Why is my relatively healthy elderly patient so prone to hyperkalemia?

Hyporeninemic hypoaldosteronism (HH)—without impairment of cortisol synthesis— is associated with hyperkalemic (type IV) renal tubular acidosis (RTA) and is not uncommon among older patients despite glomerular filtration rates (GFRs) >20 ml/min, and absence of diabetes mellitus or chronic tubulointerstitial disease (1-7).  

Hyperkalemia due to HH in the elderly should come as no surprise because the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) function declines with age, reaching its lowest level by age 60. 1-4   In fact, older people have comparatively lower mean levels of plasma renin and aldosterone at baseline and have an impaired ability to mount appropriate responses to RAAS stimuli, such as upright posture, volume depletion, catecholamines, or potassium administration (3-5).

The impaired RAAS capacity in the elderly often becomes more obvious when they are prescribed medications that further suppress RAAS (3). These include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and heparin (3,7). 

Drugs that increase aldosterone resistance, including potassium-sparing diuretics (eg, spironolactone, amiloride, triamterene, eplerenone) and certain antibiotics (eg, trimethoprim, pentamidine) may also aggravate hyperkalemia associated with HH (7). 

A variety of mechanisms leading to HH with aging have been proposed. These include impaired conversion of prorenin to renin, prostaglandin deficiency, sympathetic nervous system dysfunction and increased plasma levels of atrial natriuretic factors as found in congestive heart failure (1,7). 

Bonus pearl: Did you know that the first case of “pure hypoaldosteronism” was described in 1957 in a 71 year old non-diabetic patient with hyperkalemia in the setting of congestive heart failure? (8)

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Bauer JH. Age-related changes in the renin-aldosterone system. Physiological effects and clinical implications. Drugs & Aging 1993;3:238-45. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8324299
  2. Musso CG, Jauregui JR. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and the aging kidney. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab 2014;9:543-46. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1586/17446651.2014.956723
  3. Yoon HE, Choi BS. The renin-angiotensin system and aging in the kidney. Korean J Intern Med 2014;29:291-95. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262530577_The_renin-angiotensin_system_and_aging_in_the_kidney
  4. Nadler JL, Lee FO, Hsueh W, et al. Evidence of prostacyclin deficiency in the syndrome of hyporeninemic hypoaldosteronism. N Engl J Med 1986;314:1015-20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3515183
  5. Williams GH. Hyporeninemic hypoaldosteronism. N Engl J Med 1986;314:1041-42. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3515186
  6.  Block BL, Bernard S, Schwartzstein RM. Hypo-hypo: a complex metabolic disorder. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2016;13:127-133. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26730868
  7. Michelis MF. Hyperkalemia in the elderly. Am J Kid Dis 1990;16:296-99.https://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386(12)80005-9/pdf
  8. Hudson JB, Chobanian AV, Relman AS. Hypoaldosteronism. A clinical study of a patient with an isolated adrenal mineralocorticoid deficiency, resulting in hyperkaliemia and Stokes-Adams attack. N Engl J Med 1957;257:529-36. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13464977

 

Why is my relatively healthy elderly patient so prone to hyperkalemia?

When should I consider a switch to oral antibiotics and discharge from hospital in my recently admitted elderly patient with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)?

A frequently used validated set of clinical stability criteria in patients with CAP and supported by the 2019 ATS/IDSA CAP guidelines consists of a temperature ≤37.8 ᵒC (100.0 ᵒF) AND no more than 1 CAP-related sign of clinical instability as listed below: 1-3

  • Heart rate >100/min
  • Systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg
  • Respiration rate >24 breaths/min
  • Arterial oxygen saturation <90% or Pa02<60 mm Hg (room air)

Using these criteria, the risk of clinical deterioration serious enough to necessitate transfer to an intensive care unit may be 1% or less, 1 while failure to achieve clinical stability within 5 days is associated with higher mortality and worse clinical outcome. 2 The median time to clinical stability (as defined) for CAP treatment is 3 days.1  

A 2016 randomized-controlled trial involving patients hospitalized with CAP found that implementation of above clinical stability criteria was associated with safe discontinuation of antibiotics after a minimum of 5 days of appropriate therapy.

