Suppr超能文献

基于 Friedewald、Martin-Hopkins 和 NIH 方程 2 计算的 LDL-C 与β定量检测:依洛尤单抗的汇总临床试验。

LDL-C calculated by Friedewald, Martin-Hopkins, or NIH equation 2 versus beta-quantification: pooled alirocumab trials.

机构信息

Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.

出版信息

J Lipid Res. 2022 Jan;63(1):100148. doi: 10.1016/j.jlr.2021.100148. Epub 2021 Nov 11.

Abstract

Accurate assessment of LDL-C levels is important, as they are often used for treatment recommendations. For many years, plasma LDL-C levels were calculated using the Friedewald equation, but there are limitations to this method compared with direct measurement via beta-quantification (BQ). Here, we assessed differences between the Friedewald, Martin-Hopkins, and NIH equation 2 methods of calculating LDL-C and the "gold standard" BQ method using pooled phase 3 data with alirocumab. All randomized patients were included irrespective of the treatment arm (n = 6,122). We compared pairs of LDL-C values (n = 17,077) determined by each equation and BQ. We found that BQ-derived LDL-C values ranged from 1 to 397 mg/dl (mean 90.68 mg/dl). There were strong correlations between Friedewald-calculated, Martin-Hopkins-calculated, and NIH equation 2-calculated LDL-C with BQ-determined LDL-C values (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.985, 0.981, and 0.985, respectively). Importantly, for BQ-derived LDL-C values ≥70 mg/dl, only 3.2%, 1.4%, and 1.8% of Friedewald-calculated, Martin-Hopkins-calculated, and NIH equation 2-calculated values were <70 mg/dl, respectively. When triglyceride (TG) levels were <150 mg/dl, differences between calculated and BQ-derived LDL-C values were minimal, regardless of the LDL-C level (<40, <55, or <70 mg/dl). However, when TG levels were >150 mg/dl, NIH equation 2 provided greater accuracy than Friedewald or Martin-Hopkins. When TGs were >250 mg/dl, inaccuracies were seen with all three methods, although NIH equation 2 remained the most accurate. In conclusion, LDL-C calculated by any of the three methods can guide treatment decisions for most patients, including those treated with proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors.

摘要

准确评估 LDL-C 水平很重要,因为它们常用于治疗建议。多年来,血浆 LDL-C 水平一直使用 Friedewald 方程计算,但与通过β定量(BQ)直接测量相比,该方法存在局限性。在这里,我们使用来自 alirocumab 的 3 期汇总数据评估了计算 LDL-C 的 Friedewald、Martin-Hopkins 和 NIH 方程 2 方法与“金标准”BQ 方法之间的差异。所有随机患者均包括在无论治疗臂(n=6122)。我们比较了每种方程和 BQ 确定的 LDL-C 值的成对(n=17077)。我们发现 BQ 衍生的 LDL-C 值范围为 1 至 397mg/dl(平均值为 90.68mg/dl)。Friedewald 计算、Martin-Hopkins 计算和 NIH 方程 2 计算的 LDL-C 与 BQ 确定的 LDL-C 值之间存在很强的相关性(Pearson 相关系数分别为 0.985、0.981 和 0.985)。重要的是,对于 BQ 衍生的 LDL-C 值≥70mg/dl,仅分别有 3.2%、1.4%和 1.8%的 Friedewald 计算、Martin-Hopkins 计算和 NIH 方程 2 计算的值<70mg/dl。当甘油三酯(TG)水平<150mg/dl 时,无论 LDL-C 水平(<40、<55 或<70mg/dl)如何,计算值与 BQ 衍生的 LDL-C 值之间的差异都很小。然而,当 TG 水平>150mg/dl 时,NIH 方程 2 比 Friedewald 或 Martin-Hopkins 提供更高的准确性。当 TGs>250mg/dl 时,所有三种方法都会出现不准确,但 NIH 方程 2 仍然是最准确的。总之,对于大多数患者,包括接受前蛋白转化酶枯草溶菌素/克那霉 9 抑制剂治疗的患者,任何三种方法中的任何一种计算的 LDL-C 都可以指导治疗决策。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e4e6/8953656/533eb58e0823/gr1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验