BACKGROUND: In this study, we provide a short analytical evaluation of the new Fujirebio Lumipulse®G non-competitive immunoassay for 25(OH)D. Clinical performance was compared with three commercial competitive automated immunoassays against a Vitamin D Standardization Program (VDSP)-traceable liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in six different clinically relevant populations. METHODS: Lumipulse®G 25(OH)D precision, measurement uncertainty, recovery, limit of quantification were assessed, as well as 25(OH)D2 and C3-epimer recovery. For method comparison, 250 serum samples obtained in healthy Caucasians and Africans, osteoporotic, hemodialyzed and intensive care patients and 3rd trimester pregnant women were analyzed by all methods. Correlation was studied using Passing-Bablok and Bland-Altman analysis. Concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was calculated to evaluate agreement between immunoassays and the LC-MS/MS. RESULTS: The Lumipulse®G 25(OH)D assay presented interesting analytical features and showed excellent correlation to the LC-MS/MS results (y=1.00×-1.35 ng/mL), as obtained in healthy Caucasian individuals. In the other special populations, Lumipulse®G presented a concordance with LC-MS/MS which was generally higher than competitors, even if all methods significantly under-recovered 25(OH)D in hemodialyzed patients. Intra-assay CV ranged from 12.1% at 9.6 ng/mL to 2.1% at 103.7 ng/mL and inter-assay CV ranged from 16.2 to 3.7% at the same concentrations, respectively. Measurement uncertainty, with a probability of 95%, were respectively 33.1 and 7.6% at these concentrations. LOQ was found to be at 4.6 ng/mL. Mean (95% CI) 25(OH)D2 revovery was 77% (74-81) and no cross-reactivity was observed with C3-epimer. CONCLUSIONS: Fujirebio Lumipulse®G 25-OH Vitamin D Total assay is therefore considered suitable for assessment of vitamin D status in clinical routine.
BACKGROUND: In this study, we provide a short analytical evaluation of the new Fujirebio Lumipulse®G non-competitive immunoassay for 25(OH)D. Clinical performance was compared with three commercial competitive automated immunoassays against a Vitamin D Standardization Program (VDSP)-traceable liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in six different clinically relevant populations. METHODS: Lumipulse®G 25(OH)D precision, measurement uncertainty, recovery, limit of quantification were assessed, as well as 25(OH)D2 and C3-epimer recovery. For method comparison, 250 serum samples obtained in healthy Caucasians and Africans, osteoporotic, hemodialyzed and intensive care patients and 3rd trimester pregnant women were analyzed by all methods. Correlation was studied using Passing-Bablok and Bland-Altman analysis. Concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was calculated to evaluate agreement between immunoassays and the LC-MS/MS. RESULTS: The Lumipulse®G 25(OH)D assay presented interesting analytical features and showed excellent correlation to the LC-MS/MS results (y=1.00×-1.35 ng/mL), as obtained in healthy Caucasian individuals. In the other special populations, Lumipulse®G presented a concordance with LC-MS/MS which was generally higher than competitors, even if all methods significantly under-recovered 25(OH)D in hemodialyzed patients. Intra-assay CV ranged from 12.1% at 9.6 ng/mL to 2.1% at 103.7 ng/mL and inter-assay CV ranged from 16.2 to 3.7% at the same concentrations, respectively. Measurement uncertainty, with a probability of 95%, were respectively 33.1 and 7.6% at these concentrations. LOQ was found to be at 4.6 ng/mL. Mean (95% CI) 25(OH)D2 revovery was 77% (74-81) and no cross-reactivity was observed with C3-epimer. CONCLUSIONS: Fujirebio Lumipulse®G 25-OH Vitamin D Total assay is therefore considered suitable for assessment of vitamin D status in clinical routine.
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: 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
Authors: E Cavalier; R Eastell; N R Jørgensen; K Makris; S Tournis; S Vasikaran; J A Kanis; C Cooper; H Pottel; H A Morris Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 4.333
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
Authors: A Giustina; R A Adler; N Binkley; J Bollerslev; R Bouillon; B Dawson-Hughes; P R Ebeling; D Feldman; A M Formenti; M Lazaretti-Castro; C Marcocci; R Rizzoli; C T Sempos; J P Bilezikian Journal: Rev Endocr Metab Disord Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 6.514