Elevated plasma dihydroorotate in Miller syndrome: Biochemical, diagnostic and clinical implications, and treatment with uridine.

BACKGROUND: Miller syndrome (post-axial acrofacial dysostosis) arises from gene mutations for the mitochondrial enzyme dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHODH). Nonetheless, despite demonstrated loss of enzyme activity dihydroorotate (DHO) has not been shown to accumulate, but paradoxically urine orotate has been reported to be raised, confusing the metabolic diagnosis. METHODS: We analysed plasma and urine from a 4-year-old male Miller syndrome patient. DHODH mutations were determined by PCR and Sanger sequencing. Analysis of DHO and orotic acid (OA) in urine, plasma and blood-spot cards was performed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. In vitro stability of DHO in distilled water and control urine was assessed for up to 60h. The patient received a 3-month trial of oral uridine for behavioural problems. RESULTS: The patient had early liver complications that are atypical of Miller syndrome. DHODH genotyping demonstrated compound-heterozygosity for frameshift and missense mutations. DHO was grossly raised in urine and plasma, and was detectable in dried spots of blood and plasma. OA was raised in urine but undetectable in plasma. DHO did not spontaneously degrade to OA. Uridine therapy did not appear to resolve behavioural problems during treatment, but it lowered plasma DHO. CONCLUSION: This case with grossly raised plasma DHO represents the first biochemical confirmation of functional DHODH deficiency. DHO was also easily detectable in dried plasma and blood spots. We concluded that DHO oxidation to OA must occur enzymatically during renal secretion. This case resolved the biochemical conundrum in previous reports of Miller syndrome patients, and opened the possibility of rapid biochemical screening.

High incidence of macrotroponin I with a high-sensitivity troponin I assay.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac troponin is the preferred biomarker of myocardial injury. High-sensitivity troponin assays allow measurement of very low levels of troponin with excellent precision. After the introduction of a high-sensitivity troponin I assay the laboratory began to receive enquiries from clinicians about clinically discordant elevated troponin I results. This led to a systematic investigation and characterisation of the cause. METHODS: Routine clinical samples were measured by the Architect High Sensitive Troponin-I (hsTnI) and the VITROS Troponin I ES assays (VitrosTnI). Results that were elevated according to the Architect but not the VITROS assay (Group 1) or results elevated by both assays but disproportionately higher on the Architect (Group 2) were re-analysed for hsTnI after re-centrifugation, multiple dilutions, incubation with heterophilic blocking reagents, polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation, and Protein A/G/L treatment. Sephacryl S-300 HR gel filtration chromatography (GFC) was performed on selected specimens. RESULTS: A high molecular weight complex containing immunoreactive troponin I and immunoglobulin (macrotroponin I) was identified in 5% of patients with elevated hsTnI. Patients with both macrotroponin and myocardial injury had higher and longer elevation of hsTnI compared with VitrosTnI with peaks of both macrotroponin and free troponin I-C complex on GFC. CONCLUSIONS: Circulating macrotroponin I (macroTnI) causes elevated hsTnI results with the Architect High Sensitive Troponin-I assay with the potential to be clinically misleading. The assay involved in this investigation may not be the only assay affected by macrotroponin. It is important for laboratories and clinicians to be aware of and develop processes to identify and manage specimens with elevated results due to macrotroponin.

Should general practitioners order troponin tests?

Cardiac troponin I and T are the preferred biomarkers for assessing myocardial injury, and the timing of troponin testing is fundamental to its clinical utility. There are arguments for and against the use of troponin testing in the community, and the stance that general practitioners should never order a troponin test can be considered an oversimplification. GPs have a generally sufficient understanding of the test for use in primary care, and have a better understanding of false-negative troponin test results than false-positive results. We suggest that hospitalisation, rather than troponin testing, should be the default option for patients with symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome. A single troponin test is reasonable in primary care to exclude the possibility of acute myocardial infarction in asymptomatic low-risk patients whose symptoms resolved at least 12 hours prior. GPs should factor in the complex logistics of troponin testing in the community before ordering a troponin test: results need to be accurate and timely, and might be obtained at a time of day when it is difficult to contact the doctor or the patient.