Urine phosphoethanolamine is a specific biomarker for hypophosphatasia in adults.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the utility of urine phosphoethanolamine (PEA) as a marker to aid in diagnosing and/or confirming hypophosphatasia (HPP) in adults and for monitoring patients on enzyme replacement therapy (ERT).

METHODS

Data was collected from seventy-eight adults who were referred to the Vanderbilt Program for Metabolic Bone Disease for evaluation of a possible or confirmatory HPP diagnosis between July 2014 through December 2019. Fifty-nine patients were diagnosed with HPP and nineteen were excluded from a diagnosis of HPP. The urine PEA results of those patients with a confirmed diagnosis of HPP and those patients with a diagnosis of HPP excluded were captured and compared to other laboratory and clinical parameters consistent with HPP, including alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity, plasma pyridoxal 5'-phosphate (PLP), the presence of musculoskeletal abnormalities, and genetic testing for pathogenic mutations in ALPL.

RESULTS

Initial urine PEA values in patients in our HPP cohort and not on ERT were significantly higher (median = 150.0 nmol/mg creatinine, IQR = 82.0-202.0) compared patients in our HPP negative group (median 18.0 nmol/mg creatinine, IQR = 14.0-30.0, p < 0.0001) and higher than patients on ERT (median 65.0 nmol/mg creatinine, IQR = 45.3-79.8). Patients who began ERT had a decline in urine PEA levels after treatment with a mean decrease of 68.1 %. Plasma ALP levels were significantly lower in the group of patients with HPP and not on ERT group (median = 24.0 U/L, IQR = 15.0-29.50) compared to the patients without HPP (median = 45.50 U/L, IQR = 34.0-62.0;) and plasma PLP levels were significantly higher in the HPP non-ERT group (median = 284.0 nmol/L, IQR = 141.0-469.4) compared to the patients without HPP (median = 97.5 nmol/L, IQR = 43.7-206.0;). The area under the curve (AUC) of urine PEA, ALP, and PLP to distinguish between HPP and non-HPP patients is 0.968, 0.927 and 0.781, respectively, in our cohort. Urine PEA had 100 % specificity (95 % CI of 83.2 % to 100.0 %) for diagnosing HPP at a value >53.50 nmol/mg creatinine with a sensitivity of 88.4 %; 95%CI 75.5 to 94.9 %. ALP had a 100 % specificity (95 % CI of 82.4 % to 100.0 %) for diagnosing HPP at a value <30.5 U/L with a sensitivity of 77.2 %; (95%CI 64.8 to 86.2 %). PLP had a 100 % specificity (95 % CI of 81.6 % to 100.0 %) for diagnosing HPP at a value >436 nmol/L with a sensitivity of 26.9 %; (95%CI 16.8 to 40.3 %). The most common pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutations in our cohort were c.1250A>G (p.Asn417Ser), c.1133A>T (p.Asp378Val), c.881A>C (p.Asp294Ala), c.1171C>T (p.Arg391Cys), and c.571G>A, (p.Glu191Lys).

CONCLUSIONS

Urine PEA is a promising diagnostic and confirmatory marker for HPP in patients undergoing investigation for HPP. Urine PEA also has potential use as a marker to monitor ERT compliance. Future studies are necessary to evaluate the association between PEA levels and clinical outcomes.