Criteria of adequacy for Vitamin D testing and prevalence of deficiency in clinical practice

Abstract

Background: Vitamin D deficiency is an important concern in clinical settings although there is no consensus on who should undergo 25-OH-vitamin D testing. We studied the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency before and after introducing adequacy (clinical and biochemical) criteria for testing. Methods: A total of 32,363 tests for 25-OH-vitamin D were retrospectively evaluated. Requests were unrestricted until December 2010 and justification criteria were applied from January 2011. During 6 years, 25,656 samples were analyzed (UHPLC) of which 12,315 were considered the first visit. The prevalence of deficiency was assessed for all the samples and according to the year, sex, season, age, origin of the requests, inclusion of adequacy criteria and consecutive visits. Results: A significant proportion of the requests (25%) were unjustified and less than half of the clinically or biochemically-justified tests displayed serum concentrations indicative of deficiency. Application of adequacy criteria resulted in a non-significant increase in the prevalence of deficiency, both at the first visit (36.5 vs. 41.7, p=0.17) and for all the samples analyzed (32.0 vs. 35.5, p=0.14). The percentage of deficiency decreased in consecutive visits although 2/3 and 41% of the patients remained deficient on the second and third visit, respectively. Moreover, at least 1/5 of sufficient patients at the first test became deficient in subsequent evaluations. Conclusions: A significant proportion of the requests was unjustified by clinical or biochemical criteria. Our data also indicate that clinical and biochemical criteria may be necessary (to be present) to justify vitamin D testing but not sufficient (predictive) to indicate the presence of vitamin D deficiency.