Diagnostic Accuracy of Copeptin in the Differential Diagnosis of the Polyuria-polydipsia Syndrome: A Prospective Multicenter Study

CONTEXT The polyuria-polydipsia syndrome comprises primary polydipsia (PP) and central and nephrogenic diabetes insipidus (DI). Correctly discriminating these entities is mandatory, given that inadequate treatment causes serious complications. The diagnostic "gold standard" is the water deprivation test with assessment of arginine vasopressin (AVP) activity. However, test interpretation and AVP measurement are challenging. OBJECTIVE The objective was to evaluate the accuracy of copeptin, a stable peptide stoichiometrically cosecreted with AVP, in the differential diagnosis of polyuria-polydipsia syndrome. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS This was a prospective multicenter observational cohort study from four Swiss or German tertiary referral centers of adults >18 years old with the history of polyuria and polydipsia. MEASUREMENTS A standardized combined water deprivation/3% saline infusion test was performed and terminated when serum sodium exceeded 147 mmol/L. Circulating copeptin and AVP levels were measured regularly throughout the test. Final diagnosis was based on the water deprivation/saline infusion test results, clinical information, and the treatment response. RESULTS Fifty-five patients were enrolled (11 with complete central DI, 16 with partial central DI, 18 with PP, and 10 with nephrogenic DI). Without prior thirsting, a single baseline copeptin level >21.4 pmol/L differentiated nephrogenic DI from other etiologies with a 100% sensitivity and specificity, rendering a water deprivation testing unnecessary in such cases. A stimulated copeptin >4.9 pmol/L (at sodium levels >147 mmol/L) differentiated between patients with PP and patients with partial central DI with a 94.0% specificity and a 94.4% sensitivity. A stimulated AVP >1.8 pg/mL differentiated between the same categories with a 93.0% specificity and a 83.0% sensitivity. LIMITATION This study was limited by incorporation bias from including AVP levels as a diagnostic criterion. CONCLUSION Copeptin is a promising new tool in the differential diagnosis of the polyuria-polydipsia syndrome, and a valid surrogate marker for AVP. Primary Funding Sources: Swiss National Science Foundation, University of Basel.

Source of funding in experimental studies of mobile phone use on health: Update of systematic review

A previous review showed that among 59 studies published in 1995–2005, industry-funded studies were least likely to report effects of controlled exposure to mobile phone radiation on health-related outcomes. We updated literature searches in 2005–2009 and extracted data on funding, conflicts of interest and results. Of 75 additional studies 12% were industry-funded, 44% had public and 19% mixed funding; funding was unclear in 25%. Previous findings were confirmed: industry-sponsored studies were least likely to report results suggesting effects. Interestingly, the proportion of studies indicating effects declined in 1995–2009, regardless of funding source. Source of funding and conflicts of interest are important in this field of research.

Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies

OBJECTIVES: There is concern regarding the possible health effects of cellular telephone use. We examined whether the source of funding of studies of the effects of low-level radiofrequency radiation is associated with the results of studies. We conducted a systematic review of studies of controlled exposure to radiofrequency radiation with health-related outcomes (electroencephalogram, cognitive or cardiovascular function, hormone levels, symptoms, and subjective well-being). DATA SOURCES: We searched EMBASE, Medline, and a specialist database in February 2005 and scrutinized reference lists from relevant publications. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on the source of funding, study design, methodologic quality, and other study characteristics were extracted. The primary outcome was the reporting of at least one statistically significant association between the exposure and a health-related outcome. Data were analyzed using logistic regression models. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 59 studies, 12 (20%) were funded exclusively by the telecommunications industry, 11 (19%) were funded by public agencies or charities, 14 (24%) had mixed funding (including industry), and in 22 (37%) the source of funding was not reported. Studies funded exclusively by industry reported the largest number of outcomes, but were least likely to report a statistically significant result: The odds ratio was 0.11 (95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.78), compared with studies funded by public agencies or charities. This finding was not materially altered in analyses adjusted for the number of outcomes reported, study quality, and other factors. CONCLUSIONS: The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account.