Comparison of Three Methods for LDLC Calculation for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Categorisation in Three Distinct Patient Populations.

BACKGROUND

Limitations of the Friedewald equation for low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (F-LDLC) calculation led to the Martin-Hopkins (M-LDLC) and Sampson-National Institutes of Health (S-LDLC) equations. We studied these newer calculations of LDLC for correlation and discordance for stratification into the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) 2021 Dyslipidemia Guidelines' cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk categories.

METHODS

We performed analyses on lipid profiles from 3 populations: records of a hospital biochemistry laboratory (population 1), lipid clinic patients without select monogenic dyslipidemias (population 2A), and lipid clinic patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH; population 2B).

RESULTS

There was very strong correlation among the 3 calculated LDLC. In populations 1 and 2A, M-LDLC and S-LDLC were progressively higher than F-LDLC as triglyceride (TG) levels increased from normal to ∼ 5 mmol/L. In population 2B, M-LDLC was higher than F-LDLC, but S-LDLC was progressively lower than F-LDLC. Using the CCS 2021 guidelines' 4 CVD risk categories, 7.0% (population 2A) to 7.2% (population 1) of cases for M-LDLC vs F-LDLC and 3.9% (population 2A) to 4.4% (population 1) of cases for S-LDLC vs F-LDLC were reclassified to an adjacent CVD risk category, mostly from a lower to a higher risk category.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from F-LDLC to S-LDLC or M-LDLC can reclassify up to ∼ 4.4% or 7.2% of patients, respectively, to another CCS CVD risk category. The difference between F-LDLC and M-LDLC or S-LDLC is greater with higher TG, and with lower LDLC. We recommend that clinical laboratories switch to reporting results from either M-LDLC or S-LDLC, but S-LDLC should not be used in FH patients, pending further studies.