Lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations in the plasma of human subjects as measured in the fed and fasted states.

1988 ◽  
Vol 34 (12) ◽  
pp. 2456-2459 ◽  
Author(s):  
J S Cohn ◽  
J R McNamara ◽  
E J Schaefer
Keyword(s):  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Plasma Triglyceride ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Cholesterol Concentration ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Plasma Triglyceride Concentration ◽  
Triglyceride Concentration ◽  
Friedewald Formula

Abstract Lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations in plasma are routinely estimated by using the Friedewald formula, whereby very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C) is estimated to be one-fifth the plasma triglyceride concentration. Ordinarily, this formula is applied only to plasma sampled from patients in the fasted state. To determine whether lipoprotein cholesterol measurements are altered substantially in plasma sampled from nonfasting subjects, we obtained postprandial blood samples from 22 healthy subjects (nine men, 13 women, ages 22-79 years) fed a fat-rich meal (1 g fat per kilogram body wt.). The plasma triglyceride concentration increased postprandially in all subjects (233 +/- 16% of baseline at 3 h). The mean cholesterol concentration in plasma was essentially unchanged. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) was significantly decreased (94 +/- 2% at 3 h, P less than 0.001). VLDL-C and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), estimated by the Friedewald formula, were compared with measurements obtained by modified Lipid Research Clinics (LRC) methodology. As measured by either method, VLDL-C increased and LDL-C decreased significantly after the fat-rich meal. These postprandial changes were significantly greater (P less than 0.01) when estimated by the Friedewald formula than by LRC methodology. We conclude that (a) lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations measured in the fed subject differ significantly from those measured in the fasted subject, and (b) plasma must be obtained after at least a 12-h fast if an individual's risk of coronary heart disease is to be accurately assessed.

Five methods for measuring low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration in serum compared.

1985 ◽  
Vol 31 (10) ◽  
pp. 1729-1730 ◽  
Author(s):  
G E Hoffmann ◽  
R Hiefinger ◽  
L Weiss ◽  
W Poppe
Keyword(s):  
Excellent Agreement ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Calculation Procedure ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Cholesterol Concentration ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Friedewald Formula

Abstract Five methods for the quantification of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol were compared: ultracentrifugation, electrophoresis, precipitation with polyvinyl sulfate or heparin, and an indirect calculation procedure (Friedewald formula). Excellent agreement of results was obtained with all procedures for 49 of 51 sera. Discrepancies were as much as 1.69 g/L for the remaining two cases, which contained appreciable amounts of "floating" beta-cholesterol as detected with a combination of ultracentrifugation and electrophoresis.

scholarly journals Impact of Adoption of Directly Measured Low-Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol (LDL-C) on Targets of Lipid Control and Its Comparison With Friedewald Formula-Calculated LDL Cholesterol in People With Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus

2020 ◽  
pp. 263246362097804
Author(s):  
Rejitha Jagesh ◽  
Mathew John ◽  
Manju Manoharan Nair Jalaja ◽  
Tittu Oommen ◽  
Deepa Gopinath
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Friedewald Formula

Objectives: The accurate and precise measurement of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) is important in the assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk (ASCVD) in people with diabetes mellitus. This study aimed at comparing directly measured LDL-C with Friedewald formula (FF)-calculated LDL-C (c-LDL-C) in people with type-2 diabetes. Methods: Fasting lipid profiles of 1905 people with type-2 diabetes, whose LDL-C was estimated by direct LDL assay, were chosen for the study. In the same group, LDL-C was calculated with FF. Correlation and agreement between these methods were analyzed at various strata of triglycerides (TGs). The possibility of misclassifying people at various levels of LDL-C targets proposed in literature was calculated. Results: The mean LDL-C levels were lower in the c-LDL-C group across various TG strata. A significant correlation was found between c-LDL-C and direct LDL-C for all the study samples ( r = 0.948, P < .001) and across all TG strata. Analysis of agreement showed a positive bias for direct LDL-C which increased at higher strata of TGs. c-LDL-C underestimated ASCVD by misclassifying people at various LDL-C target levels. Conclusion: There is a difference between direct LDL-C and c-LDL-C values in people with diabetes and this may result in misclassifying ASCVD especially at lower levels of LDL-C and higher levels of TGs.

Non-HDL-C/TG ratio indicates significant underestimation of calculated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) better than TG level: a study on the reliability of mathematical formulas used for LDL-C estimation

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Ćwiklińska ◽  
Ewa Wieczorek ◽  
Anna Gliwińska ◽  
Marta Marcinkowska ◽  
Monika Czaplińska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Error ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Percentage Difference ◽  
Mathematical Formulas ◽  
Friedewald Formula ◽  
Significant Underestimation

Abstract Objectives Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is the main laboratory parameter used for the management of cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study was to compare measured LDL-C with LDL-C as calculated by the Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, Vujovic, and Sampson formulas with regard to triglyceride (TG), LDL-C and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C)/TG ratio. Methods The 1,209 calculated LDL-C results were compared with LDL-C measured using ultracentrifugation-precipitation (first study) and direct (second study) methods. The Passing-Bablok regression was applied to compare the methods. The percentage difference between calculated and measured LDL-C (total error) and the number of results exceeding the total error goal of 12% were established. Results There was good correlation between the measurement and calculation methods (r 0.962–0.985). The median total error ranged from −2.7%/+1.4% (first/second study) for Vujovic formula to −6.7%/−4.3% for Friedewald formula. The numbers of underestimated results exceeding the total error goal of 12% were 67 (Vujovic), 134 (Martin/Hopkins), 157 (Samspon), and 239 (Friedewald). Less than 7% of those results were obtained for samples with TG >4.5 mmol/L. From 57% (Martin/Hopkins) to 81% (Vujovic) of underestimated results were obtained for samples with a non-HDL-C/TG ratio of <2.4. Conclusions The Martin/Hopkins, Vujovic and Sampson formulas appear to be more accurate than the Friedewald formula. To minimize the number of significantly underestimated LDL-C results, we propose the implementation of risk categories according to non-HDL-C/TG ratio and suggest that for samples with a non-HDL-C/TG ratio of <1.2, the LDL-C level should not be calculated but measured independently from TG level.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document