4.6 Review

Interferences With Thyroid Function Immunoassays: Clinical Implications and Detection Algorithm

期刊

ENDOCRINE REVIEWS
卷 39, 期 5, 页码 830-850

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/er.2018-00119

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Automated immunoassays used to evaluate thyroid function are vulnerable to different types of interference that can affect clinical decisions. This review provides a detailed overview of the six main types of interference known to affect measurements of thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH), free thyroxine (T4) and free triiodothyronine (T3): macro-TSH, biotin, antistreptavidin antibodies, antiruthenium antibodies, thyroid hormone autoantibodies, and heterophilic antibodies. Because the prevalence of some of these conditions has been reported to approach 1% and the frequency of testing for thyroid dysfunction is important, the scale of the problem might be tremendous. Potential interferences in thyroid function testing should always be suspected whenever clinical or biochemical discrepancies arise. Their identification usually relies on additional laboratory tests, including assay method comparison, dilution procedures, blocking reagents studies, and polyethylene glycol precipitation. Based on the pattern of thyroid function test alterations, to screen for the six aforementioned types of interference, we propose a detection algorithm, which should facilitate their identification in clinical practice. The review also evaluates the clinical impact of thyroid interference on immunoassays. On review of reported data from more than 150 patients, we found that >= 50% of documented thyroid interferences led to misdiagnosis and/or inappropriate management, including prescription of an unnecessary treatment (with adverse effects in some situations), inappropriate suppression or modification of an ongoing treatment, or use of unnecessary complementary tests such as an I-123 thyroid scan. Strong interaction between the clinician and the laboratory is necessary to avoid such pitfalls.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据