This post is part of a series on bone markers standardization from the Committee on Bone Metabolism of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry.
Vitamin D represents a group of over 50 cholesterol derived secosteroid species that has an essential role in calcium homoeostasis and is also involved in many other physiological processes, such as immune function, cell proliferation and differentiation.
(1). In recent years, the growing awareness that vitamin D deficiency is a highly prevalent condition has stimulated enormous interest in the measurement of 25(OH)D as a surrogate marker of vitamin D status. However, our knowledge about vitamin D metabolism and its assessment in clinical practice still harbours substantial limitations
(2). For example, significant correlations between serum 25(OH)D concentrations, bone mineral density (BMD), bone loss and fracture risk have been shown by some but not all studies (3-5). These inconsistencies have prompted researchers to look for alternative markers that provide additional information about patients’ vitamin D status. 24,25(OH)2D, the major catabolite of 25(OH)D, has emerged as a particularly promising candidate. Both metabolites, 25(OH)D and 24,25(OH)2D are strongly correlated [12] and can reliably be measured by LC-MS/MS (6-11). Recently, the National Institute of Standardization (NIST) has developed a candidate reference measurement procedure for 24,25(OH)2D based on isotope dilution LC-MS/MS, which is recognized as reference measurement procedure by the Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM). In addition, 24,25(OH)2D is included in the DEQAS program, which allows laboratories to assess the accuracy of their results.
Due to the tight relationship between 25(OH)D and 24,25(OH)2D the isolated measurement of 24,25(OH)2D does not add clinical value beyond 25(OH)D. However, the simultaneous assessment of both metabolites with the results expressed as a ratio between 24,25(OH)2D and 25(OH)D (known as vitamin D metabolite ratio; VMR) seems to provide a dynamic measure of vitamin D metabolism that allows distinguishing CYP24A1 deficiency or mutations (12, 13) from vitamin D intoxication and granulomatous disease (14). It has also been speculated that the VMR might aid the detection of vitamin D deficiency in individuals without the aforementioned conditions and is not influenced by ethnicity (15) . Theoretically, a higher VMR should indicate a better supply with vitamin D so that excessive 25(OH)D is catabolized to 24,25(OH)2D. However, this concept is hampered by some technical issues. When 24,25(OH)2D is below the limit of quantitation the VMR cannot be calculated. Furthermore, calculating the ratio of two measurands with substantially different concentrations enhances the intrinsic measurement uncertainty. Previous studies that have investigated the clinical utility of VMR yielded inconclusive results (14, 16-18). Recently, Cavalier and colleagues proposed a new way of interpreting 24,25(OH)2D results (19). Instead of calculating the VMR they compared the 24,25(OH)2D and 25(OH)D concentrations of patients with those of healthy subjects classified according to their 25(OH)D concentration. The principal assumption of Cavalier et al. is that low 24,25(OH)2D concentrations have a different meaning in the context of high or low 25(OH)D. In the context of vitamin D deficiency CYP24A1 is expected to be down regulated so that 25(OH)D is not wasted. This concept implies that with lower 25(OH)D concentrations undetectable
24,25(OH)2D concentrations are increasingly likely and most probably indicate functional vitamin D deficiency. In turn, when 25(OH)D is high, the organism aims to protect itself against hypercalcemia by eliminating excessive amounts of 25(OH)D through 24-hydroxylation. As a result, undetectable 24,25(OH)2D concentrations are highly unlikely in this context and would rather suggest an enzyme defect than vitamin D deficiency. Reporting both metabolites together with the probability that this constellation occurs in healthy subjects might facilitate a better judgement of patient’s vitamin D status and enable physicians to target vitamin D supplementation to those who are expected to benefit most. This approach would also support the concept that every person has an individual set point above which vitamin D supplementation has no beneficial effects. So far, the possibility to identify individuals with functional vitamin D deficiency on the basis of probable and unprobable constellations of 24,25(OH)2D and 25(OH)D has only been shown in one study that includes 1200 Belgian children and adolescents (19). Therefore, additional studies are needed to confirm these result and to extend them to adults and elderly individuals.
References
1. Bikle DD. Extraskeletal actions of vitamin D. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2016;1376(1):29-52.
2. Herrmann M. Towards a personalized assessment of vitamin D status. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019; 58(2):149–151.
3. Man PW. van der Meer IM, Lips P, Middelkoop BJC. Vitamin D status and bone mineral density in the Chinese population: a review. Arch Osteoporos. 2016; 11(1): 14
4. Alkhenizan A, Mahmoud M, Hussain A, Gabr A, Alsoghayer S, Eldali A. The Relationship between 25 (OH) D Levels (Vitamin D) and Bone Mineral Density (BMD) in a Saudi Population in a Community-Based Setting. PLoS One. 2017; 12(1): e0169122.
