CONTEXT: The vitamin D metabolite ratio (VMR) (serum 24,25(OH)2 D3 /25(OH)D3 ) has been proposed as a biomarker of vitamin D sufficiency to replace serum 25(OH)D. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationships of 24,25(OH)2 D3 and VMR to functional biomarkers of bone health following vitamin D supplementation. SETTING: An ambulatory research centre. DESIGN: Serum from a previous research study of dose response of PTH, calcium absorption and bone turnover to vitamin D supplementation was analysed for vitamin D metabolites (25(OH)D, 24,25(OH)2 D3 ). OUTCOME: The relationship of serum 24,25(OH)2 D3 and VMR to calcium absorption, PTH and bone turnover markers was examined. RESULTS: Although there were strong correlations of serum 25(OH)D with 24,25(OH)2 D3 and free 25(OH)D, its correlation with VMR was lower. After vitamin D supplementation, the change in 25(OH)D, 24,25(OH)2 D3 and VMR was associated with the change in calcium absorption, PTH and CTX. The correlation of the change in PTH with the change in metabolites was the lowest for VMR. Moreover, estimated dose response for standardized values of vitamin D metabolites showed a beta-coefficient for VMR that was significantly less in magnitude compared to other metabolites. CONCLUSION: Serum 24,25(OH)2 D3 is closely associated with the dose response of serum 25(OH)D to vitamin D supplementation. However, the VMR does not appear to be equivalent to either of these metabolites in its response to increasing vitamin D intake or its association with PTH. It is unlikely that VMR will replace 25(OH)D as a biomarker for vitamin D sufficiency.
CONTEXT: The vitamin D metabolite ratio (VMR) (serum 24,25(OH)2 D3 /25(OH)D3 ) has been proposed as a biomarker of vitamin D sufficiency to replace serum 25(OH)D. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationships of 24,25(OH)2 D3 and VMR to functional biomarkers of bone health following vitamin D supplementation. SETTING: An ambulatory research centre. DESIGN: Serum from a previous research study of dose response of PTH, calcium absorption and bone turnover to vitamin D supplementation was analysed for vitamin D metabolites (25(OH)D, 24,25(OH)2 D3 ). OUTCOME: The relationship of serum 24,25(OH)2 D3 and VMR to calcium absorption, PTH and bone turnover markers was examined. RESULTS: Although there were strong correlations of serum 25(OH)D with 24,25(OH)2 D3 and free 25(OH)D, its correlation with VMR was lower. After vitamin D supplementation, the change in 25(OH)D, 24,25(OH)2 D3 and VMR was associated with the change in calcium absorption, PTH and CTX. The correlation of the change in PTH with the change in metabolites was the lowest for VMR. Moreover, estimated dose response for standardized values of vitamin D metabolites showed a beta-coefficient for VMR that was significantly less in magnitude compared to other metabolites. CONCLUSION: Serum 24,25(OH)2 D3 is closely associated with the dose response of serum 25(OH)D to vitamin D supplementation. However, the VMR does not appear to be equivalent to either of these metabolites in its response to increasing vitamin D intake or its association with PTH. It is unlikely that VMR will replace 25(OH)D as a biomarker for vitamin D sufficiency.
Authors: Anders H Berg; Camille E Powe; Michele K Evans; Julia Wenger; Guillermo Ortiz; Alan B Zonderman; Pirianthini Suntharalingam; Kathryn Lucchesi; Neil R Powe; S Ananth Karumanchi; Ravi I Thadhani Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Martin Kaufmann; J Christopher Gallagher; Munro Peacock; Karl-Peter Schlingmann; Martin Konrad; Hector F DeLuca; Rita Sigueiro; Borja Lopez; Antonio Mourino; Miguel Maestro; René St-Arnaud; Joel S Finkelstein; Donald P Cooper; Glenville Jones Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Jane A Cauley; Michelle E Danielson; Robert Boudreau; Kamil E Barbour; Mara J Horwitz; Douglas C Bauer; Kristine E Ensrud; JoAnn E Manson; Jean Wactawski-Wende; James M Shikany; Rebecca D Jackson Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Kevin D Cashman; Aoife Hayes; Karen Galvin; Joyce Merkel; Glenville Jones; Martin Kaufmann; Andrew N Hoofnagle; Graham D Carter; Ramon A Durazo-Arvizu; Christopher T Sempos Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2015-02-20 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Jane A Cauley; Li-Yung Lui; Kristine E Ensrud; Joseph M Zmuda; Katie L Stone; Marc C Hochberg; Steven R Cummings Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-05-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Naweed S Alzaman; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Jason Nelson; David D'Alessio; Anastassios G Pittas Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Michelle R Denburg; Andrew N Hoofnagle; Samir Sayed; Jayanta Gupta; Ian H de Boer; Lawrence J Appel; Ramon Durazo-Arvizu; Krista Whitehead; Harold I Feldman; Mary B Leonard Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Carrie M Nielson; Kerry S Jones; Rene F Chun; Jon M Jacobs; Ying Wang; Martin Hewison; John S Adams; Christine M Swanson; Christine G Lee; Dirk Vanderschueren; Steven Pauwels; Ann Prentice; Richard D Smith; Tujin Shi; Yuqian Gao; Athena A Schepmoes; Joseph M Zmuda; Jodi Lapidus; Jane A Cauley; Roger Bouillon; Inez Schoenmakers; Eric S Orwoll Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 5.958
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: Vito Francic; Stan R Ursem; Niek F Dirks; Martin H Keppel; Verena Theiler-Schwetz; Christian Trummer; Marlene Pandis; Valentin Borzan; Martin R Grübler; Nicolas D Verheyen; Winfried März; Andreas Tomaschitz; Stefan Pilz; Annemieke C Heijboer; Barbara Obermayer-Pietsch Journal: Nutrients Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 5.717