Cited by 122Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsLipid metabolism and disorders

Fasting versus nonfasting and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol accuracy

Open access
Sathiyakumar, Vasanth, Park, Jihwan, Golozar, Asieh, Lazo, Mariana, Quispe, Renato, Guallar, Eliseo, Blumenthal, Roger S., Jones, Steven R. +1 more·2018·Circulation

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circulationaha.117.030677

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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.)
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
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