The Journal of Family Practice

In “Asthma: Newer Tx options mean more targeted therapy” (J Fam Pract. 2020;65:135-144), Rali et al recommend azithromycin as an add-on therapy to ICS-LABA for a select group of patients with uncontrolled persistent asthma (neutrophilic phenotype)—a Grade C recommendation. However, the best available evidence demonstrates that azithromycin is equally efficacious for uncontrolled persistent eosinophilic asthma.^1,2 Thus, family physicians need not refer patients for bronchoscopy to identify the inflammatory “phenotype.”

An important unanswered question is whether azithromycin needs to be administered continuously. Emerging evidence indicates that some patients may experience prolonged benefit after time-limited azithromycin treatment. This suggests that the mechanism of action, which has been described as anti-inflammatory, is (at least in part) antimicrobial.³

For azithromycin-treated asthma patients who experience a significant clinical response after 3 to 6 months of treatment, I recommend that the prescribing clinician try taking the patient off azithromycin to assess whether clinical improvement persists or wanes. Nothing is lost, and much is gained, by this approach; patients who relapse can resume azithromycin, and patients who remain improved are spared exposure to an unnecessary and prolonged treatment.

David L. Hahn, MD, MS
Madison, WI

In “Asthma: Newer Tx options mean more targeted therapy” (J Fam Pract. 2020;65:135-144), Rali et al recommend azithromycin as an add-on therapy to ICS-LABA for a select group of patients with uncontrolled persistent asthma (neutrophilic phenotype)—a Grade C recommendation. However, the best available evidence demonstrates that azithromycin is equally efficacious for uncontrolled persistent eosinophilic asthma.^1,2 Thus, family physicians need not refer patients for bronchoscopy to identify the inflammatory “phenotype.”

An important unanswered question is whether azithromycin needs to be administered continuously. Emerging evidence indicates that some patients may experience prolonged benefit after time-limited azithromycin treatment. This suggests that the mechanism of action, which has been described as anti-inflammatory, is (at least in part) antimicrobial.³

For azithromycin-treated asthma patients who experience a significant clinical response after 3 to 6 months of treatment, I recommend that the prescribing clinician try taking the patient off azithromycin to assess whether clinical improvement persists or wanes. Nothing is lost, and much is gained, by this approach; patients who relapse can resume azithromycin, and patients who remain improved are spared exposure to an unnecessary and prolonged treatment.

David L. Hahn, MD, MS
Madison, WI

In “Asthma: Newer Tx options mean more targeted therapy” (J Fam Pract. 2020;65:135-144), Rali et al recommend azithromycin as an add-on therapy to ICS-LABA for a select group of patients with uncontrolled persistent asthma (neutrophilic phenotype)—a Grade C recommendation. However, the best available evidence demonstrates that azithromycin is equally efficacious for uncontrolled persistent eosinophilic asthma.^1,2 Thus, family physicians need not refer patients for bronchoscopy to identify the inflammatory “phenotype.”

An important unanswered question is whether azithromycin needs to be administered continuously. Emerging evidence indicates that some patients may experience prolonged benefit after time-limited azithromycin treatment. This suggests that the mechanism of action, which has been described as anti-inflammatory, is (at least in part) antimicrobial.³

For azithromycin-treated asthma patients who experience a significant clinical response after 3 to 6 months of treatment, I recommend that the prescribing clinician try taking the patient off azithromycin to assess whether clinical improvement persists or wanes. Nothing is lost, and much is gained, by this approach; patients who relapse can resume azithromycin, and patients who remain improved are spared exposure to an unnecessary and prolonged treatment.

David L. Hahn, MD, MS
Madison, WI

The basic primary care ­evaluation recommended by Dr. Brieler et al in “Working adeptly to diagnose and treat adult ADHD” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:145-149) is a step up from what occurs in some practices. Nonetheless, I was concerned about the idea that an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) evaluation in a primary care office might not include a behavioral health specialist. The gold standard remains a comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation.

Unless these other problems are addressed, treatment focused only on ADHD often yields suboptimal results.

As a family physician who has performed comprehensive ADHD evaluations for more than 25 years, I have frequently seen adults with ADHD who were diagnosed elsewhere, without a comprehensive evaluation, and had various undiagnosed comorbidities. Unless these other problems are addressed, treatment focused only on ADHD often yields suboptimal results.

We, as primary care physicians, can provide better care for our patients if we include a behavioral health specialist in the evaluation process.

H. C. Bean, MD, FAAFP, CPE
MGC Carolina Family Physicians
Spartanburg, SC

The basic primary care ­evaluation recommended by Dr. Brieler et al in “Working adeptly to diagnose and treat adult ADHD” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:145-149) is a step up from what occurs in some practices. Nonetheless, I was concerned about the idea that an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) evaluation in a primary care office might not include a behavioral health specialist. The gold standard remains a comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation.

Unless these other problems are addressed, treatment focused only on ADHD often yields suboptimal results.

As a family physician who has performed comprehensive ADHD evaluations for more than 25 years, I have frequently seen adults with ADHD who were diagnosed elsewhere, without a comprehensive evaluation, and had various undiagnosed comorbidities. Unless these other problems are addressed, treatment focused only on ADHD often yields suboptimal results.

We, as primary care physicians, can provide better care for our patients if we include a behavioral health specialist in the evaluation process.

H. C. Bean, MD, FAAFP, CPE
MGC Carolina Family Physicians
Spartanburg, SC

The basic primary care ­evaluation recommended by Dr. Brieler et al in “Working adeptly to diagnose and treat adult ADHD” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:145-149) is a step up from what occurs in some practices. Nonetheless, I was concerned about the idea that an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) evaluation in a primary care office might not include a behavioral health specialist. The gold standard remains a comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation.

Unless these other problems are addressed, treatment focused only on ADHD often yields suboptimal results.

As a family physician who has performed comprehensive ADHD evaluations for more than 25 years, I have frequently seen adults with ADHD who were diagnosed elsewhere, without a comprehensive evaluation, and had various undiagnosed comorbidities. Unless these other problems are addressed, treatment focused only on ADHD often yields suboptimal results.

We, as primary care physicians, can provide better care for our patients if we include a behavioral health specialist in the evaluation process.

H. C. Bean, MD, FAAFP, CPE
MGC Carolina Family Physicians
Spartanburg, SC

THE CASE

A 24-year-old man with no past medical history was referred to a nephrologist for a 5-month history of leg swelling and weight gain. His only medication was furosemide 40 mg/d, prescribed by his primary care physician. His physical examination was unremarkable except for lower extremity and scrotal edema.

Laboratory values included a creatinine of 0.8 mg/dL (reference range, 0.6 to 1.2 mg/dL); hemoglobin concentration, 14.4 g/dL (reference range, 14 to 18 g/dL); albumin, 1.9 g/dL (reference range, 3.5 to 5.5 g/dL); and glucose, 80 mg/dL (reference range, 74 to 106 mg/dL). Electrolyte levels were normal. Urinalysis revealed 3+ blood and 4+ protein on dipstick, as well as the presence of granular and lipid casts on microscopic exam. A 24-hour urine collection contained 10.5 g of protein. Antinuclear antibody titers, complement levels, hepatitis serologies, and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody titers were all normal.

A renal biopsy revealed idiopathic focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. The patient was started on oral prednisone 40 mg twice daily.

Two days later, he developed a diffuse pruritic maculopapular rash. He stopped taking the prednisone, and the rash resolved over the next 3 to 5 days. He was then instructed to restart the prednisone for his nephrotic syndrome. When he developed a new but similar rash, the prednisone was discontinued. The rash again resolved.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Since the patient had already been taking furosemide for 6 weeks without an adverse reaction, it was presumed that the prednisone tablet was causing his rash. It would be unusual for prednisone itself to cause a drug eruption, so an additive or coloring agent in the tablet was thought to be responsible for the reaction.

We noted that the patient had been taking a 20-mg orange tablet of prednisone. So we opted to “tweak” the prescription and prescribe the same daily dose but in the form of 10-mg white tablets. The patient tolerated this new regimen without any adverse effects and completed a full 9 months of prednisone therapy without any recurrence of skin lesions. His glomerular disease went into remission.

DISCUSSION

Excipients are inert substances that are added to a food or drug to provide the desired consistency, appearance, or form. They are also used as a preservative for substance stabilization.

Continue to: There are many reports in the literature...

There are many reports in the literature of adverse reactions to excipients.^1-3 These include skin rashes induced by the coloring agent in the capsule shell of rifampicin² and a rash that developed from a coloring agent in oral iron.³ Other reports have noted dyes in foods and even toothpaste as triggers.^4,5

Hypersensitivity. Although a specific reaction to prednisone was considered unlikely in this case, type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids have been reported. The most common type of corticosteroid-related allergy is contact dermatitis associated with topical corticosteroid use.⁶ Many cases of delayed maculopapular reactions are thought to be T-cell–mediated type IV reactions.⁶

Type I immediate hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids are also well documented. In a literature review of 120 immediate hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids, anaphylactic symptoms were more commonly reported than urticaria or angioedema.⁷ Intravenous exposure was most frequently associated with reactions, followed by the intra-articular and oral routes of administration.⁷

We prescribed the same daily dose but in the form of 10-mg white tablets. The patient tolerated this new regimen without any adverse effects.

