Therapeutic Options for the Prevention of Thromboses in Cushing’s Syndrome

Abstract

Introduction

Cushing’s syndrome, or hypercortisolism, occurs after prolonged exposure to excess cortisol, and can be characterized by moon facies, central fat redistribution, proximal limb muscle weakness and wasting, and abdominal striae. Medical literature points to a relationship between hypercortisolism and hypercoagulability, with higher rates of venous thromboembolism noted. Current guidelines recommend prophylaxis with low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH), but there is little evidence to support LMWH over other forms of anticoagulation.

Methods

We utilized TriNetX US Collaborative Network (TriNetX, LLC, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States) to investigate the efficacy of different forms of anticoagulation in patients with hypercortisolism, defined by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes. Adult patients with hypercortisolism and prescribed enoxaparin, a form of LMWH, were compared to patients with hypercortisolism prescribed unfractionated heparin, warfarin, apixaban, and aspirin at 81 mg. Groups were propensity-matched according to age at index event, sex, race, ethnicity, and comorbid conditions. The outcomes studied included pulmonary embolism (PE), upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UE DVT), lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (LE DVT), superficial venous thrombosis (superficial VT), bleeding, transfusion, and all-cause mortality.

Results

No significant differences in outcomes were noted between enoxaparin and heparin, warfarin, or apixaban in patients with hypercortisolism of any cause. Uniquely, the enoxaparin cohort had significantly higher risk of PE, LE DVT, and all-cause mortality compared to the aspirin 81 mg cohort (PE: hazard ratio (HR) 1.697, 95%CI 1.444-1.994, p=0.0345; LE DVT: HR 1.492, 95%CI 1.28-1.738, p=0.0017; mortality: HR 1.272, 95%CI 1.167-1.386, p=0.0002). With further sub-analysis of pituitary-dependent (Cushing’s Disease), enoxaparin continued to demonstrate a higher risk for LE DVT (HR 1.677, 95%CI 1.353-2.079, p=0.0081), and all-cause mortality (HR 1.597, 95%CI 1.422-1.794, p=0.0005).

Conclusion

Although LMWH is currently recommended as the gold standard for anticoagulation in patients with hypercortisolism, our evidence suggests that low-dose antiplatelets such as aspirin 81 mg could outperform it. Further research is warranted to confirm and replicate our findings.

Introduction

Cortisol is produced within the zona fasciculata of the adrenal cortex and is typically released under stress [1]. Cushing’s Syndrome, first defined in 1912 by American neurosurgeon Harvey Cushing, is a state of prolonged hypercortisolism, presenting with classic phenotypic manifestations, including moon facies, central fat deposition, proximal limb muscle weakness and muscle wasting, and abdominal striae [2]. Cushing’s syndrome can be exogenous (medication-induced/iatrogenic) or endogenous (ectopic adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH), pituitary-dependent, or adrenal adenoma/carcinoma) [3]. Pituitary adenomas causing ACTH-dependent cortisol excess account for 80% of endogenous cases of Cushing’s Syndrome and are more specifically termed Cushing’s Disease [4]. Overall, however, the most common cause of Cushing’s Syndrome is iatrogenic, from exogenous corticosteroid administration [5].

Hypercortisolism has also been demonstrated to affect coagulation, though the mechanism is unclear [6]. Both venous thromboemboli and pulmonary emboli rates are increased among these patients [7]. The Endocrine Society Guidelines for Treatment of Cushing Syndrome describe altered coagulation profiles that take up to one year to normalize [8]. As a result, limited guidelines recommend prophylactic anticoagulation in Cushing syndrome; while low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the gold standard, there is little evidence behind this recommendation [9]. Furthermore, few studies assessed individual Cushing’s Syndrome subtypes and associated clotting risks or anticoagulation impact. It is currently unknown whether the antagonistic effects of cortisol will be augmented or hindered by anticoagulation other than LMWH.

This retrospective multicenter study aimed to address this paucity in data by analyzing differences among various forms of anticoagulation. Patients with Cushing syndrome who were on one of three common anticoagulants, or aspirin, were compared to patients with Cushing’s Syndrome on enoxaparin, an LMWH considered the gold standard for prophylaxis in this population. Primary objectives included end-points concerning thromboses (such as pulmonary embolism (PE), upper and lower extremity deep vein thromboses (DVTs), and superficial venous thrombosis (VT)). Secondary objectives included analyzing safety profiles (bleeding, transfusion requirements, and all-cause mortality).

Materials & Methods

Eligibility criteria

TriNetX Global Collaborative network (TriNetX, LLC, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States), a nationwide database of de-identified health data across multiple large healthcare organizations (HCOs), was utilized to compile patients according to International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes (Figure 1).

Flow-chart-for-inclusion-and-exclusion-criteria-for-the-study
Figure 1: Flow chart for inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study

PE: pulmonary embolism; VT: venous thrombosis; DVT: deep vein thrombosis; UE: upper extremity; LE: lower extremity

ICD-10 codes included those related to Cushing’s Syndrome and one of five studied medications: enoxaparin, heparin, apixaban, warfarin, and aspirin, included in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. ICD-10 codes also included those related to outcomes, including PE, upper extremity (UE) DVT, lower extremity (LE) DVT, superficial VT, bleeding, transfusion, and all-cause mortality (Table 3). Measures of association involved calculating risk differences and relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare the proportion of patients experiencing each outcome across cohorts.

Cushing’s Syndrome Type ICD-10 Code
Cushing Syndrome (unspecified) Drug-Induced Cushing Syndrome (UMLS:ICD10CM:E24.2)
Other Cushing Syndrome (UMLS:ICD10CM:E24.8)
Cushing Syndrome, Unspecified (UMLS:ICD10CM:E24.9)
Pituitary-Dependent Cushing Disease (UMLS:ICD10CM:E24.0)
Cushing Syndrome (UMLS:ICD10CM:E24)
Ectopic ACTH Syndrome (UMLS:ICD10CM:E24.3)
Cushing Syndrome (pituitary) Pituitary-Dependent Cushing Disease (UMLS:ICD10CM:E24.0  )
Table 1: International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 codes utilized to identify patients with Cushing Syndrome in the TriNetX database
Medication ICD-10 Code
Enoxaparin NLM:RXNORM:67108
Warfarin NLM:RXNORM:11289
Heparin NLM:RXNORM:5224
Apixaban NLM:RXNORM:1364430
Aspirin NLM:RXNORM:1191
Table 2: International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 codes utilized to identify anticoagulants and antiplatelets studied in the TriNetX database
Outcome ICD-10 Codes
Pulmonary Embolism Pulmonary Embolism UMLS:ICD10CM:I26
Upper Extremity DVT Acute embolism and thrombosis of deep veins of unspecified upper extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.629
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of deep veins of unspecified upper extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.729
Acute embolism and thrombosis of deep veins of right upper extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.621
Acute embolism and thrombosis of deep veins of left upper extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.622
Acute embolism and thrombosis of deep veins of upper extremity, bilateral UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.623
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of deep veins of right upper extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.721
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of deep veins of left upper extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.722
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of deep veins of upper extremity, bilateral UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.723
Lower Extremity DVT Acute embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep veins of unspecified lower extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.409
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep veins of unspecified lower extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.509
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep veins of lower extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.50
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep veins of lower extremity, bilateral UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.503
Acute embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep veins of lower extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.40
Acute embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep veins of left lower extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.402
Acute embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep veins of right lower extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.401
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep veins of left lower extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.502
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep veins of right lower extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.501
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of left femoral vein UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.512
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of right femoral vein UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.511
Acute embolism and thrombosis of right iliac vein UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.421
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of femoral vein, bilateral UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.513
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep veins of unspecified distal lower extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.5Z9
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of unspecified tibial vein UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.549
Acute embolism and thrombosis of deep veins of lower extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.4
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of deep veins of lower extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.5
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of other specified deep vein of unspecified lower extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.599
Acute embolism and thrombosis of unspecified deep veins of unspecified proximal lower extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.4Y9
Superficial VT Embolism and thrombosis of superficial veins of unspecified lower extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.819
Acute embolism and thrombosis of superficial veins of unspecified upper extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.619
Chronic embolism and thrombosis of superficial veins of unspecified upper extremity UMLS:ICD10CM:I82.719
Bleeding Hematemesis UMLS:ICD10CM:K92.0
Hemoptysis UMLS:ICD10CM:R04.2
Hemorrhage from respiratory passages UMLS:ICD10CM:R04
Hemorrhage from other sites in respiratory passages UMLS:ICD10CM:R04.8
Hemorrhage from other sites in respiratory passages UMLS:ICD10CM:R04.89
Melena UMLS:ICD10CM:K92.1
Hemorrhage of anus and rectum UMLS:ICD10CM:K62.5
Epistaxis UMLS:ICD10CM:R04.0
Transfusion Transfusion of Nonautologous Whole Blood into Peripheral Vein, Percutaneous Approach UMLS:ICD10PCS:30233H1
Transfusion of Nonautologous Whole Blood into Central Vein, Percutaneous Approach UMLS:ICD10PCS:30243H1
Transfusion of Nonautologous Red Blood Cells into Peripheral Vein, Percutaneous Approach UMLS:ICD10PCS:30233N1
Transfusion, blood or blood components UMLS:CPT:36430
Transfusion of Nonautologous Red Blood Cells into Central Vein, Percutaneous Approach UMLS:ICD10PCS:30243N1
Transfusion of Nonautologous Frozen Red Cells into Peripheral Vein, Percutaneous Approach UMLS:ICD10PCS:30233P1
Transfusion of Nonautologous Red Blood Cells into Peripheral Artery, Percutaneous Approach (deprecated 2020) UMLS:ICD10PCS:30253N1
Transfusion of Nonautologous Frozen Red Cells into Central Vein, Percutaneous Approach UMLS:ICD10PCS:30243P1
Transfusion of Nonautologous Red Blood Cells into Central Artery, Percutaneous Approach (deprecated 2020) UMLS:ICD10PCS:30263N1
Transfusion of Nonautologous Frozen Red Cells into Peripheral Artery, Percutaneous Approach (deprecated 2020) UMLS:ICD10PCS:30253P1
Transfusion of Nonautologous Frozen Red Cells into Central Artery, Percutaneous Approach (deprecated 2020) UMLS:ICD10PCS:30263P1
Transfusion of blood product UMLS:SNOMED:116859006
Transfusion of red blood cells UMLS:SNOMED:116863004
Mortality Deceased Deceased (demographic)
Table 3: International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 codes utilized to identify outcomes followed in the TriNetX database

DVT: Deep Venous Thrombosis; VT: Venous Thrombosis

Cohort definitions

For each medication listed, two cohorts were compared: (i) a cohort of patients with hypercortisolism on enoxaparin and (ii) a cohort of patients with hypercortisolism on heparin, warfarin, apixaban, or aspirin at 81 mg (Table 4). The cohorts strictly assessed only adult patients (defined as at least 18 years of age); pediatric patients were not analyzed.

Cohort Run
Enoxaparin 146 HCOs with 99 providers responding with 12,885 patients
Heparin 145 HCOs with 97 providers responding with 16,376 patients
Warfarin 145 HCOs with 82 providers responding with 3,230 patients
Apixaban 146 HCOs with 91 providers responding with 3,982 patients
Aspirin (81 mg) 144 HCOs with 51 providers responding with 8,200 patients
Table 4: Outputs of healthcare organization queries as defined in corresponding tables

HCO: Healthcare Organization

Statistical analysis

Index events and time windows were defined to analyze patient outcomes. The index event was defined as the first date a patient met the inclusion criteria for a cohort. The time window was defined as the five years after the index event during which a pre-defined outcome could occur. Outcomes of interest were identified using ICD-10 codes as outlined in Table 1, and included PE, UE DVT, LE DVT, superficial VT, bleeding, transfusion, and all-cause mortality. Cohorts were propensity score-matched 1:1 according to age at index event, sex, race and ethnicity, and comorbid conditions, including endocrine, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary conditions (Table 5). Propensity score-matching was performed using TriNetX, with a greedy (nearest) neighbor matching algorithm (caliper of 0.1 pooled standard deviations).

Variable ICD-10 Code
Demographics Age at Index (AI)
Female (F)
Black/African American (2054-5)
Male (M)
White (2106-3)
American Indian/Alaskan Native (1002-5)
Unknown Race (UNK)
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander (2076-8)
Unknown Gender (UN)
Not Hispanic/Latino (2186-5)
Hispanic/Latino (2135-2)
Other Race (2131-1)
Asian (2028-9)
Diagnosis Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases (E00-E89)
Factors influencing health status and contact with health services (Z00-Z99)
Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue (M00-M99)
Diseases of the circulatory system (I00-I99)
Diseases of the digestive system (K00-K95)
Diseases of the nervous system (G00-G99)
Diseases of the respiratory system (J00-J99)
Diseases of the genitourinary system (N00-N99)
Diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs and certain disorders involving the immune mechanism (D50-D89)
Neoplasms (C00-D49)
Diseases of the skin and subcutaneous tissue (L00-L99)
Table 5: International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 codes utilized to propensity match cohorts in the TriNetX database

Three analytical approaches were performed for this study, including measures of association, survival analysis, and frequency analysis. The measure of association analysis involved calculating RRs (and risk differences) with 95%CIs, comparing the proportion of patients across each cohort experiencing an outcome. Survival analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier estimators (evaluating time-to-event outcomes), with Log-Rank testing incorporated to compare the survival curves. Furthermore, Cox proportional hazard models were incorporated to provide an estimate of the hazard ratios (HR) and 95%CIs. Patients who exited a cohort before the end of the time window were excluded from the survival analysis. The frequency analysis was performed by calculating the proportion of patients in each cohort who experienced an outcome during the defined period of five years.

For statistically significant associations, an E-value was calculated to assess the potential impact of unmeasured confounders, quantifying the minimum strength of association that would be required by an unmeasured confounder to explain the observed effect (beyond our measured covariates); an E-value of above 2.0 was considered modestly robust, and above 3 was considered strongly robust. Additionally, a limited sensitivity analysis assessing Pituitary Cushing’s (the most common cause of endogenous Cushing’s Syndrome) was performed. All analyses were conducted through TriNetX, with statistical significance defined as a p-value < 0.05.