Potential limitations of the above study include heavy use of quinolones (80%), underrepresentation of patients with severe CAP (Pneumonia Risk Index, PSI, V), and exclusion of nursing home residents, immunosuppressed patients, those with chest tube, or infection caused by less common organisms, such as Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Lack of clinical stability after 5 days of CAP treatment should prompt evaluation for complications of pneumonia (eg, empyema, lung abscess), infection due to  organisms resistant to selected antibiotics, or an alternative source of infection/inflammatory/poor response. 2

References

  1. Halm, EA, Fine MJ, Marrie TJ, et al. Time to clinical stability in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia: implications for practice guidelines. JAMA 1998;279:279:1452-57. https://reference.medscape.com/medline/abstract/9600479
  2. Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long AC, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019;200:e45-e67. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31573350
  3. Uranga A, Espana PP, Bilbao A, et al. Duration of antibiotic treatment in community-acquired pneumonia. A multicenter randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:1257-65. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27455166/
When should I consider a switch to oral antibiotics and discharge from hospital in my recently admitted elderly patient with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP)?

What changes should I consider in my treatment of hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in light of the 2019 guidelines of the American Thoracic society (ATS) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)?

Compared to 2007,1 the 2019 ATS/IDSA guidelines2 propose changes in at least 4 major areas of CAP treatment in inpatients, with 2 “Do’s” and 2 “Dont’s”:

  • Do select empiric antibiotics based on severity of CAP and risk factors for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (see related pearl on P4P)
  • Do routinely treat CAP patients who test positive for influenza with standard CAP antibiotics
  • Don’t routinely provide anaerobic coverage in aspiration pneumonia (limit it to empyema and lung abscess) (see related pearl on P4P)
  • Don’t routinely treat CAP with adjunctive corticosteroids in the absence of refractory shock

β-lactam plus macrolide is recommended for both non-severe and severe CAP.  β-lactam plus respiratory fluoroquinolone is an alternative regime in severe CAP, though not endorsed as strongly as β-lactam plus macrolide therapy (low quality of evidence).  Management per CAP severity summarized below:

  • Non-severe CAP
    • β-lactam (eg, ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, ampicillin-sulbactam and newly-added ceftaroline) plus macrolide (eg, azithromycin, clarithromycin) OR respiratory fluoroquinolone (eg, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin)
    • In patients at risk of MRSA or P. aeruginosa infection (eg, prior isolation of respective pathogens, hospitalization and parenteral antibiotics in the last 90 days or locally validated risk factors—HCAP has been retired), obtain cultures/PCR
    • Hold off on MRSA or P. aeruginosa coverage unless culture/PCR results return positive.
  • Severe CAP
    • β-lactam plus macrolide OR β-lactam plus respiratory fluoroquinolone (see above)
    • In patients at risk of MRSA or P. aeruginosa infection (see above), obtain cultures/PCR
    • Add MRSA coverage (eg, vancomycin or linezolid) and/or P. aeruginosa coverage (eg, cefepime, ceftazidime, piperacillin-tazobactam, meropenem, imipenem) if deemed at risk (see above) while waiting for culture/PCR results

Duration of antibiotics is for a minimum of 5 days for commonly-targeted pathogens and a minimum of 7 days for MRSA or P. aeruginosa infections, irrespective of severity or rapidity in achieving clinical stability.

For patients who test positive for influenza and have CAP, standard antibacterial regimen should be routinely added to antiinfluenza treatment.

For patients suspected of aspiration pneumonia, anaerobic coverage (eg, clindamycin, ampicillin-sulbactam, piperacillin-tazobactam) is NOT routinely recommended in the absence of lung abscess or empyema.

Corticosteroids are NOT routinely recommended for non-severe (high quality of evidence) or severe (moderate quality of evidence) CAP in the absence of refractory septic shock.

