A-213 Comparison of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) estimates by in-lab and point-of-care devices in the context of emerging LDL-c equations

Abstract

Abstract Background Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) and lipid measurements are used for hyperlipidemia diagnosis, cardiovascular disease risk classification, and medication management. Millions of lipid panels are performed annually. Given the widespread need for lipid testing, there are two CLIA-waived point-of-care (POC) lipid testing devices. These devices were FDA-approved using the Friedewald equation to estimate LDL-c based on measurements of (triglycerides (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c), and total cholesterol (TC). However, in laboratory-based testing, the Friedewald equation is being replaced by newer, more accurate equations such as the NIH-Sampson equation. These equations use the same lipid panel results to estimate LDL-c and only differ in the arithmetic of the estimation. The study objective is to evaluate how differences between the in-clinic POC machines and in-laboratory lipid measurements affect the estimated LDL-c results and are compounded by differences in the equations used for LDL-c estimation. Methods This retrospective observational study collected deidentified lipid results (TG, HDL-c, TC, LDL-c) and demographic data (age, gender) for all samples that had lipid panel results from in-lab and POC within twenty-four hours of each other in a single hospital system between 2014 and 2023. Three hundred twenty samples were identified; samples with non-numerical values or results outside of the reportable range for TG, HDL-c, or TC were not included in subsequent LDL-c calculations using the Friedewald and NIH-Sampson equations (69 results). Patients under the age of 18 were excluded (2 results). Two hundred and forty-nine samples met inclusion criteria; this cohort showed non-significant differences in lipid, age, and gender distributions relative to all POC results tested in the same time frame. Results Consistent with prior reports, we observed discordance between POC and the in-lab lipid measurements, particularly for TG (Bland-Altman: bias:-23.04 mg/dL, standard deviation:61.3 mg/dL). Regardless of the testing platform, LDL-c results are higher on an individual and population-based level with the NIH-Sampson equation. These analytical differences may not change clinical management if the cardiovascular risk classification using estimated LDL-c is unchanged. However, the risk classification based on the in-lab versus in-clinic testing differed for 20-30% of patients. The most pronounced difference in LDL-c estimation occurred when the POC machine used Friedewald and in-lab testing used NIH-Sampson, and resulted in 5% more patients differentially classified. Conclusions This study highlights the need for transparency in lipid panel reports regarding which LDL-c equation is used in both POC and in-lab testing formats, and the need for readily available tools for conversion between different LDL-c estimation equations.