Darya Ayad Khalid , Bijan Nouri , Shakhawan Abdulrahman Mustafa , Mohammad Abdi
{"title":"Laboratory considerations in the assessment of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in pregnant women by automated immunoassays","authors":"Darya Ayad Khalid , Bijan Nouri , Shakhawan Abdulrahman Mustafa , Mohammad Abdi","doi":"10.1016/j.plabm.2024.e00430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Because of the pathophysiological role of vitamin D in health, there is an increased interest to check the clinical status of this vitamin. Immunochemical assays are commonly employed to determine 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25 (OH) D) in clinical laboratories and its testing could be influenced by pre-analytic and analytic issues. The aim of this study was to compare the 25(OH)D results obtained from three commonly used immunoassays in pregnant women to check a possible discrepancy between tests.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>A group of 50 pregnant women who were in their third trimester were included in this study. The quantification of serum vitamin D was performed utilizing three immunochemistry-based assays including Elecsys, VIDAS and Alegria. We also involved 21 non-pregnant volunteers to clinically assess the vitamin D status in this group of people.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Our findings revealed a significant inconsistency between the obtained results from three assays for serum 25(OH)D. The 25(OH)D showed higher values when measured by the Elecsys assay while the VIDAS assay had lower values compared to the other immunoassays. More notably, the 25(OH)D testing in non-pregnant subjects showed consistent results in all three immunoassays.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The results of the 25(OH)D measurements in pregnant women should be interpreted carefully due to a great inaccuracy in immunoassay testing. There is no such disagreement in non-pregnant people. Standardization of vitamin D testing in various settings is a crucial matter for clinical laboratories.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20421,"journal":{"name":"Practical Laboratory Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352551724000763","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Because of the pathophysiological role of vitamin D in health, there is an increased interest to check the clinical status of this vitamin. Immunochemical assays are commonly employed to determine 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25 (OH) D) in clinical laboratories and its testing could be influenced by pre-analytic and analytic issues. The aim of this study was to compare the 25(OH)D results obtained from three commonly used immunoassays in pregnant women to check a possible discrepancy between tests.
Material and methods
A group of 50 pregnant women who were in their third trimester were included in this study. The quantification of serum vitamin D was performed utilizing three immunochemistry-based assays including Elecsys, VIDAS and Alegria. We also involved 21 non-pregnant volunteers to clinically assess the vitamin D status in this group of people.
Results
Our findings revealed a significant inconsistency between the obtained results from three assays for serum 25(OH)D. The 25(OH)D showed higher values when measured by the Elecsys assay while the VIDAS assay had lower values compared to the other immunoassays. More notably, the 25(OH)D testing in non-pregnant subjects showed consistent results in all three immunoassays.
Conclusions
The results of the 25(OH)D measurements in pregnant women should be interpreted carefully due to a great inaccuracy in immunoassay testing. There is no such disagreement in non-pregnant people. Standardization of vitamin D testing in various settings is a crucial matter for clinical laboratories.
期刊介绍：
Practical Laboratory Medicine is a high-quality, peer-reviewed, international open-access journal publishing original research, new methods and critical evaluations, case reports and short papers in the fields of clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. The objective of the journal is to provide practical information of immediate relevance to workers in clinical laboratories. The primary scope of the journal covers clinical chemistry, hematology, molecular biology and genetics relevant to laboratory medicine, microbiology, immunology, therapeutic drug monitoring and toxicology, laboratory management and informatics. We welcome papers which describe critical evaluations of biomarkers and their role in the diagnosis and treatment of clinically significant disease, validation of commercial and in-house IVD methods, method comparisons, interference reports, the development of new reagents and reference materials, reference range studies and regulatory compliance reports. Manuscripts describing the development of new methods applicable to laboratory medicine (including point-of-care testing) are particularly encouraged, even if preliminary or small scale.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