Results

Cushing’s syndrome, unspecified

Enoxaparin and Heparin

After propensity-score matching, 8,658 patients were identified in each cohort. The average age at index event for the enoxaparin cohort was 54.5 + 16.5 years, compared to 53.1 + 17.3 years for the heparin cohort. The enoxaparin cohort had 6,216 females (71.8%), compared to 6,000 (69.3%) in the heparin cohort. Within the enoxaparin cohort, 6035 (69.7%) were Caucasian patients, followed by 987 (11.4%) African American patients, 753 (8.7%) Hispanic/Latino patients, and 216 (2.5%) Asian patients. The heparin cohort was similar in ethnicity, with 5,800 (67.0%) Caucasian patients, 1,099 (12.7%) African American patients, 753 (8.7%) Hispanic/Latino patients, and 268 (3.1%) Asian patients. The enoxaparin and heparin cohorts demonstrated no significant differences in PE (HR 1.171, 95%CI 1.017-1.348, p=0.1797), UE DVT (HR 1.067, 95%CI 0.837-1.362, p=0.8051), LE DVT (HR 1.066, 95%CI 0.931-1.222, p=0.1922), superficial VT (HR 0.974, 95%CI 0.672-1.41, p=0.4576), bleeding (HR 0.948, 95%CI 0.855-1.05, p=0.3547), transfusion (HR 0.873, 95%CI 0.786-0.969, p=0.1767), or all-cause mortality (HR 1.036, 95%CI 0.966-1.11, p=0.9954). A comprehensive summary of the results is demonstrated in Table 6.

p-value Medication 1 Medication 2 PE UE DVT LE DVT S VT Bleeding Transfusion Mortality
enoxaparin heparin 0.1797 0.8051 0.1922 0.4576 0.3547 0.1767 0.9954
enoxaparin warfarin 0.3828 0.6 0.1963 0.0995 0.7768 0.5715 0.15
enoxaparin apixaban 0.6491 0.6275 0.723 0.4198 0.4356 0.4299 0.2628
enoxaparin aspirin 81 mg 0.0345 0.587 0.0017 0.4218 0.246 0.2057 0.0002
HR Medication 1 Medication 2 PE UE DVT LE DVT S VT Bleeding Transfusion Mortality
enoxaparin heparin 1.171 1.067 1.066 0.974 0.948 0.873 1.036
enoxaparin warfarin 0.936 0.969 0.708 0.655 0.961 1.127 1.042
enoxaparin apixaban 0.798 0.666 0.684 4.059 0.933 1.089 1.041
enoxaparin aspirin 81 mg 1.697 1.398 1.492 1.718 1.107 1.347 1.272
95% CIs Medication 1 Medication 2 PE UE DVT LE DVT Superficial VT Bleeding Transfusion Mortality
enoxaparin heparin 1.017-1.348 0.837-1.362 0.931-1.222 0.672-1.41 0.855-1.05 0.786-0.969 0.966-1.11
enoxaparin warfarin 0.755-1.161 0.692-1.356 0.583-0.859 0.376-1.142 0.812-1.137 0.95-1.336 0.93-1.167
enoxaparin apixaban 0.608-1.047 0.431-1.03 0.593-0.788 1.156-14.258 0.771-1.129 0.892-1.33 0.912-1.189
enoxaparin aspirin 81 mg 1.444-1.994 1.06-1.845 1.28-1.738 1.011-2.92 0.986-1.243 1.185-1.532 1.167-1.386
Table 6: Hazard Ratio, 95% Confidence Intervals and p-values for anticoagulation and antiplatelet comparisons in all causes of Cushing’s Syndrome

HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; PE: pulmonary embolism; VT: venous thrombosis; DVT: deep vein thrombosis; UE: upper extremity; LE: lower extremity

Enoxaparin and Warfarin

After propensity-score matching, 2,786 patients were identified in each cohort. The average age at index event for the enoxaparin cohort was 54.8 + 16.4 years, compared to 58.9 + 15.9 years for the warfarin cohort. The enoxaparin cohort had 2,020 female patients (72.5%) compared to 1,861 (66.8%) in the warfarin cohort. Within the enoxaparin cohort, 2,000 (71.8%) were Caucasian patients, followed by 334 (12.0%) African American patients, 220 (7.98%) Hispanic/Latino patients, and 64 (2.3%) Asian patients. The warfarin cohort was similar, with 2,056 (73.8%) Caucasian patients, 312 (11.2%) African American patients, 170 (6.1%) Hispanic/Latino patients, and 92 (3.3%) Asian patients. The enoxaparin and warfarin cohorts demonstrated no significant differences in PE (HR 0.936, 95%CI 0.755-1.161, p=0.3828), UE DVT (HR 0.969, 95%CI 0.692-1.356, p=0.6), LE DVT (HR 0.708, 95%CI 0.583-0.859, p=0.1963), superficial VT (HR 0.655, 95%CI 0.376-1.142, p=0.0995), bleeding (HR 0.961, 95%CI 0.812-1.137, p=0.7768), transfusion (HR 1.127, 95%CI 0.95-1.336, p=0.5715), or all-cause mortality (HR 1.042, 95%CI 0.93-1.167, p=0.15) (Table 6).

Enoxaparin and Apixaban

After propensity-score matching, 2,429 patients were identified in each cohort. The average age at index event for the enoxaparin cohort was 54.6 + 16.4 years, compared to 61.2 + 15.2 years for the apixaban cohort. The enoxaparin cohort had 1,746 female patients (71.9%) compared to 1,571 (64.7%) in the apixaban cohort. Within the enoxaparin cohort, 1632 (67.2%) were Caucasian patients, 318 (13.1%) African American patients, 219 (9.0%) Hispanic/Latino patients, and 68 (2.8%) Asian patients. A similar composition was noted in the apixaban cohort, with 1,683 (69.3%) Caucasian patients, 321 (13.2%) African American patients, 141 (5.8%) Hispanic/Latino patients, and 53 (2.2%) Asian patients. The enoxaparin and apixaban cohorts demonstrated no significant differences in PE (HR 0.798, 95%CI 0.608-1.047, p=0.6491), UE DVT (HR 0.666, 95%CI 0.431-1.03, p=0.6275), LE DVT (HR 0.684, 95%CI 0.593-0.788, p=0.723), superficial VT (HR 4.059, 95%CI 1.156-14.258, p=0.4198), bleeding (HR 0.933, 95%CI 0.771-1.129, p=0.4356), transfusion (HR 1.089, 95%CI 0.892-1.33, p=0.4299), or all-cause mortality (HR 1.041, 95%CI 0.912-1.189, p=0.2628) (Table 6).

Enoxaparin and Aspirin 81 mg

After propensity-score matching, 6,433 patients were identified in each cohort. The average age at index event for the enoxaparin cohort was 54.5 + 16.6 years, compared to the aspirin 81 mg cohort at 58.8 + 14.9 years. The enoxaparin cohort had 4664 female patients (72.5%) compared to 4,445 (69.1%) in the aspirin 81 mg cohort. Within the enoxaparin cohort, 4,522 (70.3%) were Caucasian patients, followed by 766 (11.9%) African American patients, 521 (8.1%) Hispanic/Latino patients, and 193 (3.0%) Asian patients. Similar demographics were noted within the Aspirin 81 mg cohort, with 4,670 (72.6%) Caucasian patients, 817 (12.7%) African American patients, 425 (6.6%) Hispanic/Latino patients, and 167 (2.6%) Asian patients. The enoxaparin cohort demonstrated a significantly higher risk of PE (HR 1.697, 95%CI 1.444-1.994, p=0.0345), LE DVT (HR 1.492, 95%CI 1.28-1.738, p=0.0017), and all-cause mortality (HR 1.272, 95%CI 1.167-1.386, p=0.0002) compared to the aspirin 81 mg cohort (Figure 2). There was no significant difference in rates of UE DVT (HR 1.398, 95%CI 1.06-1.845, p=0.587), superficial VT (HR 1.718, 95%CI 1.011-2.92, p=0.4268), bleeding (HR 1.107, 95%CI 0.986-1.243, p=0.246), or transfusion (HR 1.347, 95%CI 1.185-1.532, p=0.2057) (Table 6). Due to a significant difference between enoxaparin and Aspirin 81 mg, an E-value was calculated for PE (E-value = 2.783), LE DVT (E-value = 2.348), and all-cause mortality (E-value = 1.860).

Kaplan-Meier-survival-curve-for-pituitary-Cushing's-subtype-(mortality,-LE-DVT,-and-PE)
Figure 2: Kaplan-Meier survival curve for pituitary Cushing’s subtype (mortality, LE DVT, and PE)

(A) Mortality of enoxaparin compared to aspirin 81mg (HR 1.272, 95% CI 1.167-1.386, p=0.0002); (B) LE DVT risk with enoxaparin compared to aspirin 81 mg (HR 1.492, 95%CI 1.28-1.738, p=0.0017); (C) PE risk with enoxaparin compared to aspirin 81 mg (HR: 1.697, 95%CI 1.444-1.994, p=0.0345)

DVT: deep vein thrombosis; LE: lower extremity; PE: pulmonary embolism

Pituitary hypercortisolism (Cushing’s disease)

Enoxaparin and Heparin

Propensity-score matching identified 5,602 patients per cohort. The average age at index for the enoxaparin cohort was 53.9 + 16.7 years, compared to 53.7 + 16.9 years in the heparin cohort. The enoxaparin cohort had 4,088 female patients (72.97%) compared to 4,066 (72.58%) in the heparin cohort. The enoxaparin cohort was predominantly Caucasian patients (n=3,948; 70.47%), followed by 641 (11.45%) African American patients, 424 (7.57%) Hispanic/Latino patients, and 139 (2.48%) Asian patients. The heparin cohort was also predominantly Caucasian (n=3,947; 70.46%), followed by 669 (11.94%) African American patients, 401 (7.16%) Hispanic/Latino patients, and 148 (2.64%) Asian patients. There were no significant differences in rates of PE (HR 1.208, 95%CI 1.007 – 1.451, p=0.5803), UE DVT (HR 1.156, 95%CI 0.841 – 1.59, p=0.6863), LE DVT (HR 1.246, 95%CI 1.063 – 1.46, p=0.8996), superficial VT (HR 1.347, 95%CI 0.874 – 2.075, p=0.3731), bleeding (HR 0.916, 95%CI 0.809 – 1.037, p=0.1578), transfusion (HR 0.912, 95%CI 0.798 – 1.042, p=2119), or all-cause mortality (HR 1.02, 95%CI 0.935 – 1.112, p=0.8734). A comprehensive summary of the results is demonstrated in Table 7.

p-value Medication 1 Medication 2 PE UE DVT LE DVT Superficial VT Bleeding Transfusion Mortality
enoxaparin heparin 0.5189 0.2468 0.7586 0.7708 0.5894 0.6273 0.8433
enoxaparin warfarin 0.4842 0.7763 0.9651 0.682 0.1996 0.5309 0.399
enoxaparin apixaban 0.1047 0.0423 0.647 0.4824 0.2698 0.1122 0.1044
enoxaparin aspirin 81 mg 0.9651 0.6358 0.8448 0.9765 0.1167 0.4854 0.5001
HR Medication 1 Medication 2 PE UE DVT LE DVT Superficial VT Bleeding Transfusion Mortality
enoxaparin heparin 1.186 1.332 1.232 1.183 0.876 0.963 1.016
enoxaparin warfarin 0.804 0.76 0.688 0.815 1.008 1.009 0.976
enoxaparin apixaban 0.875 0.761 0.954 3.068 1.084 1.359 1.115
enoxaparin aspirin 81 mg 1.173 1.157 1.226 1.165 0.908 0.915 1.028
95% CIs Medication 1 Medication 2 PE UE DVT LE DVT Superficial VT Bleeding Transfusion Mortality
enoxaparin heparin 0.983-1.433 0.941-1.885 1.032-1.47 0.776-1.803 0.769-0.998 0.808-1.147 0.929-1.112
enoxaparin warfarin 0.612-1.055 0.467-1.235 0.539-0.877 0.447-1.489 0.816-1.246 0.76-1.34 0.843-1.13
enoxaparin apixaban 0.659-1.162 0.456-1.271 0.736-1.236 0.843-11.166 0.845-1.381 0.962-1.921 0.944-1.317
enoxaparin aspirin 81mg 0.969-1.419 0.827-1.619 1.03-1.46 0.763-1.78 0.797-1.035 0.772-1.085 0.938-1.127
Table 7: Hazard ratio, 95% confidence intervals, and p-values for anticoagulation and antiplatelet comparisons in pituitary Cushing’s syndrome

HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; PE: pulmonary embolism; VT: venous thrombosis; DVT: deep vein thrombosis; UE: upper extremity; LE: lower extremity

Enoxaparin and Warfarin

Propensity-score matching was performed with 1,694 patients per cohort identified. The average age at index for the enoxaparin cohort was 58.1 + 15.8 years, compared to 58.1 + 15.9 years in the warfarin cohort. The enoxaparin cohort had 1,142 female patients (67.41%) compared to 1,143 (67.47%) in the warfarin cohort. Within the enoxaparin cohort, 1,224 (72.2%) were Caucasian patients, followed by 194 (11.45%) African American patients, 97 (5.73%) Hispanic/Latino patients, and 57 (3.37%) Asian patients. The warfarin cohort had similar demographics, with 1,223 (72.2%) Caucasian patients, followed by 194 (11.45%) African American patients, 102 (6.02%) Hispanic/Latino patients, and 65 (3.84%) Asian patients. There were no significant differences in rates of PE (HR 0.907, 95%CI 0.694 – 1.186, p=0.8117), UE DVT (HR 0.988, 95%CI 0.628 – 1.555, p=0.9848), LE DVT (HR 0.739, 95%CI 0.589 – 0.929, p=0.4445), superficial VT (HR 0.815, 95%CI 0.44 – 1.511, p=0.8098), bleeding (HR 1.001, 95%CI 0.814 – 1.231, p=0.0987), transfusion (HR 1.106, 95%CI 0.889 – 1.376, p=0.4904), or all-cause mortality (HR 0.951, 95%CI 0.83 – 1.089, p=0.1656) (Table 7).

Enoxaparin and Apixaban

Propensity-score matching identified 1,489 patients per cohort. The enoxaparin cohort was 61.1 + 15.1 years old at the index event, versus the apixaban cohort at 61.4 + 14.9 years. The enoxaparin cohort had 1,054 (70.79%) female patients compared with 1,029 (69.11%) in the apixaban cohort. The enoxaparin cohort was primarily Caucasian patients (n=1,105; 74.21%), followed by 179 (12.02%) African American patients, 74 (4.97%) Hispanic/Latino patients, and 27 (1.81%) Asian patients. The apixaban cohort demonstrated similar demographics with 1,080 (72.53%) Caucasian patients, followed by 180 (12.09%) African American patients, 76 (5.1%) Hispanic/Latino patients, and 27 (1.81%) Asian patients. There were no significant differences in rates of PE (HR 0.949, 95%CI 0.673 – 1.339, p=0.4372), UE DVT (HR 0.832, 95%CI 0.472 – 1.466, p=0.1538), LE DVT (HR 1.166, 95%CI 0.869 – 1.566, p=0.8595), superficial VT (HR 5.323, 95%CI 1.19 – 23.815, p=0.493), bleeding (HR 1.218, 95%CI 0.948 – 1.565, p=0.4021), transfusion (HR 1.319, 95%CI 0.993 – 1.753, p=0.1663), or all-cause mortality (HR 1.131, 95%CI 0.966 – 1.325, p=0.0839) (Table 7).

Enoxaparin and Aspirin 81 mg

Propensity-score matching revealed 3,475 patients per cohort. The enoxaparin cohort was 58.8 + 15.3 years at index event, compared to the aspirin cohort at 58.2 + 14.3 years. The enoxaparin cohort had 2,438 (70.16%) female patients compared to the aspirin cohort with 2,445 (70.36%). Within the enoxaparin cohort, 2,539 (73.06%) were Caucasian patients, followed by 378 (10.88%) African American patients, 182 (5.24%) Hispanic/Latino patients, and 74 (2.13%) Asian patients. The aspirin cohort demonstrated similar demographics with 2,554 (73.5%) Caucasian patients, followed by 363 (10.45%) African American patients, 196 (5.64%) Hispanic/Latino patients, and 68 (1.96%) Asian patients. The enoxaparin cohort demonstrated significantly increased risk of LE DVT (HR 1.677, 95%CI 1.353 – 2.079, p=0.0081) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.597, 95%CI 1.422 – 1.794, p=0.0005) (Figure 3). There were no significant differences in rates of PE (HR 1.74, 95%CI 1.354 – 2.236, p=0.2408), UE DVT (HR 1.773, 95%CI 1.108 – 2.837, p=0.8625), superficial VT (HR 4.273, 95%CI 1.969 – 9.273, p=0.5196), bleeding (HR 1.093, 95%CI 0.937 – 1.275, p=0.8554), or transfusion (HR 1.896, 95%CI 1.556 – 2.311, p=0.2609) (Table 7). Due to a significant difference between enoxaparin and Aspirin 81 mg, an E-value was calculated for LE DVT (E-value = 2.744) and all-cause mortality (E-value = 2.574).

Kaplan-Meier-survival-curve-for-pituitary-Cushing's-subtype-(mortality-and-LE-DVT)
Figure 3: Kaplan-Meier survival curve for pituitary Cushing’s subtype (mortality and LE DVT)

(A) Mortality of enoxaparin compared to aspirin 81 mg (HR 1.597, 95%CI 1.422-1.794, p=0.0005); (B) LE DVT of enoxaparin compared to aspirin 81 mg (HR 1.677, 95%CI: 1.353-2.079, p=0.0081)

HR: hazard ration; DVT: deep vein thrombosis; LE: lower extremity

Discussion

The concept of hypercoagulability in the setting of hypercortisolemia has been documented since the 1970s [10]. Estimates suggest an 18-fold risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with Cushing’s syndrome compared to the general population [11]. Furthermore, venous thromboembolism accounts for up to 11% of all deaths in Cushing’s syndrome [12]. Patients are often noted to have a “coagulation paradox” in Cushing’s syndrome, whereby there is a heightened risk for thrombosis, with concurrent bruising of the skin; thromboembolism is due to an imbalance between pro- and anti-coagulant pathways, whereas bruising is due to atrophy of the skin and capillary fragility [11]. As noted by Feelders and Nieman, two prominent phases for the development of thromboembolic events include the untreated (active) hypercortisolemia and the postoperative phases [11]. Population-based studies have demonstrated a heightened risk for venous thromboembolism prior to diagnosis (in some studies as early as three years before diagnosis) [9].

Despite this heightened risk for venous thromboembolic events, there appears to be a lack of awareness amongst institutions (and individual practitioners), along with improper management. Fleseriu and colleagues, however, do note that in 2020, the awareness of hypercoagulability in Cushing’s syndrome increased around fourfold in two years, with routine prophylaxis increasing to 75% (from 50%) perioperatively (however, most patients only received prophylaxis for up to two weeks postoperatively) [13]. Another survey was performed by the European Reference Network on Rare Endocrine Conditions, noting concerns of heterogeneity with timing, type, and duration of prophylaxis, noting most centers do not have a thromboprophylaxis protocol (identifying only one reference center had a standardized thromboprophylaxis protocol for Cushing’s syndrome) [14]. From the European survey, it was noted that prophylaxis was initiated at diagnosis in 48% of patients, with 17% preoperatively, 26% on the day before (or of) surgery, 13% postoperatively, and 9% “depending on the presentation”. With regards to discontinuation of thromboprophylaxis, in centers with a standardized protocol (35% of reference centers), 38% of centers stopped at one month post-operatively, 25% between two and four weeks, and 37% between one week before and two weeks after surgery, between four and six days postoperatively, and at three months postoperatively. When cessation was individualized (in the remaining 65% of reference centers), 60% discontinued thromboprophylaxis once the patient was mobile, 40% with achievement of remission, 27% regarding patient status, and 7% dependent upon hemostatic parameters [14].

There is limited guidance concerning thromboprophylaxis recommendations in Cushing’s syndrome. For example, the Endocrine Society merely recommends assessing the risk of thrombosis in Cushing’s syndrome and administering perioperative prophylaxis if undergoing surgery, but provides no further recommendations [8]. The Pituitary Society highlights the absence of standardized practice for both pre- and postoperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with Cushing’s syndrome [15]. There appears to only be one set of guidelines for thromboprophylaxis in Cushing’s syndrome, known as the “Delphi Panel Consensus”, which forms the basis for the guidelines from the European Society for Endocrinology [9]. The Delphi Panel Consensus recommends considering anticoagulation for all patients with Cushing’s syndrome (in the absence of contraindications), regardless of the underlying etiology, and is recommended in the presence of risk factors [9]. Moreover, thromboprophylaxis is advised to begin at the time of diagnosis [9]. Currently, there is not enough evidence to provide a recommendation for thromboprophylaxis in mild autonomous cortisol secretion [9]. As with any medical patient, thromboprophylaxis should be initiated in all patients with active Cushing’s syndrome who are hospitalized (without contraindications) [9, 15]. Apart from chemical prophylaxis, anti-embolic stockings are not recommended due to the risk of skin fragility and friability [9]. The Delphi Consensus Panel furthermore advises to continue prophylactic anticoagulation for at least three months after biochemical remission (eucortisolemia) has occurred, and note those without additional risk factors (such as obesity, immobility, prior history of venous thromboembolism, or cardiac risk factors) can be considered candidates to stop the medication; one caveat, however, is for patients medically managed with mitotane (which can alter liver function and coagulation factor metabolism), there is an increased risk of bleeding, for which careful monitoring of renal function and bleeding risk is advised [9]. The Pituitary Society provides additional recommendations, such as discontinuing estrogen therapy in women (if used for contraception) [15]. While the Delphi Consensus Panel does not comment upon pediatric patients, the Pituitary Society advises against the use of thromboprophylaxis in the pediatric population due to bleeding risks [15].

The Delphi Consensus Panel furthermore recommend considering thromboprophylaxis at the time of inferior petrosal sinus sampling (if not started before this), due to the risk of thrombosis associated with this intervention; for those who are receiving prophylaxis, it is recommended to continue throughout the procedure, however, if has not been started, it is advised to initiate 12 hours post procedure. Similarly, if thromboprophylaxis was not considered earlier in a patient’s course, it should be reconsidered in the perioperative period, with the last dose of LMWH administered 24 hours prior to surgery and reinitiated 24 hours postoperatively [9]. Isand et al. recommend continuing thromboprophylaxis for three months after cortisol levels normalize (< 5 μg/dL) and when patients can mobilize [9]. In patients for whom a venous thromboembolism develops, patients are advised to receive a therapeutic dose of anticoagulation (preferably LMWH) for three to six months, followed by prophylaxis for three months after resolution of Cushing’s syndrome [9]. The Delphi Consensus Panel provides a summary of their recommendations, shown in Figure 4.

Algorithm-for-thromboprophylaxis-in-Cushing's-syndrome
Figure 4: Algorithm for thromboprophylaxis in Cushing’s syndrome

IPSS: inferior petrosal sinus sampling; VTE: venous thromboembolism; LMWH: low-molecular-weight heparin; DOAC: direct oral anticoagulant

Source: Isand et al., 2025 [9]; Published with permission.

Although intuitively, one may expect the procoagulant profile of Cushing’s syndrome to resolve upon attainment of eucortisolemia with medical management, studies have failed to demonstrate a reduction in venous thromboembolism with medical therapy [16]. Additionally, while one may expect resolution of hypercoagulability with surgical intervention (transsphenoidal sinus surgery or adrenalectomy), the risk maintains in the postoperative period, comparable to that of orthopedic surgery, at times up to one year and beyond to normalize [17]; data from European Register on Cushing’s Syndrome (ERCUSYN) database suggest the risk is greatest six months postoperatively [18]. The estimated risk for postoperative venous thromboembolism in pituitary-dependent Cushing’s is around 4.3% (compared to 0% with a non-functional pituitary adenoma); regarding adrenal surgery, the risk is estimated at around 2.6% [11]. Although the underlying mechanism for the persistent risk for venous thromboembolism remains unknown, it is hypothesized that a sudden drop in cortisol can lead to an inflammatory response (itself activating the coagulation cascade) [16]. Lopes and colleagues note an increase in the number of lymphocytes (because of loss of Th1 cell suppression), with increases in cytokines (such as interferon-gamma, interleukin-2, and transforming growth factor-beta) [16]. Comorbidities such as osteoporosis and myopathy (from hypercortisolemia) may be associated with decreased mobility in the postoperative period, influencing the risk for thrombosis [16].

Whilst all subtypes of Cushing’s syndrome can be associated with a heightened risk for venous thromboembolism (pituitary adenoma, adrenal adenoma, medication-induced, ectopic ACTH, and adrenal carcinoma), the latter two are often associated with malignant disease, which itself poses a risk for hypercoagulability from the underlying neoplasm [11]. Patients with Cushing’s syndrome have been found to demonstrate a reduction in activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), alongside increases in clot lysis time, procoagulant factors (such as factor VIII, von-Willebrand factor and fibrinogen) and fibrinolysis inhibitors (including plasminogen activator-inhibitor-1, thrombin activatable fibrinolysis inhibitor, and alpha-2 antiplasmin) [11,12,17]. Varlamov et al. have also noted an increase in thrombin, thromboxane A2, and platelets. Other studies have additionally demonstrated elevated proteins C and S as well as antithrombin III, which are hypothesized to be increased as a compensatory mechanism from the state of hypercoagulability [12]. Barbot et al. demonstrate elevation in factor VIII and von-Willebrand factor within the first few months after transsphenoidal sinus surgery, along with abnormally large von-Willebrand multimers (which are typically found in the cellular components), which can induce spontaneous platelet aggregation [17].

Lopes et al. note that altered von-Willebrand factor levels are not a constant feature reported in Cushing’s syndrome, and state it depends upon the polymorphism of the gene promoter, providing an example of haplotype 1 of the gene promoter conferring the greatest risk for elevated von-Willebrand factor levels by cortisol [16]. Barbot and colleagues furthermore note ABO blood groupings as an additional influencer of the procoagulant state; as an example, blood group-O patients have a near one-quarter reduction in levels of von-Willebrand factor [17]. Feelders and Nieman note heterogeneity in coagulation profiles based on individual characteristics and differing assay techniques [11]. van Haalen and colleagues note an absence of a correlation between severity of hypercortisolism and hemostatic abnormalities [14]; this is echoed by Varlamov et al., stating there is no linear relationship between coagulation parameters and venous thromboembolic events, nor with urinary free cortisol elevation [12]. Varlamov and colleagues further note that a subset of patients may have unaltered coagulation parameters, for which they advise against stratifying patients’ risk based on coagulation parameters [12].

In 2016, Zilio and colleagues posed a scoring system to stratify patients with active Cushing’s syndrome, including both clinical and biochemical parameters, including age (> 69 = 2 points), reduction in mobility (2 points), acute severe infection (1 point), prior cardiovascular event(s) (1 point), midnight plasma cortisol (> 3.15 times upper limit of normal = 1 point), and shortened aPTT (1 point) [19]. Lopes et al. describe the stratification as follows: 2 points (low risk), 3 points (moderate risk), 4 points (high risk), and > 5 points (very high risk) [16]. It should be noted, however, that Zilio et al.’s study was performed on only 176 patients and has not been validated in other studies [19]. Further drawbacks include the failure to account for postoperative events (a major source of venous thromboembolism in Cushing’s syndrome), and despite the stratification categories, no recommendations for treatment are provided.

LMWH is the first-line medication, consistent across differing societies. Despite being the gold standard, there are limited studies demonstrating a beneficial reduction in venous thromboembolic events in such cohorts; similarly, studies are lacking in analysis of the other classes of anticoagulants in head-to-head comparisons against LMWH for thromboprophylaxis in hypercortisolism. Another limitation is the fact that certain studies solely address thromboprophylaxis in the postoperative period. As an example, McCormick et al. performed one of the only trials comparing unfractionated heparin and LMWH (enoxaparin), noting no differences in hemorrhagic complications or thromboses; however, this was analyzed in patients undergoing transsphenoidal sinus surgery [10].

The current study retrospectively analyzed the various anticoagulant agents for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in Cushing’s syndrome (of any subtype), compared to the gold standard, LMWH (in this study, enoxaparin). When analyzing Cushing’s syndrome, our study demonstrated no significant differences in outcomes between enoxaparin and warfarin, apixaban, or unfractionated heparin; however, aspirin 81 mg demonstrated a lower risk of all-cause mortality, PE, and LE DVT. With subanalysis of Cushing’s disease (pituitary-related), there was no significant difference between enoxaparin and warfarin, apixaban or unfractionated heparin; aspirin 81 mg again noted a reduced all-cause mortality and LE DVT (but did not lower the risk of PE, compared with Cushing’s syndrome of all types combined). With E-value sensitivity analysis, the association remained moderately robust with PE (all Cushing’s types combined), LE DVT (all Cushing’s types and pituitary Cushing’s), and mortality (solely pituitary Cushing’s), however, mortality was weak-to-moderate with Cushing’s syndrome of all types (Table 8).

Outcome Hazard Ratio E-value Interpretation
PE (All Cushing’s Types) 1.697 2.783 Moderate
LE DVT (All Cushing’s Types) 1.492 2.348 Moderate
LE DVT (Pituitary) 1.677 2.744 Moderate
Mortality (All Cushing’s Types) 1.272 1.860 Weak
Mortality (Pituitary) 1.597 2.574 Moderate
Table 8: E-value sensitivity analyses for significant findings

DVT: deep vein thrombosis; LE: lower extremity; PE: pulmonary embolism

Aspirin, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, was first identified to irreversibly inhibit platelet function in the 1950s by Dr. Lawrence Craven [20]. Data is scarce in terms of aspirin’s role in thromboprophylaxis in hypercortisolemia. In 1999, Semple and Laws Jr. initially reported the use of aspirin postoperatively for six weeks (starting postoperative day one) in patients with Cushing’s disease who underwent transsphenoidal sinus surgery; while the authors mentioned a reduction in rates of venous thromboemboli, no factual data was provided (including dose of aspirin, complications experienced, and number of venous thromboemboli before and after) [21]. In 2015, Smith et al. performed an additional study with 81 mg of aspirin again administered starting postoperative day one (alongside sequential compression devices and mobilization), reporting that none of the 82 patients developed DVTs (with only two cases of epistaxis) [22]. It was not until 1994, however, in the Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaborations’ meta-analysis, that aspirin demonstrated a reduced risk for venous thromboembolism, with similar findings replicated in the Pulmonary Embolism Prevention trial in 2000 and the WARFASA (Warfarin and Aspirin) and ASPIRE (Aspirin to prevent recurrent venous thromboembolism) trials in 2012 [23]. In 2012, the American College of Chest Physicians [24,25] were the first to recommend aspirin as thromboprophylaxis following total hip or knee replacement, followed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in 2018 (advising LMWP followed by aspirin) and the American Society of Hematology in 2019 (advising either aspirin or oral anticoagulation after total hip or knee replacement) [25]. Despite recognition of the reduction in venous thromboembolism by aspirin (and its incorporation into guidelines), its role in thromboprophylaxis is largely limited to orthopedic surgery. The mechanisms of aspirin and its reduction in venous thromboembolism is not entirely understood, but believed to occur via differing mechanisms, including inhibition of cyclooxygenase-1 (which reduces thromboxane A2, a promoter of platelet aggregation), prevention of thrombin formation and thrombin-mediated coagulant reactions, acetylation of proteins involved in coagulation (such as fibrinogen), and enhancing fibrinolysis [23,26].

Strengths and limitations

To the best of our knowledge, a study specifically comparing the impact of aspirin with that of LMWP in Cushing’s syndrome has not been performed; as a result, our study adds to the paucity of literature pertaining to this topic. Notable strengths in the study include a large sample size (allowing robust comparisons amongst treatment arms), incorporation of propensity-score matching (allowing for internal validity through balancing baseline comparison groups), and comprehensive measurable outcomes.

Limitations to our study are multifold, and include retrospective design, for which intrinsic biases are inherent and can affect causal inference (despite matching techniques). Furthermore, data collection (via TriNetX) relied on correct ICD-10 coding, which could be a source of potential error if conditions and medications are coded improperly, or if our queries missed ICD-10 codes that could also correspond with outcomes. Similarly, TriNetX also relies on queries of healthcare organizations, many of which may not have responded with data, which could inaccurately skew the results. Although TriNetX uses global data, the majority of patient data was derived from the United States population, which could result in less generalizable data to the global public. These findings should be interpreted within the correct context and with caution to prevent misrepresentation. Compliance was a variable that could not be controlled for. Moreover, those who had taken the medication before the index event were excluded from analysis. While aspirin 81 mg demonstrated a reduction in LE DVT and mortality in Cushing’s disease along with PE with Cushing’s syndrome, we only performed a subgroup analysis concerning pituitary-related causes of Cushing’s syndrome (Cushing’s disease); it remains unclear why the risk of PE was not reduced in the latter subgroup. Due to limitations in ICD-10 coding, further subgroup analyses were not performed (such as adrenal adenoma, adrenal adenocarcinoma, or ectopic ACTH syndrome), for which the implications of treating with aspirin 81 mg cannot be inferred from our data. Similarly, further subgroup analyses, such as gender and race, were not performed. Our study assessed adult patients with Cushing’s syndrome, and not pediatric patients, which limits the applicability of our findings to such a cohort. Further studies are required to confirm and replicate our findings in a prospective fashion, stratifying subtypes of Cushing’s Syndrome.

Conclusions

Cushing’s syndrome is associated with a heightened risk for venous thromboembolism, regardless of the underlying etiology. Currently, LMWHs such as enoxaparin remain the gold standard for both thromboprophylaxis and treatment in such patients. There is limited data to support superiority over alternative agents. Our study analyzed enoxaparin against warfarin, unfractionated heparin, and apixaban, for which there was no significant risk difference. When compared to aspirin, enoxaparin demonstrated a greater risk for the development of PE, LE DVT, and all-cause mortality. Further prospective trials are required to replicate our findings and confirm the superiority of aspirin over LMWH.

References

  1. Ulrich-Lai YM, Figueiredo HF, Ostrander MM, Choi DC, Engeland WC, Herman JP: Chronic stress induces adrenal hyperplasia and hypertrophy in a subregion-specific manner. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2006, 291:E965-73. 10.1152/ajpendo.00070.2006
  2. Lindholm J: Cushing’s syndrome: historical aspects. Pituitary. 2000, 3:97-104. 10.1023/a:1009905808033
  3. Raff H, Carroll T: Cushing’s syndrome: from physiological principles to diagnosis and clinical care. J Physiol. 2015, 593:493-506. 10.1113/jphysiol.2014.282871
  4. Newell-Price J, Bertagna X, Grossman AB, Nieman LK: Cushing’s syndrome. Lancet. 2006, 367:1605-17. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68699-6
  5. Savas M, Mehta S, Agrawal N, van Rossum EF, Feelders RA: Approach to the patient: diagnosis of Cushing syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022, 107:3162-74. 10.1210/clinem/dgac492
  6. Suarez MG, Stack M, Hinojosa-Amaya JM, et al.: Hypercoagulability in Cushing syndrome, prevalence of thrombotic events: a large, single-center, retrospective study. J Endocr Soc. 2020, 4:bvz033. 10.1210/jendso/bvz033
  7. St-Jean M, Lim DS, Langlois F: Hypercoagulability in Cushing’s syndrome: from arterial to venous disease. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2021, 35:101496. 10.1016/j.beem.2021.101496
  8. Nieman LK, Biller BM, Findling JW, Murad MH, Newell-Price J, Savage MO, Tabarin A: Treatment of Cushing’s syndrome: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015, 100:2807-31. 10.1210/jc.2015-1818
  9. Isand K, Arima H, Bertherat J, et al.: Delphi panel consensus on recommendations for thromboprophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in endogenous Cushing’s syndrome: a position statement. Eur J Endocrinol. 2025, 192:R17-27. 10.1093/ejendo/lvaf017
  10. McCormick JP, Sun M, Shafqat I, Heaney AP, Bergsneider M, Wang MB: Venous thromboembolic (VTE) prophylaxis in Cushing Disease patients undergoing transsphenoidal surgery. Interdiscip Neurosurg. 2022, 27:10.1016/j.inat.2021.101371
  11. Feelders RA, Nieman LK: Hypercoagulability in Cushing’s syndrome: incidence, pathogenesis and need for thromboprophylaxis protocols. Pituitary. 2022, 25:746-9. 10.1007/s11102-022-01261-9
  12. Varlamov EV, Langlois F, Vila G, Fleseriu M: Management of endocrine disease: cardiovascular risk assessment, thromboembolism, and infection prevention in Cushing’s syndrome: a practical approach. Eur J Endocrinol. 2021, 184:R207-24. 10.1530/EJE-20-1309
  13. Fleseriu M, Biller BM, Grossman A, Swearingen B, Melmed S: Hypercoagulability in Cushing’s disease: a risk awareness and prophylaxis survey on behalf of the Pituitary Society. 15th International Pituitary Congress: Program and Abstracts. The Pituitary Society, Orlando, FL; 2017. 35.
  14. van Haalen FM, Kaya M, Pelsma IC, et al.: Current clinical practice for thromboprophylaxis management in patients with Cushing’s syndrome across reference centers of the European Reference Network on Rare Endocrine Conditions (Endo-ERN). Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022, 17:178. 10.1186/s13023-022-02320-x
  15. Fleseriu M, Auchus R, Bancos I, et al.: Consensus on diagnosis and management of Cushing’s disease: a guideline update. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2021, 9:847-75. 10.1016/S2213-8587(21)00235-7
  16. Lopes V, Marques O, De Sousa Lages A: Preventive strategies for hypercoagulation in Cushing’s syndrome: when and how. Thromb J. 2023, 21:72. 10.1186/s12959-023-00515-1
  17. Barbot M, Daidone V, Zilio M, et al.: Perioperative thromboprophylaxis in Cushing’s disease: what we did and what we are doing?. Pituitary. 2015, 18:487-93. 10.1007/s11102-014-0600-y
  18. Isand K, Feelders R, Brue T, et al.: High prevalence of venous thrombotic events in Cushing’s syndrome: data from ERCUSYN and details in relation to surgery. Eur J Endocrinol. 2024, 190:75-85. 10.1093/ejendo/lvad176
  19. Zilio M, Mazzai L, Sartori MT, et al.: A venous thromboembolism risk assessment model for patients with Cushing’s syndrome. Endocrine. 2016, 52:322-32. 10.1007/s12020-015-0665-z
  20. Zaorsky NG, Buyyounouski MK, Li T, Horwitz EM: Aspirin and statin nonuse associated with early biochemical failure after prostate radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012, 84:e13-7. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.02.050
  21. Semple PL, Laws ER Jr: Complications in a contemporary series of patients who underwent transsphenoidal surgery for Cushing’s disease. J Neurosurg. 1999, 91:175-9. 10.3171/jns.1999.91.2.0175
  22. Smith TR, Hulou MM, Huang KT, Nery B, de Moura SM, Cote DJ, Laws ER: Complications after transsphenoidal surgery for patients with Cushing’s disease and silent corticotroph adenomas. Neurosurg Focus. 2015, 38:E12. 10.3171/2014.10.FOCUS14705
  23. Diep R, Garcia 😧 Does aspirin prevent venous thromboembolism?. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2020, 2020:634-41. 10.1182/hematology.2020000150
  24. Maddukuri RK, Chava H, Kondaveeti ST, Mutthineni MV, Vegesana BP: Aspirin for prophylaxis of VTE in patients with hip/ knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized studies. Indian J Pharmacol. 2024, 56:420-9. 10.4103/ijp.ijp_732_21
  25. Spoladore R, Milani M, Spreafico LP, Agnelli G, Savonitto S: Prevention of thromboembolism after a fracture: is aspirin enough?. Eur Heart J Suppl. 2024, 26:i102-7. 10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suae025
  26. Undas A, Brummel-Ziedins KE, Mann KG: Antithrombotic properties of aspirin and resistance to aspirin: beyond strictly antiplatelet actions. Blood. 2007, 109:2285-92. 10.1182/blood-2006-01-010645

From https://www.cureus.com/articles/371036-therapeutic-options-for-the-prevention-of-thromboses-in-cushings-syndrome-a-propensity-matched-retrospective-cohort-analysis?score_article=true#!/

Connecting Canine and Human Health to Fight Cushing’s Disease

Cushing’s Disease is common in dogs but rare and hard to diagnose in people. That’s why University of Georgia researchers are leveraging canine treatments to find new solutions to battle the condition in humans. This collaboration between veterinary medicine and human health care is just one example of how UGA uses a Precision One Health approach to find and tailor new medical treatments for people and animals.

~~~

Imagine your body as a well-run newsroom. Each day, the editor-in-chief—in this case, the pituitary gland—provides assignments, keeping everything running smoothly. One day, however, the editor’s role is usurped by a rogue reporter who declares breaking news nonstop, flooding the newsroom with bulletins and sending everyone into overdrive.

This is a bit like Cushing’s Disease. The rogue reporter is a tiny, usually benign tumor, the stress bulletins cortisol. The newsroom—your body—responds with metabolic fluctuations, burnt out muscles, emotional distress, and more. Over the long haul, Cushing’s Disease can cause lasting deterioration of the body: osteoporosis, muscle weakness, high blood pressure and heart disease, diabetes, memory and mood issues, fatigue, and more.

It’s a common disease and easier to detect in canines. In people, however, it is rare and difficult to diagnose. University of Georgia researchers are leveraging canine treatments to find new solutions to battle the condition in humans.

This collaboration between veterinary medicine and human health is just one example of how UGA uses a Precision One Health approach to find and tailor new medical treatments for people and animals.

From https://research.uga.edu/news/connecting-canine-human-health-to-fight-cushings-disease/

A Medical Chart Audit to Assess Endocrinologist Perceptions of the Burden of Endogenous Cushing’s Syndrome

Abstract

Purpose

This study was undertaken to assess the unmet needs within the endogenous Cushing’s syndrome (CS) care paradigm from the endocrinologist’s perspective, including data abstracted from patient charts. The study evaluated endocrinologists’ perceptions on burden of illness and treatment rationale along with the long-term clinical burden of CS, tolerability of CS treatments, and healthcare resource utilization for CS.

Methods

Retrospective medical chart data from treated patients with a confirmed diagnosis of CS was abstracted using a cross-sectional survey to collect data from qualified endocrinologists. The survey included a case report form to capture patient medical chart data and a web-enabled questionnaire to capture practitioner-level data pertaining to endocrinologists’ perceptions of disease burden, CS treatments, and treatment attributes.

Results

Sixty-nine endocrinologists abstracted data from 273 unique medical charts of patients with CS. Mean patient age was 46.5 ± 13.4 years, with a 60:40 (female:male) gender split. The mean duration of endogenous CS amongst patients was 4.1 years. Chart data indicated that patients experienced a high burden of comorbidities and symptoms, including fatigue, weight gain, and muscle weakness despite multi-modal treatment. When evaluating treatments for CS, endocrinologists rated improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as the most important treatment attribute (mean score = 7.8; on a scale of 1 = Not at all important to 9 = Extremely important). Surgical intervention was the modality endocrinologists were most satisfied with, but they agreed that there was a significant unmet treatment need for patients with CS.

Conclusion

Endocrinologists recognized that patients with CS suffered from a debilitating condition with a high symptomatic and HRQoL burden and reported that improvement in HRQoL was the key treatment attribute influencing their treatment choices. This study highlights unmet needs for patients with CS. Patients with CS have a high rate of morbidity and comorbidity, even after treatment.

Introduction

Endogenous Cushing’s syndrome (CS) is a rare, debilitating disorder caused by chronic overproduction of cortisol [1,2,3]. CS has an estimated incidence of 0.7 to 2.4 cases per million per year, with a majority of cases (~ 70%) occurring in women [145]. Active CS is characterized by a variety of signs and symptoms, including muscle weakness, obesity, depression, menstrual changes, facial redness, decreased libido, hirsutism, acne, ecchymoses, hypertension, diabetes, and neurocognitive deficits [6]. Because of the diverse constellation of associated symptoms, many of which are common in the general population, CS can be challenging to diagnose and patients often seek input from multiple specialists (i.e., orthopedists, rheumatologists, gynecologists, and endocrinologists) prior to receiving a correct diagnosis [6].

Current treatment options for CS include surgery as the first line of treatment, followed by pharmacotherapies as the second line option and radiation therapy, among other treatments, as a potential third line option. Pharmacotherapies include steroidogenesis inhibitors (e.g., ketoconazole, levoketoconazole, metyrapone, osilodrostat, mitotane), glucocorticoid receptor antagonists (e.g., mifepristone), and medications that inhibit tumoral ACTH secretion (e.g., pasireotide, cabergoline) [6,7,8,9,10]. These pharmacotherapies can be administered as monotherapy or in combination.

The impact of CS on overall health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has been previously described [11]. However, studies reporting both the patient burden (via medical charts) and physician perceptions of burden are lacking, and studies examining healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and the economic burden of CS are limited. The current study reviewed medical charts of patients with CS to characterize the overall burden of CS (including symptoms, treatments, and HCRU) as well as physician perceptions of available treatments for CS and the rationale behind associated treatment decisions.

Methods

Study design and recruitment

This quantitative, cross-sectional study was conducted to collect disease burden data pertaining to patients with CS from qualified physician respondents. All study materials were reviewed and granted exemption by a central Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to study execution (Advarra; Columbia, MD; https://www.advarra.com/). HCPs were recruited via a physician panel through an independent recruitment partner (Toluna) and received an appropriate honorarium for their time participating in the study.

This study was fielded between May 26 and July 27, 2021, and involved the abstraction of retrospective medical chart data from patients with a confirmed diagnosis of CS by endocrinologists. The survey included a 45–60-min web-enabled questionnaire, including a case report form (CRF) component, to capture patient medical chart data and health care practitioner (HCP)-level data in order to assess perceptions of CS disease burden, treatments, and attributes associated with treatments. Considering the rarity of CS, each HCP was required to abstract information from a minimum of 2 patient charts, and a maximum of 8 patient charts.

Selection of study population

HCPs were able to participate in the study if they:

  1. 1.Were board-certified or board-eligible in endocrinology in the United States.
  2. 2.Had been in practice for more than 3 years and less than 35 years post residency.
  3. 3.Spent at least 25% of their professional time providing direct patient care.
  4. 4.Had treated or managed at least 40 unique patients (of any condition) in an average month.
  5. 5.Had managed (i.e., had an appointment with) at least 3 patients with CS in the past year.
  6. 6.Had access to confirmed CS patient chart(s) at the time of the study.

Each HCP who qualified to participate provided information via chart abstraction from the medical records of 2–8 patients with CS. The selected medical charts were from patients ≥ 21 years of age who had received a physician confirmed diagnosis of CS at least 3 months before the time of the study, and had received at least one therapy (surgical, radiological, or pharmacological) to treat their CS within the past 12 months. Patients who were diagnosed with adrenal or pituitary carcinomas were excluded.

Data analysis

The data analysis was conducted in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and Q Research Software 5.6. (Q Research Software, New York, NY). After pilot interviews and throughout the fielding, quality control checks of all the case report forms were conducted to ensure that charts with logical inconsistencies were removed from the sample. Descriptive statistics (such as means, medians, and frequencies) were used to describe the study population across various patient and physician level metrics.

Results

Endocrinologists’ demographics and practice characteristics

Endocrinologists’ demographic information and practice characteristics are presented in Table 1. A total of 69 endocrinologists were surveyed and they provided information on 273 unique patient charts. The majority of the 69 endocrinologists surveyed (53/69, 73%) were male. The mean (± SD) time in practice was 17.3 (± 7.6) years. The majority of endocrinologists (35/69, 51%) worked in urban practices and were in private practice settings (47/69, 68%) (Table 1). The sample was almost equally distributed between physicians from the northern (26%), southern (29%), eastern (25%) and western (22%) regions of the United States. The mean (± SD) estimated number of patients with endogenous CS seen in the last 6 months was 30 (± 34.4) patients.

Table 1 Endocrinologist demographics and practice characteristics

aEndocrinologist were allowed to select multiple practice settings, if applicable

Patient demographics

Patient demographics and clinical characteristics at the time of the survey are shown in Table 2. The majority of patients (165/273, 60%) were female with a mean (± SD) age at diagnosis of 40.2 (± 12.3) years and a mean (± SD) age at the most recent visit of 46.5 (± 13.4) years. Mean (± SD) BMI was 33.3 (± 8.3) kg/m2, with 50.5% of patients categorized as obese, 33.0% of patients categorized as overweight, 14.7% of patients categorized as normal or healthy weight, and 1.8% of patients categorized as underweight (Table 2). Most patients (167/273, 61%) had private or commercial health insurance. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics at disease diagnosis are shown in Table 2. A majority of patients (194/273, 79%) originally saw their primary care physician (PCP) prior to diagnosis and were diagnosed in a private practice setting (182/273, 67%). At the time of diagnosis, 46/273 patients (17%) had poor health, 107/273 patients (39%) had fair health, 68/273 patients (25%) had neutral health, 45/273 patients (16%) had good health, and 7/273 patients (3%) had excellent health, according to the responding physician.

Table 2 Patient demographics, clinical characteristics and therapy experience at diagnosis and time of the study

Treatment of endogenous Cushing’s syndrome

The patient treatment experience at the time of the study is presented in Table 2. Of the 273 patients, 79 (28.9%) underwent surgery only, 11 patients (4.0%) underwent surgery and radiation therapy, 4 patients (1.4%) underwent radiation therapy and pharmacotherapy, 5 patients (1.8%) underwent surgery, radiation therapy, and pharmacotherapy, 85 patients (31.1%) underwent surgery and pharmacotherapy, 2 patients (< 1%) underwent radiation alone and 87 patients (31.9%) underwent pharmacotherapy alone.

Symptomatic burden of endogenous Cushing’s syndrome

At diagnosis, 34% of patients presented with 1–3 symptoms, 33% of patients presented with 4–6 symptoms, 20% of patients presented with 7–9 symptoms, 8% of patients presented with 10–12 symptoms, and 5% of patients presented with > 13 symptoms (Fig. 1). Symptoms of CS at the time of diagnosis are shown in Fig. 2. The top 10 most common symptoms of CS at the time of diagnosis (Fig. 3) included fatigue, weight gain (in the midsection and upper back), acne, muscle weakness, facial weight gain (i.e., facial roundness), decreased libido, headache, edema, emotional lability, and hirsutism. Although symptoms decreased post-treatment, a large proportion of subjects still exhibited these symptoms post-treatment (Fig. 3). The most commonly reported comorbidities observed in patients with CS at the time of CS diagnosis (i.e., those affecting ≥ 20% of patients) included obesity, hypertension, depression, diabetes, dyslipidemia, anxiety, and impaired glucose tolerance (Table 2).

Fig. 1

figure 1

Number of CS symptoms reported at diagnosis

Fig. 2

figure 2

Symptoms of CS at diagnosis (N = 273)

Fig. 3
figure 3

Top 10 symptoms of CS over time. Responses were restricted for Erectile Dysfunction and Irregular Menstrual Periods. Hirsutism was not restricted to females only. All denominators in the table reflect the entire patient cohort, while the metrics below are based on only the affected genders: Female Only Hirsutism: 19% of the cohort (= 52/273), 32% of the females (= 52/165), Erectile Dysfunction: 6% of the cohort (= 17/273), 16% of the males (= 17/108) and, Irregular Menstrual Period: 11% of the cohort (= 30/273), 18% of the females (= 30/165)

Economic burden of Cushing’s syndrome

Healthcare resource utilization was assessed (Table 3). Patients required a mean (± SD) of 1 (± 1.4) hospitalization annually with a mean (± SD) length of impatient stay of 4.3 (± 3.1) days. Patients required a mean (± SD) of 0.6 (± 1.3) annual emergency room (ER) visits, and 4.3 (± 6.3) outpatient visits.

Table 3 Healthcare resource utilization

Endocrinologists’ perceptions of disease burden

Endocrinologists were asked if they agreed with a series of statements regarding their perception of CS burden and impact on a scale of 1–9, where 1 = Not at all agree and 9 = Completely agree (Fig. 4). The highest proportion of endocrinologists responded “Completely agree” with the statements “CS patients can have reduced ability to function at work or school due to their condition” (percent of endocrinologists who responded “Completely agree” = 35%), “patients with CS feel the impact of their condition every day” (30%), that “CS is a debilitating condition” (28%), “patients with CS often have impaired health-related quality of life” (28%), and “CS results in sleep disturbances that adversely impact patient’s HRQoL” (26%).

Fig. 4

figure 4

Physicians’ perceptions of CS burden and impact. On a scale of 1–9, where 1 = Not at all agree and 9 = Completely agree

Endocrinologists’ treatment perceptions

Endocrinologists were asked for their perceptions of the most important treatment attributes on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = the least important and 5 = the most important (Table 4). The two most important treatment attributes included treatments that were efficacious post-surgery (mean score = 4.0) and efficacious as a combination therapy (3.7). Endocrinologists were asked to rank satisfaction with currently available treatments for CS including surgical intervention, pharmacotherapy, and radiological or other interventions on a scale of 1–9, where 1 = Not at all satisfied and 9 = Extremely satisfied (Table 5). Overall, endocrinologists reported highest satisfaction with surgical intervention with regards to initial efficacy (mean score = 7.2), durability (6.9), safety (6.3), side effects (6.2), tolerability (6.4), and patient’s overall experience (6.9). Endocrinologists also ranked pharmacotherapy higher than radiation therapy for the treatment of CS for initial efficacy (5.9 versus 5.2), safety (5.9 versus 5.4), side effects (5.3 versus 5.2), tolerability (5.7 versus 5.5), and patient’s overall experience (5.9 versus 5.4).

Table 4 Top 5 highest rated treatment attributes
Table 5 Physicians’ satisfaction across therapeutic categories

Endocrinologists’ attitudes toward treatments and interventions

Key factors for evaluating and selecting a CS treatment were rated on a scale of 1–9, with 1 = Not at all important and 9 = Extremely important (Fig. 5). Improving HRQoL (mean score = 7.8) was rated as the most important attribute. Similarly, improving cardiovascular complications/events (e.g., myocardial infarction, stroke, embolism) (7.6), psychiatric symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety, mood changes) (7.6), skeletal/muscular symptoms (e.g., muscular weakness, decrease in bone mineral density, bone fractures) (7.5), and neurologic symptoms (e.g., headaches, memory, and cognitive difficulties including brain fog) (7.5) were ranked as key factors when choosing CS treatment. While factors in the survey such as “causes high rate of adrenal insufficiency” and “label contains a warning against use in CS” were ranked as less important, none of the factors listed were considered unimportant by physician respondents for choosing CS treatment.

Fig. 5

figure 5

Key factors for evaluating CS treatments that influence medication selection. On a scale of 1–9, where 1 = Not at all important and 9 = Extremely important

Endocrinologists were asked if they agreed with a series of statements regarding CS treatment and intervention attitudes on a scale of 1–9, where 1 = strongly disagree and 9 = strongly agree (Table 6). The three highest scoring statements were “there is a significant clinical unmet need for patients with endogenous CS” (mean score = 6.6), “better patient support services for CS medications often leads to better patient adherence” (6.5), and “patient out of pocket cost is a significant burden for CS patients on a pharmacological therapy” (6.5). The lowest scoring statement was “patient out of pocket cost is not a significant factor when prescribing pharmacological therapy for my CS patients” (4.6).

