Trimboli Francesca, Rotundo Salvatore, Armili Simone, Mimmi Selena, Lucia Fortunata, Montenegro Nicola, Antico Giulio Cesare, Cerra Alessandro, Gaetano Maria, Galato Francesco, Giaquinto Carinci Lorenza, Iania Danilo, Mancuso Serafina, Martucci Maria, Teti Consuelo, Greco Marta, Cuda Giovanni, Angotti Elvira
Department of Health Science, Magna Græcia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Magna Græcia University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Pract Lab Med. 2021 Jul 27;26:e00251. doi: 10.1016/j.plabm.2021.e00251. eCollection 2021 Aug.
the different analytical methods for measurement of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) are not yet fully harmonized and no consensus exists on a threshold of 25(OH)D defining a deficiency status. In this study, we compared the results from the assays of serum 25(OH)D performed with three different methods to evaluate the presence of potential biases and how much these biases can influence the assignment of patients to specific 25(OH)D deficiency/sufficiency categories.
Liaison 25(OH) Vitamin D Total (DiaSorin Liaison XL), Elecsys Vitamin D Total II (Roche Elecsys) and Lumipulse G25(OH) Vitamin D (Fujirebio Lumipulse G1200) were used. Methods comparability was established performing Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman analysis to prove whether the differences found were lower than the preliminarily pre-established maximum acceptable bias.
all Passing-Bablok regressions exhibited the presence of a proportional and constant systematic error. Bland-Altman analysis revealed biases well above the maximum acceptable bias, so the 25(OH)D concentrations measured were not comparable. To evaluate whether the three methods had the same ability to classify patients into different categories of vitamin D levels, we categorized results obtained by each method in reference classes. Lumipulse categorized most patients into the class with the lowest 25(OH)D concentrations (<20 ng/mL) whereas Elecsys ranked the lowest number.
Liaison XL and Elecsys have shown good accuracy compared to Lumipulse in measuring 25(OH)D levels. Nevertheless, the assays were not interchangeable due to the lack of comparability of results as well as to the disagreement in classification of hormone deficiency or sufficiency.
用于测量血清25-羟基维生素D(25(OH)D)的不同分析方法尚未完全统一,对于定义缺乏状态的25(OH)D阈值也未达成共识。在本研究中,我们比较了用三种不同方法检测血清25(OH)D的结果,以评估潜在偏差的存在情况以及这些偏差对将患者归类到特定的25(OH)D缺乏/充足类别有多大影响。
使用了Liaison 25(OH)维生素D总量检测试剂盒(DiaSorin Liaison XL)、Elecsys维生素D总量检测试剂盒II(罗氏Elecsys)和Lumipulse G 25(OH)维生素D检测试剂盒(富士瑞必欧Lumipulse G1200)。通过进行Passing-Bablok回归分析和Bland-Altman分析来确定方法的可比性,以证明所发现的差异是否低于预先设定的最大可接受偏差。
所有的Passing-Bablok回归分析均显示存在比例性和恒定的系统误差。Bland-Altman分析显示偏差远高于最大可接受偏差,因此所测得的25(OH)D浓度不可比。为了评估这三种方法将患者分类到不同维生素D水平类别的能力是否相同,我们将每种方法得到的结果归类到参考类别中。Lumipulse将大多数患者归类到25(OH)D浓度最低的类别(<20 ng/mL),而Elecsys归类的患者数量最少。
与Lumipulse相比,Liaison XL和Elecsys在测量25(OH)D水平方面显示出良好的准确性。然而,由于结果缺乏可比性以及在激素缺乏或充足的分类上存在分歧,这些检测方法不可互换。