Analytical performance and diagnostic accuracy of immunometric assays for the measurement of circulating oxidized LDL.

BACKGROUND

Oxidized LDL (ox-LDL) plays an important role in the pathogenesis of coronary heart disease (CHD). Several tests for circulating ox-LDL have been published. We believe it is critical to carefully evaluate these assays because small differences in performance may have profound effects when results are compared; we therefore compared the analytical and clinical performances of 2 assays: one developed in our laboratory and a commercial assay (Mercodia) that uses the same monoclonal antibody (4E6).

METHODS

We determined the variance of ox-LDL in both tests, including its longitudinal stability (n = 225; 3 time points per person) and its diagnostic accuracy, by ROC analysis of 95 consecutive CHD patients and 20 controls.

RESULTS

The between-person variability was 77% for the in-house assay (with the remaining 23% being within-person and analytical variance) and 74% for the commercial assay. For comparison, previously reported values were 66% for high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and 82% for total cholesterol. The areas under the curves for CHD in the 2 assays were identical (0.85). The odds ratios (logistic regression) for CHD among persons with high ox-LDL (>or=15 mg/L) compared with persons with low ox-LDL were not different: 4.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.4-12) for the in-house assay and 3.3 (1.1-10) for the commercial assay.

CONCLUSIONS

The longitudinal stability of ox-LDL, as assessed by multiple measures in people over time, is similar to that of total cholesterol and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. Both assays tested similarly distinguish between healthy controls and CHD patients.