Division of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2020 Feb;74(2):231-247. doi: 10.1038/s41430-019-0553-3. Epub 2020 Jan 6.
Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency has become a pandemic health problem with a consequent increase of requests for determining circulating levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]. However, the analytical performance of these immunoassays, including radioimmunoassay and ELISA, is highly variable, and even mass spectrometric methods, which nowadays serves as the gold standard for the quantitatively determination of 25(OH)D, do not necessarily produce comparable results, creating limitations for the definition of normal vitamin D status ranges. To solve this problem, great efforts have been made to promote standardization of laboratory assays, which is important to achieve comparable results across different methods and manufacturers. In this review, we performed a systematic analysis evaluating critically the advantages and limits of the current assays available for the measure of vitamin D status, i.e., circulating 25(OH)D and its metabolites, making suggestions that could be used in the clinical practice. Moreover, we also suggest the use of alternatives to blood test, including standardized surveys that may be of value in alerting health-care professionals about the vitamin D status of their patients.
维生素 D 缺乏和不足已成为一种流行的健康问题,随之而来的是对测定循环 25-羟维生素 D [25(OH)D]水平的需求增加。然而,这些免疫分析方法(包括放射免疫分析和 ELISA)的分析性能差异很大,即使是目前用于定量测定 25(OH)D 的质谱法,也不一定能产生可比的结果,这为定义正常维生素 D 状态范围带来了局限性。为了解决这个问题,人们做出了巨大的努力来促进实验室检测的标准化,这对于实现不同方法和制造商之间的可比结果非常重要。在这篇综述中,我们进行了系统的分析,批判性地评估了目前可用于评估维生素 D 状态的检测方法(即循环 25(OH)D 及其代谢物)的优缺点和局限性,并提出了一些建议,这些建议可用于临床实践。此外,我们还建议使用血液检测以外的替代方法,包括标准化调查,这可能有助于提醒医疗保健专业人员注意其患者的维生素 D 状态。