Abstract
Objectives
The aim of this study was to compare the results of five methods for the determination of total 25(OH)D. For that purpose, two mass spectrometry and three immunoassay methods were used.
Methods
A total of 124 serum samples were analyzed on five different methods (i.e., a reference LC-MS/MS, Cascadion, Lumipulse, Roche Elecsys II and Roche Elecsys III). Analytical performance against LC-MS/MS was evaluated and compared to the Milan models 1 (analytical performance based on the clinical outcome using thresholds of 12, 20 and 30 ng/mL) and 2 (analytical performance based on biological variation). Additionally, imprecision studies and accuracy using NIST SRM972a samples were carried out.
Results
Compared to the reference LC-MS/MS method, the Lumipulse and the Roche Elecsys III assays reached the optimal criterion for bias, while the Cascadion met the desirable one. The Roche Elecsys II was not able to reach the minimal criteria. The proportion of correctly classified patients was higher using the Cascadion (95.2%) compared to the three immunoassays. In addition to its better precision, the Cascadion was not impacted by a high concentration of 3-epi-25(OH)D3 compared to the three immunoassays.
Conclusions
Compared to the LC-MS/MS reference method, the Cascadion presented the highest level of concordance at medical decision cut-offs for total 25(OH)D and reached the desirable specification for bias. Moreover, the presence of 3-epi-25(OH)D3 in enriched samples was only problematic in immunoassay methods, and especially considering Roche Elecsys methods. The release of performant fully automated mass spectrometry assays with high throughput might therefore facilitate the wide scale adoption of LC-MS/MS, even in non-specialized clinical laboratories.
-
Research funding: None declared.
-
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
-
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
-
Informed consent: Informed consent was not required.
-
Ethical approval: The local Institutional Review Board deemed the study exempt from review.
References
1. Rifai, N, Horvath, A, Wittwer, C. Tietz textbook of clinical chemistry and molecular diagnostics, 6th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier; 2018.Search in Google Scholar
2. Bischoff-Ferrari, HA, Dawson-Hughes, B, Stocklin, E, Sidelnikov, E, Willett, WC, Edel, JO, et al.. Oral supplementation with 25(OH)D3 versus vitamin D3: effects on 25(OH)D levels, lower extremity function, blood pressure, and markers of innate immunity. J Bone Miner Res 2012;27:160–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.551.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Dawson-Hughes, B, Mithal, A, Bonjour, JP, Boonen, S, Burckhardt, P, Fuleihan, GE, et al.. IOF position statement: vitamin D recommendations for older adults. Osteoporos Int 2010;21:1151–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-010-1285-3.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Holick, MF, Binkley, NC, Bischoff-Ferrari, HA, Gordon, CM, Hanley, DA, Heaney, RP, et al.. Evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin D deficiency: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96:1911–30. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2011-0385.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Pittas, AG, Sun, Q, Manson, JE, Dawson-Hughes, B, Hu, FB. Plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration and risk of incident type 2 diabetes in women. Diabetes Care 2010;33:2021–3. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc10-0790.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
6. Ross, AC, Manson, JE, Abrams, SA, Aloia, JF, Brannon, PM, Clinton, SK, et al.. The 2011 report on dietary reference intakes for calcium and vitamin D from the institute of medicine: what clinicians need to know. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96:53–8. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2010-2704.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
7. Souberbielle, JC, Body, JJ, Lappe, JM, Plebani, M, Shoenfeld, Y, Wang, TJ, et al.. Vitamin D and musculoskeletal health, cardiovascular disease, autoimmunity and cancer: recommendations for clinical practice. Autoimmun Rev 2010;9:709–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2010.06.009.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8. De Niet, S, Tremege, M, Coffiner, M, Rousseau, AF, Calmes, D, Frix, AN, et al.. Positive effects of vitamin D supplementation in patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Nutrients 2022;14:3048. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14153048.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
9. Altieri, B, Cavalier, E, Bhattoa, HP, Perez-Lopez, FR, Lopez-Baena, MT, Perez-Roncero, GR, et al.. Vitamin D testing: advantages and limits of the current assays. Eur J Clin Nutr 2020;74:231–47. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-019-0553-3.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Farrell, CJ, Herrmann, M. Determination of vitamin D and its metabolites. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metabol 2013;27:675–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beem.2013.06.001.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Carter, G, Card, DJ. Chapter 3 – methods for assessment of vitamin D. In: Harrington, D, editor. Laboratory assessment of vitamin status. London: Academic Press; 2019:49–77 pp.10.1016/B978-0-12-813050-6.00003-6Search in Google Scholar