Causative agents. The same literature review identified methylprednisolone as the most common steroid to cause a reaction; dexamethasone and prednisone were the least frequently associated with reactions.⁷ Pharmacologically inactive ingredients were implicated in 28% of the corticosteroid hypersensitivity reactions.⁷

Additives suspected to be triggers include succinate and phosphate esters, carboxymethylcellulose, polyethylene glycol, and lactose. Interestingly, there have been reports of acute allergic reactions to methylprednisolone sodium succinate 40 mg/mL intravenous preparation in children with milk allergy, due to lactose contaminated with milk protein.^8,9

Continue to: Yellow dye was to blame

Yellow dye was to blame. In our case, the 20-mg tablet that the patient had been taking contained the coloring agent FD&C yellow #6, an azo dye also known as sunset yellow or E-110 in Europe. Several reports have described adverse reactions to this coloring agent.^1,3 There were other additives in the 20-mg tablet, but a comparison revealed that the 10-mg tablet contained identical substances—but no dye. Thus, it was most likely that the coloring agent was the cause of the patient’s probable type IV exanthematous drug reaction.

Our patient

The patient was instructed to avoid all medications and food containing FD&C yellow #6. No formal allergy testing or re-challenge was performed, since the patient did well under the care of his nephrologist.

THE TAKEAWAY

It’s important to recognize that adverse drug reactions can occur from any medication—not only from the drug itself, but also from excipients contained within. This case reminds us that when a patient complains of an adverse effect to a medication, dyes and inactive ingredients need to be considered as possible inciting agents.

CORRESPONDENCE
Neil E. Soifer, MD, Lakeside Nephrology, 2277 West Howard, Chicago, IL 60645; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 24-year-old man with no past medical history was referred to a nephrologist for a 5-month history of leg swelling and weight gain. His only medication was furosemide 40 mg/d, prescribed by his primary care physician. His physical examination was unremarkable except for lower extremity and scrotal edema.

Laboratory values included a creatinine of 0.8 mg/dL (reference range, 0.6 to 1.2 mg/dL); hemoglobin concentration, 14.4 g/dL (reference range, 14 to 18 g/dL); albumin, 1.9 g/dL (reference range, 3.5 to 5.5 g/dL); and glucose, 80 mg/dL (reference range, 74 to 106 mg/dL). Electrolyte levels were normal. Urinalysis revealed 3+ blood and 4+ protein on dipstick, as well as the presence of granular and lipid casts on microscopic exam. A 24-hour urine collection contained 10.5 g of protein. Antinuclear antibody titers, complement levels, hepatitis serologies, and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody titers were all normal.

A renal biopsy revealed idiopathic focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. The patient was started on oral prednisone 40 mg twice daily.

Two days later, he developed a diffuse pruritic maculopapular rash. He stopped taking the prednisone, and the rash resolved over the next 3 to 5 days. He was then instructed to restart the prednisone for his nephrotic syndrome. When he developed a new but similar rash, the prednisone was discontinued. The rash again resolved.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Since the patient had already been taking furosemide for 6 weeks without an adverse reaction, it was presumed that the prednisone tablet was causing his rash. It would be unusual for prednisone itself to cause a drug eruption, so an additive or coloring agent in the tablet was thought to be responsible for the reaction.

We noted that the patient had been taking a 20-mg orange tablet of prednisone. So we opted to “tweak” the prescription and prescribe the same daily dose but in the form of 10-mg white tablets. The patient tolerated this new regimen without any adverse effects and completed a full 9 months of prednisone therapy without any recurrence of skin lesions. His glomerular disease went into remission.

DISCUSSION

Excipients are inert substances that are added to a food or drug to provide the desired consistency, appearance, or form. They are also used as a preservative for substance stabilization.

Continue to: There are many reports in the literature...

There are many reports in the literature of adverse reactions to excipients.^1-3 These include skin rashes induced by the coloring agent in the capsule shell of rifampicin² and a rash that developed from a coloring agent in oral iron.³ Other reports have noted dyes in foods and even toothpaste as triggers.^4,5

Hypersensitivity. Although a specific reaction to prednisone was considered unlikely in this case, type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids have been reported. The most common type of corticosteroid-related allergy is contact dermatitis associated with topical corticosteroid use.⁶ Many cases of delayed maculopapular reactions are thought to be T-cell–mediated type IV reactions.⁶

Type I immediate hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids are also well documented. In a literature review of 120 immediate hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids, anaphylactic symptoms were more commonly reported than urticaria or angioedema.⁷ Intravenous exposure was most frequently associated with reactions, followed by the intra-articular and oral routes of administration.⁷

We prescribed the same daily dose but in the form of 10-mg white tablets. The patient tolerated this new regimen without any adverse effects.

Causative agents. The same literature review identified methylprednisolone as the most common steroid to cause a reaction; dexamethasone and prednisone were the least frequently associated with reactions.⁷ Pharmacologically inactive ingredients were implicated in 28% of the corticosteroid hypersensitivity reactions.⁷

Additives suspected to be triggers include succinate and phosphate esters, carboxymethylcellulose, polyethylene glycol, and lactose. Interestingly, there have been reports of acute allergic reactions to methylprednisolone sodium succinate 40 mg/mL intravenous preparation in children with milk allergy, due to lactose contaminated with milk protein.^8,9

Continue to: Yellow dye was to blame

Yellow dye was to blame. In our case, the 20-mg tablet that the patient had been taking contained the coloring agent FD&C yellow #6, an azo dye also known as sunset yellow or E-110 in Europe. Several reports have described adverse reactions to this coloring agent.^1,3 There were other additives in the 20-mg tablet, but a comparison revealed that the 10-mg tablet contained identical substances—but no dye. Thus, it was most likely that the coloring agent was the cause of the patient’s probable type IV exanthematous drug reaction.

Our patient

The patient was instructed to avoid all medications and food containing FD&C yellow #6. No formal allergy testing or re-challenge was performed, since the patient did well under the care of his nephrologist.

THE TAKEAWAY

It’s important to recognize that adverse drug reactions can occur from any medication—not only from the drug itself, but also from excipients contained within. This case reminds us that when a patient complains of an adverse effect to a medication, dyes and inactive ingredients need to be considered as possible inciting agents.

CORRESPONDENCE
Neil E. Soifer, MD, Lakeside Nephrology, 2277 West Howard, Chicago, IL 60645; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 24-year-old man with no past medical history was referred to a nephrologist for a 5-month history of leg swelling and weight gain. His only medication was furosemide 40 mg/d, prescribed by his primary care physician. His physical examination was unremarkable except for lower extremity and scrotal edema.

Laboratory values included a creatinine of 0.8 mg/dL (reference range, 0.6 to 1.2 mg/dL); hemoglobin concentration, 14.4 g/dL (reference range, 14 to 18 g/dL); albumin, 1.9 g/dL (reference range, 3.5 to 5.5 g/dL); and glucose, 80 mg/dL (reference range, 74 to 106 mg/dL). Electrolyte levels were normal. Urinalysis revealed 3+ blood and 4+ protein on dipstick, as well as the presence of granular and lipid casts on microscopic exam. A 24-hour urine collection contained 10.5 g of protein. Antinuclear antibody titers, complement levels, hepatitis serologies, and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody titers were all normal.

A renal biopsy revealed idiopathic focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. The patient was started on oral prednisone 40 mg twice daily.

Two days later, he developed a diffuse pruritic maculopapular rash. He stopped taking the prednisone, and the rash resolved over the next 3 to 5 days. He was then instructed to restart the prednisone for his nephrotic syndrome. When he developed a new but similar rash, the prednisone was discontinued. The rash again resolved.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Since the patient had already been taking furosemide for 6 weeks without an adverse reaction, it was presumed that the prednisone tablet was causing his rash. It would be unusual for prednisone itself to cause a drug eruption, so an additive or coloring agent in the tablet was thought to be responsible for the reaction.

We noted that the patient had been taking a 20-mg orange tablet of prednisone. So we opted to “tweak” the prescription and prescribe the same daily dose but in the form of 10-mg white tablets. The patient tolerated this new regimen without any adverse effects and completed a full 9 months of prednisone therapy without any recurrence of skin lesions. His glomerular disease went into remission.

DISCUSSION

Excipients are inert substances that are added to a food or drug to provide the desired consistency, appearance, or form. They are also used as a preservative for substance stabilization.

Continue to: There are many reports in the literature...

There are many reports in the literature of adverse reactions to excipients.^1-3 These include skin rashes induced by the coloring agent in the capsule shell of rifampicin² and a rash that developed from a coloring agent in oral iron.³ Other reports have noted dyes in foods and even toothpaste as triggers.^4,5

Hypersensitivity. Although a specific reaction to prednisone was considered unlikely in this case, type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids have been reported. The most common type of corticosteroid-related allergy is contact dermatitis associated with topical corticosteroid use.⁶ Many cases of delayed maculopapular reactions are thought to be T-cell–mediated type IV reactions.⁶

Type I immediate hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids are also well documented. In a literature review of 120 immediate hypersensitivity reactions to corticosteroids, anaphylactic symptoms were more commonly reported than urticaria or angioedema.⁷ Intravenous exposure was most frequently associated with reactions, followed by the intra-articular and oral routes of administration.⁷

We prescribed the same daily dose but in the form of 10-mg white tablets. The patient tolerated this new regimen without any adverse effects.

Causative agents. The same literature review identified methylprednisolone as the most common steroid to cause a reaction; dexamethasone and prednisone were the least frequently associated with reactions.⁷ Pharmacologically inactive ingredients were implicated in 28% of the corticosteroid hypersensitivity reactions.⁷

Additives suspected to be triggers include succinate and phosphate esters, carboxymethylcellulose, polyethylene glycol, and lactose. Interestingly, there have been reports of acute allergic reactions to methylprednisolone sodium succinate 40 mg/mL intravenous preparation in children with milk allergy, due to lactose contaminated with milk protein.^8,9

Continue to: Yellow dye was to blame

Yellow dye was to blame. In our case, the 20-mg tablet that the patient had been taking contained the coloring agent FD&C yellow #6, an azo dye also known as sunset yellow or E-110 in Europe. Several reports have described adverse reactions to this coloring agent.^1,3 There were other additives in the 20-mg tablet, but a comparison revealed that the 10-mg tablet contained identical substances—but no dye. Thus, it was most likely that the coloring agent was the cause of the patient’s probable type IV exanthematous drug reaction.

Our patient

The patient was instructed to avoid all medications and food containing FD&C yellow #6. No formal allergy testing or re-challenge was performed, since the patient did well under the care of his nephrologist.

THE TAKEAWAY

It’s important to recognize that adverse drug reactions can occur from any medication—not only from the drug itself, but also from excipients contained within. This case reminds us that when a patient complains of an adverse effect to a medication, dyes and inactive ingredients need to be considered as possible inciting agents.

CORRESPONDENCE
Neil E. Soifer, MD, Lakeside Nephrology, 2277 West Howard, Chicago, IL 60645; [email protected]

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2013 systematic review of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 543 patients with type 2 diabetes evaluated the effect of cinnamon (120 mg/d to 6 g/d) on measures of glycemic control.¹ Study duration ranged from 4 to 18 weeks. Fasting glucose levels demonstrated small but statistically significant reductions (−24.6 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval [CI], −40.5 to −8.7 mg/dL), whereas hemoglobin A1C levels didn’t differ between treatment and control groups (−0.16%; 95% CI, −0.39% to 0.02%). Study limitations included heterogeneity of cinnamon dosing and formulation and concurrent use of oral hypoglycemic agents.

Studies of glycemic control produce mixed results

A 2012 systematic review of 10 RCTs comprising 577 patients with type 1 (72 patients) or type 2 (505 patients) diabetes evaluated the effects of cinnamon supplements (mean dose, 1.9 g/d) on glycemic control compared with placebo, active control, or no treatment.² Study duration ranged from 4.3 to 16 weeks (mean, 10.8 weeks). Studies evaluating hemoglobin A1C lasted at least 12 weeks.

Fasting glucose as measured in 8 studies (338 patients) and hemoglobin A1C as measured in 6 studies (405 patients) didn’t differ between treatment groups (mean fasting glucose difference = −0.91 mmol/L; 95% CI, −1.93 to 0.11; mean hemoglobin A1C difference = −0.06; 95% CI, −0.29 to 0.18). The risk for bias was assessed as high or unclear in 8 studies and moderate in 2 studies.

A 2012 systematic review and meta-­analysis of 6 RCTs including 435 patients with type 2 diabetes evaluated the impact of cinnamon supplements (1 to 6 g/d) on glycemic control.³ Participants consumed cinnamon for 40 to 160 days. Hemoglobin A1C decreased by 0.09% (95% CI, 0.04% to 0.14%) in 5 trials (375 patients), and fasting glucose decreased by 0.84 mmol/L (CI, 0.66 to 1.02) in 5 trials (326 patients). Study limitations included heterogeneity of cinnamon dosing and study population.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The American Diabetes Association finds insufficient evidence to support the use of herbs or spices, including cinnamon, in treating diabetes.⁴

Editor’s Takeaway

Meta-analyses of multiple small, lower-­quality studies yield uncertain conclusions. If cinnamon does improve glycemic control, the benefit is minimal—but so is therisk.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2013 systematic review of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 543 patients with type 2 diabetes evaluated the effect of cinnamon (120 mg/d to 6 g/d) on measures of glycemic control.¹ Study duration ranged from 4 to 18 weeks. Fasting glucose levels demonstrated small but statistically significant reductions (−24.6 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval [CI], −40.5 to −8.7 mg/dL), whereas hemoglobin A1C levels didn’t differ between treatment and control groups (−0.16%; 95% CI, −0.39% to 0.02%). Study limitations included heterogeneity of cinnamon dosing and formulation and concurrent use of oral hypoglycemic agents.

Studies of glycemic control produce mixed results

A 2012 systematic review of 10 RCTs comprising 577 patients with type 1 (72 patients) or type 2 (505 patients) diabetes evaluated the effects of cinnamon supplements (mean dose, 1.9 g/d) on glycemic control compared with placebo, active control, or no treatment.² Study duration ranged from 4.3 to 16 weeks (mean, 10.8 weeks). Studies evaluating hemoglobin A1C lasted at least 12 weeks.

Fasting glucose as measured in 8 studies (338 patients) and hemoglobin A1C as measured in 6 studies (405 patients) didn’t differ between treatment groups (mean fasting glucose difference = −0.91 mmol/L; 95% CI, −1.93 to 0.11; mean hemoglobin A1C difference = −0.06; 95% CI, −0.29 to 0.18). The risk for bias was assessed as high or unclear in 8 studies and moderate in 2 studies.

A 2012 systematic review and meta-­analysis of 6 RCTs including 435 patients with type 2 diabetes evaluated the impact of cinnamon supplements (1 to 6 g/d) on glycemic control.³ Participants consumed cinnamon for 40 to 160 days. Hemoglobin A1C decreased by 0.09% (95% CI, 0.04% to 0.14%) in 5 trials (375 patients), and fasting glucose decreased by 0.84 mmol/L (CI, 0.66 to 1.02) in 5 trials (326 patients). Study limitations included heterogeneity of cinnamon dosing and study population.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The American Diabetes Association finds insufficient evidence to support the use of herbs or spices, including cinnamon, in treating diabetes.⁴

Editor’s Takeaway

Meta-analyses of multiple small, lower-­quality studies yield uncertain conclusions. If cinnamon does improve glycemic control, the benefit is minimal—but so is therisk.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

A 2013 systematic review of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 543 patients with type 2 diabetes evaluated the effect of cinnamon (120 mg/d to 6 g/d) on measures of glycemic control.¹ Study duration ranged from 4 to 18 weeks. Fasting glucose levels demonstrated small but statistically significant reductions (−24.6 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval [CI], −40.5 to −8.7 mg/dL), whereas hemoglobin A1C levels didn’t differ between treatment and control groups (−0.16%; 95% CI, −0.39% to 0.02%). Study limitations included heterogeneity of cinnamon dosing and formulation and concurrent use of oral hypoglycemic agents.

Studies of glycemic control produce mixed results

A 2012 systematic review of 10 RCTs comprising 577 patients with type 1 (72 patients) or type 2 (505 patients) diabetes evaluated the effects of cinnamon supplements (mean dose, 1.9 g/d) on glycemic control compared with placebo, active control, or no treatment.² Study duration ranged from 4.3 to 16 weeks (mean, 10.8 weeks). Studies evaluating hemoglobin A1C lasted at least 12 weeks.

Fasting glucose as measured in 8 studies (338 patients) and hemoglobin A1C as measured in 6 studies (405 patients) didn’t differ between treatment groups (mean fasting glucose difference = −0.91 mmol/L; 95% CI, −1.93 to 0.11; mean hemoglobin A1C difference = −0.06; 95% CI, −0.29 to 0.18). The risk for bias was assessed as high or unclear in 8 studies and moderate in 2 studies.

A 2012 systematic review and meta-­analysis of 6 RCTs including 435 patients with type 2 diabetes evaluated the impact of cinnamon supplements (1 to 6 g/d) on glycemic control.³ Participants consumed cinnamon for 40 to 160 days. Hemoglobin A1C decreased by 0.09% (95% CI, 0.04% to 0.14%) in 5 trials (375 patients), and fasting glucose decreased by 0.84 mmol/L (CI, 0.66 to 1.02) in 5 trials (326 patients). Study limitations included heterogeneity of cinnamon dosing and study population.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The American Diabetes Association finds insufficient evidence to support the use of herbs or spices, including cinnamon, in treating diabetes.⁴

Editor’s Takeaway

Meta-analyses of multiple small, lower-­quality studies yield uncertain conclusions. If cinnamon does improve glycemic control, the benefit is minimal—but so is therisk.

The inevitable consequences of aging finally hit me last year, at age 64. Before then, I was a (reasonably) healthy, active person. I exercised a little, ate reasonably healthy meals, and took no medications. My only visits to my doctor were for annual (sort of) exams. That all changed when I began to have neurogenic claudication in both legs. I had no history of back injury but, with worsening pain, I sought the opinion of my physician.

I was told that my insurance premium would jump to more than 4 times the previous premium because of a CAC score of 22.

It turned out that I had a dynamic spondylolisthesis and disc herniation that could only be fixed with a single-level fusion. From a neurologic perspective, the procedure was an unequivocal success. However, my recovery (with lack of exercise) had the unintended “side effect” of a 25-pound weight gain. As a family doctor, I know that the best way to reverse this gain is by increasing my exercise. However, I also know that, at my age, many specialty organizations recommend a cardiac evaluation before beginning strenuous exercise.¹

So, I set up a routine treadmill test. Although I exercised to a moderate level of intensity, the interpreting cardiologist was unwilling to call my test “totally normal” and recommended further evaluation. (One of the “unwritten rules” I’ve discovered during my career is that adverse outcomes are far more likely in medical personnel than in nonmedical personnel!)

He recommended undergoing coronary artery computed tomography angiography with coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring. The result? A left anterior descending artery CAC score of 22, which placed me at a slightly increased risk of an adverse event over the next 10 years. (The benefit of exercise, however, far outweighed the risk.) I’m happy to report that I have lost five pounds with only mildly intensive exercise.

Along with facing the health aspects of aging, I am also faced with the economic realities. I have carried group term life insurance throughout my career. My 10-year term just happened to expire when I turned 65. I have always been insured as a “Tier 1” customer, meaning that I qualified for the best premiums due to my “healthy” ­status. That said, the transition to age 65 carries with it a significant premium increase.

Imagine my shock, though, when I was told that my premium would jump to MORE THAN 4 TIMES the previous premium for ONE-THIRD of my previous coverage! The culprit? The CAC score of 22!

It turns out that the insurance industry has adopted an underwriting standard that uses CAC—measured over a broad population, rather than a more age-confined one—to determine actuarial risk when rating life insurance policies.² As a result, my underwriting profile went all the way to “Tier 3.”

Continue to: We're used to medical consequences...

We’re used to medical consequences for tests that we order—whether a prostate biopsy for an elevated prostate-specific antigen test result, breast biopsy after abnormal mammogram, or a hemoglobin A1C test after an elevated fasting blood sugar. We can handle discussions with patients about potential diagnostic paths and readily include that information as part of shared decision-making with patients. Unfortunately, many entities are increasingly using medical information to make nonmedical decisions.

Using the CAC score to discuss the risk of adverse coronary events with my patients may be appropriate. In nonmedical settings, however, this data may be incorrectly, unfairly, or dangerously applied to our patients. I’ve begun thinking about these nonmedical applications as part of the shared decision-making process with my patients. It’s making these conversations more complicated, but life and life events for our patients take place far beyond the walls of our exam rooms.

The inevitable consequences of aging finally hit me last year, at age 64. Before then, I was a (reasonably) healthy, active person. I exercised a little, ate reasonably healthy meals, and took no medications. My only visits to my doctor were for annual (sort of) exams. That all changed when I began to have neurogenic claudication in both legs. I had no history of back injury but, with worsening pain, I sought the opinion of my physician.

I was told that my insurance premium would jump to more than 4 times the previous premium because of a CAC score of 22.

It turned out that I had a dynamic spondylolisthesis and disc herniation that could only be fixed with a single-level fusion. From a neurologic perspective, the procedure was an unequivocal success. However, my recovery (with lack of exercise) had the unintended “side effect” of a 25-pound weight gain. As a family doctor, I know that the best way to reverse this gain is by increasing my exercise. However, I also know that, at my age, many specialty organizations recommend a cardiac evaluation before beginning strenuous exercise.¹

So, I set up a routine treadmill test. Although I exercised to a moderate level of intensity, the interpreting cardiologist was unwilling to call my test “totally normal” and recommended further evaluation. (One of the “unwritten rules” I’ve discovered during my career is that adverse outcomes are far more likely in medical personnel than in nonmedical personnel!)

He recommended undergoing coronary artery computed tomography angiography with coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring. The result? A left anterior descending artery CAC score of 22, which placed me at a slightly increased risk of an adverse event over the next 10 years. (The benefit of exercise, however, far outweighed the risk.) I’m happy to report that I have lost five pounds with only mildly intensive exercise.

Along with facing the health aspects of aging, I am also faced with the economic realities. I have carried group term life insurance throughout my career. My 10-year term just happened to expire when I turned 65. I have always been insured as a “Tier 1” customer, meaning that I qualified for the best premiums due to my “healthy” ­status. That said, the transition to age 65 carries with it a significant premium increase.

Imagine my shock, though, when I was told that my premium would jump to MORE THAN 4 TIMES the previous premium for ONE-THIRD of my previous coverage! The culprit? The CAC score of 22!

It turns out that the insurance industry has adopted an underwriting standard that uses CAC—measured over a broad population, rather than a more age-confined one—to determine actuarial risk when rating life insurance policies.² As a result, my underwriting profile went all the way to “Tier 3.”

Continue to: We're used to medical consequences...

We’re used to medical consequences for tests that we order—whether a prostate biopsy for an elevated prostate-specific antigen test result, breast biopsy after abnormal mammogram, or a hemoglobin A1C test after an elevated fasting blood sugar. We can handle discussions with patients about potential diagnostic paths and readily include that information as part of shared decision-making with patients. Unfortunately, many entities are increasingly using medical information to make nonmedical decisions.

Using the CAC score to discuss the risk of adverse coronary events with my patients may be appropriate. In nonmedical settings, however, this data may be incorrectly, unfairly, or dangerously applied to our patients. I’ve begun thinking about these nonmedical applications as part of the shared decision-making process with my patients. It’s making these conversations more complicated, but life and life events for our patients take place far beyond the walls of our exam rooms.

The inevitable consequences of aging finally hit me last year, at age 64. Before then, I was a (reasonably) healthy, active person. I exercised a little, ate reasonably healthy meals, and took no medications. My only visits to my doctor were for annual (sort of) exams. That all changed when I began to have neurogenic claudication in both legs. I had no history of back injury but, with worsening pain, I sought the opinion of my physician.

I was told that my insurance premium would jump to more than 4 times the previous premium because of a CAC score of 22.

It turned out that I had a dynamic spondylolisthesis and disc herniation that could only be fixed with a single-level fusion. From a neurologic perspective, the procedure was an unequivocal success. However, my recovery (with lack of exercise) had the unintended “side effect” of a 25-pound weight gain. As a family doctor, I know that the best way to reverse this gain is by increasing my exercise. However, I also know that, at my age, many specialty organizations recommend a cardiac evaluation before beginning strenuous exercise.¹

So, I set up a routine treadmill test. Although I exercised to a moderate level of intensity, the interpreting cardiologist was unwilling to call my test “totally normal” and recommended further evaluation. (One of the “unwritten rules” I’ve discovered during my career is that adverse outcomes are far more likely in medical personnel than in nonmedical personnel!)

He recommended undergoing coronary artery computed tomography angiography with coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring. The result? A left anterior descending artery CAC score of 22, which placed me at a slightly increased risk of an adverse event over the next 10 years. (The benefit of exercise, however, far outweighed the risk.) I’m happy to report that I have lost five pounds with only mildly intensive exercise.

Along with facing the health aspects of aging, I am also faced with the economic realities. I have carried group term life insurance throughout my career. My 10-year term just happened to expire when I turned 65. I have always been insured as a “Tier 1” customer, meaning that I qualified for the best premiums due to my “healthy” ­status. That said, the transition to age 65 carries with it a significant premium increase.

Imagine my shock, though, when I was told that my premium would jump to MORE THAN 4 TIMES the previous premium for ONE-THIRD of my previous coverage! The culprit? The CAC score of 22!

It turns out that the insurance industry has adopted an underwriting standard that uses CAC—measured over a broad population, rather than a more age-confined one—to determine actuarial risk when rating life insurance policies.² As a result, my underwriting profile went all the way to “Tier 3.”

Continue to: We're used to medical consequences...

We’re used to medical consequences for tests that we order—whether a prostate biopsy for an elevated prostate-specific antigen test result, breast biopsy after abnormal mammogram, or a hemoglobin A1C test after an elevated fasting blood sugar. We can handle discussions with patients about potential diagnostic paths and readily include that information as part of shared decision-making with patients. Unfortunately, many entities are increasingly using medical information to make nonmedical decisions.

Using the CAC score to discuss the risk of adverse coronary events with my patients may be appropriate. In nonmedical settings, however, this data may be incorrectly, unfairly, or dangerously applied to our patients. I’ve begun thinking about these nonmedical applications as part of the shared decision-making process with my patients. It’s making these conversations more complicated, but life and life events for our patients take place far beyond the walls of our exam rooms.

A 38-year-old woman presented to the primary care clinic with a growing nodule on her head (FIGURE) of 4 to 6 months’ duration. The nodule was painless but was getting caught on her hairbrush.

Physical exam revealed a firm 8 × 10-mm lobulated pink nodule near the vertex of her scalp. It did not bleed with manipulation or appear friable. There were no other lesions on the scalp or the rest of her body. A shave excision was performed.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

 

 

Diagnosis: Cherry hemangioma

A benign hemangioma was suspected; however, given its unusually large size and uncharacteristic location, other entities such as amelanotic melanoma and lobular capillary hemangioma (pyogenic granuloma) needed to be ruled out. Pathology following a shave excision (with electrocautery) confirmed that this was a cherry hemangioma.

Consider biopsy to rule out malignancies in large scalp lesions.

Cherry hemangiomas, also known as senile hemangiomas or Campbell de Morgan spots, are a nearly ubiquitous benign vascular proliferation that increase in frequency and number with age.^1,2 They also have been associated with pregnancy and some chemical exposures.^3,4 In general, they are of no clinical consequence. Typically, they are 1- to 5-mm bright pink or bright to dark red papules located on the arms and trunk, a description that has persisted since at least 1947.¹ Scalp involvement is considered rare.⁵

Differential includes malignant entities

The large size of the lesion in addition to its unusual location on the scalp prompted consideration of a malignant entity despite many features of a benign process.

Amelanotic melanomas classically are described as flesh-colored, but up to 70% of amelanotic melanomas may actually be red. Red amelanotic melanomas may account for nearly 4% of all melanomas and frequently are underrecognized.⁶ Pathology ruled out melanoma for this patient.

Lobular capillary hemangiomas (also known as pyogenic granulomas) typically manifest as rapidly growing, painless, friable papules or nodules in young adults and adolescents. Cutaneous lobular capillary hemangiomas are most often located on the head and neck, nose, face, extremities, and upper trunk. These benign lesions may grow to several centimeters in diameter and are prone to bleeding and ulceration, which this patient notably did not have.⁷

Continue to: Treatment often isn't required

 

 

Treatment often isn’t required

Most cherry hemangiomas are asymptomatic and small enough that they don’t catch on clothing or jewelry. For larger lesions, shave excision with or without electrocautery of the base may be performed. Curettage and laser therapy also have been used with success.⁵

The patient in this case had no recurrence or development of new cherry hemangiomas 2 years after her scalp lesion was removed.

