Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Lab Physicians 2023; 15(04): 545-551
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768951
Original Article

Martin's Formula As the Most Suitable Method for Estimation of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Indian Population

Fatima Farheen
1   Department of Chemical Pathology, USM KLE International Medical Programme, Belgaum, Karnataka, India
,
Sudha Ambiger
2   Department of Biochemistry, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research (KAHER), J.N. Medical College, Belagavi, Karnataka
,
Kamarudin Jaalam
3   Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medical Science, PPSP USM Kubang Kerian, Malaysia, and Deputy Dean, USM KLE International Medical Programme, Belgaum, India
,
Shivalingappa Javali
4   Department of Community Medicine, USM KLE International Medical Programme, Belgaum, Karnataka, India
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Because of cost effectiveness, most of the laboratories in India estimate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels with the Friedewald's formula. There were many shortcomings of the Friedewald's formula. Recently, Martin and colleagues have derived a new formula for calculating LDL-C. The present study was undertaken to calculate LDL-C using various formulae (Friedewald's formula, Anandaraja's formula, and Martin's formula) and to compare directly measured LDL-C (D-LDL-C) with calculated LDL-C at various ranges of triglyceride (TG) concentration.

Materials and Methods The present study compared LDL-C measured by Martin's formula, Friedewald's formula, and Anandaraja's formula with D-LDL-C in 280 outpatient fasting samples between the age groups of 18 and 50 years. Depending on the TG values, study samples were divided into four groups. Group 1: less than 200 mg/dL; Group 2: 200 to 300 mg/dL; Group 3: 300 to 400 mg/dL; and Group 4: more than 400 mg/dL.

Results Martin's formula shows highest correlation with r-value of 0.9979 compared with Friedewald's (0.9857) and Anandaraja's (0.9683) r-values. The mean difference was least for Martin's formula (0.31 ± 3.53) compared with other formulae. Among all the groups, percentage of error was least for Martin's formula (0.23%). Martin's LDL-C shows highest concordance (90.90%) compared with Friedewald's (79.60%) and Anandaraja's formulae (82.90%).

Conclusion Among all the groups, Martin's formula shows highest correlation, least percentage of error, highest concordance, and least mean differences. At all TG levels, Martin's formula is the best formula compared with the Friedewald's formula and Anandaraja's formula.

Keywords

LDL-C - Martin's formula - Anandaraja's formula - Friedewald's formula

Funding

None.


Presentation at a Meeting

None.


Authors' Contributions

S.A. developed the concept, designed the study, and prepared the manuscript. F.F. collected the samples, analyzed the samples, and helped in manuscript editing. K.J. prepared and edited the manuscript. S.J. helped in statistical analysis of data and manuscript editing.




Publication History

Received: 30 July 2022

Accepted: 31 March 2023

Article published online:
13 July 2023

© 2023. The Indian Association of Laboratory Physicians. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Talwalkar PG, Sreenivas CG, Gulati A, Baxi H. Journey in guidelines for lipid management: from adult treatment panel (ATP)-I to ATP-III and what to expect in ATP-IV. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 2013; 17 (04) 628-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Badrakiya KM, Shah AD, Makadia MG. Comparison of LDL-cholesterol estimated by direct method and by calculation. IJBAR 2016; 7 (08) 353-358
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Schaefer EJ, Otokozawa S, Ai M. Limitations of direct methods and the reference method for measuring HDL and LDL cholesterol. Clin Chem 2011; 57 (07) 1081-1083 , author reply 1083
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem 1972; 18 (06) 499-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Anandaraja S, Narang R, Godeswar R, Laksmy R, Talwar KK. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol estimation by a new formula in Indian population. Int J Cardiol 2005; 102 (01) 117-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kang M, Kim J, Lee SY, Kim K, Yoon J, Ki H. Martin's equation as the most suitable method for estimation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in Korean adults. Korean J Fam Med 2017; 38 (05) 263-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Martin SS, Blaha MJ, Elshazly MB. et al. Comparison of a novel method vs the Friedewald equation for estimating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels from the standard lipid profile. JAMA 2013; 310 (19) 2061-2068
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kapoor R, Chakraborty M, Singh N. A leap above Friedewald formula for calculation of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol. J Lab Physicians 2015; 7 (01) 11-16
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sahu S, Chawla R, Uppal B. Comparison of two methods of estimation of low density lipoprotein cholesterol, the direct versus Friedewald estimation. Indian J Clin Biochem 2005; 20 (02) 54-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Molavi F, Namazi N, Asadi M. et al. Comparison common equations for LDL-C calculation with direct assay and developing a novel formula in Iranian children and adolescents: the CASPIAN V study. Lipids Health Dis 2020; 19 (01) 129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kamal AH, Hossain M, Chowdhury S, Mahmud NU. A comparison of calculated with direct measurement of low density lipoprotein cholesterol level. JCMCTA 2009; 20: 19-23
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Agrawal M, Spencer HJ, Faas FH. Method of LDL cholesterol measurement influences classification of LDL cholesterol treatment goals: clinical research study. J Investig Med 2010; 58 (08) 945-949
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Tremblay AJ, Morrissette H, Gagné JM, Bergeron J, Gagné C, Couture P. Validation of the Friedewald formula for the determination of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol compared with beta-quantification in a large population. Clin Biochem 2004; 37 (09) 785-790
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mora S, Rifai N, Buring JE, Ridker PM. Comparison of LDL cholesterol concentrations by Friedewald calculation and direct measurement in relation to cardiovascular events in 27,331 women. Clin Chem 2009; 55 (05) 888-894
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gazi IF, Elisaf M. LDL-cholesterol calculation formulas in patients with or without the metabolic syndrome. Int J Cardiol 2007; 119 (03) 414-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gupta S, Verma M, Singh K. Does LDL-C estimation using Anandaraja's formula give a better agreement with direct LDL-C estimation than the Friedewald's formula?. Indian J Clin Biochem 2012; 27 (02) 127-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kamezaki F, Sonoda S, Nakata S, Otsuji Y. A direct measurement for LDL-cholesterol increases hypercholesterolemia prevalence: comparison with Friedewald calculation. J UOEH 2010; 32 (03) 211-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sudha K, Prabhu A, Kiran AM, Marathe A, Hegde A. Validation of the Friedewald formula in type II diabetes mellitus: an Indian perspective study. Int J Biol Adv Res 2015; 6: 103-106
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Krishnaveni P, Gowda VM. Assessing the validity of Friedewald's formula and Anandraja's formula for serum LDL-cholesterol calculation. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9 (12) BC01-BC04
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Miller WG, Myers GL, Sakurabayashi I. et al. Seven direct methods for measuring HDL and LDL cholesterol compared with ultracentrifugation reference measurement procedures. Clin Chem 2010; 56 (06) 977-986
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Nakanishi N, Matsuo Y, Yoneka H, Nakamura K, Suzuki K, Tatara K. Validity of the conventional indirect methods including Friedewald method for determining serum low density lipoprotein cholesterol level: comparison with the direct homogenous enzymatic analysis. J Occup Health 2002; 42: 130-137
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lee J, Jang S, Son H. Validation of the Martin method for estimating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in Korean adults: findings from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2009–2011. PLoS One 2016; 11 (01) e0148147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar