3.8 Article

Evaluation of a New Generation Automated Assay for 25-Hydroxy Vitamin D Based on Competitive Protein Binding

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED LABORATORY MEDICINE
Volume 4, Issue 2, Pages 247-253

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1373/jalm.2018.028415

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The interest for vitamin D has exponentially increased testing demand for 25-hydroxy vitamin D [25(OH)D]. Consequently, many laboratories are switching from LC-MS/MS methods to automated, high-throughput immunoassays. One of the major potential issues with these assays has been the lack of cross-reactivity with 25(OH)D2. Methods: We have evaluated the Roche Elecsys vitamin D total II assay for accuracy by comparing 79 patient samples with LC-MS/MS. The cross-reactivity for 25(OH)D2 was evaluated by analyzing samples with high 25(OH)D2 separately and estimating 25(OH)D2 recovery, as well as by spiking of 25(OH)D2. The assay was further evaluated for precision, linearity, sample type, and common interferences. Results: There was mostly good agreement between the Elecsys and LC-MS/MS assays (Deming regression: y = 0.95x + 0.70), with an overall bias of 2.3% (-0.84 ng/mL). However, there were 6 out of 79 (7.6%) discordant samples. The Deming regression for samples with high 25(OH)D2 compared to LC-MS/MS showed similar slope and intercept (y = 0.97x - 1.1). The average recovery of 25(OH)D2 for these samples was 90%. The initial precision studies were in general agreement with the package insert, but long-term clinical use showed higher-than-claimed imprecision (11.7%-14.4% at 12 ng/mL and 6.9%-7.6% at 27 ng/mL; claimed: 7.2% and 5.0%, respectively). We observed 1 falsely high result in plasma, an issue previously addressed by Roche in a medical device correction. Conclusions: The analytical performance of the Roche Vitamin D assay was acceptable, and the assay had a good cross-reactivity for 25(OH)D2.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available