Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) receptor (TSHR) autoantibodies (TRAbs) are a heterogeneous group of antibodies (Abs) with different functionalities. Among all TRAbs, only the stimulating ones (S-TRAbs) are considered as the pathogenetic marker of Graves’ disease (GD). To date, the methods available for TRAbs testing are based on immunoassays (IMAs) which detect total serum TRAbs or bioassays which are not suitable in clinical practice, even though they discern Abs functionality. The aim of our work was to evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of a very recent IMA (Immulite TSI method), supposed to test only the serum concentration of S-TRAbs, in comparison with a current method for total TRAbs (Roche/Elecsys IMA).

Methods

We evaluated serum samples of 145 subjects: 46 with untreated (GD), 36 with chronic autoimmune thyroiditis, 3 with atrophic thyroiditis, 10 with multinodular non-toxic goiter and 50 healthy subjects.

Results

The method showed an optimal analytical sensitivity and high precision levels (LoB: 0.04 UI/L, LoD:0.07 UI/L, LoQ:0.14 UI/L, intra-assay CV: 4.2–5.9%, inter-assay: 4.5–7.2%). By receiver operating characteristics curve analysis, we obtained a value of 0.57 (sensitivity: 98.0%, specificity: 99.9%) as the best cut-off to distinguish GD, apart from four cases. Passing Bablok regression and Bland Altman analysis pointed out a good correlation and agreement with Roche method (R²= 0.98, slope = 1.03, bias = −2.70).

Conclusions

The new method presents very promising analytical characteristics and could be adopted in clinical practice for GD diagnosis. Moreover, the test allows to accurately detect very low values of analyte with a further clinical utility in detecting earlier possible relapses.

Keywords

Graves’ disease S-TRAbs hyperthyroidism

Introduction

Graves’ disease (GD) is one of the most common autoimmune pathology with an incidence in people of approximately 14/100,000. GD is the cause of the 70–80% of thyrotoxicosis, even though its predominance can vary among different populations, according to iodine exposure.^1,2 Once hyperthyroidism is clinically and biochemically assessed, diagnostic confirmation of GD is possible by testing thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) receptor (TSHR) autoantibodies (TRAbs). TRAbs are pathognomonic, correlate with the severity of disease and are present in the serum of approximately 98% of patients with untreated GD.³ Moreover, TRAb investigation is mandatory in pregnant women previously diagnosed with GD and to predict the disease remission after undergoing a treatment of thyreostatic drugs.⁴

Three different kinds of TRAbs have been distinguished: apoptotic (A-TRAbs), blocking (B-TRAbs) and stimulating (S-TRAbs) autoantibodies.⁵ Indeed, TRAb assay is complex due to such heterogeneity, and also because of its low serum concentration and the scant knowledge of TSHR immunodominant epitopes.

To date, the methods available for TRAbs testing are based on immunoassays (IMAs) or bioassays (BAs). While IMAs allow to measure only the bond of autoantibodies to the receptor, through BAs it is also possible to discern their functionality and thus single out S-TRAbs and B-TRAbs. Nevertheless, even though TRAbs measured with BAs are highly correlated with GD activity, their use in clinical practice remains restricted to a limited number of specialized laboratories.⁶ On the contrary, the third generation of IMAs in a competitive format is suitable in clinical practice and shows high analytical and clinical sensitivity, in addition to providing a good clinical specificity. However, these methods do not allow to distinguish different kinds of TRAbs that are found in patients diagnosed with autoimmune thyroid disease.^7,8

In the last year, Siemens has marketed the first IMA method which is supposed to test only the serum concentration of S-TRAbs: the Immulite™ thyroid-stimulating immunoglobulins (TSI) assay. This new quantitative assay is available in an automated commercial platform/instrument (Immulite 2000) and employs a different technology, as it is an assay in a non-competitive sandwich format.⁹ The method ideally represents the synthesis of innovations introduced by the third generation of IMAs as well as those led by the latest BAs which employ the chimera receptor.¹⁰ Moreover, its diagnostic performance in GD patients seems promising and suggests a future possibility to include the assay in diagnostic algorithms.¹¹

The aim of our work was to evaluate the analytical performance and the clinical reliability of the TSI assay. We tested serum samples of patients with thyroid diseases (both autoimmune and non-autoimmune) treated in our hospital in the last year. The Siemens method was compared with Elecsys/Cobas Anti-TSH Receptor electro-chemiluminescence IMA. We also suggested a possible cut-off value in order to correctly distinguish GD from other thyroid pathologies.

Material and methods

Patients

We evaluated the serum samples of 95 consecutive patients (56 females and 39 males) and 50 healthy subjects (HS) (30 females and 20 males) throughout one year.

Among enrolled patients, 10 presented with multinodular non-toxic goiter (MNTG) (6 females and 4 males), 39 with thyroiditis (24 females and 15 males) divided into 36 chronic autoimmune thyroiditis (CAT) and 3 atrophic thyroiditis (AT), and 46 with untreated GD (26 females and 20 males).

All subjects underwent complete physical examination and endocrinological evaluation with thyroid echo-colour Doppler and biochemical testing of thyroid profile: TSH, free thyroxine (FT4), thyroperoxidase antibodies (TPOAb) and thyroglobulin antibodies (TgAb) on chemiluminescent assays (Centaur XL, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics). Untreated GD patients were diagnosed according to the American Thyroid Association and American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Guidelines.¹² HS were blood donors in ‘Francesco Olgiati’ Association in Gemelli Hospital. They were < 30 years old with a TSH concentration within the reference range and normal thyroid ultrasound. They did not show autoimmune and non-autoimmune thyroid disease, nor other autoimmune disease.¹³ All subjects gave informed consent to take part in the study.

Samples treatment

Blood was drawn by venipuncture into two serum tubes according to WHO Guidelines¹⁴ and centrifuged at 4500 r/min for 5 min at room temperature. The two serum samples were employed as follows: the first aliquot was immediately used to test TSH, FT4, TPOAb and TgAb; the second was frozen at −20℃, thawed at the time of testing and briefly mixed before assaying TRAbs.

Immulite™ TSI assay

The Immulite TSI assay (Siemens Healthcare, Llanberis, UK) is an automated sandwich chemiluminescent IMA in which a pair of recombinant human TSHR is used in a bridging format. In this manner, it provides a bridge link between TRAbs and the two receptors (capture and signal antibodies) as described in literature.^9,10

The real innovation of the assay is the capture receptor which is characterized by a TSHR chimera in which the binding region for B-TRAbs (261–370 aa) is replaced with a tract (261–329 aa) of the rat luteinizing hormone/chorionic gonadotropin receptor (LH/CG). This means that the capture chimera receptor has epitopes which should be recognized only by S-TRAbs. During incubation, S-TRAb binds such receptor with one arm and the signal receptor with the other arm. A sandwich complex is generated, and TRAbs concentrations are quantified by the secretory alkaline phosphatase (SEAP) activity on a luminescent substrate. Hence, the amount of analyte is directly correlated to the obtained chemiluminescent signal.

Cut-off value suggested by the manufacturer is 0.55 IU/L. The assay is calibrated by using the WHO 2nd International Standard (IS) for thyroid-stimulating antibodies (NIBSC 08/204).

S-TRAb determinations were performed in four analytical runs, following the manufacturer’s instructions.

Analytical and clinical evaluation

Analytical performance of the Immulite™ TSI Assay was evaluated according to CLSI EP17-A protocol¹⁵ for limit of blank (LoB), limit of detection (LoD) and limit of quantification (LoQ) determinations. The evaluation of test reproducibility was performed by following the CLSI EP5-A2 protocol.¹⁶ LoB was obtained by testing a physiological solution for 20 times, whereas LoD and LoQ were quantified by testing a pool of serum samples with very low TRAb concentration (0.07–0.30 UI/L).

