Skip to main content

Diagnostic sensitivity of thyroid autoantibodies assessed in a population-based, cross-sectional study in adults

Abstract

The aim of this study was to estimate the diagnostic sensitivity of thyroid autoantibodies in individuals with a case-mix of subjects with thyroid disease representing that of the general population. We measured thyroid microsome (TMA), thyroid peroxidase (TPO), thyroglobulin (TGA) and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) receptor (TRA) autoantibodies in subjects in the bottom (hyperthyroid end) and top (hypothyroid end) four percentiles of the TSH distribution from among participants in a population-based survey of individuals aged ≥40 years (the Cremona Study). TMA and TPO were the most sensitive autoantibodies in subjects in both the bottom percentiles (19.8% and 18.5%, respectively) and the top percentiles (51.2% and 53.8%, respectively) of the TSH distribution. TMA and TPO showed good agreement (kappa statistics 87.8%, 95% CI 80.1–95.5%) at both ends of the TSH distribution. TGA were the next most sensitive marker, although seldom detected if TMA or TPO were not present. TRA were detected only at the extremes of the TSH distribution (1st percentile, 31.8%; 100th percentile, 25.0%). We conclude that, among a case-mix of individuals with thyroid disease representing that of the general population, TMA and TPO are the most sensitive markers of thyroid disease. TGA only marginally increased the diagnostic sensitivity of TMA and TPO. TRA are sensitive markers of thyroid disease only at the extremes of thyroid function.

References

  1. 1.

    Czarnocka B, Ruf J, Ferrand M et al (1985) Purification of the human thyroid peroxidase and its identification as the microsomal antigen involved in autoimmune thyroid diseases. FEBS Lett 190:147–152

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Portmann L, Hamada N, Heinrich G, DeGroot LJ (1985) Antithyroid peroxidase antibody in patients with autoimmune thyroid disease: possible identity with anti-microsomal antibody. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 61:1001–1003

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Sinclair D (2006) Clinical and laboratory aspects of thyroid autoantibodies. Ann Clin Biochem 43:173–183

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Lind P, Langsteger W, Molnar M et al (1998) Epidemiology of thyroid diseases in iodine sufficiency. Thyroid 8:1179–1183

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Laurberg P, Pedersen KM, Hreidarsson A et al (1998) Iodine intake and the pattern of thyroid disorders: a comparative epidemiological study of thyroid abnormalities in the elderly in Iceland and in Jutland, Denmark. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 83:765–769

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Hollowell JG, Staehling NW, Flanders WD et al (2002) Serum TSH, T(4), and thyroid antibodies in the United States population (1988 to 1994): National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). J Clin Endocrinol Metab 87:489–499

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Garancini MP, Calori G, Ruotolo G et al (1995) Prevalence of NIDDM and impaired glucose tolerance in Italy: an OGTT-based population study. Diabetologia 38:306–313

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 33:363–374

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Byrt T (1996) How good is that agreement? Epidemiology 7:561

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Vitti P, Delange F, Pinchera A et al (2003) Europe is iodine deficient. Lancet 361:1226

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Vanderpump MP, Tunbridge WM, French JM et al (1995) The incidence of thyroid disorders in the community: a twenty-year follow-up of the Whickham Survey. Clin Endocrinol 43:55–68

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    O’Leary PC, Feddema PH, Michelangeli VP et al (2006) Investigations of thyroid hormones and antibodies based on a community health survey: the Busselton thyroid study. Clin Endocrinol 64:97–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bjoro T, Holmen J, Kruger O et al (2000) Prevalence of thyroid disease, thyroid dysfunction and thyroid peroxidase antibodies in a large, unselected population. The Health Study of Nord-Trondelag (HUNT). Eur J Endocrinol 143:639–647

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hoogendoorn EH, Hermus AR, de Vegt F et al (2006) Thyroid function and prevalence of anti-thyroperoxidase antibodies in a population with borderline sufficient iodine intake: influences of age and sex. Clin Chem 52:104–111

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Bülow Pedersen I, Laurberg P, Knudsen N et al (2005) A population study of the association between thyroid autoantibodies in serum and abnormalities in thyroid function and structure. Clin Endocrinol 62:713–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emanuele Bosi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bosi, E., Bianchi, R., Ruotolo, G. et al. Diagnostic sensitivity of thyroid autoantibodies assessed in a population-based, cross-sectional study in adults. Autoimmun Highlights 1, 83–86 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13317-010-0012-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Thyroid disease
  • Population-based studies
  • Thyroid autoantibodies
  • Autoimmune thyroid disease
  • Autoantibody screening