“My patient with severe Crohn’s disease is found to have an elevated serum lipase without other supportive evidence of pancreatitis. What other sources of elevated lipase should I consider?” 

Over 20 different conditions have been linked to elevated serum lipase levels or hyperlipasemia associated with conditions other than pancreatitis. The most common causes are sepsis and acute kidney injury, but less common causes include gastrointestinal bleeding, liver disease, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, and inflammatory bowel disease. More specifically, up to 9% of patients with Crohn’s disease may have hyperlipasemia, often associated with a more extensive and active disease. 

Recall that hyperlipasemia is one of the hallmarks of acute pancreatitis (serum lipase greater than 3-5x the upper limit of normal) but, as noted above, it is not 100% specific for this condition.  Although pancreatic tissue has a 50-to-100-fold greater lipase activity than other organs in the gastrointestinal tract,3 serum amylase may also be elevated in diseases involving salivary glands, stomach, heart, skeletal muscle, white and brown adipose tissue, and even the brain.1 This finding should come as no surprise since, as an enzyme, lipase metabolizes triglycerides into glycerol and free fatty acids and plays a key role in the metabolism and transport of lipids into peripheral tissues. 4   

Last, despite potential extra-pancreatic sources, serum lipase is still preferred over amylase in diagnosing pancreatitis due to its higher specificity and sensitivity. 5  

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that increased intracranial pressure, including intracerebral hemorrhage, edema, and tumors may also be associated with elevated serum lipase levels? 6 

Contributed by Charles Hurth, D.O., Mercy Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri

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. Feher KE, Tornai D, Vitalis Z, Davida L, Sipeki N, Papp M. Non-pancreatic hyperlipasemia: A puzzling clinical entity. World J Gastroenterol. 2024 May 21;30(19):2538-2552. doi: 10.3748/v30.i19.2538. PMID: 38817657; PMCID: PMC11135416. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11135416/#B33  
  2. Heikius B, Niemelä S, Lehtola J, Karttunen TJ. Elevated pancreatic enzymes in inflammatory bowel disease are associated with extensive disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999 Apr;94(4):1062-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.x. PMID: 10201484. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10201484/ 
  3. Tetrault GA. Lipase activity in serum measured with Ektachem is often increased in nonpancreatic disorders. Clin Chem. 1991 Mar;37(3):447-51. PMID: 1706233. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1706233/
  4. Wang H, Eckel RH. Lipoprotein lipase in the brain and nervous system. Annu Rev Nutr. 2012 Aug 21;32:147-60. doi: 10.1146/annurev-nutr-071811-150703. Epub 2012 Apr 23. PMID: 22540257; PMCID: PMC4065112. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4065112/
  5. Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, Sauer B, Yang A, Conwell DL, Yadlapati RH, Gardner TB. American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2024 Mar 1;119(3):419-437. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002645. Epub 2023 Nov 7. PMID: 38857482. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38857482/
  6. Larson GM, Koch S, O’Dorisio TM, Osadchey B, McGraw P, Richardson JD. Gastric response to severe head injury. Am J Surg. 1984 Jan;147(1):97-105. doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(84)90041-2. PMID: 6691557. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6691557/

Disclosures/Disclaimers: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Mercy Hospital-St. Louis, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, their affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

“My patient with severe Crohn’s disease is found to have an elevated serum lipase without other supportive evidence of pancreatitis. What other sources of elevated lipase should I consider?” 

Why should I check serum magnesium level in my patient with hypokalemia in need of potassium replacement?

Short answer: Potassium and magnesium are highly intertwined in their physiological roles and magnesium is critical for renal retention of potassium.

Hypomagnesemia increases the release of renin from the kidney, leading to elevated levels of angiotensin II, which stimulates the adrenal cortex to secrete aldosterone. 1,2 The resulting secondary hyperaldosteronism contributes to refractory hypokalemia through increased sodium reabsorption via epithelial sodium channels (ENaC) in the distal nephron.  Increased sodium reabsorption in turn increases the expression and activity of the renal outer medullary potassium (ROMK) channels, which increases potassium secretion into the tubular lumen.1,3 Interestingly, magnesium also directly inhibits ROMK channels which, in the setting of hypomagnesemia, further leads to potassium loss.1,4

Parenthetically, most patients with mild to moderate hypomagnesemia are asymptomatic or have non-specific symptoms such as lethargy, muscle weakness or cramps. So don’t rely on symptoms to decide who should have their serum magnesium checked in the setting of hypokalemia. 5

Last, hypomagnesemia is not uncommon. It is found in 3-10% of general population, 10-30% of patients with type 2 diabetes, 10-60% of hospitalized patients and over 65% of those in the intensive care unit.5   What’s more concerning is that hypomagnesemia is also associated with an elevated risk of death from any cause and death from cardiovascular diseases.5

So, don’t forget to check serum magnesium level in your patient with hypokalemia in need of potassium replacement!

Bonus Pearls: Did you know that many drugs such as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), thiazide and loop diuretics, aminoglycosides and chemotherapeutic agents are associated with magnesium wasting and hypomagnesemia, while sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors may be associated with increased renal magnesium reabsorption? 5

Contributed by Andy Wu, PhD, Medical Student, St. Louis University Medical School, St. Louis, Missouri

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. Huang CL, Kuo E. Mechanism of hypokalemia in magnesium deficiency. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007 Oct;18(10):2649-52. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2007070792. Epub 2007 Sep 5. PMID: 17804670. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17804670/
  2. AlShanableh Z, Ray EC. Magnesium in hypertension: mechanisms and clinical implications. Front Physiol. 2024 Apr 10;15:1363975. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2024.1363975. PMID: 38665599; PMCID: PMC11044701. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38665599/
  3. Valinsky WC, Touyz RM, Shrier A. Aldosterone, SGK1, and ion channels in the kidney. Clin Sci (Lond). 2018 Jan 19;132(2):173-183. doi: 10.1042/CS20171525. PMID: 29352074; PMCID: PMC5817097. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29352074/
  4. Rodan AR, Cheng CJ, Huang CL. Recent advances in distal tubular potassium handling. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2011 Apr;300(4):F821-7. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.00742.2010. Epub 2011 Jan 26. PMID: 21270092; PMCID: PMC3074996. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21270092/
  5. Touyz RM, de Baaij JHF, Hoenderop JGJ. Magnesium Disorders. N Engl J Med. 2024 Jun 6;390(21):1998-2009. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1510603. PMID: 38838313. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38838313/

Disclosures/Disclaimers: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Mercy Hospital-St. Louis, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, their affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

Why should I check serum magnesium level in my patient with hypokalemia in need of potassium replacement?

Why would my patient with Covid-19 infection test negative by PCR?

There are several potential reasons why someone who is infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the agent of Covid-19, may test negative by PCR. These including the threshold for detection of virus (which can vary among different manufacturers from as low as 100 viral copies/ml to >6,000 copies/ml),1 timing of the sample collection with respect to infection stage (lowest false-negative rate [~20%] on day 3 of symptoms or 8 days post-infection),specimen storage and transport and, particularly in the case of nasopharyngeal specimens, the adequacy of the sample obtained. 3

Suboptimal specimen collection from nasopharynx has long been suspected as an explanation for false-negative PCR tests in patients who subsequently have a positive test or are highly suspected of having Covid-19, but without any good support data. Until now…

A clever study looked at the presence of human DNA recovered from nasopharyngeal swabs as a marker for adequate specimen collection quality and found that human DNA levels were significantly lower in samples from patients with confirmed or suspected Covid-19 that yielded negative results compared to those of representative pool of samples submitted for Covid-19 testing.3

Interestingly, major commercial assays do not include any internal controls that ensure adequate sampling before testing for SARS-CoV2.

A typical microbiology lab can reject a sputum culture if gram-stain suggests poor quality specimen (eg, saliva only) but it looks like no similar rule exists for nasopharyngeal PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 through commercial labs. Apparently, the US-CDC diagnostic panel does include a human RNAseP RNA-specific primer/probe set but the interpretation criteria for this control may also be too liberal.3

For these reasons, in patients highly suspected of having Covid-19 but with a negative initial PCR test, a repeat test on the same day or next 2 days is recommended.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. Prinzi A. False negatives and refinfections: the challenges of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing. Available at https://asm.org/Articles/2020/April/False-Negatives-and-Reinfections-the-Challenges-of     Accessed October 5, 2020.
  2. Kucirka LM, Lauer SA, Laeyendecker O, et al. Variation in false-negative rate of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction-based SARS-CoV-2 tests by time since exposure. Ann Intern Med 2020 May 13:M20-1495. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7240870/
  3. Kinloch NN, Ritchie G, Brumme CJ, et al. Suboptimal biological sampling as a probable cause of false-negative COVID-19 diagnostic test results. J Infect Dis 2020;222:899-902. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/222/6/899/5864227
  4. Green DA, Zucker J, Westbade LF, et al. Clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing. J Clin Microbiol 2020. DOI:10.1128/JCM.00995-20. https://jcm.asm.org/content/58/8/e00995-20

 

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, its affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

Why would my patient with Covid-19 infection test negative by PCR?

Is cefepime an acceptable alternative to carbapenems in the treatment of cefepime susceptible extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) Gram-negatives?

Irrespective of in-vitro susceptibility results, cefepime should be avoided in the treatment of serious ESBL infections associated with bacteremia, pneumonia, intraabdominal infection, endocarditis, bone/joint infection or whenever a high bacterial inoculum is suspected. Cefepime should be considered only in non-severe infections (eg, uncomplicated urinary tract infection) when the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) is 2 mg/L or less (1).

 

To date, clinical studies comparing cefepime vs carbapenem have been small and/or retrospective, often with conflicting results (1). A 2016 propensity score-matched study of patients with ESBL bacteremia receiving cefepime therapy followed by carbapenem therapy vs carbapenem for the entire treatment duration found higher 14 day mortality in the cefepime group (41% vs 20% in the carbapenem group) (2).  Of note, 2 of the patients receiving cefepime who died were infected with an ESBL organism with MIC of 1 mcg/mL. 

 

Another study found cefepime to be inferior to carbapenem therapy in ESBL bacteremic patients with better outcome when cefepime MIC was 1 ug/m or less (3).

 

Two studies involving patients with ESBL UTIs found no significant difference between cefepime and carbapenem in clinical and microbiological response or in-hospital mortality, while another UTI study with a high rate of septic shock (33%) found that cefepime was inferior to carbapenem in clinical and microbiological response (2).

 

The diminished efficacy of cefepime for the treatment of ESBL infections may be related to its “inoculum effect” ie, marked increase in MIC with increased inoculum size compared to that used in standard laboratory susceptibility testing (1,4).   

 

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. Karaiskos I, Giamarellou H. Carbapenem-sparing strategies for ESBL producers: when and how. Antibiotics 2020;9,61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32033322/
  2. Wang R, Cosgrove S, Tschudin-Sutter S, et al. Cefepime therapy for cefepime-susceptible extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enerobacteriaceae bacteremia. Open Forum Infect Dis 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4942761/
  3. Lee NY, Lee CC, Huang WH, et al. Cefepime therapy for monomicrobial bacteremia caused by cefepime-susceptible extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae: MIC matters. Clin Infect Dis 203;56:488-95. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/56/4/488/351224
  4. Smith KP, Kirby JE. The inoculum effect in the era of multidrug resistance:minor differences in inoculum have dramatic effect on MIC determination. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2018;62:e00433-18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6105823/

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, its affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

Is cefepime an acceptable alternative to carbapenems in the treatment of cefepime susceptible extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) Gram-negatives?

Does a positive routine PCR test for Covid-19 virus mean the person is infectious?

Not necessarily! Although a positive routine PCR test for Covid-19 indicates the presence of the virus in a clinical specimen, it does not mean that the virus is still viable or transmissible, particularly as the patient may be recovering from Covid-19. Viral cultures are often needed to help answer this question. 1-5

In a study of 9 hospitalized patients with Covid-19, no viable Covid-19 virus could be found by culture in any specimen beyond 8 days following onset of symptoms despite a positive routine PCR for up to 13 days. Successful growth of the virus was dependent in part on viral load, with samples containing <106 copies/mL never yielding any viable virus.1  

In the same study, none of stools that were positive for Covid-19 virus by PCR were positive by culture.  The authors concluded that there is “little residual risk of infectivity” beyond day 10 of symptoms when sputum contains less than 100,000 viral RNA copies /ml.  Of note, the patients in this study were young- to middle-aged without significant underlying disease and had milder disease, so the results may not necessarily be generalizable to other patients with Covid-19. 1

The discrepancy between a positive PCR and negative culture has been seen with other respiratory pathogens,  such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza. In a study involving experimentally infected subjects with RSV, the average duration of viral shedding was 9.2 days by PCR compared to 7.2 days by viral culture.2 In another study involving patients with symptomatic influenza, virus could be detected for up to 7 days with PCR compared to 1-2 days by viral culture.3

Factors that may explain this discrepancy include suboptimal sample transport, low viral titers,  and the presence of neutralizing antibody in the clinical specimen.2,3

So, despite our incomplete knowledge, don’t assume that PCR positivity means the presence of live virus capable of transmitting Covid-19!

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. Wolfel R, Corman VM, Guggemos W, et al. Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Nature 2020; April 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x
  2. Falsey AR, Formica MA, Treanor JJ, et al. Comparison of quantitative reverse transcriptase-PCR to viral culture for assessment of respiratory syncytial virus shedding. J Clin Microbiol 2003;41:4160-65. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC193781/pdf/0106.pdf
  3. Van Elden LJR, Nijhuis M, Schipper P, et al . Simultaneous detection of influenza viruses A and B using real-time quantitative PCR. J Clin Microbiol 2001;39:196-200. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC87701/
  4. Cangelosi GA, Meschke JS. Dead or alive:molecular assessment of microbial viability. App Environ Microbiol 2014;80:5884-91.
  5. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/novel-coronavirus-sars-cov-2-discharge-criteria-confirmed-covid-19-cases

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, its affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

 

Does a positive routine PCR test for Covid-19 virus mean the person is infectious?

How “sensitive” is the PCR in diagnosing coronavirus/Covid-19?

A definite diagnosis of Covid-19 requires viral testing, usually through PCR performed on upper (nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal) or lower respiratory samples (sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage [BAL] fluid). Rates of positive PCR may be affected by stage of the disease and/or its severity.
Nasopharyngeal sample: This seems to be the most practical and readily available means of confirming Covid-19 diagnosis, with positive rates of ~75% during the first 2 weeks of illness in patients considered to have severe disease. For patients with mild Covid-19, a positive PCR rate of 72% has been reported during the 1st week, dropping to 54% during the 2nd week (1).
Oropharyngeal sample: Lower positive PCR rates have been observed with throat swabs, as low as ~30% in mild Covid-19 during the 2nd week of the illness and ~60% in severe disease during the first week of illness (2).
Sputum: Sputum may have the highest positive rates ranging from ~75% in mild disease during the second week of illness to ~90% during the 1st week of severe disease. The problem with sputum sampling is that less than one-third of patients with Covid-19 can provide a sample given the usually dry nature of their cough (1,4).
BAL fluid: In a limited number of patients with severe disease who had bronchoalveolar lavage sampling during the 2nd week of illness, 3 (25%) of 12 patients with positive PCR on BAL had negative upper respiratory samples (1). So in severe disease, the virus definitely prefers to replicate in the lower respiratory tract.
Potential explanations for a negative PCR include low viral titers and specimen handling. So, in patients suspected of having Covid-19 based on clinical/laboratory/radiograph grounds, a negative upper respiratory sample, particularly oropharyngeal source, should not rule out this disease.

 

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. Yang Y, Yang M, Shen C, et al. Evaluating the accuracy of different respiratory specimens in the laboratory diagnosis and monitoring the viral shedding of 2019-nCoV infections. MedRxiv. 2020. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.11.20021493
2. Ai T, Yang Z, Hou H, et al. Correlation of chest CT and RT-PCR testing in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China: A report of 1014 cases. Radiology 2020. https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2020200642
3. Bai HX, Hsieh B, Xiong Z, et al. Performance of radiologists in differentiaging COVID-19 from viral pneumonia on chest CT. Radiology 2020. https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2020200823 
4. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext
Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Catalyst, Harvard University, its affiliate academic healthcare centers, or its contributors. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

How “sensitive” is the PCR in diagnosing coronavirus/Covid-19?

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

Disclosures: The listed questions and answers are solely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of Mercy Hospital-St. Louis or its affiliate healthcare centers, Mass General Hospital, Harvard Medical School or its affiliated institutions. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate information, the author is far from being perfect. The reader is urged to verify the content of the material with other sources as deemed appropriate and exercise clinical judgment in the interpretation and application of the information provided herein. No responsibility for an adverse outcome or guarantees for a favorable clinical result is assumed by the author. Thank you!

