The importance of assays in vitamin D status classification: a comparison of four automated 25-hydroxyvitamin D immunoassays

Abstract

AbstractOwing to a growing interest in vitamin D, there has been an increasing demand for 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) measurements over the past few years warranting a critical evaluation of laboratory methods for 25(OH)D determinations. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare four of the most frequently used routine assays for 25(OH)D.In 106 hypertensive patients (53±14 years; 59% females), derived from the Graz Endocrine Causes of Hypertension (GECOH) study, we measured 25(OH)D in serum and plasma by means of four automated immunoassays (DiaSorin Liaison, IDS iSYS, Abbott ARCHITECT, and Roche Cobas).We observed a poor comparability between assay results with Pearson correlation coefficients between the different methods ranging from 0.57 to 0.85. Using a value of ≤20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L) as the cut-off for vitamin D deficiency, the percentages of vitamin D deficient patients was significantly different depending on the assay method: 79.2% (Abbott ARCHITECT), 50.0% (DiaSorin Liaison), 28.3% (IDS iSYS), and 23.6% (Roche Cobas).By comparing four frequently used automated immunoassays for 25(OH)D, we observed remarkable differences with a significant impact on vitamin D status classification. Clinicians and researchers must be aware of these assay differences and must aim for standardization of 25(OH)D measurements.