Literature DB >> 25291951

25-hydroxy-Vitamin D status: limitations in comparison and clinical interpretation of serum-levels across different assay methods.

Dietmar Enko, Leo Fridrich, Erwin Rezanka, Robert Stolba, Juliane Ernst, Iris Wendler, Daniel Fabian, Susanne Hauptlorenz, Gabriele Halwachs-Baumann.   

Abstract

Background: Over the last decade, clinical interest to evaluate human 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25[OH]D) serum levels has increased exponentially. In the present study, four chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIA), one radioimmunoassy (RIA), and one high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method were compared and also with the liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method in view of 25(OH)D serum level determination.
Methods: For the method comparison, blood samples from 133 consecutive patients were prospectively collected. All participants gave written informed consent for their blood samples to be used in this study. They came to the Department of Nuclear Medicine of the Central Hospital Steyr (Austria) for osteodensidometric measurement as part of their preventive medical check-up. Pearson's correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman plots, and paired t-tests were calculated. Assay-specific reference ranges were considered using blood samples from persons with normal parathormone, calcium, and total-protein values (n = 97).
Results: The highest correlation was between the HPLC and the LC-MS/MS method (r = 0.96). The lowest correlation was between the cobas Vitamin D3 assay (Roche) and any of the evaluated assays (r = 0.46 - 0.63). Bland-Altman plots revealed a big negative mean bias in three assays (cobas Vitamin D3 assay [Roche]: -22.8; DiaSorin LIAISON [25[OH]D total CLIA [Diasorin]: -18.4; Diasorin 25[OH]D125 I RIA [Diasorin]: -23.8 [nmol/L]) and a much smaller positive mean bias in the other assays (ClinRep complete 25[OH]D2/D3 HPLC kit [Recipe]: 2.7; ADVIA Centaur Vitamin D total assay [Siemens]: 8.2; IDS total vitamin D assay [Immunodiagnostic Systems]: 12.1 [nmol/L]) compared to the LC-MS/MS method. Meanwhile, the manufacturer has withdrawn the cobas Vitamin D3 assay from the market. Conclusions: Poor antibody specificity with cross-reactivity to other vitamin D metabolites, incomplete extraction of the 25(OH)D analyte from the vitamin D-binding protein (DBP), and confounding matrix substances such as lipids could be potential reasons for the unacceptable performance of the cobas Vitamin D3 assay (Roche) and also the significant differences in the 25(OH)D determination between various assays. Standardization and harmonization of 25(OH)D measurements are therefore urgently needed. The widespread introduction of well standardized assays in clinical laboratories is the challenge in the next years. (Clin. Lab. 2014;60:1541-1550. DOI: 10.7754/Clin.Lab.2014.131114)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25291951     DOI: 10.7754/clin.lab.2014.131114

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Lab        ISSN: 1433-6510            Impact factor:   1.138


  28 in total

1.  Accurate and reliable quantification of 25-hydroxy-vitamin D species by liquid chromatography high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry.

Authors:  Gerhard Liebisch; Silke Matysik
Journal:  J Lipid Res       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 5.922

2.  Physical Performance and Serum 25(OH)vitamin D Status in Community Dwelling Old Mobility Limited Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Å von Berens; T Cederholm; R A Fielding; T Gustafsson; D Kirn; J Laussen; M Nydahl; T G Travison; K Reid; A Koochek
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2018       Impact factor: 4.075

3.  Value Assignment of Vitamin D Metabolites in Vitamin D Standardization Program Serum Samples.

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

4.  Evaluation of the new restandardized Abbott Architect 25-OH Vitamin D assay in vitamin D-insufficient and vitamin D-supplemented individuals.

Authors:  Wijtske Annema; Albina Nowak; Arnold von Eckardstein; Lanja Saleh
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 2.352

5.  Anti-inflammatory nutritional intervention in patients with relapsing-remitting and primary-progressive multiple sclerosis: A pilot study.

Authors:  Paolo Riccio; Rocco Rossano; Marilena Larocca; Vincenzo Trotta; Ilario Mennella; Paola Vitaglione; Michele Ettorre; Antonio Graverini; Alessandro De Santis; Elisabetta Di Monte; Maria Gabriella Coniglio
Journal:  Exp Biol Med (Maywood)       Date:  2016-01-18

6.  Serum 25-hydoxyvitamin D concentrations in relation to Hashimoto's thyroiditis: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of observational studies.

Authors:  Mario Štefanić; Stana Tokić
Journal:  Eur J Nutr       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 5.614

7.  Predictors of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Concentration Measured at Multiple Time Points in a Multiethnic Population.

Authors:  Julia A Knight; Jody Wong; David E C Cole; Tim K Lee; Esteban J Parra
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 8.  Vitamin D testing: advantages and limits of the current assays.

Authors:  Barbara Altieri; Etienne Cavalier; Harjit Pal Bhattoa; Faustino R Pérez-López; María T López-Baena; Gonzalo R Pérez-Roncero; Peter Chedraui; Cedric Annweiler; Silvia Della Casa; Sieglinde Zelzer; Markus Herrmann; Antongiulio Faggiano; Annamaria Colao; Michael F Holick
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2020-01-06       Impact factor: 4.016

9.  Vitamin D in Graves Disease: Levels, Correlation with Laboratory and Clinical Parameters, and Genetics.

Authors:  Tereza Planck; Bushra Shahida; Johan Malm; Jonas Manjer
Journal:  Eur Thyroid J       Date:  2017-11-21

10.  Serum Vitamin D Status and Breast Cancer Risk by Receptor Status: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jessica L Tommie; Susan M Pinney; Laurie A Nommsen-Rivers
Journal:  Nutr Cancer       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 2.900

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.