Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Calcium Metabolism and Osteoporosis Program, WHO Collaborating Center for Metabolic Bone Disorders, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
Division of Clinical Biochemistry and Immunology, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Metabolism. 2018 Dec;89:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2018.09.003. Epub 2018 Sep 15.
Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS) is the preferred method to measure 25 hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) levels, but laboratories are increasingly adopting automated platform assays.
We assessed the performance of commonly used automated immunoassays, with that of LC-MS/MS, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reference values, to measure 25OHD levels.
METHODS/SETTING: We compared serum 25OHD levels obtained from 219 elderly subjects, enrolled in a vitamin D trial, using the Diasorin Liaison platform assay, and the tandem LC-MS/MS method. We also assessed the performance of the Diasorin and Roche automated assays, expressed as mean % bias from the NIST standards, based on the vitamin D External Quality Assessment Scheme (DEQAS) reports, from 2013 to 2017.
Serum 25OHD levels were significantly lower in the Diasorin compared to LC-MS/MS assay at baseline, 18.5 ± 7.8 vs 20.5 ± 7.6 ng/ml (p < 0.001), and all other time points. Diasorin (25OHD) = 0.76 × LC-MS/MS (25OHD) + 4.3, R = 0.596. The absolute bias was independent of 25OHD values, and the pattern unfit for any cross-calibration. The proportion of subjects considered for vitamin D treatment based on pre-set cut-offs differed significantly between the 2 assays. There also was wide variability in the performance of both automated assays, compared to NIST reference values.
The performance of most widely used automated assays is sub-optimal. Our findings underscore the pressing need to re-consider current practices with regard to 25OHD measurements, interpretation of results from research studies, meta-analyses, the development of vitamin D guidelines, and their relevance to optimizing health.
液相色谱-质谱联用(LC-MS/MS)是测量 25 羟基维生素 D(25OHD)水平的首选方法,但实验室越来越多地采用自动化平台检测。
我们评估了常用的自动化免疫测定法与 LC-MS/MS 以及国家标准与技术研究所(NIST)参考值在测量 25OHD 水平方面的性能。
方法/设置:我们比较了 219 名参加维生素 D 试验的老年受试者的血清 25OHD 水平,使用 DiaSorin Liaison 平台检测法和串联 LC-MS/MS 方法。我们还根据 2013 年至 2017 年维生素 D 外部质量评估计划(DEQAS)报告,评估了 DiaSorin 和 Roche 自动化检测法的性能,以 NIST 标准的平均%偏差表示。
在基线时,DiaSorin 与 LC-MS/MS 检测法相比,血清 25OHD 水平显著降低,分别为 18.5±7.8 和 20.5±7.6ng/ml(p<0.001),并且在所有其他时间点也是如此。DiaSorin(25OHD)=0.76×LC-MS/MS(25OHD)+4.3,R=0.596。绝对偏差与 25OHD 值无关,并且这种模式不适合任何交叉校准。基于预设截止值,两种检测法考虑用于维生素 D 治疗的受试者比例差异显著。与 NIST 参考值相比,两种自动化检测法的性能也存在很大差异。
最广泛使用的自动化检测法的性能欠佳。我们的研究结果强调迫切需要重新考虑 25OHD 测量、研究结果的解释、维生素 D 指南的制定以及它们与优化健康相关的当前实践。