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}
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.
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).