Imprecision profile estimation was obtained by analysing two serum samples pool: the first with a low concentration and the second with a high concentration of TRAbs. Both concentrations fall into a work range of 0.25–8.50 UI/L. The intra-assay precision was conducted by repeating TRAb testing 20 times in the same run on the two serum samples pools. The inter-assay precision was run by testing the analyte on the two serum samples pools 20 times in different days. The obtained precision was expressed as coefficient of variation (CV) and reported as percentage (%).

Diagnostic performance was assessed by receiver operating characteristics (ROC)¹⁷ curve analysis in order to distinguish untreated DG patients from HS and other thyroid diseases. We selected the best cut-off value with the highest diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.

Method comparison with Elecsys/Cobas IMA

The Immulite TSI assay was compared with Elecsys/Cobas Anti-TSH Receptor electro-chemiluminescent IMA (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) on Cobas E 8000 platform. Such assay seizes on the competition for the bond to TSHR between the TRAbs and the Fab fragments of the ruthemium-labelled antibodies. Thus, TRAb measurement takes place indirectly by means of the quantification of the bound antibody.

Cut-off value suggested by the manufacturer is 1.75 IU/L. The assay is calibrated by using the 1st IS (NIBSC 90/672).

The comparison study was carried out in a single run on both instruments according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Before each run, quality control was performed by checking if the manufacturer’s controls fall within the expected range.

Statistics

Data were analysed by using SPSS version 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The normality distribution of results was assessed by using Shapiro Wilk test. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare GD TRAb values to those obtained by testing the other groups of patients. A P-value < 0.05 was considered as significant. Data were expressed as mean (standard deviation).

For comparison study, the Roche/Elecsys method, routinely used in our laboratory, was considered as reference method. Data lower than the LoQ were considered as the LoQ value for statistical analysis.

ROC curve was plotted and analysed to select the best cut-off with the highest clinical sensitivity and specificity. Agreement and correlation between the two assays were obtained by Bland Altman and Passing and Bablok regression analysis.¹⁸

Results

Characteristics of patients and TRAb testing

Table 1 shows the clinical characteristics of subjects and analytical results for each group. GD patients showed significantly higher TRAb values than the other studied classes (P < 0.014). Among GD patients, TRAb values ranged from 0.10 UI/L to 246.00 UI/L with a mean of 10.30 (35.96) UI/L and a median of 3.72 (1.65– 5.95) UI/L. In this group, 44 patients (about 96%) showed TRAb values higher than the cut-off declared by the manufacturer (0.55 UI/L), while two patients presented with a negative value of TRAbs (0.10 UI/L for both the subjects). Most patients with other thyroiditis (CAT and AT) or MNTG as well as HS showed TRAb values below the LoQ. In detail, TRAb concentrations upon the LoQ were observed only in 7/39 (18%) of thyroiditis, 1/10 (10%) of goiter and 11/50 (22%) of HS. However, such concentrations were below the cut-off value in all of them, apart from two subjects (one CAT and one goiter).

Table 1.

Classification, clinical characteristics and analytical results for each group enrolled in the study.

	No	Gender	Age	Thyroid volume (mL)	TSH (µUI/mL)	FT4 (pg/mL)	TPOAb (UI/mL)	TgAb (UI/mL)
All patients	145	95 F, 50 M	38.7 (15.3)	22.7 (12.3)	3.08 (2.12)	19.2 (17.1)	78.7 (44.8)	52.3 (39.7)
Grave's disease	46	26 F, 20 M	39.0 (8.1)	29.5 (10.2)	0.16 (0.12)	24.7 (12.6)	48.4 (10.3)	39.7 (8.9)
Chronic autoimmune thyroiditis	36	22 F, 14 M	34.9 (12.1)	14.3 (7.5)	6.31 (4.38)	9.5 (2.4)	121.5 (49.6)	73.4 (19.6)
Atrophic thyroiditis	3	2 F, 1 M	47.5 (4.6)	12.1 (5.9)	4.72 (0.37)	7.5 (2.2)	32.5 (2.3)	33.9 (7.4)
Multinodular non-toxic goiter	10	6 F, 4 M	39.0 (8.1)	28.4 (18.5)	1.96 (1.23)	6.9 (4.8)	37.6 (4.8)	26.9 (5.8)
Healthy subjects	50	39 F, 11 M	36.6 (7.3)	18.6 (8.3)	1.58 (0.43)	11.8 (2.1)	36.9 (3.4)	24.8 (8.1)

Note: All results are reported as mean (standard deviation).

