Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study is to compare Friedewald-estimated and directly measured low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) values and assess the concordance in guideline risk classification between the two methods. METHODS: The data were derived from the 2009 to 2011 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. We included subjects with triglyceride (TG) levels < 400 mg/dL. Analysis was done for 6,454 subjects who had all lipid panels- total cholesterol, directly measured LDL-C, high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and TG. RESULTS: The subjects ranged in age from 10 to 87 years old. The mean age was 41.5 ± 17.3 years. For subjects with TG < 400 mg/dL, overall concordance in guideline risk classification was 79.1%. The Friedewald formula tended to underestimate LDL-C more at higher TG or lower HDL-C levels. Especially, the percent of subjects who were misclassified into a lower risk category was 31% when TG were 200 to 299 mg/dL; and 45.6% when TG were 300 to 399 mg/dL. A greater underestimation of LDL-C occurred at higher TG and lower Friedewald-estimated LDL-C levels. Of subjects with a Friedewald-estimated LDL-C < 70 mg/dL, 55.4% had a directly measured LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL when TG were 200 to 399 mg/dL. CONCLUSION: The Friedewald equation tends to underestimate LDL-C in highrisk subjects such as hypertriglyceridemia and hypo-HDL-cholesterolemia. For these individuals accurate assessment of LDL-C is crucial, and therefore additional evaluation is warranted.
Lee et al. (Mon,) studied this question.