Brito, Juan P.

AbstractAimThe aim of this study was to systematically appraise the quality of a sample of COVID-19-related systematic reviews (SRs) and discuss internal validity threats affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence.DesignWe conducted a scoping review of the literature. SRs with or without meta-analysis (MA) that evaluated clinical data, outcomes or treatments for patients with COVID-19 were included.Main outcome measuresWe extracted quality characteristics guided by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 to calculate a qualitative score. Complementary evaluation of the most prominent published limitations affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence was performed.ResultsA total of 63 SRs were included. The majority were judged as a critically low methodological quality. Most of the studies were not guided by a pre-established protocol (39, 62%). More than half (39, 62%) failed to address risk of bias when interpreting their results. A comprehensive literature search strategy was reported in most SRs (54, 86%). Appropriate use of statistical methods was evident in nearly all SRs with MAs (39, 95%). Only 16 (33%) studies recognised heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19 as a limitation of the study, and 15 (24%) recognised repeated patient populations as a limitation.ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of current COVID-19 SR is far from optimal. In addition, most of the current SRs fail to address relevant threats to their internal validity, including repeated patients and heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19. Adherence to proper study design and peer-review practices must remain to mitigate current limitations.

Abstract Background: In contrast to the rapid increase in thyroid cancer incidence, the mortality has remained low and stable over the last decades. In Ecuador, however, thyroid cancer mortality has increased. The objective of this study is to determine possible drivers of high rates of thyroid cancer mortality, through a cross-sectional analysis of all patients attending a thyroid cancer referral center in Ecuador.Methods: From June 2014 to December 2017, a cross-sectional study was conducted at the Hospital de Especialidades Eugenio Espejo, a regional reference public hospital for endocrine neoplasia in adults in Quito, Ecuador. We identified the mechanism of detection, histopathology and treatment modalities from a patient interview and review of clinical records. Results: Among 452 patients, 74.8% were young adults and 94.2% (426) were female. 13.7% had a family history of thyroid cancer, and patients’ median tumor size was 2 cm. The incidental finding was 54.2% whereas 45.8% was non-incidental. Thyroid cancer histology reported that 93.3% had papillary thyroid cancer (PTC), 2.7% follicular, 1.5% Hurtle cells, 1.6% medullary, 0.7% poor differentiated, and 0.2% anaplastic carcinoma. The mean MACIS (metastasis, age, completeness, invasion, and size) score was 4.95 (CI 4.15-5.95) with 76.2% of the thyroid cancer patients having MACIS score less than or equal to 6. The very low and low risk of recurrence was 18.1% (79) and 62% (271) respectively. An analysis of 319 patients with non-metastatic thyroid cancer showed that 10.7% (34) of patients had surgical complications. Moreover, around 62.5% (80 from 128 patients with thyroglobulin laboratory results) of TC patients had a stimulated-thyroglobulin value equal or higher than 2 ng/ml. Overall, a poor surgical outcome was present in 35.1% (112) patients. Out of 436 patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma, 86% (375) received radioactive iodine. Conclusion: Thyroid cancer histological characteristics and method of diagnosis are like those described in other reports without any evidence of the high frequency of aggressive thyroid cancer histology. However, we observed evidence of overtreatment and poor surgical outcomes that demand additional studies to understand their association with thyroid cancer mortality in Ecuador.

Abstract Context Active surveillance (AS) of thyroid cancer with serial ultrasounds is a newer management option in the United States. Objective This work aimed to understand factors associated with the adoption of AS. Methods We surveyed endocrinologists and surgeons in the American Medical Association Masterfile. To estimate adoption, respondents recommended treatment for 2 hypothetical cases appropriate for AS. Established models of guideline implementation guided questionnaire development. Outcome measures included adoption of AS (nonadopters vs adopters, who respectively did not recommend or recommended AS at least once; and partial vs full adopters, who respectively recommended AS for one or both cases). Results The 464 respondents (33.3% response) demographically represented specialties that treat thyroid cancer. Nonadopters (45.7%) were significantly (P < .001) less likely than adopters to practice in academic settings, see more than 25 thyroid cancer patients/year, be aware of AS, use applicable guidelines (P = .04), know how to determine whether a patient is appropriate for AS, have resources to perform AS, or be motivated to use AS. Nonadopters were also significantly more likely to be anxious or have reservations about AS, be concerned about poor outcomes, or believe AS places a psychological burden on patients. Among adopters, partial and full adopters were similar except partial adopters were less likely to discuss AS with patients (P = .03) and more likely to be anxious (P = .04), have reservations (P = .03), and have concerns about the psychological burden (P = .009) of AS. Few respondents (3.2%) believed patients were aware of AS. Conclusion Widespread adoption of AS will require increased patient and physician awareness, interest, and evaluation of outcomes.

Background: The majority of small papillary thyroid cancers (sPTCs) are treated surgically, rather than by active surveillance. Patient and clinician preference for surgery may be partially driven by the use of cancer terminology. Some experts propose that changing terminology would better communicate the indolent nature of sPTCs and improve uptake of active surveillance. Others argue that terminology that includes “cancer” correctly reflects the biological nature of these tumors. The views of informed lay publics can provide value-based perspectives on complex issues and guide policy discussions. Methods: We recruited 40 people for three community juries, held in Sydney, Wodonga, and Cairns, Australia. Participants were of diverse backgrounds and ages, recruited through random digit dialing and a topic-blinded social media strategy. Juries were informed about thyroid cancer, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment, and heard arguments for and against terminology change before deliberation. The deliberative process in Jury 1 led to a refinement of jury charge, the updated version that was then used in Juries 2 and 3. Results: Jury 1 favored no terminology change, and Juries 2 and 3 were divided on the topic. Key reasons for opposing terminology change included a strong desire to retain terminology that aligns with the pathological definition of cancer, and to avoid even a minimal risk of harm that could arise if patients became complacent in follow-up. Key reasons to support terminology change included a desire to reduce psychological distress, stigma, and discrimination associated with a cancer diagnosis, and an argument that terminology change may be a more effective trigger for health system reform compared with other options. The juries unanimously recommended community education and health system reforms to reduce harms of overtreatment, and expressed an expectation that clinicians and researchers reach agreement on clinical guidelines to promote better uptake of active surveillance. Conclusions: The conceptual tension between a pathological and an outcome-based understanding of cancer was apparent in deliberation. This highlights an ongoing challenge for those advocating changing disease terminology. Regardless of action on terminology, jurors shared a strong expectation that practical changes would be made to respond to the harms of overtreatment.

