Redefining ITT cortisol thresholds on Abbott platforms to prevent misdiagnosis of adrenal insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: Adrenal insufficiency (AI) is a life-threatening condition which requires long term glucocorticoid replacement. The insulin tolerance test (ITT) is the current gold standard test for diagnosis of secondary AI, but the widely accepted cut-off value of a peak cortisol of less than 500 nmol/L assumes that anyone who does not reach this value has AI and thus requires full replacement. The cut-off used to diagnose AI is also founded on outdated assays. Use of this cut-off in an era of more specific immunoassays therefore risks misdiagnosis, subsequent unnecessary glucocorticoid exposure and associated adverse effects with increased mortality risk. DESIGN, PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS: This retrospective analysis assessed 300 ITT cortisol responses using the Abbott Architect and Alinity analyser platforms in patients with suspected AI over a period of 12 years (August 2010 to January 2022), at a tertiary centre. RESULTS: Patients were classified as having AI or not, based on a comprehensive clinical review of electronic patient records from the point of test to the present day by a panel of pituitary and adrenal specialists. Using the current institutional cut-off value of 500 nmol/L, receiver operating characteristic analysis identified a 100.0% sensitivity and 43.6% specificity (area under the curve 0.979). Using a lower cortisol threshold value of 416 nmol/L on the Abbott analyser platform maintained a sensitivity of 100.0% and improved the specificity to 86.7%. CONCLUSION: This data supports lowering the Abbott analyser ITT peak cortisol threshold to 416 nmol/L. Use of this improved cut-off avoids unnecessary glucocorticoid replacement therapy in 104 (34.7%) of individuals in this study. All patients remained well with at least 1 year longitudinal follow up of glucocorticoid replacement.

Adaptive infusion of a glucagon-like peptide-1/glucagon receptor co-agonist G3215, in adults with overweight or obesity: Results from a phase 1 randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: To determine whether a continuous infusion of a glucagon-like peptide receptor (GLP-1R)/glucagon receptor (GCGR) co-agonist, G3215 is safe and well tolerated in adults with overweight or obesity. METHODS: A phase 1 randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of G3215 in overweight or obese participants, with or without type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: Twenty-six participants were recruited and randomized with 23 completing a 14-day subcutaneous infusion of G3215 or placebo. The most common adverse events were nausea or vomiting, which were mild in most cases and mitigated by real-time adjustment of drug infusion. There were no cardiovascular concerns with G3215 infusion. The pharmacokinetic characteristics were in keeping with a continuous infusion over 14 days. A least-squares mean body weight loss of 2.39 kg was achieved with a 14-day infusion of G3215, compared with 0.84 kg with placebo infusion (p < .05). A reduction in food consumption was also observed in participants receiving G3215 and there was no deterioration in glycaemia. An improved lipid profile was seen in G3215-treated participants and consistent with GCGR activation, a broad reduction in circulating amino acids was seen during the infusion period. CONCLUSION: An adaptive continuous infusion of the GLP-1/GCGR co-agonist, G3215, is safe and well tolerated offering a unique strategy to control drug exposure. By allowing rapid, response-directed titration, this strategy may allow for mitigation of adverse effects and afford significant weight loss within shorter time horizons than is presently possible with weekly GLP-1R and multi-agonists. These results support ongoing development of G3215 for the treatment of obesity and metabolic disease.

Current Challenges and Future Directions in the Assessment of Glucocorticoid Status.

Glucocorticoid hormones (GC) are secreted in a circadian and ultradian rhythm and play a critical role in maintaining physiological homeostasis, with both excess and insufficient GC associated with adverse effects on health. Current assessment of GC status is primarily clinical, often in conjunction with serum cortisol values, which may be stimulated or suppressed depending on the GC disturbance being assessed. In the setting of extreme perturbations in cortisol levels i.e. markedly low or high levels, symptoms and signs of GC dysfunction may be overt. However, when disturbances in cortisol GC status values are less extreme, such as when assessing optimization of a GC replacement regimen, signs and symptoms can be more subtle or non-specific. Current tools for assessing GC status, are best suited to identifying profound disturbances but may lack sensitivity for confirming optimal GC status. Moreover, single cortisol values do not necessarily reflect an individual's GC status, as they are subject to inter- and intra-individual variation, do not take into account the pulsatile nature of cortisol secretion, variation in binding proteins, or local tissue concentrations as dictated by 11ßeta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (11ß-HSD) activity, as well as GC receptor sensitivity. In the present review, we evaluate possible alternative methods for the assessment of GC status that do not solely rely on measurement of circulating cortisol levels. We discuss the potential of changes in metabolomic profiles, miRNA, gene expression, epigenetic, and other novel biomarkers such as GDF-15 and osteocalcin, that could in future aid in the objective classification of GC status.

Optimising prednisolone or prednisone replacement in adrenal insufficiency.

