Niek F Dirks1, Hubert W Vesper2, Antonius E van Herwaarden3, Jody M W van den Ouweland4, Ido P Kema5, Johannes G Krabbe6, Annemieke C Heijboer7. 1. Department of Clinical Chemistry, Endocrine Laboratory, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Laboratory Sciences, Atlanta, GA, United States. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Clinical Chemistry, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Medical Spectrum Twente, Medlon BV, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Clinical Chemistry, Endocrine Laboratory, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.heijboer@vumc.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The variety of LC-MS/MS methods measuring total 25(OH)D used today is vast and the comparability among these methods is still not well assessed. METHODS: Here, we performed a comparison in samples of healthy donors between the currently routinely used 25(OH)D LC-MS/MS methods in the Netherlands and the Ghent University reference measurement procedure to address this issue (n=40). Additionally, an interlaboratory comparison in patient serum samples assessed agreement between the Dutch diagnostic methods (n=37). RESULTS: The overall correlation of the routine methods for 25(OH)D3 with the reference measurement procedures and with the mean of all diagnostic methods was excellent (r>0.993 and r>0.989, respectively). Three out of five methods aligned perfectly with both the reference measurement procedure and the median of all methods. One of the routine methods showed a small positive bias, while another showed a small negative bias consistently in both comparisons. CONCLUSION: The biases most probably originated from differences in calibration procedure and may be obviated by reassessing calibration of stock standards and/or calibrator matrices. In conclusion, five diagnostic centers have performed a comparison with the 25(OH)D Ghent University reference measurement procedure in healthy donor serum samples and a comparison among themselves in patient serum samples. Both analyses showed a high correlation and specificity of the routine LC-MS/MS methods, yet did reveal some small standardization issues that could not be traced back to the technical details of the different methods. Hence, this study indicates various calibration procedures can result in perfect alignment.
BACKGROUND: The variety of LC-MS/MS methods measuring total 25(OH)D used today is vast and the comparability among these methods is still not well assessed. METHODS: Here, we performed a comparison in samples of healthy donors between the currently routinely used 25(OH)D LC-MS/MS methods in the Netherlands and the Ghent University reference measurement procedure to address this issue (n=40). Additionally, an interlaboratory comparison in patient serum samples assessed agreement between the Dutch diagnostic methods (n=37). RESULTS: The overall correlation of the routine methods for 25(OH)D3 with the reference measurement procedures and with the mean of all diagnostic methods was excellent (r>0.993 and r>0.989, respectively). Three out of five methods aligned perfectly with both the reference measurement procedure and the median of all methods. One of the routine methods showed a small positive bias, while another showed a small negative bias consistently in both comparisons. CONCLUSION: The biases most probably originated from differences in calibration procedure and may be obviated by reassessing calibration of stock standards and/or calibrator matrices. In conclusion, five diagnostic centers have performed a comparison with the 25(OH)D Ghent University reference measurement procedure in healthy donor serum samples and a comparison among themselves in patient serum samples. Both analyses showed a high correlation and specificity of the routine LC-MS/MS methods, yet did reveal some small standardization issues that could not be traced back to the technical details of the different methods. Hence, this study indicates various calibration procedures can result in perfect alignment.
Authors: Kevin D Cashman; Mairead Kiely; Michael Kinsella; Ramón A Durazo-Arvizu; Lu Tian; Yue Zhang; Alice Lucey; Albert Flynn; Michael J Gibney; Hubert W Vesper; Karen W Phinney; Paul M Coates; Mary F Picciano; Christopher T Sempos Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2013-04-24 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Johannes M W van den Ouweland; Antonius M Beijers; Henny van Daal Journal: J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 3.205
Authors: Ekaterina M Mineva; Rosemary L Schleicher; Madhulika Chaudhary-Webb; Khin L Maw; Julianne C Botelho; Hubert W Vesper; Christine M Pfeiffer Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2015-05-13 Impact factor: 4.142
Authors: Marcel J W Janssen; Jos P M Wielders; Corinne C Bekker; Lianne S M Boesten; Madelon M Buijs; Annemieke C Heijboer; Frans A L van der Horst; Ference J Loupatty; Johannes M W van den Ouweland Journal: Steroids Date: 2012-08-11 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: Rachida Rafiq; Willemien Thijs; Robert Prein; Renate T de Jongh; Christian Taube; Pieter S Hiemstra; Renée de Mutsert; Martin den Heijer Journal: Nutrients Date: 2018-01-03 Impact factor: 5.717
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: Stan Ursem; Vito Francic; Martin Keppel; Verena Schwetz; Christian Trummer; Marlene Pandis; Felix Aberer; Martin R Grübler; Nicolas D Verheyen; Winfried März; Andreas Tomaschitz; Stefan Pilz; Barbara Obermayer-Pietsch; Annemieke C Heijboer Journal: Endocr Connect Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 3.335
Authors: Justin T van der Tas; Marlies E C Elfrink; Annemieke C Heijboer; Fernando Rivadeneira; Vincent W V Jaddoe; Henning Tiemeier; Josje D Schoufour; Henriëtte A Moll; Edwin M Ongkosuwito; Eppo B Wolvius; Trudy Voortman Journal: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 3.383
Authors: Mariska C Vlot; Chantal M Wiepjes; Renate T de Jongh; Guy T'Sjoen; Annemieke C Heijboer; Martin den Heijer Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Elisa J de Koning; Paul Lips; Brenda W J H Penninx; Petra J M Elders; Annemieke C Heijboer; Martin den Heijer; Pierre M Bet; Harm W J van Marwijk; Natasja M van Schoor Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Mariska C Vlot; Laura Boekel; Jolijn Kragt; Joep Killestein; Barbara M van Amerongen; Robert de Jonge; Martin den Heijer; Annemieke C Heijboer Journal: Nutrients Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Rachida Rafiq; Hendrik J Prins; Wim G Boersma; Johannes Ma Daniels; Martin den Heijer; Paul Lips; Renate T de Jongh Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Date: 2017-08-28
Authors: Margot P J Visser; Anton S M Dofferhoff; Jody M W van den Ouweland; Henny van Daal; Cornelis Kramers; Leon J Schurgers; Rob Janssen; Jona Walk Journal: Front Nutr Date: 2022-01-17