Fasting versus nonfasting and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol accuracy
Open accessAbstract
Background: Recent recommendations favoring nonfasting lipid assessment may affect low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) estimation. The novel method of LDL-C estimation (LDL-C N ) uses a flexible approach to derive patient-specific ratios of triglycerides to very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. This adaptability may confer an accuracy advantage in nonfasting patients over the fixed approach of the classic Friedewald method (LDL-C F ). Methods: We used a US cross-sectional sample of 1 545 634 patients (959 153 fasting ≥10–12 hours; 586 481 nonfasting) from the second harvest of the Very Large Database of Lipids study to assess for the first time the impact of fasting status on novel LDL-C accuracy. Rapid ultracentrifugation was used to directly measure LDL-C content (LDL-C D ). Accuracy was defined as the percentage of LDL-C D falling within an estimated LDL-C (LDL-C N or LDL-C F ) category by clinical cut points. For low estimated LDL-C (<70 mg/dL), we evaluated accuracy by triglyceride levels. The magnitude of absolute and percent differences between LDL-C D and estimated LDL-C (LDL-C N or LDL-C F ) was stratified by LDL-C and triglyceride categories. Results: In both fasting and nonfasting samples, accuracy was higher with the novel method across all clinical LDL-C categories (range, 87%–94%) compared with the Friedewald estimation (range, 71%–93%; P ≤0.001). With LDL-C <70 mg/dL, nonfasting LDL-C N accuracy (92%) was superior to LDL-C F accuracy (71%; P <0.001). In this LDL-C range, 19% of fasting and 30% of nonfasting patients had differences ≥10 mg/dL between LDL-C F and LDL-C D , whereas only 2% and 3% of patients, respectively, had similar differences with novel estimation. Accuracy of LDL-C <70 mg/dL further decreased as triglycerides increased, particularly for Friedewald estimation (range, 37%–96%) versus the novel method (range, 82%–94%). With triglycerides of 200 to 399 mg/dL in nonfasting patients, LDL-C N <70 mg/dL accuracy (82%) was superior to LDL-C F (37%; P <0.001). In this triglyceride range, 73% of fasting and 81% of nonfasting patients had ≥10 mg/dL differences between LDL-C F and LDL-C D compared with 25% and 20% of patients, respectively, with LDL-C N . Conclusions: Novel adaptable LDL-C estimation performs better in nonfasting samples than the fixed Friedewald estimation, with a particular accuracy advantage in settings of low LDL-C and high triglycerides. In addition to stimulating further study, these results may have immediate relevance for guideline committees, laboratory leadership, clinicians, and patients. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01698489.
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 [47]
At very low LDL-C levels, calculated LDL-C may be misleading, especially with high triglycerides.
“Equally, at very low levels of LDL-C, calculated LDL-C may be misleading, especially in the presence of high TG [81,84-86].”
From 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk (2019) · cites this paper as [84]
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 41 · Cited by 122
- Authors
- Sathiyakumar, V., Park, J., Golozar, A., Lazo, M., Quispe, R., Guallar, E., Blumenthal, R. S., Jones, S. R., & Martin, S. S.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Department of Epidemiology (J.P., A.G., M.L., E.G.)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 2018-01-02
- Volume
- 137
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 10-19
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2765120344
- Cited by
- 122
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 15.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Circulation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Lipid metabolism and disorders
- Keywords
- LDL cholesterol estimation, fasting state, VLDL cholesterol, triglycerides, ultracentrifugation, cardiovascular risk assessment, dyslipidemia screening
- MeSH terms
- Data Accuracy, Adult, Aged, Blood Chemical Analysis, Cross-Sectional Studies, Fasting, Female, Humans, Cholesterol, LDL, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Specimen Handling, Triglycerides, Ultracentrifugation, Biomarkers, Databases, Factual
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