4.4 Article

Saliva and bloodspot cortisol: novel sampling methods to assess hydrocortisone replacement therapy in hypoadrenal patients

期刊

CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 61, 期 1, 页码 131-137

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2265.2004.02062.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND In patients with hypoadrenalism, it is often difficult to assess the optimal dose of glucocorticoid replacement. Serial serum cortisol measurements for a cortisol day curve are sometimes used, but this has low acceptability for patients. In this study, we evaluate the reliability of saliva and capillary bloodspot cortisol as alternative methods in assessing cortisol profiles in hypoadrenal patients on hydrocortisone replacement. METHODS We first examined the correlations between serum cortisol, saliva and bloodspot cortisol in in-hospital patients not on glucocorticoid therapy. We then studied 18 hypoadrenal patients on hydrocortisone therapy and measured their serum, saliva and bloodspot cortisol concurrently at seven different time points in a single day. RESULTS For in-hospital patients, a significant correlation exists between saliva and serum cortisol (R = 0.7121, P < 0.0001), but there is a stronger correlation between bloodspot and serum cortisol (R = 0.9494, P < 0.0001). The correlations were weaker in hypoadrenal patients on hydrocortisone (saliva and serum cortisol: R = 0.6262, P < 0.001; bloodspot and serum cortisol: R = 0.7871, P < 0.001). When we evaluated each measurement with respect to an arbitrary target range, there was a greater degree of agreement between serum and capillary bloodspot cortisol (85% agreement) than between serum and saliva cortisol (65% agreement) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Bloodspot samplings provide a simple and convenient way for ambulant hypoadrenal patients on hydrocortisone replacement therapy to assess cortisol levels at multiple times in a single day. This may be useful in determining the optimal glucocorticoid dose for hypoadrenal patients.

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

4.4
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