The Diagnosis of Normocalcaemic Hyperparathyroidism is Strikingly Dissimilar Using Different Commercial Laboratory Assays.

We assessed the impact of intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) and adjusted calcium analyses on Abbott, Roche and Siemens analytical platforms in the diagnosis of normocalcaemic primary hyperparathyroidism (NCPHPT). These assays are used by over 85% of clinical laboratories in the UK. Over five months, consecutive serum samples from outpatients with NCPHPT in the laboratory with Abbott assays were identified, aliquoted and stored at -80°C. Frozen aliquots were transported monthly to the other two laboratories. After thawing, samples were mixed and analysed immediately for calcium, albumin and iPTH in the laboratories with Abbott, Roche and Siemens analytical platforms. Adjusted calcium was calculated using the equation used in the respective laboratory. Diagnostic concordance of iPTH and adjusted calcium were assessed using manufacturer-provided assay-specific reference intervals and the pathology harmony reference interval respectively. Fifty-five patients with NCPHPT were identified using Abbott assays. Of these, 16 (29.1%) and 11 (20.0%) had NCPHPT, 9 (16.4%) and 13 (23.6%) had hypercalcaemic primary hyperparathyroidism, and 30 (54.6%) and 31 (56.4%) patients had normal results when analysed in laboratories with Roche and Siemens assays, respectively. The diagnosis of NCPHPT was strikingly different depending on the commercial assay used. There is a pressing need for iPTH assay harmonisation and robust reference intervals. Reference intervals may become invalid if an assay drifts, as exemplified by adjusted calcium in this study.

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.

The diagnosis and management of subclinical hypothyroidism is assay-dependent- Implications for clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the commutativity of Roche and Abbott thyroid assays in the diagnosis and management of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH). The Roche and Abbott thyroid assays are used by approximately 75% of clinical laboratories in the UK. METHOD: Consecutive samples received from primary care on patients with SCH who had a raised thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) <10 mIU/L and a normal free thyroxine (fT4) from two laboratories using either Roche or Abbott thyroid assays were identified over 10 working days. Following identification, samples were analysed at the other site within 24 hours. Diagnostic and management discordance were studied using the relevant manufacturer-provided reference ranges. RESULTS: We identified 93 patients with SCH (53 using the Roche assay). Roche TSH and fT4 results were respectively 40% ± 15% and 16% ± 7% higher (P < .001) compared to Abbott results. Of the 93 patients, 41 (44%) were concordant for SCH on both methods. Of the 53 patients with SCH on the Roche assays, 40 (75.5%) had normal thyroid function and 13 (24.5%) had SCH when analysed using the Abbott assays. Of the 40 patients with SCH on the Abbott assays, 28 (70%) had SCH and 12 (30%) had results indicative for levothyroxine replacement when analysed on the Roche assays. Of these 12 patients, four had TSH > 10 mIU/L, five had low fT4 and three had both. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis and management of SCH is strikingly different when using TSH and fT4 assays provided by Abbott Laboratories and Roche Diagnostics. Clinicians and laboratorians should be aware that between-assay differences and variations in reference ranges will directly impact the diagnosis and management of subclinical hypothyroidism.

Serum trough infliximab and anti-infliximab antibodies in a cohort of gastroenterology and rheumatology patients' infliximab therapeutic drug monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab, a monoclonal antibody directed against tumour necrosis factor, is widely used in the treatment of chronic inflammatory conditions including Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis. Its use is limited by development of anti-infliximab antibodies, which can lead to loss of therapeutic efficacy. Serum infliximab and anti-infliximab antibody measurements have recently become routinely available in the UK. The study aimed to assess the clinical utility of antibodies as an adjunct to trough infliximab. METHODS: Serum trough infliximab was measured in 201 samples from 108 gastroenterology and rheumatology patients on maintenance infliximab therapy. Results were correlated with C-reactive protein concentrations. Total anti-infliximab antibodies were measured in 164 samples. RESULTS: The median (25th-75th percentile) trough infliximab was 3.7 µg/mL (1.2-5.2 µg/mL) and 23% of samples had a concentration ≤1 µg/mL. A notable proportion had positive anti-infliximab antibodies: 84/164 (51%), which subdivided to 85% and 28% with infliximab ≤1 and >1 µg/mL, respectively.Serum C-reactive protein was found to be significantly higher where infliximab was ≤1 compared to >1 µg/mL (10 mg/L [<5-24 mg/L] vs. <5 mg/L [<5-8 mg/L], P < 0.01), although a strict correlation was not observed. The relationship between trough infliximab and C-reactive protein differed depending on antibody status and there was no association between C-reactive protein and the presence or absence of antibodies. CONCLUSION: Our findings support measurement of anti-infliximab antibodies only in the context of low infliximab concentrations <1 µg/mL. A higher therapeutic cut-off may be relevant in patients with negative antibodies. Further work is indicated to investigate the clinical significance of positive antibodies with therapeutic infliximab concentrations.