Related pearls on P4P:

2019 CAP guidelines on diagnostics:                                        https://pearls4peers.com/2020/02/14/what-changes-should-i-consider-in-my-diagnostic-approach-to-hospitalized-patients-with-community-acquired-pneumonia-cap-in-light-of-the-2019-guidelines-of-the-american-thoracic-society-ats-and-inf/ 

Anerobic coverage of aspiration pneumonia: https://pearls4peers.com/2019/07/31/should-i-routinely-select-antibiotics-with-activity-against-anaerobes-in-my-patients-with-presumed-aspiration-pneumonia/

References

  1. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A. Infectious Disease Society of America/American Thoracic Society Consensus Guidelines on the Management guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:S27-72. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17278083
  2. Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long AC, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019;200:e45-e67. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31573350

 

What changes should I consider in my treatment of hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in light of the 2019 guidelines of the American Thoracic society (ATS) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)?

What changes should I consider in my diagnostic approach to hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in light of the 2019 guidelines of the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)?

Compared to 2007,1 the 2019 ATS/IDSA guidelines2 have 2 major “Do’s” and 2 major “Dont’s” in the diagnostic approach to CAP in hospitalized patients:

  • DO order sputum and blood cultures in patients empirically treated for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa—in addition to those with severe CAP as in 2007.  
  • DO order rapid influenza molecular assay—in preference to antigen test— when influenza viruses are circulating in community, irrespective of pneumonia severity
  • DON’T routinely order urine antigens for pneumococcal or Legionella antigens, except in severe CAP or in the presence of suggestive epidemiological factors (eg. Legionella outbreak, recent travel)
  • DON’t routinely order serum procalcitonin to determine need for initial antibacterial therapy

Patients at risk of MRSA or P. aeruginosa include those with prior infection with the same pathogens as well as those with hospitalization and treated with parenteral antibiotics—in or out of the hospital— in the last 90 days; HCAP is no longer recognized as an entity.

The definition of severe CAP is unchanged: 1 of 2 major criteria (septic shock or respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation) or 3 or more of the following minor criteria or findings listed below:

  • Clinical
    • Respiratory rate ≥30 breath/min
    • Hypotension requiring aggressive fluid resuscitation
    • Hypothermia (core temperature <36 ᵒC, 96.8 ᵒF)
    • Confusion/disorientation
  • Radiographic 
    • Multilobar infiltrates
  • Laboratory 
    • Leukopenia (WBC <4,000/ul)
    • Thrombocytopenia (platelets <100,000/ul)
    • BUN ≥20 mg/dl
    • Pa02/FI02 ratio ≤250

Keep in mind that these guidelines focus on adults who are not immunocompromised or had recent foreign travel and are often based on expert opinion but low or very low quality evidence due to the dearth of properly designed studies.

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that the urine Legionella antigen only tests for L. pneumophila type I, with an overall sensitivity ranging from 45% to 100%!3,4

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Mandell LA, Wunderink RG, Anzueto A. Infectious Disease Society of America/American Thoracic Society Consensus Guidelines on the Management guidelines on the management of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:S27-72. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17278083
  2. Metlay JP, Waterer GW, Long AC, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019;200:e45-e67. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31573350
  3. Blazquez RM, Espinosa FJ, Martinez-Toldos CM, et al. Sensitivity of urinary antigen test in relation to clinical severity in a large outbreak of Legionella pneumonia in Spain. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2005;24:488-91. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15997369
  4. Marlow E, Whelan C. Legionella pneumonia and use of the Legionella urinary antigen test. J Hosp Med 2009;4:E1-E2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19301376

 

 

What changes should I consider in my diagnostic approach to hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in light of the 2019 guidelines of the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)?

Why can’t my patient with alcohol-related liver disease be placed on the liver transplant list for at least 6 months after his last drink?

Although many centers impose a 6-month sobriety rule before patients can be listed for liver transplant, this rule has been increasingly challenged based on the results of more recent studies and ethical issues. 1-10

The argument for enforcing a 6-month sobriety rule is in part based on earlier studies (often small and/or single center) that reported an association between less than 6 months of sobriety before liver transplantation and relapse.5-6 Another frequently cited reason for postponing liver transplantation is to allow the liver enough time to recover from adverse effect of recent alcohol consumption before assessing the need for transplantation.6

Arguments against the 6-month sobriety rule include the very limited life-expectancy (often 3 months or less) of patients with severe alcohol-related liver disease who do not respond to medical therapy and increasing number of studies supporting earlier transplantation particularly in selected patients (eg, severe acute alcoholic hepatitis [SAAH], acute-on-chronic liver failure [ACLF]).1,7,9,10,

Further supporting a less stringent transplantation rule are a low rate (about 4%) of death or graft loss in alcohol-related liver disease patients who experience a relapse and lack of significant differences in survival between non-relapsers, occasional drinkers and problem drinkers.1 A 2019 multicenter, prospective study in the U.S. also found that early liver transplant for alcohol-related  liver disease was associated with comparable patient and graft survival as those without alcohol-related liver disease at 5 years post-transplant but increased risk of death at 10 years. 10

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that alcohol-related liver disease is now the most common diagnosis among patients undergoing liver transplantation in the U.S.? 10

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Obed A, Stern S, Jarrad A, et al. Six month abstinence rule for liver transplantation in severe alcoholic liver disease patients. W J Gastroenterol 2015; 21:4423-26. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4394109/
  2. Bramstedt KA, Jabbour N. When alcohol abstinence criteria create ethical dilemmas for the liver transplant team. J Med Ethics 2006;32:263-65. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2579412/
  3. Kollmann D, Rashoul-Rockenschaub S, Steiner I, et al. Good outcome after liver transplantation for ALD without a 6 months abstinence rule prior to transplantation including post-tranplantation CDT monitoring for alcohol relapse assement— a retrospective study. Transplant International 2016;29:559-67. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/tri.12756
  4. Osorio RW, Ascher NL, Avery M, et al. Predicting recidivism after orthoptic liver transplantation for alcoholic liver disease. Hepatoloty 1994;20:105-110. https://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hep.1840200117
  5. Carbonneau M, Jensen LA, Bain VG. Alcohol use while on the liver transplant waiting list: a single-center experience. Liver Transplantation 2010;16:91-97. https://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/lt.21957
  6. Harnanan A. Challenging the “six-month sober” rule for liver transplants in Canada. McGill Journal of Law and Health. Dec 12, 2019. https://mjlh.mcgill.ca/2019/12/12/challenging-the-six-month-sober-rule-for-liver-transplants-in-canada/
  7. Lee BP, Mehta N, Platt L, et al. Outcomes of early liver transplantation for patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis. Gastroenterology 2018;155:422-430.e1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6460480/
  8. Rice JP, Lee BP. Early liver transplantation for alcohol-associated liver disease: need for engagement and education of all stakeholders. Hepatol Communications 2019;3: 1019-21. https://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/hep4.1385
  9. Lee BP, Vittinghoff E, Pletcher MJ, et al. Medicaid policy and liver transplant for alcohol-related liver disease. Hepatology; November 8, 2019 https://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/hep.31027
  10. Lee BP, Vittinghoff E, Dodge JL, et al. National trends and long-term outcomes of liver transplant for alcohol-associated liver disease in the United States. JAMA Intern Med 2019;179:340-48. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2720757?widget=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=2720750

Contributed in part by Nneka Ufere, MD, GI Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA

Why can’t my patient with alcohol-related liver disease be placed on the liver transplant list for at least 6 months after his last drink?

My patient with diverticular bleed has now developed signs of bowel ischemia with abdominal pain and sepsis after transcatheter colic artery embolization. Is bowel ischemia common after embolization of lower gastrointestinal (GI) arteries?

It may be more common than we think! Reported rates of bowel ischemia following lower GI artery embolization have been as high as 22% (1,2). For this reason, it is prudent to closely monitor for signs of bowel ischemia and infection in patients who undergo embolization to control lower GI bleeding.

In some cases, ischemia of the bowel appears to be mild enough to be treated conservatively, while in other cases bowel infarction with surgical intervention has been necessary (1).  One case report described signs of infection (including fever, abdominal tenderness and leukocytosis) 2 days after arterial embolization in a patient who was treated conservatively (3), while another described “sepsis” 6 days post procedure with bowel wall ischemia requiring surgical resection (1). 

Bowel injury leading to a septic picture following embolization of lower GI arteries should not be surprising given the expected capillary hypoperfusion and risk of tissue hypoxia.  Compared to embolization for upper GI bleed, lower GI embolization may place the patient at higher risk of bowel ischemia bowel ischemia due to lack of a rich collateral blood supply (1).  Older patients may also have mesenteric artery atherosclerotic disease or low cardiac output,  further compromising the collateral blood flow (3).  

At a more molecular level, hypoxia leads to the activation of hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF-1), which plays an important role in inducing gut injury. In fact, deletion of HIF-1a in mice prevented shock-induced intestinal permeability and bacterial translocation that ultimately led to bacteremia (4). 

As for preventing embolization-induced bacteremia, although antibiotics are used for liver and spleen embolization prophylaxis, their role in colic angioembolization is unclear (5).  

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that some of the earliest angioembolizations were performed during the Vietnam War to stop bleeding from bullet injuries? (6)

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References:

  1. Gady, J, Reynolds, H., & Blum, A. Selective arterial embolization for control of lower gastrointestinal bleeding: Recommendations for a clinical management pathway. Current Surg 2003; 60: 344-347. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149794402007493
  2. Rossetti A, Buchs NC, Breguet R, et al. Transarterial embolization in acute colonic bleeding: review of 11 years of experience and long-term results. Int J Colo Dis 2013;28:777-782. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00384-012-1621-5
  3. Shenoy, S, Satchidanand, S, & Wesp S. Colonic ischemic necrosis following therapeutic embolization. Gastrointest Radiol 1981, 6: 235-237. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01890256
  4. Vollmar, B., & Menger, M. Intestinal ischemia/reperfusion: Microcirculatory pathology and functional consequences. Langenbeck Arch Surg 2011; 396: 13-29 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00423-010-0727-x 
  5. Ryan, J. Mark, Ryan, Barbara M, & Smith, Tony P. Antibiotic prophylaxis in interventional radiology. JVIR 2004; 15: 547-556. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051044307603248
  6. Nolan, T, Phan H, Hardy A, et al. Bullet embolization: Multidisciplinary approach by interventional radiology and surgery. Semin Interven Radiol 2012, 29: 192-6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23997411 

Contributed by Hannah Ananda Bougleux Gomes, Medical Student, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

My patient with diverticular bleed has now developed signs of bowel ischemia with abdominal pain and sepsis after transcatheter colic artery embolization. Is bowel ischemia common after embolization of lower gastrointestinal (GI) arteries?

Should I continue to vaccinate my 65 years or older patients with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13)?

The 2020 U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has revised its previous 2014 guidelines from routinely vaccinating all adults 65 years or older with PCV13 to a more selective vaccination approach based on shared clinical decision-making in the absence of immunocompromising conditions, cerebrospinal fluid leak or cochlear implant. 1

More specifically, ACIP recommends that we “regularly” offer PCV13 for patients 65 years or older who have not previously received PCV13 in the following settings:

  • Residents of nursing homes or other long-term care facilities
  • Residents of settings with low pediatric PCV13 uptake
  • Travelers to settings with no pediatric PCV13 program

ACIP also recommends that we consider offering the PCV13 to patients with chronic heart, lung, or liver disease, diabetes, or alcoholism, those who smoke cigarettes, or those with more than 1 chronic medical condition.

Why the change in recommendations? The primary reason is sharp declines in pneumococcal disease in unvaccinated children and adults due to the widespread use of PCV7 and PCV13 in children, resulting in prevention of transmission of vaccine-type strains.  

These recommendations do not apply to the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23), however. All adults 65 years or older should continue to receive a dose of PPSV23. 

Bonus Pearl: If a decision is made to administer PCV13 to an adult 65 years old or older, PCV13 should be administered first, followed by PPSV23 at least 1 year later.

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Freedman M, Kroger A, Hunter P, et al. Recommended adult immunization schedule, United States, 2020. Ann Intern Med 2020; [Epub ahead of print 4 February 2020]. Doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-0046.
  2. Matanock A, Lee G, Gierke R, et al. Use of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine among adults aged ≥65 years: updated recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices. MMWR 2019;68:1069-75. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6871896/pdf/mm6846a5.pdf

 

Should I continue to vaccinate my 65 years or older patients with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13)?

The chest CT of my patient with “B” symptoms shows hilar mass and mediastinal lymphadenopathy, highly suspicious for lymphoma or malignancy per radiology report. Should I still consider tuberculosis (TB) as a possibility?

Absolutely! TB often mimics malignancy, particularly lymphoma, both clinically and radiographically, even when sophisticated imaging techniques are used.1  

There are ample reports of TB being confused with mediastinal lymphoma, 1-6 with several reports also stressing abdominal TB mimicking malignancy. 7-10 As early as  1949, a  NEJM autopsy study emphasized “the difficulty in differentiating primary progressive TB and some types of lymphoma” and metastatic neoplasms, clinically and radiographically.  Over half-century later, despite major advancement in imaging techniques, TB is often confused for lymphoma or malignancy.

One reason for confusing TB with lymphoma is that primary TB can involve any pulmonary lobe or segment and is often associated with hilar and mediastinal adenopathy. 1 TB may also be overlooked in the differential diagnosis of mediastinal mass that often highlights neoplasms such as lymphoma, thymoma and germ cell tumors. 3 Lack of concurrent pulmonary infiltrates in the presence of mediastinal adenopathy may also veer clinicians away from TB diagnosis. 2,3,6 Unfortunately, even more sophisticated PET/CT scans may not be able to differentiate TB from lymphoma.5,6,9

Besides chest and abdomen, TB can also mimic malignancy in cervical nodes, bones (particularly the spine), bowels, and brain.1,2,6,8,9  To make matters worse, splenomegaly 2,10 and elevated LDH 3 may also be seen with TB and TB may coexist with lymphoma and other malignancies. 7,9,11

One of the best advices I ever received from a radiologist was “Think of TB anytime you think of lymphoma.”

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that TB lymphadenitis is the most common form of extrapulmonary TB with the majority involving the mediastinum? 4

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

References

  1. Tan CH, Kontoyiannis DP, Viswanathan C, et al. Tuberculosis: A benign impostor. AJR 2010;194:555-61. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41509877_Tuberculosis_A_Benign_Impostor
  2. Smith DT. Progressive primary tuberculosis in the adult and its differentiation from lymphomas and mycotic infections. N Engl J Med 1949;241:198-202. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18137399
  3. Maguire S, Chotirmall SH, Parihar V, et al. Isolated anterior mediastinal tuberculosis in an immunocompetent patient. BMC Pulm Med 2016;16:24. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4739107/
  4. Tang SS, Yang ZG, Deng W, et al. Differentiation between tuberculosis and lymphoma in mediastinal lymph nodes: evaluation with contrast-enhanced MDCT. Clin Radiol 2012;67:877-83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009926012001079
  5. Hou S, Shen J, Tan J. Case report: Multiple systemic disseminated tuberculosis mimicking lymphoma on 18F-FDG PET/CT. Medicine 2017;96:29(e7248). https://journals.lww.com/md-journal/Pages/ArticleViewer.aspx?year=2017&issue=07210&article=00005&type=Fulltext
  6. Tian G, Xiao Y, Chen B, et al. Multi-site abdominal tuberculosis mimics malignancy on 18F-FDG PET/CT: Report of three cases. World J Gastroenterol 2010;16:4237-4242. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2932932/
  7. Dres M, Demoule A, Schmidt M, et al. Tuberculosis hiding a non-Hodgkin lymphoma “there may be more to this than meets the eye”. Resp Med Case Rep 2012;7:15-16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3920344/
  8. Banerjee Ak, Coltart DJ. Abdominal tuberculosis mimicking lymphoma in a patient with sickle cell anemia. Br J Clin Pract 1990;44:660-61. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2102179?dopt=Abstract
  9. Gong Y, Li S, Rong R, et al. Isolated gastric varices secondary to abdominal tuberculosis mimicking lymphoma: a case report. Gastroenterology 109;19:78. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31138138
  10. Uy AB, Garcia Am Manguba A, et al. Tuberculosis: the great lymphoma pretender. Int J Cancer Res Mol Mech 2016; 2(1):doi http://dx.doi.org/10.16966/2381-3318.123
  11. Nayanagari K, Rani R, Bakka S, et al. Pulmonary tuberculosis with mediastinal lymphadenopathy and superior veno caval obstruction, mimicking lung malignancy: a case report. Int J Sci Study 2015;2:211-14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31138138
The chest CT of my patient with “B” symptoms shows hilar mass and mediastinal lymphadenopathy, highly suspicious for lymphoma or malignancy per radiology report. Should I still consider tuberculosis (TB) as a possibility?

Is the average body temperature in adults lower than 98.6 ᵒF (37 ᵒC)?

Despite the widely-held belief that the normal body temperature is 98.6 ᵒF (37.0 ᵒC), it is becoming increasingly clear that the average body temperature among adults (at least in the U.S.) is actually lower than 98.6 ᵒF (37 ᵒC).

The concept of a single normal body temperature dates way back to the 1800’s, based on measuring axillary temperatures by mercury thermometers. 1 However, a 2001 systematic literature review of 20 studies (1935-1998) of normal body temperature measured in adults found the following mean temperatures: oral 97.5 ᵒF (36.4 ᵒC), rectal 98.4 ᵒF (36.9 ᵒC), tympanic 97.7 ᵒF (36.5 ᵒC), and axillary 97.3 ᵒF (36.3 ᵒC ).  A British study involving >35,000 patients also found a lower mean oral temperature of 97.9 ᵒF (36.6 ᵒC). 2 A 2020 US study of a cohort of >150,000 adults (2007-20017) found a mean oral temperature of 98.1 ᵒF (36.7 ᵒC) in men and 98.2 ᵒF (36.8 ᵒC) in women; these values were lower than that of an earlier cohort (1971-1975). 3

So is the discrepancy between the body temperature in 1800’s and the more recent era due to the differences in measurement techniques or the population? In other words, are we cooling off?

The weight of the evidence suggests that our bodies are cooling!3  The study of an 1860-1940 cohort—presumably using similar thermometer techniques —found a gradual drop in the mean temperature during that period alone. Since axillary temperature (accounting for some of the values in the earlier cohort) is about 1 ᵒC lower than that of oral temperature, the magnitude of the drop in mean temperatures over the past 150 years is likely higher that those reported. 3

Potential explanations for our cooling bodies over the past 2 centuries include reduction in the population level inflammation due to improved standard of living, sanitation, lower incidence of chronic infections. improved dental hygiene, and cooler ambient temperatures. 3

 

Fun Fact: Did you know that in 1851 Carl Wunderlich, a German physician, obtained millions of axillary temperatures from 25,000 patients in Leipzig and thereby established the standard body temperature of 98.6 ᵒF (37 ᵒC)? ᵒ

 

Liked this post? Download the app on your smart phone and sign up below to catch future pearls right into your inbox, all for free!

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

 

References

  1. Sund-Levander M, Forsberg C, Wahren LK. Normal oral, rectal, tympanic and axillary body temperature in adult men and women: a systematic literature review. Scan J Caring Sci 2002;16:122-128. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12000664
  2. Obermeyer Z, Samra JK, Mullainathan S. Individual differences in normal body temperature: longitudinal big data analysis of patient records. BMJ 2017;359:j5468. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29237616
  3. Protsiv M, Ley C, Lankester J, et al. Decreasing human body temperature in the United States since the industrial revolution. Human Biology and Medicine, Jan 7, 2020. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.49555. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338433061_Decreasing_human_body_temperature_in_the_United_States_since_the_industrial_revolution
Is the average body temperature in adults lower than 98.6 ᵒF (37 ᵒC)?