Context: Patients with adrenal insufficiency (AI) have a higher mortality than the general population, possibly because of excess glucocorticoid exposure at inappropriate times. The cortisol circadian rhythm is difficult to mimic with twice- or thrice-daily hydrocortisone. Prednisolone is a once-daily alternative which may improve patient compliance through its convenience. Objectives: Prednisolone day curves can be used to accurately downtitrate patients to the minimum effective dose. This study aimed to review prednisolone day curves and determine therapeutic ranges at different time points after administration. Methods: Between August 2013 and May 2021, 108 prednisolone day curves from 76 individuals receiving prednisolone replacement were analysed. Prednisolone concentrations were determined by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to determine the relationship between 2-, 4-, and 6-h prednisolone levels compared to the previously validated standard 8-h prednisolone level (15-25 µg/L). Results: The median dose was 4 mg of prednisolone once daily. There was a strong correlation between the 4- and 8-h (R = 0.8829, P ≤ 0.0001) and 6- and 8-h prednisolone levels (R = 0.9530, P ≤ 0.0001). Target ranges for prednisolone were 37-62 µg/L at 4 h, 24-39 µg/L at 6 h, and 15-25 µg/L at 8 h. Prednisolone doses were successfully reduced in 21 individuals, and of these, 3 were reduced to 2 mg once daily. All patients were well upon follow-up. Conclusion: This is the largest evaluation of oral prednisolone pharmacokinetics in humans. Low-dose prednisolone of 2-4 mg is safe and effective in most patients with AI. Doses can be titrated with either 4-, 6-, or 8-h single time point drug levels.

The use of prednisolone versus dual-release hydrocortisone in the treatment of hypoadrenalism.

The introduction of adrenocortical extract in 1930 improved the life expectancy of hyhpoadrenal patients, with further increases seen after the introduction of cortisone acetate from 1948. Most patients are now treated with synthetic hydrocortisone, and incremental advances have been made with optimisation of daily dosing and the introduction of multidose regimens. There remains a significant mortality gap between individuals with treated hypoadrenalism and the general population. It is unclear whether this gap is a result of glucocorticoid over-replacement, under-replacement or loss of the circadian and ultradian rhythm of cortisol secretion, with the risk of detrimental excess glucocorticoid exposure at later times in the day. The way forwards will involve replacement of the diurnal cortisol rhythm with better glucocorticoid replacement regimens. The steroid profile produced by both prednisolone and dual-release hydrocortisone (Plenadren), provide a smoother glucocorticoid profile of cortisol than standard oral multidose regimens of hydrocortisone and cortisone acetate. The individualisation of prednisolone doses and lower bioavailability of Plenadren offer reductions in total steroid exposure. Although there is emerging evidence of both treatments offering better cardiometabolic outcomes than standard glucocorticoid replacement regimens, there is a paucity of evidence involving very low dose prednisolone (2-4 mg daily) compared to the larger doses (~7.5 mg) historically used. Data from upcoming clinical studies on prednisolone will therefore be of key importance in informing future practice.

Improving the Interpretation of Afternoon Cortisol Levels and SSTs to Prevent Misdiagnosis of Adrenal Insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: Adrenal Insufficiency (AI), especially iatrogenic-AI, is a treatable cause of mortality. The difficulty in obtaining 9 am cortisol levels means samples are taken at suboptimal times, including a substantial proportion in the afternoon. Low afternoon cortisol levels often provoke short Synacthen tests (SSTs). It is important that this does not lead to patients misdiagnosed with AI, exposing them to the excess mortality and morbidity of inappropriate steroid replacement therapy. METHODS: This retrospective study collected 60 178 cortisol results. Medical records, including subsequent SSTs of initial cortisol results measured after midday were reviewed. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic analysis (area under the curve: 0.89) on 6531 suitable cortisol values showed that a limit of <201.5 nmol/L achieved a sensitivity and specificity of 95.6% and 72.6%, while a limit of <234 nmol/L had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 59.5%. Out of 670 SSTs, 628 patients passed. Of these, 140 would have otherwise failed if only their 30-min cortisol was assessed without the 60-min value. A 30- and 60-min SST cortisol cutoff of 366.5 nmol/L and 418.5 nmol/L, respectively, can achieve a sensitivity of >95% on the Abbott analyser platform. CONCLUSION: An afternoon cortisol >234 nmol/L excludes AI on Abbott analyser platforms. In patients who have an afternoon cortisol <234 nmol/L, including both 30- and 60-min SST cortisol values prevents unnecessary glucocorticoid replacement therapy in 22.3% of individuals in this study. The Abbott analyser SST cortisol cutoffs used to define AI should be 366.5 nmol/L and 418.5 nmol/L at 30 and 60 min, respectively. All patients remained well subsequently with at least 1-year longitudinal follow-up.