Search

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., SCOPUS: re.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background Establishing local trimester-specific reference intervals for gestational TSH and free T4 (FT4) is often not feasible, necessitating alternative strategies. We aimed to systematically quantify the diagnostic performance of standardized modifications of center-specific nonpregnancy reference intervals as compared to trimester-specific reference intervals.Methods We included prospective cohorts participating in the Consortium on Thyroid and Pregnancy. After relevant exclusions, reference intervals were calculated per cohort in thyroperoxidase antibody-negative women. Modifications to the nonpregnancy reference intervals included an absolute modification (per .1 mU/L TSH or 1 pmol/L free T4), relative modification (in steps of 5%) and fixed limits (upper TSH limit between 3.0 and 4.5 mU/L and lower FT4 limit 5-15 pmol/L). We compared (sub)clinical hypothyroidism prevalence, sensitivity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of these methodologies with population-based trimester-specific reference intervals.Results The final study population comprised 52 496 participants in 18 cohorts. Optimal modifications of standard reference intervals to diagnose gestational overt hypothyroidism were -5% for the upper limit of TSH and +5% for the lower limit of FT4 (sensitivity, .70, CI, 0.47-0.86; PPV, 0.64, CI, 0.54-0.74). For subclinical hypothyroidism, these were -20% for the upper limit of TSH and -15% for the lower limit of FT4 (sensitivity, 0.91; CI, 0.67-0.98; PPV, 0.71, CI, 0.58-0.80). Absolute and fixed modifications yielded similar results. CIs were wide, limiting generalizability.Conclusion We could not identify modifications of nonpregnancy TSH and FT4 reference intervals that would enable centers to adequately approximate trimester-specific reference intervals. Future efforts should be turned toward studying the meaningfulness of trimester-specific reference intervals and risk-based decision limits.

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.

Background: International guidelines recommend targeted screening to identify gestational thyroid dysfunction. However, currently used risk factors have questionable discriminative ability. We quantified the risk for thyroid function test abnormalities for a subset of risk factors currently used in international guidelines. Methods: We included prospective cohort studies with data on gestational maternal thyroid function and potential risk factors (maternal age, body mass index [BMI], parity, smoking status, pregnancy through in vitro fertilization, twin pregnancy, gestational age, maternal education, and thyroid peroxidase antibody [TPOAb] or thyroglobulin antibody [TgAb] positivity). Exclusion criteria were pre-existing thyroid disease and use of thyroid interfering medication. We analyzed individual participant data using mixed-effects regression models. Primary outcomes were overt and subclinical hypothyroidism and a treatment indication (defined as overt hypothyroidism, subclinical hypothyroidism with thyrotropin >10 mU/L, or subclinical hypothyroidism with TPOAb positivity). Results: The study population comprised 65,559 participants in 25 cohorts. The screening rate in cohorts using risk factors currently recommended (age >30 years, parity ≥2, BMI ≥40) was 58%, with a detection rate for overt and subclinical hypothyroidism of 59%. The absolute risk for overt or subclinical hypothyroidism varied <2% over the full range of age and BMI and for any parity. Receiver operating characteristic curves, fitted using maternal age, BMI, smoking status, parity, and gestational age at blood sampling as explanatory variables, yielded areas under the curve ranging from 0.58 to 0.63 for the primary outcomes. TPOAbs/TgAbs positivity was associated with overt hypothyroidism (approximate risk for antibody negativity 0.1%, isolated TgAb positivity 2.4%, isolated TPOAb positivity 3.8%, combined antibody positivity 7.0%; p < 0.001), subclinical hypothyroidism (r, Background: International guidelines recommend targeted screening to identify gestational thyroid dysfunction. However, currently used risk factors have questionable discriminative ability. We quantified the risk for thyroid function test abnormalities for a subset of risk factors currently used in international guidelines. Methods: We included prospective cohort studies with data on gestational maternal thyroid function and potential risk factors (maternal age, body mass index [BMI], parity, smoking status, pregnancy through in vitro fertilization, twin pregnancy, gestational age, maternal education, and thyroid peroxidase antibody [TPOAb] or thyroglobulin antibody [TgAb] positivity). Exclusion criteria were pre-existing thyroid disease and use of thyroid interfering medication. We analyzed individual participant data using mixed-effects regression models. Primary outcomes were overt and subclinical hypothyroidism and a treatment indication (defined as overt hypothyroidism, subclinical hypothyroidism with thyrotropin >10 mU/L, or subclinical hypothyroidism with TPOAb positivity). Results: The study population comprised 65,559 participants in 25 cohorts. The screening rate in cohorts using risk factors currently recommended (age >30 years, parity ≥2, BMI ≥40) was 58%, with a detection rate for overt and subclinical hypothyroidism of 59%. The absolute risk for overt or subclinical hypothyroidism varied <2% over the full range of age and BMI and for any parity. Receiver operating characteristic curves, fitted using maternal age, BMI, smoking status, parity, and gestational age at blood sampling as explanatory variables, yielded areas under the curve ranging from 0.58 to 0.63 for the primary outcomes. TPOAbs/TgAbs positivity was associated with overt hypothyroidism (approximate risk for antibody negativity 0.1%, isolated TgAb positivity 2.4%, isolated TPOAb positivity 3.8%, combined antibody positivity 7.0%; p < 0.001), subclinical hypothyroidism (risk f

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.