SHBG测定的可变性及其对游离睾酮计算估计值的影响。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Joeri Walravens, Joanne Adaway, Tim Reyns, Nick Narinx, Jennifer Afrakoma Nyamaah, Leen Antonio, Jean-Marc Kaufman, Brian Keevil, Tom Fiers, Bruno Lapauw
{"title":"SHBG测定的可变性及其对游离睾酮计算估计值的影响。","authors":"Joeri Walravens, Joanne Adaway, Tim Reyns, Nick Narinx, Jennifer Afrakoma Nyamaah, Leen Antonio, Jean-Marc Kaufman, Brian Keevil, Tom Fiers, Bruno Lapauw","doi":"10.1177/00045632251350676","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundSerum free testosterone is commonly used as a parameter to evaluate testosterone exposure and is mostly calculated using mathematical approximations. As the principal testosterone-binding protein, SHBG concentration is always included in such calculations. However, variability in SHBG measurements may affect reported SHBG levels and consequently free testosterone calculations. In this study, we re-evaluate the effects of SHBG assay choice and interlaboratory variability on calculated free testosterone (cFT).MethodsSerum samples from 113 men and 106 women were collected. SHBG levels were measured using three different SHBG immunoassays (Roche, Abbott and Siemens). Testosterone levels were measured using LC-MS/MS. Afterwards, cFT was calculated using the Vermeulen formula and measured directly. SHBG concentrations, and derived cFT concentrations, from different assays were compared. To simulate interlaboratory SHBG variability, measured levels were modified by 15% after which cFT was recalculated using the Vermeulen, Ly, Sartorius and Södergard formulae. The proportions of diagnoses of hypogonadism or hyperandrogenism were compared.ResultsAssessed SHBG assays showed very good conformity. The largest difference was 7%, between the Abbott and Siemens assay. The difference in cFT levels was at most 3% between the Abbott and Siemens assay. Interlaboratory variability affected the proportion of diagnoses depending on the used formula.ConclusionsOur results do not show large differences between SHBG assays and only minor effects on cFT levels. Therefore, SHBG assay choice is not expected to greatly influence clinical decision making. In contrast, interlaboratory variation in SHBG measurements and choice of formula might considerably affect cFT results and their interpretation.</p>","PeriodicalId":8005,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry","volume":" ","pages":"45632251350676"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Variability in SHBG assays and the effect thereof on calculated estimates of free testosterone.\",\"authors\":\"Joeri Walravens, Joanne Adaway, Tim Reyns, Nick Narinx, Jennifer Afrakoma Nyamaah, Leen Antonio, Jean-Marc Kaufman, Brian Keevil, Tom Fiers, Bruno Lapauw\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00045632251350676\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BackgroundSerum free testosterone is commonly used as a parameter to evaluate testosterone exposure and is mostly calculated using mathematical approximations. As the principal testosterone-binding protein, SHBG concentration is always included in such calculations. However, variability in SHBG measurements may affect reported SHBG levels and consequently free testosterone calculations. In this study, we re-evaluate the effects of SHBG assay choice and interlaboratory variability on calculated free testosterone (cFT).MethodsSerum samples from 113 men and 106 women were collected. SHBG levels were measured using three different SHBG immunoassays (Roche, Abbott and Siemens). Testosterone levels were measured using LC-MS/MS. Afterwards, cFT was calculated using the Vermeulen formula and measured directly. SHBG concentrations, and derived cFT concentrations, from different assays were compared. To simulate interlaboratory SHBG variability, measured levels were modified by 15% after which cFT was recalculated using the Vermeulen, Ly, Sartorius and Södergard formulae. The proportions of diagnoses of hypogonadism or hyperandrogenism were compared.ResultsAssessed SHBG assays showed very good conformity. The largest difference was 7%, between the Abbott and Siemens assay. The difference in cFT levels was at most 3% between the Abbott and Siemens assay. Interlaboratory variability affected the proportion of diagnoses depending on the used formula.ConclusionsOur results do not show large differences between SHBG assays and only minor effects on cFT levels. Therefore, SHBG assay choice is not expected to greatly influence clinical decision making. In contrast, interlaboratory variation in SHBG measurements and choice of formula might considerably affect cFT results and their interpretation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8005,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"45632251350676\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00045632251350676\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Clinical Biochemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00045632251350676","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

