The variation in free 25-hydroxy vitamin D and vitamin D-binding protein with season and vitamin D status

Purpose: Serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D [25(OH)D] varies greatly with season at northern latitudes. The purpose of this study was to determine if the seasonal variations in serum total 25(OH)D are followed by a concomitant variation in free 25(OH)D or if the variation is damped by alterations in the binding capacity of DBP. Methods: Serum was collected from 540 healthy blood donors (60% men; mean age 41 ± 13 years) during 12 months and analyzed for total 25(OH)D, directly measured free 25(OH)D, vitamin D-binding protein (DBP) and albumin. Calculated free 25(OH)D was estimated. Results: The UV-B radiation during the sampling month was positively correlated with the serum levels of total 25(OH)D (r = 0.355, P < 0.001), directly measured free (r = 0.336, P < 0.001) and calculated free 25(OH)D (r = 0.275, P < 0.001), but not with DBP and albumin. The percentage of free 25(OH)D was higher during the winter months than that during the summer months (0.020 ± 0.005% vs 0.019 ± 0.004%; P = 0.007) and higher in participants with a serum 25(OH)D below 25 nmol/L than that in participants with a serum 25(OH)D above 75 nmol/L (0.031 ± 0.007% vs 0.017 ± 0.003%; P < 0.001). iPTH was correlated with directly measured free 25(OH)D (r = −0.226; P < 0.001), but only weakly with calculated free 25(OH)D (r = −0.095; P = 0.027). Conclusions: Directly measured free serum 25(OH)D was highly correlated with total serum 25(OH)D and followed the same seasonal variation, whereas the serum concentrations of DBP and albumin were stable. The fluctuation in free 25(OH)D was only marginally damped with an increase in the percentage of free 25(OH)D during the winter months and in participants with vitamin D deficiency

Comparing the results from a Swedish pregnancy cohort using data from three automated placental growth factor immunoassay platforms intended for first-trimester preeclampsia prediction.

INTRODUCTION: Risk evaluation for preeclampsia in early pregnancy allows identification of women at high risk. Prediction models for preeclampsia often include circulating concentrations of placental growth factor (PlGF); however, the models are usually limited to a specific PlGF method of analysis. The aim of this study was to compare three different PlGF methods of analysis in a Swedish cohort to assess their convergent validity and appropriateness for use in preeclampsia risk prediction models in the first trimester of pregnancy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: First-trimester blood samples were collected in gestational week 11+0 to 13+6 from 150 pregnant women at Uppsala University Hospital during November 2018 until November 2020. These samples were analyzed using the different PlGF methods from Perkin Elmer, Roche Diagnostics, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. RESULTS: There were strong correlations between the PlGF results obtained with the three methods, but the slopes of the correlations clearly differed from 1.0: PlGFPerkinElmer  = 0.553 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.518-0.588) * PlGFRoche -1.112 (95% CI -2.773 to 0.550); r = 0.966, mean difference -24.6 (95% CI -26.4 to -22.8). PlGFPerkinElmer  = 0.673 (95% CI 0.618-0.729) * PlGFThermoFisher -0.199 (95% CI -2.292 to 1.894); r = 0.945, mean difference -13.8 (95% CI -15.1 to -12.6). PlGFRoche  = 1.809 (95% CI 1.694-1.923) * PlGFPerkinElmer +2.010 (95% CI -0.877 to 4.897); r = 0.966, mean difference 24.6 (95% CI 22.8-26.4). PlGFRoche  = 1.237 (95% CI 1.113-1.361) * PlGFThermoFisher +0.840 (95% CI -3.684 to 5.363); r = 0.937, mean difference 10.8 (95% CI 9.4-12.1). PlGFThermoFisher  = 1.485 (95% CI 1.363-1.607) * PlGFPerkinElmer +0.296 (95% CI -2.784 to 3.375); r = 0.945, mean difference 13.8 (95% CI 12.6-15.1). PlGFThermoFisher  = 0.808 (95% CI 0.726-0.891) * PlGFRoche -0.679 (95% CI -4.456 to 3.099); r = 0.937, mean difference -10.8 (95% CI -12.1 to -9.4). CONCLUSION: The three PlGF methods have different calibrations. This is most likely due to the lack of an internationally accepted reference material for PlGF. Despite different calibrations, the Deming regression analysis indicated good agreement between the three methods, which suggests that results from one method may be converted to the others and hence used in first-trimester prediction models for preeclampsia