Difference of Treatment Target between Direct Measurement and Calculated Measurement of Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol According to the Severity of Fatty Liver

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 752-757
Author(s):  
Hye Rim Kong ◽  
Jae Bum Cho ◽  
Sung A Cho ◽  
Hye Mi Lee ◽  
Tai Chi Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fatty Liver ◽  
Direct Measurement ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Treatment Target

scholarly journals Comparison of modified Friedewald’s formula with direct measurement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in Bangladeshi population

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 120-123
Author(s):  
N Chowdhury ◽  
M Saiedullah ◽  
MAH Khan ◽  
MR Rahman
Keyword(s):  
Direct Measurement ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Absolute Bias ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Bangladeshi Population ◽  
Modified Formula

A modification of Friedewald’s formula to estimate serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) up to serum triglyceride (TG) level of 11.3 mmol/L in Bangladeshi population has recently been published. The aim of this study was to compare the modified formula with direct measurement of LDLC in Bangladeshi population in a different setting. One thousand and fifty two specimens from adult subjects were analyzed. Serum total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), LDLC and TG were measured by standard methods. The modified Friedewald’s formula was applied to estimate LDL cholesterol concentration. Results were expressed as mean ± SD and calculated LDLC was compared with measured LDLC by two-tailed paired t test, Bland-Altman plot for absolute bias, Pearson’s correlation coefficients of calculated LDLC with measured LDLC and Passing & Bablok regression equation of calculated LDLC against measured LDLC. The mean ± SD of measured LDLC was 2.98±0.82 mmol/L. LDLC calculated by modified Friedewald’s formula was 2.77±0.86 mmol/L. The mean absolute bias was –0.20±0.32 mmol/L, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was 0.9293 (P<0.0001) and Passing & Bablok regression equation was y= – 0.3856+1.0597x for modified formula up to serum TG?11.3 mmol/L. Compared to original Friedewald’s formula, performance of the modified Friedewald’s formula was better up to serum TG?4.52 mmol/L. The study reveals that the modified Friedewald’s formula may be used to calculate LDLC approximately in Bangladeshi population. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bmrcb.v39i3.20312 Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull 2013; 39: 120-123

scholarly journals Fatty liver in men is associated with high serum levels of small, dense low-density lipoprotein cholesterol

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaori Hosoyamada ◽  
Hirofumi Uto ◽  
Yasushi Imamura ◽  
Yasunari Hiramine ◽  
Eriko Toyokura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fatty Liver ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Serum Levels ◽  
High Serum ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

scholarly journals The Levels of Serum Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Using Direct Measurement in Healthy Japanese School Children

2004 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yohei Ogawa ◽  
Makoto Hiura ◽  
Toru Kikuchi ◽  
Keisuke Nagasaki ◽  
Yukie Iwata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Direct Measurement ◽  
School Children ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Novel Method and the Regression Equation for Calculation of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Saiedullah ◽  
Nasreen Chowdhury ◽  
Md Aminul Haque Khan
Keyword(s):  
Direct Measurement ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Low Density ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Novel Method ◽  
Bangladeshi Population

Background: Friedewald’s formula (FF) is used worldwide to calculate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-chol). But it has several shortcomings: overestimation at lower triglyceride (TG) concentrations and underestimation at higher concentrations. In FF, TG to very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-chol) ratio (TG/VLDL-chol) is considered as constant, but practically it is not a fixed value. Recently, by analyzing lipid profiles in a large population, continuously adjustable values of TG/VLDL-chol were used to derive a novel method (NM) for the calculation of LDL-chol. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the novel method compared with direct measurement and regression equation (RE) developed for Bangladeshi population. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional comparative study we used lipid profiles of 955 adult Bangladeshi subjects. Total cholesterol (TC), TG, HDL-chol and LDL-chol were measured by direct methods using automation. LDL-chol was also calculated by NM and RE. LDL-chol calculated by NM and RE were compared with measured LDL-chol by twotailed paired t test, Pearson’s correlation test, bias against measured LDL-chol by Bland-Altman test, accuracy within ±5% and ±12% of measured LDL-chol and by inter-rater agreements with measured LDL-chol at different cut-off values. Results: The mean values of LDL-chol were 110.7 ± 32.0 mg/dL for direct measurement, 111.9 ± 34.8 mg/dL for NM and 113.2 ± 31.7 mg/dL for RE. Mean values of calculated LDL-chol by both NM and RE differed from that of measured LDL-chol (p<0.01 for NM and p<0.0001 for RE). The correlation coefficients of calculated LDL-chol values with measured LDL-chol were 0.944 (p<0.0001) for NM and 0.945 (p<0.0001) for RE. Bland- Altman plots showed good agreement between calculated and measured LDL-chol. Accuracy within ±5% of measured LDL-chol was 49% for NM, 46% for RE and within ±12% of measured LDL-chol was 79% for both NM and RE. Inter-rater agreements (?) between calculated and measured LDL-chol at LDL-chol <100 mg/dL, 100–130 mg/dL and >130 mg/dL were 0.816 vs 0.815, 0.637 vs 0.649 and 0.791 vs 0.791 for NM and RE respectively. Conclusion: This study reveals that NM and RE developed for Bangladeshi population have similar performance and can be used for the calculation of LDL-chol. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/jemc.v5i1.21491 J Enam Med Col 2015; 5(1): 10-14

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document