 

 

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)?

Can the elevation of AST and ALT in my patient with rhabdomyolysis be related to the muscle injury itself?

Yes! Elevated serum AST and ALT in the setting of rhabdomyolysis is not uncommon and, at least in some cases, appears to be related to the skeletal muscle injury itself.1,2

In a study of 16 patients considered to have significant muscle necrosis due to extreme exercise, polymyositis or seizures without evidence of liver disease (eg, viral hepatitis, exposure to hepatotoxic drugs, heart failure, biliary tract disease, recent hypotension) AST and, to lesser degree, ALT was elevated. For extreme exercise, the median AST and ALT concentrations were 2,466 IU/L and 497 U/L, respectively, while for seizures these levels were 1,448 U/L and 383 U/L respectively.1  

Another study reported AST elevation (>40 U/L) in 93.1% of patients with rhabdomyolysis and ALT elevation (>40 U/L) in 75.0% of patients with serum creatine kinase ≥1000 U/L. Further supporting a skeletal muscle origin for AST elevation was the finding that AST concentrations fell in parallel with CK drop during the first 6 days of hospitalization for rhabdomyolysis. It was posited that ALT concentrations dropped slower because of its longer serum half-life (47 hours vs 17 hours for AST).2 Despite these findings, concurrent liver injury as an additional source of AST or ALT elevation cannot be excluded.

Elevation of AST and ALT with muscle injury should not come as a surprise. AST is found in heart and skeletal muscle among many other organs. Even ALT which is considered more specific to liver is found in organs such as skeletal muscle, heart and kidney, though at lower concentrations.3

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that the first description of rhabdomyolysis in the literature involved English victims of crush injuries during World War II?2

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. Nathwani RA, Pais S, Reynolds TB, et al. Serum alanine aminotransferase in skeletal muscle diseases. Hepatology 2005;41:380-82. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15660433
  2. Weibrecht K, Dayno M, Darling C, et al. Liver aminotransferases are elevated with rhabdomyolysis in the absence of significant liver injury. J Med Toxicol 2010;6:294-300. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13181-010-0075-9
  3. Giannini EG, Testa R, Savarino V. Liver enzyme alteration: a guidance for clinicians. CMAJ2005;172:367-79. Giannini EG, Testa R, Savarino V. Liver enzyme alteration: a guidance for clinicians. CMAJ 2005;172:367-79. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15684121
Can the elevation of AST and ALT in my patient with rhabdomyolysis be related to the muscle injury itself?

My patient with rheumatoid arthritis might have been exposed to tuberculosis. Does immunosuppressive therapy affect the results of interferon gamma release assay (IGRA) testing for latent tuberculosis?

The weight of the evidence to date suggests that immunosuppressive therapy, including steroids, other oral immunosuppressants and anti-tumor-necrosis factor (TNF) agents, may negatively impact IGRA results.1

In some ways the finding of false-negative IGRA in the setting of immunosuppression is intuitive since many immunosuppressive agents are potent inhibitors of T cells and interferon-gamma response. 1,2 Despite this, the initial reports have been somewhat conflicting which makes a 2016 meta-analysis of the effect of immunosuppressive therapy on IGRA results in patient with autoimmune diseases (eg, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, inflammatory bowel disease) particularly timely. 1

This meta-analysis found a significantly lower positive IGRA results among patients on immunosuppressive therapy ( O.R. 0.66, 95% C.I. 0.53-0.83). Breakdown by IGRA test showed a significant association between QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube and lower positive results and a trend toward the same with T-SPOT though the latter did not reach statistical significance with fewer evaluable studies (O.R. 0.81, 95% C.I 0.6-1.1).   Breakdown by type of immunosuppressant showed significantly negative impact of corticossteroids, other oral immunosuppressants, and anti-TNF agents for all. Some studies have reported daily steroid doses as low as 7.5 mg-10 mg may adversely impact T-cell responsiveness in IGRA. 3,4

So, whenever possible, testing for latent TB should be performed before immunosuppressants are initiated.

Bonus Pearl: Did you know that an estimated one-third of the world’s population may have latent TB?

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. Wong SH, Gao Q, Tsoi KKF, et al. Effect of immunosuppressive therapy on interferon gamma release assay for latent tuberculosis screening in patients with autoimmune diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax 2016;71:64-72. https://thorax.bmj.com/content/thoraxjnl/71/1/64.full.pdf
  2. Sester U, Wilkens H, van Bentum K, et al. Impaired detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis immunity in patents using high levels of immunosuppressive drugs. Eur Respir J 2009;34:702-10. https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/34/3/702
  3. Kleinert S, Kurzai O, Elias J, et al. Comparison of two interferon-gamma release assays and tuberculin skin test for detecting latent tuberculosis in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:782-4. https://ard.bmj.com/content/69/4/782
  4. Ponce de Leon D, Acevedo-Vasquez E, Alvizuri S, et al. Comparison of an interferon-gamma assay with tuberculin skin testing for detection of tuberculosis (TB) infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a TB-endemic population. J Rheumatol 2008;35:776-81. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18398944
My patient with rheumatoid arthritis might have been exposed to tuberculosis. Does immunosuppressive therapy affect the results of interferon gamma release assay (IGRA) testing for latent tuberculosis?

What’s causing an isolated GGT elevation in my patient with an abnormal alkaline phosphatase on her routine admission lab?

Although serum gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase or GGT is a very sensitive test for liver disease, especially of biliary origin, it’s by no means a very specific test. Besides the liver, GGT is found in the kidneys, pancreas, prostate, heart, brain, and seminal vesicles but not in bone (1-4).

 
Obesity, alcohol consumption and drugs are common causes of GGT elevation (2). As early as 1960s, elevated GGT was reported in such seemingly disparate conditions as diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, nephrotic syndrome and renal neoplasm (3). Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, viral hepatitis, biliary obstruction, COPD, liver metastasis, drug-induced liver injury can all cause GGT elevation (1-4).

 
An isolated GGT does not necessarily indicate serious or progressive liver disease. That’s one reason it’s often not included in routine “liver panel” lab tests (1).

What to do when GGT is high but other liver panel tests such as ALT, AST, albumin, and bilirubin are normal? If your patient is at risk of acquired liver disease, then further workup may be necessary (eg, hepatitis B and C screening tests). Alcohol consumption should be queried. Don’t forget conditions associated with iron overload. If your patient is obese, diabetic or has elevated both lipids, an ultrasound of the liver to look for fatty liver should be considered. In the absence of risk factors, symptoms, or physical exam suggestive of liver disease, isolated GGT elevation should not require further investigation (1).

 
One good thing that may come out of finding an isolated elevated GGT is to encourage your patient to curb alcohol consumption or lose weight when indicated. But don’t rely on a normal GGT to rule out heavy alcohol consumption as it may miss 70% to 80% of cases (6)! 

 
Bonus Pearl: Did you know that GGT activity is thought to increase in alcohol use due to its role in maintaining intracellular glutathione, an anti-oxidant, at adequate levels to protect cells from oxidative stress caused by alcohol?

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. Carey WD. How should a patient with an isolated GGT elevation be evaluated? Clev Clin J Med 2000;67:315-16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10832186
2. Newsome PN, Cramb R, Davison SM, et al. Guidelines on the management of abnormal liver blood tests. Gut 2018;67:6-19. https://gut.bmj.com/content/gutjnl/67/1/6.full.pdf
3. Whitfield JB, Pounder RE, Neale G, et al. Serum gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase activity in liver disease. Gut 1972;13:702-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4404786
4. Tekin O, Uraldi C, Isik B, et al. Clinical importance of gamma glutamyltransferase in the Ankara-Pursaklar region of Turkey. Medscape General Medicine 2004;6(1):e16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140713/
5. Van Beek JHDA, de Moor MHM, Geels LM, et al. The association of alcohol intake with gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels:evidence for correlated genetic effects. Drug Alcohol Depend 2014;134:99-105. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3909645/

6. Bertholet N, Winter MR, Cheng DM, et al. How accurate are blood (or breath) tests for identifying self-reported heavy drinking among people with alcohol dependence? Alcohol and Alcoholism 2014;49:423-29. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4060735/pdf/agu016.pdf

What’s causing an isolated GGT elevation in my patient with an abnormal alkaline phosphatase on her routine admission lab?