Wijtske Annema1, Albina Nowak2, Arnold von Eckardstein1, Lanja Saleh1. 1. Institute of Clinical Chemistry, University Hospital of Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Division of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, Abbott Diagnostics has restandardized the Architect 25(OH)D assay against the NIST SRM 2972. We have evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of the restandardized Architect 25(OH)D assay and compared its performance with a NIST-traceable liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method and the Roche total 25(OH)D assay in vitamin D-insufficient individuals before and after vitamin D3 supplementation. METHODS: Frozen serum samples were obtained from 88 healthy subjects with self-perceived fatigue and vitamin D-insufficiency <50 nmol L-1 who were randomized to receive a single 100 000 IU dose of vitamin D3 (n = 48) or placebo (n = 40). Total 25(OH)D concentrations were measured before and 4 weeks after supplementation by the restandardized Architect 25(OH)D assay, LC-MS/MS, and Roche assay. RESULTS: The Architect 25(OH)D assay showed an intra- and inter-assay imprecision of <5%. Comparison of the Architect assay with the LC-MS/MS method showed a good correlation in both vitamin D-insufficient and vitamin D-supplemented subjects, however, with a negative mean bias of 17.4% and 8.9%, respectively. As compared to the Roche assay, the Abbott assay underestimated 25(OH)D results in insufficient subjects (<50 nmol L-1 ) with a mean negative bias of 17.1%, this negative bias turned into a positive bias in supplemented subjects. Overall there was a moderate agreement in classification of vitamin D-insufficient and -supplemented individuals into different vitamin D states between the Architect 25(OH)D method and LC-MS/MS. CONCLUSION: The routine use of the restandardized Architect 25(OH)D results in a slight underestimation of circulating total 25(OH)D levels at lower concentrations and thus potential misclassification of vitamin D status.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Recently, Abbott Diagnostics has restandardized the Architect 25(OH)D assay against the NIST SRM 2972. We have evaluated the analytical and clinical performance of the restandardized Architect 25(OH)D assay and compared its performance with a NIST-traceable liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method and the Roche total 25(OH)D assay in vitamin D-insufficient individuals before and after vitamin D3 supplementation. METHODS: Frozen serum samples were obtained from 88 healthy subjects with self-perceived fatigue and vitamin D-insufficiency <50 nmol L-1 who were randomized to receive a single 100 000 IU dose of vitamin D3 (n = 48) or placebo (n = 40). Total 25(OH)D concentrations were measured before and 4 weeks after supplementation by the restandardized Architect 25(OH)D assay, LC-MS/MS, and Roche assay. RESULTS: The Architect 25(OH)D assay showed an intra- and inter-assay imprecision of <5%. Comparison of the Architect assay with the LC-MS/MS method showed a good correlation in both vitamin D-insufficient and vitamin D-supplemented subjects, however, with a negative mean bias of 17.4% and 8.9%, respectively. As compared to the Roche assay, the Abbott assay underestimated 25(OH)D results in insufficient subjects (<50 nmol L-1 ) with a mean negative bias of 17.1%, this negative bias turned into a positive bias in supplemented subjects. Overall there was a moderate agreement in classification of vitamin D-insufficient and -supplemented individuals into different vitamin D states between the Architect 25(OH)D method and LC-MS/MS. CONCLUSION: The routine use of the restandardized Architect 25(OH)D results in a slight underestimation of circulating total 25(OH)D levels at lower concentrations and thus potential misclassification of vitamin D status.
Authors: Lanja Saleh; Jonathan Tang; Joanna Gawinecka; Lukas Boesch; William D Fraser; Arnold von Eckardstein; Albina Nowak Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Lucinda J Black; Denise Anderson; Michael W Clarke; Anne-Louise Ponsonby; Robyn M Lucas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 3.240
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: Xueyan Fu; Gregory G Dolnikowski; William B Patterson; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Tong Zheng; Martha C Morris; Thomas M Holland; Sarah L Booth Journal: Curr Dev Nutr Date: 2019-06-21
Authors: Gregorio P Milani; Giacomo D Simonetti; Valeria Edefonti; Sebastiano A G Lava; Carlo Agostoni; Maurus Curti; Andreas Stettbacher; Mario G Bianchetti; Franco Muggli Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Andrea Rabufetti; Gregorio P Milani; Sebastiano A G Lava; Valeria Edefonti; Mario G Bianchetti; Andreas Stettbacher; Franco Muggli; Giacomo Simonetti Journal: Nutrients Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: H J Hillstrom; R Soeters; M Miranda; S I Backus; J Hafer; M Gibbons; I Thaqi; M Lenhoff; M T Hannan; Y Endo; T Sculco; J Lane Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2020-10-03 Impact factor: 2.617