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

BackgroundSerum 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).MethodsSerum 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.ResultsAssessed 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.ConclusionsOur 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry International Journal of Laboratory Medicine
Published
2025-06-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00045632251350676
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Hormonal and reproductive studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.29

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Bruno Lapauw, Tim Reyns, Nick Narinx, Kaufman Jean-Marc et al.
1 citations
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry International Journal of Laboratory Medicine
Hormonal and reproductive studies
1.29
article

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

Bruno Lapauw, Tim Reyns, Nick Narinx, Kaufman Jean-Marc, Tom Fiers, Joeri Walravens, Jo Adaway, Leen Antonio, Brian George Keevil, Jennifer Afrakoma Nyamaah
article en
1 citations

Abstract

BackgroundSerum 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).MethodsSerum 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.ResultsAssessed 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.ConclusionsOur 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.

Annals of Clinical Biochemistry International Journal of Laboratory MedicineVol. 62(6)
Ghent University Hospital (BE), University of Manchester (GB), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Wythenshawe Hospital (GB), KU Leuven (BE)
Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Hormonal and reproductive studies
1.29
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.