Key result
Calculated LDL equations underestimate directly measured LDL by ~10 mg/dL in adults with obesity.
Why the study?
Do LDL estimation equations accurately reflect directly measured LDL in adult patients with obesity?
Observational (n=308)
No
Do LDL estimation equations accurately reflect directly measured LDL in adult patients with obesity?
Mean Difference: -10.05
p-value: p=<0.001
LDL estimation equations systematically underestimate LDL in individuals with obesity, suggesting direct measurement should be the preferred method in this population.
Background and Aims Reducing atherogenic lipoproteins to lower cardiovascular risk is a key objective in obesity treatment. Accurate lipoprotein measurements are essential for determining the need for therapy and guiding its management. To identify the best equation for estimating LDL cholesterol, LDL measured directly (LDL‐D) is compared to LDL calculated using equations developed by Friedewald (LDL‐F), Martin (LDL‐M) and Sampson/NIH (LDL‐S). This study also examines the change of LDL and apolipoprotein B levels during a multidisciplinary obesity treatment programme. Methods This retrospective observational study included 308 adult patients with obesity who participated in a single‐centre, multidisciplinary treatment programme using meal replacement (Optifast‐professional). This study employed Pearson’s correlations, repeated‐measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) and a paired t ‐test and also compared calculated values against desirable bias and total allowable error. Results The absolute values of LDL‐M and LDL‐S showed less bias and correlated better with LDL‐D than LDL‐F. All equations significantly underestimated absolute LDL values: LDL‐F (mean −12.43 mg/dL, p < 0.001), LDL‐M (mean −10.05 mg/dL, p < 0.001) and LDL‐S (mean −9.49 mg/dL, p < 0.001). LDL‐F also underestimated the change occurring during the programme (3.81 mg/dL; p = 0.017). All equations performed poorly against desirable bias and total allowable error. LDL‐D, LDL‐F, LDL‐M, LDL‐S and ApoB levels all decreased significantly, and these decreases remained significant after excluding patients taking lipid‐lowering medications. Conclusions LDL estimation equations systematically underestimated LDL in individuals with obesity. Among these, the Martin equation most accurately captured changes in LDL. Consequently, it appears to be the most suitable estimation method. However, direct measurement should remain the preferred method. The multidisciplinary meal replacement programme significantly reduced LDL cholesterol and ApoB.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oswald et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Obesity (n=308). LDL estimation equations (Friedewald, Martin, Sampson/NIH) vs. Directly measured LDL (LDL-D) was evaluated on Absolute LDL values compared to direct measurement (mean -10.05 mg/dL (LDL-M), p=<0.001). LDL estimation equations systematically underestimated directly measured LDL in adults with obesity (Martin equation mean difference -10.05 mg/dL, P<0.001), with Martin being the most accurate.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: