Interpreting Serial Aldosterone-to-Renin Ratio Measurements in the Diagnostic Work-up of Primary Aldosteronism

Clicks: 15
ID: 328876
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #377 of 449 articles by views in the journal of clinical endocrinology & metabolism

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 449 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
CONTEXT: Guidelines recommend repeating aldosterone-to-renin ratio (ARR) testing when clinical suspicion of primary aldosteronism (PA) remains high, but evidence-based guidance on how serial ARR measurements should be interpreted is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare alternative strategies for interpreting serial ARR measurements during the diagnostic work-up of PA. METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients evaluated for PA at a referral centre for endocrine hypertension who had two valid ARR measurements. Diagnostic performance was compared for ARR1, the mean of ARR1 and ARR2, at least one positive ARR, and two concordant positive ARR results using different thresholds. Additional analyses evaluated concordant and discordant patterns and progressively more stringent biochemical definitions. RESULTS: Among 342 patients with two serial ARR measurements, 214 (62.6%) had PA. Different interpretation strategies produced distinct trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity. At an ARR threshold of 49, requiring both measurements to be positive achieved the highest balanced accuracy (77.1%), with 82.2% sensitivity and 71.9% specificity. PA prevalence increased from 21.3% in patients with two negative ARR measurements to 83.0% in those with two positive measurements, whereas both discordant patterns showed an intermediate probability of PA (36.8% and 36.0%). Averaging the first two ARR measurements modestly improved discrimination across progressively more stringent operational biochemical definitions, with the AUC increasing from 0.772 to 0.803 for ARR ≥49 plus post-SST SAC ≥100 ng/L (p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Serial ARR measurements provide complementary rather than interchangeable information. Different interpretation strategies offer distinct diagnostic trade-offs, whereas discordant results identify an intermediate-probability group requiring integration with the overall clinical context.
Reference Key
openalex_W7206164631 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Mirko Parasiliti-Caprino, Martina Bollati, Letizia Barba, Elisa Febbraro, Daniele Giuseppe Candela, Matteo Procopio, F. Bioletto, Roberta Giordano, Gianluca Aimaretti, Mauro Maccario
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal the journal of clinical endocrinology & metabolism
Year 2026
DOI
10.1210/clinem/dgag381
URL
https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgag381
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.