Search

Context: Triiodothyronine (T3) is the bioactive form of thyroid hormone. In contrast to thyroid-stimulating hormone and free thyroxine, we lack knowledge on the association of gestational T3 with adverse obstetric outcomes. Objective: To investigate the associaiton of gestational free or total T3 (FT3 or TT3) with adverse obstetric outcomes. Methods: We collected individual participant data from prospective cohort studies on gestational FT3 or TT3, adverse obstetric outcomes (preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, preterm birth and very preterm birth, small for gestational age [SGA], and large for gestational age [LGA]), and potential confounders. We used mixed-effects regression models adjusting for potential confounders. Results: The final study population comprised 33 118 mother–child pairs of which 27 331 had data on FT3 and 16 164 on TT3. There was a U-shaped association of FT3 with preeclampsia (P = .0069) and a J-shaped association with the risk of gestational hypertension (P = .029). Higher TT3 was associated with a higher risk of gestational hypertension (OR per SD of TT3 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.33; P = .0007). A lower TT3 but not FT3 was associated with a higher risk of very preterm birth (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94; P = .018). TT3 but not FT3 was positively associated with birth weight (mean difference per 1 SD increase in TT3 12.8, 95% CI 6.5 to 19.1 g, P < .0001) but there was no association with SGA or LGA. Conclusion: This study provides new insights on the association of gestational FT3 and TT3 with major adverse pregnancy outcomes that form the basis for future studies required to elucidate the effects of thyroid function on pregnancy outcomes. Based on the current study, routine FT3 or TT3 measurements for the assessment of thyroid function during pregnancy do not seem to be of added value in the risk assessment for adverse outcomes.

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

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.

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.