Standardization of Misleading Immunoassay Based 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Levels with Liquid Chromatography Tandem-Mass Spectrometry in a Large Cohort Study
Ben Schöttker,
Eugène H J M Jansen,
Ulrike Haug,
Lutz Schomburg,
Josef Köhrle and
Hermann Brenner
PLOS ONE, 2012, vol. 7, issue 11, 1-5
Abstract:
Background: The interest in vitamin D measurement has strongly increased in recent years. The best indicator for circulating vitamin D levels is 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25(OH)D) which is often measured by different immunoassays. We demonstrate problems in comparability of measures by different immunoassays and the need for standardization in the context of a large population-based cohort study. Methods: 25(OH)D was measured with the immunoassays Diasorin Liaison in 2006 in 5,386 women and in the context of another project with IDS-iSYS in 4,199 men in 2009–2010 (when the Diasorin Liaison was no longer available in the version utilized in 2006). Standardization was performed by re-measuring of 25(OH)D levels in 97 men and 97 women with liquid chromatography tandem-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to obtain linear regression conversion equations. Results: Applying a 30 nmol/L cut-off value for vitamin D deficiency would have resulted in 48.3% of women and 12.1% of men with vitamin D deficiency ahead of standardization. The large gender difference was strongly attenuated after standardization of the assays with only 15.7% of women and 14.3% of men with vitamin D deficiency. Standardization on average increased the 25(OH)D levels by 10.3 nmol/L in women and decreased 25(OH)D levels by 2.9 nmol/L in men. Conclusion: The standardization with LC-MS/MS revealed that much of the observed gender difference was only assay-driven and the extremely high proportion of 48.3% vitamin D deficient women proved to be an exaggeration of the old version of the Diasorin-Liaison immunoassay. Standardization of 25(OH)D immunoassay results by LC-MS/MS is recommended to improve their accuracy and comparability, provided the LC-MS/MS method itself is adequately validated and standardized.
Date: 2012
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)
Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048774 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 48774&type=printable (application/pdf)
Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
HTML/Text
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0048774
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048774
Access Statistics for this article
More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().