Evaluation of Recently Developed Regression Equation with Direct Measurement of Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in a Bangladeshi Population

• Published in: Journal of Enam Medical College Vol. 5; no. 2; pp. 75 - 79
• Main Authors: Sha, Md Fazley Rabbi, Siddique, Abdul Hai, Saiedullah, Muhammad, Khan, Md Aminul Haque
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Enam Medical College, Dhaka 29-06-2015
• Subjects: Friedewald’s formula; Regression equation (RE) for Bangladeshi population; Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol
• ISSN: 2227-6688; 2304-9316
• DOI: 10.3329/jemc.v5i2.23376

Background: Meaningful underestimation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol is an important shortcoming of Friedewald’s formula (FF) at higher triglyceride (TG) levels. Recently a regression equation (RE) has been developed using lipid profiles in one setting and validated externally for the calculation of LDL cholesterol. This newly developed RE requires more studies in different settings.Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the regression equation against direct measurement.Materials and Methods: Lipid profiles of 600 subjects attending a tertiary healthcare center were included in this study. Specimens were collected and lipid profiles were measured by standard methods. Sixty two lipid profiles with TG above 400 mg/dL were excluded. Calculated LDL cholesterol values using FF and RE were compared with measured LDL cholesterol by Pearson’s correlation test, Passing & Bablok regression, accuracy within ±5% and ±12% of measured LDL cholesterol and two-tailed paired t test at various TG ranges.Results: The mean value of LDL cholesterol was 148.6 ± 37.2 mg/dL for direct measurement, 146.9 ± 42.4 mg/dL for FF and 148.6 ± 34.7 mg/dL for RE. The correlation coefficients of calculated LDL cholesterol values with measured LDL cholesterol were 0.949 (p<0.001) for FF and 0.959 (p<0.001) for RE. Passing & Bablok regression equation against measured LDL cholesterol was y = 0.897x + 16.2 for FF and y = 1.0842x – 13.1 for RE. Accuracy within ±5% of measured LDL cholesterol was 45% for FF, 57% for RE and within ±12% of measured LDL cholesterol was 84% for FF, 93% for RE. When calculated LDL cholesterol was compared with measured LDL cholesterol at different TG ranges, FF significantly underestimated LDL cholesterol at TG concentrations above 200 mg/dL whereas no significant difference was observed for RE.Conclusion: This study reveals that RE equation has similar performance to direct measurement for calculation of LDL cholesterolJ Enam Med Col 2015; 5(2): 75-79