J B Schwartz1, J Lai2, B Lizaola3, L Kane4, P Weyland5, N A Terrault6, N Stotland7, D Bikle8. 1. University of California San Francisco, Department of Medicine, United States; Jewish Home of San Francisco, United States; University of California San Francisco, Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, United States. Electronic address: Janice.schwartz@ucsf.edu. 2. University of California San Francisco, Department of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: Jennifer.lai@ucsf.edu. 3. University of California San Francisco, Department of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: Blanca.Lizaola@ucsf.edu. 4. Jewish Home of San Francisco, United States. Electronic address: lkane@jhsf.org. 5. Department of Physiological Nursing, University of California San Francisco, United States. Electronic address: patricia.weyland@ucsf.edu. 6. University of California San Francisco, Department of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: Norah.Terrault@ucsf.edu. 7. Department of OB/GYN, University of California San Francisco, United States. Electronic address: stotlandn@obgyn.ucsf.edu. 8. University of California San Francisco, Department of Medicine, United States; Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, United States. Electronic address: Daniel.Bikle@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Our goal was to determine total and directly measured free 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) serum levels in humans with a range of 25(OH)D levels and clinical conditions associated with low and high vitamin D binding protein levels. Serum samples and clinical data were collected from 106 subjects: 62 without cirrhosis or pregnancy, 24 cirrhotic patients with albumin <2.9g/dL, and 20 pregnant women. Total 25(OH)D (LC/MS/MS) and "free" 25(OH)D (immunoassay) were measured. Total 25(OH)D was significantly lower in liver disease patients but free 25(OH)D concentrations were significantly higher in this group (p<.001). Neither total nor free 25(OH)D concentrations were significantly different in pregnant women vs. the comparator group. There were significant direct positive relationships between free 25(OH)D and total 25(OH)D concentrations for the entire dataset and for each group (p<.0001), however slopes of relationships differed in the cirrhotic group compared to pregnant women or the comparator group. In cirrhotics: y (free 25(OH)D)=2.52+0.29×X(total 25 (OH)D), r(2)=.51, p<.001; y=1.45+0.09×X; r(2)=.77, p<.0001 for pregnant women; and y=1.11+0.12×X; r(2)=.72, p<.0001 for the comparator group). CONCLUSIONS: directly measured free 25(OH)D serum concentrations and relationships between total and free 25(OH)D vary with clinical conditions, and may differ from those predicted by indirect estimation methods. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'Vitamin D Workshop'.
UNLABELLED: Our goal was to determine total and directly measured free 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) serum levels in humans with a range of 25(OH)D levels and clinical conditions associated with low and high vitamin D binding protein levels. Serum samples and clinical data were collected from 106 subjects: 62 without cirrhosis or pregnancy, 24 cirrhoticpatients with albumin <2.9g/dL, and 20 pregnant women. Total 25(OH)D (LC/MS/MS) and "free" 25(OH)D (immunoassay) were measured. Total 25(OH)D was significantly lower in liver diseasepatients but free 25(OH)D concentrations were significantly higher in this group (p<.001). Neither total nor free 25(OH)D concentrations were significantly different in pregnant women vs. the comparator group. There were significant direct positive relationships between free 25(OH)D and total 25(OH)D concentrations for the entire dataset and for each group (p<.0001), however slopes of relationships differed in the cirrhotic group compared to pregnant women or the comparator group. In cirrhotics: y (free 25(OH)D)=2.52+0.29×X(total 25 (OH)D), r(2)=.51, p<.001; y=1.45+0.09×X; r(2)=.77, p<.0001 for pregnant women; and y=1.11+0.12×X; r(2)=.72, p<.0001 for the comparator group). CONCLUSIONS: directly measured free 25(OH)D serum concentrations and relationships between total and free 25(OH)D vary with clinical conditions, and may differ from those predicted by indirect estimation methods. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled 'Vitamin D Workshop'.
Authors: Clifford J Rosen; Steven A Abrams; John F Aloia; Patsy M Brannon; Steven K Clinton; Ramon A Durazo-Arvizu; J Christopher Gallagher; Richard L Gallo; Glenville Jones; Christopher S Kovacs; JoAnn E Manson; Susan T Mayne; A Catharine Ross; Sue A Shapses; Christine L Taylor Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Roman Romero-Ortuno; Lisa Cogan; Joseph Browne; Martin Healy; Miriam Catherine Casey; Conal Cunningham; James Bernard Walsh; Rose Anne Kenny Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2010-11-03 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Michael F Holick; Neil C Binkley; Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari; Catherine M Gordon; David A Hanley; Robert P Heaney; M Hassan Murad; Connie M Weaver Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2011-06-06 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Camille E Powe; Catherine Ricciardi; Anders H Berg; Delger Erdenesanaa; Gina Collerone; Elizabeth Ankers; Julia Wenger; S Ananth Karumanchi; Ravi Thadhani; Ishir Bhan Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Ishir Bhan; Camille E Powe; Anders H Berg; Elizabeth Ankers; Julia B Wenger; S Ananth Karumanchi; Ravi I Thadhani Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: John Aloia; Ruban Dhaliwal; Mageda Mikhail; Albert Shieh; Alexandra Stolberg; Louis Ragolia; Melissa Fazzari; Steven A Abrams Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Janice B Schwartz; J Christopher Gallagher; Rolf Jorde; Vivian Berg; Jennifer Walsh; Richard Eastell; Amy L Evans; Simon Bowles; Kim E Naylor; Kerry S Jones; Inez Schoenmakers; Michael Holick; Eric Orwoll; Carrie Nielson; Martin Kaufmann; Glenville Jones; Roger Bouillon; Jennifer Lai; Davide Verotta; Daniel Bikle Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 5.958