BACKGROUND: Transferrin saturation is widely considered the preferred screening test for hemochromatosis. Unsaturated iron-binding capacity has similar performance at lower cost. However, the within-person biological variability of both these tests may limit their ability at commonly used cut points to detect HFE C282Y homozygous patients. METHODS: The Hemochromatosis and Iron Overload Screening Study screened 101,168 primary care participants for iron overload using transferrin saturation, unsaturated iron-binding capacity, ferritin, and HFE C282Y and H63D genotyping. Transferrin saturation and unsaturated iron-binding capacity were performed at initial screening and again when selected participants and controls returned for a clinical examination several months later. A missed case was defined as a C282Y homozygote who had transferrin saturation below the cut point (45% for women, 50% for men) or unsaturated iron-binding capacity above the cut point (150 micromol/L for women, 125 micromol/L for men) at the initial screening or the clinical examination, or both, regardless of serum ferritin. RESULTS: There were 209 C282Y previously undiagnosed homozygotes with transferrin saturation and unsaturated iron-binding capacity testing performed at the initial screening and clinical examination. Sixty-eight C282Y homozygotes (33%) would have been missed at these transferrin saturation cut points (19 men, 49 women; median serum ferritin level of 170 microg/L; first and third quartiles, 50 and 474 microg/L), and 58 homozygotes (28%) would have been missed at the unsaturated iron-binding capacity cut points (20 men, 38 women; median serum ferritin level of 168 microg/L; first and third quartiles, 38 and 454 microg/L). There was no advantage to using fasting samples. CONCLUSIONS: The within-person biological variability of transferrin saturation and unsaturated iron-binding capacity limits their usefulness as an initial screening test for expressing C282Y homozygotes.
BACKGROUND:Transferrin saturation is widely considered the preferred screening test for hemochromatosis. Unsaturated iron-binding capacity has similar performance at lower cost. However, the within-person biological variability of both these tests may limit their ability at commonly used cut points to detect HFEC282Y homozygous patients. METHODS: The Hemochromatosis and Iron Overload Screening Study screened 101,168 primary care participants for iron overload using transferrin saturation, unsaturated iron-binding capacity, ferritin, and HFEC282Y and H63D genotyping. Transferrin saturation and unsaturated iron-binding capacity were performed at initial screening and again when selected participants and controls returned for a clinical examination several months later. A missed case was defined as a C282Y homozygote who had transferrin saturation below the cut point (45% for women, 50% for men) or unsaturated iron-binding capacity above the cut point (150 micromol/L for women, 125 micromol/L for men) at the initial screening or the clinical examination, or both, regardless of serum ferritin. RESULTS: There were 209 C282Y previously undiagnosed homozygotes with transferrin saturation and unsaturated iron-binding capacity testing performed at the initial screening and clinical examination. Sixty-eight C282Y homozygotes (33%) would have been missed at these transferrin saturation cut points (19 men, 49 women; median serum ferritin level of 170 microg/L; first and third quartiles, 50 and 474 microg/L), and 58 homozygotes (28%) would have been missed at the unsaturated iron-binding capacity cut points (20 men, 38 women; median serum ferritin level of 168 microg/L; first and third quartiles, 38 and 454 microg/L). There was no advantage to using fasting samples. CONCLUSIONS: The within-person biological variability of transferrin saturation and unsaturated iron-binding capacity limits their usefulness as an initial screening test for expressing C282Y homozygotes.
Authors: Nicholas J Shaheen; Laura B Lawrence; Bruce R Bacon; James C Barton; Nancy H Barton; Joseph Galanko; Christopher F Martin; Charles K Burnett; Robert S Sandler Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Christine E McLaren; James C Barton; Paul C Adams; Emily L Harris; Ronald T Acton; Nancy Press; David M Reboussin; Gordon D McLaren; Phyliss Sholinsky; Ann P Walker; Victor R Gordeuk; Catherine Leiendecker-Foster; Fitzroy W Dawkins; John H Eckfeldt; Beverly G Mellen; Mark Speechley; Elizabeth Thomson Journal: Am J Med Sci Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 2.378
Authors: A Asberg; K Hveem; K Thorstensen; E Ellekjter; K Kannelønning; U Fjøsne; T B Halvorsen; H B Smethurst; E Sagen; K S Bjerve Journal: Scand J Gastroenterol Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 2.423
Authors: Rami A R Mahfouz; Doja S Sarieddine; Khalil M Charafeddine; Rabab N Abdul Khalik; Najwa K Cortas; Rose T Daher Journal: Mol Biol Rep Date: 2011-05-07 Impact factor: 2.316
Authors: Paul C Adams; Christine E McLaren; Mark Speechley; Gordon D McLaren; James C Barton; John H Eckfeldt Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: James S Pankow; Eric Boerwinkle; Paul C Adams; Eliseo Guallar; Catherine Leiendecker-Foster; Jason Rogowski; John H Eckfeldt Journal: Transl Res Date: 2008-06-13 Impact factor: 7.012
Authors: Paul Adams; James C Barton; Gordon D McLaren; Ronald T Acton; Mark Speechley; Christine E McLaren; David M Reboussin; Catherine Leiendecker-Foster; Emily L Harris; Beverly M Snively; Thomas Vogt; Phyliss Sholinsky; Elizabeth Thomson; Fitzroy W Dawkins; Victor R Gordeuk; John H Eckfeldt Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 3.522