Non-HDL @entity165 shows improved accuracy for cardiovascular risk score classification compared to direct or calculated LDL XXXX in a dyslipidemic population.

@entity1 @entity5377 @entity1674 @entity6308 @entity412 @entity65 @entity165
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of @entity65 ( @entity65 ) risk score classification by direct LDL @entity165 (dLDL-C), calculated LDL @entity165 (cLDL-C), and non-HDL @entity165 (non-HDL-C) compared to classification by reference measurement procedures (RMPs) performed at the CDC. METHODS: We examined 175 individuals, including 138 with @entity65 or conditions that may affect LDL-C measurement. dLDL-C measurements were performed using Denka, Kyowa, Sekisui, Serotec, Sysmex, UMA, and Wako reagents. cLDL-C was calculated by the Friedewald equation, using each manufacturer's direct HDL-C assay measurements, and total @entity165 and @entity412 measurements by Roche and @entity5377 (Advia) assays, respectively. RESULTS: For @entity1 with @entity1674 <2.26 mmol/L (<200 mg/dL), the overall misclassification rate for the @entity65 risk score ranged from 5% to 17% for cLDL-C methods and 8% to 26% for dLDL-C methods when compared to the RMP. Only Wako dLDL-C had fewer misclassifications than its corresponding cLDL-C method (8% vs 17%; P<0.05). Non-HDL-C assays misclassified fewer @entity1 than dLDL-C for 4 of 8 methods (P<0.05). For @entity1 with @entity1674 >= 2.26 mmol/L (>= 200 mg/dL) and<4.52 mmol/L (<400 mg/dL), dLDL-C methods, in general, performed better than cLDL-C methods, and non-HDL-C methods showed better correspondence to the RMP for @entity65 risk score than either dLDL-C or cLDL-C methods. CONCLUSIONS: Except for @entity6308 individuals, 7 of 8 dLDL-C methods failed to show improved @entity65 risk score classification over the corresponding cLDL-C methods. Non-HDL-C showed overall the best concordance with the RMP for @entity65 risk score classification of both normal and @entity6308 individuals.
