Reference intervals: past, present, and future

Clinical laboratory test results alone are of little value in diagnosing, treating, and monitoring health conditions; as such, a clinically actionable cutoff or reference interval is required to provide context for result interpretation. Healthcare practitioners base their diagnoses, follow-up treatments, and subsequent testing on these reference points. However, they may not be aware of inherent limitations related to the definition and derivation of reference intervals. Laboratorians are responsible for providing the reference intervals they report with results. Yet, the establishment and verification of reference intervals using conventional direct methods are complicated by resource constraints or unique patient demographics. To facilitate standardized reference interval best practices, multiple global scientific societies are actively drafting guidelines and seeking funding to promote these initiatives. Numerous national and international multicenter collaborations demonstrate the ability to leverage combined resources to conduct large reference interval studies by direct methods. However, not all demographics are equally accessible. Novel indirect methods are attractive solutions that utilize computational methods to define reference distributions and reference intervals from mixed data sets of pathologic and non-pathologic patient test results. In an effort to make reference intervals more accurate and personalized, individual-based reference intervals are shown to be more useful than population-based reference intervals in detecting clinically significant analyte changes in a patient that might otherwise go unrecognized when using wider, population-based reference intervals. Additionally, continuous reference intervals can provide more accurate ranges as compared to age-based partitions for individuals that are near the ends of the age partition. The advantages and disadvantages of different reference interval approaches as well as the advancement of non-conventional reference interval studies are discussed in this review.

Determination of human reference values for serum total 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D using an extensively validated 2D ID-UPLC-MS/MS method

BACKGROUND

To assess a patient's vitamin D status the precursor metabolite 25-hydroxyvitamin D can be determined. However, measurement of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D is required when disorders of 1a-hydroxylation, extrarenal 1a-hydroxylation, or vitamin D receptor defects are suspected.

METHODS

The aim of this study was to determine reference values for 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D₃ and D₂ using a 2D ID-UPLC-MS/MS method.

RESULTS

The LC-MS/MS method, able to measure picomolar concentrations of both 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D₃ and D₂ in human serum, was extensively validated. Intra-assay variations were <5% and 8.5% and <7.5% and 11%, for 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D₃ and D₂, respectively, over the whole dynamic range (3.1-376 and 3.1-652pmol/L). Limit of quantitation was 3.4pmol/L for both compounds. Our method correlated well with a published LC-MS/MS method (r=0.87) and with the average 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D₃ results of the vitamin D External Quality Assessment Scheme (DEQAS) determined with LC-MS/MS (r=0.93). Reference ranges, determined in 96 plasma samples of healthy volunteers were 59-159pmol/L and <17pmol/L for respectively 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D₃ and D₂. The female part of the reference group showed a statistically significant decrease of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D₃ concentrations with age. The presence of significantly higher average 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D₃ levels in premenopausal women taking oral contraceptive pills compared to postmenopausal women suggests that this effect is estrogen-related, as estrogens lead to a higher vitamin D binding protein.

CONCLUSIONS

The major finding of the present study is a reference interval of 59-159pmol/L for 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D₃ determined with a highly sensitive and precise LC-MS/MS method.