TSH: Thyroid-stimulating hormone; FT4: free thyroxine; TPOAb: thyroperoxidase antibodies; TgAb: thyroglobulin antibodies.

Analytical and clinical evaluation

The analytical evaluation of Immulite TSI IMA is summarized in Table 2, comparing our results with those declared by the manufacturer. We obtained an LoB value of 0.04 UI/L and an LoD value of 0.07 UI/L. The functional sensitivity (LoQ) was 0.14 UI/L. We observed an intra-assay CV% ranging from 4.2% to 5.9%, and an inter-assay CV% ranging from 4.5% to 7.2%.

Table 2.

Analytical evaluation of Immulite TSI IMA, comparing experimental results with those declared by the manufacturer.

	Manufacturer	Laboratory
LoB (UI/L)	0.03	0.04
LoD (UI/L)	0.06	0.07
LoQ (UI/L)	0.10	0.14
Intra-assay precision (CV%)	3.5–7.0	4.2–5.9
Inter-assay precision (CV%)	5.0–8.3	4.5–7.2

LoB: limit of blank; LoD: limit of detection; LoQ: limit of quantification.

Figure 1 shows the ROC curve analysis in order to diagnose GD, comparing these patients with other thyroid diseases and HS. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.985. We selected a value of 0.57 UI/L as the best cut-off to discriminate patients with untreated GD (98.0% of sensitivity, 99.9% of specificity). By using this cut-off, we observed only three discordant cases between clinical characteristics and laboratory results in our population (in detail, two false-positive values and one false-negative value).

Figure 1.

ROC curve analysis in order to diagnose GD. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.985. 0.57 UI/L was the best cut-off value (98.0% of sensitivity, 99.9% of specificity).

Comparison study

Passing–Bablok regression showed a good correlation between the two methods (Figure 2). The intercept was −1.29 UI/L (95% confidence interval [CI] between −0.26 and −2.12 UI/L), while the slope was 1.03 (95% CI between 0.90 and 1.06). The regression coefficient (R²) was 0.98.

Figure 2.

Passing–Bablok regression between the Siemens and Roche methods. Brackets represent the 95% confidence interval (CI). The regression coefficient (R²) was 0.98.

Bland Altman analysis pointed out a bias of −2.70 UI/L (95% CI between 6.28 and −11.68 UI/L) which did not concern TRAb concentrations, but the different technologies used for the comparison study (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Bland Altman analysis of the Siemens and Roche methods. The bias was −2.70 UI/L (95% CI between 6.28 and −11.68 UI/L).

Discussion

We evaluated an automated IMA method which selectively detects S-TRAbs. The study was conducted in order to confirm the high analytical and clinical performance declared by the manufacturer and published recently.^9,11 The technology of Immulite TSI IMA is an absolute innovation: the method is based on a sandwich format, completely different from the classical competitive third generation assays used until now to test TRAbs. The specific measurement of S-TRAbs is possible due to a capture receptor which maintains only the binding sites for these autoantibodies at N-terminus of TSHR.¹⁹ Indeed, most TRAbs recognize linear and conformational epitopes in other domains of TSHR.^5,11 In addition, the Immulite TSI IMA is calibrated against the second IS (NIBSC 08/240), which refers to the detection of S-TRAbs, different from the first IS (NIBSC 90/672) used by the other TRAb IMAs, which refers to all antibodies.^11,20

