The study population consisted of 52 SCHypo patients and 20 controls. Based on the presence of thyroid autoantibody (anti-TPOAb) status, subjects were divided into two groups: anti-TPOAb positive group (n=35) and anti-TPOAb negative group (n=17).
Table 1: Age, BMI and thyroid profile and anti- TPOAb parameters of control, anti- TPOAb negative and anti- TPOAb positive Subclinical hypothyroid subjects
Parameters
(Mean ± SD)
|
Control
(n=20)
|
Anti TPOAb negative SCHypo
(n=17)
|
Anti TPOAb positive SCHypo
(n=35)
|
p-value
|
Intergroup comparison p value
|
Age(yrs.)
|
34.44±10.0
|
32.12±8.49
|
34.05±7.25
|
>0.05
|
ns*†‡
|
BMI(kg/m2)
|
21.3±1.11
|
22.33±2.62
|
22.34±1.68
|
>0.05
|
ns*†‡
|
FreeT3(pg/mL)
|
2.59±0.47
|
2.89±0.25
|
2.78±0.72
|
>0.05
|
ns*†‡
|
Free T4(ng/dL)
|
1.21±0.19
|
1.12±0.22
|
1.10±0.31
|
>0.05
|
ns*†‡
|
TSH(uIU/mL)
|
2.41±1.15
|
6.47±2.20
|
6.68±3.12
|
<0.001
|
<0.001*†, ns‡
|
Anti-TPO(IU/mL)
|
22.96±4.6
|
25.39±8.12
|
597.4±454.8
|
<0.001
|
ns* , <0.001†‡
|
Data presented in Mean±SD. P<0.05 were considered statistically significant. Intergroup comparison was done using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Bonferroni multiple comparison test (Age, BMI) and Kruskal–Wallis followed by Dunns multiple comparison test (Thyroid profile and Anti-TPO Ab). ns: not significant. *Control vs anti-TPOAb negative, † Control vs anti-TPOAb positive, ‡ anti-TPOAb positive vs anti-TPOAb negative. BMI - Body mass index; TSH - Thyroid stimulating hormone; Anti TPOAb – Anti Thyroid Peroxidase antibodies; SCHypo – Subclinical Hypothyroidism
Table 1 shows comparison of the age, body mass index (BMI), thyroid hormone profile and anti-TPOAb levels among the three groups. TSH difference was statistically significant between control and test groups (p<0.001) whereas, age, BMI, free T3, free T4 were comparable. Anti-TPO antibody was found to be statistically significant higher in antibody positive group as compare to antibody negative and controls (p<0.001).
Table 2: Time and frequency domain measures of HRV in control, anti-TPOAb negative and anti- TPOAb positive Subclinical hypothyroid subjects
Parameter
(Mean ± SD)
|
Control
(n=20)
|
Anti TPOAb negative SCHypo
(n=17)
|
Anti TPOAb positive SCHypo
(n=35)
|
p-value
|
Intergroup comparison p values
|
SDNN (ms)
|
53.43±14.22
|
48.02±9.42
|
42.2±6.43
|
<0.01
|
ns*‡, <0.01†
|
RMSSD(ms)
|
54.03±20.35
|
50.12±9.63
|
43.15±17.79
|
>0.05
|
ns*†‡
|
pNN50(ms)
|
25.63±7.79
|
20.52±18.81
|
11.17±6.4
|
<0.001
|
ns*‡, <0.001†
|
LF(ms2)
|
994.8±632.3
|
865.2±460.3
|
618.5±310.7
|
>0.05
|
ns*‡†
|
HF(ms2)
|
1298±681.7
|
1058±801.5
|
922.1±316.7
|
>0.05
|
ns*†‡
|
LF nu
|
40.89±9.41
|
45.61±8.55
|
47.25±10.72
|
>0.05
|
ns*†‡
|
HF nu
|
61.33±14.81
|
55.68±12.0
|
50.20±13.36
|
<0.05
|
ns*‡, <0.05†
|
LF/HF
|
0.75±0.36
|
1.01±0.40
|
1.2±0.52
|
<0.01
|
ns*‡, <0.01†
|
TP
|
3482±1183
|
2724±768.1
|
2178±956.9
|
<0.001
|
ns*‡, <0.001†
|
SD1(ms)
|
36.82 ± 16.68
|
25.47 ± 14.59
|
17.71 ± 11.24
|
<0.0001
|
ns*‡, <0.0001†
|
SD2(ms)
|
40.51 ± 20.85
|
46.70 ± 20.11
|
59.19 ± 26.78
|
<0.05
|
ns*‡, <0.05†
|
SD1/SD2
|
1.18 ± 0.79
|
0.56 ± 0.33
|
0.47 ± 0.55
|
<0.0001
|
ns*‡, <0.0001†
|
HRV Index
|
0.40 ± 0.26
|
0.31 ± 0.24
|
0.27 ± 0.21
|
>0.05
|
ns*‡†
|
TINN
|
338.6 ± 256.6
|
222.4 ± 102.7
|
161.6 ± 71.56
|
<0.01
|
ns*‡, <0.01†
|
Data presented in Mean±SD. P<0.05 were considered statistically significant. SDNN - standard deviation of normal to normal interval, RMSSD- the square root of the mean of squares of the differences between adjacent NN intervals, pNN50 - the proportion derived by dividing NN50 by the total number of NN intervals, LF - low frequency power(ms2), HF - high frequency power(ms2) , LFnu - normalized low frequency power, HFn - normalized high frequency power, LF/HF - Ratio of LF to HF, TP- Total power, SD1/ SD2 – Ration of SD1 to SD2 (Poincare index), TINN Triangular interpolation of NN interval; Anti TPOAb – Anti Thyroid Peroxidase antibodies; SCHypo – Subclinical Hypothyroidism. Intergroup comparison was done using Kruskal–Wallis followed by Dunns multiple comparison test. ns: not significant, *Control vs anti-TPOAb negative, † Control vs anti-TPOAb positive, ‡ anti-TPOAb positive vs anti-TPOAb negative.
Table 2 demonstrates the HRV indices analyzed in the time, frequency domain and nonlinear geometric measures.
TPOAb -positive patients had significantly lowerSDNN (p<0.01), pNN50 (p<0.001) and TINN (P < 0.01)values compared to controls,though,RMSSD and HRV triangular index (P >0.05)werefound to benon-significant. Furthermore, in Ab- positive SCHYPOHF nu, SD1turned lower (HF p<0.05, SD1 p<0.0001) and SD2 turned higher (p<0.05) than controls. TP (p<0.001) was significantly decreased in TPOAb- positivegroup than controls. TheLF/HF, SD1/SD2 ratio exhibitedsignificant change (LF/HFp<0.01, SD1/SD2 p<0.0001) in anti-TPOAb positive patients in comparison to controls.Although not significant, there was a trend of an increase inLF nu, LF/HF, SD2 and decrease in SDNN, RMSSD, pNN50,HFnu, SD1, SD1/SD2, total power (TP), HRV index and TINN in TPOAb-positive group as compare to TPOAb-negativegroup, as illustrated in Table 2.
Table 3: Correlation of anti-TPOAb with TSH & HRV parameters
Parameters
|
R
|
p value
|
TSH
|
0.963
|
<0.0001*
|
LF(ms2)
|
-0.248
|
0.169
|
LFnu
|
0.635
|
<0.0001*
|
HF(ms2)
|
-0.146
|
0.425
|
HFnu
|
-0.606
|
0.002*
|
TP
|
-0.639
|
<0.0001*
|
LF/HF
|
0.757
|
<0.0001*
|
SDNN
|
-0.999
|
<0.0001*
|
RMSSD
|
-0.999
|
<0.0001*
|
pNN50
|
-0.999
|
<0.0001*
|
SD1
|
-0.786
|
<0.0001*
|
SD2
|
0.831
|
<0.0001*
|
SD1/SD2
|
-0.999
|
<0.0001*
|
HRV Index
|
-0.178
|
0.3462
|
TINN
|
-0.356
|
0.0535
|
P<0.05 were considered statistically significant. TSH: Thyroid Stimulating Hormone; LF low frequency power(ms2), HF high frequency power(ms2), LFnu normalized unit low frequency power, HFnu normalized high frequency power, LF/HF ratio of LF to HF, TP total power, SDNN standard deviation of normal to normal interval, RMSSD the square root of the mean of squares of the differences between adjacent NN intervals, pNN50 the proportion derived by dividing NN50 by the total number of NN intervals,SD1, SD2 and SD1/ SD2 ratio (Poincare index),, TINN triangular interpolation of NN interval.
Spearman rank Correlation test was used. ‘*’ denotes significant correlation. Minus r values depicts negative correlation and plus sign shows positive correlation.
Table 3 presents correlation of TPO with TSH and HRV indices. We found a positive correlation of Anti-TPOAbwith TSH, LF nu and LF/HF, (p<0.05) and negative with HF nu, TP,SDNN, RMSSD and pNN50 (p<0.05). When we correlatedanti TPOAb with nonlinear geometricalmeasures, we found a negative correlation withSD1, SD1/SD2 (p<0.05); HRV index,TINN(p>0.05) and positive with SD2 (p<0.05), as descripted in Table 3.