| Summary: | Objectives: Assessment of Vitamin D status by measurement of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH-D) is widely performed by immunoassay. Yet, the ability of these assays to detect Vitamin D2 (as 25-OH-D2) or Vitamin D3 (as 25-OH-D3) varies. It is important to recognize the ability of an assay to quantitate either form of 25-OH-D to evaluate Vitamin D status of supplemented patients. We evaluated detection of 25-OH-D2 and 25-OH-D3 by two assays in our medical center. Design and methods: The Abbott Architect i1000 SR 25-OH Vitamin D assay and Roche Cobas 8000 Vitamin D assay were compared for their recovery of 25-OH-D2 or D3 from spiked serum samples. Samples with known endogenous concentrations of 25-OH-D2 or D3 by LC-MS/MS were also measured to calculate bias between our assays and LC-MS/MS. Results: Recovery of 25-OH-D3 in spiked samples was similar by Architect (84–87%) and Cobas (90%). Recovery of 25-OH-D2 was lower than 25-OH-D3, and was poorer by Architect (37–40%) than by Cobas (69–71%). In measurement of samples with known 25-OH-D concentrations, performance of Architect and Cobas assays was similar for 25-OH-D3. However, at concentrations >50 nmol/L 25-OH-D2, the Architect assay exhibited large average negative bias (−27%). Conclusions: While the Architect and Cobas assays performed similarly in detection of 25-OH-D3, the Architect assay was significantly poorer at detecting 25-OH-D2 than Cobas, with poorer recovery and significant negative bias at higher concentrations of 25-OH-D2. This agrees with other studies, and indicates that caution should be used in interpreting Architect 25-OH-D results in patients supplemented with Vitamin D2. Keywords: 25-Hydroxyvitamin D, Vitamin D2, Immunoassay, Recovery, Assay comparison
|
|---|
