Bile acid reference intervals for evidence‐based practice

C. Ovadia, Alice L Mitchell, C. Markus, W. Hague, C. Williamson
{"title":"Bile acid reference intervals for evidence‐based practice","authors":"C. Ovadia, Alice L Mitchell, C. Markus, W. Hague, C. Williamson","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.17171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this edition, Huri et al. (BJOG 2022) have added to the growing literature defining pregnancyspecific reference ranges for total serum bile acid (TSBA) concentrations. Reference intervals in clinical pathology are typically calculated using an ‘indirect resource’, such as stored laboratory samples. Results are partitioned into biologically relevant groups (typically age and sex), outliers are excluded to remove anomalous results due to disease, and the central 95% of the population is calculated for each group. Two large studies, that of Huri et al. and our own (Mitchell et al. BJOG 2021;128:1635– 44), have recently calculated reference intervals for nonfasting TSBA concentrations in the third trimester of pregnancy, finding strikingly similar results for the upper limit (20.2 and 18.3 μmol/l, respectively). Both studies excluded samples with cholestatic pathology before analysis, treating the cohorts as a ‘direct resource’ and obviating exclusion of outliers. However, the results demonstrate outliers within each dataset. In the study by Huri et al. this may have been the result of the selected participants having other gestational diseases (for example, gestational diabetes) and originating from samples taken during hospital admission; the reason for women being inpatients may have influenced serum bile acid concentrations and therefore confounded the findings. To assess the impact of excluding outliers, we used the block D/R (Zellner et al. arXiv preprint; 1907.09637.) procedure to identify outliers in our dataset (from outpatient samples routinely taken and limited to uncomplicated pregnancies), and reanalysis revealed a slight reduction in the upper limit of the reference interval and narrowing of the confidence interval (Table 1). Does this matter? When the disease outcomes and management relate closely to peak bile acid concentration (Ovadia et al. Lancet 2019;393:899– 909), what may be of more clinical relevance is a diagnostic threshold rather than a reference interval. Women previously diagnosed with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) using an upper limit of the nonfasting TSBA reference interval below 19 μmol/l had no higher rates of stillbirth and spontaneous preterm birth than the matched population, but a slightly higher rate of Accepted: 24 March 2022 | Published Online 10 May 2022","PeriodicalId":8984,"journal":{"name":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17171","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this edition, Huri et al. (BJOG 2022) have added to the growing literature defining pregnancyspecific reference ranges for total serum bile acid (TSBA) concentrations. Reference intervals in clinical pathology are typically calculated using an ‘indirect resource’, such as stored laboratory samples. Results are partitioned into biologically relevant groups (typically age and sex), outliers are excluded to remove anomalous results due to disease, and the central 95% of the population is calculated for each group. Two large studies, that of Huri et al. and our own (Mitchell et al. BJOG 2021;128:1635– 44), have recently calculated reference intervals for nonfasting TSBA concentrations in the third trimester of pregnancy, finding strikingly similar results for the upper limit (20.2 and 18.3 μmol/l, respectively). Both studies excluded samples with cholestatic pathology before analysis, treating the cohorts as a ‘direct resource’ and obviating exclusion of outliers. However, the results demonstrate outliers within each dataset. In the study by Huri et al. this may have been the result of the selected participants having other gestational diseases (for example, gestational diabetes) and originating from samples taken during hospital admission; the reason for women being inpatients may have influenced serum bile acid concentrations and therefore confounded the findings. To assess the impact of excluding outliers, we used the block D/R (Zellner et al. arXiv preprint; 1907.09637.) procedure to identify outliers in our dataset (from outpatient samples routinely taken and limited to uncomplicated pregnancies), and reanalysis revealed a slight reduction in the upper limit of the reference interval and narrowing of the confidence interval (Table 1). Does this matter? When the disease outcomes and management relate closely to peak bile acid concentration (Ovadia et al. Lancet 2019;393:899– 909), what may be of more clinical relevance is a diagnostic threshold rather than a reference interval. Women previously diagnosed with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) using an upper limit of the nonfasting TSBA reference interval below 19 μmol/l had no higher rates of stillbirth and spontaneous preterm birth than the matched population, but a slightly higher rate of Accepted: 24 March 2022 | Published Online 10 May 2022
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于证据实践的胆汁酸参考区间
在这一版本中,Huri等人(BJOG 2022)增加了越来越多的文献,定义了血清总胆汁酸(TSBA)浓度的妊娠特异性参考范围。临床病理学中的参考区间通常使用“间接资源”计算,例如存储的实验室样本。将结果划分为生物学相关的组(通常是年龄和性别),排除异常值以消除因疾病引起的异常结果,并为每个组计算人口的中心95%。两项大型研究,Huri et al.和我们自己的(Mitchell et al.)。BJOG 2021;128:1635 - 44),最近计算了妊娠晚期非空腹TSBA浓度的参考区间,发现上限(分别为20.2和18.3 μmol/l)的结果非常相似。两项研究在分析前都排除了有胆汁淤积病理的样本,将队列视为“直接资源”,避免了异常值的排除。然而,结果显示了每个数据集中的异常值。在Huri等人的研究中,这可能是选定的参与者患有其他妊娠疾病(例如妊娠糖尿病)的结果,并且来自住院期间采集的样本;女性住院的原因可能影响了血清胆汁酸浓度,因此混淆了研究结果。为了评估排除异常值的影响,我们使用了块D/R (Zellner et al. ar14预印本;1907.09637.)程序来识别我们数据集中的异常值(来自常规门诊样本,仅限于无并发症的妊娠),再分析显示参考区间上限略有降低,置信区间缩小(表1)。这重要吗?当疾病结局和管理与胆汁酸峰值浓度密切相关时(Ovadia等)。柳叶刀2019;393:899 - 909),更具有临床相关性的可能是诊断阈值,而不是参考区间。使用低于19 μmol/l的非空腹TSBA参考区间上限诊断为妊娠肝内胆汁淤积症(ICP)的妇女,死胎和自发性早产的发生率不高于匹配人群,但发生率略高
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Parents', Families', Communities' and Healthcare Professionals' Experiences of Care Following Neonatal Death in Healthcare Facilities in LMICs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Ethnography. Birth Outcomes After Pertussis and Influenza Diagnosed in Pregnancy: A Retrospective, Population-Based Study. Maternal Lipids in Pregnancy and Later Life Dyslipidemia: The POUCHmoms Longitudinal Cohort Study. Unpacking the Complex Relationship Between Postpartum Haemorrhage and Cardiovascular Disease A Comment on Green Top Guideline No. 31: Investigating and Care in the Small-For-Gestational-Age and Growth Restricted Foetus
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1