Kevin D Cashman1, Aoife Hayes2, Karen Galvin2, Joyce Merkel3, Glenville Jones4, Martin Kaufmann4, Andrew N Hoofnagle5, Graham D Carter6, Ramon A Durazo-Arvizu7, Christopher T Sempos3. 1. Vitamin D Research Group, School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, and Department of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland; k.cashman@ucc.ie. 2. Vitamin D Research Group, School of Food and Nutritional Sciences, and. 3. Office of Dietary Supplements, NIH, Bethesda, MD; 4. Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; 5. Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; 6. Vitamin D External Quality Assurance Scheme (DEQAS) Coordination Centre, Imperial College, London, UK; 7. Department of Public Health Sciences, Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:24,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D [24,25(OH)2D] in serum may be both a nuisance and nutritionally valuable. METHODS: We investigated the impact of 24,25(OH)2D3 on the performance of commercially available immunoassays for serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] using (a) serum from a nationally representative sample of adults, (b) serum from a spiking experiment, and (c) data from theUK Vitamin D External Quality Assurance Scheme (DEQAS). We also investigated the utility of the serum ratio of 24,25(OH)2D3 to 25(OH)D as an index of inactivation and of response to vitamin D supplementation using randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. Measurement of 24,25(OH)2D in sera by a LC-MS/MS method allowed for an investigation of its impact on immunoassay-derived serum 25(OH)D values as well as its clinical utility. We report data from a nationally representative sample of adults, a recent vitamin D RCT in older adults, and DEQAS. RESULTS: 24,25(OH)2D3 contributed to the positive bias observed in some immunoassays relative to LC-MS/MS-derived estimates for total 25(OH)D. A spiking experiment showed that the degree of cross-reactivity with 24,25(OH)2D was high and may underpin this positive bias. Adjustment for 24,25(OH)2D3 concentration brought estimates closer to true values. Data from the vitamin D RCT showed that the ratio of 24,25(OH)2D3 to 25(OH)D was associated with serum 25(OH)D3 and with response of serum 25(OH)D to vitamin D supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight that the effect of 24,25(OH)2D3 in serum is a double-edged sword-an interferent for some immunoassays, yet potentially informative of nutritional status.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:24,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D [24,25(OH)2D] in serum may be both a nuisance and nutritionally valuable. METHODS: We investigated the impact of 24,25(OH)2D3 on the performance of commercially available immunoassays for serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] using (a) serum from a nationally representative sample of adults, (b) serum from a spiking experiment, and (c) data from the UK Vitamin D External Quality Assurance Scheme (DEQAS). We also investigated the utility of the serum ratio of 24,25(OH)2D3 to 25(OH)D as an index of inactivation and of response to vitamin D supplementation using randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. Measurement of 24,25(OH)2D in sera by a LC-MS/MS method allowed for an investigation of its impact on immunoassay-derived serum 25(OH)D values as well as its clinical utility. We report data from a nationally representative sample of adults, a recent vitamin D RCT in older adults, and DEQAS. RESULTS:24,25(OH)2D3 contributed to the positive bias observed in some immunoassays relative to LC-MS/MS-derived estimates for total 25(OH)D. A spiking experiment showed that the degree of cross-reactivity with 24,25(OH)2D was high and may underpin this positive bias. Adjustment for 24,25(OH)2D3 concentration brought estimates closer to true values. Data from the vitamin D RCT showed that the ratio of 24,25(OH)2D3 to 25(OH)D was associated with serum 25(OH)D3 and with response of serum 25(OH)D to vitamin D supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight that the effect of 24,25(OH)2D3 in serum is a double-edged sword-an interferent for some immunoassays, yet potentially informative of nutritional status.
Authors: Kurtis Sarafin; Ramón Durazo-Arvizu; Lu Tian; Karen W Phinney; Susan Tai; Johanna E Camara; Joyce Merkel; Evan Green; Christopher T Sempos; Stephen P J Brooks Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 7.045
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: Cora M Best; Eva K Pressman; Ruth Anne Queenan; Elizabeth Cooper; Françoise Vermeylen; Kimberly O O'Brien Journal: J Nutr Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Rosemary L Schleicher; Maya R Sternberg; Anne C Looker; Elizabeth A Yetley; David A Lacher; Christopher T Sempos; Christine L Taylor; Ramon A Durazo-Arvizu; Khin L Maw; Madhulika Chaudhary-Webb; Clifford L Johnson; Christine M Pfeiffer Journal: J Nutr Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Kevin D Cashman; Ellen Ghm van den Heuvel; Ruud Jw Schoemaker; Damien P Prévéraud; Helen M Macdonald; Jayashree Arcot Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 8.701
Authors: Ramón A Durazo-Arvizu; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Holly Kramer; Guichan Cao; Joyce Merkel; Paul M Coates; Christopher T Sempos Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-04-15 Impact factor: 4.897