BACKGROUND: Clinical assessment of vitamin D status often relies on measuring total circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25OHD3), but much of each vitamin D metabolite is bound to plasma vitamin D-binding protein (DBP), such that the percentage of free vitamin is very low. We hypothesized that measurement of free rather than total 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 [1,25(OH)2D3] and 25OHD3 may provide better assessment of vitamin D status. We therefore aimed to assess vitamin D status in men with idiopathic osteoporosis, in whom possible secondary causes of osteoporosis had been excluded, and to determine the extent of change in biologically active "free" vitamin D caused by variation in plasma DBP concentrations. METHODS: We measured 1,25(OH)2D3 and 25OHD3 in plasma samples from 56 men with idiopathic osteoporosis [mean (SD) age, 59.6 (13.6) years; range, 21-86 years] and 114 male controls [62.4 (10.4) years; range, 44-82 years]. RESULTS: Mean total plasma 25OHD3 in the 56 men with osteoporosis and the 114 controls was 44.7 (21) and 43.3 (17) nmol/L, respectively; total plasma 1,25(OH)2D3 measured in randomly selected men with osteoporosis (n = 50) and controls (n = 50) was 90 (37) and 103 (39) pmol/L, respectively. Mean plasma DBP was significantly higher (P <0.001) in men with osteoporosis [224 (62) mg/L; n = 56] than in the controls [143 (34) mg/L; n = 114], but calculated free plasma 25OHD3 and 1,25(OH)2D3 were significantly lower in the osteoporotic men than in controls [6.1 (3.1) vs 9.1 (4.4) pmol/L (P <0.00001) and 77 (37) vs 142 (58) fmol/L (P <0.00001), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of total vitamin D metabolites alone, although providing a crude assessment of vitamin D status, may not give an accurate indication of the free (biologically active) form of the vitamin. The ratio of total 25OHD3 and 1,25(OH)2D3 to plasma DBP, rather than total circulating vitamin D metabolites, may provide a more useful index of biological activity. Further studies are required to substantiate this hypothesis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Al‐Oanzi et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: