Table 3.
Prevalence of AI as documented by ACTH stimulation test | |||
Cedermark et al [28] | 1981 | 0/4 (0%) | |
Seidenwurm et al [29] | 1984 | 2/57 (3.5%) | |
Redman et al [30],∗ | 1987 | 5/15 (33.3%) | |
Lutz et al [31],∗∗ | 2000 | 0/9 (0%) | |
Total prevalence of AI | 7/85 (8.2%) | ||
Total prevalence of AI excluding Redman et al[30],* |
2/70 (2.9%) |
||
Prevalence of AI as documented by either ACTH stimulation test or clinical criteria | |||
Cedermark et al [28] | 1981 | 0/4 (0%) | |
Seidenwurm et al [29] | 1984 | 5/57 (8.7%) | |
Redman et al [30],∗ | 1987 | 5/15 (33.3%) | |
Lutz et al [31],∗∗ | 2000 | 0/9 (0%) | |
Lam et al [32] | 2002 | 4/229 (1.74%) | |
Delivanis et al [13] | 2016 | 2/50 (4%) | |
Total prevalence of AI | 16/264 (6.1%) |
All cases had a basal cortisol level of >300 nmol/L but failed mount an appropriate response to ACTH stimulation.
Lutz et al - study only contained subjects with subclinical AI rather than overt AI.