Unquantifiably low aldosterone concentrations are prevalent in hospitalised COVID-19 patients but may not be revealed by chemiluminescent immunoassay

  1. Martin Wiegand
  2. David J Halsall
  3. Sarah L Cowan
  4. Kevin Taylor
  5. Robert J B Goudie
  6. Jacobus Preller
  7. Mark Gurnell

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Previous studies have reported conflicting findings regarding aldosterone levels in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. We therefore used the gold-standard technique of liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LCMSMS) to address this uncertainty.

Design

All patients admitted to Cambridge University Hospitals with COVID-19 between 10 March 2020 and 13 May 2021, and in whom a stored blood sample was available for analysis, were eligible for inclusion.

Methods

Aldosterone was measured by LCMSMS and by immunoassay; cortisol and renin were determined by immunoassay.

Results

Using LCMSMS, aldosterone was below the limit of detection (<70 pmol/L) in 74 (58.7%) patients. Importantly, this finding was discordant with results obtained using a commonly employed clinical immunoassay (Diasorin LIAISON®), which over-estimated aldosterone compared to the LCMSMS assay (intercept 14.1 (95% CI −34.4 to 54.1) + slope 3.16 (95% CI 2.09–4.15) pmol/L). The magnitude of this discrepancy did not clearly correlate with markers of kidney or liver function. Solvent extraction prior to immunoassay improved the agreement between methods (intercept −14.9 (95% CI −31.9 to −4.3) and slope 1.0 (95% CI 0.89–1.02) pmol/L) suggesting the presence of a water-soluble metabolite causing interference in the direct immunoassay. We also replicated a previous finding that blood cortisol concentrations were often increased, with increased mortality in the group with serum cortisol levels > 744 nmol/L ( P  = 0.005).

Conclusion

When measured by LCMSMS, aldosterone was found to be profoundly low in a significant proportion of patients with COVID-19 at the time of hospital admission. This has likely not been detected previously due to high levels of interference with immunoassays in patients with COVID-19, and this merits further prospective investigation.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1530/ec-22-0190
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.28.22271645: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.02.28.22271645v1 on medRxiv