Biochemical assessment of adequate levothyroxine replacement in primary hypothyroidism differs with different TSH assays: potential clinical implications.

AIM: Thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) assays provided by Abbott Laboratories and Roche Diagnostics are used by approximately 75% of laboratories in the UK. We assessed the potential impact of Abbott and Roche TSH assay differences on the biochemical assessment of levothyroxine replacement in primary hypothyroidism. METHOD: Samples from 100 consecutive primary care patients (83 women, median age 64 years, IQR 51-73 years) with primary hypothyroidism on adequate levothyroxine based on an Abbott Architect TSH in the reference range were analysed for TSH on Roche cobas within 24 hours. The Abbott and Roche TSH results were compared. Over 1 year, TSH results from patients in primary care from the laboratories with Abbott and Roche methods were compared. RESULTS: The median (IQR) Roche TSH (2.5 (1.3-3.6) mIU/L) was 30%±10% higher (p<0.001) than Abbott TSH (1.9 (1.1-2.6) mIU/L). Although all Abbott TSH results were in the Abbott specific reference range, 14 patients (14%) had Roche TSH results above the Roche specific reference range. In the 1 year gather, Roche TSH (1.9 (1.3-2.9) mIU/L, n=103 932) results were higher (p<0.001) than Abbott TSH (1.5 (1.0-2.2) mIU/L, n=1 10 544) results. The TSH results were above their assay-specific upper reference limit in 10.7% of Roche results and 4.2% of Abbott results. CONCLUSION: Biochemical assessment of levothyroxine replacement may be dependent on the type of TSH assay. Laboratorians and clinicians should be aware that the lack of harmonisation between TSH methods and their assay-specific reference ranges may potentially lead to different patient management decisions. We suggest lot verification in laboratories should include processes to identify cumulative drift in assay performance.

Effect of faecal calprotectin assay variability on the management of inflammatory bowel disease and potential role of faecal S100A12.

AIMS: To prospectively evaluate whether between-assay variability of different faecal calprotectin (f-Cp) assays influences diagnostic accuracy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in a cohort of patients with confirmed IBD and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). To also evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of faecal S100A12 (f-S100A12) against f-Cp in the same patient cohort and assess whether f-S100A12 offers additional diagnostic value. METHODS: F-Cp using four commercially available f-Cp assays, f-S100A12 and blood biomarkers were measured in patients, recruited from the local IBD clinic, who had established IBS or active ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). Diagnostic sensitivities and specificities for each assay and biomarker were calculated and compared. RESULTS: Median f-Cp levels in all assays were significantly higher in UC (347-884 µg/g; n=28) and CD (377-838 µg/g; n=15) compared with IBS (6-27 µg/g; n=17). Sensitivities and specificities at 50 µg/g were 94%-100% and 82%-100%, respectively. Median f-S100A12 levels were significantly higher in UC (81.0 µg/g; IQR 38.3-159.8) and CD (47.2 µg/g; IQR 5.3-108.9) compared with IBS (0.7 µg/g; IQR 0.5-0.8). At 2.8 µg/g, f-S100A12 had a sensitivity of 97% and specificity of 94%. The blood biomarkers demonstrated sensitivities and specificities of 44%-63% and 80%-92%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic sensitivity of the calprotectin assays was similar despite inter-kit variability in absolute values. There is a need for f-Cp assay standardisation, but in its absence assay-specific cut-off values may optimise their diagnostic performance. F-S100A12 demonstrated comparable sensitivity and specificity to f-Cp and although a research tool at present, may have a future role to play in the diagnosis and management of these patients.