4.5 Article

SERUM MORNING CORTISOL AS A SCREENING TEST FOR ADRENAL INSUFFICIENCY

期刊

ENDOCRINE PRACTICE
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 30-35

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4158/EP-2019-0327

关键词

-

资金

  1. Endocrinology Division of the Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon University Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the performance of morning scrum cortisol (MSC) compared to a 10 mg adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation test in the diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency (AI). Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of ACTH stimulation tests were conducted. From a total of 312 potentially eligible ACTH stimulation tests, 306 met the inclusion criteria. The population was randomized into 2 groups: test (n = 159) and validation (n = 147). In the test group, the receiver operating characteristics curve test evaluated the diagnostic performance of MSC. Results: A subnormal cortisol response to ACTH was found in 25.8% of the test group. The area under the curve values of MSC to predict AI at +30 minutes, +60 minutes, or at maximal cortisol response were 0.874, 0.897, and 0.925 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 to 0.92, 0.83 to 0.93, and 0.87 to 0.96). The Youden index was 234.2 mmol/L with a sensitivity of 833% (95% CI 65.2 to 94.3%), and a specificity of 89.1% (95% CI 82.4 to 93.9%). Positive and negative predictive values were 64.1% (95% CI 47.1 to 78.8%) and 95.8% (95% CI 90.5 to 98.6%). There was no difference in age, gender, AI prevalence, or mean serum cortisol at +30 or +60 minutes in the validation group; however, a lower mean MSC value was found. Lower sensitivity and specificity values (88.3 6 . and 60%, respectively) were found for the 234.2 mmol/L cutoff value. Conclusion: This study supports the role of MSC as a first-step diagnostic test in patients with clinically suspected AI. The short stimulation test could be omitted in almost half of the cases. Prospective and longitudinal studies to reproduce and confirm the cutoff values proposed are warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据