INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the accuracy of three automated assays for 25(OH)D measurement in comparison to ID-XLC-MS/MS in hemodialysis patients, considering the importance of their vitamin D status and reported discrepant results obtained with automated assays. METHODS: All three assays were heterogeneous, competitive immunoassays or vitamin D binding protein assays on Architect (Abbott), Modular E170 (Roche) and iSYS (IDS). Measurements were performed in serum of 99 hemodialysis patients and 50 healthy subjects, double blind with a different operator and aliquot for each method. RESULTS: Architect showed the highest deviation for hemodialysis (slope 0.3864, intercept 8.7409) and healthy subjects (slope 0.5024, intercept 6.8426) and reported significant lower results. Considering 30 ng/ml as cut-off for optimal 25(OH)D concentration, Architect falsely assigned 48.5% of the hemodialysis and 6% of the healthy subgroup a suboptimal vitamin D status. iSYS results of hemodialysis patients also deviated (slope 0.6136, intercept 8.6604) but showed less discordant values than Modular E170 in patients with 25(OH)D concentrations between 10 and 40 ng/ml. CONCLUSION: We conclude that not all automated 25(OH)D assays may be considered equally accurate in samples from hemodialysis patients compared to samples from healthy subjects. We found most deviating results with Abbott (Architect) measurements compared to ID-XLC-MS/MS in hemodialysis patients as well as in healthy subjects. We suggest a possible role of matrix effects like elevated urea or other retained metabolites in hemodialysis sera, causing incomplete binding disruption between 25(OH)D and DBP, in the poor assay accuracy.
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the accuracy of three automated assays for 25(OH)D measurement in comparison to ID-XLC-MS/MS in hemodialysis patients, considering the importance of their vitamin D status and reported discrepant results obtained with automated assays. METHODS: All three assays were heterogeneous, competitive immunoassays or vitamin D binding protein assays on Architect (Abbott), Modular E170 (Roche) and iSYS (IDS). Measurements were performed in serum of 99 hemodialysis patients and 50 healthy subjects, double blind with a different operator and aliquot for each method. RESULTS: Architect showed the highest deviation for hemodialysis (slope 0.3864, intercept 8.7409) and healthy subjects (slope 0.5024, intercept 6.8426) and reported significant lower results. Considering 30 ng/ml as cut-off for optimal 25(OH)D concentration, Architect falsely assigned 48.5% of the hemodialysis and 6% of the healthy subgroup a suboptimal vitamin D status. iSYS results of hemodialysis patients also deviated (slope 0.6136, intercept 8.6604) but showed less discordant values than Modular E170 in patients with 25(OH)D concentrations between 10 and 40 ng/ml. CONCLUSION: We conclude that not all automated 25(OH)D assays may be considered equally accurate in samples from hemodialysis patients compared to samples from healthy subjects. We found most deviating results with Abbott (Architect) measurements compared to ID-XLC-MS/MS in hemodialysis patients as well as in healthy subjects. We suggest a possible role of matrix effects like elevated urea or other retained metabolites in hemodialysis sera, causing incomplete binding disruption between 25(OH)D and DBP, in the poor assay accuracy.
Authors: Christopher T Sempos; Annemieke C Heijboer; Daniel D Bikle; Jens Bollerslev; Roger Bouillon; Patsy M Brannon; Hector F DeLuca; Glenville Jones; Craig F Munns; John P Bilezikian; Andrea Giustina; Neil Binkley Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 4.335
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: Stephen A Wise; Johanna E Camara; Carolyn Q Burdette; Grace Hahm; Federica Nalin; Adam J Kuszak; Joyce Merkel; Ramón A Durazo-Arvizu; Emma L Williams; Andrew N Hoofnagle; Fiona Ivison; Ralf Fischer; Jody M W van den Ouweland; Chung S Ho; Emmett W K Law; Jean-Nicolas Simard; Renaud Gonthier; Brett Holmquist; Sarah Meadows; Lorna Cox; Kimberly Robyak; Michael H Creer; Robert Fitzgerald; Michael W Clarke; Norma Breen; Pierre Lukas; Étienne Cavalier; Christopher T Sempos Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 4.142
Authors: Stephen A Wise; Johanna E Camara; Carolyn Q Burdette; Grace Hahm; Federica Nalin; Adam J Kuszak; Joyce Merkel; Ramón A Durazo-Arvizu; Emma L Williams; Christian Popp; Christian Beckert; Jan Schultess; Glen Van Slooten; Carole Tourneur; Camille Pease; Ravi Kaul; Alfredo Villarreal; Marcelo Cidade Batista; Heather Pham; Alex Bennett; Eugene Jansen; Dilshad Ahmed Khan; Mark Kilbane; Patrick J Twomey; James Freeman; Neil Parker; Sohail Mushtaq; Christine Simpson; Pierre Lukas; Étienne Cavalier; Christopher T Sempos Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 4.142
Authors: Niek F Dirks; Hubert W Vesper; Antonius E van Herwaarden; Jody M W van den Ouweland; Ido P Kema; Johannes G Krabbe; Annemieke C Heijboer Journal: Clin Chim Acta Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 3.786
Authors: Konstantinos Makris; Harjit P Bhattoa; Etienne Cavalier; Karen Phinney; Christopher T Sempos; Candice Z Ulmer; Samuel D Vasikaran; Hubert Vesper; Annemieke C Heijboer Journal: Clin Chim Acta Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 6.314
Authors: Olivier Bruyère; Etienne Cavalier; Jean-Claude Souberbielle; Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari; Charlotte Beaudart; Fanny Buckinx; Jean-Yves Reginster; René Rizzoli Journal: Arch Public Health Date: 2014-09-28
Authors: Niek F Dirks; Mariëtte T Ackermans; Paul Lips; Renate T de Jongh; Marc G Vervloet; Robert de Jonge; Annemieke C Heijboer Journal: Nutrients Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 5.717