I would like to know which of the two is more reliable way in measuring LDL- is it through friedewald formula or through direct assay? Because the results we obtain through both seem to vary to some extent.
Kindly share your expertise on the same.
Thank you in advance.
Forget the Friedewald equation, unreliable and never used in the last 30-years.
Forgert both equations and LDL levels, since LDL risk value has been reevaluated by the AHA (2014), suggesting that physicians should not further consider LDL a risk factor for CHD or other CVD (Hypertension, Heart Failure etc).
Other risk factors need to be consider in the prevention and management of CHD.
We suggest more attention to the inherited defect of low RBC-K in essential hypertension and in general in CVD, discovery in our laboratorio. Indeed, the erythrocytes are the major determinant of microcicrculatory vasodilatation and blood flow, by K-dependent ATP synthesis/release in areas of low pH or low PO2.
In this context, an inherited defect of low RBC-K in hypertensive subjects as well as their offspring (52%, if one parent has hypertension; 74% if both parents has hypertension) suggesting that Essential Hypertension represents a Mendelian dominant single gen defect, thus prevention of hypertensive states involves early detection of such inherited genetic, and pharmacological approaches to improve RBC-K content and microvascular function (Delgado-Almeida A. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64 (24):2710-12).
Thank you for your reply... Interesting article. Would like to know more about it. Thank you
LDL(mg/dl)=Total cholesterol-HDL-(Triglycerides/5). Please follow this equation.
Dear Md. Abu Sayed,
I am aware of the formula and thanks a lot for sharing it once again. It would be really helpful if you could expand on the validity of the formula, especially in comparison to the direct assays in finding LDL or any paper relating to that.
Thank you
Please see my some papers in this research gate. We determined the LDL above mentoned formula. You can use their protocol, they also recommend this formula (Pls see the link). We used the kit from this company.
http://www.crescentksa.com/en_products.html
We are still using the Friedewal formula for LDL calculation except the condition mentioned by Mohsen Mazidi and journals are still accepting it and Physicians are still recommending LDL value till and new standard norms comes out. I think, both direct assay and Freidewald equation are still reliable.
Thank you so much for your valuable inputs.
Came across a few papers regarding the same and would like to share one such paper. It highlights that the cholesterols components in IDL is not being considered in the friedewalde's formula to estimate LDL.
Would like to share the link for the same here.
despite we know that not all fractions of LDL are "bad cholesterol" and not all fractions of HDL are "good cholesterol" in clinical practice we still determine HDL and LDL - I guess that in Europian analytical labs there is a trend to determine LDL directly, while in US more ofter calculated LDL levels by Friedewald formula are given - this has restrictions as Moshe mentioned already. There are of course differences in direct and calculated values, but the method of LDL estimation is simply to be exactly mentioned in the paper, and then everybody knows how to judge the data. in any case, there are several different formulas to estimate atherogenic risk, which are considered to be better than separate judgement of HDL and LDL levels.
I use the Friedewald formule for epidemiological studies for plasma triglyceride concentration minors to 300 mg/dL. In this context is reliable. I did a test whit 224 patients and obtain a Pearson coefficient correlation of .92 and p
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude