Large method differences for free thyroid hormone assays in the hyperthyroid range can affect assessment of hyperthyroid status: Comparison of Abbott Alinity to Roche Cobas, Siemens Centaur and equilibrium dialysis LC-MS/MS
ObjectiveThyroid function tests are common biochemical analyses, and agreement between the routinely used immunoassays is important for diagnosis and monitoring of thyroid disease. Efforts are continuously made to align the biochemical assays, and we aimed to evaluate the agreement between immunoassays used in a clinical laboratory setting among non‐pregnant and pregnant adults.DesignCross‐sectional study.ParticipantsSerum samples were obtained from 192 blood donors (non‐pregnant adults) and from 86 pregnant women in the North Denmark Region with no known thyroid disease.MeasurementsEach sample was used for measurement of thyroid‐stimulating hormone (TSH) with the routinely used automatic immunoassays in the regional Departments of Clinical Biochemistry (Alinity, Abbott Laboratories, Cobas, Roche Diagnostics, and Atellica, Siemens Healthineers) and reported as the median with 95% confidence interval (95% CI).ResultsIn nonpregnant adults, the level of TSH was higher with Cobas and Atellica than with Alinity as reflected by median (Alinity: 1.39 mIU/L (95% CI: 1.30–1.51 mIU/L); Cobas: 1.57 mIU/L (95% CI: 1.48–1.75 mIU/L); Atellica: 1.74 mIU/L (95% CI: 1.61–1.83 mIU/L)). Similarly, a trend was seen towards higher median TSH with Cobas than with Alinity among pregnant women (Alinity: 1.90 mIU/L (95% CI: 1.37–2.82 mIU/L); Cobas: 2.33 mIU/L (95% CI: 1.69–3.62 mIU/L)).ConclusionResults of thyroid function tests obtained with different immunoassays were not interchangeable when evaluated among pregnant and non‐pregnant adults. The distinct differences are relevant for clinical decision making and emphasize the necessity of clinical laboratory information when different assays are used for diagnosis and monitoring of patients with thyroid disease.
ObjectiveThyroid function tests are common biochemical analyses, and agreement between the routinely used immunoassays is important for diagnosis and monitoring of thyroid disease. Efforts are continuously made to align the biochemical assays, and we aimed to evaluate the agreement between immunoassays used in a clinical laboratory setting among non‐pregnant and pregnant adults.DesignCross‐sectional study.ParticipantsSerum samples were obtained from 192 blood donors (non‐pregnant adults) and from 86 pregnant women in the North Denmark Region with no known thyroid disease.MeasurementsEach sample was used for measurement of thyroid‐stimulating hormone (TSH) with the routinely used automatic immunoassays in the regional Departments of Clinical Biochemistry (Alinity, Abbott Laboratories, Cobas, Roche Diagnostics, and Atellica, Siemens Healthineers) and reported as the median with 95% confidence interval (95% CI).ResultsIn nonpregnant adults, the level of TSH was higher with Cobas and Atellica than with Alinity as reflected by median (Alinity: 1.39 mIU/L (95% CI: 1.30–1.51 mIU/L); Cobas: 1.57 mIU/L (95% CI: 1.48–1.75 mIU/L); Atellica: 1.74 mIU/L (95% CI: 1.61–1.83 mIU/L)). Similarly, a trend was seen towards higher median TSH with Cobas than with Alinity among pregnant women (Alinity: 1.90 mIU/L (95% CI: 1.37–2.82 mIU/L); Cobas: 2.33 mIU/L (95% CI: 1.69–3.62 mIU/L)).ConclusionResults of thyroid function tests obtained with different immunoassays were not interchangeable when evaluated among pregnant and non‐pregnant adults. The distinct differences are relevant for clinical decision making and emphasize the necessity of clinical laboratory information when different assays are used for diagnosis and monitoring of patients with thyroid disease.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.