarkers and Pacific Biometrics Research Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA.
  • 6Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Tokyo, Japan.
  • 7Osaka Medical Center for Health Science and Promotion, Osaka, Japan.
  • 8Health Diagnostics Laboratory, Richmond, VA, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND
Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score classification by direct LDL cholesterol (dLDL-C), calculated LDL cholesterol (cLDL-C), and non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDL-C) compared to classification by reference measurement procedures (RMPs) performed at the CDC.
METHODS
Weexamined 175 individuals, including 138 with CVD or conditions that may affect LDL-C measurement. dLDL-C measurements were performed using Denka, Kyowa, Sekisui, Serotec, Sysmex, UMA, and Wako reagents. cLDL-C was calculated by the Friedewald equation, using each manufacturer's direct HDL-C assay measurements, and total cholesterol and triglyceride measurements by Roche and Siemens (Advia) assays, respectively.
RESULTS
For participants with triglycerides <2.26 mmol/L (<200 mg/dL), the overall misclassification rate for the CVD risk score ranged from 5% to 17% for cLDL-C methods and 8% to 26% for dLDL-C methods when compared to the RMP. Only Wako dLDL-C had fewer misclassifications than its corresponding cLDL-C method (8% vs 17%; P<0.05). Non-HDL-C assays misclassified fewer patients than dLDL-C for 4 of 8 methods (P<0.05). For participants with triglycerides > or =2.26 mmol/L (> or =200 mg/dL) and <4.52 mmol/L (<400 mg/dL), dLDL-C methods, in general, performed better than cLDL-C methods, and non-HDL-C methods showed better correspondence to the RMP for CVD risk score than either dLDL-C or cLDL-C methods.
CONCLUSIONS
Except for hypertriglyceridemic individuals, 7 of 8 dLDL-C methods failed to show improved CVD risk score classification over the corresponding cLDL-C methods. Non-HDL-C showed overall the best concordance with the RMP for CVD risk score classification of both normal and hypertriglyceridemic individuals.

Full Text Links
  • LMO
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Copyright © 2020 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr