Why the study?
Does the IDS-iSYS automated assay system provide accurate method-specific and gender-specific ARR cut-offs for primary aldosteronism screening?
Does the IDS-iSYS automated assay system provide accurate method-specific and gender-specific ARR cut-offs for primary aldosteronism screening?
Decision thresholds for primary aldosteronism screening using the aldosterone-to-renin ratio should be both method-specific and gender-specific to optimize diagnostic accuracy.
May refine local PA screening accuracy with assay-specific ARR thresholds; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: The recommended approach to screening for primary aldosteronism (PA) in at-risk populations is to determine the ratio of aldosterone concentration (serum (SAC)/plasma (PAC)) to renin measured in plasma as activity (PRA) or concentration (DRC). However, lack of assay standardisation mandates the need for method-specific decision thresholds and clinical validation in the local population. AIM: The study objective was to establish method-specific aldosterone: renin ratio (ARR) cut-offs for PA in men and women using the IDS-iSYS® assay system (IDS plc). METHODS: A prospective cohort study design was used. PAC and DRC were measured immunochemically in ethylenediamine-tetraacetic acid (EDTA) plasma on the IDS-iSYS® instrument. RESULTS: A total of 437 subjects (218 men, 219 women) were recruited including: healthy normotensive volunteers (n=266) and women taking the oral contraceptive pill (OCP; n=15); patients with essential hypertension (EH; n=128); confirmed PA (n=16); adrenal cortical carcinoma (ACC; n=3); Addison's disease (AD; n=4) and phaeochromocytoma/paraganglioma (PPGL; n=5). In this population, an ARR cut-off at >37.4 pmol/mIU provided 100% diagnostic sensitivity, 96% specificity and positive likelihood ratio for PA of 23:1. When the ARR decision threshold was stratified according to gender, a cut-off of >26.1 pmol/mIU in men and >113.6 pmol/mIU in women resulted in diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of 100%. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that decision thresholds for PA should not only be method-specific but also gender-specific. However, given the small number of PA patients (n=16), particularly women (n=4), further validation through a prospective study with a larger PA cohort is required before the thresholds presented here could be recommended for routine clinical use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
O’Shea et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: