Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jan;414(1):351-366.
doi: 10.1007/s00216-021-03577-0. Epub 2021 Aug 25.

Interlaboratory comparison of 25-hydroxyvitamin D assays: Vitamin D Standardization Program (VDSP) Intercomparison Study 2 - Part 2 ligand binding assays - impact of 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 and 24R,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 on assay performance

Affiliations

Interlaboratory comparison of 25-hydroxyvitamin D assays: Vitamin D Standardization Program (VDSP) Intercomparison Study 2 - Part 2 ligand binding assays - impact of 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 and 24R,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 on assay performance

Stephen A Wise et al. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2022 Jan.

Abstract

An interlaboratory comparison study was conducted by the Vitamin D Standardization Program (VDSP) to assess the performance of ligand binding assays (Part 2) for the determination of serum total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]. Fifty single-donor samples were assigned target values for concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 [25(OH)D2], 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 [25(OH)D3], 3-epi-25-hydroxyvitamin D3 [3-epi-25(OH)D3], and 24R,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 [24R,25(OH)2D3] using isotope dilution liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (ID LC-MS/MS). VDSP Intercomparison Study 2 Part 2 includes results from 17 laboratories using 32 ligand binding assays. Assay performance was evaluated using mean % bias compared to the assigned target values and using linear regression analysis of the test assay mean results and the target values. Only 50% of the ligand binding assays achieved the VDSP criterion of mean % bias ≤ |± 5%|. For the 13 unique ligand binding assays evaluated in this study, only 4 assays were consistently within ± 5% mean bias and 4 assays were consistently outside ± 5% mean bias regardless of the laboratory performing the assay. Based on multivariable regression analysis using the concentrations of individual vitamin D metabolites in the 50 single-donor samples, most assays underestimate 25(OH)D2 and several assays (Abbott, bioMérieux, DiaSorin, IDS-EIA, and IDS-iSYS) may have cross-reactivity from 24R,25(OH)2D3. The results of this interlaboratory study represent the most comprehensive comparison of 25(OH)D ligand binding assays published to date and is the only study to assess the impact of 24R,25(OH)2D3 content using results from a reference measurement procedure.

Keywords: 24R,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 [24R,25(OH)2D3]; 25-Hydroxyvitamin D2 [25(OH)D2]; 25-Hydroxyvitamin D3 [25(OH)D3]; Ligand binding assay; Liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS); Total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D].

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest

S.A. Wise is an Editor of the journal Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry and was not involved in peer reviewing this manuscript. Several of the coauthors are employees of companies that produce assays that were evaluated in this study. There are no financial or nonfinancial competing interests for any of the coauthors.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Results for determination of serum total 25(OH)D in single-donor samples versus the NIST assigned target value for the DiaSorin assay (Lab 9) (A and B) and Abbott assay (Lab 1) (C and D).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Results for determination of serum total 25(OH)D in single-donor samples versus the NIST assigned target value for the Siemens assay (Lab 30) (A and B) and Bio-Rad assay (Lab 4) (C and D).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Mean % bias for the determination of serum total 25(OH)D in 50 single-donor samples compared with the NIST target values for Abbott assay (Lab 1) (A), DiaSorin assay (Lab 9) (B), IDS-iSYS-2 assay (Lab 20) (C), and bioMérieux assay (Lab 3) (D).
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Mean % bias for various ligand binding assays for single-donor samples with normal concentrations of 25(OH)D2 (42 samples) (yellow bar) and with high concentrations (>30 nmol/L) of 25(OH)D2 (8 samples) (green bar). Error bars are the SD of the % mean bias for the sample sets.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sempos CT, Vesper HW, Phinney KW, Thienpont LM, Coates PM, VDSP (2012) Vitamin D status as an international issue: National surveys and the problem of standardization. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 72:32–40. doi:10.3109/00365513.2012.681935 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Binkley N, Dawson-Hughes B, Durazo-Arvizu R, Thamm M, Tian L, Merkel JM, et al. (2017) Vitamin D measurement standardization: The way out of the chaos. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 173:117–121. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.12.002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Binkley N, Krueger D, Cowgill CS, Plum L, Lake E, Hansen KE, et al. (2004) Assay variation confounds the diagnosis of hypovitaminosis D: A call for standardization. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89 (7):3152–3157. doi:10.1210/jc.2003-031979 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wise SA, Phinney KW, Tai SSC, Camara JE, Myers GL, Durazo-Arvizu R, et al. (2017) Baseline assessment of 25-hydroxyvitamin D assay performance: A Vitamin D Standardization Program (VDSP) interlaboratory comparison study. J AOAC Int 100 (5):1244–1252. doi:10.5740/jaoacint.17-0258 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sempos CT, Binkley N (2020) 25-Hydroxvitamin D assay standardization and vitamin D guidelines paralysis. Public Health Nutrition 23 (7):1153–1164. doi:10.1017/S1368980019005251 - DOI - PMC - PubMed