Comparison of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Assessment by Martin/Hopkins Estimation, Friedewald Estimation, and Preparative Ultracentrifugation: Insights From the FOURIER Trial
Open accessAbstract
Importance: Recent studies have shown that Friedewald underestimates low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) at lower levels, which could result in undertreatment of high-risk patients. A novel method (Martin/Hopkins) using a patient-specific conversion factor provides more accurate LDL-C levels. However, this method has not been tested in proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor-treated patients. Objective: To investigate accuracy of 2 different methods for estimating LDL-C levels (Martin/Hopkins and Friedewald) compared with gold standard preparative ultracentrifugation (PUC) in patients with low LDL-C levels in the Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Patients With Elevated Risk (FOURIER) trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: The FOURIER trial was a randomized clinical trial of evolocumab vs placebo added to statin therapy in 27 564 patients with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The patients' LDL-C levels were assessed at baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks, and every 24 weeks thereafter, and measured directly by PUC when the level was less than 40 mg/dL per the Friedewald method (calculated as non-HDL-C level - triglycerides/5). In the Martin/Hopkins method, patient-specific ratios of triglycerides to very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C) ratios were determined and used to estimate VLDL-C, which was subtracted from the non-HDL-C level to obtain the LDL-C level. Main Outcomes and Measures: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol calculated by the Friedewald and Martin/Hopkins methods, with PUC as the reference method. Results: For this analysis, the mean (SD) age was 62.7 (9.0) years; 2885 of the 12 742 patients were women (22.6%). A total of 56 624 observations from 12 742 patients had Friedewald, Martin/Hopkins, and PUC LDL-C measurements. The median difference from PUC LDL-C levels for Martin/Hopkins LDL-C levels was -2 mg/dL (interquartile range [IQR], -4 to 1 mg/dL) and for Friedewald LDL-C levels was -4 mg/dL (IQR, -8 to -1 mg/dL; P < .001). Overall, 22.9% of Martin/Hopkins LDL-C values were more than 5 mg/dL different than PUC values, and 2.6% were more than 10 mg/dL different than PUC levels. These were significantly less than respective proportions with Friedewald estimation (40.1% and 13.3%; P < .001), mainly because of underestimation by the Friedewald method. The correlation with PUC LDL-C was significantly higher for Martin/Hopkins vs Friedewald (ρ, 0.918 [95% CI 0.916-0.919] vs ρ, 0.867 [0.865-0.869], P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients achieving low LDL-C with PCSK9 inhibition, the Martin/Hopkins method for LDL-C estimation more closely approximates gold standard PUC than Friedewald estimation does. The Martin/Hopkins method may prevent undertreatment because of LDL-C underestimation by the Friedewald method. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01764633.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Martin-Hopkins formula improves the accuracy of cLDLC at various conditions including very low LDLC <1.8 mmol/L and in nonfasting samples.
“The novel Martin-Hopkins formula improves the accuracy of cLDLC at various conditions including very low LDLC < 1.8 mmol/L and in nonfasting samples [47,48].”
From Quantifying atherogenic lipoproteins for lipid-lowering strategies: Consensus-based recommendations from EAS and EFLM (2020) · cites this paper as [48]
The Results and Conclusions (pages not provided) show that Martin/Hopkins estimates were more accurate than Friedewald estimates in the studied patients with Friedewald LDL-C below 40 mg/dL—well below 1.8 mmol/L (about 70 mg/dL). The paper does not establish improved accuracy in nonfasting samples; nonfasting accuracy appears only in the title of a cited reference. Its findings are also limited to the studied low-LDL-C, PCSK9-inhibitor-treated setting rather than the full range below 1.8 mmol/L. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 150
- Authors
- Martin, S. S., Giugliano, R. P., Murphy, S. A., Wasserman, S. M., Stein, E. A., Ceška, R., López-Miranda, J., Georgiev, B., Lorenzatti, A. J., Tikkanen, M. J., Sever, P. S., Keech, A. C., Pedersen, T. R., & Sabatine, M. S.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Amgen (United States) (US)
- Metabolic and Atherosclerosis Research Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
- Center of Preventive Cardiology, 3rd Department Internal Medicine, University General Hospital and First Medical Faculty, Prague, Czech Republic
- Lipids and Atherosclerosis Unit, Maimonides Biomedical Research Institute of Cordoba (IMIBIC), Reina Sofía University Hospital, University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain
- National Heart Hospital (BG)
- Cardiology Department, Cordoba Hospital, Cordoba, Argentina
- University of Helsinki (FI)
- Imperial College London (GB)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Oslo University Hospital (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Martin, Seth S.
- ORCID
- Venue
- JAMA Cardiology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2018-08-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 749
- ISSN
- 2380-6583 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6143070
- OpenAlex
- W2808216713
- Cited by
- 150
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 15.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- JAMA Cardiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
- RISalud Institutional Health Repository of Andalucía (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Amgen
- Helsingin Yliopisto
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0513-10059)
- Imperial College London
- Samfundet Folkhälsan
- Universitetet i Oslo
- Universidad de Córdoba
- Medical Research Council
- National Health and Medical Research Council
- Sydney Medical School
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Lipid metabolism and disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Keywords
- LDL cholesterol, Friedewald formula, preparative ultracentrifugation, PCSK9 inhibitors, evolocumab, FOURIER trial, VLDL cholesterol, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, statin therapy
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Anticholesteremic Agents, Female, Humans, Hyperlipidemias, Cholesterol, HDL, Cholesterol, LDL, Male, Middle Aged, Statistics as Topic, Triglycerides, Ultracentrifugation, Cholesterol, VLDL, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Risk Assessment, Atherosclerosis, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review