If we observe the analytical performance in our series (Table 2), the precision values and the analytical sensitivity are completely comparable to those declared by the manufacturer. Moreover, by ROC curve analysis, we chose 0.57 UI/L as the best cut-off to diagnose GD. Such value is very close to that proposed by the manufacturer (0.55 IU/L) and obtained by the authors of two recent papers (0.55 and 0.54, respectively).^9,11

By using a cut-off of 0.57 UI/L, the method could distinguish clinical characteristics of all enrolled patients, apart from one false-negative and two false-positive cases. In detail, the false-negative is a value of 0.10 UI/L in a patient with a diagnosis of mild hyperthyroidism, whereas the two positive values (1.69 UI/L and 1.03 UI/L) were observed in two patients with CAT and MNTG, respectively. However, an S-TRAb positivity in CAT serum is consistent with the evidences already described in literature.²¹ We also investigated a possible origin of S-TRAb concentration in the sample of the patient with MNTG. In such serum, we observed an antinuclear antibodies’ positivity which may explain an assay positivity linked to the real presence of S-TRAbs in this patient. It is well known that thyroid antibodies are frequently associated with autoimmune disease characterized by a larger number of antibodies as systemic lupus erythematosus.²²

The comparison study pointed out a good correlation (R²= 0.98, slope = 1.03) and a minimum bias even if the agreement between the two methods were not significant (intercept 95% CI = −0.26/−2.12 UI/L). This result is not surprising: we compared a non-competitive IMA method with a competitive IMA characterized by different epitopes. Moreover, the cut-off value is lower (0.57 UI/L vs. 1.75 UI/L), whereas the analytical sensitivity (LoQ = 0.14 vs. 0.9 UI/L) is higher for the Siemens method, as it reduces the decision cut-off (0.57 UI/L vs. 1.75 UI/L) to diagnose GD.

By using the cut-off value of Roche/Elecsys method, we obtained more clinically discordant test results: three false-negatives which were borderline to the cut-off value (1.17 UI/L, 1.23 UI/L, 1.67 UI/L) and four CAT false-positives. However, these CAT patients could be developing B-TRAbs which, when present in circulation, can cause glandular atrophy associated with AT. We enrolled AT patients exactly with this aim, but unfortunately we got only few cases and all of them negative for TRAbs.

The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity (98.0% and 99.9% respectively) of Immulite TSI IMA were higher than those declared by Roche/Elecsys method (96.0% and 99.0% respectively). The higher diagnostic performance could be explained by the innovative technology used which allows to measure S-TRAbs through a double epitope recognition.

To conclude, the data obtained through Immulite TSI method present very promising analytical and diagnostic characteristics, which confirm what has been proved in literature.¹¹

The diagnostic performance in GD patients is comparable to, if not better than, that of current TRAb assays. For this reason, such method can be adopted in clinical practice for the differential diagnosis of hyperthyroidism and also to screen neonatal transient hyperthyroidism.

In addition to this, the test allows to accurately detect very low values of analyte, apart from identifying GD patients correctly. The highest analytical sensitivity that has emerged could make this method the elective one during the monitoring of GD patients after the interruption of thyreostatic therapy. In this way, such technology would be the only one that could be useful in detecting earlier possible relapses. Future studies will have to confirm and clarify this aspect.

Furthermore, our results did not underline the specificity of Immulite TSI IMA test for the S-TRAbs only. Further studies are needed also to prove such characteristic, by comparing this assay with BAs.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

We performed a retrospective cohort study without the need of an ethical approval.

Guarantor

CC.

Contributorship

CA and RM performed all experiments and wrote the first draft of manuscript. LP was involved in protocol development and clinical setting. PA and ZC performed data analysis. CC supervised all experiments and contributed to the project idea. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.

References

Cooper

Stroehla

. The epidemiology of autoimmune diseases. Autoimmun Rev 2003; 2: 119–1 25.

Abraham-Nordling

Bystrom

Torring

et al.

Incidence of hyperthyroidism in Sweden. Eur J Endocrinol 2011; 165: 899–905.

Zophel

Roggenbuck

Schott

. Clinical review about TRAb assay’s history. Autoimmun Rev 2010; 9: 695–700.

