TY - JOUR
T1 - TSH and FT4 Reference Interval Recommendations and Prevalence of Gestational Thyroid Dysfunction
T2 - Quantification of Current Diagnostic Approaches
AU - Osinga, Joris A.J.
AU - Derakhshan, Arash
AU - Feldt-Rasmussen, Ulla
AU - Huang, Kun
AU - Vrijkotte, Tanja G.M.
AU - Männistö, Tuija
AU - Bassols, Judit
AU - López-Bermejo, Abel
AU - Aminorroaya, Ashraf
AU - Vafeiadi, Marina
AU - Broeren, Maarten A.C.
AU - Palomaki, Glenn E.
AU - Ashoor, Ghalia
AU - Chen, Liangmiao
AU - Lu, Xuemian
AU - Taylor, Peter N.
AU - Tao, Fang Biao
AU - Brown, Suzanne J.
AU - Sitoris, Georgiana
AU - Chatzi, Lida
AU - Vaidya, Bijay
AU - Popova, Polina V.
AU - Vasukova, Elena A.
AU - Kianpour, Maryam
AU - Suvanto, Eila
AU - Grineva, Elena N.
AU - Hattersley, Andrew
AU - Pop, Victor J.M.
AU - Nelson, Scott M.
AU - Walsh, John P.
AU - Nicolaides, Kypros H.
AU - D'Alton, Mary E.
AU - Poppe, Kris G.
AU - Chaker, Layal
AU - Bliddal, Sofie
AU - Korevaar, Tim I.M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society.
PY - 2024/3/1
Y1 - 2024/3/1
N2 - Context: Guidelines recommend use of population- and trimester-specific thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and free thyroxine (FT4) reference intervals (RIs) in pregnancy. Since these are often unavailable, clinicians frequently rely on alternative diagnostic strategies. We sought to quantify the diagnostic consequences of current recommendations. Methods: We included cohorts participating in the Consortium on Thyroid and Pregnancy. Different approaches were used to define RIs: a TSH fixed upper limit of 4.0 mU/L (fixed limit approach), a fixed subtraction from the upper limit for TSH of 0.5 mU/L (subtraction approach) and using nonpregnancy RIs. Outcome measures were sensitivity and false discovery rate (FDR) of women for whom levothyroxine treatment was indicated and those for whom treatment would be considered according to international guidelines. Results: The study population comprised 52 496 participants from 18 cohorts. Compared with the use of trimester-specific RIs, alternative approaches had a low sensitivity (0.63-0.82) and high FDR (0.11-0.35) to detect women with a treatment indication or consideration. Sensitivity and FDR to detect a treatment indication in the first trimester were similar between the fixed limit, subtraction, and nonpregnancy approach (0.77-0.11 vs 0.74-0.16 vs 0.60-0.11). The diagnostic performance to detect overt hypothyroidism, isolated hypothyroxinemia, and (sub)clinical hyperthyroidism mainly varied between FT4 RI approaches, while the diagnostic performance to detect subclinical hypothyroidism varied between the applied TSH RI approaches. Conclusion: Alternative approaches to define RIs for TSH and FT4 in pregnancy result in considerable overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis compared with population- and trimester-specific RIs. Additional strategies need to be explored to optimize identification of thyroid dysfunction during pregnancy.
AB - Context: Guidelines recommend use of population- and trimester-specific thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and free thyroxine (FT4) reference intervals (RIs) in pregnancy. Since these are often unavailable, clinicians frequently rely on alternative diagnostic strategies. We sought to quantify the diagnostic consequences of current recommendations. Methods: We included cohorts participating in the Consortium on Thyroid and Pregnancy. Different approaches were used to define RIs: a TSH fixed upper limit of 4.0 mU/L (fixed limit approach), a fixed subtraction from the upper limit for TSH of 0.5 mU/L (subtraction approach) and using nonpregnancy RIs. Outcome measures were sensitivity and false discovery rate (FDR) of women for whom levothyroxine treatment was indicated and those for whom treatment would be considered according to international guidelines. Results: The study population comprised 52 496 participants from 18 cohorts. Compared with the use of trimester-specific RIs, alternative approaches had a low sensitivity (0.63-0.82) and high FDR (0.11-0.35) to detect women with a treatment indication or consideration. Sensitivity and FDR to detect a treatment indication in the first trimester were similar between the fixed limit, subtraction, and nonpregnancy approach (0.77-0.11 vs 0.74-0.16 vs 0.60-0.11). The diagnostic performance to detect overt hypothyroidism, isolated hypothyroxinemia, and (sub)clinical hyperthyroidism mainly varied between FT4 RI approaches, while the diagnostic performance to detect subclinical hypothyroidism varied between the applied TSH RI approaches. Conclusion: Alternative approaches to define RIs for TSH and FT4 in pregnancy result in considerable overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis compared with population- and trimester-specific RIs. Additional strategies need to be explored to optimize identification of thyroid dysfunction during pregnancy.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85189003645&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85189003645&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1210/clinem/dgad564
DO - 10.1210/clinem/dgad564
M3 - Review article
C2 - 37740543
AN - SCOPUS:85189003645
SN - 0021-972X
VL - 109
SP - 868
EP - 878
JO - Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism
JF - Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism
IS - 3
ER -