4.2 Article

Re-evaluation of the low-dose dexamethasone suppression test in dogs

Journal

JOURNAL OF SMALL ANIMAL PRACTICE
Volume 64, Issue 1, Pages 12-20

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jsap.13553

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study re-evaluated the 8-hour cortisol cut-point of the low-dose dexamethasone suppression test for diagnosing hypercortisolism in dogs. The optimal cut-point was determined to be more than 39 nmol/L, with a sensitivity of 85.2% and a specificity of 100%.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to re-evaluate the low-dose dexamethasone suppression test 8-hour cortisol cut-point for the diagnosis of hypercortisolism in dogs using a solid-phase, competitive chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven client-owned dogs with naturally occurring hypercortisolism and 30 healthy control dogs were prospectively recruited. Performance of the low-dose dexamethasone suppression test was assessed using sensitivity, specificity and a receiver operating characteristic curve compared to a clinical diagnosis of hypercortisolism including response to treatment. RESULTS: Twenty-four dogs were diagnosed with pituitary-dependent hypercortisolism and three with adrenal-dependent hypercortisolism. In 30 healthy control dogs, 8-hour post-dexamethasone cortisol concentrations ranged from 5.5 to 39nmol/L. A receiver operating characteristic curve curve constructed from the 8-hour post-dexamethasone cortisol concentrations of hypercortisolism and control dogs demonstrated that the most discriminatory cut-point was more than 39 nmol/L with sensitivity of 85.2% (95% confidence interval, 67.5% to 94.1%) and specificity of 100% (95% confidence interval, 88.7% to 100.0%) and an area under the curve of 0.963. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The optimal cut-point of more than 36 nmol/L proposed by this study is similar to the currently accepted 8-hour cortisol concentration cut-point for diagnosing hypercortisolism when using a solid-phase, competitive chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay.

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