Erwin, Patricia

Thyroid disease is a very common condition that influences the entire human body, including cognitive function and mental health. As a result, thyroid disease has been associated with multiple neuropsychiatric conditions. However, the relationship between thyroid dysfunction and suicide is still controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to describe the association of thyroid function with suicidal behavior in adults. We searched four data bases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Scopus) from their inception to 20 July 2018. Studies that reported mean values and standard deviation (SD) of thyroid hormone levels [Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), free thyroxine (FT4), free triiodothyronine (FT3), total thyroxine (TT4), and total triiodothyronine (TT3)] in patients with suicidal behavior compared with controls were included in this meta-analysis. The abstracts and papers retrieved with our search strategies were reviewed independently and in duplicate by four reviewers for assessment of inclusion criteria and data extraction, as well as for evaluation of risk of bias. Random-effects models were used in this meta-analysis to establish the mean difference on thyroid function tests between groups. Overall, 2278 articles were identified, and 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies involved 2807 participants, including 826 participants identified with suicidal behavior. We found that patients with suicide behavior had lower levels of FT3 (−0.20 pg/mL; p = 0.02) and TT4 (−0.23 µg/dL; p = 0.045) compared to controls. We found no differences in either TSH, FT4, or TT3 levels among groups. With our search strategy, we did not identify studies with a comparison of overt/subclinical thyroid disease prevalence between patients with and without suicide behavior. The studies included in this meta-analysis had a low-to-moderate risk of bias. In the available literature, the evidence regarding the association of thyroid disorders and suicidal behavior is limited. We found that patients with suicidal behavior have significantly lower mean FT3 and TT4 levels when compared to patients without suicidal behavior. The clinical implications and pathophysiologic mechanisms of these differences remain unknown and further research is needed.

SummaryBackgroundWhen opioid‐induced constipation is treated with centrally acting opioid antagonists, there may be opioid withdrawal or aggravation of pain due to inhibition of μ‐opioid analgesia. This led to the development of peripherally acting μ‐opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs).AimTo evaluate the efficacy of available PAMORAs and other approved or experimental treatments for relieving constipation in patients with opioid‐induced constipation, based on a systematic review and meta‐analysis of published studies.MethodsA search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and EBM Reviews Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was completed in July 2019 for randomised trials compared to placebo. FDA approved doses or highest studied dose was evaluated. Efficacy was based on diverse endpoints, including continuous variables (the bowel function index, number of spontaneous bowel movements and stool consistency based on Bristol Stool Form Scale), or responder analysis (combination of >3 spontaneous bowel movements or complete spontaneous bowel movements plus 1 spontaneous bowel movement or complete spontaneous bowel movements, respectively, over baseline [so‐called FDA endpoints]). Adverse effects evaluated included central opioid withdrawal, serious adverse events, abdominal pain and diarrhoea.ResultsWe included 35 trials at low risk of bias enrolling 13 566 patients. All PAMORAs demonstrated efficacy on diverse patient response endpoints. There was greater efficacy with approved doses of the PAMORAs (methylnaltrexone, naloxegol and naldemidine), with lower efficacy or lower efficacy and greater adverse effects with combination oxycodone with naloxone, lubiprostone and linaclotide.ConclusionsTherapeutic response in opioid‐induced constipation is best achieved with the PAMORAs, methylnaltrexone, naloxegol and naldemidine, which are associated with low risk of serious adverse events.

AbstractBackgroundParathyroidectomy is a definitive treatment for primary hyperparathyroidism. Patients contemplating this intervention will benefit from knowledge regarding the expected outcomes and potential risks of the currently available surgical options.PurposeTo appraise and summarize the available evidence regarding benefits and harms of minimally invasive parathyroidectomy (MIP) and bilateral neck exploration (BNE).Data sourcesA comprehensive search of multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus) from each database’s inception to September 2014 was performed.Study selectionEligible studies evaluated patients with primary hyperparathyroidism undergoing MIP or BNE.Data extractionReviewers working independently and in duplicate extracted data and assessed the risk of bias.Data synthesisWe identified 82 observational studies and 6 randomized trials at moderate risk of bias. Most of them reported outcomes after MIP (n = 71). Using random‐effects models to pool results across studies, the cure rate was 98 % (95 % CI 97–98 %, I2 = 10 %) with BNE and 97 % (95 % CI 96–98 %, I2 = 86 %) with MIP. Hypocalcemia occurred in 14 % (95 % CI 10–17 % I2 = 93 %) of the BNE cases and in 2.3 % (95 % CI 1.6–3.1 %, I2 = 87 %) with MIP (P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant lower risk of laryngeal nerve injury with MIP (0.3 %) than with BNE (0.9 %), but similar risk of infection (0.5 vs. 0.5 %) and mortality (0.1 vs. 0.5 %).LimitationsThe available evidence, mostly observational, is at moderate risk of bias, and limited by indirect comparisons and inconsistency for some outcomes (cure rate, hypocalcemia).ConclusionMIP and BNE are both effective surgical techniques for the treatment of primary hyperparathyroidism. The safety profile of MIP appears superior to BNE (lower rate of hypocalcemia and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury).

SummaryBackgroundThyroid ultrasound to assess for nodular growth is commonly performed during the follow‐up of patients with benign thyroid nodules, with the goal of identifying patients with a missed diagnosis of thyroid cancer. The objective of this study was to summarize the evidence regarding the diagnostic accuracy of growth during follow‐up of benign thyroid nodules for thyroid cancer.MethodsWe searched multiple electronic databases using a search strategy designed by an experienced medical librarian from inception to March 2015. Eligible studies included patients with benign thyroid nodules assessed for growth during follow‐up and evaluated for thyroid cancer either by surgical histology or a repeat fine needle aspiration biopsy. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate recorded data and assessed each study.ResultsThe seven eligible studies lacked safeguards against bias and generated results that were imprecise with wide confidence intervals and inconsistent across studies. This warrants very low confidence in these results. The odds of nodule growth in patients with thyroid cancer on histopathology over these odds in patients without thyroid cancer (diagnostic odds ratio) was 0·58 (95% CI: 0·26–1·3); the diagnostic odds ratio was 2·2 (95% CI: 0·26–18) when an abnormal repeat biopsy was the reference standard.ConclusionThe body of evidence linking nodule growth with thyroid cancer during the follow‐up of benign nodules warrants very low confidence. In the era of high‐value health care, the commonplace practice of following benign thyroid nodules with serial ultrasound assessment of growth to diagnose cancer can be questioned, calling for imminent evaluation.