4.4 Article

High variability in baseline urinary free cortisol values in patients with Cushing's disease

期刊

CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 80, 期 2, 页码 261-269

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/cen.12259

关键词

-

资金

  1. Novartis Pharma AG
  2. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTwenty-four-hour urinary free cortisol (UFC) sampling is commonly used to evaluate Cushing's syndrome. Because there are few data on UFC variability in patients with active Cushing's disease, we analysed baseline UFC in a large patient cohort with moderate-to-severe Cushing's disease and assessed whether variability correlates with hypercortisolism severity. These data will help clinicians establish the minimum number of UFC samples required to obtain reliable data. DesignObservational study (enrolment phase of Phase III study). MethodsPatients (n=152) with persistent/recurrent or de novo Cushing's disease and mean UFC (mUFC) 15xULN (normal: 30-145nmol/24h) were included. Mean UFC level was calculated from four 24-h urine samples collected over 2weeks. ResultsOver 600 24-h UFC samples were analysed. The mUFC levels of samples 1 and 2 and samples 3 and 4 were 1000nmol/24h (SD 1872) and 940nmol/24h (SD 2148), respectively; intrapatient coefficient of variation (CV) was 38% for mUFC. The intrapatient CV using all four samples was 52% (95% CI: 48-56). The intrapatient CV was 51% (95% CI: 44-58) for samples 1 and 2, 49% (95% CI: 43-56) for samples 3 and 4 and 54% (95% CI: 49-59) for samples 1, 2 and 3. Variability in mUFC increased as UFC levels increased. There were no correlations between UFC and clinical features of hypercortisolism. ConclusionsThere is intrapatient variability of approximately 50% in 24-h UFC measurements, which is relevant to targets set to estimate any treatment effect. Analysing more than two 24-h collection periods in individual patients does not result in a relevant decrease in variability. Interestingly, UFC levels did not correlate with hypercortisolism severity.

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