Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Within a few years, 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD)1 has emerged as a high volume test in many regions. Several analytical issues have been recognized regarding this analyte, in particular variable co-detection of metabolites (25-hydroxyvitamin D2; 3-epi-25-hydroxyvitamin D; 24,25-dihydroxyvitamin D), variable release of the analyte from its protein bonds and matrix effects in automated ligand binding tests, contributing to an often unsatisfactory correlation of high-throughput assays with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Reference methods based on LC-MS/MS as well as reference materials have been introduced only very recently, achieving a truly significant improvement in the standardization of serum 25-OHD measurement. However, beyond these analytical issues in relation to 25-OHD, it should be scrutinized how biologically appropriate this inactive intermediate metabolite can actually describe vitamin D status as a surrogate marker – individually and at a population level. There is, for example, at present little knowledge regarding individual vitamin D requirement in relation to dietary calcium supply; the impact of genetic variation of vitamin D binding protein on serum concentrations; the impact of genetic variation in downstream metabolism and signaling of vitamin D on individual vitamin demand. Furthermore, there is no accepted approach to assess functional whole year vitamin D status, addressing the fundamental seasonal variation of endogenous generation of vitamin D in many regions. Consequently, additional functional markers should be considered when describing vitamin D status (parathyroid hormone, corrected serum calcium and phosphate, urinary calcium, well selected bone markers, etc.), with season-adapted sampling strategies. In conclusion, it should be recognized that there is substantial uncertainty in the currently used approach to characterize vitamin D status by singular measurement of 25-OHD using mainstream assays. It seems questionable to focus the worldwide debate on a widespread vitamin supplementation merely on cut-off results of this marker.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vogeser et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: