Day 22, Cushing’s Awareness Challenge

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.

Epigenetic Mechanisms Modulated by Glucocorticoids With a Focus on Cushing Syndrome

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.

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 (34). 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 (1819). Furthermore, GC can modulate HDAC and DNMT expression and activity (161920). 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 (910).

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.

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.

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 (222425). 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 (2127). Additionally, continuous GC exposure or pulsed GC (cortisol fluctuation during circadian rhythm) may cause different responses with respect to gene expression (2628). 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 (21242627). 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 (2930).

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 (2631).

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) (3233).

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 (3335). 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 (3537).

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 (253538).

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 (2042-44). 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 (1146). 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 (4243). 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 (204244).

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 (1647).

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 (5758). 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 (1046). Even in patients with CS in remission, previous data have suggested a small decrease in FKBP5 methylation levels compared to healthy controls (910). 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 (5365).

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 (5366).

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 (7374). 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 (7778). 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 (8586). 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 (9091).

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 (9091).

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 (253335).

Histone deacetylation (HDAC)
  • GR recruit histone deacetylases (HDACs) to turn chromatin less accessible and suppress gene transcription (2535).

  • 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 (4243).

  • 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).

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.

Day 13, Cushing’s Awareness Challenge

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

Hiding In Plain Sight: Florid Cushing’s Disease Presenting As A Severe Extremity Cellulitis

Abstract

Disclosure: C.M. Godar: None. E.B. Noble: None. N.O. Vietor: None. T.S. Knee: None.

Background: Cushing’s syndrome may rarely present as an emergency known as Florid Cushing’s Syndrome. Patients can exhibit severe hyperglycemia, hypertension, hypokalemia, infections, and hypercoagulability. Cushing’s syndrome is a rare disease, and the constellation of clinical features can be overlooked if clinicians are not aware of the manifestations of hypercortisolism. We present the case of a patient with Cushing’s syndrome that went unrecognized with life-threatening sequelae.

Case presentation: A 52-year-old woman with well-controlled type 2 diabetes and hypertension was admitted to the hospital for severe left lower extremity cellulitis. Prior to hospitalization she had noted rapid weight gain, fatigue, weakness, mental clouding, and moodiness. She was admitted for antibiotics and surgical debridement. The infection persisted despite broad spectrum antibiotics, multiple surgical debridements, and skin grafting. She became bacteremic, and extremity amputation was considered. She additionally developed hypertensive emergency, refractory hypokalemia, and hyperglycemia to 396 mg/dL. Exam was notable for facial plethora, supraclavicular fullness, dorsocervical fat pad, and violaceous abdominal striae. Cushing’s Syndrome was suspected, and labs revealed a significantly elevated random serum cortisol of 60.5mcg/dL (Ref 6.2-19.4), significantly elevated 24H urine cortisol of 2157mcg/24H (Ref 0-50), and ACTH elevated to 81.8pg/mL (Ref 7.2-63.3) that confirmed Cushing’s Disease. MRI sella and octreotide scans did not localize a lesion. Inpatient therapy included multiple antihypertensive agents, insulin drip, aggressive potassium repletion, and initiation of ketoconazole to reduce cortisol levels. Ketoconazole was maximally dosed and she underwent surgical exploration and removal of a small pituitary microadenoma. Following surgery, she developed transient adrenal insufficiency requiring hydrocortisone and she no longer required antihypertensives, insulin, or potassium therapy. Follow up 7 years later has revealed no recurrence of Cushing’s Disease.

Discussion: Cushing’s Syndrome may present with a variety of clinical features and rarely may present as a medical emergency. Delay in diagnosis can lead to Florid Cushing’s Syndrome which carries high risk for morbidity and mortality. This case illustrates the need for clinician awareness of the features of Cushing’s Syndrome: hypertension, hyperglycemia, rapid weight gain, cushingoid exam features, hypokalemia, hirsutism, virilization, infection, and/or hypercoagulable state. Severe hypercortisolism was responsible for this patient’s refractory infection, and if not controlled, she likely would have endured a lower extremity amputation. Rapid detection with elevated random serum and/or urine cortisol and treatment with a cortisol-lowering agent is critical and lifesaving.

Presentation: Thursday, June 15, 2023

This content is only available as a PDF.

Talus Avascular Necrosis as a Rare Complication of Cushing’s Disease

Abstract

Avascular necrosis (AVN), also called osteonecrosis, stems from blood supply interruption to the bone and is often idiopathic. It has risk factors like trauma, alcohol, and corticosteroids. AVN in the talus (AVNT) is less common than in the femoral head. Most cases of talar osteonecrosis are associated with trauma, while a smaller proportion is linked to systemic conditions such as sickle cell disease or prolonged prednisone use. Glucocorticoids are a key nontraumatic cause. We report a middle-aged woman with Cushing’s syndrome symptoms, such as hypertension and moon face, since her youth. A few years ago, she experienced pain and swelling in her ankle, which was diagnosed as atraumatic AVNT and treated with hindfoot fusion. Years later, she was diagnosed with Cushing’s disease caused by an adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)-producing pituitary adenoma in laboratory tests and imaging, which was resected in 2020. She experienced significant weight loss, and her Cushing’s syndrome symptoms were relieved after tumor resection. Mechanisms behind AVN in hypercortisolism involve fat cell hypertrophy, fat embolization, osteocyte apoptosis, and glucocorticoid-induced hypertension. Traditional X-rays may miss early AVN changes; MRI is preferred for early detection. Although there are some cases of femoral AVN caused by endogenous hypercortisolism in the literature, as far as we know, this is the first case of AVNT due to Cushing’s disease. AVNT treatment includes conservative approaches, hindfoot fusion, and core decompression. Cushing’s disease is a rare cause of AVNT, and a multidisciplinary approach aids in the rapid diagnosis of elusive symptoms.

Introduction

Avascular necrosis (AVN), also known as osteonecrosis, is a condition arising from the temporary interruption or permanent cessation of blood supply to a bone, leading to tissue necrosis or its demise. While AVN is frequently idiopathic, certain established risk factors are known including trauma, alcohol abuse, and the use of exogenous corticosteroids [1]. While not as prevalent as in the femoral head, AVN of the talus (AVNT) in the ankle presents a painful and disabling issue for patients and poses a challenging dilemma for orthopedic surgeons [2]. About 75% of cases of talar osteonecrosis stem from traumatic injuries, while approximately 25% of nontraumatic instances are typically associated with systemic conditions such as sickle cell disease or prolonged use of prednisone, which impede blood flow. [3]

The use of glucocorticoids is one of the most important non-traumatic causes of AVN. Nevertheless, there are some case reports where AVN in the femoral head is reported as a manifestation of endogenous hypercortisolism, particularly associated with Cushing’s syndrome [4-12].

In this article, we describe the case of a middle-aged woman who was diagnosed with idiopathic severe progressive AVNT for two years. She had retrogradely diagnosed masked symptoms of Cushing’s disease since her youth, but the diagnosis was confirmed after undergoing ankle arthrodesis.

Case Presentation

A 43-year-old woman visited our office in June 2018 with a complaint of severe pain and swelling in her left ankle, which had persisted for the past two years. She had hypertension since her youth and blurry vision since 2013 but had no other significant medical or family history. She was also diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) in 2015 when she lost her husband. She had no history of smoking, alcohol consumption, or addiction. She had not experienced any significant trauma during this period and sought consultations from various specialties, including neurology, psychology, internal medicine, nephrology, rheumatology, and orthopedics. She had received a platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection in the ankle, but it did not improve her symptoms. Despite undergoing various diagnostic workups, no precise diagnosis had been established.

Back in 2013, she remembers suddenly experiencing blurry vision in her right eye. This condition underwent a misdiagnosis, which almost led to a loss of vision. She had been struggling with her eye problems until her last visit, during which she received intravitreal bevacizumab injections. Additionally, she previously had iron deficiency anemia, which was treated with ferrous sulfate before 2018.

In our first visit, during the physical examination, the pain was localized in the ankle mortise with some posterolateral pain along the course of the peroneal tendons posterior to the fibula. Based on the physical examination and available ankle radiographs, we diagnosed AVNT. The patient subsequently underwent ankle arthroscopy through the standard anterior portals, the joint was cleaned, the synovium was shaved, and a small incision was conducted for peroneal assessment; this procedure revealed a subchondral collapse and extensive necrosis in the talus. Following the procedure, she experienced a partial improvement in her symptoms. However, six months later, she returned with a recurrence of symptoms (Figure 1). Upon further inquiry, she mentioned that her symptoms had recurred a month ago when she was dancing at a family party. Radiographs showed a stress fracture in her fibula and extensive AVNT. This diagnosis was confirmed through a CT scan, MRI, and bone scan (Figure 2).

Ankle-X-ray-six-months-after-arthroscopy
Figure 1: Ankle X-ray six months after arthroscopy

Pain had reduced for four months, then pain increased with activity and disabled her after a night of dancing. Subchondral fracture and fibular stress fracture are evident (A and B, respectively).

MRI,-CT-scan,-and-technetium-99m-(Tc-99m)-bone-scan
Figure 2: MRI, CT scan, and technetium-99m (Tc-99m) bone scan

Coronal MRI confirmed avascular necrosis of the talar dome with subchondral fracture (A and B, respectively). CT scan (C) and Tc-99 bone scan (D) images also revealed the pathologies.

In the second visit after arthroscopy, upon confirmation of a fibular stress fracture and significant subchondral collapse, and following a discussion of the next available options with the patient, the second procedure was performed as an ankle arthrodesis with an anterior approach. A 6 cm longitudinal incision was made anteriorly, and through the plane between the tibialis anterior and extensor hallucis longus, the ankle joint was accessed. Joint preparation was done with an osteotome, ensuring a bleeding surface on both sides. Then, manual compression with provisional pin fixation in the corrective position was performed. The fusion was planned at less than 5 degrees of valgus, 10 degrees of external rotation, and approximately 10 degrees of plantar flexion, suitable for the high-heeled shoes that she was using in her daily living activities. After confirming fluoroscopy in two planes, final 6.5 mm cannulated cancellous screws were used, and fixation was augmented with an anterior molded 4.5 mm narrow dynamic compression plate (DCP), according to our previously published anterior ankle fusion technique [13]. The foot was placed in a splint for 10 days, after which stitches were removed, and a cast was applied for four weeks. Then, walking with gradual, as-tolerated weight-bearing was initiated (Figure 3). Three months after surgery, she was pain-free, and by the sixth month, she could walk without any boot or brace, only using high-heeled shoes.

Post-operative-radiographies
Figure 3: Post-operative radiographies

Six months after the ankle surgery, a huge osteonecrosis and fibular stress fracture were managed with an acceptable, painless ankle fusion (not solid) despite the remaining necrosis (A and B, respectively). In 2024, four years after the tumor resection, complete healing of talus necrosis and solid fusion were achieved (C and D, respectively).

In 2020, two years after her ankle surgery, she was referred to an endocrinologist due to excessive weight gain and hirsutism. The biochemical assessment revealed the following: cortisol (8 AM) (chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA)) was 96 µg/dl (normal range: 4.82 – 19.5 µg/dl), and it was 22.1 µg/dl after overnight dexamethasone (normal range: < 1.8 µg/dl). Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) (CLIA) was 44.4 pg/ml (normal range: 7.2-63.3 pg/ml), and cortisol measured 5.7 µg/dl after the 48-hour low-dose dexamethasone suppression test (normal < 5 µg/dl). The results, along with symptoms (Table 1), are documented in the laboratory tests (Table 2). She was diagnosed with Cushing’s syndrome, which was subsequently confirmed as Cushing’s disease due to an ACTH-producing pituitary adenoma observed in the MRI and Brain CT (Figure 4).

Sign/symptom Severity
Weight Gain Severe
Hirsutism Severe
Hypertension Severe
Easy bruising Severe
Depression Severe
Moon face Moderate (masked with makeup)
Lethargy Moderate
Headache Moderate
Peripheral edema       _
Buffalo hump       _
Myopathy       _
Acne       _
Purple striae       _
Table 1: Cushing’s disease symptoms and signs

The hyphens in the table indicate that the patient does not have those symptoms or signs.

Laboratory test Result Reference range
Cortisol (8 AM) (CLIA) 96 µg/dl 4.82-19.5 µg/dl
Cortisol (8 AM) (after overnight dexamethasone) (CLIA) 22.1 µg/dl <1.8 µg/dl
ACTH (CLIA) 44.4 pg/ml 7.2-63.3 pg/ml
Cortisol after 48 hours of LDDST (CLIA) 5.7 µg/dl < 5 µg/dl
Table 2: Laboratory tests

CLIA: chemiluminescence immunoassay; ACTH: adrenocorticotropic hormone; LDDST: low-dose dexamethasone suppression test

Brain-MRI
Figure 4: Brain MRI

Finally, a pituitary adenoma was diagnosed using a Brain MRI as the cause of Cushing’s disease symptoms (A and B).

Finally, she underwent a tumor resection and had a dramatic response after treatment (30 kg weight loss). She revealed that she had Cushing’s syndrome symptoms since she was young. These symptoms included a puffy face, which she covered with makeup, high blood pressure, and hirsutism. In January 2024, four years after her brain surgery, during our last visit, her symptoms had significantly improved. She reported no problems with her ankle, and talus necrosis was completely healed, with a solid fusion achieved in radiographs (Figure 3).

Discussion

As far as we are aware, this case presentation represents the first instance of AVNT attributed to Cushing’s disease in the existing literature. Nevertheless, some individuals with endogenous Cushing’s syndrome have been reported to experience AVN of the femoral head [4-12].

Cushing’s syndrome is an uncommon endocrine condition marked by manifestations of hypercortisolism. The predominant cause is often an adenoma in the anterior pituitary gland that produces ACTH, referred to as Cushing’s disease [14]. The presentation of Cushing’s syndrome can vary significantly in both adults and children, influenced by the extent and duration of hypercortisolemia. However, the typical signs and symptoms of Cushing’s syndrome are widely known [15]. Although some individuals may perceive these alterations as normal and physiological, the disease can go unnoticed for an extended period, as in our case, in which it remained undiagnosed for more than 20 years.

However, it is known that steroid use is a significant contributing factor to the occurrence of bone osteonecrosis, accounting for up to 40% of non-traumatic instances of AVN [16]. The mechanisms leading to AVN due to either endogenous hypercortisolism or excess exogenous glucocorticoids are not completely understood. There are just some hypotheses that suggest that the hypertrophy of fat cells, embolization of fat, and osteocytes’ apoptosis result in impaired blood flow in the bone, ultimately causing ischemic tissue necrosis [17]. An alternative proposed theory suggests that elevated levels of glucocorticoids may cause insulin resistance and subsequently contribute to AVN [18].

Traditional X-rays often fail to detect the initial changes of AVN (as observed in our case). MRI stands as the preferred method for identifying AVN in its early phases, providing an opportunity for timely therapeutic interventions [19,20].

In an analysis of 321 cases of AVNT, the predominant treatment modalities included conservative therapies (n = 104), hindfoot fusion (n = 62), and core decompression (n = 85) [21]. These approaches reflect the primary methods employed in contemporary clinical practice for addressing AVNT.

After all, we confirmed the AVNT diagnosis using MRI and bone scan and managed it with hindfoot fusion. Subsequently, the underlying issue, endogenous hypercortisolism due to an ACTH-producing pituitary adenoma, was identified and treated through resection of the tumor (Figure 5).

Case-report-timeline
Figure 5: Case report timeline

* Avascular necrosis in the talus

Conclusions

Cushing’s syndrome is a rare endocrine disorder characterized by excessive cortisol levels, commonly caused by an ACTH-producing adenoma in the pituitary gland, known as Cushing’s disease. Cushing’s disease may be one of the rare causes of AVNT. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first instance of AVNT due to Cushing’s disease described in the literature. Since atraumatic AVNT is rare in itself, a multidisciplinary approach can lead us to a more rapid and proper diagnosis, as each symptom may be masked or considered rare within its subspecialty field.

References

  1. Chang CC, Greenspan A, Gershwin ME: Osteonecrosis: current perspectives on pathogenesis and treatment. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1993, 23:47-69. 10.1016/s0049-0172(05)80026-5
  2. Zhang H, Fletcher AN, Scott DJ, Nunley J: Avascular osteonecrosis of the talus: current treatment strategies. Foot Ankle Int. 2022, 43:291-302. 10.1177/10711007211051013
  3. Parekh SG, Kadakia RJ: Avascular necrosis of the talus. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2021, 29:e267-78. 10.5435/JAAOS-D-20-00418
  4. Belmahi N, Boujraf S, Larwanou MM, El Ouahabi H: Avascular necrosis of the femoral head: an exceptional complication of Cushing’s disease. Ann Afr Med. 2018, 17:225-7. 10.4103/aam.aam_75_17
  5. Salazar D, Esteves C, Ferreira MJ, Pedro J, Pimenta T, Portugal R, Carvalho 😧 Avascular femoral necrosis as part of Cushing syndrome presentation: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2021, 15:287. 10.1186/s13256-021-02882-7
  6. Alaya Z, Braham M, Bouajina E: Aseptic femur head necrosis revealing Cushing’s disease: a rare presentation. J Clin Surg Res. 2020, 1:10.31579/2768-2757/002
  7. Phillips KA, Nance EP Jr, Rodriguez RM, Kaye JJ: Avascular necrosis of bone: a manifestation of Cushing’s disease. South Med J. 1986, 79:825-9. 10.1097/00007611-198607000-00011
  8. Koch CA, Tsigos C, Patronas NJ, Papanicolaou DA: Cushing’s disease presenting with avascular necrosis of the hip: an orthopedic emergency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1999, 84:3010-2. 10.1210/jcem.84.9.5992
  9. Modroño N, Torán CE, Pavón I, Benza ME, Guijarro G, Navea 😄 Cushinǵs syndrome and avascular hip necrosis: presentation of two patients [Article in Spanish]. Rev Clin Esp (Barc). 2014, 214:e93-6. 10.1016/j.rce.2014.05.003
  10. Camporro F, Bulacio E, Gutiérrez Magaldi I: Bilateral osteonecrosis of the hip secondary to endogenous Cushing’s syndrome due to a recently-diagnosed carcinoid tumour of the lung [Article in Spanish]. Med Clin (Barc). 2016, 147:228. 10.1016/j.medcli.2016.03.042
  11. Ha JS, Cho HM, Lee HJ, Kim SD: Bilateral avascular necrosis of the femoral head in a patient with asymptomatic adrenal incidentaloma. Hip Pelvis. 2019, 31:120-3. 10.5371/hp.2019.31.2.120
  12. Anand A, Jha CK, Singh PK, Sinha U, Ganesh A, Bhadani PP: Avascular necrosis of femur as a complication of Cushing’s syndrome due to adrenocortical carcinoma. Am Surg. 2023, 89:2701-4. 10.1177/00031348221129510
  13. Gharehdaghi M, Rahimi H, Mousavian A: Anterior ankle arthrodesis with molded plate: technique and outcomes. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2014, 2:203-9.
  14. Lindholm J, Juul S, Jørgensen JO, et al.: Incidence and late prognosis of cushing’s syndrome: a population-based study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2001, 86:117-23. 10.1210/jcem.86.1.7093
  15. 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
  16. Konarski W, Poboży T, Konarska K, Śliwczyński A, Kotela I, Hordowicz M, Krakowiak J: Osteonecrosis related to steroid and alcohol use-an update on pathogenesis. Healthcare (Basel). 2023, 11:1846. 10.3390/healthcare11131846
  17. Chan KL, Mok CC: Glucocorticoid-induced avascular bone necrosis: diagnosis and management. Open Orthop J. 2012, 6:449-57. 10.2174/1874325001206010449
  18. Hartmann K, Koenen M, Schauer S, Wittig-Blaich S, Ahmad M, Baschant U, Tuckermann JP: Molecular actions of glucocorticoids in cartilage and bone during health, disease, and steroid therapy. Physiol Rev. 2016, 96:409-47. 10.1152/physrev.00011.2015
  19. Kaste SC, Karimova EJ, Neel MD: Osteonecrosis in children after therapy for malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011, 196:1011-8. 10.2214/AJR.10.6073
  20. Pierce TP, Jauregui JJ, Cherian JJ, Elmallah RK, Mont MA: Imaging evaluation of patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2015, 8:221-7. 10.1007/s12178-015-9279-6
  21. Gross CE, Haughom B, Chahal J, Holmes GB Jr: Treatments for avascular necrosis of the talus: a systematic review. Foot Ankle Spec. 2014, 7:387-97. 10.1177/1938640014521831

From https://www.cureus.com/articles/221491-talus-avascular-necrosis-as-a-rare-complication-of-cushings-disease-a-case-report?score_article=true#!/