Cargando…

Assessing urinary flow rate, creatinine, osmolality and other hydration adjustment methods for urinary biomonitoring using NHANES arsenic, iodine, lead and cadmium data

BACKGROUND: There are numerous methods for adjusting measured concentrations of urinary biomarkers for hydration variation. Few studies use objective criteria to quantify the relative performance of these methods. Our aim was to compare the performance of existing methods for adjusting urinary bioma...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Middleton, Daniel R. S., Watts, Michael J., Lark, R. Murray, Milne, Chris J., Polya, David A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4902931/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27286873
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0152-x
_version_ 1782437045437726720
author Middleton, Daniel R. S.
Watts, Michael J.
Lark, R. Murray
Milne, Chris J.
Polya, David A.
author_facet Middleton, Daniel R. S.
Watts, Michael J.
Lark, R. Murray
Milne, Chris J.
Polya, David A.
author_sort Middleton, Daniel R. S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There are numerous methods for adjusting measured concentrations of urinary biomarkers for hydration variation. Few studies use objective criteria to quantify the relative performance of these methods. Our aim was to compare the performance of existing methods for adjusting urinary biomarkers for hydration variation. METHODS: Creatinine, osmolality, excretion rate (ER), bodyweight adjusted ER (ERBW) and empirical analyte-specific urinary flow rate (UFR) adjustment methods on spot urinary concentrations of lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), non-arsenobetaine arsenic (As(IMM)) and iodine (I) from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (2009–2010 and 2011–2012) were evaluated. The data were divided into a training dataset (n = 1,723) from which empirical adjustment coefficients were derived and a testing dataset (n = 428) on which quantification of the performance of the adjustment methods was done by calculating, primarily, the correlation of the adjusted parameter with UFR, with lower correlations indicating better performance and, secondarily, the correlation of the adjusted parameters with blood analyte concentrations (Pb and Cd), with higher correlations indicating better performance. RESULTS: Overall performance across analytes was better for Osmolality and UFR based methods. Excretion rate and ERBW consistently performed worse, often no better than unadjusted concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Osmolality adjustment of urinary biomonitoring data provides for more robust adjustment than either creatinine based or ER or ERBW methods, the latter two of which tend to overcompensate for UFR. Modified UFR methods perform significantly better than all but osmolality in removing hydration variation, but depend on the accuracy of UFR calculations. Hydration adjustment performance is analyte-specific and further research is needed to establish a robust and consistent framework. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12940-016-0152-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4902931
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49029312016-06-12 Assessing urinary flow rate, creatinine, osmolality and other hydration adjustment methods for urinary biomonitoring using NHANES arsenic, iodine, lead and cadmium data Middleton, Daniel R. S. Watts, Michael J. Lark, R. Murray Milne, Chris J. Polya, David A. Environ Health Research BACKGROUND: There are numerous methods for adjusting measured concentrations of urinary biomarkers for hydration variation. Few studies use objective criteria to quantify the relative performance of these methods. Our aim was to compare the performance of existing methods for adjusting urinary biomarkers for hydration variation. METHODS: Creatinine, osmolality, excretion rate (ER), bodyweight adjusted ER (ERBW) and empirical analyte-specific urinary flow rate (UFR) adjustment methods on spot urinary concentrations of lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), non-arsenobetaine arsenic (As(IMM)) and iodine (I) from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (2009–2010 and 2011–2012) were evaluated. The data were divided into a training dataset (n = 1,723) from which empirical adjustment coefficients were derived and a testing dataset (n = 428) on which quantification of the performance of the adjustment methods was done by calculating, primarily, the correlation of the adjusted parameter with UFR, with lower correlations indicating better performance and, secondarily, the correlation of the adjusted parameters with blood analyte concentrations (Pb and Cd), with higher correlations indicating better performance. RESULTS: Overall performance across analytes was better for Osmolality and UFR based methods. Excretion rate and ERBW consistently performed worse, often no better than unadjusted concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Osmolality adjustment of urinary biomonitoring data provides for more robust adjustment than either creatinine based or ER or ERBW methods, the latter two of which tend to overcompensate for UFR. Modified UFR methods perform significantly better than all but osmolality in removing hydration variation, but depend on the accuracy of UFR calculations. Hydration adjustment performance is analyte-specific and further research is needed to establish a robust and consistent framework. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12940-016-0152-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-06-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4902931/ /pubmed/27286873 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0152-x Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Middleton, Daniel R. S.
Watts, Michael J.
Lark, R. Murray
Milne, Chris J.
Polya, David A.
Assessing urinary flow rate, creatinine, osmolality and other hydration adjustment methods for urinary biomonitoring using NHANES arsenic, iodine, lead and cadmium data
title Assessing urinary flow rate, creatinine, osmolality and other hydration adjustment methods for urinary biomonitoring using NHANES arsenic, iodine, lead and cadmium data
title_full Assessing urinary flow rate, creatinine, osmolality and other hydration adjustment methods for urinary biomonitoring using NHANES arsenic, iodine, lead and cadmium data
title_fullStr Assessing urinary flow rate, creatinine, osmolality and other hydration adjustment methods for urinary biomonitoring using NHANES arsenic, iodine, lead and cadmium data
title_full_unstemmed Assessing urinary flow rate, creatinine, osmolality and other hydration adjustment methods for urinary biomonitoring using NHANES arsenic, iodine, lead and cadmium data
title_short Assessing urinary flow rate, creatinine, osmolality and other hydration adjustment methods for urinary biomonitoring using NHANES arsenic, iodine, lead and cadmium data
title_sort assessing urinary flow rate, creatinine, osmolality and other hydration adjustment methods for urinary biomonitoring using nhanes arsenic, iodine, lead and cadmium data
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4902931/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27286873
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0152-x
work_keys_str_mv AT middletondanielrs assessingurinaryflowratecreatinineosmolalityandotherhydrationadjustmentmethodsforurinarybiomonitoringusingnhanesarseniciodineleadandcadmiumdata
AT wattsmichaelj assessingurinaryflowratecreatinineosmolalityandotherhydrationadjustmentmethodsforurinarybiomonitoringusingnhanesarseniciodineleadandcadmiumdata
AT larkrmurray assessingurinaryflowratecreatinineosmolalityandotherhydrationadjustmentmethodsforurinarybiomonitoringusingnhanesarseniciodineleadandcadmiumdata
AT milnechrisj assessingurinaryflowratecreatinineosmolalityandotherhydrationadjustmentmethodsforurinarybiomonitoringusingnhanesarseniciodineleadandcadmiumdata
AT polyadavida assessingurinaryflowratecreatinineosmolalityandotherhydrationadjustmentmethodsforurinarybiomonitoringusingnhanesarseniciodineleadandcadmiumdata