Table 6 Physicians’ attitudes toward CS treatment and intervention

Discussion

This study provides valuable information on the physician’s perspective of unmet needs and treatment goals for patients with CS. Endocrinologists in our sample strongly agreed that patients with CS suffered from a debilitating daily condition with a high HRQoL burden. Endocrinologists also strongly agreed with the view that “there is a significant clinical unmet need for patients with endogenous CS” and ranked prescribing treatments to improve HRQoL, cardiovascular events, depression, and anxiety as key factors influencing treatment decisions. The importance providers place on the availability of post-surgery treatment options reflects the inability of many patients with CS to achieve complete post-surgical symptom resolution and suggests all symptoms in patients with CS are not currently addressed with available treatments.

Multiple treatment modalities were utilized by endocrinologists in the care of patients with CS, including surgery, pharmacotherapy, and/or radiation therapy. Improvement in HRQoL was the key treatment attribute influencing CS treatment choices, followed by the goal of reducing cardiovascular complications, and decreasing psychiatric symptoms. However, the prevalence of comorbidities after CS treatment as well as endocrinologists’ perceptions and attitudes regarding an unmet need for CS treatments and ongoing disease burden showed that few therapies are able to improve patients’ ongoing disease burden. New CS treatments are needed that have long-term efficacy, fewer side effects, and effective reimbursement.

Patients with CS have a high symptomatic disease burden at diagnosis. This study and others have demonstrated that many of these signs and symptoms (e.g., hypertension, obesity, and depression) persist even after receiving treatment aimed at normalizing cortisol levels [12,13,14,15]. Results from the present study show that many patients continue to experience fatigue, weight gain, muscle weakness, and emotional lability even after treatment, indicating an unmet need for CS treatments that can effectively manage these persistent symptoms. The persistence of symptoms after treatment for CS is likely multifactorial, and may, at least in part, be due to complications of prolonged hypercortisolism, given diagnostic and treatment delays; however, the ability to predict which patients will continue to experience persistent symptoms after treatment is challenging [141617]. Additionally, the effects of inadequate cortisol control, symptoms due to glucocorticoid withdrawal, and side effects from medications taken to address comorbidities may contribute to persistent symptoms after treatment for CS. Although there are currently established reference values and treatment guidelines used to stratify patients, there are no current clear guidelines on management of ongoing symptoms after cortisol levels have been addressed [18]. Additionally, the present study indicated that only 32% of patients were diagnosed at the first presentation of their CS symptoms, underscoring the importance of increasing awareness of CS and its presentation among PCPs to expedite diagnosis and treatment.

The economic burden of illness from CS includes both the direct impact on HCRU, and the indirect impact on the patient due to loss of work productivity. The present study determined that the mean (± SD) annual number of hospitalization among patients with CS was 1 (± 1.4) day with an average length of inpatient stay of 4.3 days, similar in duration to the mean length of stay for all hospitalizations in the US [19]. However, the average number of outpatient visits among patients with CS was 4.3 visits per year, slightly lower than described in a recent study of patients with CS [11], but almost twice the rate of the average American, indicating a substantial direct cost burden [20]. Patients’ reduced ability to function at work or at school could limit their full economic potential, not only for themselves, but for family members and caregivers, indicating an indirect economic cost.

The degree of concordance between patients’ chart data and the perceptions of providers regarding disease symptoms is an important issue raised, but not directly addressed, by this study. Although endocrinologists agreed that there was a high HRQoL burden attributable to CS, this study did not analyze patients’ perceptions of HRQoL burden of CS. Discordance between patients’ perceptions and the perceptions of their healthcare providers, as well as the tendency of providers to perceive disease burden as less impactful or severe than is perceived by patients, has been reported in other medical conditions such as acromegaly, rheumatoid arthritis and chronic pain. The result of this is often worse medical outcomes for patients with rheumatoid arthritis or worse pain and functioning in patients with chronic pain [21,22,23,24]. Further study is necessary to analyze the concordance between the perceptions of physicians and patients with CS.

A recent cross-sectional web-enabled survey burden of illness study and a recent systemic literature review [112526], conducted by the authors of this study, elucidated both the burden of CS as well as unmet needs in the healthcare system for patients with CS. The results of the current study corroborate the findings of both of these studies, confirming that patients experience a substantial and complex burden of cumulative CS symptoms that impacts their HRQoL. Similar to prior studies, the current results also demonstrate that although symptoms improve with treatment, some symptoms such as weight gain, pain, and anxiety persist even after treatment interventions, including surgery, pharmacotherapy, and radiation therapy. Patients with CS have previously been shown to have worse HRQoL scores compared to healthy counterparts [26], underscoring the long-term effects of CS despite treatment. This study and others have demonstrated that current therapies do not completely mitigate this HRQoL burden and indicate an unmet need among many patients with CS for additional treatments to control symptoms after cortisol level normalization.

Study limitations

During the time in which this study was conducted, additional CS treatments could have been approved, potentially changing the treatment landscape, and thereby altering the proportion of patients that continued to have symptoms after treatment (Fig. 3) or the proportion of patients with a particular comorbidity after treatment. Physician response may have been subject to recall bias; although this may have been mitigated by the use of patient chart data the possibility that details were omitted at the time of patient visits exists. Additionally, when physicians were asked about working in a Center of Excellence, the term was not explicitly defined which may have led to varying interpretations by respondents. Due to the nature of the method used (i.e., a survey given to endocrinologists treating patients at the present time), we have limited historical chart data on the entire medical journey of each patient and all important medical events may not have been captured. For example, treatments administered to patients prior to this study (i.e., those administered by previous doctors or from a different hospital) may not be present in the patients’ charts and were not captured by our survey. Additionally, we did not capture biochemical data to make definitive statements on disease status based on patient cortisol levels. Updated guidelines on cortisol levels indicative of disease severity have recently been issued by the Pituitary Society [18], and a shift toward standardized clinical guidelines may help physicians provide timely and appropriate treatment for patients with CS. Future patient-centered research in CS should focus on identifying biomarkers associated with persistent symptoms after initial treatment, which could influence the development of guidelines for managing ongoing symptoms as current treatments are focused on cortisol management. The cohort of patients with CS included in our study is also not representative of the full spectrum of patients with CS as they were required to have received at least one pharmacological therapy to be eligible for the study. This requirement was added to our eligibility criteria as the aim of our study was to evaluate the burden of illness faced by patients with Cushing’s Syndrome, post-treatment, in the real world. Future studies evaluating concordance between patient chart data and physician perceptions of CS symptoms are also likely to be of interest. Finally, patient symptoms in this study could potentially have been masked due to the use of over-the-counter medications or other prescription treatments not fully captured in charts.

Conclusion

Patients with CS continue to experience symptoms such as fatigue, weight gain, muscle weakness, and emotional instability even after seeking and receiving treatment, indicating an unmet need for treatments that control symptoms. Future research is needed to develop a treatment paradigm that alleviates disease burden in patients with CS and that results in long-term disease control with a favorable side effect profile.

Data availability

The authors confirm that all pertinent data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this manuscript or Supplementary Materials.

Consent to publish

Study participants consented to the publication of their data anonymously on an aggregate basis.

References

  1. Lacroix A et al (2015) Cushing’s syndrome. Lancet 386(9996):913–927

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hopkins RL, Leinung MC (2005) Exogenous Cushing’s syndrome and glucocorticoid withdrawal. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 34(2):371–384, ix

  3. NORD (2021) Cushing syndrome. NORD. https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/cushing-syndrome/

  4. Wengander S et al (2019) The incidence of endogenous Cushing’s syndrome in the modern era. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 91(2):263–270

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hakami OA, Ahmed S, Karavitaki N (2021) Epidemiology and mortality of Cushing’s syndrome. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 35(1):101521

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nieman LK (2015) Cushing’s syndrome: update on signs, symptoms and biochemical screening. Eur J Endocrinol 173(4):M33–M38

    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  7. Castinetti F, Conte-Devolx B, Brue T (2010) Medical treatment of Cushing’s syndrome: glucocorticoid receptor antagonists and mifepristone. Neuroendocrinology 92(Suppl 1):125–130

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Castinetti F, Brue T, Conte-Devolx B (2012) The use of the glucocorticoid receptor antagonist mifepristone in Cushing’s syndrome. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 19(4):295–299

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sharma ST, Nieman LK, Feelders RA (2015) Cushing’s syndrome: epidemiology and developments in disease management. Clin Epidemiol 7:281–293

    PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  10. Hinojosa-Amaya JM, Cuevas-Ramos D, Fleseriu M (2019) Medical management of Cushing’s syndrome: current and emerging treatments. Drugs 79(9):935–956

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Page-Wilson G et al (2023) Evaluating the burden of endogenous Cushing’s syndrome using a web-based questionnaire and validated patient-reported outcome measures. Pituitary 26(4):1–11

    Article Google Scholar

  12. Pivonello R et al (2016) Complications of Cushing’s syndrome: state of the art. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 4(7):611–629

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Pertichetti M et al (2020) Pituitary adenomas and neuropsychological status: a systematic literature review. Neurosurg Rev 43(4):1065–1078

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Andela CD et al (2015) Mechanisms in endocrinology: Cushing’s syndrome causes irreversible effects on the human brain: a systematic review of structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Eur J Endocrinol 173(1):R1-14

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Papakokkinou E et al (2020) Excess morbidity persists in patients with Cushing’s disease during long-term remission: a Swedish nationwide study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 105(8):dgaa291

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Espinosa-de-Los-Monteros AL et al (2013) Persistence of Cushing’s disease symptoms and comorbidities after surgical cure: a long-term, integral evaluation. Endocr Pract 19(2):252–258

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Bhattacharyya A et al (2005) Steroid withdrawal syndrome after successful treatment of Cushing’s syndrome: a reminder. Eur J Endocrinol 153(2):207–210

    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Fleseriu M et al (2021) Consensus on diagnosis and management of Cushing’s disease: a guideline update. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 9(12):847–875

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  19. Freeman W, Weiss A, Heslin K (2018) Overview of U.S. hospital stays in 2016: variation by geographic region. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb246-Geographic-Variation-Hospital-Stays.jsp

  20. Control, C.f.D. National Center for Health Statistics (2023) Ambulatory care use and physician office visits. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/physician-visits.htm

  21. Michelsen B et al (2017) Discordance between tender and swollen joint count as well as patient’s and evaluator’s global assessment may reduce likelihood of remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis: data from the prospective multicentre NOR-DMARD study. Ann Rheum Dis 76(4):708–711

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Smolen JS et al (2016) Discordance between patient and physician assessments of global disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis and association with work productivity. Arthritis Res Ther 18(1):114

    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

  23. Geer EB et al (2020) Observed discordance between outcomes reported by acromegaly patients and their treating endocrinology medical provider. Pituitary 23(2):140–148

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Panda M et al (2006) The influence of discordance in pain assessment on the functional status of patients with chronic nonmalignant pain. Am J Med Sci 332(1):18–23

    Article PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Page-Wilson GO, Maguire A, O’Hara M, Moloney S, Eliza G (2022) Patient-reported burden of illness in endogenous Cushing’s syndrome

  26. Page-Wilson GO, Bhagyashree O, Silber A, Meyer J, O’Hara M, Geer E (2022) Physician perceptions on the treatment and health-related quality of life burden of endogenous Cushing’s syndrome

Download references

Acknowledgements

Medical editorial assistance was provided by Amal Gulaid, MPH from Trinity Life Sciences. Medical writing assistance was provided by Iona Bartek, PhD. Funding for this study was provided by Strongbridge Biopharma plc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Xeris BioPharma Holdings, Inc.

Target Journal

Pituitary.

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by Strongbridge Biopharma plc, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Xeris Biopharma Holdings, Inc. Gabrielle Page-Wilson, MD and Eliza B. Geer, MD were contracted by Strongbridge Biopharma, a wholly owned subsidiary of Xeris Biopharma Holdings, Inc. to provide expert guidance for this study. Bhagyashree Oak, PhD, Abigail Silber, MPH, and Mathew O’Hara, MBA are employees of Trinity Life Sciences, which was commissioned by Strongbridge Biopharma, a wholly owned subsidiary of Xeris Biopharma Holdings, Inc. to conduct the current study. James Meyer, MBA, PharmD is an employee and shareholder of Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This research was funded in part through the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Endocrinology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Gabrielle Page-Wilson

    1. Trinity Life Sciences, Waltham, MA, USA

      Bhagyashree Oak, Abigail Silber & Matthew O’Hara

    2. Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Chicago, IL, USA

      James Meyer

    3. Multidisciplinary Pituitary and Skull Base Tumor Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA

      Eliza B. Geer

    Contributions

    All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Study material preparation, data collection, analyses, and manuscript development were conducted by BO, AS, and MO. JM provided overall strategic guidance. GP-W and EBG provided expert reviews of the work. All authors read and approved the final published version.

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Eliza B. Geer.

    Ethics declarations

    Conflict of interest

    Funding for this study was provided by Strongbridge Biopharma plc, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Xeris Biopharma Holdings, Inc. Gabrielle Page-Wilson, MD and Eliza B. Geer, MD were contracted by Strongbridge Biopharma, a wholly owned subsidiary of Xeris Biopharma Holdings, Inc. to provide expert guidance for this study. Bhagyashree Oak, PhD, Abigail Silber, MPH, and Mathew O’Hara, MBA are employees of Trinity Life Sciences, which was commissioned by Strongbridge Biopharma, a wholly owned subsidiary of Xeris Biopharma Holdings, Inc. to conduct the current study. James Meyer, MBA, PharmD is an employee and shareholder of Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. This research was funded in part through the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748.

    Ethical approval

    This was an observational study conducted in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. As this was not a randomized clinical trial, the study was not registered as such. The ADVARRA Institutional Review Board (Columbia, MD; https://www.advarra.com/) has granted the study exemption from IRB oversight using the Department of Health and Human Services regulations found at 45 CFR 46.104(d)(2). The IRB also completed the necessary additional limited review considerations as set forth under the Revised Common Rule, 45 CFR 46.104(d).

    Informed consent

    Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study during the screening process and this was required to successfully enroll into the study. Participants were able to exit the study at any time or refuse to answer any questions.

    Additional information

    Publisher’s Note

    Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A Case Report of Cushing’s Disease Presenting With Psychosis and Muscle Weakness Postpartum

Abstract

Cushing’s syndrome is a condition leading to overproducing of cortisol by the adrenal glands. If the pituitary gland overproduces cortisol, it is called Cushing’s disease. Cushing’s syndrome and even Cushing’s disease during and after pregnancy are rare events. There is not enough literature and guidance for managing and treating these patients. The diagnosis of Cushing’s syndrome in pregnancy is often delayed because the symptoms overlap. We presented a thin 31-year-old woman, admitted 2 months after a normal-term delivery, with an atypical presentation of Cushing’s disease, unusual clinical features, and a challenging clinical course. She had no clinical discriminatory features of Cushing’s syndrome. Given that the patient only presented with psychosis and proximal myopathy and had an uncomplicated pregnancy, our case was considered unusual. The patients also had hyperpigmentation and severe muscle weakness which are among the less common presentations of Cushing’s syndrome. Our findings suggest that an early diagnosis of Cushing’s disease is important in pregnancy period for its prevalent fetal and maternal complications, and it should be treated early to optimize fetal and maternal outcomes as there is an increasing trend toward live births in treated participants.

Introduction

Cushing’s syndrome is a condition that originates from excessive production of glucocorticoids. The condition is most common in women of childbearing age and is characterized by altered distribution of the adipose tissue to the central and upper regions of the trunk (central obesity and buffalo hump), face (moon face), capillary wall integrity (easy bruising), hyperglycemia, hypertension, mental status changes and psychiatric symptoms, muscle weakness, signs associated with hyperandrogenism (acne and hirsutism), and violaceous striae among other signs. Hypercortisolism and hyperandrogenism suppress the production of the pituitary gonadotropins, which in turn leads to menstrual irregularities and infertility.13 Moreover, the main common cause of developing Cushing’s syndrome is the use of exogenic steroid.3
Cushing’s disease is a form of Cushing’s syndrome with overproduction of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) due to pituitary adenoma. The diagnosis is made using clinical features and paraclinical tests including urinary free cortisol (UFC), serum ACTH, dexamethasone suppression tests (DSTs), pituitary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and sometimes by inferior petrosal sinus sampling (IPSS).4 Although women with Cushing’s disease are less likely to become pregnant, timely diagnosis and appropriate management are especially important during possible pregnancy, preventing neonatal and maternal complications and death. The diagnosis is challenging due to the overlap of the disease symptoms with the changes associated with a normal pregnancy. Moreover, the hormonal milieu during pregnancy has recently been proposed as a potential trigger for Cushing’s disease in some cases; hence, the term “pregnancy-associated Cushing’s disease” has been used for the disease in the recent literature. In this study, we presented a thin 31-year-old woman who was referred to our clinic 2 months after a normal delivery, with an atypical presentation of Cushing’s disease, unusual clinical features, and a challenging clinical course.

Case Presentation

Our patient was a 31-year-old woman who presented 2 months after the delivery of her second child. She had a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension in the past 2 years prior to her presentation. She had been admitted to another center following an episode of falling and muscle weakness. Two weeks later, she was admitted to our center with an impression of pulmonary thromboembolism due to tachypnea, tachycardia, and dyspnea. During follow-up, she was found to have leukocytosis, hyperglycemia (random blood sugar: 415 mg/d; normal level: up to 180 mg/dL) and hypokalemic metabolic alkalosis (PH: 7.5, HCO3 [bicarbonate]: 44.7 mEq/L, paO2 [partial pressure of oxygen]: 73 mm Hg, pCO2: 51.7 mm Hg, potassium: 2.7 mEq/L [normal range: 3.5-5.1 mEq/L]), which was refractory to the treatment; therefore, an endocrinology consultation was first requested. On physical examination, the patient was agitated, confused, and psychotic. Her vital signs were: blood pressure 155/100 mm Hg, heart rate: 130 bpm, and respiratory rate: 22 bpm, temperature: 39°C. As it has shown in Figure 1A, her face is not typical for moon face of Cushing’s syndrome, but facial hirsutism (Figure 1A) and generalized hyperpigmentation is obvious (Figure 1A-C). She was a thin lady and had a normal weight and distribution of adiposity (Body Mass Index [BMI] = 16.4 kg/m2; weight: 40 kg, and height: 156 cm). Aside from thinness of skin, she did not have the cutaneous features of Cushing’s syndrome (e.g. purpura, acne, and violaceous striae) and did not have supraclavicular and dorsocervical fat pad (buffalo hump), or plethora. In other words, she had no clinical discriminatory features of Cushing’s syndrome despite the high levels of cortisol, as confirmed by severely elevated UFC (5000 μg/24 h and 8000 μg/24 h; normal level: 4-40 μg/24 h). In addition, as will be mentioned later, the patient had axonal neuropathy which is a very rare finding in Cushing’s syndrome.
Figure 1. Clinical finding of our case with Cushing’s disease. (A) Hirsutism, (B) muscle atrophy seen in proximal portion of lower limbs, and (C) hyperpigmentation specially on the skin of the abdominal region.

OPEN IN VIEWER

She had a markedly diminished proximal muscle force of 1 out of 5 across all extremities; the rest of the physical examinations revealed no significant abnormalities (Figure 1B). On the contrary, based on her muscle weakness, hirsutism, psychosis and hyperpigmentation and refractory hypokalemic alkalosis, hyperglycemia, and hypertension, Cushing’s syndrome was suspected; therefore, 24-hour UFC level was checked that the results showed a severely elevated urinary cortisol (5000 μg/24 h and 8000 μg/24 h; normal level: 4-40 μg/24 h). Serum ACTH level was also inappropriately elevated (45 pg/mL; normal range: 10-60 pg/mL). High-dose dexamethasone failed to suppress plasma cortisol level and 24-hour urine cortisol level. A subsequent pituitary MRI showed an 8-mm pituitary mass, making a diagnosis of Cushing’s disease more probable. Meanwhile, the patient was suffering from severe muscle weakness that did not improve after the correction of hypokalemia. Then, a neurology consultation was requested. The neurology team evaluated laboratory data as well as EMG (Electromyography) and NCV (Nerve Conduction Velocity) of the patient, and based on their findings, “axonal neuropathy” was diagnosed for her weakness; so they ruled out the other neuromuscular diseases. A 5-day course of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) was started for her neuropathy; however, the treatment did not improve her symptoms and the patient developed fungal sepsis and septic shock. Therefore, she was processed with broad-spectrum antibiotics and antifungal agents and recovered from the infection.
Mitotane was started for the patient before definitive surgical treatment to suppress hormonal production due to her poor general condition. Despite the 8-mm size of the pituitary mass which is likely to be a source of ACTH, our patient was underweight and showed the atypical clinical presentation of Cushing’s disease, making us suspect an ectopic source for the ACTH. Therefore, a Gallium dotatate scan was performed to find any probable ectopic sources; however, the results were unremarkable. The patient underwent Trans-Sphenoidal Surgery (TSS) to resect the pituitary adenoma because it was not possible to perform IPSS in our center. Finally, the patient’s condition including electrolyte imbalance, muscle weakness, blood pressure, and hyperglycemia started to improve significantly. The pathologist confirmed the diagnosis of a corticotropic adenoma. Nevertheless, the patient suddenly died while having her meal a week after her surgery; most likely due to a thromboembolic event causing a cardiac accident.

Discussion

Our patient was significantly different from other patients with Cushing’s disease because of her atypical phenotype. She was unexpectedly thin and had psychosis, hyperpigmentation, proximal myopathy, axonal neuropathy and no clinical discriminatory features of Cushing’s syndrome such as central adiposity, dorsocervical or supraclavicular fat pad, plethora or striae. She had also a history of type 2 diabetes and hypertension 2 years before her admission. The patient was diagnosed with Cushing’s later. From what was presented, the patient did not know she had Cushing’s until after her delivery and despite the highly elevated UFC, and she completed a normal-term delivery. Given that she only presented with psychosis and proximal myopathy, her pregnancy was considered unusual. Her clinical features such as hyperpigmentation and severe muscle weakness are among less common presentations.5
11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 (11-βHSD1) is an enzyme responsible for converting cortisone (inactive glucocorticoid) into cortisol (active). It is speculated that this enzyme has a role in obesity (Figure 2).6,7
Figure 2. The enzymatic actions of 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase on its substrate interconverting inactive and active glucocorticoid.

OPEN IN VIEWER

In a case reported by Tomlinson, a 20-year-old female was diagnosed with Cushing’s disease despite not having the classical features of the disease. It has been suggested that the mechanism is a partial defect in 11β-HSD1 activity and concomitant increase in cortisol clearance rate. Thus, the patient did not have a classic phenotype; the defect in the conversion of cortisone to cortisol rises cortisol clearance and protects the patient from the effects of cortisol excess. This observation may help explain individual susceptibility to the side effects of glucocorticoids.6
Further studies of Tomlinson et al showed that a deficit in the function of (and not a mutation related to) 11β-HSD2 might have been responsible for the absence of typical Cushing’s symptoms. 11-HSD2 keeps safe the mineralocorticoid receptor from excess cortisol. Mutation in the HSD11B2 gene explains an inherited form of hypertension, apparent mineralocorticoid excess syndrome, in which Cushing’s disease results in cortisol-mediated mineralocorticoid excess affecting the kidney and leads to both hypokalemia and hypertension.8
It is frequent in Cushing’s syndrome that the patients usually have no mineralocorticoid hypertension; however, it is still proposed that a defect in 11β-HSD1 can be responsible for the presence of mineralocorticoid hypertension in a subgroup of patients. In fact, 11β-HSD1 is expressed in several tissues like the liver, kidneys, placenta, fatty tissues and gonads,9 meaning that this enzyme may potentially affect the results of cortisol excess in Cushing’s syndrome/disease. Abnormality in the function of this enzyme could explain the absence of the symptoms like central obesity, easy bruising, and typical striae during Cushing’s disease. Several factors affect the action of glucocorticoids. In this regard, the impact of the different types and levels of impairment in glucocorticoid receptors have been highlighted in some studies, as it can lead to different levels of response to glucocorticoids10 as well as a variety in the symptoms observed in Cushing’s disease.
The predominant reaction of the NADP(H)-dependent enzyme 11-Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD)1 happens through the catalysis of the conversion of inactive cortisol into receptor-active cortisol. The reverse reaction is mediated through the unidirectional NAD-dependent 11-HSD type 2 (Figure 2).11
In another case reported by Ved V. Gossein, a 41-year-old female was evaluated for hirsutism and irregular menstrual cycles. Her BMI was 22.6 kg/m2. The patient had no signs or symptoms of overnight recurrent Cushing’s syndrome, the 48-hour DST failed to suppress cortisol levels, and 24-hour urinary cortisol levels were persistently elevated on multiple occasions. Adrenocorticotropic hormone levels were unreasonably normal, suggesting ACTH-dependent hypercortisolism. Despite these disorders, she had 2 children. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pituitary did not show any abnormalities. Moreover, abdominal MRI did not show adrenal mass or enlargement. Genetic testing to determine glucocorticoid resistance syndrome showed no mutation.12
Primary generalized glucocorticoid resistance is a rare genetic disorder characterized by generalized or partial insensitivity of target tissues to glucocorticoids.1317 There is a compensatory increase in hypothalamic-pituitary activity due to decreased sensitivity of peripheral tissues to glucocorticoids systems.1317 Excessive ACTH secretion leads to high secretion of cortisol and mineralocorticoids and/or androgens. However, the clinical features of Cushing’s syndrome do not develop after resistance to the effects of cortisol. Generalized glucocorticoid resistance is a rare condition characterized by high cortisol levels but no scarring of Cushing’s syndrome.18
An important aspect of our case was her pregnancy. Our patient had a history of hypertension and diabetes type 2, 2 years before her presentation to our center that could be because of an undiagnosed Cushing’s disease. The patient’s pregnancy terminated 2 months prior the admission and she had a normal vaginal delivery. So, we suspect that she become pregnant while involved with the disease. Aside from focusing on how this can happen in a patient with such high levels of glucocorticoids, more attention should be paid to occurring pregnancy in the background of Cushing’s disease. In fact, up to 250 patients were reported, of which less than 100 were actively treated.1922
Cushing’s disease is associated with serious complications in up to 70% of the cases coinciding with pregnancy.21 The most frequent maternal complications reported in the literature are hypertension and impaired glucose tolerance, followed by preeclampsia, osteoporosis, severe psychiatric complications, and maternal death (in about 2% of the cases). Prematurity and intrauterine growth retardation account for the most prevalent fetal complications. Stillbirth, intrauterine deaths, intrauterine hemorrhage, and hypoadrenalism have also been reported.23 Early diagnosis is especially challenging during pregnancy because of many clinical and biochemical shared features of the 2 conditions.23,24 These features include an increase in ACTH production, corticosteroid-binding globulin (CBG) 1 level, level of cortisol (urinary, plasma and free), hyperglycemia, weight gain, and an increased chance for occurrence of bruising, hypertension (mistaken with preeclampsia), gestational diabetes mellitus, weight gain, and mood swings.3 There are some suggestions proposed in the studies that help in screening and differentiation of Cushing’s from the normal and abnormal effects of pregnancy and Cushing’s disease from Cushing’s syndrome in suspected pregnant patients. Contrary to Cushing’s syndrome, the nocturnal minimum level of cortisol is preserved in pregnancy.23,25 There is not yet a diagnostic cut-off determined on mentioned level; however, a few studies elucidate the evaluation of hypercortisolemia in a pregnant patient.2628
Urinary free cortisol, a measure that reflects the amount of free cortisol in circulation, normally increases during pregnancy, and it can increase up to 8 times the normal level with Cushing’s disease during the second and the third trimesters,23,29 which is a useful tool to evaluate cortisol levels in a suspected pregnant woman. Because the suppression of both UFC and plasma cortisol is decreased in pregnancy,23,30 a low-dose DST is not very helpful for screening Cushing’s disease in pregnant patients. However, a high-dose DST with a <80% cortisol suppression might only indicate Cushing’s disease.3,31 Thus, it helps differentiating between ectopic ACTH syndrome and Cushing’s disease.32 The use of high-dose DST can distinguish between adrenal and pituitary sources of CS in pregnancy. Owing to the limited evidence available and the lack of data on normal pregnancies, the use of corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), desmopressin, and high-dose DST in pregnancy is not recommended yet.33 More timely diagnosis as well as timely intervention may have saved the life of our patient.
