Measured Versus Calculated Small Dense LDL-Cholesterol and Cardiometabolic Traits in a South African Population

Small-dense low density lipoprotein (sdLDL) is increasingly viewed as a marker for evaluating atherogenic risk, however its clinical uptake is hampered by the cumbersomeness of available methods. Consequently, a number of alternative methods for the estimation of sdLDL have been developed and none h...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Indian journal of clinical biochemistry 2019-07, Vol.34 (3), p.304-311
Main Authors: Masoud, M., Kengne, A. P., Erasmus, R. T., Hon, G. M., Macharia, M., Matsha, T. E.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analysis
Biochemistry
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Blood cholesterol
Body mass index
Chemistry/Food Science
Cholesterol
Density
Diabetes
Diabetes mellitus
Enzymes
High density lipoprotein
Life Sciences
Low density lipoprotein
Low density lipoproteins
Measurement
Medical screening
Metabolic disorders
Microbiology
Original
Original Research Article
Pathology
Population
Population density
Population levels
Prediabetic state
Risk factors
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Small-dense low density lipoprotein (sdLDL) is increasingly viewed as a marker for evaluating atherogenic risk, however its clinical uptake is hampered by the cumbersomeness of available methods. Consequently, a number of alternative methods for the estimation of sdLDL have been developed and none have been tested in a population from Africa. We evaluated an equation to estimate sdLDL-C from classic lipid parameters in South Africans. This is a cross-sectional study involving 1550 participants in which direct measurement of sdLDL in 237 participants was performed using a homogeneous enzymatic assay. Their mean age (standard deviation, SD) was 54.2 (14.7) years. 156 (65.8%) were normotolerant, 29 (12.2%) prediabetes, 17 (7.2%) screen detected diabetes and 35 (14.8%) known diabetes. Measured sdLDL values ranged from 0.17 to 3.39 versus—1.85 to 2.52 mmol/L calculated sdLDL. There was a significant positive correlation between the two measurements with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.659 (95%CI: 0.581–0.726). In a regression model, the adjusted R 2 was 0.440 after adding age, 0.441 after further adding gender, then 0.443 with dysglycemia and lastly 0.447 upon adding body mass index. With the exception of HDL-cholesterol levels that decreased across increasing quintiles of calculated sdLDL, our data showed significant correlations between sdLDL and cardiometabolic risk factors, all p values 
ISSN:0970-1915
0974-0422
DOI:10.1007/s12291-018-0748-8