4.2 Article

Rapid steroid hormone quantification for congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) in dried blood spots using UPLC liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

Journal

STEROIDS
Volume 76, Issue 13, Pages 1437-1442

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.steroids.2011.07.013

Keywords

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia; UPLC-tandem mass spectrometry; Second-tier testing; Extended newborn screening; Steroid profile

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Newborn screening for congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is usually done by quantifying 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone using immunoassay. However, this test produces high rates of false positive results caused by cross reacting steroids. Therefore we have developed a selective and specific method with a short run time (1.25 min) for quantification of 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone, 21-deoxycortisol, 11-deoxycortisol, 11-deoxycorticosterone and cortisol from dried blood spots. The extraction procedure is very simple and steroid separation is ensured on a BEH C18 column and an ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS). Analysis was done in positive ionization mode (ESI+) and recorded in multiple reaction monitoring mode (MRM). The method gave linear results for all steroids over a range of 5-200 (cortisol: 12.5-500) nmol/L with coefficients of regression >0.992. Absolute recovery was >64.1%. Across the analytical range the inter-assay coefficient of variation (CV) was <3%. Newborn blood samples of patients with confirmed 21-CAH and 11-CAH could clearly be distinguished from samples of unaffected newborns falsely positive on immunoassay. The method is not influenced by cross reactions as found on immunoassay. Analysis of dried blood spots shows that this method is sensitive and fast enough to allow rapid analysis and can therefore improve the newborn screening program. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available