Bagewadi, Shubhangi

Abstract Context Central precocious puberty (CPP). Objective To summarize the available supporting evidence for the Endocrine Society guidelines about the management of CPP. Methods Multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus) were searched to identify studies that addressed the Endocrine Society Guideline Development Panel's 10 clinical questions. Identified studies were selected and appraised, and data were extracted by pairs of independent trained reviewers. Results The systematic review yielded 3796 citations, of which 32 citations were included. The systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that in children with CPP, with no central nervous system symptoms, the rate of magnetic resonance imaging identification of pathogenic lesions (ie, hamartomas and brain tumors) was 6% (35 noncomparative studies with 5541 children with CPP). For girls with idiopathic CPP, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) treatment was associated with +2.7 cm adult height gain compared to those who did not receive treatment (21 comparative observational studies with 1835 girls [mean age 8.20 ± 1.08 years]). The review did not identify any studies that assessed the clinical questions on: benefits of additional evaluation in cases of early thelarche, differentiation of slowly vs rapidly progressing CPP, order of biochemical testing to establish and monitor the diagnosis of CPP, genetic testing for individuals diagnosed with CPP, and chronological age and/or bone age for discontinuation of GnRHa treatment. Conclusion This systematic review addresses various aspects of CPP evaluation and treatment of CPP and will support the development of the Endocrine Society guidelines.

Abstract Background The self-management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) typically requires enacting various lifestyle changes, which can challenge people living with T2D. Clinical encounters between people with T2D and their clinicians, however, are often focused on metabolic management, leaving less time available for other self-management topics. The QBSAFE cards help patients articulate aspects of their experience with diabetes and prioritize issues for discussion. Methods This report details secondary outcomes of a randomized controlled trial; primary outcomes are reported elsewhere. All data was collected at Fair Haven Community Health Care, a federally qualified primary care clinic. 11 clinicians were randomly assigned to provide either usual care or usual care with QBSAFE cards to 155 of their patients with type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c >8%. All patient encounters were video recorded for analysis. Patients and clinicians were not blinded to arm allocation but were kept unaware of the specific aims of the trial. Encounter video reviewers were blinded to arm allocation, but not to specific aims of the trial. The outcomes of interest for this report were the extent to which the QBSAFE cards were used as intended, their effect on the topics of discussion, and whether they enabled clinicians to notice and respond to each patient’s situation; comparisons between arms were conducted by a linear mixed model with fixed effect of arm and cluster effect of clinician, analyzed in both intent-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Findings 12 patients were excluded post-randomization (A1c <8%). Of 143 eligible patients, 137 encounters (65 in the usual care arm, 72 in QBSAFE) yielded evaluable videos. QBSAFE was used as intended in 61 (85%) QBSAFE arm encounters. Conversations about burden of treatment related to non-pharmacological interventions (17 vs 33, p = 0·04) and taking medications (11 vs 33, p = 0·0008) and about the patient’s challenging environment (2 vs 10, p = 0·04) were more prevalent in the QBSAFE group. There was no difference in the rate of conversations about metabolic management or of new care plans as a result of conversations between groups. Interpretation While there was a difference in the types of conversations observed between the two study arms, this difference was small and only apparent in a few domains. Future work could aim to modify the QBSAFE cards to more effectively stimulate patient-centered discussions and to further prepare clinicians to respond to a variety of issues raised during the clinical visit. Funding This work was supported by funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK129616).