HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mora, S. Articles by Ridker, P. M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mora, S. Articles by Ridker, P. M

Comparison of LDL Cholesterol Concentrations by Friedewald Calculation and Direct Measurement in Relation to Cardiovascular Events in 27 331 Women

¹ Donald W. Reynolds Center for Cardiovascular Research; ² Leducq Center for Molecular and Genetic Epidemiology, ³ Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention, ⁴ Division of Preventive Medicine, and ⁵ Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; ⁶ Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA; ⁷ Department of Laboratory Medicine, Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

^aAddress correspondence to this author at: Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 900 Commonwealth Avenue E, Boston, MA 02215. Fax (617) 264-9194; e-mail smora{at}partners.org.

Background: National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines recommend development of direct assays for LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) measurement, but it is unclear how these assays compare with Friedewald calculation in predicting cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Methods: In a study of 27 331 healthy women with triglycerides 4.52 mmol/L (400 mg/dL), baseline fasting Friedewald LDL-C was compared with fasting and nonfasting direct homogenous measurement for incident CVD during an 11-year period.

Results: Fasting LDL-C measurements obtained by the 2 methods were highly correlated (r = 0.976, P < 0.001). Compared with fasting Friedewald LDL-C, mean fasting direct LDL-C was 0.15 mmol/L (5.6 mg/dL) lower and nonfasting direct LDL-C 0.30 mmol/L (11.5 mg/dL) lower, both P < 0.0001. The adjusted hazard ratio per 1-SD increment was 1.23 [95% CI 1.15–1.32; 1-SD 0.88 mmol/L (34.1 mg/dL)] for fasting direct LDL-C and 1.22 [95% CI 1.14–1.30; 1-SD 0.90 mmol/L (34.9 mg/dL)] for fasting Friedewald. Nonfasting LDL-C was not associated with CVD by either method. Fasting LDL-C measurements fell into the same NCEP risk category with either method for 79.3% of participants, whereas they differed by 1 NCEP category for 20.7% of participants, with most classified into a lower-risk category by direct LDL-C.

Conclusions: The association of LDL-C with CVD by the 2 methods was nearly identical in fasting samples. However, the lower direct LDL-C concentrations may misclassify many individuals into a lower NCEP category. Moreover, the lack of association of nonfasting direct LDL-C with CVD raises questions regarding the clinical utility of a direct assay for LDL-C in nonfasting blood samples.

The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:

				B. G. Nordestgaard and M. Benn Fasting and Nonfasting LDL Cholesterol: To Measure or Calculate? Clin. Chem., May 1, 2009; 55(5): 845 - 847. [Full Text] [PDF]