ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Testosterone Replacement, Low T, HCG, & Beyond
Testosterone and Men's Health Articles
Reassessing Free-Testosterone Calculation by Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry Direct Equilibrium Dialysis
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="madman" data-source="post: 121460" data-attributes="member: 13851"><p>Context: Assessment of free testosterone (FT) might help evaluate androgen status in patients with borderline total testosterone (T) and/or altered sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) levels. However, the validity of different methods to measure FT is debatable.</p><p></p><p>Methods: Serum from 183 women and 146 men was analyzed using equilibrium dialysis (ED), with FT directly measured by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. FT calculation was reevaluated for the mass action law–based equation according to Vermeulen (cFT-V), empirical equations according to Ly (cFT-L), and a proposed calculation based on a multistep, dynamic,allosteric model according to Zakharov (cFT-Z).</p><p></p><p>Results: FT level analyzed by ED [median,13 pmol/L (1.2% of T) in women; 248 pmol/L (1.5% of T) in men] was strongly inversely correlated to SHBG level, significantly to albumin level in women, and only weakly to SHBG level in men. The median [percentile (p) range, 2.5 to 97.5] ratios of calculated FT (cFT) over ED-FT (from European Male Aging Study samples) were 1.19 (0.9 to 1.47), 1.00 (0.69 to 1.42), and 2.05 (1.26 to 3.26) for cFT-V, cFT-L, and cFT-Z, respectively. The ratio for cFT-V was not significantly affected by SHBG, T, or albumin levels (p range, 0.17 to -0.01); ratios for cFT-L and cFT-Z were affected (P < 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively) and strongly correlated with SHBG levels (p = 0.72 and 0.75, respectively). Rank correlations between cFT% and ED-FT% (for men) were 0.62, 0.74, and 0.89 for cFT-Z, cFT-L, and cFT-V, respectively.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Conclusion: FT results by direct ED confirm prior FT data from indirect ED and ultrafiltration methodologies. Calculations have inherent limitations, with clinically important differences among evaluated equations: <span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)">cFT-V, although overestimating FT level, appears the most robust approximation, largely independent of SHBG, albumin, and T levels.</span> (J Clin Endocrinol Metab103: 2167–2174, 2018)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="madman, post: 121460, member: 13851"] Context: Assessment of free testosterone (FT) might help evaluate androgen status in patients with borderline total testosterone (T) and/or altered sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) levels. However, the validity of different methods to measure FT is debatable. Methods: Serum from 183 women and 146 men was analyzed using equilibrium dialysis (ED), with FT directly measured by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. FT calculation was reevaluated for the mass action law–based equation according to Vermeulen (cFT-V), empirical equations according to Ly (cFT-L), and a proposed calculation based on a multistep, dynamic,allosteric model according to Zakharov (cFT-Z). Results: FT level analyzed by ED [median,13 pmol/L (1.2% of T) in women; 248 pmol/L (1.5% of T) in men] was strongly inversely correlated to SHBG level, significantly to albumin level in women, and only weakly to SHBG level in men. The median [percentile (p) range, 2.5 to 97.5] ratios of calculated FT (cFT) over ED-FT (from European Male Aging Study samples) were 1.19 (0.9 to 1.47), 1.00 (0.69 to 1.42), and 2.05 (1.26 to 3.26) for cFT-V, cFT-L, and cFT-Z, respectively. The ratio for cFT-V was not significantly affected by SHBG, T, or albumin levels (p range, 0.17 to -0.01); ratios for cFT-L and cFT-Z were affected (P < 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively) and strongly correlated with SHBG levels (p = 0.72 and 0.75, respectively). Rank correlations between cFT% and ED-FT% (for men) were 0.62, 0.74, and 0.89 for cFT-Z, cFT-L, and cFT-V, respectively. Conclusion: FT results by direct ED confirm prior FT data from indirect ED and ultrafiltration methodologies. Calculations have inherent limitations, with clinically important differences among evaluated equations: [COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]cFT-V, although overestimating FT level, appears the most robust approximation, largely independent of SHBG, albumin, and T levels.[/COLOR] (J Clin Endocrinol Metab103: 2167–2174, 2018) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
Testosterone Replacement, Low T, HCG, & Beyond
Testosterone and Men's Health Articles
Reassessing Free-Testosterone Calculation by Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry Direct Equilibrium Dialysis
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top