Lippi Giuseppe, Salvagno Gian Luca, Fortunato Antonio, Dipalo Mariella, Aloe Rosalia, Da Rin Giorgio, Giavarina Davide
Laboratory of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, Academic Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Laboratory of Clinical Chemistry and Hematology, Academic Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy.
J Med Biochem. 2015 Jul;34(3):344-350. doi: 10.2478/jomb-2014-0054. Epub 2015 Jul 14.
The measurement of 25OH vitamin D continues to grow in clinical laboratories. The aim of this multi-center study was to compare the results of seven automated commercial immunoassays with a reference HPLC technique.
One hundred and twenty consecutive outpatient serum samples were centrifuged, divided in aliquots, frozen and shipped to the participating laboratories. 25OH Vitamin D was measured with a reference HPLC system and with seven automated commercial immunoassays (Roche Cobas E601, Beckman Coulter Unicel DXI 800, Ortho Vitros ES, DiaSorin Liaison, Siemens Advia Centaur, Abbott Architect i System and IDS iSYS).
Compared to the reference method, the regression coefficients ranged from 0.923 to 0.961 (all p<0.001). The slope of Deming fit ranged from 0.95 to 1.06, whereas the intercept was comprised between -15.2 and 9.2 nmol/L. The bias from the reference HPLC technique varied from -14.5 to 8.7 nmol/L. The minimum performance goal for bias was slightly exceeded by only one immunoassay. The agreement between HPLC and the different immunoassays at 50 nmol/L 25OH Vitamin D varied between 0.61 and 0.85 (all p<0.001). The percentage of samples below this cut-off was significantly different with only one immunoassay.
The excellent correlation with the reference HPLC technique attests that all seven automated immunoassays may be reliably used for routine assessment of 25OH-D in clinical laboratories. The significant bias among the different methods seems mostly attributable to the lack of standardization and calls for additional efforts for improving harmonization of 25OH-D immunoassays.
临床实验室中25羟维生素D的检测量持续增长。这项多中心研究的目的是将七种自动化商业免疫测定结果与参考高效液相色谱(HPLC)技术进行比较。
将120份连续的门诊患者血清样本离心,分成小份,冷冻后运往各参与实验室。采用参考HPLC系统和七种自动化商业免疫测定法(罗氏Cobas E601、贝克曼库尔特Unicel DXI 800、奥森维特罗斯ES、索灵Liaison、西门子Advia Centaur、雅培Architect i系统和IDS iSYS)检测25羟维生素D。
与参考方法相比,回归系数范围为0.923至0.961(所有p<0.001)。戴明拟合的斜率范围为0.95至1.06,而截距在-15.2至9.2 nmol/L之间。与参考HPLC技术的偏差在-14.5至8.7 nmol/L之间。只有一种免疫测定法略微超过了偏差的最低性能目标。在25羟维生素D浓度为50 nmol/L时,HPLC与不同免疫测定法之间的一致性在0.61至0.85之间(所有p<0.001)。只有一种免疫测定法的低于该临界值的样本百分比存在显著差异。
与参考HPLC技术的良好相关性证明,所有七种自动化免疫测定法均可可靠地用于临床实验室中25羟维生素D的常规评估。不同方法之间的显著偏差似乎主要归因于缺乏标准化,需要进一步努力提高25羟维生素D免疫测定法的一致性。