Lipids in Health and Disease (Feb 2024)

An improved method for estimating low LDL-C based on the enhanced Sampson-NIH equation

  • Tatiana C. Coverdell,
  • Maureen Sampson,
  • Rafael Zubirán,
  • Anna Wolska,
  • Leslie J. Donato,
  • Jeff W. Meeusen,
  • Allan S. Jaffe,
  • Alan T. Remaley

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-024-02018-y
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 23, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background The accurate measurement of Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is critical in the decision to utilize the new lipid-lowering therapies like PCSK9-inhibitors (PCSK9i) for high-risk cardiovascular disease patients that do not achieve sufficiently low LDL-C on statin therapy. Objective To improve the estimation of low LDL-C by developing a new equation that includes apolipoprotein B (apoB) as an independent variable, along with the standard lipid panel test results. Methods Using β-quantification (BQ) as the reference method, which was performed on a large dyslipidemic population (N = 24,406), the following enhanced Sampson-NIH equation (eS LDL-C) was developed by least-square regression analysis: $$eS\,LDL-C= \frac{TC}{1.15}-\frac{HDL-C}{1.25}-\frac{TG}{6.99}-\frac{\left(TG\times NonHDL-C\right)}{1120}+\frac{{TG}^{2}}{8910}+\frac{\left(TG\times ApoB\right)}{1240}+\frac{ApoB}{4.54}-4.73$$ e S L D L - C = TC 1.15 - H D L - C 1.25 - TG 6.99 - T G × N o n H D L - C 1120 + TG 2 8910 + T G × A p o B 1240 + ApoB 4.54 - 4.73 Results The eS LDL-C equation was the most accurate equation for a broad range of LDL-C values based on regression related parameters and the mean absolute difference (mg/dL) from the BQ reference method (eS LDL-C: 4.51, Sampson-NIH equation [S LDL-C]: 6.07; extended Martin equation [eM LDL-C]: 6.64; Friedewald equation [F LDL-C]: 8.3). It also had the best area-under-the-curve accuracy score by Regression Error Characteristic plots for LDL-C < 100 mg/dL (eS LDL-C: 0.953; S LDL-C: 0.920; eM LDL-C: 0.915; F LDL-C: 0.874) and was the best equation for categorizing patients as being below or above the 70 mg/dL LDL-C treatment threshold for adding new lipid-lowering drugs by kappa score analysis when compared to BQ LDL-C for TG < 800 mg/dL (eS LDL-C: 0.870 (0.853–0.887); S LDL-C:0.763 (0.749–0.776); eM LDL-C:0.706 (0.690–0.722); F LDL-C:0.687 (0.672–0.701). Approximately a third of patients with an F LDL-C < 70 mg/dL had falsely low test results, but about 80% were correctly reclassified as higher (≥ 70 mg/dL) by the eS LDL-C equation, making them potentially eligible for PCSK9i treatment. The M LDL-C and S LDL-C equations had less false low results below 70 mg/dL than the F LDL-C equation but reclassification by the eS LDL-C equation still also increased the net number of patients correctly classified. Conclusions The use of the eS LDL-C equation as a confirmatory test improves the identification of high-risk cardiovascular disease patients, who could benefit from new lipid-lowering therapies but have falsely low LDL-C, as determined by the standard LDL-C equations used in current practice.

Keywords