Serum iPTH range in a reference population: from an integrated approach to vitamin D prevalence impact evaluation.

Abstract

BACKGROUND\nThe iPTH upper reference limit (URL) reported by our laboratory provider (Abbott Laboratories) at Tor Vergata University Hospital was evaluated by internal verification procedures as not representative of our population and resulting as underestimated. In this study, a new reference interval has been investigated and established by comparing a direct and an indirect method based on a statistical reduction from results stored in the laboratory database.\n\n\nMETHODS\nFor reference interval calculation from the healthy population, we analyzed a cohort of 100 blood donors (84% males and 16% females) screened with no bone-related and malabsorption diseases. We analyzed a cohort of 495 patients retrieved from more than 800 iPTH results by excluding subjects with pathological measurement for calcium, phosphorus, and creatinine for the reference interval evaluation. Patients with vitamin D results were included in the analysis. Vitamin D sufficiency status during the period from January to September 2020 was also evaluated by investigating 3,050 patients.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe iPTH reference interval of a healthy blood donor population was measured as 25.2-109.1 pg/mL (2.7-11.6 pmol/L) at 2.5 and 97.5 distribution percentile. The iPTH reference interval from data stored in the laboratory database was 19.3-112.5 pg/mL (2.0-11.9 pmol/L). Furthermore, 60% of the whole population had prevalently insufficient vitamin D concentration (<30 ng/dL; <75 nmol/L). The impact of vitamin D concentration on the iPTH reference interval was measured for insufficient vitamin D (<30 ng/dL; <75 nmol/L) as 15.2-127.7 pg/mL (1.6-13.5 pmol/L), desirable vitamin D (30-40 ng/ml; 75-100 nmol/L) as 25.6-105 pg/mL (2.7-10.7 pmol/L) and optimal vitamin D (>40 ng/ml; >100 nmol/L) as 26.2-89.2 pg/mL (2.8-9.4 pmol/L), respectively.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe URL reported in manufacturer datasheets likely refers to a normal population with non-pathological vitamin D levels. On the contrary, the considered population was mostly vitamin D insufficient, resulting in a URL shift. On this basis, we suggest describing in medical reports the iPTH range for vitamin D deficiency for diagnosis of primary hyperparathyroidism even when a specific vitamin D request is lacking. On the other hand, reporting optimal vitamin D-based iPTH reference interval could be clinically relevant in supplemented patients as a marker of treatment efficacy.