Key result
Sampson and Martin formulas outperform Friedewald for LDL-C estimation, led by Sampson in hypertriglyceridemia.
Why the study?
New LDL-c estimation formulas including Martin, extended Martin, and Sampson equations require validation in different populations due to changes in obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, and lipid-lowering therapies.
Do the Sampson, Martin, and extended Martin formulas provide more accurate LDL-c estimation than the Friedewald formula compared to direct assay in South American patients?
Cross-Sectional (n=22,748)
Do the Sampson, Martin, and extended Martin formulas provide more accurate LDL-c estimation than the Friedewald formula compared to direct assay in South American patients?
Newer LDL-c estimation formulas (Sampson, Martin, extended Martin) provide more accurate estimations than the Friedewald formula, particularly in patients with hypertriglyceridemia up to 400 mg/dL.
BACKGROUND: Increases in obesity and hypertriglyceridemia worldwide, together with lower LDL cholesterol (LDL-c) values from new lipid-lowering agents, prompted the development of new estimation formulas including Martin (M-LDL-c), extended Martin (ME-LDL-c), and Sampson (S-LDL-c) equations. These require validation in different populations. METHODS: Lipid profiles with direct LDL-c (D-LDL-c) by homogeneous assay were collected from 22 748 patients in Argentina. Friedewald (F-LDL-c), S-LDL-c, M-LDL-c, and ME-LDL-c were calculated. Patients were classified into treatment categories using both D-LDL-c and each formula independently. Datasets were subdivided by triglycerides (TG). Lipid ratio plot (LRP) provided indirect comparison to beta quantification (BQ). Passing-Bablok, Bland-Altman, and clinical concordance (kappa index) analyses assessed formula performance against D-LDL-c. RESULTS: LRP analysis showed S-LDL-c had the closest agreement with BQ surrogate line, followed by D-LDL-c. All formulas showed good correlation with D-LDL-c (r > 0.95) and moderate concordance (kappa > 0.6). M-LDL-c and ME-LDL-c demonstrated the best clinical concordance with D-LDL-c overall. Performance decreased with increasing TG for all formulas. F-LDL-c deteriorated from 200 mg/dL (2.28 mmol/L) TG, while S-LDL-c, M-LDL-c, and ME-LDL-c maintained acceptable performance up to 400 mg/dL (4.56 mmol/L) TG. CONCLUSION: S-LDL-c, M-LDL-c, and ME-LDL-c showed better agreement with D-LDL-c than F-LDL-c in this South American population. LRP analysis suggests S-LDL-c may provide most accurate estimation vs gold standard BQ, particularly in hypertriglyceridemia. These findings support the adoption of newer equations in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Machulsky et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Dyslipidemia / Lipid profile assessment (n=22,748). Sampson, Martin, and extended Martin formulas vs. Friedewald formula and direct homogeneous assay was evaluated on Agreement and clinical concordance with direct LDL-c. Sampson, Martin, and extended Martin formulas showed better agreement with direct LDL-c than the Friedewald formula, maintaining acceptable performance up to 400 mg/dL triglycerides.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: