open access
Comparison of the accuracy of the Friedewald, Martin, and Sampson formulas to estimate very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol
, 2, 3, 1
Affiliations- Department of Endocrinology, Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto, Porto, Portugal
- Department of Endocrinology, Centro Hospitalar Tâmega e Sousa, Porto, Portugal
- Department of Clinical Chemistry, Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto, Porto, Portugal
open access
Abstract
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.
Abstract
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.
Keywords
LDL-C; Friedewald formula; Sampson formula; Martin formula; ApoB; non-HDL-C; estimated
About this articleTitle
Comparison of the accuracy of the Friedewald, Martin, and Sampson formulas to estimate very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol
Journal
Issue
Article type
Original paper
Pages
203-210
Published online
2023-04-27
Page views
2213
Article views/downloads
412
DOI
Pubmed
Bibliographic record
Endokrynol Pol 2023;74(2):203-210.
Keywords
LDL-C
Friedewald formula
Sampson formula
Martin formula
ApoB
non-HDL-C
estimated
Authors
Vânia Benido Silva
Catarina Chaves
José Carlos Oliveira
Isabel Palma
References (23)- Ference BA, Ginsberg HN, Graham I, et al. Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. 1. Evidence from genetic, epidemiologic, and clinical studies. A consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38(32): 2459–2472.
- Pencina KM, Thanassoulis G, Wilkins JT, et al. Trajectories of Non-HDL Cholesterol Across Midlife: Implications for Cardiovascular Prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 74(1): 70–79.
- Visseren FLJ, Mach F, Smulders YM, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group, ESC Scientific Document Group, ESC Scientific Document Group, ESC National Cardiac Societies, ESC Scientific Document Group. 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Eur Heart J. 2021; 42(34): 3227–3337.
- Maki KC, Grant JK, Orringer CE. LDL-C Estimation: The Perils of Living With Imperfection. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022; 79(6): 542–544.
- Quispe R, Hendrani A, Elshazly MB, et al. Accuracy of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol estimation at very low levels. BMC Med. 2017; 15(1): 83.
- Tremblay AJ, Morrissette H, Gagné JM, et al. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem. 1972; 18(6): 499–502.
- Meeusen JW, Snozek CL, Baumann NA, et al. Reliability of Calculated Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol. Am J Cardiol. 2015; 116(4): 538–540.
- Martin SS, Blaha MJ, Elshazly MB, et al. Comparison of a novel method vs the Friedewald equation for estimating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels from the standard lipid profile. JAMA. 2013; 310(19): 2061–2068.
- Whelton SP, Meeusen JW, Donato LJ, et al. Evaluating the atherogenic burden of individuals with a Friedewald-estimated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dL compared with a novel low-density lipoprotein estimation method. J Clin Lipidol. 2017; 11(4): 1065–1072.
- Sampson M, Ling C, Sun Q, et al. A New Equation for Calculation of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Patients With Normolipidemia and/or Hypertriglyceridemia. JAMA Cardiol. 2020; 5(5): 540–548.
- Allain CC, Chan CS, Richmond W, et al. Enzymatic Determination of Total Serum Cholesterol . Clin Chem. 1974; 20(4): 470–5.
- Riepponen P, Marniemi J, Rautaoja T. Immunoturbidimetric determination of apolipoproteins A-1 and B in serum. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1987; 47(7): 739–744.
- Jarcho JA, Keaney JF. Proof That Lower Is Better--LDL Cholesterol and IMPROVE-IT. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(25): 2448–2450.
- Baigent C, Blackwell L, Emberson J, et al. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials. Lancet. 2010; 376(9753): 1670–1681.
- Deedwania P, Murphy SA, Scheen A, et al. Open-Label Study of Long-Term Evaluation against LDL Cholesterol (OSLER) Investigators, OSLER Investigators, LAPLACE-TIMI 57 Investigators. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a monoclonal antibody to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 in combination with a statin in patients with hypercholesterolaemia (LAPLACE-TIMI 57): a randomised, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, phase 2 study. Lancet. 2012; 380(9858): 2007–2017.
- Cannon CP, Blazing MA, Giugliano RP, et al. IMPROVE-IT Investigators. Ezetimibe Added to Statin Therapy after Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(25): 2387–2397.
- Raal FJ, Tuomilehto J, Sposito AC, et al. ODYSSEY CHOICE II Investigators, ODYSSEY LONG TERM Investigators. Monotherapy with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab versus ezetimibe in patients with hypercholesterolemia: results of a 24 week, double-blind, randomized Phase 3 trial. Int J Cardiol. 2014; 176(1): 55–61.
- Everett BM, Mora S, Glynn RJ, et al. Safety profile of subjects treated to very low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (<30 mg/dl) with rosuvastatin 20 mg daily (from JUPITER). Am J Cardiol. 2014; 114(11): 1682–1689.
- Sajja A, Park J, Sathiyakumar V, et al. Comparison of Methods to Estimate Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Patients With High Triglyceride Levels. JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4(10): e2128817.
- Sweeney Ty, Quispe R, Das T, et al. The Use of Blood Biomarkers in Precision Medicine for the Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: a Review. Expert Rev Precis Med Drug Dev. 2021; 6(4): 247–258.
- Shapiro MD, Fazio S. Apolipoprotein B-containing lipoproteins and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. F1000Res. 2017; 6: 134.
- Mora S, Buring JE, Ridker PM. Discordance of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with alternative LDL-related measures and future coronary events. Circulation. 2014; 129(5): 553–561.
- Sniderman AD, Pencina M, Thanassoulis G. ApoB. Circ Res. 2019; 124(10): 1425–1427.
