Eur J Endocrinol
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

DOI: 10.1530/eje.1.01922
European Journal of Endocrinology, Vol 152, Issue 6, 903-907
Copyright © 2005 by European Society of Endocrinology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, R M
Right arrow Articles by Walker, B R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, R M
Right arrow Articles by Walker, B R
EXPERIMENTAL STUDY

The utility of three different methods for measuring urinary 18-hydroxycortisol in the differential diagnosis of suspected primary hyperaldosteronism

R M Reynolds, L A Shakerdi1, K Sandhu2, A M Wallace1, P J Wood2 and B R Walker

Endocrinology Unit, School of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, UK, 1 Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK and 2 Regional Endocrine Unit, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton UK

(Correspondence should be addressed to R M Reynolds; Email: r.reynolds{at}ed.ac.uk)

Objective: Urine 18-hydroxycortisol (18-OHF) measurements are claimed to discriminate between primary hyperaldosteronism due to Conn’s syndrome/adrenal adenoma or idiopathic bilateral adrenal hyperplasia (BAH), and also to identify cases of glucocorticoid-suppressible hyperaldosteronism (GSH). We have evaluated three urine 18-OHF methods using a panel of urine samples from patients with hypertension.

Design: Clinical methods comparative study.

Methods: Urine samples from patients with primary hyperaldosteronism due to either adenoma (n = 6), BAH (n = 6), GSH (n = 9), or essential hypertension (n = 38) were analysed without knowledge of the diagnosis using three different methods in different laboratories. These included ‘in-house’ radioimmunoassay (RIA), ‘in-house’ time-resolved fluorometric assay (DELFIA), and gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS).

Results: The three assays showed good correlation, but there were large bias differences: RIA bias was greater than DELFIA which was greater than GC-MS. Discrimination between adenoma and BAH patients was best for the DELFIA method, with no overlap between results for these two groups. All three methods gave significantly elevated results for the GSH group compared with the BAH and essential hypertension groups. No assay distinguished BAH from essential hypertension.

Conclusion: Measurement of urine 18-OHF may be a useful additional test in the differential diagnosis of primary hyperaldosteronism. The clinical diagnostic value of urinary 18-OHF measurements is method-dependent with the DELFIA assay having the best discriminatory value.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 European Society of Endocrinology.