Correlations between Direct and Calculated Low‐Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Measurements in Children and Adolescents
Open Access
- 3 March 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis
- Vol. 34 (6) , e23236
Abstract
Background: Low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C), as a modifiable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, should be assessed and monitored. This study compared directly measured and Friedewald‐estimated LDL‐C values in children and adolescents.Methods: Blood samples were collected from 464 children and adolescents. Calculated LDL‐C (CLDL‐C) levels were estimated using the Friedewald formula for any triglyceride value below 4.6 mmol/L. Direct LDL‐C (DLDL‐C) levels were measured on an ARCHITECT c8000 Abbott Clinical Chemistry Analyzer. The differences in LDL‐C were then calculated.Results: The correlation coefficients (R) between DLDL‐C and CLDL‐C were 0.978 (P = .148) and R = 0.970 (P = .052) for children and adolescents, respectively. Children with LDL‐C values above 4.92 mmol/L had a correlation value of 0.971 (P = .419). The correlation and agreement between DLDL‐C and CLDL‐C in adolescents were moderate for LDL‐C below 2.85 mmol/L (R = 0.806; 84.1%) and improved above 2.85 mmol/L (R = 0.978; 91.5%). In children, good correlations between DLDL‐C and CLDL‐C were observed for normal (R = 0.9782, 0.990, and 0.951, respectively). The rates of agreement were better for normal (80.5%) and borderline (82.9%) but not abnormal (68.2%) triglyceride levels.Conclusion: We observed good agreement between DLDL‐C and CLDL‐C in both children and adolescents. The Friedewald formula provided an adequate estimate of LDL‐C for most fasting specimens. LDL‐C difference percentage can also be used as a quality indicator to check laboratory analyzer performance in healthy subjects.Keywords
Funding Information
- King Abdullah International Medical Research Centre
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- A review of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, treatment strategies, and its impact on cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortalityJournal of Clinical Lipidology, 2016
- Reliability of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B measurementJournal of Clinical Lipidology, 2011
- Comparison of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations measured by a direct homogeneous assay and by the Friedewald formula in a large community populationClinica Chimica Acta, 2010
- Is direct method of low density lipoprotein cholesterol measurement appropriate for targeting lipid lowering therapy?International Journal of Cardiology, 2010
- Global public health: a scorecardThe Lancet, 2008
- The impact of low serum triglyceride on LDL-cholesterol estimation2008
- Comparative study of LDL-cholesterol levels in Thai patients by the direct method and using the Friedewald formula.2007
- Calculated low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels frequently underestimate directly measured low density lipoprotein cholesterol determinations in patients with serum triglyceride levels ≤4.52 mmol/l: An analysis comparing the LipiDirect® magnetic LDL assay with the Friedewald calculationClinica Chimica Acta, 2005
- Evaluation of five methods for determining low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in hemodialysis patientsClinical Biochemistry, 2001
- Analytical performance and clinical efficacy of three routine procedures for LDL cholesterol measurement compared with the ultracentrifugation–dextran sulfate–Mg2+ methodClinica Chimica Acta, 2000