Heterophilic antibody interference with TSH measurement on different immunoassay platforms

Rare coincidence: Macro-thyroid-stimulating hormone and multiple manufacturer-specific interferences in thyroid hormone immunoassays

Immunoassays are widely used for laboratory assessment of endocrine functions including thyroid hormones. While usually adequate for patient evaluation, they are known to potentially suffer from interference from a variety of factors. We report the case of a 44 year-old male patient without clinical symptoms of thyroid disease who presented for specialist evaluation after pathological thyroid function tests prompted a transferal by his primary care practitioner. Thyroid function tests showed discrepant results across immunoassays and platforms of different manufacturers. Polyethylene glycol precipitation prompted the diagnosis of macro-thyroid-stimulating hormone, while heterophilic and non-specific antibody blocking reagents proved ineffective in eliminating the interference in thyroid-stimulating hormone, free triiodothyronine and free thyroxine measurements. Further assessment ruled out a diagnosis of familial dysalbuminemic hyperthyroxinemia, leaving an exclusion diagnosis of manufacturer-specific interference in free triiodothyronine and free thyroxine assays due to unknown factors. Both clinicians and laboratory specialists must be aware of potential interference in immunoassays which otherwise might be misleading, potentially triggering unnecessary (invasive) follow-up procedures or therapeutic interventions. Close communication is required for successful troubleshooting. To our knowledge, no other case of both macro-thyroid-stimulating hormone and manufacturer-specific interference in a single patient has been documented thus far.

Heterophilic Interference of Rheumatoid Factor in TSH Immunometric Assay: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study

Introduction

Considering the inherent vulnerability of immunoassays for heterophilic interference and the potential of Rheumatoid Factor (RF) to act as a heterophile-like antibody, we conducted this study to investigate if RF leads to any such heterophilic interference in seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. The study was done on the TSH assay as it is a noncompetitive, double antibody sandwich assay, which is known to be vulnerable to heterophilic interference.

Methods

In this cross-sectional observational study, eighty-four consecutive newly diagnosed RF-positive RA patients underwent TSH, Free T4, and anti-TPO estimation using the chemiluminescence technique (CLIA) on Siemens Immulite 1000 platform. The samples were screened for TSH interference using four methods: 1) analysis on a different platform, 2) assessment of linearity using doubling dilutions, 3) polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation, and 4) addition of a commercial blocker.

Results

Ten samples had a loss of linearity on serial dilution, indicating potential interference. After heterophile blocker treatment, five cases exhibited interference. One patient had diagnostic interpretation discordance on the second platform. No sample on PEG precipitation suggested the influence of antibodies. It is worth noting that even in cases where interference was suspected, the clinical interpretation was largely unaffected by the correction of TSH values based on mean dilution or measurement after heterophile blocker treatment.

Conclusion

RF can cause heterophilic interference in TSH immunoassays used commercially. However, in most cases, this interference does not affect clinical decision-making.

Laboratory Thyroid Tests: A Historical Perspective

Background: This review presents a timeline showing how technical advances made over the last seven decades have impacted the development of laboratory thyroid tests. Summary: Thyroid tests have evolved from time-consuming manual procedures using isotopically labeled iodine as signals (¹³¹I and later ¹²⁵I) performed in nuclear medicine laboratories, to automated nonisotopic tests performed on multianalyte instruments in routine clinical chemistry laboratories. The development of isotopic radioimmunoassay techniques around 1960, followed by the advent of monoclonal antibody technology in the mid-1970s, led to the development of a nonisotopic immunometric assay methodology that forms the backbone of present-day thyroid testing. This review discusses the development of methods for measuring total thyroxine and triiodothyronine, direct and indirect free thyroid hormone measurements and estimates (free thyroxine and free triiodothyronine), thyrotropin (TSH), thyroid autoantibodies (thyroperoxidase, thyroglobulin [Tg] and TSH receptor autoantibodies), and Tg protein. Despite progressive improvements made in sensitivity and specificity, current thyroid tests remain limited by between-method differences in the numeric values they report, as well as nonspecific interferences with test reagents and interferences from analyte autoantibodies. Conclusions: Thyroid disease affects ∼10% of the U.S. population and is mostly managed on an outpatient basis, generating 60% of endocrine laboratory tests. In future, it is hoped that interferences will be eliminated, and the standardization/harmonization of tests will facilitate the establishment of universal test reference ranges.

Dubiously increased FT4 and FT3 levels in clinically euthyroid patients: clinical finding or analytical pitfall?

OBJECTIVES

We systematically investigated normally or subclinically increased thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) values associated with unexpectedly increased thyroxine (FT4) and free triiodothyronine (FT3) in findings of patients without any thyroid disease. Moreover, we looked for alternatives to overcome such states with an improved diagnostic procedure and to investigate the pathogenetic background of the respective patients.

METHODS

Samples with TSH concentrations within the range of 0.4-10 mU/L combined with increased concentrations of FT4 (n=120; Cobas, Roche) were collected over a period of around six years. Cobas FT4 results were compared with measurements from Liaison (DiaSorin) and Architect (Abbott) FT4 assays. For further validation all samples were measured for total thyroxine (TT4) (Cobas, Roche). Finally, FT3 and TT3 as complementary parameters were measured in samples with leftover material. To overcome potential analytical disturbances from stimulating heterophilic antibodies, we used heterophilic blocking tubes (HBTs).

RESULTS

From the 120 samples with increased FT4 concentrations by Cobas, 51/120 were also increased by Liaison, and 26/120 by Architect. However, the measurement of TT4 indicated only n=10/120 increased values. The number of increased FT3 (n=71) measurements was higher in Architect>Cobas>Liaison (28>27>9). TT3 levels of 70/71 samples were within the reference interval. HBTs were inappropriate to reduce unspecific immunoreactivity in our samples. No clear pathogenetic background could be elucidated in the anamnesis of individual patients.

CONCLUSIONS

To overcome dubious constellations of TSH, FT4, and FT3, it is helpful to measure TT4 and TT3 for control or to use an immunoassay with an alternative assay design for the respective parameters.

Hormone Immunoassay Interference: A 2021 Update

Immunoassays are powerful qualitative and quantitative analytical techniques. Since the first description of an immunoassay method in 1959, advances have been made in assay designs and analytical characteristics, opening the door for their widespread implementation in clinical laboratories. Clinical endocrinology is closely linked to laboratory medicine because hormone quantification is important for the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of endocrine disorders. Several interferences in immunoassays have been identified through the years; although some are no longer encountered in daily practice, cross-reaction, heterophile antibodies, biotin, and anti-analyte antibodies still cause problems. Newer interferences are also emerging with the development of new therapies. The interfering substance may be exogenous (e.g., a drug or substance absorbed by the patient) or endogenous (e.g., antibodies produced by the patient), and the bias caused by interference can be positive or negative. The consequences of interference can be deleterious when clinicians consider erroneous results to establish a diagnosis, leading to unnecessary explorations or inappropriate treatments. Clinical laboratories and manufacturers continue to investigate methods for the detection, elimination, and prevention of interferences. However, no system is completely devoid of such incidents. In this review, we focus on the analytical interferences encountered in daily practice and possible solutions for their detection or elimination.