Use of copeptin in interpretation of the water deprivation test

Abstract Introduction Currently, the water deprivation test remains the standard method for distinguishing primary polydipsia (PP) from cranial diabetes insipidus (cDI) and nephrogenic diabetes insipidus (nDI). There is increasing interest in a direct estimate of antidiuretic hormone using plasma co...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Matthew Rowe, Nishchil Patel, Jinny Jeffery, Daniel Flanagan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2023-05-01
Series:Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/edm2.399
_version_ 1797831814388121600
author Matthew Rowe
Nishchil Patel
Jinny Jeffery
Daniel Flanagan
author_facet Matthew Rowe
Nishchil Patel
Jinny Jeffery
Daniel Flanagan
author_sort Matthew Rowe
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Introduction Currently, the water deprivation test remains the standard method for distinguishing primary polydipsia (PP) from cranial diabetes insipidus (cDI) and nephrogenic diabetes insipidus (nDI). There is increasing interest in a direct estimate of antidiuretic hormone using plasma copeptin as a stable and reliable surrogate marker. We present our experience of measuring copeptin during the water deprivation test. Methods Forty‐seven people (17 men) underwent a standard water deprivation test between 2013 and 2021. Plasma copeptin was measured at the start of the test and at the end of the period of water deprivation (maximum osmotic stimulation). Results were classified using prespecified diagnostic criteria. As it is known that a significant proportion of tests will reveal indeterminate results, a final diagnosis was obtained by including relevant pre‐ and post‐test clinical criteria. This diagnosis was then used to plan individual treatment. Results Basal and stimulated copeptin were significantly higher in the nephrogenic DI group than other categories (p < .001). There was no significant difference in basal or stimulated copeptin between PP, cDI or partial DI. Nine results were indeterminate where the serum and urine osmolality did not give a unified diagnosis. Stimulated copeptin was helpful in reclassifying these patients into the final diagnostic groups. Conclusion Plasma copeptin has additional clinical utility in interpretation of the water deprivation test and may continue to have a place alongside newer stimulation tests.
first_indexed 2024-04-09T13:57:45Z
format Article
id doaj.art-5add0bd7a8554fd3a564447267e9140b
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2398-9238
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-09T13:57:45Z
publishDate 2023-05-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism
spelling doaj.art-5add0bd7a8554fd3a564447267e9140b2023-05-07T18:25:43ZengWileyEndocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism2398-92382023-05-0163n/an/a10.1002/edm2.399Use of copeptin in interpretation of the water deprivation testMatthew Rowe0Nishchil Patel1Jinny Jeffery2Daniel Flanagan3Department of Endocrinology University Hospital Plymouth Plymouth UKDepartment of Endocrinology University Hospital Plymouth Plymouth UKCombined Labs University Hospitals Plymouth Plymouth UKDepartment of Endocrinology University Hospital Plymouth Plymouth UKAbstract Introduction Currently, the water deprivation test remains the standard method for distinguishing primary polydipsia (PP) from cranial diabetes insipidus (cDI) and nephrogenic diabetes insipidus (nDI). There is increasing interest in a direct estimate of antidiuretic hormone using plasma copeptin as a stable and reliable surrogate marker. We present our experience of measuring copeptin during the water deprivation test. Methods Forty‐seven people (17 men) underwent a standard water deprivation test between 2013 and 2021. Plasma copeptin was measured at the start of the test and at the end of the period of water deprivation (maximum osmotic stimulation). Results were classified using prespecified diagnostic criteria. As it is known that a significant proportion of tests will reveal indeterminate results, a final diagnosis was obtained by including relevant pre‐ and post‐test clinical criteria. This diagnosis was then used to plan individual treatment. Results Basal and stimulated copeptin were significantly higher in the nephrogenic DI group than other categories (p < .001). There was no significant difference in basal or stimulated copeptin between PP, cDI or partial DI. Nine results were indeterminate where the serum and urine osmolality did not give a unified diagnosis. Stimulated copeptin was helpful in reclassifying these patients into the final diagnostic groups. Conclusion Plasma copeptin has additional clinical utility in interpretation of the water deprivation test and may continue to have a place alongside newer stimulation tests.https://doi.org/10.1002/edm2.399copeptin humandiabetes insipiduswater deprivation
spellingShingle Matthew Rowe
Nishchil Patel
Jinny Jeffery
Daniel Flanagan
Use of copeptin in interpretation of the water deprivation test
Endocrinology, Diabetes & Metabolism
copeptin human
diabetes insipidus
water deprivation
title Use of copeptin in interpretation of the water deprivation test
title_full Use of copeptin in interpretation of the water deprivation test
title_fullStr Use of copeptin in interpretation of the water deprivation test
title_full_unstemmed Use of copeptin in interpretation of the water deprivation test
title_short Use of copeptin in interpretation of the water deprivation test
title_sort use of copeptin in interpretation of the water deprivation test
topic copeptin human
diabetes insipidus
water deprivation
url https://doi.org/10.1002/edm2.399
work_keys_str_mv AT matthewrowe useofcopeptinininterpretationofthewaterdeprivationtest
AT nishchilpatel useofcopeptinininterpretationofthewaterdeprivationtest
AT jinnyjeffery useofcopeptinininterpretationofthewaterdeprivationtest
AT danielflanagan useofcopeptinininterpretationofthewaterdeprivationtest