Feature Requests

If patients only need MTHFR test, they won't pay for unnecessary testing just to have it done. Also, having the stand-alone test was preferential for families needing their whole family tested as well. The bundling cost is too high for most patients and was a better solution versus ordering a blood test from Quest Diagnostics, which we've got back to.

From a clinical perspective on LPS, I’d actually prefer to see IgG and IgM reported separately rather than combined. Here’s why: if I have the individual values, I can always add them together myself to get that global snapshot. But when they’re already combined, I lose the ability to pull them apart, and that’s where the clinical nuance lives. Knowing whether someone’s LPS reactivity is predominantly IgM-driven versus IgG-driven changes how I interpret what’s happening in real time. An IgM-dominant response tells me something very different than an IgG-dominant response. One suggests an active, early-phase breach of gut barrier integrity. The other points to a chronic, sustained endotoxin exposure pattern. The research is early, but potentially those are two different clinical conversations, two different levels of urgency, and potentially two different intervention strategies, but reality is the science is so new, I think it’s too early just to combine them so we can actually see the dominance of one verse the other. When we combine them, we flatten that distinction. We get a number that says “yes, there’s immune activation to LPS,” but we lose the texture of what that activation actually looks like. And for those of us making treatment decisions based on these results, that context matters. So my ask would be to consider reporting IgG and IgM separately, and then if you want to include a combined total as an additional data point, that gives clinicians the best of both worlds. We get the granularity we need for precision decision-making, and anyone who prefers the global view still has it. I’d love to see that kind of reporting flexibility built into future iterations of the panel. It would make an already excellent test even more clinically actionable.

With functional medicine moving more into pediatrics and the move with autism, if your lab could offer the Anti-DNase B test, the FRAT test and the IGG antibodies COVID test, that would be GREAT

I’d like to share some feedback and recommendations regarding Vibrant’s blood marker offerings. While there hasn’t been a delay in this case, I’d love to see a few changes that would make the platform even more effective for practitioners and clients. Earlier this year, several important individual micronutrient markers were removed, including: Retinol (Vitamin A), Vit E, Vitamin K B-Vitamins (B1, B2, B3, B6 etc) Minerals - RBC Magnesium, Selenium, Zinc, Copper, Manganese, Molybdenum etc RBC Omega These were very helpful when ordering selectively without having to run a full micronutrients panel. Bringing back the ability to order them individually would be greatly appreciated. Additionally, I’d love to see the following blood markers added to the catalog or made available a la carte: Ceruloplasmin Whole Blood Histamine Vitamin D 1,25(OH) C-Peptide, GlycoMark (bring back fructosamine) MMP-9, Neopterin, C4a, TGF-β1, MSH Blood Mold IgG Antibody Panel These markers are highly valuable in clinical decision-making, especially when working with clients dealing with methylation issues, glucose dysregulation, inflammation, mold-related illness, and oxidative stress. Adding or reinstating these options would increase flexibility, accessibility, and help practitioners better serve clients without unnecessary testing costs. Thank you for considering this!

Hi vibrant, I wanted to bring to your attention a recurring issue that’s significantly impacting both my clients and the quality of service I provide as a functional health coach. It seems that many lab technicians are still unaware of the updated protocol requiring each blood vial/tube to be manually labeled with the patient’s name. This oversight has led to several of my clients needing complete blood redraws—despite having already paid for a remote phlebotomy service. In multiple cases, kits were marked TNP (Test Not Performed) due to something as minor as a missing collection date. Rather than contacting us for the missing detail, the lab opted to cancel all tests outright—resulting in unnecessary delays and a frustrating experience for the client. This not only damages trust in my coaching services but also causes serious delays in client protocol delivery. I provide clear, step-by-step instructions to each client before their draw, so having to repeat this process is highly inconvenient for everyone involved. In some cases, it’s pushing protocol delivery timelines back by over a month. I truly appreciate that Vibrant uses fewer vials than Quest or LabCorp, which is one of the reasons I prefer working with your team. However, if this continues, I may be forced to switch back to those options to ensure reliability and turnaround time for my clients. I’d appreciate clarity on how this issue can be prevented moving forward—whether it's technician training, updated internal protocol reminders, or clearer communication at the lab level. Thanks for your time and support in resolving this.