12. Benton, SC, Tetteh, GK, Needham, SJ, Mucke, J, Sheppard, L, Alderson, S, et al.. Evaluation of the 25-hydroxy vitamin D assay on a fully automated liquid chromatography mass spectrometry system, the thermo scientific cascadion SM clinical analyzer with the cascadion 25-hydroxy vitamin D assay in a routine clinical laboratory. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:1010–7. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0834.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Seger, C, Salzmann, L. After another decade: LC-MS/MS became routine in clinical diagnostics. Clin Biochem 2020;82:2–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2020.03.004.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Aarsand, AK, Fernandez-Calle, P, Webster, C, Coskun, A, Gonzales-Lao, E, Diaz-Garzon, J, et al.. The EFLM biological variation database. Available from: https://biologicalvariation.eu/ [Accessed 15 Oct 2022].Search in Google Scholar
15. Thienpont, LM, Stepman, HC, Vesper, HW. Standardization of measurements of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 and D2. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 2012;243:41–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365513.2012.681950.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
16. Fabregat-Cabello, N, Farre-Segura, J, Huyghebaert, L, Peeters, S, Le Goff, C, Souberbielle, JC, et al.. A fast and simple method for simultaneous measurements of 25(OH)D, 24,25(OH)2D and the vitamin D metabolite ratio (VMR) in serum samples by LC-MS/MS. Clin Chim Acta 2017;473:116–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2017.08.024.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Wise, SA, Tai, SS, Nelson, MA, Burdette, CQ, Camara, JE, Hoofnagle, AN, et al.. Interlaboratory comparison for the determination of 24,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3) in human serum using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. J AOAC Int 2017;100:1308–17. https://doi.org/10.5740/jaoacint.17-0183.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
18. CDC vitamin D standardization-certification program (CDC VDSCP) certified total 25-hydroxyvitamin D assays. From 2019 Q4 and forward. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/labstandards/pdf/hs/CDC_Certified_Vitamin_D_Assays-508.pdf [Accessed 15 Oct 2022].Search in Google Scholar
19. Braga, F, Panteghini, M. Performance specifications for measurement uncertainty of common biochemical measurands according to Milan models. Clin Chem Lab Med 2021;59:1362–8. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2021-0170.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Stockl, D, Sluss, PM, Thienpont, LM. Specifications for trueness and precision of a reference measurement system for serum/plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D analysis. Clin Chim Acta 2009;408:8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2009.06.027.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Cavalier, E, Lukas, P, Bekaert, AC, Peeters, S, Le Goff, C, Yayo, E, et al.. Analytical and clinical evaluation of the new Fujirebio Lumipulse(R)G non-competitive assay for 25(OH)-vitamin D and three immunoassays for 25(OH)D in healthy subjects, osteoporotic patients, third trimester pregnant women, healthy African subjects, hemodialyzed and intensive care patients. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:1347–55. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2015-0923.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
22. Giuliani, S, Corvetta, D, Lucchiari, M, Herrmann, M. Evaluation of the analytical and clinical performance of the Fujirebio Lumipulse(R) G 25-OH vitamin D assay. Ann Clin Biochem 2018;55:302–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004563217747637.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
23. Saleh, L, Mueller, D, von Eckardstein, A. Analytical and clinical performance of the new Fujirebio 25-OH vitamin D assay, a comparison with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and three other automated assays. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:617–25. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2015-0427.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
24. van den Ouweland, JM, Beijers, AM, van Daal, H, Elisen, MG, Steen, G, Wielders, JP. Evaluation of 3-epi-25-hydroxyvitamin D3 cross-reactivity in the Roche Elecsys vitamin D total protein binding assay. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:373–80. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2013-0702.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
25. Favresse, J, Schiettecatte, J, Wolff, F, Cotton, F, Elsen, M, Eucher, C, et al.. Two-site evaluation of the Roche Elecsys vitamin D total III assay. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022;60:1598–606. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0177.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Supplementary Material
This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-1129).
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
