Related Experiment Videos
Analytical performance and clinical efficacy of three routine procedures for LDL cholesterol measurement compared
1Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract:
The diagnosis and management of adults with hypercholesterolemia in the US are largely based on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentration. In order to classify someone correctly into the National Cholesterol Education Program cut-points, LDL-C must be measured with a total error of =12%. We examined simultaneously the analytical and clinical performance of two homogeneous LDL-C assays (LDL-C(RD), Roche Diagnostics and LDL-C(GZ), Genzyme) and the Friedewald calculation (LDL-C(Fried)). These assays correlated highly with the ultracentrifugation-dextran sulfate-Mg(2+) method (LDL-C(RD): r=0.962, y=1.029x-0.48 mmol/l, n=134; LDL-C(GZ): r=0.961, y=0.986x-0.12 mmol/l, n=134; LDL-C(Fried): r=0.960, y=1.017x-0.18 mmol/l, n=115). The total error requirement was met by the LDL-C(GZ) assay at all clinical decision cut-points, whereas the LDL-C(RD) assay met this requirement only at LDL-C concentrations of 4.92 mmol/l. The LDL-C(Fried) failed to meet the total error requirement, because the compounded imprecision of the three independent tests required for this calculation was high. Both, the LDL-C(GZ) and the LDL-C(RD) assays appeared to be only slightly affected by increasing triglycerides. At the medical decision cut-point range, the LDL-C(RD), LDL-C(GZ) and LDL-C(Fried) assays showed positive predictive values of 89-100, 85-100 and 83-99%, respectively, and negative predictive values of 52-98, 77-98 and 68-98%, respectively. The homogeneous assays provide clinical laboratories with the means to measure LDL-C in hypertriglyceridemic samples and could have a role in the diagnosis and management of hyperlipidemic patients.