4.4 Article

Urinary Corticoid : Creatinine Ratios in Dogs with Pituitary-Dependent Hypercortisolism during Trilostane Treatment

期刊

JOURNAL OF VETERINARY INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 1214-1219

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2009.0374.x

关键词

ACTH; Cortisol; Cushing's disease; Hypocortisolism

资金

  1. Dechra Veterinary Products, UK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) stimulation test is used to evaluate trilostane treatment in dogs with hypercortisolism. Hypothesis The urinary corticoid : creatinine ratio (UCCR) is a good alternative to the ACTH stimulation test to determine optimal trilostane dose. Animals Eighteen dogs with pituitary-dependent hypercortisolism. Methods In this prospective study, the dose of trilostane was judged to be optimal on the basis of resolution of clinical signs of hypercortisolism and results of an ACTH stimulation test. The owners collected urine for determination of UCCR at 2-week intervals for at least 8 weeks after achieving the optimal trilostane dose. Results The UCCRs were significantly higher before treatment (11.5-202.0 x 10-6; median, 42.0 x 10-6) than at rechecks 2 months after optimal dosing, but they did not decrease below the upper limit of the reference range in the majority of dogs. The UCCRs of 11 dogs that initially were dosed insufficiently (range, 7.5-79.0 x 10-6; median, 31.0 x 10-6) did not differ significantly from UCCRs when the dosage was optimal (8.2-72.0 x 10-6; median, 33.0 x 10-6). Post-ACTH cortisol concentrations did not correlate significantly with UCCRs at rechecks during trilostane treatment. Long-term follow-up indicated that the decrease in UCCR below the upper limit of the reference was associated with hypocortisolism. Conclusion and Clinical Importance The UCCR cannot be used as an alternative to the ACTH stimulation test to determine the optimal dose of trilostane, but might be helpful in detecting dogs at risk for developing hypocortisolism during trilostane treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据