Unveiling the Uncommon: Cushing’s Syndrome (CS) Masquerading as Severe Hypokalemia

Posted on April 26, 2024 by MaryO

Abstract

Cushing’s syndrome (CS) arises from an excess of endogenous or exogenous cortisol, with Cushing’s disease specifically implicating a pituitary adenoma and exaggerated adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) production. Typically, Cushing’s disease presents with characteristic symptoms such as weight gain, central obesity, moon face, and buffalo hump.

This case report presents an unusual manifestation of CS in a 48-year-old male with a history of hypertension, where severe hypokalemia was the primary presentation. Initial complaints included bilateral leg swelling, muscle weakness, occasional shortness of breath, and a general feeling of not feeling well. Subsequent investigations revealed hypokalemia, metabolic alkalosis, and an abnormal response to dexamethasone suppression, raising concerns about hypercortisolism. Further tests, including 24-hour urinary free cortisol and ACTH testing, confirmed significant elevations. Brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) identified a pituitary macroadenoma, necessitating neurosurgical intervention.

This case underscores the rarity of CS presenting with severe hypokalemia, highlighting the diagnostic challenges and the crucial role of a collaborative approach in managing such intricate cases.

Introduction

Cushing’s syndrome (CS), characterized by excessive cortisol production, is well-known for its diverse and often conspicuous clinical manifestations. Cushing’s disease is a subset of CS resulting from a pituitary adenoma overproducing adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), leading to heightened cortisol secretion. The classic presentation involves a spectrum of symptoms such as weight gain, central obesity, muscle weakness, and mood alterations [1].

Despite its classic presentation, CS can demonstrate diverse and atypical features, challenging conventional diagnostic paradigms. This case report sheds light on a rare manifestation of CS, where severe hypokalemia was the primary clinical indicator. Notably, instances of CS prominently manifesting through severe hypokalemia are scarce in the literature [1,2].

Through this exploration, we aim to provide valuable insights into the diagnostic intricacies of atypical CS presentations, underscore the significance of a comprehensive workup, and emphasize the collaborative approach essential for managing such uncommon hormonal disorders.

Case Presentation

A 48-year-old male with a history of hypertension presented to his primary care physician with complaints of bilateral leg swelling, occasional shortness of breath, dizziness, and a general feeling of malaise persisting for 10 days. The patient reported increased water intake and urinary frequency without dysuria. The patient was diagnosed with hypertension eight months ago. He experienced progressive muscle weakness over two months, hindering his ability to perform daily activities, including using the bathroom. The primary care physician initiated a blood workup that revealed severe hypokalemia with a potassium level of 1.3 mmol/L (reference range: 3.6 to 5.2 mmol/L), prompting referral to the hospital.

Upon admission, the patient was hypertensive with a blood pressure of 180/103 mmHg, a heart rate of 71 beats/minute, a respiratory rate of 18 breaths/minute, and an oxygen saturation of 96% on room air. Physical examination revealed fine tremors, bilateral 2+ pitting edema in the lower extremities up to mid-shin, abdominal distension with normal bowel sounds, and bilateral reduced air entry in the bases of the lungs on auscultation. The blood work showed the following findings (Table 1).

Parameter Result Reference Range
Potassium (K) 1.8 mmol/L 3.5-5.0 mmol/L
Sodium (Na) 144 mmol/L 135-145 mmol/L
Magnesium (Mg) 1.3 mg/dL 1.7-2.2 mg/dL
Hemoglobin (Hb) 15.5 g/dL 13.8-17.2 g/dL
White blood cell count (WBC) 13,000 x 103/µL 4.5 to 11.0 × 109/L
Platelets 131,000 x 109/L 150-450 x 109/L
pH 7.57 7.35-7.45
Bicarbonate (HCO3) 46 mmol/L 22-26 mmol/L
Lactic acid 4.2 mmol/L 0.5-2.0 mmol/L
Table 1: Blood work findings

In order to correct the electrolyte imbalances, the patient received intravenous (IV) magnesium and potassium replacement and was later transitioned to oral. The patient was also started on normal saline at 100 cc per hour. To further investigate the complaint of shortness of breath, the patient underwent a chest X-ray, which revealed bilateral multilobar pneumonia (Figure 1). He was subsequently treated with ceftriaxone (1 g IV daily) and clarithromycin (500 mg twice daily) for seven days.

A-chest-X-ray-revealing-(arrows)-bilateral-multilobar-pneumonia
Figure 1: A chest X-ray revealing (arrows) bilateral multilobar pneumonia

With persistent abdominal pain and lactic acidosis, a computed tomography (CT) scan abdomen and pelvis with contrast was conducted, revealing a psoas muscle hematoma. Subsequent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) depicted an 8×8 cm hematoma involving the left psoas and iliacus muscles. The interventional radiologist performed drainage of the hematoma involving the left psoas and iliacus muscles (Figure 2).

Magnetic-resonance-imaging-(MRI)-depicting-an-8x8-cm-hematoma-(arrow)-involving-the-left-psoas-and-iliacus-muscles
Figure 2: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) depicting an 8×8 cm hematoma (arrow) involving the left psoas and iliacus muscles

In light of the concurrent presence of hypokalemia, hypertension, and metabolic alkalosis, there arose concerns about Conn’s syndrome, prompting consultation with endocrinology. Their recommended workup for Conn’s syndrome included assessments of the aldosterone-renin ratio and random cortisol levels. The results unveiled an aldosterone level below 60 pmol/L (reference range: 190 to 830 pmol/L in SI units) and a plasma renin level of 0.2 pmol/L (reference range: 0.7 to 3.3 mcg/L/hr in SI units). Notably, the aldosterone-renin ratio was low, conclusively ruling out Conn’s syndrome. The random cortisol level was notably elevated at 1334 nmol/L (reference range: 140 to 690 nmol/L).

Furthermore, a low-dose dexamethasone suppression test was undertaken due to the high cortisol levels. Following the administration of 1 mg of dexamethasone at 10 p.m., cortisol levels were measured at 9 p.m., 3 a.m., and 9 a.m. the following day. The results unveiled a persistently elevated cortisol level surpassing 1655 nmol/L, signaling an abnormal response to dexamethasone suppression and raising concerns about a hypercortisolism disorder, such as CS.

In the intricate progression of this case, the investigation delved deeper with a 24-hour urinary free cortisol level, revealing a significant elevation at 521 mcg/day (reference range: 10 to 55 mcg/day). Subsequent testing of ACTH portrayed a markedly elevated level of 445 ng/L, distinctly exceeding the normal reference range of 7.2 to 63.3 ng/L. A high-dose 8 mg dexamethasone test was performed to ascertain the source of excess ACTH production. The baseline serum cortisol levels before the high-dose dexamethasone suppression test were 1404 nmol/L, which decreased to 612 nmol/L afterward, strongly suggesting the source of excess ACTH production to be in the pituitary gland.

A CT scan of the adrenal glands ruled out adrenal mass, while an MRI of the brain uncovered a 1.3×1.3×3.2 cm pituitary macroadenoma (Figure 3), leading to compression of adjacent structures. Neurosurgery was consulted, and they recommended surgical removal of the macroadenoma due to the tumor size and potential complications. The patient was referred to a tertiary care hospital for pituitary adenoma removal.

Magnetic-resonance-imaging-(MRI)-of-the-brain-depicting-a-1.3x1.3x3.2-cm-pituitary-macroadenoma-(star)
Figure 3: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain depicting a 1.3×1.3×3.2 cm pituitary macroadenoma (star)

Discussion

CS represents a complex endocrine disorder characterized by excessive cortisol production. While the classic presentation of CS includes weight gain, central obesity, and muscle weakness, our case highlights an uncommon initial manifestation: severe hypokalemia. This atypical presentation underscores the diverse clinical spectrum of CS and the challenges it poses in diagnosis and management [1,2].

While CS typically presents with the classic symptoms mentioned above, severe hypokalemia as the initial manifestation is exceedingly rare. Hypokalemia in CS often results from excess cortisol-mediated activation of mineralocorticoid receptors, leading to increased urinary potassium excretion and renal potassium wasting. Additionally, metabolic alkalosis secondary to cortisol excess further exacerbates hypokalemia [3,4].

Diagnosing a case of Cushing’s disease typically commences with a thorough examination of the patient’s medical history and a comprehensive physical assessment aimed at identifying characteristic manifestations such as central obesity, facial rounding, proximal muscle weakness, and increased susceptibility to bruising. Essential to confirming the diagnosis are laboratory examinations, which involve measuring cortisol levels through various tests, including 24-hour urinary free cortisol testing, late-night salivary cortisol testing, and dexamethasone suppression tests. Furthermore, assessing plasma ACTH levels aids in distinguishing between pituitary-dependent and non-pituitary causes of CS. Integral to the diagnostic process are imaging modalities such as MRI of the pituitary gland, which facilitate the visualization of adenomas and the determination of their size and precise location [1-4].

Treatment for Cushing’s disease primarily entails surgical removal of the pituitary adenoma via transsphenoidal surgery, with the aim of excising the tumor and restoring normal pituitary function. In cases where surgical intervention is unsuitable or unsuccessful, pharmacological therapies employing medications such as cabergoline (a dopamine receptor agonist) or pasireotide (a somatostatin analogue) may be considered to suppress ACTH secretion and regulate cortisol levels. Additionally, radiation therapy, whether conventional or stereotactic radiosurgery, serves as a supplementary or alternative treatment approach to reduce tumor dimensions and mitigate ACTH production [5,6]. To assess the effectiveness of treatment, manage any problem, and assure long-term illness remission, diligent long-term follow-up and monitoring are essential. Collaborative multidisciplinary care involving specialists such as endocrinologists, neurosurgeons, and other healthcare professionals is pivotal in optimizing patient outcomes and enhancing overall quality of life [2,4].

The prognosis of CS largely depends on the underlying cause, stage of the disease, and efficacy of treatment. Early recognition and prompt intervention are essential for improving outcomes and minimizing long-term complications. Surgical resection of the adrenal or pituitary tumor can lead to remission of CS in the majority of cases. However, recurrence rates vary depending on factors such as tumor size, invasiveness, and completeness of resection [2,3]. Long-term follow-up with endocrinologists is crucial for monitoring disease recurrence, assessing hormonal function, and managing comorbidities associated with CS.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our case report highlights the rarity of severe hypokalemia as the initial presentation of CS. This unique presentation underscores the diverse clinical manifestations of CS and emphasizes the diagnostic challenges encountered in clinical practice. A multidisciplinary approach involving endocrinologists, neurosurgeons, and radiologists is essential for the timely diagnosis and management of CS. Early recognition, prompt intervention, and long-term follow-up are essential for optimizing outcomes and improving the quality of life for patients with this endocrine disorder.

References

  1. Nieman LK, Biller BM, Findling JW, Newell-Price J, Savage MO, Stewart PM, Montori VM: The diagnosis of Cushing’s syndrome: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008, 93:1526-40. 10.1210/jc.2008-0125
  2. Newell-Price J, Bertagna X, Grossman AB, Nieman LK: Cushing’s syndrome. Lancet. 2006, 367:1605-17. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68699-6
  3. Torpy DJ, Mullen N, Ilias I, Nieman LK: Association of hypertension and hypokalemia with Cushing’s syndrome caused by ectopic ACTH secretion: a series of 58 cases. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2002, 970:134-44. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2002.tb04419.x
  4. Elias C, Oliveira D, Silva MM, Lourenço P: Cushing’s syndrome behind hypokalemia and severe infection: a case report. Cureus. 2022, 14:e32486. 10.7759/cureus.32486
  5. Fleseriu M, Petersenn S: Medical therapy for Cushing’s disease: adrenal steroidogenesis inhibitors and glucocorticoid receptor blockers. Pituitary. 2015, 18:245-52. 10.1007/s11102-014-0627-0
  6. Pivonello R, De Leo M, Cozzolino A, Colao A: The treatment of Cushing’s disease. Endocr Rev. 2015, 36:385-486. 10.1210/er.2013-1048

Filed under: Cushing's, symptoms | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

From Knee Pain Consultation to Pituitary Surgery: The Challenge of Cushing Disease Diagnosis

Posted on April 24, 2024 by MaryO

Abstract

Cushing syndrome (CS) is a rare endocrinological disorder resulting from chronic exposure to excessive cortisol. The term Cushing disease is used specifically when this is caused by excessive secretion of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) by a pituitary tumor, usually an adenoma. This disease is associated with a poor prognosis, and if left untreated, it has an estimated 5-year survival rate of 50%. We present the case of a 66-year-old female patient who received a referral to endocrinology for an evaluation of obesity due to right knee arthropathy. Taking into consideration her age, she was screened for osteoporosis, with results that showed diminished bone density. Considering this, combined with other clinical features of the patient, suspicion turned toward hypercortisolism. Laboratory findings suggested that the CS was ACTH-dependent and originated in the pituitary gland. After a second look at the magnetic resonance imaging results, a 4-mm lesion was identified on the pituitary gland, prompting a transsphenoidal resection of the pituitary adenoma.

Introduction

Chronic excessive exposure to glucocorticoids leads to the diverse clinical manifestations of Cushing syndrome (CS), which has an annual incidence ranging from 1.8 to 3.2 cases per million individuals [1]. The syndrome’s signs and symptoms are not pathognomonic, and some of its primary manifestations, such as obesity, hypertension, and glucose metabolism alterations, are prevalent in the general population [2], making diagnosis challenging. Endogenous CS falls into 2 categories: adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)-dependent (80%-85% of cases), mostly due to a pituitary adenoma, or ACTH-independent (15%-20% of cases), typically caused by adrenal adenomas or hyperplasia [3]. Cushing disease (CD) represents a specific form of CS, characterized by the presence of an ACTH-secreting pituitary tumor [1]. Untreated CD is associated with high morbidity and mortality compared to the general population [1], with a 50% survival rate at 5 years [2]. However, surgical removal of a pituitary adenoma can result in complete remission, with mortality rates similar to those of the general population [2]. This article aims to highlight the challenges of suspecting and diagnosing CD and to discuss the current management options for this rare condition.

Case Presentation

A 66-year-old woman received a referral to endocrinology for an evaluation of obesity due to right knee arthropathy. During physical examination, she exhibited a body mass index of 34.3 kg/m2, blood pressure of 180/100, a history of non-insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes mellitus with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 6.9% (nondiabetic: < 5.7%; prediabetic: 5.7% to 6.4%; diabetic: ≥ 6.5%) and hypertension. Additionally, the patient complained of proximal weakness in all 4 limbs.

Diagnostic Assessment

Upon admission, densitometry revealed osteoporosis with T scores of −2.7 in the lumbar spine and −2.8 in the femoral neck. Hypercortisolism was suspected due to concomitant arterial hypertension, central obesity, muscle weakness, and osteoporosis. Physical examination did not reveal characteristic signs of hypercortisolism, such as skin bruises, flushing, or reddish-purple striae. Late-night salivary cortisol (LNSC) screening yielded a value of 8.98 nmol/L (0.3255 mcg/dL) (reference value [RV] 0.8-2.7 nmol/L [0.029-0.101 mcg/dL]) and ACTH of 38.1 pg/mL (8.4 pmol/L) (RV 2-11 pmol/L [9-52 pg/mL]). A low-dose dexamethasone suppression test (LDDST) was performed (cutoff value 1.8 mcg/dL [49 nmol/L]), with cortisol levels of 7.98 mcg/dL (220 nmol/L) at 24 hours and 20.31 mcg/dL (560 nmol/L) at 48 hours. Subsequently, a high-dose dexamethasone suppression test (HDDST) was conducted using a dose of 2 mg every 6 hours for 2 days, for a total dose of 16 mg, revealing cortisol levels of 0.0220 nmol/L (0.08 ng/mL) at 24 hours and 0.0560 nmol/L (0.0203 ng/mL) at 48 hours, alongside 24-hour urine cortisol of 0.8745 nmol/L (0.317 ng/mL) (RV 30-145 nmol/24 hours [approximately 11-53 μg/24 hours]) [4].

These findings indicated the presence of endogenous ACTH-dependent hypercortisolism of pituitary origin. Consequently, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was requested, but the results showed no abnormalities. Considering ectopic ACTH production often occurs in the lung, a high-resolution chest computed tomography scan was performed, revealing no lesions.

Treatment

Upon reassessment, the MRI revealed a 4-mm adenoma, prompting the decision to proceed with transsphenoidal resection of the pituitary adenoma.

Outcome and Follow-Up

The histological analysis revealed positive staining for CAM5.2, chromogranin, synaptophysin, and ACTH, with Ki67 staining at 1%. At the 1-month follow-up assessment, ACTH levels were 3.8 pmol/L (17.2 pg/mL) and morning cortisol was 115.8621 nmol/L (4.2 mcg/dL) (RV 5-25 mcg/dL or 140-690 nmol/L). Somatomedin C was measured at 85 ng/mL (RV 70-267 ng/mL) and prolactin at 3.5 ng/mL (RV 4-25 ng/mL). At the 1-year follow-up, the patient exhibited a satisfactory postoperative recovery. However, she developed diabetes insipidus and secondary hypothyroidism. Arterial hypertension persisted. Recent laboratory results indicated a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level of 5.4%. Medications at the time of follow-up included prednisolone 5 milligrams a day, desmopressin 60 to 120 micrograms every 12 hours, losartan potassium 50 milligrams every 12 hours, and levothyroxine 88 micrograms a day.

Discussion

CD is associated with high mortality, primarily attributable to cardiovascular outcomes and comorbidities such as metabolic and skeletal disorders, infections, and psychiatric disorders [1]. The low incidence of CD in the context of the high prevalence of chronic noncommunicable diseases makes early diagnosis a challenge [2]. This case is relevant for reviewing the diagnostic approach process and highlighting the impact of the availability bias, which tends to prioritize more common diagnoses over rare diseases. Despite the absence of typical symptoms, a timely diagnosis was achieved.

Once exogenous CS is ruled out, laboratory testing must focus on detecting endogenous hypercortisolism to prevent misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment [5]. Screening methods include 24-hour urinary free cortisol (UFC) for total cortisol load, while circadian rhythm and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis function may be evaluated using midnight serum cortisol and LNSC [5]. An early hallmark of endogenous CS is the disruption of physiological circadian cortisol patterns, characterized by a constant cortisol level throughout the day or no significant decrease [2]. Measuring LNSC has proven to be useful in identifying these patients. The LNSC performed on the patient yielded a high result.

To assess HPA axis suppressibility, tests such as the overnight and the standard 2-day LDDST [5] use dexamethasone, a potent synthetic corticosteroid with high glucocorticoid receptor affinity and prolonged action, with minimal interference with cortisol measurement [6]. In a normal HPA axis, cortisol exerts negative feedback, inhibiting the secretion of corticotropin-releasing-hormone (CRH) and ACTH. Exogenous corticosteroids suppress CRH and ACTH secretion, resulting in decreased synthesis and secretion of cortisol. In pathological hypercortisolism, the HPA axis becomes partially or entirely resistant to feedback inhibition by exogenous steroids [5, 6]. The LDDST involves the administration of 0.5 mg of dexamethasone orally every 6 hours for 2 days, with a total dose of 4 mg. A blood sample is drawn 6 hours after the last administered dose [6]. Following the LDDST, the patient did not demonstrate suppression of endogenous corticosteroid production.

After diagnosing CS, the next step in the diagnostic pathway involves categorizing it as ACTH-independent vs ACTH-dependent. ACTH-independent cases exhibit low or undetectable ACTH levels, pointing to adrenal origin. The underlying principle is that excess ACTH production in CD can be partially or completely suppressed by high doses of dexamethasone, a response not observed in ectopic tumors [6]. In this case, the patient presented with an ACTH of 38.1 pg/mL (8.4 pmol/L), indicative of ACTH-dependent CD.

Traditionally, measuring cortisol levels and conducting pituitary imaging are standard practices for diagnosis. Recent advances propose alternative diagnostic methods such as positron emission tomography (PET) scans and corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) tests [7]. PET scans, utilizing radioactive tracers, offer a view of metabolic activity in the adrenal glands and pituitary region, aiding in the identification of abnormalities associated with CD. Unfortunately, the availability of the aforementioned tests in the country is limited.

Once ACTH-dependent hypercortisolism is confirmed, identifying the source becomes crucial. A HDDST is instrumental in distinguishing between a pituitary and an ectopic source of ACTH overproduction [2, 6]. The HDDST involves administering 8 mg of dexamethasone either overnight or as a 2-day test. In this case, the patient received 2 mg of dexamethasone orally every 6 hours for 2 days, totaling a dose of 16 mg. Simultaneously, a urine sample for UFC is collected during dexamethasone administration. The HDDST suppressed endogenous cortisol production in the patient, suggesting a pituitary origin.

In ACTH-dependent hypercortisolism, CD is the predominant cause, followed by ectopic ACTH syndrome and, less frequently, an ectopic CRH-secreting tumor [3, 5]. With the pretest probability for pituitary origin exceeding 80%, the next diagnostic step is typically an MRI of the pituitary region. However, the visualization of microadenomas on MRI ranges from 50% to 70%, requiring further testing if results are negative or inconclusive [5]. Initial testing of our patient revealed no pituitary lesions. Following a pituitary location, ACTH-secreting tumors may be found in the lungs. Thus, a high-resolution chest computed tomography scan was performed, which yielded negative findings. Healthcare professionals must keep these detection rates in mind. In instances of high clinical suspicion, repeating or reassessing tests and imaging may be warranted [3], as in our case, ultimately leading to the discovery of a 4-mm pituitary adenoma.

It is fundamental to mention that the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on Treatment of CS recommends that, when possible, all patients presenting with ACTH-dependent CS and lacking an evident causal neoplasm should be directed to an experienced center capable of conducting inferior petrosal sinus sampling to differentiate between pituitary and nonpituitary or ectopic cause [8]. However, in this instance, such a referral was regrettably hindered by logistical constraints.

Regarding patient outcomes and monitoring in CD, there is no consensus on defining remission criteria following tumor resection. Prolonged hypercortisolism results in suppression of corticotropes, resulting in low levels of ACTH and cortisol after surgical intervention. Typically, remission is identified by morning serum cortisol values below 5 µg/dL (138 nmol/L) or UFC levels between 28 and 56 nmol/d (10-20 µg/d) within 7 days after surgical intervention. In our case, the patient’s morning serum cortisol was 115.8621 nmol/L (4.2 µg/dL), indicating remission. Remission rates in adults are reported at 73% to 76% in selectively resected microadenomas and at 43% in macroadenomas [8], highlighting the need for regular follow-up visits to detect recurrence.

Following the surgery, the patient experienced diabetes insipidus, a relatively common postoperative occurrence, albeit usually transient [8]. It is recommended to monitor serum sodium levels during the first 5 to 14 days postsurgery for early detection and management. Additionally, pituitary deficiencies may manifest following surgery. In this patient, prolactin levels were compromised, potentially impacting sexual response. However, postoperative somatomedin levels were normal, and gonadotropins were not measured due to the patient’s age group, as no additional clinical decisions were anticipated based on those results. Secondary hypothyroidism was diagnosed postoperatively.

Moving forward, it is important to emphasize certain clinical signs and symptoms for diagnosing CD. The combination of low bone mineral density (Likelihood Ratio [LR] +21.33), central obesity (LR +3.10), and arterial hypertension (LR + 2.29) [9] has a higher positive LR than some symptoms considered “characteristic,” such as reddish-purple striae, plethora, proximal muscle weakness, and unexplained bruising [2, 10]. It is essential to give relevance to the signs the patient may present, emphasizing signs that have been proven to have an increased odds ratio (OR) such as osteoporosis (OR 3.8), myopathies (OR 6.0), metabolic syndrome (OR 2.7) and adrenal adenoma (OR 2.4) [9‐11]. The simultaneous development and worsening of these conditions should raise suspicion for underlying issues. Understanding the evolving nature of CD signs highlights the importance of vigilance during medical examinations, prioritizing the diagnostic focus, and enabling prompt initiation of treatment.

Recognizing the overlap of certain clinical features in CS is fundamental to achieving a timely diagnosis.

Learning Points

  • CS diagnosis is challenging due to the absence of pathognomonic signs and symptoms and the overlap of features present in many pathologies, such as metabolic syndrome.
  • Early detection of CS is crucial, given its association with high morbidity and mortality resulting from chronic exposure to glucocorticoids.
  • Recognizing the combination of low bone mineral density, obesity, hypertension, and diabetes as valuable clinical indicators is key in identifying CS.
  • Interdisciplinary collaboration is essential to achieve a comprehensive diagnostic approach.

Acknowledgments

We extend our gratitude to Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Bogotá for providing essential resources and facilities that contributed to the successful completion of this case report. Special acknowledgment is reserved for the anonymous reviewers, whose insightful feedback significantly enhanced the quality of this manuscript during the peer-review process. Their contributions are sincerely appreciated.

Contributors

All authors made individual contributions to authorship. A.B.O. was involved in the diagnosis and management of this patient. M.A.G., J.M.H., and A.B.O. were involved in manuscript drafting and editing. All authors reviewed and approved the final draft.

Funding

This research received no public or commercial funding.

Disclosures

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to the current study.

Informed Patient Consent for Publication

Signed informed consent could not be obtained from the patient or a proxy but has been approved by the treating institution.

Data Availability Statement

Restrictions apply to the availability of some or all data generated or analyzed during this study to preserve patient confidentiality or because they were used under license. The corresponding author will on request detail the restrictions and any conditions under which access to some data may be provided.

References

1

Hakami
OA

,

Ahmed
S

,

Karavitaki
N

.

Epidemiology and mortality of Cushing’s syndrome

.

Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab

.

2021

;

35

(

1

):

101521

.

2

Nieman
LK

,

Biller
BMK

,

Findling
JW

, et al.

The diagnosis of Cushing’s syndrome: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline

.

J Clin Endocrinol Metab

.

2008

;

93

(

5

):

1526

‐

1540

.

3

Gutiérrez Restrepo
J

,

Latorre Sierra
G

,

Campuzano Maya
G

.

Síndrome de cushing

.

Med Lab

.

2009

;

15

:

411

‐

430

.

4

Petersenn
S

,

Newell-Price
J

,

Findling
JW

, et al.

High variability in baseline urinary free cortisol values in patients with Cushing’s disease

.

Clin Endocrinol (Oxf)

.

2014

;

80

(

2

):

261

‐

269

.

5

Lila
AR

,

Sarathi
V

,

Jagtap
VS

,

Bandgar
T

,

Menon
P

,

Shah
NS

.

Cushing’s syndrome: stepwise approach to diagnosis

.

Indian J Endocrinol Metab

.

2011

;

15

(

Suppl4

):

S317

‐

S321

.

6

Dogra
P

,

Vijayashankar
NP

.

Dexamethasone suppression test. In: StatPearls StatPearls Publishing; 2024

. Accessed January 29, 2024. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542317/

7

Müller
OA

,

Dörr
HG

,

Hagen
B

,

Stalla
GK

,

von Werder
K

.

Corticotropin releasing factor (CRF)-stimulation test in normal controls and patients with disturbances of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis

.

Klin Wochenschr

.

1982

;

60

(

24

):

1485

‐

1491

.

8

Nieman
LK

,

Biller
BMK

,

Findling
JW

, et al.

Treatment of Cushing’s syndrome: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline

.

J Clin Endocrinol Metab

.

2015

;

100

(

8

):

2807

‐

2831

.

9

Aron
DC

.

Cushing’s syndrome: why is diagnosis so difficult?
Rev Endocr Metab Disord

.

2010

;

11

(

2

):

105

‐

116

.

10

Braun
LT

,

Vogel
F

,

Zopp
S

, et al.

Whom should we screen for cushing syndrome? the Endocrine Society practice guideline recommendations 2008 revisited

.

J Clin Endocrinol Metab

.

2022

;

107

(

9

):

e3723

‐

e3730

.

11

Schneider
HJ

,

Dimopoulou
C

,

Stalla
GK

,

Reincke
M

,

Schopohl
J

.

Discriminatory value of signs and symptoms in Cushing’s syndrome revisited: what has changed in 30 years?
Clin Endocrinol (Oxf)

.

2013

;

78

(

1

):

153

‐

154

.

Abbreviations

 

  • ACTH

    adrenocorticotropic hormone

  • CD

    Cushing disease

  • CRH

    corticotropin-releasing hormone

  • CS

    Cushing syndrome

  • HDDST

    high-dose dexamethasone suppression test

  • HPA

    hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal

  • LDDST

    low-dose dexamethasone suppression test

  • LNSC

    late-night salivary cortisol

  • MRI

    magnetic resonance imaging

  • OR

    odds ratio

  • RV

    reference value

  • UFC

    urinary free cortisol

© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Filed under: Cushing's, pituitary, symptoms, Treatments | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Day 22, Cushing’s Awareness Challenge

Posted on April 22, 2024 by MaryO

This is a tough one.  Sometimes I’m in “why me” mode.  Why Cushing’s?  Why cancer?  Unfortunately, there’s not a thing I can do about either.  Cushing’s, who knows the risk factors?  For kidney cancer I found out the risk factors and nearly none apply to me. So why? But why not?  No particular reason why I should be exempt from anything.

Since there’s nothing to be done with the exception of trying to do things that could harm my remaining kidney, I have to try to make the best of things.  This is my life.  It could be better but it could be way worse.

One of the Challenge topics was to write about “My Dream Day” so here’s mine…

I’d wake up on my own – no snooze alarms – at about 8 am, sun streaming through the window.  I’d we well rested and not have had any nightmares the night before.  I remember my son is home for a visit but I let him sleep in for a while.

I’d get out for a bike ride or a brisk walk, come home, head for the hot tub then shower.  I’d practice the piano for a bit, then go out to lunch with friends, taking Michael with me.  While we’re out, the maid will come in and clean the house.

After lunch, maybe a little technology shopping/buying.  Then the group of us go to one of our homes for piano duets, trios, 2-piano music.

When we get home, it’s immaculately clean and I find that the Prize Patrol has visited and left a substantial check.

I had wisely left something for dinner in the Ninja so dinner is ready.  After dinner, I check online and find no urgent email, no work that needs to be done, no bills that need to be paid, no blog challenge posts to write…

I wake up from My Dream Day and realize that this is so far from real life, so I re-read The Best Day of My Life  and am happy that I’m not dealing with anything worse.

Filed under: Cancer, Cushing's, Thankfulness, Cushing's Awareness Challenge 2016, symptoms | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Epigenetic Mechanisms Modulated by Glucocorticoids With a Focus on Cushing Syndrome

Posted on April 19, 2024 by MaryO

Abstract

In Cushing syndrome (CS), prolonged exposure to high cortisol levels results in a wide range of devastating effects causing multisystem morbidity. Despite the efficacy of treatment leading to disease remission and clinical improvement, hypercortisolism-induced complications may persist. Since glucocorticoids use the epigenetic machinery as a mechanism of action to modulate gene expression, the persistence of some comorbidities may be mediated by hypercortisolism-induced long-lasting epigenetic changes. Additionally, glucocorticoids influence microRNA expression, which is an important epigenetic regulator as it modulates gene expression without changing the DNA sequence. Evidence suggests that chronically elevated glucocorticoid levels may induce aberrant microRNA expression which may impact several cellular processes resulting in cardiometabolic disorders.

The present article reviews the evidence on epigenetic changes induced by (long-term) glucocorticoid exposure. Key aspects of some glucocorticoid-target genes and their implications in the context of CS are described. Lastly, the effects of epigenetic drugs influencing glucocorticoid effects are discussed for their ability to be potentially used as adjunctive therapy in CS.

epigenetic, glucocorticoids, Cushing syndrome
Issue Section:

Mini-review

In Cushing syndrome (CS), adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) hypersecretion by a pituitary adenoma or an ectopic source, or autonomous cortisol hypersecretion by an adrenal tumor, induces chronic endogenous hypercortisolism with loss of the cortisol circadian rhythm (1). CS is more prevalent in women than men and frequently occurs in the fourth to sixth decades of life (2).

Glucocorticoids (GC) have extensive physiological actions and regulate up to 20% of the expressed genome, mainly related to the immune system, metabolic homeostasis, and cognition. Therefore, the prolonged exposure to high cortisol levels results in a wide range of devastating effects, including major changes in body composition (obesity, muscle atrophy, osteoporosis), neuropsychiatric disturbances (impaired cognition, depression, sleep disturbances), the metabolic syndrome (obesity, hypertension, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia), hypercoagulability, and immune suppression (3, 4). The consequences of hypercortisolism lead to compromised quality of life and increased mortality rate (5). The mortality rate in patients with CS is 4 times higher than the healthy control population (6). Risk factors such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension contribute to the increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiac insufficiency. As a result, cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of the premature death in CS (5). Infectious disease is also an important cause of death in CS (5). Therefore, prompt treatment to control hypercortisolism is imperative to prevent complications and an increased mortality rate.

Despite the efficacy of treatment leading to disease remission, the clinical burden of CS improves, but does not completely revert, in every patient (7). Indeed, obesity, neuropsychiatric disturbances, hypertension, diabetes, and osteoporosis persist in a substantial number of biochemically cured patients. For instance, in a study involving 118 CS patients in remission for about 7.8 years (median), resolution of comorbidities such as diabetes occurred in only 36% of cases, hypertension in 23% of cases, and depression in 52% of the cases (8). It has been proposed that epigenetic changes as a consequence of hypercortisolism is a mechanism of the persistence of some comorbidities (9-12).

Epigenetics is a reversible process that modifies gene expression without any alterations in DNA sequence; frequently it is mediated by histone modification and DNA methylation together with microRNAs (13-15). GCs use the epigenetic machinery as a mechanism of action to regulate gene expression in physiological circumstances, such as metabolic actions and stress response. Its networks involve DNA and histone modifying enzymes, such as DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs), histone acetyltransferases (HATs), and histone deacetylases (HDACs) (16). (Fig. 1) The DNA methylation process catalyzed by DNMTs is usually associated with downregulation of gene expression (17). Histone modifications catalyzed by HAT enzymes induce gene transcription, while those by HDAC enzymes induce transcriptional repression (17). Drugs interfering with these enzymes (so-called epigenetic drugs) may affect the GC genomic actions confirming the interaction between GC and the epigenetic system (18, 19). Furthermore, GC can modulate HDAC and DNMT expression and activity (16, 19, 20). Based on these data it might be speculated that in CS, epigenetic modifications induced by long-term GC exposure plays a role in the development of the disease-specific morbidity (9, 10).

Figure 1.
Glucocorticoid (GC) and its epigenetic machinery. GC through its receptor interacts with DNA and histone modifying enzymes, such as DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs), histone acetyl transferases (HATs), and histone deacetylases (HDAC) to modulate gene expression.

Open in new tabDownload slide

Glucocorticoid (GC) and its epigenetic machinery. GC through its receptor interacts with DNA and histone modifying enzymes, such as DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs), histone acetyl transferases (HATs), and histone deacetylases (HDAC) to modulate gene expression.

In this review we provide an overview of epigenetic aspects of GC action in physiological conditions and in the context of CS. We start with a detailed characterization of how GC, using the epigenetic system, can change chromatin structure in order to activate or silence gene expression. (Fig. 2) Subsequently, we describe the role of epigenetic mechanisms in the regulation of expression of several GC-target genes related to CS. Finally, we present the current evidence of epigenetic changes caused by the long-term of GC exposure and the potential use of epidrugs influencing GC actions.

Figure 2.
Epigenetic mechanisms of the glucocorticoid action to regulate gene expression. The GR is located in cytoplasm in a multi-protein complex; after GC binding, GR dissociates from the multi-protein complex, crosses the nuclear membrane, dimerizes, and binds to the GRE of the target gene. One of the mechanisms of action of GC is through the recruitment of co-regulators together with epigenetic enzymes, such as HAT, to change the chromatin structure, resulting in activation of gene transcription. Also, GR decreases gene expression by tethering other transcriptional factors and recruiting HDAC2, causing histone deacetylation, which leads to a repressed chromatin. GC can cause hypomethylation through downregulation in the expression of DNMT1. Abbreviations: Ac, acetylation; DNMT1, DNA methyltransferase 1; GC, glucocorticoid; GR, glucocorticoid receptor; GRE, glucocorticoid responsive elements; HAT, histone acetyltransferase; HDAC, histone deacetylases; Me: methylation.

Open in new tabDownload slide

Epigenetic mechanisms of the glucocorticoid action to regulate gene expression. The GR is located in cytoplasm in a multi-protein complex; after GC binding, GR dissociates from the multi-protein complex, crosses the nuclear membrane, dimerizes, and binds to the GRE of the target gene. One of the mechanisms of action of GC is through the recruitment of co-regulators together with epigenetic enzymes, such as HAT, to change the chromatin structure, resulting in activation of gene transcription. Also, GR decreases gene expression by tethering other transcriptional factors and recruiting HDAC2, causing histone deacetylation, which leads to a repressed chromatin. GC can cause hypomethylation through downregulation in the expression of DNMT1. Abbreviations: Ac, acetylation; DNMT1, DNA methyltransferase 1; GC, glucocorticoid; GR, glucocorticoid receptor; GRE, glucocorticoid responsive elements; HAT, histone acetyltransferase; HDAC, histone deacetylases; Me: methylation.

Search Strategy

A search of the PubMed database was conducted using the advanced search builder tool for articles in the English language on the following terms “glucocorticoids,” “glucocorticoid receptor,” “Cushing,” “hypercortisolism,” “epigenetic,” “DNA methylation,” “histone deacetylase,” “histone acetyltransferase,” “microRNA” “fkbp5,” “clock genes,” and “POMC.” Moreover, references were identified directly from the articles included in this manuscript. The articles were selected by the authors after being carefully analyzed regarding their importance and impact.

Epigenetic Aspects of Genomic Action of Glucocorticoids

GCs regulate gene expression positively or negatively. GC-responsive genes include genes encoding for proteins associated with inflammation, metabolic processes, blood pressure and fluid homeostasis, apoptosis, cell cycle progression, circadian rhythm, and intracellular signaling (21).

The GC actions are cell type–specific (22). For instance, in an in vitro study, the comparison of GC-expressed genes between 2 cell lines, corticotroph (AtT20) and mammary (3134) cell lines, showed a different set of GC-regulated genes, revealing the cell type–specific nature of GC effects (23). GC function depends on the accessibility of glucocorticoid receptor (GR)-binding sites in the DNA of the target tissue, which in turn is mostly established during cell differentiation. Therefore, different chromatin organization explains the distinct GR-binding sites among different tissues (22, 24, 25). The chromatin accessibility is determined by histone modifications such as acetylation, methylation, phosphorylation, and/or DNA methylation, processes that are both dynamic and reversible (26).

Furthermore, gene expression is regulated in a GC-concentration-dependent manner which is tissue-specific. Only a few genes can be upregulated or downregulated at low concentrations of GC. For example, a dose of dexamethasone (Dex) as low as 0.5 nM selectively activated PER1 (period 1, transcription factor related to circadian rhythm) expression in lung cancer (A549) cells (21, 27). Additionally, continuous GC exposure or pulsed GC (cortisol fluctuation during circadian rhythm) may cause different responses with respect to gene expression (26, 28). For example, constant treatment with corticosterone induced higher levels of PER1 clock gene mRNA expression compared with pulsatile treatment, as demonstrated in an in vitro study using 3134 cell line (28).

The time course for gene expression in response to Dex is fast, with repression occurring slightly slower compared to activation. Half of activated and repressed genes are detected within, respectively, about 40 minutes and 53 minutes following Dex exposure (21).

In short, the transcriptional output in response to GC depends on cell type, as well as on the duration and intensity of GC exposure (21, 24, 26, 27). GCs act as a transcriptional regulatory factor resulting in activating or repressing the expression of genes. The GC exerts its function through binding to corticosteroid receptors, specifically, the mineralocorticoid receptor and the GR, members of the nuclear receptor superfamily (29, 30).

Glucocorticoid Receptor

The GR is located in the cytoplasm in a chaperone complex which includes heat-shock proteins (70 and 90) and immunophilins (such as FK506 binding protein [FKBP5]). Cortisol diffuses across the cell membrane and binds with high affinity to the GR. The activated GR bound to GC dissociates of the multi-protein complex and is transferred to the nucleus, where it ultimately regulates gene expression (26, 31).

GR is a transcription factor encoded by nuclear receptor subfamily 3, group C member 1 (NR3C1) gene, located in chromosome 5, and consisting of 9 exons. It is composed of 3 major functional domains, namely a DNA binding domain (DBD), the C-terminal ligand-binding domain (LBD) and the N-terminal domain (NTB). The LBD recognizes and joins the GC. NTB contains an activation function-1 (AF1) which connects with co-regulators and the members of the general transcription machinery to activate target genes. The DBD comprises 2 zinc fingers motifs that are able to identify and bind to glucocorticoid responsive elements (GREs) (32, 33).

GRα is the most expressed and functionally active GR. GRβ is another isoform which is the result of an alternative splicing in exon 9 of the GR transcript. The difference between the 2 isoforms is the distinct ligand-binding domain in GRβ. This variance prevents the GRβ from binding to GC. In fact, the GRβ counteracts GRα function by interfering with its binding to a GRE in the target gene, and GRβ expression is associated with GC resistance (32). In addition, GRβ has its own transcriptional activity which is independent and distinct from GRα (34).

Another splice variant of human GR, GRγ, is associated with GC resistance in lung cell carcinoma and childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (33, 35). There is an additional amino acid (arginine) in the DBD of the GRγ that reduces, by about half, the capacity to activate or suppress the transcription of the target gene, as compared with GRα (32). One study identified GRγ in a small series of corticotroph adenomas (36).

Glucocorticoid Mechanism of Action

The GR-GC complex induces or represses gene expression directly by binding to DNA, indirectly by tethering other transcription factors or yet in a composite manner that consists in binding DNA in association with binding to other co-regulators (35, 37).

The GR has the ability to reorganize the chromatin structure to become more or less accessible to the transcriptional machinery. In the classical mechanism of direct induction of gene expression, the GR dimerizes and binds to a GRE in DNA. The receptor recruits co-regulators, such as CREB binding protein, which has intrinsic histone acetyltransferase (HAT) activity that modifies the chromatin structure from an inactive to an active state. This model, called transactivation, upregulates the expression of some genes related to glucose, protein, and fat metabolism. Gene repression, on the other hand, is accomplished by GR binding to a negative GRE (nGRE) leading to the formation of a chromatin remodeling complex composed by co-repressor factors, such as NCOR1 and SMRT, and histone deacetylases (HDACs), that ultimately turn chromatin less accessible and suppress gene transcription. The gene repression through direct binding events occurs less frequently when compared to gene induction (25, 35, 38).

Another mechanism of GC action is through binding to other transcription factors (tethering). In case of switching off inflammatory genes, GR binds to transcriptional co-activator molecules, such as CREB binding protein with intrinsic HAT activity, and subsequently recruits HDAC2 to reverse histone acetylation, thus resulting in a suppression of the activated inflammatory gene (39). In the same model, GC interacts with other cofactors, such as the STAT family, to induce chromatin modifications resulting in increased gene expression (26).

Furthermore, the transcriptional dynamics of some genes follow a composite manner. In this model, GR, in conjunction with binding to GRE, also interacts with cofactors in order to enhance or reduce gene expression (35).

GCs can also modulate gene expression by influencing the transcription of epigenetic modifiers. An experimental study demonstrated that GC mediated the upregulation of HDAC2 in rats exposed to chronic stress, which in turn decreased the transcription of histone methyltransferase (Ehmt2) that ultimately upregulated the expression of Nedd4. Nedd4 is a ubiquitin ligase, expression of which has been related to cognitive impairment (40). Additionally, GC was found to interact with another epigenetic eraser, namely JMJD3, a histone demethylase, suppressing its transcription in endothelial cells treated with TNFα that led to decreased expression of other genes related to the blood-brain barrier (41).

GCs have the ability to induce (de)methylation changes in DNA, ultimately affecting gene expression. The DNA methylation process triggered by GC involves the family of DNA methyltransferases (DNMT) and ten-eleven translocation (TET) protein (20, 42-44). The DNMT, DNMT1, DNMT3A, and DNMT3B are able to transfer a methyl group to a cytosine residue in DNA, forming 5-methylcytosine (5mC), which negatively impacts gene expression. In contrast, TET protein chemically modifies the 5mC to form 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5hmC), which ultimately leads to unmethylated cytosine, positively influencing gene expression (45).

Glucocorticoids mainly induce loss of methylation events rather than gain of methylation across the genome (11, 46). The DNA demethylation process can be either active or passive. The active mechanism is linked to the upregulation of TET enzyme expression that follows GC treatment, which was described in retinal and osteocyte cell line model studies (42, 43). The passive demethylation event involves the downregulation (Fig. 2) or dysfunction of DNMT1. DNMT1 is responsible for maintaining the methylation process in dividing cells (45). In case of GC exposure, GC can cause hypomethylation through downregulation in the expression of DNMT1, a process described in the AtT20 corticotroph tumor cell model, or through GC hindering DNMT activity, particularly DNMT1, as demonstrated in the retinal cell (RPE) line (20, 42, 44).

Glucocorticoid-Induced Epigenetic Changes

There are several molecular mechanisms connecting GR activation and epigenetic modifications ultimately affecting gene expression (Fig. 2). As described above, GC uses epigenetic machinery, such as DNA and histone modifying enzymes, to restructure the chromatin in order to induce or silence gene transcription (16, 47).

In an in vitro study using murine AtT20 corticotroph tumor and neuronal cell lines, after chronic GC exposure followed by a recovery period in the absence of GC, the cells retained an “epigenetic memory” with persistence of loss of methylation content in FKBP5 gene but with no increased gene expression at baseline. The functionality of this “epigenetic memory” only became evident in a second exposure to GC, when the cells responded sharply with a more robust expression of FKBP5 gene compared to the cells without previous exposure to GC (44). Another in vitro study, using a human fetal hippocampal cell line, confirmed long-lasting DNA methylation changes induced by GC. The cells were treated for 10 days with dexamethasone, during the proliferative and cell differentiation phases of the cell line, followed by 20 days without any treatment. The second exposure to GC resulted in an enhanced gene expression of a subset of GC-target genes (48). Additionally, using an animal model subjected to chronic stress, a distinct gene expression profile was demonstrated in response to acute GC challenge compared to those without chronic stress history. The proposed mechanism was that chronic stress resulted in GC-induced enduring epigenetic changes in target genes, altering the responsiveness to a subsequent GC exposure (49).

In general, it seems that the majority of differential methylation regions (DMRs) induced by GC are loss of methylation rather than gain of methylation. In an experimental study, an association between hypomethylation and GC exposure was demonstrated in mice previously exposed to high levels of GC. Further analysis demonstrated that the genes linked with DMR were mostly related to metabolism, the immune system, and neurodevelopment (11).

Human studies have also shown that excess of cortisol can induce modifications in DNA methylation. DNA methylation data obtained from whole blood samples from patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treated with GC revealed DMR at specific CpG dinucleotides across the genome. These DMR were confirmed by pyrosequencing and annotated to genes, such as SCNN1A, encoding the α subunit of the epithelial sodium channel, GPR97, encoding G protein coupled receptor 97, and LRP3, encoding low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 3 (50). Furthermore, it has been proposed that the negative impact of chronic GC exposure on the immune system, which increases the risk of opportunistically infections, may be epigenetically mediated (51). In a clinical study, using whole blood samples, an analysis of genome-wide DNA methylation was performed on patients before and after exposure to GC (51). Long-term GC exposure disrupts, through a persistent modification of the cytosine methylation pattern, the mTORC1 pathway which affects CD4+ T cell biology (51).

Taken together, these data clearly show the interplay between GC signaling and methylation and histone modifications processes suggesting that GC interferes in the epigenetic landscape modulating gene expression. It is possible that most of these GC-induced epigenetic events are dynamic and temporary, while others may persist leading to long-lasting disorders. Further research to provide insight into what makes some events reversible is warranted.

Epigenetic Changes as a Consequence of Long-Term Glucocorticoid Exposure in Cushing Syndrome

The comorbidities associated with CS are associated with increased mortality mainly due to cardiovascular events (52). GC-induced comorbidities in CS may be at least in part epigenetically mediated. Previous study using whole blood methylation profile demonstrated that specific hypomethylated CpG sites induced by GC were associated with Cushing comorbidities, such as hypertension and osteoporosis (46). The study identified a methylator predictor of GC excess which could be used as a biomarker to monitor GC status (46).

The long-term exposure to high cortisol levels may be crucial for the persistence of some morbidities in CS through epigenetic changes. Hypercortisolism-induced persistent changes in visceral adipose tissue gene expression through epigenetic modifications was investigated in a translational study (12). This study combined data from patients with active CS and data from an animal model of CS in active and remitted phase. Interestingly, the study demonstrated long-lasting changes in the transcriptome of adipose tissue that were associated with histone modifications induced by GC. Therefore, these epigenetic fingerprints observed even after the resolution of hypercortisolism may elucidate the mechanism of persistent modifications in gene expression in the visceral adipose tissue (12).

With regard to the persistence of GC-induced DMR, a genome-wide DNA methylation analysis showed a lower average of DNA methylation in patients in remission of CS compared to controls. Interestingly, the most common biologically relevant affected genes were retinoic acid receptors, thyroid hormone receptors, or hormone/nuclear receptors, important genes related to intracellular pathways and regulators of gene expression (9).

In summary, this large body of evidence supports the concept that prolonged GC exposure modulates the epigenetic landscape across the genome by inducing DMR and histone modifications. Some epigenetic modifications are persistent, and this may partially explain the incomplete reversibility of some of CS features following clinical remission.

Glucocorticoid-Target Genes in Cushing Syndrome

A detailed identification and characterization of GC-target genes may shed light in the understanding of the pathophysiology and treatment response in patients with CS. For instance, the GC regulation of pro-opiomelanocortin (POMC) expression as part of the physiologic GC negative feedback may be impaired in Cushing disease (CD), which is an important mechanism for the maintenance of high GC levels (53). Another example is the interaction between GC and clock genes, which may interfere in the loss of the GC circadian rhythm and may contribute to metabolic disorders in CS (54). Furthermore, the suppressive action of GC on drug targets, such as the somatostatin receptor (subtype 2), may influence the efficacy of first-generation somatostatin receptor ligands in normalizing cortisol levels in CD (55). Here we describe how GCs using epigenetic machinery influence the expression of important target genes and their implications in CS.

FKBP5

FK506 binding protein (FKBP5) plays an important role in the regulation of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) system (56). As part of the GC negative feedback loop, GC binds to hypothalamic and pituitary GR. In the cytoplasm, GR is bound to a multi-protein complex including FKBP5. FKBP5 modulates GR action by decreasing GR binding affinity to GC and by preventing GR translocation from cytoplasm to nucleus (57, 58). In other words, an increase of FKBP5 expression is inversely correlated with GR activity and results in GC resistance leading to an impaired negative feedback regulation in the HPA axis (59).

FKBP5 is a GC-responsive gene; its upregulation by GC is part of an intracellular negative short-feedback loop (60). The mechanism by which GC regulates FKBP5 expression was shown to include inhibition of DNA methylation (44). In a model for CS, mice treated with corticosterone for 4 weeks had a reduced level of DNA methylation of FKBP5 in DNA extracted from whole blood, which was strongly correlated in a negative manner with GC concentration. Interestingly, a negative correlation was also observed between the degree of FKBP5 gene methylation measured at 4 weeks of GC exposure and the percentage of mice visceral fat (61). Accordingly, previous studies have provided compelling evidence of decreased methylation in the FKBP5 gene in patients with active CS compared to healthy control (10, 46). Even in patients with CS in remission, previous data have suggested a small decrease in FKBP5 methylation levels compared to healthy controls (9, 10). In an in vitro study, it was demonstrated that, by decreasing DNMT1 expression, GC is able to reduce FKBP5 methylation levels and, therefore, increase its expression (44).

Likewise, FKBP5 mRNA is also sensitive to GC exposure. A time-dependent increase in blood FKBP5 mRNA after single-dose prednisone administration has been demonstrated in healthy humans (62). Accordingly, patients with ACTH-dependent CS had higher blood FKBP5 mRNA levels compared with healthy controls, and after a successful surgery, FKBP5 mRNA returned to baseline levels (63). Furthermore, in another study, blood FKBP5 mRNA was inversely correlated with FKBP5 promoter methylation and positively correlated with 24-hour urine free cortisol (UFC) levels in patients with CS (46). Taken together, this fine-tuning of FKBP5 DNA methylation and mRNA according to the level of GC suggests that FKBP5 can be used as a biomarker to infer the magnitude of GC exposure.

POMC and Corticotropin-Releasing Hormone

The partial resistance of the corticotroph adenoma to GC negative feedback is a hallmark of CD. Indeed, the lack of this inhibitory effect constitutes a method to diagnose CD, that is, with the dexamethasone suppression test. One of the mechanisms related to the insensitivity to GC can be attributed to GR mutations which are, however, rarely found in corticotrophinomas (64). Another mechanism that was uncovered in corticotroph adenomas is an overexpression of the HSP90 chaperone resulting in reduced affinity of GR to its ligand and consequently GR resistance (53, 65).

In addition, the loss of protein expression of either Brg1, ATPase component of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex, or HDAC2 has been linked to GC resistance in about 50% of some adenomas (66). The trans-repression process on POMC transcription achieved by GC involves both the histone deacetylation enzyme and Brg1. One mechanism of corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH)-induced POMC expression is through an orphan nuclear receptor (NR) related to NGFI-B (Nur77). NGFI-B binds to the NurRE sequence in the promoter region of POMC gene and recruits a co-activator to mediate its transcription. In a tethering mechanism, the GR directly interacts with NGFI-B to form a trans-repression complex, which contains the GR itself, Brg1, the nuclear receptor, and HDAC2; the latter being essential to block the gene expression through chromatin remodeling process (53, 66).

In CD, hypercortisolism exerts a negative feedback at CRH secretion from the hypothalamus (67). The mechanism involved in GR-induced suppression of CRH expression is through direct binding to a nGRE in the promoter region of CRH gene and subsequent recruitment of repressor complexes. In a rat hypothalamic cell line, it was demonstrated that Dex-induced CRH repression occurs through coordinated actions of corepressors involving Methyl-CpG-binding protein 2 (MeCP2), HDAC1, and DNA methyltransferase 3B (DNMT3B). Possibly, GR bound to nGRE recruits DNMT3B to the promoter in order to methylate a specific region, subsequently binding MeCP2 on these methylated sites followed by the recruitment of chromatin modify corepressor HDAC1, ultimately resulting in CRH suppression. Another possibility is that 2 independent complexes, one consisting of GR with DNMT3 for the methylation and the other the MeCP2, bound to methylated region, interact with HDAC1 to induce repression (68).

Clock Genes

The clock system and the HPA axis are interconnected regulatory systems. Cortisol circadian rhythm is modulated by the interaction between a central pacemaker, located in the hypothalamic suprachiasmatic nuclei, and the HPA axis (69). At the molecular level, mediators of the clock system and cortisol also communicate with each other, both acting as transcription factors of many genes to influence cellular functions.

In CS, the impact of chronic GC exposure on clock genes expression was recently evaluated using peripheral blood samples from patients with active disease compared with healthy subjects. The circadian rhythm of peripheral clock gene expression (CLOCK, BMAL, PER1-3, and CRY1) was abolished as a result of hypercortisolism, and that may contribute to metabolic disorders observed in Cushing patients (70). Another study, which investigated persistent changes induced by hypercortisolism in visceral adipose tissue, found that the expression of clock genes, such as PER1, remained altered in association with persistent epigenetic changes in both H3K4me3 and H3K27ac induced by hypercortisolism even after the resolution of hypercortisolism (12). This suggests that chronic exposure to GC may induce sustained epigenetic changes that can influence clock genes expression. Nevertheless, further studies are warranted to better elucidate how long-term exposure to GC impacts clock genes expression using the epigenetic machinery.

Glucocorticoid Effects on MicroRNAs

Along with histone modification and DNA methylation, microRNAs (miRNAs) have emerged as an epigenetic mechanism capable of impacting gene expression without changing DNA sequence (15). Interestingly, miRNA expression itself is also under the influence of epigenetic modifications through promoter methylation like any other protein-encoding genes (71).

MicroRNAs are small (about 20-25 nucleotides in length) non-coding RNAs that are important in transcriptional silencing of messenger RNA (mRNA). By partially pairing with mRNA, miRNAs can either induce mRNA degradation or inhibit mRNA translation to protein. MiRNAs regulate the translation of about 50% of the transcriptome, allowing them to play an important role in a wide range of biological functions, such as cell differentiation, proliferation, metabolism, and apoptosis under normal physiological and pathological situations. Some miRNAs can be classified as oncogenes or tumor suppressing genes, and aberrant expression of miRNAs may be implicated in tumor pathogenesis (71-73).

Insight into the regulation of miRNA expression is, therefore, crucial for a better understanding of tumor development and other human diseases, including cardiac, metabolic, and neurological disorders (73, 74). There are different regulatory mechanisms involved in miRNA expression, including transcriptional factors such as GR-GC. GC may modulate miRNA expression through direct binding to GRE in the promoter region of the host gene, as observed in hemopoietic tumor cells (75). In addition to transcriptional activation, in vascular smooth muscle cells, Dex treatment induces downregulation of DNMT1 and DNMT3a protein levels and reduces the methylation of miRNA-29c promoter, resulting in an increased expression of miRNA-29c (76). Interestingly, it was demonstrated that the increased expression of miRNA-29 family (miRNA-29a, -29b, and -29c) associates with metabolic dysfunction, such as obesity and insulin resistance, which pertains to CS (77, 78). With regard to metabolic dysfunction, miRNA-379 expression was shown to be upregulated by GC and its overexpression in the liver resulted in elevated levels of serum triglycerides associated with very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) fraction in mice (79). In obese patients, the level of hepatic miRNA-379 expression was higher compared to nonobese patients and positively correlated with serum cortisol and triglycerides (79). Hence, GC-responsive miRNA may be, at least in part, a mediator to GC-driven metabolic conditions in CS.

In pathological conditions, such as seen in CS, prolonged exposure to an elevated cortisol level results in a wide range of comorbidities. It can be hypothesized that the chronic and excessive glucocorticoid levels may induce an aberrant miRNA expression that might impact several cellular processes related to bone and cardiometabolic disorders. A recent study addressed the impact of hypercortisolism on bone miRNA of patients with active CD compared to patients with nonfunctional pituitary adenomas. Significant changes in bone miRNA expression levels were observed, suggesting that the disruption of miRNA may be partially responsible for reduced bone formation and osteoblastogenesis (80). Similarly, altered expression levels of selected miRNAs related to endothelial biology in patients with CS may point to a contribution to a high incidence of cardiovascular disorders in Cushing patients (81). Therefore, dysregulated miRNAs as a consequence of high cortisol levels may underpin the development and progression of comorbidities related to CS. To the best of our knowledge, it is currently not clear whether miRNA dysregulation persists after resolution of hypercortisolism, thus contributing to the persistence of some comorbidities. This hypothesis needs to be further investigated.

MicroRNA can also be used as a diagnostic tool in CS. A study was performed to identify circulating miRNA as a biomarker to differentiate patients with CS from patients with suspected CS who had failed diagnostic tests (the control group) (82). It was observed that miRNA182-5p was differentially expressed in the CS cohort compared to the control group; therefore, it may be used as a biomarker (82). However, a large cohort is necessary to validate this finding (82). In corticotroph tumors, downregulation of miRNA 16-1 expression was observed relative to normal pituitary tissue (83). In contrast, the plasma level of miRNA16-5p was found to be significantly higher in CD compared to ectopic Cushing (EAS) and healthy controls (84). This finding suggests that miRNA16-5p may be a biomarker capable to differentiate the 2 forms of ACTH-dependent Cushing (84).

Epidrugs and Glucocorticoid Action in Cushing’s Syndrome

The interest in understanding the epigenetic mechanism of GC action in the context of CS is based on reversibility of epi-marks, such as DNA methylation and histone modifications, using epidrugs (85, 86). The biological characteristics of epigenetic drugs and their target have been extensively explored. Their effectiveness as antitumor drugs have been tested on corticotroph tumors using in vitro studies (87-89). However, a limited number of studies have explored the role of epidrugs as a therapeutic tool in reversing the genomic action of GC in CS, particularly in comorbidities induced by hypercortisolism (90, 91).

The use of histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) may reduce the genomic action of GC (90-92). It has been demonstrated that the use of the HDAC inhibitor valproic acid increases the acetylation level of GR, consequently attenuating the genomic action of GC. In an experimental Cushing model in rats, the use of valproic acid decreased expression of genes related to lipogenesis, gluconeogenesis, and ion regulators in the kidney that ultimately reduces hepatic steatosis, hyperglycemia, and hypertension in ACTH-infused rats (90, 91).

More studies evaluating the effects of epidrugs influencing the GC actions are warranted to further elucidate the underlying mechanisms and to explore potential treatment modalities to reverse long-lasting consequences of chronic corticoid exposure.

Conclusions

In physiologic conditions, GC are secreted in pulses following a circadian rhythm pattern, as opposed to a constant, chronic, and high GC exposure in CS. This pathological pattern may account for numerous devastating effects observed in CS (7). Yet, the expressed genome in response to chronic GC exposure may potentially be abnormal, leading to dysregulation in clock genes, among other effects.

GC levels may return to a normal circadian pattern in response to a successful treatment, but with incomplete reversibility of some CS features, which may in part be explained by epigenetic changes. The epigenetic machinery is used by GC to induce dynamic changes in chromatin to modulate gene expression. (Fig. 2) It seems that most of chromatin modifications are reversible, but some may persist resulting in long-term epigenetic changes. (Table 1)

Table 1.

Evidence of interaction between glucocorticoid and epigenetic machinery

Epigenetic changes/epigenetic enzymes Action
Histone acetylation (HAT)

  • Glucocorticoid receptors (GR) recruit co-regulators, such as CREB binding protein (CBP), which has intrinsic histone acetyltransferase (HAT) activity that modifies the chromatin structure from an inactive to an active state (25, 33, 35).
Histone deacetylation (HDAC)

  • GR recruit histone deacetylases (HDACs) to turn chromatin less accessible and suppress gene transcription (25, 35).

  • The trans-repression process on POMC transcription achieved by glucocorticoids (GC) involves the histone deacetylation enzyme (HDAC2).

  • GC mediates the upregulation of HDAC2 in rats exposed to chronic stress (40).
Histone demethylase (JMJD3)

  • GC suppress transcription of JMJD3 in endothelial cells treated with TNFα (41).
Histone modifications

  • Using ChIP-seq, a study in mice treated for 5 weeks with corticosterone showed higher levels of histone modifications (H3K4me3, H3K27ac) compared to control mice. In mice after a 10-week washout period, persistence of this epigenetic fingerprint was observed, which was associated with long-lasting changes in gene expression (12).
DNA methylation (DNMT3B) and histone deacetylation (HDAC1)

  • GC mediates CRH downregulation through DNMT3B to the promoter in order to methylate a specific region and recruitment of chromatin modify corepressor HDAC (68).
DNA hypomethylation

  • GC induces downregulation of DNMT1 in AtT20 (mouse corticotroph adenoma cell line) (20).

  • GC induces upregulation of TET enzyme expression which was described in retinal and osteocyte cell line model (42, 43).

  • An experimental study in mice previously exposed to high levels of GC showed differentially methylated regions (DMR) induced by GC treatment, of which the majority was loss of the methylation (11).

  • Reduced DNA methylation in FKBP5 gene was found in patients in active disease and also in remission state of Cushing syndrome (CS) as compared to a healthy control group (10).

  • A genome-wide DNA methylation analysis showed a lower average of DNA methylation in patients in remission of CS compared to controls (9).

  • A study using whole blood methylation profile demonstrated an association between cortisol excess and DNA hypomethylation in patients with CS (46).
Open in new tab

Further studies are needed to elucidate how chronic exposure to GC leads to incomplete reversibility of CS morbidities via sustained modulation of the epigenetic machinery and possibly other mechanisms. Subsequent identification of therapeutic targets may offer new perspective for treatments, for example, with epidrugs, aiming to reverse hypercortisolism-related comorbidities.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for this manuscript.

Disclosures

T.P., R.A.F., and L.J.H. have nothing to declare.

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article, as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

From https://academic.oup.com/jcem/advance-article/doi/10.1210/clinem/dgae151/7633538?searchresult=1

Filed under: Cushing's, symptoms | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Day 13, Cushing’s Awareness Challenge

Posted on April 13, 2024 by MaryO

UVA 2004
Cushing’s Conventions have always been special times for me – we learn a lot, get to meet other Cushies, even get referrals to endos!

As early as 2001 (or before) my pituitary function was dropping.  My former endo tested annually but did nothing to help me with the symptoms.

In the fall of 2002 my endo refused to discuss my fatigue or anything at all with me until I lost 10 pounds. He said I wasn’t worth treating in my overweight condition and that I was setting myself up for a heart attack. He gave me 3 months to lose this weight. Those 3 months included Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years.  Needless to say, I left his office in tears, again.

Fast forward 2 years to 2004.  I had tried for a while to get my records from this endo. He wouldn’t send them, even at doctors’ or my requests.

I wanted to go see Dr. Vance at UVa but I had no records so she wouldn’t see me until I could get them.

Finally, my husband went to the former endo’s office and threatened him with a court order. The office manager managed to come up with about 13 pages of records. For going to him from 1986 to 2001 including weeks and weeks at NIH and pituitary surgery, that didn’t seem like enough records to me.

In April of 2004, many of us from the message boards went to the UVa Pituitary Days Convention. That’s where the picture above comes in.  Other pictures from that convention are here.

By chance, we met a wonderful woman named Barbara Craven. She sat at our table for lunch on the last day and, after we learned that she was a dietitian who had had Cushing’s, one of us jokingly asked her if she’d do a guest chat for us. I didn’t follow through on this until she emailed me later. In the email, she asked how I was doing. Usually I say “fine” or “ok” but for some reason, I told her exactly how awful I was feeling.

Barbara emailed me back and said I should see a doctor at Johns Hopkins. I said I didn’t think I could get a recommendation to there, so SHE referred me. The doctor got right back to me, set up an appointment. Between his vacation and mine, that first appointment turned out to be Tuesday, Sept 14, 2004.

Just getting through the maze at Johns Hopkins was amazing. They have the whole system down to a science, moving from one place to another to sign in, then go here, then window 6, then… But it was very efficient.

My new doctor was wonderful. Understanding, knowledgeable. He never once said that I was “too fat” or “depressed” or that all this was my own fault. I feel so validated, finally.

He looked through my records, especially at my 2 previous Insulin Tolerance Tests (ITT). From those, he determined that my growth hormone has been low since at least August 2001 and I’ve been adrenal insufficient since at least Fall, 1999 – possibly as much as 17 years! I was amazed to hear all this, and astounded that my former endo not only didn’t tell me any of this, he did nothing. He had known both of these things – they were in the past records that I took with me. Perhaps that was why he had been so reluctant to share copies of those records. He had given me Cortef in the fall of 1999 to take just in case I had “stress” and that was it.

The new endo took a lot of blood (no urine!) for cortisol and thyroid stuff. I went back on Sept. 28, 2004 for arginine, cortrosyn and IGF testing.

He said that I would end up on daily cortisone – a “sprinkling” – and some form of GH, based on the testing the 28th.

For those who are interested, my new endo is Roberto Salvatori, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins

Medical School: Catholic University School of Medicine, Rome, Italy
Residency: Montefiore Medical Center
Fellowship: Cornell University, Johns Hopkins University
Board Certification: Endocrinology and Metabolism, Internal Medicine

Clinical Interests: Neuroendocrinology, pituitary disorders, adrenal disorders

Research Interests: Control of growth hormone secretion, genetic causes of growth hormone deficiency, consequences of growth hormone deficiency.

Although I have this wonderful doctor, a specialist in growth hormone deficiency at Johns Hopkins, in November, 2004, my insurance company saw fit to over-ride his opinions and his test results based on my past pharmaceutical history! Hello??? How could I have a history of taking GH when I’ve never taken it before?

Of course, I found out late on a Friday afternoon. By then it was too late to call my case worker at the drug company, so we had to appeal on Monday. My local insurance person also worked on an appeal, but the whole thing was  just another long ordeal of finding paperwork, calling people, FedExing stuff, too much work when I just wanted to start feeling better by Thanksgiving.

As it turned out the insurance company rejected the brand of hGH that was prescribed for me. They gave me the ok for a growth hormone was just FDA-approved for adults on 11/4/04. The day this medication was approved for adults was the day after my insurance said that’s what is preferred for me. In the past, this form of hGH was only approved for children with height issues. Was I going to be a ginuea pig again?

The new GH company assigned a rep for me, submitted info to pharmacy, and waited for insurance approval, again.

I finally started the Growth Hormone December 7, 2004.

Was the hassle and 3 year wait worth it?

Stay tuned for April 15, 2016 when all will be revealed.

Read

Read Dr. Barbara Craven’s Guest Chat, October 27, 2004

Thanks for reading 🙂

MaryO

Filed under: adrenal crisis, Cushing's, Cushing's Awareness Challenge 2016, Meetings and Conferences, pituitary, symptoms, Treatments | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Next Page »