These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed


  • Title: Automated measurement of 25-OH vitamin D3 on the Roche Modular E170 analyzer.
    Author: Leino A, Turpeinen U, Koskinen P.
    Journal: Clin Chem; 2008 Dec; 54(12):2059-62. PubMed ID: 18927245.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The first commercial direct automated immunoassay specific for 25-OH vitamin D(3) (25-OH-D(3)) was recently introduced for use on Roche Diagnostics immunoassay analyzers. We assessed the analytical performance of the Elecsys 25-OH-D(3) assay on a Roche Modular E 170 analyzer. METHODS: The Elecsys 25-OH-D(3) assay is a direct electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for human serum or plasma. It is a competitive assay in which the binding protein of vitamin D is inactivated during incubation. The assay employs a polyclonal antibody directed against 25-OH vitamin D(3). We compared the 25-OH-D(3) assay to assays performed with RIA, HPLC, and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). RESULTS: At concentrations of 48, 76, and 124 nmol/L, within-run CVs were 5.1%, 3.1%, and 7.1% and total CVs were 12.1%, 7.4%, and 10.6%, respectively. A comparison of Elecsys 25-OH vitamin D(3) with RIA yielded the regression equation: Elecsys = 1.114 x RIA - 6.15 (S(y|x) = 15.7 nmol/L; n = 163). The corresponding equation with HPLC was: Elecsys = 1.077 x HPLC + 5.442 (S(y|x) = 13.9 nmol/L; n = 67) and with LC-MS/MS: Elecsys = 0.887 x LC-MS/MS + 5.046 (S(y|x) =12.4 nmol/L; n = 64). Contrary to LC-MS/MS, with the cutoff of 50 nmol/L (deficiency vs normal), approximately 10% of samples were misclassified as normal with RIA and Elecsys. Plasma samples were observed to have markedly higher concentrations than serum samples. CONCLUSIONS: The Elecsys concentrations of 25-OH-D(3) were in good overall agreement with those determined with LC-MS/MS and RIA. However, large between-method variation was observed in individual patient samples. Use of serum rather than plasma is preferred owing to the higher results observed with plasma samples.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]