Cargando…

Chronic kidney disease is a main confounding factor for 25-vitamin D measurement

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend assessment of 25-vitamin D status in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although significant differences among assays have been described, the impact of CKD on this variability has never been tested. METHODS: We tested the variability between two 25-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Machado, Hanna Karla Andrade Guapyassú, Martins, Carolina Steller Wagner, Jorgetti, Vanda, Elias, Rosilene Motta, Moysés, Rosa Maria Affonso
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sociedade Brasileira de Nefrologia 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7213929/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31769778
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2175-8239-JBN-2019-0053
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend assessment of 25-vitamin D status in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although significant differences among assays have been described, the impact of CKD on this variability has never been tested. METHODS: We tested the variability between two 25-vitamin D assays in patients with CKD (eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73m(2)) who had consecutive 25-vitamin D measurements in 2015 (Assay 1 - Diasorin LIASON 25 TOTAL - D assay(®)) and 2016 (Assay 2 - Beckman Coulter Unicel Xl 800(®)). The cohort consisted of 791 adult patients (122 with normal renal function and 669 with CKD - 33, 30, and 37% in stages 3, 4, and 5 on dialysis, respectively). RESULTS: Levels of 25-vitamin D were lower and the prevalence of hypovitaminosis D using assay 1 was higher than using assay 2 in patients with CKD, regardless of similar levels of calcium, phosphate, and parathyroid hormone. As kidney function decreased, the percentage of disagreement between the assays increased. CONCLUSION: There is a noteworthy variability between assays in patients with CKD such that the diagnosis of hypovitaminosis D is modified. The mechanism behind this result is still unclear and might be due to a possible interference in the analytical process. However, the clinical significance is unquestionable, as the supplementation of vitamin D can be erroneously prescribed to these patients.