The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism Journal Article

Exclusion Tests in Unilateral Primary Aldosteronism Study

January 31, 2023
 

Rui Zhu, Tungalagtamir Shagjaa, Giacomo Rossitto, Brasilina Caroccia, Teresa Maria Seccia, Dario Gregori, Gian Paolo Rossi
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, First published online November 14, 2022, dgac654
https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgac654

Abstract

Context

Determining the diagnostic accuracy of “exclusion” tests for primary aldosteronism (PA) compared to the aldosterone to renin ratio (ARR) is fundamental to avoid invasive subtyping in false-positive patients at screening.

Objective

To assess the accuracy of exclusion tests for PA using the diagnosis of unilateral PA as reference.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published from January 1, 1970, to December 31, 2021, meeting tight quality criteria. Data were extracted following the PRISMA methodology. We performed a two-stage meta-analysis that entailed an exploratory and a validation phase based on a “golden” or “gold” diagnostic standard, respectively. Pooled specificity, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary area under the ROC curve (sAUROC) were calculated to analyze the accuracy of exclusion tests.

Results

A meta-analysis of 31 datasets comprising a total of 4242 patients fulfilling the predefined inclusion criteria found that pooled accuracy estimates (sAUROC) did not differ between the ARR (0.95; 95% CI, 0.92–0.98), the captopril challenge test (CCT) (0.92; 95% CI, 0.88–0.97), and the saline infusion test (SIT) (0.96; 95% CI, 0.94–0.99). Solid information could not be obtained for the fludrocortisone suppression test and the furosemide upright test, which were assessed in only 1 study each.

Conclusion

The apparently high diagnostic accuracy of the CCT and the SIT was due to the selection of patients with an elevated ARR and thus a high pretest probability of unilateral PA; however, neither test furnished a diagnostic gain over the ARR. Therefore, the systematic use of these exclusion tests in clinical practice is not justified by available evidence.

Read the article

 

You may also like...

Publishing Benefits

Author Resource Center

We provide our journal authors with a variety of resources for increasing the discoverability and citation of their published work. Use these tools and tips to broaden the impact of your article.
Publishing Benefits

Author Resource Center

We provide our journal authors with a variety of resources for increasing the discoverability and citation of their published work. Use these tools and tips to broaden the impact of your article.

Thematic Issue

Latest Thematic Issue

immuno-endocrinology
Read our special collections of Endocrine Society journal articles, curated by topic, Altmetric Attention Scores, and Featured Article designations.

Read our special collections of Endocrine Society journal articles, curated by topic, Altmetric Attention Scores, and Featured Article designations.

Back to top

Who We Are

For 100 years, the Endocrine Society has been at the forefront of hormone science and public health. Read about our history and how we continue to serve the endocrine community.