Mary M. Kimberly

Seven Direct Methods for Measuring HDL and LDL Cholesterol Compared with Ultracentrifugation Reference Measurement Procedures

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 manufacturers 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.

Standardization of Immunoassays for Measurement of High-Sensitivity C-reactive Protein. Phase I: Evaluation of Secondary Reference Materials

BACKGROUND Inflammation contributes to the development and progression of atherosclerosis, and C-reactive protein (CRP) can be used as a marker to assess risk for cardiovascular diseases. As variability among existing high-sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) assays can lead to misclassification of patients and hamper implementation of population-based medical decision points, standardization of hsCRP assays is needed. METHODS We evaluated five proposed secondary reference materials, including two diluted preparations of Certified Reference Material 470 (CRM470), two preparations of a serum-based material with recombinant CRP added, and one serum-based material with isolated CRP added. Twenty-one manufacturers participated in the comparison with 28 different assays. We examined imprecision, linearity, and parallelism with these materials and with fresh serum. RESULTS All materials had similar imprecision; CVs for the undiluted materials were 2.1-3.7%. None of the materials was linear across all assays. Each had between one and three cases of nonlinearity, with one preparation of CRM470 having the fewest cases of nonlinearity. Although none of the materials was parallel across all assays, the differences in slope from fresh serum were similar across all assays. CONCLUSIONS All materials performed similarly with regard to imprecision, linearity, and parallelism. As one preparation of CRM470 had slightly better characteristics than the other materials and because CRM470 had been certified previously as a reference material for the acute-phase reactant range, it will be used in the next phase to standardize hsCRP assays.

Non–HDL Cholesterol Shows Improved Accuracy for Cardiovascular Risk Score Classification Compared to Direct or Calculated LDL Cholesterol in a Dyslipidemic Population

BACKGROUND Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score classification by direct LDL cholesterol (dLDL-C), calculated LDL cholesterol (cLDL-C), and non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDL-C) compared to classification by reference measurement procedures (RMPs) performed at the CDC. METHODS We examined 175 individuals, including 138 with CVD 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 manufacturers direct HDL-C assay measurements, and total cholesterol and triglyceride measurements by Roche and Siemens (Advia) assays, respectively. RESULTS For participants with triglycerides<2.26 mmol/L (<200 mg/dL), the overall misclassification rate for the CVD 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 patients than dLDL-C for 4 of 8 methods (P<0.05). For participants with triglycerides≥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 CVD risk score than either dLDL-C or cLDL-C methods. CONCLUSIONS Except for hypertriglyceridemic individuals, 7 of 8 dLDL-C methods failed to show improved CVD risk score classification over the corresponding cLDL-C methods. Non-HDL-C showed overall the best concordance with the RMP for CVD risk score classification of both normal and hypertriglyceridemic individuals.

Standardization of Measurements for Cholesterol, Triglycerides, and Major Lipoproteins

This review evaluates the status of standardization of lipids and lipoproteins. Prerequisites and some basic principles for standardization are provided. The reference systems for cholesterol, HDL cholesterol (HDL-C), LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), triglycerides (TG), apolipoprotein A-I (apoA-I), apolipoprotein B (apoB), and lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) are described. Brief descriptions of the standardization programs available for each of these analytes are also provided. Finally, the review addresses some of the challenges in standardizing these markers of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The standardization programs described have contributed to improvements in laboratory measurements of lipids and lipoproteins. Our intention is that clinical laboratory professionals and manufacturers of in vitro diagnostics will use these resources to standardize lipid and lipoprotein measurements. Manufacturers must take the initiative to thoroughly evaluate their products and ensure traceability to the reference systems.

Proposed Serum Cholesterol Reference Measurement Procedure by Gas Chromatography–Isotope Dilution Mass Spectrometry

BACKGROUND Our purpose was to establish a mass spectrometry reference measurement procedure (RMP) for cholesterol to use in the CDCs standardization programs. We explored a gas chromatography-isotope dilution mass spectrometry (GC-IDMS) procedure using a multilevel standard calibration curve to quantify samples with varying cholesterol concentrations. METHODS We calibrated the mass spectrometry instrument by isotope dilution with a pure primary standard reference material and an isotopically enriched cholesterol analog as the internal standard (IS). We diluted the serum samples with Tris-HCl buffer (pH 7.4, 0.05 mol/L, 0.25% Triton X-100) before analysis. We used 17 serum pools, 10 native samples, and 2 standard reference materials (SRMs). We compared the GC-IDMS measurements with the CDCs modified Abell-Levy-Brodie-Kendall (AK) RMP measurements and assessed method accuracy by analyzing 2 SRMs. We evaluated the procedure for lack of interference by analyzing serum spiked with a mixture of 7 sterols. RESULTS The mean percent bias between the AK and the GC-IDMS RMP was 1.6% for all samples examined. The mean percent bias from NISTs RMP was 0.5% for the SRMs. The total %CVs for SRM 1951b levels I and II were 0.61 and 0.73%, respectively. We found that none of the sterols investigated interfered with the cholesterol measurement. CONCLUSIONS The low imprecision, linear response, lack of interferences, and acceptable bias vs the NIST primary RMP qualifies this procedure as an RMP for determining serum cholesterol. The CDC will adopt and implement this GC-IDMS procedure for cholesterol standardization.

Evaluation of Four Different Equations for Calculating LDL-C with Eight Different Direct HDL-C Assays

BACKGROUND Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is often calculated (cLDL-C) by the Friedewald equation, which requires high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and triglycerides (TG). Because there have been considerable changes in the measurement of HDL-C with the introduction of direct assays, several alternative equations have recently been proposed. METHODS We compared 4 equations (Friedewald, Vujovic, Chen, and Anandaraja) for cLDL-C, using 8 different direct HDL-C (dHDL-C) methods. LDL-C values were calculated by the 4 equations and determined by the β quantification reference method procedure in 164 subjects. RESULTS For normotriglyceridemic samples (TG<200mg/dl), between 6.2% and 24.8% of all results exceeded the total error goal of 12% for LDL-C, depending on the dHDL-C assay and cLDL-C equation used. Friedewald equation was found to be the optimum equation for most but not all dHDL-C assays, typically leading to less than 10% misclassification of cardiovascular risk based on LDL-C. Hypertriglyceridemic samples (>200mg/dl) showed a large cardiovascular risk misclassification rate (30%-50%) for all combinations of dHDL-C assays and cLDL-C equations. CONCLUSION The Friedewald equation showed the best performance for estimating LDL-C, but its accuracy varied considerably depending on the specific dHDL-C assay used. None of the cLDL-C equations performed adequately for hypertriglyceridemic samples.

Standardization of high-sensitivity immunoassays for measurement of C-reactive protein; II: Two approaches for assessing commutability of a reference material.

BACKGROUND We evaluated the commutability of a proposed reference material (PRM), with a formulation based on dilution of Certified Reference Material 470 (CRM470), for 24 high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) methods. We also investigated whether calibration by use of PRM was effective in harmonizing results. METHODS A set of 40 native clinical samples was measured along with PRM and 3 dilutions of PRM. We used weighted least-squares polynomial regression (WLS/PR) to perform comparisons between all method combinations and to calculate normalized residuals for the PRM. The PRM was considered noncommutable if any of the normalized residuals for a method pair was >2. Correspondence analysis (CA) was used to explore the multidimensional relationships between methods and samples to evaluate if the PRM had properties similar to native clinical samples. Clinical sample results from the methods for which PRM was commutable were recalibrated based on the PRM results, and ANOVA was used to estimate the CVs before and after recalibration. RESULTS After omitting data for 9 methods because of poor precision or procedural flaws, we used data from the 15 remaining methods to evaluate commutability. Using both WLS/PR and CA we found that PRM was noncommutable with 1 method. We found modest improvement in total and among-method CVs when PRM was used to harmonize the results from the 14 methods for which it was commutable. CONCLUSIONS A PRM with a formulation based on dilution of CRM470 was commutable with native clinical samples for 14 of 15 hsCRP methods that had acceptable precision. For those methods the use of PRM may contribute to improved harmonization of results for native clinical samples.

Reference Measurement Procedure for Total Glycerides by Isotope Dilution GC-MS

BACKGROUND The CDCs Lipid Standardization Program established the chromotropic acid (CA) reference measurement procedure (RMP) as the accuracy base for standardization and metrological traceability for triglyceride testing. The CA RMP has several disadvantages, including lack of ruggedness. It uses obsolete instrumentation and hazardous reagents. To overcome these problems the CDC developed an isotope dilution GC-MS (ID-GC-MS) RMP for total glycerides in serum. METHODS We diluted serum samples with Tris-HCl buffer solution and spiked 200-μL aliquots with [(13)C(3)]-glycerol. These samples were incubated and hydrolyzed under basic conditions. The samples were dried, derivatized with acetic anhydride and pyridine, extracted with ethyl acetate, and analyzed by ID-GC-MS. Linearity, imprecision, and accuracy were evaluated by analyzing calibrator solutions, 10 serum pools, and a standard reference material (SRM 1951b). RESULTS The calibration response was linear for the range of calibrator concentrations examined (0-1.24 mmol/L) with a slope and intercept of 0.717 (95% CI, 0.7123-0.7225) and 0.3122 (95% CI, 0.3096-0.3140), respectively. The limit of detection was 14.8 μmol/L. The mean %CV for the sample set (serum pools and SRM) was 1.2%. The mean %bias from NIST isotope dilution MS values for SRM 1951b was 0.7%. CONCLUSIONS This ID-GC-MS RMP has the specificity and ruggedness to accurately quantify total glycerides in the serum pools used in the CDCs Lipid Standardization Program and demonstrates sufficiently acceptable agreement with the NIST primary RMP for total glyceride measurement.