5. Wang N, Chen Y, Ji J, Chang J, Yu S, Yu B. The relationship between serum vitamin D and fracture risk in the elderly: a meta-analysis Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15(1):81
6. de Boer IH, Sachs MC, Chonchol M, Himmelfarb J, Hoofnagle AN, Ix JH, Kremsdorf RA, Lin YS, Mehrotra R, Robinson-Cohen C, Siscovick DS, Steffes
MW, Thummel KE, Tracy RP, Wang Z, Kestenbaum B. Estimated GFR and Circulating 24,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 Concentration: A Participant-LevelAnalysis of 5 Cohort Studies and Clinical Trials. Am J Kidney Dis 2014;64:187–97.
7. Stepman HC Vanderroost A, Van Uytfanghe K, Thienpont LM. Candidate reference measurement procedures for serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 by using isotope-dilution liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Clin Chem 2011;57:441–8.
8. Stöckl D, Thienpont L. Specifications for trueness and precision of a reference measurement system for serum/plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D analysis. Clin Chim Acta 2009;408:8–13..
9. Mineva EM, Schleicher RL, Chaudhary-Webb M, Maw KL, Botelho JC, Vesper HW, Pfeiffer CM. A candidate reference measurement procedure for quantifying serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D₃ and 25-hydroxyvitamin D₂ using isotope-dilution liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem 2015;407:5615–24.
10. Tai SS, Nelson MA. Candidate reference measurement procedure for the determination of (24R),25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 in human serum using isotope-dilution liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Anal Chem 2015;87:7964–70.
11. Tai SS, Nelson MA, Bedner M, Lang BE, Phinney KW, Sander LC, Yen JH, Betz JM, Sempos CT, Wise SA. Development of Standard Reference Material (SRM) 2973 Vitamin D Metabolites in Frozen Human Serum (High Level). J AOAC Int. 2017;100(5):1294-1303
12. Schlingmann KP, Kaufmann M, Weber S, Irwin A, Goos C, John U, Misselwitz J, Klaus G, Kuwertz-Bröking E, Fehrenbach H, Wingen AM, Güran T,
Hoenderop JG, Bindels RJ, Prosser DE, Jones G, Konrad M. Mutations inCYP24A1 and Idiopathic Infantile Hypercalcemia. N Engl J Med 2011;365(5):410-21.
13. Molin A, Baudoin R, Kaufmann M, Souberbielle JC, Ryckewaert A, Vantyghem MC, Eckart P, Bacchetta J, Deschenes G, Kesler-Roussey G, Coudray N, Richard N, Wraich M, Bonafiglia Q, Tiulpakov A, Jones G, Kottler ML. CYP24A1 Mutations in a Cohort of Hypercalcemic Patients: evidence for a recessive trait. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(10):E1343-52.
14. Wagner D, Hanwell HE, Schnabl K, Yazdanpanah M, Kimball S, Fu L, Sidhom G, Rousseau D, Cole DEC, Vieth R. The ratio of serum 24,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3) to 25-hydroxyvitamin D(3) is predictive of 25-hydroxyvitamin D(3) response to vitamin D(3) supplementation. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2011;126:72–7.
15. Berg AH, Powe CE, Evans MK, Wenger J, Ortiz G, Zonderman AB, Suntharalingam P, Lucchesi K, Powe NR, Karumanchi SA, Thadhani RI. 24,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3and Vitamin D Status of Community-Dwelling Black and White Americans. Clin Chem 2015;61(6):877-84.
16. Kaufmann M, Gallagher JC, Peacock M, Schlingmann KP, Konrad M, DeLuca HF, Sigueiro R, Lopez B, Mourino A, Maestro M, St-Arnaud R, Finkelstein JS, Cooper DP, Jones G. Clinical utility of simultaneous quantitation of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 24,25-dihydroxyvitamin D by LC-MS/MS involving derivatization with DMEQ-TAD. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2014;99:2567–74.
17. Ginsberg C, Katz R, de Boer IH, Kestenbaum BR, Chonchol M, Shlipak MG, Sarnak MJ , Hoofnagle AN, Rifkin DE, Garimella PS, Ix JH. The 24,25 to 25-hydroxyvitamin D ratio and fracture risk in older adults: the cardiovascular health study. Bone 2017;107:124–30.
18. Ketha H, Thacher TD, Oberhelman SS, Fischer PR, Singh RJ, Kumar R. Comparison of the effect of daily versus bolus dose maternal vitamin D3 supplementation on the 24,25- dihydroxyvitamin D3 to 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 ratio. Bone 2018;110:321–5.
19. Cavalier E, Huyghebaert L, Rousselle O, Bekaert AC, Kovacs S, Vranken L, Peeters S, Le Goff C, Ladang A. Simultaneous measurement of 25(OH)-vitamin D and 24,25(OH)2-vitamin D to define cut-offs for CYP24A1 mutation and vitamin D deficiency in a population of 1200 young subjects. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020;58(2):197-201.