Variability in SHBG assays and the effect thereof on calculated estimates of free testosterone

Abstract

Background

Serum free testosterone is commonly used as a parameter to evaluate testosterone exposure and is mostly calculated using mathematical approximations. As the principal testosterone-binding protein, SHBG concentration is always included in such calculations. However, variability in SHBG measurements may affect reported SHBG levels and consequently free testosterone calculations. In this study, we re-evaluate the effects of SHBG assay choice and interlaboratory variability on calculated free testosterone (cFT).

Methods

Serum samples from 113 men and 106 women were collected. SHBG levels were measured using three different SHBG immunoassays (Roche, Abbott and Siemens). Testosterone levels were measured using LC-MS/MS. Afterwards, cFT was calculated using the Vermeulen formula and measured directly. SHBG concentrations, and derived cFT concentrations, from different assays were compared. To simulate interlaboratory SHBG variability, measured levels were modified by 15% after which cFT was recalculated using the Vermeulen, Ly, Sartorius and Södergard formulae. The proportions of diagnoses of hypogonadism or hyperandrogenism were compared.

Results

Assessed SHBG assays showed very good conformity. The largest difference was 7%, between the Abbott and Siemens assay. The difference in cFT levels was at most 3% between the Abbott and Siemens assay. Interlaboratory variability affected the proportion of diagnoses depending on the used formula.

Conclusions

Our results do not show large differences between SHBG assays and only minor effects on cFT levels. Therefore, SHBG assay choice is not expected to greatly influence clinical decision making. In contrast, interlaboratory variation in SHBG measurements and choice of formula might considerably affect cFT results and their interpretation.

Keywords

SHBG free testosterone immunoassay

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Mendel

. The free hormone hypothesis: a physiologically based mathematical model. Endocr Rev 1989; 10: 232–274.

Corona

Goulis

Huhtaniemi

, et al. European Academy of Andrology (EAA) guidelines on investigation, treatment and monitoring of functional hypogonadism in males: endorsing organization: European Society of Endocrinology. Andrology 2020; 8: 970–987.

Bhasin

Brito

Cunningham

, et al. Testosterone therapy in men with hypogonadism: an endocrine society* clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab; 103: 1715–1744.

Dunn

Nisula

Rodbard

. Transport of steroid hormones: binding of 21 endogenous steroids to both testosterone-binding globulin and corticosteroid-binding globulin in human plasma. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1981; 53: 58–68.

Goldman

Bhasin

FCW

, et al. A reappraisal of testosterone’s binding in circulation: physiological and clinical implications. Endocr Rev 38: 302–324.

Fiers

Moghetti

, et al. Reassessing free-testosterone calculation by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry direct equilibrium dialysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 103: 2167–2174.

Vermeulen

Verdonck

Kaufman

. A critical evaluation of simple methods for the estimation of free testosterone in serum. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 84: 3666–3672.

Handelsman

. Empirical estimation of free testosterone from testosterone and sex hormone-binding globulin immunoassays. Eur J Endocrinol 2005; 152: 471–478.

Södergard

Bäckström

Shanbhag

, et al. Calculation of free and bound fractions of testosterone and estradiol-17β to human plasma proteins at body temperature. J Steroid Biochem 1982; 16: 801–810.

10.

Sartorius

Sikaris

, et al. Predictive accuracy and sources of variability in calculated free testosterone estimates. Ann Clin Biochem Int J Lab Med 2009; 46: 137–143.

11.

Travison

Vesper

Orwoll

, et al. Harmonized reference ranges for circulating testosterone levels in men of four cohort studies in the United States and Europe. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2017; 102: 1161–1173.

12.

Adaway

Keevil

Miller

, et al. Ramifications of variability in sex hormone-binding globulin measurement by different immunoassays on the calculation of free testosterone. Ann Clin Biochem Int J Lab2000; 57: 88–94.

13.

Fiers

Delanghe

T’Sjoen

, et al. A critical evaluation of salivary testosterone as a method for the assessment of serum testosterone. Steroids 2014; 86: 5–9.

14.

Tosi

Fiers

Kaufman

J-M

, et al. Implications of androgen assay accuracy in the phenotyping of women with polycystic ovary syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2016; 101: 610–618.

15.

Collier

Morales

Clark

, et al. The significance of biological variation in the diagnosis of testosterone deficiency, and consideration of the relevance of total, free and bioavailable testosterone determinations. J Urol 2010; 183: 2294–2299.

16.

Røys

EÅ

Guldhaug

Viste

, et al. Sex hormones and adrenal steroids: biological variation estimated using direct and indirect methods. Clin Chem 2023; 69: 100–109.

17.

FCW

Tajar

Beynon

, et al. Identification of late-onset hypogonadism in middle-aged and elderly men. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 123–135.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.73 MB