Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore · 2023
Comparison of existing methods of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol estimation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Sng Gerald Gui Ren, Khoo You Liang, Yeo Khung Keong, Loh Wann Jia, Aw Tar Choon, Khoo Joan Joo Ching, Lee Lynette Mei Yi, Tan Gilbert Choon Seng, Tan Hong Chang, Bee Yong Mong
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is an important risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Direct LDL-C measurement is not widely performed. LDL-C is routinely calculated using the Friedewald equation (FLDL), which is inaccurate at high triglyceride (TG) or low LDL-C levels. We aimed to compare this routine method with other estimation methods in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), who typically have elevated TG levels and ASCVD risk.
METHOD: We performed a retrospective cohort study on T2DM patients from a multi-institutional diabetes registry in Singapore from 2013 to 2020. LDL-C values estimated by the equations: FLDL, Martin/Hopkins (MLDL) and Sampson (SLDL) were compared using measures of agreement and correlation. Subgroup analysis comparing estimated LDL-C with directly measured LDL-C (DLDL) was conducted in patients from a single institution. Estimated LDL-C was considered discordant if LDL-C was <1.8mmol/L for the index equation and ≥1.8mmol/L for the comparator.
RESULTS: A total of 154,877 patients were included in the final analysis, and 11,475 patients in the subgroup analysis. All 3 equations demonstrated strong overall correlation and goodness-of-fit. Discordance was 4.21% for FLDL-SLDL and 6.55% for FLDL-MLDL. In the subgroup analysis, discordance was 21.57% for DLDL-FLDL, 17.31% for DLDL-SLDL and 14.44% for DLDL-MLDL. All discordance rates increased at TG levels >4.5mmol/L.
CONCLUSION: We demonstrated strong correlations between newer methods of LDL-C estimation, FLDL, and DLDL. At higher TG concentrations, no equation performed well. The Martin/Hopkins equation had the least discordance with DLDL, and may minimise misclassification compared with the FLDL and SLDL.
METHOD: We performed a retrospective cohort study on T2DM patients from a multi-institutional diabetes registry in Singapore from 2013 to 2020. LDL-C values estimated by the equations: FLDL, Martin/Hopkins (MLDL) and Sampson (SLDL) were compared using measures of agreement and correlation. Subgroup analysis comparing estimated LDL-C with directly measured LDL-C (DLDL) was conducted in patients from a single institution. Estimated LDL-C was considered discordant if LDL-C was <1.8mmol/L for the index equation and ≥1.8mmol/L for the comparator.
RESULTS: A total of 154,877 patients were included in the final analysis, and 11,475 patients in the subgroup analysis. All 3 equations demonstrated strong overall correlation and goodness-of-fit. Discordance was 4.21% for FLDL-SLDL and 6.55% for FLDL-MLDL. In the subgroup analysis, discordance was 21.57% for DLDL-FLDL, 17.31% for DLDL-SLDL and 14.44% for DLDL-MLDL. All discordance rates increased at TG levels >4.5mmol/L.
CONCLUSION: We demonstrated strong correlations between newer methods of LDL-C estimation, FLDL, and DLDL. At higher TG concentrations, no equation performed well. The Martin/Hopkins equation had the least discordance with DLDL, and may minimise misclassification compared with the FLDL and SLDL.