Literature DB >> 24113861

Recommendations for provoked challenge urine testing.

Anne-Michelle Ruha1.   

Abstract

"Urine mobilization test," "challenge test," and "provoked urine test" are all terms used to describe the administration of a chelating agent to a person prior to collection of their urine to test for metals. There is no standard, validated challenge test. Despite recommendations by professional and government organizations against the use of provoked urine testing, the tests are still commonly used and recommended by some practitioners. Challenge testing utilizes a variety of chelating agents, including dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA), dimercaptopropanesulfonate (DMPS), and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). The agents are given by a variety of routes of administration, doses used are inconsistent, and urine collection procedures vary. Additional problems with challenge tests include comparison of results to inappropriate reference ranges and creatinine correction of urine obtained within hours of chelator administration. Human volunteer studies demonstrate that mercury is detected in the urine of most people even in the absence of known exposure or chelator administration, and that urinary mercury excretion rises after administration of a chelator, regardless of exposure history and in an unpredictable fashion. Studies also demonstrate that challenge testing fails to reveal a "body burden" of mercury due to remote exposure. Chelating agents have been associated with adverse reactions. Current evidence does not support the use of DMPS, DMSA, or other chelation challenge tests for the diagnosis of metal toxicity. Since there are no established reference ranges for provoked urine samples in healthy subjects, no reliable evidence to support a diagnostic value for the tests, and potential harm, these tests should not be utilized.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24113861      PMCID: PMC3846974          DOI: 10.1007/s13181-013-0350-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Toxicol        ISSN: 1556-9039


  19 in total

1.  Placebo response in environmental disease. Chelation therapy of patients with symptoms attributed to amalgam fillings.

Authors:  P Grandjean; B Guldager; I B Larsen; P J Jørgensen; P Holmstrup
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 2.162

2.  Mobilization of lead by calcium disodium edetate. A reappraisal.

Authors:  J J Chisolm
Journal:  Am J Dis Child       Date:  1987-12

Review 3.  Antidotes: benefits and risks.

Authors:  A T Proudfoot
Journal:  Toxicol Lett       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 4.372

4.  Plasma and urine dimercaptopropanesulfonate concentrations after dermal application of transdermal DMPS (TD-DMPS).

Authors:  Jennifer P Cohen; Anne-Michelle Ruha; Steven C Curry; Kallol Biswas; Benjamin Westenberger; Wei Ye; Kathleen L Caldwell; Frank Lovecchio; Keith Burkhart; Nasr Samia
Journal:  J Med Toxicol       Date:  2013-03

5.  Urinary mercury after administration of 2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonic acid: correlation with dental amalgam score.

Authors:  H V Aposhian; D C Bruce; W Alter; R C Dart; K M Hurlbut; M M Aposhian
Journal:  FASEB J       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Diagnostic value of a chelating agent in patients with symptoms allegedly caused by amalgam fillings.

Authors:  J S Vamnes; R Eide; R Isrenn; P J Höl; N R Gjerdet
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 6.116

7.  Dimercaptosuccinic acid loading test for assessing mercury burden in healthy individuals.

Authors:  G P Archbold; Roisin M McGuckin; N A Campbell
Journal:  Ann Clin Biochem       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.057

8.  Sodium 2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonate challenge test for mercury in humans. III. Urinary mercury after exposure to mercurous chloride.

Authors:  R M Maiorino; D Gonzalez-Ramirez; M Zuniga-Charles; Z Xu; K M Hurlbut; M M Aposhian; R C Dart; J S Woods; P Ostrosky-Wegman; M E Gonsebatt; H V Aposhian
Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 4.030

9.  Mobilized mercury in subjects with varying exposure to elemental mercury vapour.

Authors:  M Molin; A Schütz; S Skerfving; G Sällsten
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 3.015

10.  Sodium 2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonate challenge test for mercury in humans: II. Urinary mercury, porphyrins and neurobehavioral changes of dental workers in Monterrey, Mexico.

Authors:  D Gonzalez-Ramirez; R M Maiorino; M Zuniga-Charles; Z Xu; K M Hurlbut; P Junco-Munoz; M M Aposhian; R C Dart; J H Diaz Gama; D Echeverria
Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 4.030

View more
  5 in total

1.  Unnecessary Investigations in Environmental Medicine.

Authors:  Annette Greiner; Hans Drexler
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  ACMT Recommends Against Use of Post-Chelator Challenge Urinary Metal Testing.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Med Toxicol       Date:  2017-07-19

3.  Doc, can you test me for "toxic metals"? Challenges of testing for toxicants in patients with environmental concerns.

Authors:  Lauren Zajac; Sarah A Johnson; Marissa Hauptman
Journal:  Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care       Date:  2020-02-27

4.  Medical toxicology case presentations: to chelate or not to chelate, is that the question?

Authors:  Charles A McKay
Journal:  J Med Toxicol       Date:  2013-12

5.  Is Challenge Testing Valid for Assessing Body Metal Burden?

Authors:  Joseph Pizzorno
Journal:  Integr Med (Encinitas)       Date:  2015-08
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.