Vertebral fracture assessment: impact of instrument and reader.

PURPOSE: Many osteoporotic vertebral fractures are not clinically recognized but increase fracture risk. We hypothesized that a newer generation densitometer increases the number of evaluable vertebrae and vertebral fractures detected. We also explored the impact of reader experience on vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) interpretation. METHODS: VFA images obtained using Prodigy and iDXA densitometers in 103 older adults were evaluated for vertebral visualization and fracture presence in the T4-L5 region. A "true" read for each densitometer was achieved by consensus. If readers disagreed, the evaluation of a third expert physician was taken as true. Main outcomes were evaluable vertebrae, vertebral fractures, and intrareader/interreader reproducibility. RESULTS: Using the "true" reads, 92% of vertebrae were visualized on iDXA and 76% on Prodigy. Numerically, more fractures were identified with iDXA; the "true" reads found 43 fractures on iDXA and 21 on Prodigy. The experienced reader had better intrareader and interreader reproducibility than the inexperienced reader when compared with the "true" read. CONCLUSIONS: Using the newer iDXA densitometer for VFA analysis improves vertebral body visualization and fracture detection. Training and experience enhance result reproducibility.

Correlation among 25-hydroxy-vitamin D assays.

CONTEXT: Measurement of circulating 25-hydroxy-vitamin D [25(OH)D]) is the accepted clinical indicator of vitamin D status. However, between-laboratory differences in measurement of this analyte exist, which may confound clinical care. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the current agreement of 25(OH)D measurement in clinical laboratories and explored the possibility that simple calibration would improve between-laboratory agreement. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Serum obtained from healthy volunteers (age 20-60 yr) and one "calibrator," selected to have a 25(OH)D value near 30 ng/ml, were sent for 25(OH)D measurement in four clinical laboratories (laboratories A-D) using HPLC, liquid chromatography tandem mass spectroscopy, and RIA methodologies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serum 25(OH)D. Based upon self-report, the laboratory with the lowest interassay percent coefficient of variation was assigned as the reference to which the others were compared using linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses (Analyse-it; Analyse-it Software, Ltd., Leeds, UK). RESULTS: Good correlation was observed for 25(OH)D measurement between laboratory A and laboratories B-D (R(2) = 0.99, 0.81, and 0.95, respectively). Modest between-laboratory variation was noted; the mean bias ranged from 2.9-5.2 ng/ml. Consistent with a systematic offset, each value in laboratory B was higher than in laboratory A, and 89% of values from laboratories B-D were higher than laboratory A. The use of a single calibrator and correction factor reduced mean between-laboratory bias for laboratories B and D. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of 25(OH)D by clinical laboratories yields similar results. The use of even a single calibrator will improve, but not resolve, between-laboratory variability. Based upon these data, in combination with reported within-individual variability, we recommend that clinicians aim for values greater than 30 ng/ml in their patients.

Evaluation of ergocalciferol or cholecalciferol dosing, 1,600 IU daily or 50,000 IU monthly in older adults.

CONTEXT: Whether ergocalciferol (D(2)) and cholecalciferol (D(3)) are equally effective to increase and maintain serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration is controversial. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of daily and once monthly dosing of D(2) or D(3) on circulating 25(OH)D and serum and urinary calcium. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: In a university clinical research setting, 64 community dwelling adults age 65+ were randomly assigned to receive daily (1,600 IU) or once-monthly (50,000 IU) D(2) or D(3) for 1 yr. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serum 25(OH)D, serum calcium, and 24-h urinary calcium were measured at months 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Serum PTH, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, and N-telopeptide were measured at months 0, 3, 6, and 12. RESULTS: Serum 25(OH)D was less than 30 ng/ml in 40% of subjects at baseline; after 12 months of vitamin D dosing, levels in 19% of subjects (n = 12, seven receiving daily doses and five monthly doses) remained low, despite compliance of more than 91%. D(2) dosing increased 25(OH)D(2) but produced a decline (P < 0.0001) in 25(OH)D(3). Substantial between-individual variation in 25(OH)D response was observed for both D(2) and D(3). The highest 25(OH)D observed was 72.5 ng/ml. Vitamin D administration did not alter serum calcium, PTH, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, N-telopeptide, or 24-h urine calcium. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, D(3) is slightly, but significantly, more effective than D(2) to increase serum 25(OH)D. One year of D(2) or D(3) dosing (1,600 IU daily or 50,000 IU monthly) does not produce toxicity, and 25(OH)D levels of less than 30 ng/ml persist in approximately 20% of individuals. Substantial between-individual response to administered vitamin D(2) or D(3) is observed.