Lipids in health and disease · 2024
The clinical impact of estimating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) using different equations in the general population.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lam Reyna, Manemann Sheila M, Seehusen Kristina E, Remaley Alan T, Sauver Jennifer L St, Jiang Ruoxiang, Killian Jill M, Sampson Maureen, Meeusen Jeffrey W, Decker Paul A, Roger Véronique L, Takahashi Paul Y, Larson Nicholas B, Bielinski Suzette J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Friedewald, Sampson, and Martin-Hopkins equations are used to calculate LDL-C. This study compares the impact of switching between these equations in a large geographically defined population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for individuals who had a lipid panel ordered clinically between 2010 and 2019 were included. Comparisons were made across groups using the two-sample t-test or chi-square test as appropriate. Discordances between LDL measures based on clinically actionable thresholds were summarized using contingency tables.
RESULTS: The cohort included 198,166 patients (mean age 54 years, 54% female). The equations perform similarly at the lower range of triglycerides but began to diverge at a triglyceride level of 125 mg/dL. However, at triglycerides of 175 mg/dL and higher, the Martin-Hopkins equation estimated higher LDL-C values than the Samson equation. This discordance was further exasperated at triglyceride values of 400 to 800 mg/dL. When comparing the Sampson and Friedewald equations, at triglycerides are below 175 mg/dL, 9% of patients were discordant at the 70 mg/dL cutpoint, whereas 42.4% were discordant when triglycerides are between 175 and 400 mg/dL. Discordance was observed at the clinically actionable LDL-C cutpoint of 190 mg/dL with the Friedewald equation estimating lower LDL-C than the other equations. In a high-risk subgroup (ASCVD risk score > 20%), 16.3% of patients were discordant at the clinical cutpoint of LDL-C < 70 mg/dL between the Sampson and Friedewald equations.
CONCLUSIONS: Discordance at clinically significant LDL-C cutpoints in both the general population and high-risk subgroups were observed across the three equations. These results show that using different methods of LDL-C calculation or switching between different methods could have clinical implications for many patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for individuals who had a lipid panel ordered clinically between 2010 and 2019 were included. Comparisons were made across groups using the two-sample t-test or chi-square test as appropriate. Discordances between LDL measures based on clinically actionable thresholds were summarized using contingency tables.
RESULTS: The cohort included 198,166 patients (mean age 54 years, 54% female). The equations perform similarly at the lower range of triglycerides but began to diverge at a triglyceride level of 125 mg/dL. However, at triglycerides of 175 mg/dL and higher, the Martin-Hopkins equation estimated higher LDL-C values than the Samson equation. This discordance was further exasperated at triglyceride values of 400 to 800 mg/dL. When comparing the Sampson and Friedewald equations, at triglycerides are below 175 mg/dL, 9% of patients were discordant at the 70 mg/dL cutpoint, whereas 42.4% were discordant when triglycerides are between 175 and 400 mg/dL. Discordance was observed at the clinically actionable LDL-C cutpoint of 190 mg/dL with the Friedewald equation estimating lower LDL-C than the other equations. In a high-risk subgroup (ASCVD risk score > 20%), 16.3% of patients were discordant at the clinical cutpoint of LDL-C < 70 mg/dL between the Sampson and Friedewald equations.
CONCLUSIONS: Discordance at clinically significant LDL-C cutpoints in both the general population and high-risk subgroups were observed across the three equations. These results show that using different methods of LDL-C calculation or switching between different methods could have clinical implications for many patients.