To differentiate between ectopic ACTH syndrome and Cushing’s disease, adrenal imaging should be considered. For higher plasma levels, combined employment of CRH stimulation test and an 8-mg DST can be helpful.3 Bilateral inferior petrosal sinus sampling (B-IPSS) might be needed when the findings are not in accordance with other results, but it is recommended to perform B-IPSS only if the noninvasive studies are inconclusive and only if there is enough expertise, experience, and technique for its performance.3
Although axonal neuropathy has been reported as a rare syndrome associated with paraneoplastic ectopic Cushing’s syndrome and exogenous Cushing’s syndrome, its association with Cushing’s disease has not been reported.5,32 Our patient had severe muscle weakness that we initially attributed it to myopathy and hypokalemia associated with Cushing’s syndrome. In our study, the diagnosis of axonal neuropathy was made based on electrophysiological studies by a neurology consultant and then IVIG was administered; however, the patient’s weakness did not improve after this treatment. The co-occurrence of Guillain-Barré syndrome which may also be classified as axonal neuropathy has also been reported in a pregnant woman with ectopic Cushing’s syndrome.34,35 Whether this finding is coincidental or the result of complex immune reactions driven by Cushing’s disease, or the direct effect of steroids, these results cannot be deduced from current data.36 Some data suggest that the fluctuations and inferior petrosal sinus sampling may trigger the flare of autoimmune processes, specifically when the cortisol levels start to decline during the course of Cushing’s syndrome.35,8 Also, due to COVID-19 pandemic affecting vital organs like kidney, paying attention to COVID-19 is suggested.3740

Conclusions

We presented a thin young female with psychosis, proximal myopathy, and axonal neuropathy with Cushing’s disease who had a recent pregnancy that was terminated without any fetal or maternal complications despite the repeated elevated serum cortisol and 24-hour UFC; therefore, we suggest that she might have glucocorticoid resistance. Glucocorticoid resistance is a rare disease in which the majority, but not all, of patients have a genetic mutation in the hGR-NR3C1 gene. As we did not perform genetic testing for our patient, the data are lacking.
Another clue to the absence of the classic Cushing’s disease phenotype in our case is the role of isoenzymes of 11-HSD1 and 11-HSD2. Other mechanisms, such as the defect somewhere in the glucocorticoid pathway of action such as a decreased number of receptors, a reduction in ligand affinity, or a postreceptor defect, play an important role in nonclassical clinical manifestations of Cushing’s syndrome.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the patient for allowing us to publish this case report. The authors show their gratitude to the of the staff of the Rasool Akram Medical Complex Clinical Research Development Center (RCRDC) specially Mrs. Farahnaz Nikkhah for its technical and editorial assists.

Ethics Approval

Our institution does not require ethical approval for reporting individual cases or case series.

Informed Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient and for her anonymized information to be published in this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

1. Guilhaume B, Sanson ML, Billaud L, Bertagna X, Laudat MH, Luton JP. Cushing’s syndrome and pregnancy: aetiologies and prognosis in twenty-two patients. Eur J Med. 1992; 1(2):83-89.
2. Lin W, Huang HB, Wen JP, et al. Approach to Cushing’s syndrome in pregnancy: two cases of Cushing’s syndrome in pregnancy and a review of the literature. Ann Transl Med. 2019; 7(18):490.
3. Vilar L, Freitas MdC, Lima LHC, Lyra R, Kater CE. Cushing’s syndrome in pregnancy: an overview. Arq Bras Endocrinol Metabol. 2007;51(8):1293-1302.
4. Pecori Giraldi F, Cavallo LM, P, et al. The role of inferior petrosal sinus sampling in ACTH-dependent Cushing’s syndrome: review and joint opinion statement by members of the Italian Society for Endocrinology, Italian Society for Neurosurgery, and Italian Society for Neuroradiology. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;38(2):E5.
5. Molina Garrido MJ, Guillén Ponce C, Maciá Escalante S, Pons Sanz V, Carrato Mena A. Cushing’s paraneoplastic syndrome as first manifestation of an adenocarcinoma of unknown origin. Clin Transl Oncol. 2006;8(8):621-623.
6. Tomlinson JW, Draper N, Mackie J, et al. Absence of Cushingoid phenotype in a patient with Cushing’s disease due to defective cortisone to cortisol conversion. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002;87(1):57-62.
7. Kobayashi T, Matsumoto T, Kamata K. IGF-I-induced enhancement of contractile response in organ-cultured aortae from diabetic rats is mediated by sustained thromboxane A2 release from endothelial cells. J Endocrinol. 2005;186(2): 367-376.
8. Stewart PM. Tissue-specific Cushing’s syndrome, 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenases and the redefinition of corticosteroid hormone action. Eur J Endocrinol. 2003;149:163-168.
9. Ricketts ML, Verhaeg JM, Bujalska I, et al. Immunohistochemical localization of type 1 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase in human tissues. J Clinl Endocrinol Metabol. 1998;83:1325-1335.
10. Huizenga NA, Koper JW, De Lange P, et al. A polymorphism in the glucocorticoid receptor gene may be associated with and increased sensitivity to glucocorticoids in vivo. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998;83(1):144-151.
11. Hintzpeter J, Stapelfeld C, Loerz C, Martin HJ, Maser E. Green tea and one of its constituents, Epigallocatechine-3-gallate, are potent inhibitors of human 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(1):e84468.
12. Gossain VV, El-Rifai M, Krishnan P, Bhavsar B. Cushing’s syndrome with no clinical stigmata—a variant of glucocorticoid resistance syndrome. Clin Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;4:23-25.
13. Charmandari E, Kino T, Ichijo T, Chrousos GP. Generalized glucocorticoid resistance: clinical aspects, molecular mechanisms, and implications of a rare genetic disorder. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93(5):1563-1572.
14. Cidlowski JA, Malchoff CD, Malchoff DM. Glucocorticoid receptors, their mechanism of action, and glucocorticoid resistance. In: Jameson JL, De Groot LJ, eds. Endocrinology: Adult and Pediatric. Saunders; 2016:1717-1726.
15. Charmandari E, Kino T. Chrousos syndrome: a seminal report, a phylogenetic enigma and the clinical implications of glucocorticoid signaling changes. Eur J Clin Investig. 2010;40: 932-942.
16. Nicolaides NC, Charmandari E. Chrousos syndrome: from molecular pathogenesis to therapeutic management. Eur J Clin Invest. 2015;45(5):504-514.
17. Nicolaides N, Lamprokostopoulou A, Sertedaki A, Charmandari E. Recent advances in the molecular mechanisms causing primary generalized glucocorticoid resistance. Hormones. 2016;15(1): 23-34.
18. Huizenga NATM De Lange P, Koper JW, et al. Five patients with biochemical and/or clinical generalized glucocorticoid resistance without alterations in the glucocorticoid receptor gene. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000;85:2076-2081.
19. Luger A, Broersen LHA, Biermasz NR, et al. ESE clinical practice guideline on functioning and nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas in pregnancy. Eur J Endocrinol. 2021;185: G1-G33.
20. Sridharan K, Sahoo J, Palui R, et al. Diagnosis and treatment outcomes of Cushing’s disease during pregnancy. Pituitary. 2021;24(5):670-680.
21. Caimari F, Valassi E, Garbayo P, et al. Cushing’s syndrome and pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review of published cases. Endocrine. 2017;55(2):555-563.
22. Lindsay JR, Jonklaas J, Oldfield EH, Nieman LK. Cushing’s syndrome during pregnancy: personal experience and review of the literature. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005;90(5):3077-3083.
23. Lindsay JR, Nieman LK. The hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in pregnancy: challenges in disease detection and treatment. Endocr Rev. 2005;26(6):775-799.
24. Buescher MA, McClamrock HD, Adashi EY. Cushing syndrome in pregnancy. Obstetr Gynecol. 1992;79:130-137.
25. Carr BR, Parker CR Jr, Madden JD, et al. Maternal plasma adrenocorticotropin and cortisol relationships throughout human pregnancy. Am J Obstetr Gynecol. 1981;139:416-422.
26. Mellor A, Harvey RD, Pobereskin LH, Sneyd JR. Cushing’s disease treated by trans-sphenoidal selective adenomectomy in mid-pregnancy. Br J Anaesth. 1998;80(6):850-852.
27. Doshi S, Bhat A, Lim K. Cushing’s syndrome in pregnancy. J Obstetr Gynaecol. 2003;23:568-569.
28. Wood PJ, Barth JH, Freedman DB, Perry L, Sheridan B. Evidence for the low dose dexamethasone suppression test to screen for Cushing’s syndrome—recommendations for a protocol for biochemistry laboratories. Ann Clin Biochem. 1997;34(pt 3):222-229.
29. Lindsay JR, Jonklaas J, Oldfield EH, Nieman LK. Cushing’s syndrome during pregnancy: personal experience and review of the literature. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005;90(5): 3077-3083.
30. Wallace C, Toth EL, Lewanczuk RZ, Siminoski K. Pregnancy-induced Cushing’s syndrome in multiple pregnancies. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1996;81(1):15-21.
31. Invitti C, Pecori Giraldi F, de Martin M, Cavagnini F. Diagnosis and management of Cushing’s syndrome: results of an Italian multicentre study. Study Group of the Italian Society of Endocrinology on the Pathophysiology of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1999;84(2):440-448.
32. Vilar L, Naves LA, Freitas MdC, et al. Endogenous Cushing’s syndrome: clinical and laboratorial features in 73 cases. Arq Bras Endocrinol Metabol. 2007;51(4):566-574.
33. Hamblin R, Coulden A, Fountas A, Karavitaki N. The diagnosis and management of Cushing’s syndrome in pregnancy. J Neuroendocrinol. 2022;34(8):e13118.
34. Bressler R, Johnson CT. Cushing’s syndrome and the Guillain-Barré syndrome. Ann Intern Med. 1959;50:1298-1303.
35. Moeindarbary S, Abbasi dalooei M, Ghahremani S, et al. Guillain-Barré syndrome following Cushing’s syndrome in a pregnant woman: a case report. Int J Pediatr. 2019;7:10651-10657.
36. Hasenmajer V, Sbardella E, Sciarra F, Minnetti M, Isidori AM, Venneri MA. The immune system in Cushing’s syndrome. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2020;31(9):655-669.
37. Besharat S, Alamda NM, Dadashzadeh N, et al. Clinical and demographic characteristics of patients with COVID-19 who died in Modarres Hospital. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2020;8:144-149.
38. Lotfi B, Farshid S, Dadashzadeh N, Valizadeh R, Rahimi MM. Is Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated with renal involvement? A review of century infection. Jundishapur J Microbiol. 2020;13:e102899.
39. Dadashzadeh N, Farshid S, Valizadeh R, Nanbakhsh M, Rahimi MM. Acute respiratory distress syndrome in COVId-19 disease. Immunopathol Persa. 2020;6:e16.
40. Petramala L, Olmati F, Conforti MG, et al. Autoimmune diseases in patients with Cushing’s syndrome after resolution of hypercortisolism: case reports and literature review. Int J Endocrinol. 2018;2018:1464967.

 

Hormones and High Blood Pressure: Study Reveals Endocrine Culprits and Targeted Treatments

In a recent study published in Hypertension Research, scientists examine the endocrine causes of hypertension (HTN) and investigate the efficacy of treatments to alleviate HTN.

 

What is HTN?

About 30% of the global population is affected by HTN. HTN is a modifiable cardiovascular (CV) risk factor that is associated with a significant number of deaths worldwide.

There are two types of HTN known as primary and secondary HTN. As compared to primary HTN, secondary HTN causes greater morbidity and mortality.

The most common endocrine causes of HTN include primary aldosteronism (PA), paragangliomas and pheochromocytomas (PGL), Cushing’s syndrome (CS), and acromegaly. Other causes include congenital adrenal hyperplasia, mineralocorticoid excess, cortisol resistance, Liddle syndrome, Gordon syndrome, and thyroid and parathyroid dysfunction.

What is PA?

PA is the most common endocrine cause of hypertension, which is associated with excessive aldosterone secretion by the adrenal gland and low renin secretion. It is difficult to estimate the true prevalence of PA due to the complexity of its diagnosis.

Typically, the plasma aldosterone-to-renin ratio (ARR) is measured to diagnose PA. The diagnosis of PA can also be confirmed using other diagnostic tools like chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassays (CLEIAs) and radio immune assay (RIA).

Continuous aldosterone secretion is associated with organ damage due to chronic activation of the mineralocorticoid (MR) receptor in many organs, including fibroblasts and cardiomyocytes. An elevated level of aldosterone causes diastolic dysfunction, endothelial dysfunction, left ventricular hypertrophy, and arterial stiffness.

Increased aldosterone secretion also leads to obstructive sleep apnea and increases the risk of osteoporosis. This is why individuals with PA are at a higher risk of cardiovascular events (CVDs), including heart failure, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation.

PA is treated by focusing on normalizing potassium and optimizing HTN and aldosterone secretion. Unilateral adrenalectomy is a surgical procedure proposed to treat PA.

Young patients who are willing to stop medication are recommended surgical treatment. The most common pharmaceutical treatment for PA includes mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone.

Pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas

PGL are tumors that develop at the thoracic-abdominal-pelvic sympathetic ganglia, which are present along the spine, as well as in the parasympathetic ganglia located at the base of the skull. The incidence rate of PGL is about 0.6 for every 100,000 individuals each year. PGL tumors synthesize excessive catecholamines (CTN), which induce HTN.

Some of the common symptoms linked to HTN associated with PGL are palpitations, sweating, and headache. PGL can be diagnosed by determining metanephrines (MN) levels, which are degraded products of CTN. Bio-imaging tools also play an important role in confirming the diagnosis of PGL.

Excessive secretion of CTN increases the risk of CVDs, including Takotsubo adrenergic heart disease, ventricular or supraventricular rhythm disorders, hypertrophic obstructive or ischaemic cardiomyopathy, myocarditis, and hemorrhagic stroke. Excessive CTN secretion also causes left ventricular systolic and diastolic dysfunction.

Typically, PGL treatment is associated with surgical procedures. Two weeks before the surgery, patients are treated with alpha-blockers. For these patients, beta-blockers are not used as the first line of treatment without prior use of alpha-adrenergic receptors.

Patients with high CTN secretion are treated with metyrosine, as this can inhibit tyrosine hydroxylase. Hydroxylase converts tyrosine into dihydroxyphenylalanine, which is related to CTN synthesis.

What is CS?

CS, which arises due to persistent exposure to glucocorticoids, is a rare disease with an incidence rate of one in five million individuals each year. The most common symptoms of CS include weight gain, purple stretch marks, muscle weakness, acne, and hirsutism. A high cortisol level causes cardiovascular complications such as HTN, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes.

CS is diagnosed based on the presence of two or more biomarkers that can be identified through pathological tests, such as salivary nocturnal cortisol, 24-hour urinary-free cortisol, and dexamethasone suppression tests.

CS is treated through surgical procedures based on the detected lesions. Patients with severe CS are treated with steroidogenic inhibitors, such as metyrapone, ketoconazole, osilodrostat, and mitotane. Pituitary radiotherapy and bilateral adrenalectomy are performed when other treatments are not effective.

Acromegaly

Acromegaly arises due to chronic exposure to growth hormone (GH), leading to excessive insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) synthesis. This condition has a relatively higher incidence rate of 3.8 million person-years. Clinical symptoms of acromegaly include thickened lips, widened nose, a rectangular face, prominent cheekbones, soft tissue overgrowth, or skeletal deformities.

Prolonged exposure to GH leads to increased water and sodium retention, insulin resistance, reduced glucose uptake, and increased systemic vascular resistance. These conditions increase the risk of HTN and diabetes in patients with acromegaly. Acromegalic patients are also at a higher risk of cancer, particularly those affecting the thyroid and colon.

Acromegaly is diagnosed using the IGF1 assay, which determines IGF1 levels in serum. After confirming the presence of high IGF1 levels, a GH suppression test must be performed to confirm the diagnosis. Bioimaging is also conducted to locate adenoma.

Acromegaly is commonly treated through surgical procedures. Patients who refuse this line of treatment are treated with somatostatin receptor ligands, growth hormone receptor antagonists, dopaminergic agonists, or radiotherapy.

Journal reference:
  • De Freminville, J., Amar, L., & Azizi, M. (2023) Endocrine causes of hypertension: Literature review and practical approach. Hypertension Research; 1-14. doi:10.1038/s41440-023-01461-1

From https://www.news-medical.net/news/20231015/Hormones-and-high-blood-pressure-Study-reveals-endocrine-culprits-and-targeted-treatments.aspx