血清游离睾酮通常被用作评估睾酮暴露的参数,并且大多使用数学近似来计算。SHBG作为主要的睾酮结合蛋白,其浓度一直被包括在此类计算中。然而,SHBG测量的可变性可能会影响报告的SHBG水平,从而影响游离睾酮的计算。在这项研究中,我们重新评估了SHBG检测选择和实验室间变异对计算游离睾酮(cFT)的影响。方法收集男性113例,女性106例。使用三种不同的SHBG免疫测定法(罗氏、雅培和西门子)测量SHBG水平。采用LC-MS/MS检测睾酮水平。然后用Vermeulen公式计算cFT,并直接测量。比较不同测定方法的SHBG浓度和衍生cFT浓度。为了模拟实验室间SHBG的变化,测量的水平被修改了15%,之后使用Vermeulen, Ly, Sartorius和Södergard公式重新计算cFT。比较性腺功能减退和雄激素分泌亢进的诊断比例。结果经评估的SHBG检测结果符合性很好。雅培和西门子检测之间的最大差异为7%。雅培和西门子检测之间cFT水平的差异最多为3%。实验室间的差异影响诊断的比例取决于所使用的公式。结论不同SHBG的sour结果差异不大,对cFT水平影响较小。因此,SHBG测定方法的选择预计不会对临床决策产生很大影响。相反,SHBG测量的实验室间差异和公式的选择可能会极大地影响cFT结果及其解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Variability in SHBG assays and the effect thereof on calculated estimates of free testosterone.

BackgroundSerum free testosterone is commonly used as a parameter to evaluate testosterone exposure and is mostly calculated using mathematical approximations. As the principal testosterone-binding protein, SHBG concentration is always included in such calculations. However, variability in SHBG measurements may affect reported SHBG levels and consequently free testosterone calculations. In this study, we re-evaluate the effects of SHBG assay choice and interlaboratory variability on calculated free testosterone (cFT).MethodsSerum samples from 113 men and 106 women were collected. SHBG levels were measured using three different SHBG immunoassays (Roche, Abbott and Siemens). Testosterone levels were measured using LC-MS/MS. Afterwards, cFT was calculated using the Vermeulen formula and measured directly. SHBG concentrations, and derived cFT concentrations, from different assays were compared. To simulate interlaboratory SHBG variability, measured levels were modified by 15% after which cFT was recalculated using the Vermeulen, Ly, Sartorius and Södergard formulae. The proportions of diagnoses of hypogonadism or hyperandrogenism were compared.ResultsAssessed SHBG assays showed very good conformity. The largest difference was 7%, between the Abbott and Siemens assay. The difference in cFT levels was at most 3% between the Abbott and Siemens assay. Interlaboratory variability affected the proportion of diagnoses depending on the used formula.ConclusionsOur results do not show large differences between SHBG assays and only minor effects on cFT levels. Therefore, SHBG assay choice is not expected to greatly influence clinical decision making. In contrast, interlaboratory variation in SHBG measurements and choice of formula might considerably affect cFT results and their interpretation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: Annals of Clinical Biochemistry is the fully peer reviewed international journal of the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry accepts papers that contribute to knowledge in all fields of laboratory medicine, especially those pertaining to the understanding, diagnosis and treatment of human disease. It publishes papers on clinical biochemistry, clinical audit, metabolic medicine, immunology, genetics, biotechnology, haematology, microbiology, computing and management where they have both biochemical and clinical relevance. Papers describing evaluation or implementation of commercial reagent kits or the performance of new analysers require substantial original information. Unless of exceptional interest and novelty, studies dealing with the redox status in various diseases are not generally considered within the journal''s scope. Studies documenting the association of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with particular phenotypes will not normally be considered, given the greater strength of genome wide association studies (GWAS). Research undertaken in non-human animals will not be considered for publication in the Annals. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry is also the official journal of NVKC (de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Klinische Chemie) and JSCC (Japan Society of Clinical Chemistry).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信