Barbesino

Tomer

. Clinical utility of TSH receptor antibody. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013; 98: 2247–2255.

Morshead

Davies

. Grave’s disease mechanisms: the role of stimulating, blocking, and cleavage region TSH receptor antibodies. Horm Metab Res 2015; 47: 727–734.

Kahaly

. Bioassays for TSH receptor antibodies: quo vadis? Eur Thyroid J 2015; 4: 3–5.

Tozzoli

Bagnasco

Giavarina

et al.

TSH receptor autoantibody immunoassay in patients with Grave’s disease: improvement of diagnostic accuracy over different generations of methods. Systemic review and meta-analysis. Autoimmun Rev 2012; 12: 107–113.

Yoshimura Noh

Miyazaki

Ito

et al.

Evaluation of a new rapid and fully automated electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for thyrotropin receptor autoantibodies. Thyroid 2008; 18: 1157–1164.

Frank

Breath

Dietrich

et al.

Bridge technology with TSH receptor chimera for sensitive direct detection of TSH receptor antibodies causing Grave’s disease: analytical and clinical evaluation. Horm Metab Res 2015; 47: 880–888.

10.

Lytton

Ponto

Kanitz

et al.

A novel thyroid stimulating immunoglobulin bioassay is a functional indicator of activity and severity of Grave’s orbithopathy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010; 95: 2123–2131.

11.

Tozzoli

D’Aurizio

Villalta

et al.

Evaluation of the first fully automated immunoassay method for the measurement of stimulating TSH receptor autoantibodies in Graves’ disease. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017; 55: 58–64.

12.

Bahn

Burch

Cooper

et al.

Hypothyroidism and other causes of thyrotoxicosis: management guidelines of America Thyroid Association and American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. Endocr Pract 2011; 17: 61–65.

13.

Baloch

Carayon

Comte-Devolx

et al.

Laboratory medicine practice guidelines. Laboratory support for the diagnosis and monitoring of thyroid disease. Thyroid 2003; 13: 3–126.

14.

WHO. WHO guidelines on drawing blood: best practices in phlebotomy. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010, www.euro.who.int.

15.

CLSI EP17-A protocol. Protocols for determination of limits of detection and limits of quantification; approved guidelines. CLSI 2004; 24: 1–39.

16.

CLSI EP5-A2 protocol. Evaluation of precision performance of quantitative measurement methods; approved guidelines (second edition). CLSI 2004; 24: 1–39.

17.

Zweigh

Campbell

. Receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 1993; 39: 561–577.

18.

Passing

Bablok

. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, Part I. Clin Chem 1983; 21: 709–720.

19.

Tahara

Ishikawa

Yamamoto

et al.

Epitopes for thyroid stimulating and blocking autoantibodies on the extracellular domain of the human thyrotropin receptor. Thyroid 1997; 7: 867–877.

20.

National Institute for Biological Standards and Controls (NIBSC): WHO International Standard or reference reagent. Thyroid stimulating antibody NIBSC 08/204. Instruction for use (version 2.0, dated 28.03.2013). NIBSC, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, UK.

21.

Giovannella

Ceriani

Garancini

. Clinical applications of the 2nd generation assay for anti-TSH receptor antibodies in Graves’ disease. Evaluation in patients with negative 1st generation test. Clin Chem Lab Med 2001; 39: 25–28.

22.

Lazúrová

Benhatchi

Rovenský

et al.

Autoimmune thyroid disease and autoimmune rheumatic disorders: a two-sided analysis. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; 1173: 211–216.

Stimulating TSH receptor autoantibodies immunoassay: analytical evaluation and clinical performance in Graves’ disease

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Material and methods

Patients

Samples treatment

Immulite™ TSI assay

Analytical and clinical evaluation

Method comparison with Elecsys/Cobas IMA

Statistics

Results

Characteristics of patients and TRAb testing

Analytical and clinical evaluation

Comparison study

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

Ethical approval

Guarantor

Contributorship

References