CONTEXT: Laboratories are increasingly shifting to new automated 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) assays, with subsequent variability in results. OBJECTIVE/ SETTING: We describe the experience at our center with such a shift and illustrate its clinical implications. METHODS: 25-OHD levels were measured in 494 patients using Immunodiagnostic Systems RIA (IDS-RIA) and DiaSorin Liaison assays. Sources of variability between the assays were investigated in a subset of 83 samples, retested in the reference laboratory in the United States, and by reviewing the performance reports issued by the International Vitamin D External Quality Assessment Scheme, DEQAS. 25-OHD cut-points for target levels were used to compare the two assays. RESULTS: 25-OHD concentrations were significantly lower when measured with Liaison as compared to IDS-RIA: mean bias was -5 ng/ml, range was -38.1 to 18.7 ng/ml, P<0.001; the absolute bias was independent of 25-OHD value. Interassay variability was also detected in values obtained in the reference laboratory and in DEQAS reports. Using 20 ng/ml as the target 25-OHD level, 52% of patients required treatment when tested by Liaison, as opposed to 36% by IDS-RIA (P<0.001). Using 30 ng/ml as the desirable level, the proportions were 79 and 64%, respectively (P<0.001). The two assays agreed in only 41-68% of subjects, proportions that depended on criteria used to define agreement. CONCLUSION: A change in 25-OHD assays has a significant impact on results, patient classification, and treatment recommendations. Such variability cannot be ignored when deriving and applying vitamin D guidelines. It also renders universal assay standardization a pressing call.
CONTEXT: Laboratories are increasingly shifting to new automated 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) assays, with subsequent variability in results. OBJECTIVE/ SETTING: We describe the experience at our center with such a shift and illustrate its clinical implications. METHODS:25-OHD levels were measured in 494 patients using Immunodiagnostic Systems RIA (IDS-RIA) and DiaSorin Liaison assays. Sources of variability between the assays were investigated in a subset of 83 samples, retested in the reference laboratory in the United States, and by reviewing the performance reports issued by the International Vitamin D External Quality Assessment Scheme, DEQAS. 25-OHD cut-points for target levels were used to compare the two assays. RESULTS:25-OHD concentrations were significantly lower when measured with Liaison as compared to IDS-RIA: mean bias was -5 ng/ml, range was -38.1 to 18.7 ng/ml, P<0.001; the absolute bias was independent of 25-OHD value. Interassay variability was also detected in values obtained in the reference laboratory and in DEQAS reports. Using 20 ng/ml as the target 25-OHD level, 52% of patients required treatment when tested by Liaison, as opposed to 36% by IDS-RIA (P<0.001). Using 30 ng/ml as the desirable level, the proportions were 79 and 64%, respectively (P<0.001). The two assays agreed in only 41-68% of subjects, proportions that depended on criteria used to define agreement. CONCLUSION: A change in 25-OHD assays has a significant impact on results, patient classification, and treatment recommendations. Such variability cannot be ignored when deriving and applying vitamin D guidelines. It also renders universal assay standardization a pressing call.
Authors: Alanna S Ocampo-Pelland; Marc R Gastonguay; Jonathan F French; Matthew M Riggs Journal: J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 2.745
Authors: Abigail Sloan; Yue Song; Mitchell H Gail; Rebecca Betensky; Bernard Rosner; Regina G Ziegler; Stephanie A Smith-Warner; Molin Wang Journal: Stat Med Date: 2018-12-19 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: D Y Lee; J H Jee; Y Y Cho; J Y Jang; T Y Yu; T H Kim; Y J Hong; W-J Hong; S-M Jin; K Y Hur; J H Kim; S W Kim; J H Chung; M K Lee; Y-K Min Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Karen W Phinney; Johanna E Camara; Susan S-C Tai; Lane C Sander; Stephen A Wise; Linde A C De Grande; Linda M Thienpont; Antonio M Possolo; Blaza Toman; Christopher T Sempos; Joseph M Betz; Paul M Coates Journal: J AOAC Int Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 1.913
Authors: S N Karras; P Anagnostis; E Bili; D Naughton; A Petroczi; F Papadopoulou; D G Goulis Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2013-08-02 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: K Zarca; I Durand-Zaleski; C Roux; J-C Souberbielle; A-M Schott; T Thomas; P Fardellone; C-L Benhamou Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 4.507