Clinical Chemistry 56: 977-986, 2010. First published April 8, 2010; 10.1373/clinchem.2009.142810
(Clinical Chemistry. 2010;56:977-986.)
© 2010 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.
Lipids, Lipoproteins, and Cardiovascular Risk Factors
Seven Direct Methods for Measuring HDL and LDL Cholesterol Compared with Ultracentrifugation Reference Measurement Procedures
W. Greg Miller1, a, Gary L. Myers2, Ikunosuke Sakurabayashi3, Lorin M. Bachmann1, Samuel P. Caudill2, Andrzej Dziekonski1, Selvin Edwards2, Mary M. Kimberly2, William J. Korzun1, Elizabeth T. Leary4, Katsuyuki Nakajima5, Masakazu Nakamura6, Göran Nilsson7, Robert D. Shamburek8, George W. Vetrovec1, G. Russell Warnick9 and Alan T. Remaley8
1 Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA; 2 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; 3 Jichi Medical University, Tochigi-ken, Japan; 4 Pacific Biometrics and Pacific Biometrics Research Foundation, Seattle, WA; 5 Otsuka Pharmceutical, Tokyo, Japan; 6 Osaka Medical Center for Health Science and Promotion, Osaka, Japan; 7 Nilsson Measurement Quality, Uppsala, Sweden; 8 NIH, Bethesda, MD; 9 Health Diagnostics Laboratory, Richmond, VA.
aAddress correspondence to this author at: PO Box 980286; Richmond, VA, 23298-0286. Fax 804-828-0353; e-mail gmiller@vcu.edu.
Background: Methods from 7 manufacturers and 1 distributor for directly measuring HDL cholesterol (C) and LDL-C were evaluated for imprecision, trueness, total error, and specificity in nonfrozen serum samples.
Methods: We performed each direct method according to the manufacturer's instructions, using a Roche/Hitachi 917 analyzer, and compared the results with those obtained with reference measurement procedures for HDL-C and LDL-C. Imprecision was estimated for 35 runs performed with frozen pooled serum specimens and triplicate measurements on each individual sample. Sera from 37 individuals without disease and 138 with disease (primarily dyslipidemic and cardiovascular) were measured by each method. Trueness and total error were evaluated from the difference between the direct methods and reference measurement procedures. Specificity was evaluated from the dispersion in differences observed.
Results: Imprecision data based on 4 frozen serum pools showed total CVs <3.7% for HDL-C and <4.4% for LDL-C. Bias for the nondiseased group ranged from –5.4% to 4.8% for HDL-C and from –6.8% to 1.1% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from –8.6% to 8.8% for HDL-C and from –11.8% to 4.1% for LDL-C. Total error for the nondiseased group ranged from –13.4% to 13.6% for HDL-C and from –13.3% to 13.5% for LDL-C, and for the diseased group from –19.8% to 36.3% for HDL-C and from –26.6% to 31.9% for LDL-C.
Conclusions: Six of 8 HDL-C and 5 of 8 LDL-C direct methods met the National Cholesterol Education Program total error goals for nondiseased individuals. All the methods failed to meet these goals for diseased individuals, however, because of lack of specificity toward abnormal lipoproteins.
