Search

Background: Although numerous reports have discussed the upper limit of the thyrotropin (TSH) reference interval, none have dealt with the lower limit. Recent recommendations regarding subclinical thyroid dysfunction give different advice about its management, depending on whether the TSH concentration is <0.1 mIU/L or 0.1-0.4 mIU/L., Content: We review key studies that have investigated the links between low TSH concentrations, cardiovascular morbidity, and mortality, with a focus on the TSH measurement threshold and assay type., Summary: Despite numerous consensus guidelines and publications of expert opinion, the management of subclinical hyperthyroidism remains largely intuitive and "nonevidence-based." The primary reason for this unsatisfactory situation is the absence of clinical-intervention trials. Important aspects that remain to be addressed are the influence of the method used to measure TSH, the definition of "normality," and the lack of evidence to base the grading of cardiovascular risk on the degree of TSH suppression. A risk-based approach should be adopted to determine the thresholds that would justify interventions. Such considerations assume, of course, that proof will emerge from ongoing clinical trials to support the medical utility of treating subclinical hyperthyroidism.

Background: We compared the analytical and clinical performance of 3 porcine thyroid receptor antibody (TRAb) methods (1 second- and 2 new third-generation systems) with the conventional TRAb assay based on the human recombinant TSH receptor (hTRAK)., Patients and Methods: We obtained sera from 86 patients with untreated Graves disease (GD) and 71 healthy controls. We measured TRAb concentrations by radioreceptor assay using the hTRAK (Brahms) or the porcine TSH receptor (pRRA) from Beckman-Coulter, by electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) with the Elecsys/Cobas (Roche), and by ELISA using the Medizym TRAb clone (Medipan)., Results: Between-run assay imprecision was < or =10% and < or =7.6% for hTRAK and ECLIA, but reached 14% and 14.9% for ELISA and pRRA, respectively. Maximal specificity and sensitivity close to 100% were obtained for hTRAK, ECLIA, and ELISA. pRRA failed to detect positive TRAbs in 5 GD patients. Although calibrated against the same reference standard 90/672, the assays displayed a high intermethod variability. The results were significantly higher by ECLIA and lower by ELISA and pRRA compared with hTRAK. Patients with ophthalmopathy had higher TRAb results by ELISA and pRRA than those without eye disease., Conclusions: Second- and third-generation TRAb assays had similar diagnostic sensitivities in the diagnostic evaluation of GD. Despite the use of the same reference standard for calibration, high intermethod variability in TRAb assay results was seen in untreated GD patients. Assay harmonization is necessary for correct interpretation in the follow-up of Graves ophthalmopathy.

Background: Risk assessments of patients should be based on objective variables, such as biological markers that can be measured routinely. The acute response to stress causes the release of catecholamines from the adrenal medulla accompanied by chromogranin A (CGA). To date, no study has evaluated the prognostic value of CGA in critically ill intensive care unit patients., Methods: We conducted a prospective study of intensive care unit patients by measuring serum procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and CGA at the time of admission. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the ability of these biomarkers to predict mortality., Results: In 120 consecutive patients, we found positive correlations between CGA and the following: CRP (r(2) = 0.216; P = 0.02), PCT (r(2) = 0.396; P < 0.001), Simplified Acute Physiologic Score II (SAPS II) (r(2) = 0.438; P < 0.001), and the Logistic Organ Dysfunction System (LODS) score (r(2) = 0.374; P < 0.001). Nonsurvivors had significantly higher CGA and PCT concentrations than survivors [median (interquartile range): 293.0 microg/L (163.5-699.5 microg/L) vs 86.0 microg/L (53.8-175.3 microg/L) for CGA, and 6.78 microg/L (2.39-22.92 microg/L) vs 0.54 microg/L (0.16-6.28 microg/L) for PCT; P < 0.001 for both comparisons]. In a multivariable linear regression analysis, creatinine (P < 0.001), age (P < 0.001), and SAPS II (P = 0.002) were the only significant independent variables predicting CGA concentration (r(2) = 0.352). A multivariate Cox regression analysis identified 3 independent factors predicting death: log-normalized CGA concentration [hazard ratio (HR), 7.248; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.004-17.487], SAPS II (HR, 1.046; 95% CI, 1.026-1.067), and cardiogenic shock (HR, 3.920; 95% CI, 1.731-8.880)., Conclusions: CGA is a strong and independent indicator of prognosis in critically ill nonsurgical patients.