CORRESPONDENCE
J. Lane Wilson, MD, East Carolina University Family Medicine, 101 Heart Drive, Greenville, NC 27834; [email protected]

A 38-year-old woman presented to the primary care clinic with a growing nodule on her head (FIGURE) of 4 to 6 months’ duration. The nodule was painless but was getting caught on her hairbrush.

Physical exam revealed a firm 8 × 10-mm lobulated pink nodule near the vertex of her scalp. It did not bleed with manipulation or appear friable. There were no other lesions on the scalp or the rest of her body. A shave excision was performed.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

 

 

Diagnosis: Cherry hemangioma

A benign hemangioma was suspected; however, given its unusually large size and uncharacteristic location, other entities such as amelanotic melanoma and lobular capillary hemangioma (pyogenic granuloma) needed to be ruled out. Pathology following a shave excision (with electrocautery) confirmed that this was a cherry hemangioma.

Consider biopsy to rule out malignancies in large scalp lesions.

Cherry hemangiomas, also known as senile hemangiomas or Campbell de Morgan spots, are a nearly ubiquitous benign vascular proliferation that increase in frequency and number with age.^1,2 They also have been associated with pregnancy and some chemical exposures.^3,4 In general, they are of no clinical consequence. Typically, they are 1- to 5-mm bright pink or bright to dark red papules located on the arms and trunk, a description that has persisted since at least 1947.¹ Scalp involvement is considered rare.⁵

Differential includes malignant entities

The large size of the lesion in addition to its unusual location on the scalp prompted consideration of a malignant entity despite many features of a benign process.

Amelanotic melanomas classically are described as flesh-colored, but up to 70% of amelanotic melanomas may actually be red. Red amelanotic melanomas may account for nearly 4% of all melanomas and frequently are underrecognized.⁶ Pathology ruled out melanoma for this patient.

Lobular capillary hemangiomas (also known as pyogenic granulomas) typically manifest as rapidly growing, painless, friable papules or nodules in young adults and adolescents. Cutaneous lobular capillary hemangiomas are most often located on the head and neck, nose, face, extremities, and upper trunk. These benign lesions may grow to several centimeters in diameter and are prone to bleeding and ulceration, which this patient notably did not have.⁷

Continue to: Treatment often isn't required

 

 

Treatment often isn’t required

Most cherry hemangiomas are asymptomatic and small enough that they don’t catch on clothing or jewelry. For larger lesions, shave excision with or without electrocautery of the base may be performed. Curettage and laser therapy also have been used with success.⁵

The patient in this case had no recurrence or development of new cherry hemangiomas 2 years after her scalp lesion was removed.

CORRESPONDENCE
J. Lane Wilson, MD, East Carolina University Family Medicine, 101 Heart Drive, Greenville, NC 27834; [email protected]

A 38-year-old woman presented to the primary care clinic with a growing nodule on her head (FIGURE) of 4 to 6 months’ duration. The nodule was painless but was getting caught on her hairbrush.

Physical exam revealed a firm 8 × 10-mm lobulated pink nodule near the vertex of her scalp. It did not bleed with manipulation or appear friable. There were no other lesions on the scalp or the rest of her body. A shave excision was performed.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

 

 

Diagnosis: Cherry hemangioma

A benign hemangioma was suspected; however, given its unusually large size and uncharacteristic location, other entities such as amelanotic melanoma and lobular capillary hemangioma (pyogenic granuloma) needed to be ruled out. Pathology following a shave excision (with electrocautery) confirmed that this was a cherry hemangioma.

Consider biopsy to rule out malignancies in large scalp lesions.

Cherry hemangiomas, also known as senile hemangiomas or Campbell de Morgan spots, are a nearly ubiquitous benign vascular proliferation that increase in frequency and number with age.^1,2 They also have been associated with pregnancy and some chemical exposures.^3,4 In general, they are of no clinical consequence. Typically, they are 1- to 5-mm bright pink or bright to dark red papules located on the arms and trunk, a description that has persisted since at least 1947.¹ Scalp involvement is considered rare.⁵

Differential includes malignant entities

The large size of the lesion in addition to its unusual location on the scalp prompted consideration of a malignant entity despite many features of a benign process.

Amelanotic melanomas classically are described as flesh-colored, but up to 70% of amelanotic melanomas may actually be red. Red amelanotic melanomas may account for nearly 4% of all melanomas and frequently are underrecognized.⁶ Pathology ruled out melanoma for this patient.

Lobular capillary hemangiomas (also known as pyogenic granulomas) typically manifest as rapidly growing, painless, friable papules or nodules in young adults and adolescents. Cutaneous lobular capillary hemangiomas are most often located on the head and neck, nose, face, extremities, and upper trunk. These benign lesions may grow to several centimeters in diameter and are prone to bleeding and ulceration, which this patient notably did not have.⁷

Continue to: Treatment often isn't required

 

 

Treatment often isn’t required

Most cherry hemangiomas are asymptomatic and small enough that they don’t catch on clothing or jewelry. For larger lesions, shave excision with or without electrocautery of the base may be performed. Curettage and laser therapy also have been used with success.⁵

The patient in this case had no recurrence or development of new cherry hemangiomas 2 years after her scalp lesion was removed.

CORRESPONDENCE
J. Lane Wilson, MD, East Carolina University Family Medicine, 101 Heart Drive, Greenville, NC 27834; [email protected]

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

Ms. M is a 76-year-old woman with well-­controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus for 10 years and well-controlled mild hypertension. She is otherwise healthy, and her mother lived to age 95. Ms. M has never smoked, has no previous history of vascular/cardiovascular disease, and drinks 1 glass of wine 2 to 3 times per week. Based on the American College of Cardiology (ACC) calculator, she was started on atorvastatin years ago. Is continued use of the medication of any benefit at her current age?

The 2018 American Heart Association (AHA)/ACC/Multi-Society cholesterol guidelines do not provide primary prevention recommendations for those older than age 75 years.³ Up to age 75, the guidelines recommend that patients with type 2 diabetes and a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level ≥ 70 mg/dL, as well as those without diabetes but with an LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL and a 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk ≥ 10%, be started on medium-intensity statin therapy.

A 2018 consensus panel review of the current literature, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, concluded that there was insufficient evidence regarding the benefits and harms of statins in older adults, especially those with comorbidities, and that there was a paucity of evidence about statin therapy outcomes (both adverse and beneficial) relevant to older adults.⁴

A review of all guidelines published since 2013 revealed that only the United Kingdom’s 2014 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline provides a strong, risk-based recommendation for initiating primary prevention with statins in patients > 75 years old.⁵ These recommendations are based on the QRISK2 calculator (which has since been updated to the QRISK3), which assigns everyone ages > 75 years a > 10% 10-year risk score. This provides a universal statin indication for anyone in the 76-to-84 age range.⁶

Both the ACC/AHA and US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines clearly state that there are too few data and inadequate evidence in people older than 75 for a strong, risk-based statin recommendation.⁵ The Canadian Cardiovascular Society guideline takes a similar stance, emphasizing that the recommended Framingham risk model is not well validated in people > 75 years.⁵

STUDY SUMMARIES

Two different looks at statin use in the elderly

A retrospective cohort study (N = 46,864; median follow-up, 5.6 years) examined whether statin treatment is associated with a reduction in atherosclerotic disease and mortality in old and very old adults with and without type 2 diabetes.¹ Patients were enrolled from a large, anonymized national database in Spain. The researchers looked only at first-time users of statins and those without a statin prescription within the past 18 months.

Statin therapy seems to provide no benefit to patients ages > 75 years without ASCVD or in patients ages ≥ 85 years without ASCVD, regardless of type 2 diabetes status.

Patients with previous ASCVD, type 1 diabetes, previous lipid-lowering treatment, dementia, cancer, or paralysis were excluded, as were those who were in residential care, were on dialysis, or had received an organ transplant. Patients were stratified by age (75-84 years and ≥ 85 years), diabetes status (with or without type 2 diabetes), and statin use (nonuser or new user).

Continue to: Results

Results. For patients with type 2 diabetes, the risk of ASCVD (a composite of coronary heart disease and stroke) was lower among those who took statins than among those who did not in the 75-to-84 group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.89; 1-year number needed to treat [NNT] = 164). Among those who took statins, there was also lower all-cause mortality (HR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.94; 1-year NNT = 306). In those ages ≥ 85 years with diabetes, the statin group did not have a lower risk of ASCVD (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.53-1.26) or all-cause mortality (HR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.86-1.28).

For patients ages 75 to 84 years without diabetes, there was no difference in risk between groups for ASCVD (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86–1.04) or all-cause mortality (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.05). In those ages ≥ 85 years without diabetes, there was also no difference between groups for ASCVD (HR = 1; 95% CI, 0.80-1.24) or for all-cause mortality (HR = 1; 95% CI, 0.90-1.11).

A 2019 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 134,537) and RCT summary data (n = 12,705) evaluated the safety and efficacy of statin therapy in patients ages ≥ 55 years.² In the group of patients ages > 75 years (n = 14,483; median follow-up, 4.9 years), each 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C was associated with significant decreased risk for major vascular events (risk ratio [RR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.95) and for major coronary events (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96).

In subgroup analysis by the presence or absence of previous vascular disease, there was a decreased risk per 1 mmol/L LDL-C reduction of major vascular events in patients with previous vascular disease (RR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98); however, there was not a significant effect in patients without previous vascular disease (RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.73-1.16).

WHAT’S NEW

Statins may be unnecessary in older adults without ASCVD or T2DM

Statin therapy reduces the risk of ASCVD and mortality in patients ages 75 to 84 with type 2 diabetes and in patients > 75 years with known vascular disease. However, statin therapy seems to provide no benefit in patients ages > 75 years without ASCVD or in patients ages ≥ 85 years without ASCVD, regardless of type 2 diabetes status.

Continue to: CAVEATS

CAVEATS

Retrospective cohort design leaves cause and effect equivocal

Even though the first study was large (with more than 46,000 patients) and the median follow-up was 5.6 years, it was a retrospective cohort study. While there is clearly an association between statin therapy and reduced ASCVD and all-cause mortality in patients with diabetes ages 75 to 84 years, cause and effect cannot be unequivocally stated. However, the meta-analysis, which included RCTs, confirms the benefit of statins in secondary prevention for older patients.

The cohort study did not look at adverse effects from statin therapy in this age group, but the data from the 2019 meta-analysis did not reveal any significant risk of myopathy.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Guidelines are lacking and discontinuing meds requires discussion

The lack of supporting guidelines to treat this age group with statins remains the largest barrier to implementation. Many patients may already be taking a statin, so a discussion about discontinuing medication will need to be initiated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

Ms. M is a 76-year-old woman with well-­controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus for 10 years and well-controlled mild hypertension. She is otherwise healthy, and her mother lived to age 95. Ms. M has never smoked, has no previous history of vascular/cardiovascular disease, and drinks 1 glass of wine 2 to 3 times per week. Based on the American College of Cardiology (ACC) calculator, she was started on atorvastatin years ago. Is continued use of the medication of any benefit at her current age?

The 2018 American Heart Association (AHA)/ACC/Multi-Society cholesterol guidelines do not provide primary prevention recommendations for those older than age 75 years.³ Up to age 75, the guidelines recommend that patients with type 2 diabetes and a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level ≥ 70 mg/dL, as well as those without diabetes but with an LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL and a 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk ≥ 10%, be started on medium-intensity statin therapy.

A 2018 consensus panel review of the current literature, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, concluded that there was insufficient evidence regarding the benefits and harms of statins in older adults, especially those with comorbidities, and that there was a paucity of evidence about statin therapy outcomes (both adverse and beneficial) relevant to older adults.⁴

A review of all guidelines published since 2013 revealed that only the United Kingdom’s 2014 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline provides a strong, risk-based recommendation for initiating primary prevention with statins in patients > 75 years old.⁵ These recommendations are based on the QRISK2 calculator (which has since been updated to the QRISK3), which assigns everyone ages > 75 years a > 10% 10-year risk score. This provides a universal statin indication for anyone in the 76-to-84 age range.⁶

Both the ACC/AHA and US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines clearly state that there are too few data and inadequate evidence in people older than 75 for a strong, risk-based statin recommendation.⁵ The Canadian Cardiovascular Society guideline takes a similar stance, emphasizing that the recommended Framingham risk model is not well validated in people > 75 years.⁵

STUDY SUMMARIES

Two different looks at statin use in the elderly

A retrospective cohort study (N = 46,864; median follow-up, 5.6 years) examined whether statin treatment is associated with a reduction in atherosclerotic disease and mortality in old and very old adults with and without type 2 diabetes.¹ Patients were enrolled from a large, anonymized national database in Spain. The researchers looked only at first-time users of statins and those without a statin prescription within the past 18 months.

Statin therapy seems to provide no benefit to patients ages > 75 years without ASCVD or in patients ages ≥ 85 years without ASCVD, regardless of type 2 diabetes status.

Patients with previous ASCVD, type 1 diabetes, previous lipid-lowering treatment, dementia, cancer, or paralysis were excluded, as were those who were in residential care, were on dialysis, or had received an organ transplant. Patients were stratified by age (75-84 years and ≥ 85 years), diabetes status (with or without type 2 diabetes), and statin use (nonuser or new user).

Continue to: Results

Results. For patients with type 2 diabetes, the risk of ASCVD (a composite of coronary heart disease and stroke) was lower among those who took statins than among those who did not in the 75-to-84 group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.89; 1-year number needed to treat [NNT] = 164). Among those who took statins, there was also lower all-cause mortality (HR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.94; 1-year NNT = 306). In those ages ≥ 85 years with diabetes, the statin group did not have a lower risk of ASCVD (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.53-1.26) or all-cause mortality (HR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.86-1.28).

For patients ages 75 to 84 years without diabetes, there was no difference in risk between groups for ASCVD (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86–1.04) or all-cause mortality (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.05). In those ages ≥ 85 years without diabetes, there was also no difference between groups for ASCVD (HR = 1; 95% CI, 0.80-1.24) or for all-cause mortality (HR = 1; 95% CI, 0.90-1.11).

A 2019 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 134,537) and RCT summary data (n = 12,705) evaluated the safety and efficacy of statin therapy in patients ages ≥ 55 years.² In the group of patients ages > 75 years (n = 14,483; median follow-up, 4.9 years), each 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C was associated with significant decreased risk for major vascular events (risk ratio [RR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.95) and for major coronary events (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96).

In subgroup analysis by the presence or absence of previous vascular disease, there was a decreased risk per 1 mmol/L LDL-C reduction of major vascular events in patients with previous vascular disease (RR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98); however, there was not a significant effect in patients without previous vascular disease (RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.73-1.16).

WHAT’S NEW

Statins may be unnecessary in older adults without ASCVD or T2DM

Statin therapy reduces the risk of ASCVD and mortality in patients ages 75 to 84 with type 2 diabetes and in patients > 75 years with known vascular disease. However, statin therapy seems to provide no benefit in patients ages > 75 years without ASCVD or in patients ages ≥ 85 years without ASCVD, regardless of type 2 diabetes status.

Continue to: CAVEATS

CAVEATS

Retrospective cohort design leaves cause and effect equivocal

Even though the first study was large (with more than 46,000 patients) and the median follow-up was 5.6 years, it was a retrospective cohort study. While there is clearly an association between statin therapy and reduced ASCVD and all-cause mortality in patients with diabetes ages 75 to 84 years, cause and effect cannot be unequivocally stated. However, the meta-analysis, which included RCTs, confirms the benefit of statins in secondary prevention for older patients.

The cohort study did not look at adverse effects from statin therapy in this age group, but the data from the 2019 meta-analysis did not reveal any significant risk of myopathy.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Guidelines are lacking and discontinuing meds requires discussion

The lack of supporting guidelines to treat this age group with statins remains the largest barrier to implementation. Many patients may already be taking a statin, so a discussion about discontinuing medication will need to be initiated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

Ms. M is a 76-year-old woman with well-­controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus for 10 years and well-controlled mild hypertension. She is otherwise healthy, and her mother lived to age 95. Ms. M has never smoked, has no previous history of vascular/cardiovascular disease, and drinks 1 glass of wine 2 to 3 times per week. Based on the American College of Cardiology (ACC) calculator, she was started on atorvastatin years ago. Is continued use of the medication of any benefit at her current age?

The 2018 American Heart Association (AHA)/ACC/Multi-Society cholesterol guidelines do not provide primary prevention recommendations for those older than age 75 years.³ Up to age 75, the guidelines recommend that patients with type 2 diabetes and a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level ≥ 70 mg/dL, as well as those without diabetes but with an LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL and a 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk ≥ 10%, be started on medium-intensity statin therapy.

A 2018 consensus panel review of the current literature, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, concluded that there was insufficient evidence regarding the benefits and harms of statins in older adults, especially those with comorbidities, and that there was a paucity of evidence about statin therapy outcomes (both adverse and beneficial) relevant to older adults.⁴

A review of all guidelines published since 2013 revealed that only the United Kingdom’s 2014 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline provides a strong, risk-based recommendation for initiating primary prevention with statins in patients > 75 years old.⁵ These recommendations are based on the QRISK2 calculator (which has since been updated to the QRISK3), which assigns everyone ages > 75 years a > 10% 10-year risk score. This provides a universal statin indication for anyone in the 76-to-84 age range.⁶

Both the ACC/AHA and US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines clearly state that there are too few data and inadequate evidence in people older than 75 for a strong, risk-based statin recommendation.⁵ The Canadian Cardiovascular Society guideline takes a similar stance, emphasizing that the recommended Framingham risk model is not well validated in people > 75 years.⁵

STUDY SUMMARIES

Two different looks at statin use in the elderly

A retrospective cohort study (N = 46,864; median follow-up, 5.6 years) examined whether statin treatment is associated with a reduction in atherosclerotic disease and mortality in old and very old adults with and without type 2 diabetes.¹ Patients were enrolled from a large, anonymized national database in Spain. The researchers looked only at first-time users of statins and those without a statin prescription within the past 18 months.

Statin therapy seems to provide no benefit to patients ages > 75 years without ASCVD or in patients ages ≥ 85 years without ASCVD, regardless of type 2 diabetes status.

Patients with previous ASCVD, type 1 diabetes, previous lipid-lowering treatment, dementia, cancer, or paralysis were excluded, as were those who were in residential care, were on dialysis, or had received an organ transplant. Patients were stratified by age (75-84 years and ≥ 85 years), diabetes status (with or without type 2 diabetes), and statin use (nonuser or new user).

Continue to: Results

Results. For patients with type 2 diabetes, the risk of ASCVD (a composite of coronary heart disease and stroke) was lower among those who took statins than among those who did not in the 75-to-84 group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.89; 1-year number needed to treat [NNT] = 164). Among those who took statins, there was also lower all-cause mortality (HR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.94; 1-year NNT = 306). In those ages ≥ 85 years with diabetes, the statin group did not have a lower risk of ASCVD (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.53-1.26) or all-cause mortality (HR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.86-1.28).

For patients ages 75 to 84 years without diabetes, there was no difference in risk between groups for ASCVD (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86–1.04) or all-cause mortality (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.05). In those ages ≥ 85 years without diabetes, there was also no difference between groups for ASCVD (HR = 1; 95% CI, 0.80-1.24) or for all-cause mortality (HR = 1; 95% CI, 0.90-1.11).

A 2019 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 134,537) and RCT summary data (n = 12,705) evaluated the safety and efficacy of statin therapy in patients ages ≥ 55 years.² In the group of patients ages > 75 years (n = 14,483; median follow-up, 4.9 years), each 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C was associated with significant decreased risk for major vascular events (risk ratio [RR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.95) and for major coronary events (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96).

In subgroup analysis by the presence or absence of previous vascular disease, there was a decreased risk per 1 mmol/L LDL-C reduction of major vascular events in patients with previous vascular disease (RR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98); however, there was not a significant effect in patients without previous vascular disease (RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.73-1.16).

WHAT’S NEW

Statins may be unnecessary in older adults without ASCVD or T2DM

Statin therapy reduces the risk of ASCVD and mortality in patients ages 75 to 84 with type 2 diabetes and in patients > 75 years with known vascular disease. However, statin therapy seems to provide no benefit in patients ages > 75 years without ASCVD or in patients ages ≥ 85 years without ASCVD, regardless of type 2 diabetes status.

Continue to: CAVEATS

CAVEATS

Retrospective cohort design leaves cause and effect equivocal

Even though the first study was large (with more than 46,000 patients) and the median follow-up was 5.6 years, it was a retrospective cohort study. While there is clearly an association between statin therapy and reduced ASCVD and all-cause mortality in patients with diabetes ages 75 to 84 years, cause and effect cannot be unequivocally stated. However, the meta-analysis, which included RCTs, confirms the benefit of statins in secondary prevention for older patients.

The cohort study did not look at adverse effects from statin therapy in this age group, but the data from the 2019 meta-analysis did not reveal any significant risk of myopathy.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Guidelines are lacking and discontinuing meds requires discussion

The lack of supporting guidelines to treat this age group with statins remains the largest barrier to implementation. Many patients may already be taking a statin, so a discussion about discontinuing medication will need to be initiated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

THE CASE

A 36-year-old nonsmoking white man presented with an episodic 3-month history of dry cough and nasal allergy symptoms. He reported a past history of sinus allergies but no history of asthma. His illness began with a flu-like syndrome, and he had been treated with antibiotics (amoxicillin and azithromycin) and oral steroids (methylprednisolone) by 2 other physicians for “viral syndrome” and “bronchitis.”

The patient reported some tactile fever initially but none thereafter. Symptoms included episodic wheezing but no overt shortness of breath. In addition to the persistent dry cough, he complained of frequent sinus congestion, post-nasal drip, and sneezing. He became concerned when he noticed a fleck of blood in his phlegm.

Physical exam was unimpressive, except for nasal congestion. His breath sounds were clear. Chest x-ray showed a benign-appearing granuloma in the right lower lobe (no previous films available for comparison). Peak-flow measurements taken in the office were persistently low (58%-70%) but improved with steroids and inhaled albuterol.

Over the following 7 weeks, the patient experienced waxing and waning symptoms. At his follow-up visit, he appeared well; chest auscultation revealed normal breath sounds. He was treated with an additional round of antibiotics (levofloxacin), oral steroids, nasal steroids, and inhaled albuterol.

At 13 weeks from his initial presentation, he developed frank hemoptysis and was diagnosed with a right lower-lobe pneumonia in the emergency department. While hospitalized, his clinical status deteriorated, requiring chest tube placement for a large pleural effusion.

Shortly thereafter, he underwent right middle and lower lobectomies and decortication. Multiple organisms were cultured from the pleural fluid. Tuberculosis testing and acid-fast bacilli stains were negative. No malignant cells were identified. Pathologic examination of the resected lung tissue confirmed the chest x-ray finding of a benign calcified granuloma. Additional testing, including a thin barium esophagram, was performed.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Results of the esophagram revealed a congenital bronchoesophageal fistula (C-BEF) between the patient’s esophagus and right mainstem bronchus, located 15 cm distal to his trachea.

Continue to: DISCUSSION

 

 

DISCUSSION

Fistulous connections between the esophagus and bronchi are rare but may arise in the setting of malignancy, trauma, inflammation, or congenital malformation.¹ While the precise etiology of C-BEF remains unknown, it is believed to be a consequence of failed tracheoesophageal separation during the early stages of embryonic development.

Prevalence and epidemiology. C-BEF has been reported to occur in 1 in 3000 to 4000 live births, often with concomitant esophageal atresia.² Infants with esophageal atresia demonstrate clinically significant respiratory symptoms and failure to thrive. However, C-BEF without esophageal atresia may be asymptomatic for years to decades.

Age at diagnosis ranges from 9 days to 83 years.³ Several explanations exist for the prolonged asymptomatic phase of this disease: (1) presence of a membrane overlying the fistula during childhood that subsequently ruptures; (2) presence of a proximal fold of esophageal mucosa overlapping the orifice; (3) antigravitational or upward extension of the fistulous tract from the esophagus; and (4) spasm of the smooth muscle of the fistula.⁴

Congenital bronchoesophageal fistula without esophageal atresia may be asymptomatic for years to decades.

Four subtypes. Type I fistulas are associated with a wide-necked congenital diverticulum of the esophagus, which may become inflamed and allow perforation into the nearby lung. Type II fistulas (most common) consist of a short tract running directly from the esophagus to a nearby lobar or segmental bronchus. Type III fistulas involve a communication between the esophagus and a cystic structure within the lung parenchyma. Type IV fistulas run from the esophagus into a sequestered pulmonary segment.¹ Our patient had a type II fistula.

Is there a nonspecific cough? The most common signs and symptoms of C-BEF are nonspecific cough, cough after ingestion of fluids or meals, and hemoptysis.^5,6 Symptoms may persist for decades prior to diagnosis, and the indolent course of C-BEF may lead to fatal complications such as recalcitrant pneumonia, bronchiectasis, and abscess formation.

Continue to: One test bests others for diagnosis

One test bests others for diagnosis. Plain chest x-ray may indicate enlarged lymph nodes or surrounding airspace disease but will not be able to identify a C-BEF. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest may detect the presence of a C-BEF but does not rule it out. Barium esophagram is the most sensitive test for BEF. Esophagoscopy and bronchoscopy may be helpful once the BEF has been identified, but neither has demonstrated reliability as a first-line test. In this particular case, the C-BEF was not seen on chest CT but was later detected on a thin barium esophagram.

To confirm the congenital nature of the fistula, histopathology should be examined. C-BEFs will have a mucosal layer and definitive muscularis layer within the fistulous tract.^3,5

Treatment. The preferred method of treatment for C-BEF is thoracotomy with resection of the fistula and insertion of a pleural or muscular flap graft to close the defects in the bronchus and esophagus.⁷ Alternatively, obliteration of the esophageal defect can be performed using biological glue or silver nitrate. Prognosis after surgical repair is excellent.

Our patient

Two weeks after hospital discharge, the patient was re-admitted for hydropneumothorax and underwent additional surgeries. Unfortunately, he died in the ICU due to a tension pneumothorax while intubated.

THE TAKEAWAY

C-BEF is a rare, insidious condition that may remain asymptomatic into adulthood. After common causes are ruled out, patients with adult-onset nonspecific cough, episodes of coughing after eating/drinking, and hemoptysis should be evaluated for BEF. The most useful diagnostic investigation is barium esophagram. Once C-BEF is identified, prompt surgical management is warranted. Because C-BEF persisting into adulthood is so rare, recommendations regarding diagnosis and treatment are based on expert opinion.

CORRESPONDENCE
Rade N. Pejic, MD, MMM, Department of Family Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, 1430 Tulane Avenue, Mailbox #8033, New Orleans, LA 70112; [email protected].

THE CASE

A 36-year-old nonsmoking white man presented with an episodic 3-month history of dry cough and nasal allergy symptoms. He reported a past history of sinus allergies but no history of asthma. His illness began with a flu-like syndrome, and he had been treated with antibiotics (amoxicillin and azithromycin) and oral steroids (methylprednisolone) by 2 other physicians for “viral syndrome” and “bronchitis.”

The patient reported some tactile fever initially but none thereafter. Symptoms included episodic wheezing but no overt shortness of breath. In addition to the persistent dry cough, he complained of frequent sinus congestion, post-nasal drip, and sneezing. He became concerned when he noticed a fleck of blood in his phlegm.

Physical exam was unimpressive, except for nasal congestion. His breath sounds were clear. Chest x-ray showed a benign-appearing granuloma in the right lower lobe (no previous films available for comparison). Peak-flow measurements taken in the office were persistently low (58%-70%) but improved with steroids and inhaled albuterol.

Over the following 7 weeks, the patient experienced waxing and waning symptoms. At his follow-up visit, he appeared well; chest auscultation revealed normal breath sounds. He was treated with an additional round of antibiotics (levofloxacin), oral steroids, nasal steroids, and inhaled albuterol.

At 13 weeks from his initial presentation, he developed frank hemoptysis and was diagnosed with a right lower-lobe pneumonia in the emergency department. While hospitalized, his clinical status deteriorated, requiring chest tube placement for a large pleural effusion.

Shortly thereafter, he underwent right middle and lower lobectomies and decortication. Multiple organisms were cultured from the pleural fluid. Tuberculosis testing and acid-fast bacilli stains were negative. No malignant cells were identified. Pathologic examination of the resected lung tissue confirmed the chest x-ray finding of a benign calcified granuloma. Additional testing, including a thin barium esophagram, was performed.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Results of the esophagram revealed a congenital bronchoesophageal fistula (C-BEF) between the patient’s esophagus and right mainstem bronchus, located 15 cm distal to his trachea.

Continue to: DISCUSSION

 

 

DISCUSSION

Fistulous connections between the esophagus and bronchi are rare but may arise in the setting of malignancy, trauma, inflammation, or congenital malformation.¹ While the precise etiology of C-BEF remains unknown, it is believed to be a consequence of failed tracheoesophageal separation during the early stages of embryonic development.

Prevalence and epidemiology. C-BEF has been reported to occur in 1 in 3000 to 4000 live births, often with concomitant esophageal atresia.² Infants with esophageal atresia demonstrate clinically significant respiratory symptoms and failure to thrive. However, C-BEF without esophageal atresia may be asymptomatic for years to decades.

Age at diagnosis ranges from 9 days to 83 years.³ Several explanations exist for the prolonged asymptomatic phase of this disease: (1) presence of a membrane overlying the fistula during childhood that subsequently ruptures; (2) presence of a proximal fold of esophageal mucosa overlapping the orifice; (3) antigravitational or upward extension of the fistulous tract from the esophagus; and (4) spasm of the smooth muscle of the fistula.⁴

Congenital bronchoesophageal fistula without esophageal atresia may be asymptomatic for years to decades.

Four subtypes. Type I fistulas are associated with a wide-necked congenital diverticulum of the esophagus, which may become inflamed and allow perforation into the nearby lung. Type II fistulas (most common) consist of a short tract running directly from the esophagus to a nearby lobar or segmental bronchus. Type III fistulas involve a communication between the esophagus and a cystic structure within the lung parenchyma. Type IV fistulas run from the esophagus into a sequestered pulmonary segment.¹ Our patient had a type II fistula.

Is there a nonspecific cough? The most common signs and symptoms of C-BEF are nonspecific cough, cough after ingestion of fluids or meals, and hemoptysis.^5,6 Symptoms may persist for decades prior to diagnosis, and the indolent course of C-BEF may lead to fatal complications such as recalcitrant pneumonia, bronchiectasis, and abscess formation.

Continue to: One test bests others for diagnosis

One test bests others for diagnosis. Plain chest x-ray may indicate enlarged lymph nodes or surrounding airspace disease but will not be able to identify a C-BEF. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest may detect the presence of a C-BEF but does not rule it out. Barium esophagram is the most sensitive test for BEF. Esophagoscopy and bronchoscopy may be helpful once the BEF has been identified, but neither has demonstrated reliability as a first-line test. In this particular case, the C-BEF was not seen on chest CT but was later detected on a thin barium esophagram.

To confirm the congenital nature of the fistula, histopathology should be examined. C-BEFs will have a mucosal layer and definitive muscularis layer within the fistulous tract.^3,5

Treatment. The preferred method of treatment for C-BEF is thoracotomy with resection of the fistula and insertion of a pleural or muscular flap graft to close the defects in the bronchus and esophagus.⁷ Alternatively, obliteration of the esophageal defect can be performed using biological glue or silver nitrate. Prognosis after surgical repair is excellent.

Our patient

Two weeks after hospital discharge, the patient was re-admitted for hydropneumothorax and underwent additional surgeries. Unfortunately, he died in the ICU due to a tension pneumothorax while intubated.

THE TAKEAWAY

C-BEF is a rare, insidious condition that may remain asymptomatic into adulthood. After common causes are ruled out, patients with adult-onset nonspecific cough, episodes of coughing after eating/drinking, and hemoptysis should be evaluated for BEF. The most useful diagnostic investigation is barium esophagram. Once C-BEF is identified, prompt surgical management is warranted. Because C-BEF persisting into adulthood is so rare, recommendations regarding diagnosis and treatment are based on expert opinion.

CORRESPONDENCE
Rade N. Pejic, MD, MMM, Department of Family Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, 1430 Tulane Avenue, Mailbox #8033, New Orleans, LA 70112; [email protected].

THE CASE

A 36-year-old nonsmoking white man presented with an episodic 3-month history of dry cough and nasal allergy symptoms. He reported a past history of sinus allergies but no history of asthma. His illness began with a flu-like syndrome, and he had been treated with antibiotics (amoxicillin and azithromycin) and oral steroids (methylprednisolone) by 2 other physicians for “viral syndrome” and “bronchitis.”

The patient reported some tactile fever initially but none thereafter. Symptoms included episodic wheezing but no overt shortness of breath. In addition to the persistent dry cough, he complained of frequent sinus congestion, post-nasal drip, and sneezing. He became concerned when he noticed a fleck of blood in his phlegm.

Physical exam was unimpressive, except for nasal congestion. His breath sounds were clear. Chest x-ray showed a benign-appearing granuloma in the right lower lobe (no previous films available for comparison). Peak-flow measurements taken in the office were persistently low (58%-70%) but improved with steroids and inhaled albuterol.

Over the following 7 weeks, the patient experienced waxing and waning symptoms. At his follow-up visit, he appeared well; chest auscultation revealed normal breath sounds. He was treated with an additional round of antibiotics (levofloxacin), oral steroids, nasal steroids, and inhaled albuterol.

At 13 weeks from his initial presentation, he developed frank hemoptysis and was diagnosed with a right lower-lobe pneumonia in the emergency department. While hospitalized, his clinical status deteriorated, requiring chest tube placement for a large pleural effusion.

Shortly thereafter, he underwent right middle and lower lobectomies and decortication. Multiple organisms were cultured from the pleural fluid. Tuberculosis testing and acid-fast bacilli stains were negative. No malignant cells were identified. Pathologic examination of the resected lung tissue confirmed the chest x-ray finding of a benign calcified granuloma. Additional testing, including a thin barium esophagram, was performed.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Results of the esophagram revealed a congenital bronchoesophageal fistula (C-BEF) between the patient’s esophagus and right mainstem bronchus, located 15 cm distal to his trachea.

Continue to: DISCUSSION

 

 

DISCUSSION

Fistulous connections between the esophagus and bronchi are rare but may arise in the setting of malignancy, trauma, inflammation, or congenital malformation.¹ While the precise etiology of C-BEF remains unknown, it is believed to be a consequence of failed tracheoesophageal separation during the early stages of embryonic development.

Prevalence and epidemiology. C-BEF has been reported to occur in 1 in 3000 to 4000 live births, often with concomitant esophageal atresia.² Infants with esophageal atresia demonstrate clinically significant respiratory symptoms and failure to thrive. However, C-BEF without esophageal atresia may be asymptomatic for years to decades.

Age at diagnosis ranges from 9 days to 83 years.³ Several explanations exist for the prolonged asymptomatic phase of this disease: (1) presence of a membrane overlying the fistula during childhood that subsequently ruptures; (2) presence of a proximal fold of esophageal mucosa overlapping the orifice; (3) antigravitational or upward extension of the fistulous tract from the esophagus; and (4) spasm of the smooth muscle of the fistula.⁴

Congenital bronchoesophageal fistula without esophageal atresia may be asymptomatic for years to decades.

Four subtypes. Type I fistulas are associated with a wide-necked congenital diverticulum of the esophagus, which may become inflamed and allow perforation into the nearby lung. Type II fistulas (most common) consist of a short tract running directly from the esophagus to a nearby lobar or segmental bronchus. Type III fistulas involve a communication between the esophagus and a cystic structure within the lung parenchyma. Type IV fistulas run from the esophagus into a sequestered pulmonary segment.¹ Our patient had a type II fistula.

Is there a nonspecific cough? The most common signs and symptoms of C-BEF are nonspecific cough, cough after ingestion of fluids or meals, and hemoptysis.^5,6 Symptoms may persist for decades prior to diagnosis, and the indolent course of C-BEF may lead to fatal complications such as recalcitrant pneumonia, bronchiectasis, and abscess formation.

Continue to: One test bests others for diagnosis

One test bests others for diagnosis. Plain chest x-ray may indicate enlarged lymph nodes or surrounding airspace disease but will not be able to identify a C-BEF. Computed tomography (CT) of the chest may detect the presence of a C-BEF but does not rule it out. Barium esophagram is the most sensitive test for BEF. Esophagoscopy and bronchoscopy may be helpful once the BEF has been identified, but neither has demonstrated reliability as a first-line test. In this particular case, the C-BEF was not seen on chest CT but was later detected on a thin barium esophagram.

To confirm the congenital nature of the fistula, histopathology should be examined. C-BEFs will have a mucosal layer and definitive muscularis layer within the fistulous tract.^3,5

Treatment. The preferred method of treatment for C-BEF is thoracotomy with resection of the fistula and insertion of a pleural or muscular flap graft to close the defects in the bronchus and esophagus.⁷ Alternatively, obliteration of the esophageal defect can be performed using biological glue or silver nitrate. Prognosis after surgical repair is excellent.

Our patient

Two weeks after hospital discharge, the patient was re-admitted for hydropneumothorax and underwent additional surgeries. Unfortunately, he died in the ICU due to a tension pneumothorax while intubated.

THE TAKEAWAY

C-BEF is a rare, insidious condition that may remain asymptomatic into adulthood. After common causes are ruled out, patients with adult-onset nonspecific cough, episodes of coughing after eating/drinking, and hemoptysis should be evaluated for BEF. The most useful diagnostic investigation is barium esophagram. Once C-BEF is identified, prompt surgical management is warranted. Because C-BEF persisting into adulthood is so rare, recommendations regarding diagnosis and treatment are based on expert opinion.

CORRESPONDENCE
Rade N. Pejic, MD, MMM, Department of Family Medicine, Tulane University School of Medicine, 1430 Tulane Avenue, Mailbox #8033, New Orleans, LA 70112; [email protected].