Abstract Background: In contrast to the rapid increase in thyroid cancer (TC) incidence, thyroid cancer mortality has remained low and stable over the last decades. In Ecuador, however, TC mortality has increased. The objective of this study is to determine possible drivers of high rates of thyroid cancer mortality, through a cross-sectional analysis of all patients attending a thyroid cancer referral center in Ecuador.Methods: From June 2014 to December 2017, a cross-sectional study was conducted at the Hospital de Especialidades Eugenio Espejo (HEEE), a regional reference public hospital for endocrine neoplasia in adults in Quito, Ecuador. We identified the mechanism of detection, histopathology and treatment modalities from a patient interview and review of clinical records. Results: Among 452 patients, 74.8% were young adults and 94.2% (426) were female. 13.7% had a family history of thyroid cancer, and patients’ median tumor size was 2 cm. The incidental finding was 54.2% whereas 45.8% was non-incidental. Thyroid cancer histology reported that 93.3% had papillary thyroid cancer (PTC), 2.7% follicular, 1.5% Hurtle cells, 1.6% medullary, 0.7% poor differentiated, and 0.2% anaplastic carcinoma. The mean MACIS (metastasis, age, completeness, invasion, and size) score was 4.95 (CI 4.15-5.95) with 76.2% of the thyroid cancer patients having MACIS score less than or equal to 6. The very low and low risk of recurrence was 18.1% (79) and 62% (271) respectively. An analysis of 319 patients with non-metastatic thyroid cancer showed that 10.7% (34) of patients had surgical complications. Moreover, around 62.5% (80 from 128 patients with thyroglobulin laboratory results) of TC patients had a stimulated-thyroglobulin (sTg) value equal or higher than 2 ng/ml. Overall, a poor surgical outcome was present in 35.1% (112) patients. Out of 436 patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC), 86% (375) received radioactive iodine (RAI). Conclusion: Thyroid cancer histological characteristics and method of diagnosis are like those described in other reports without any evidence of the high frequency of aggressive thyroid cancer histology. However, we observed evidence of overtreatment and poor surgical outcomes that demand additional studies to understand their association with thyroid cancer mortality in Ecuador.

Background: The use of prescribed medications during pregnancy is a challenge and an underestimated source of treatment burden. Levothyroxine (LT4) for the treatment of overt and subclinical hypothyroidism is extensively prescribed during pregnancy. To this end, we aimed to explore the patients' perceived benefits and risks, knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and related burden of LT4 therapy during pregnancy. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed pregnant women who were treated with LT4 during pregnancy from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, in a tertiary academic medical center of the United States. The anonymous online survey included questions to gather demographic data and multiple-choice questions regarding the benefits and risks, knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and burden related to LT4 use during pregnancy. Results: Sixty-four pregnant women (mean age 31.5 years) completed the study survey (response rate: 96%): 62% were diagnosed with hypothyroidism more than 12 months before pregnancy, 16% less than or about 12 months before pregnancy, and 22% during pregnancy. We found that one-third of pregnant women using LT4 had a feeling of uneasiness/anxiety due to their hypothyroidism diagnosis. About half of the respondents (45%) reported that they did not receive an explanation by their clinician regarding the maternal/fetal risks of uncontrolled hypothyroidism or the benefits of adequate control. Finally, two in three patients expressed various concerns of LT4-related treatment burden. Conclusions: Our findings support the need for increased effective communication and tailored counseling to address fears, anxiety, and uncertainties about the benefits and risks of LT4 use in pregnancy. For patients with clear benefits from LT4 treatment in pregnancy, it could help to overcome their concerns, promote adherence, and decrease adverse maternal/fetal outcomes. For patients with no clear benefits established, clinicians need to be aware of LT4-related treatment burden in pregnancy and implement patient-centered approaches in their clinical practices.

Background: Levothyroxine (LT4) is one of the most commonly prescribed medications. Although considered a life-long replacement therapy, LT4 therapy can be discontinued for some patients. This study aims at: (i) reviewing the evidence on clinical outcomes of patients undergoing thyroid hormone replacement discontinuation, (ii) identifying the predictors of successful discontinuation, and (iii) systematically appraising frameworks used for deprescribing thyroid hormone. Methods: We searched multiple bibliographic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus, from inception to February 2020 for studies in which thyroid hormone replacement was discontinued. Clinical outcomes assessed included: proportion of patients that remained euthyroid or needed to restart thyroid hormone replacement after discontinuation and frequency of clinical symptoms of hypothyroidism and adverse effects. We also evaluated predictors for discontinuation and deprescribing frameworks. Reviewers (F.J.K.T., N.B., N.M.S.O., S.M.) evaluated studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality independently and in duplicate. Results: Seventeen observational studies at moderate to high risk of bias met inclusion criteria, including a total of 1103 patients (86% women) with an age range of 2–81 years. Approximately a third of patients undergoing thyroid hormone discontinuation remained euthyroid at follow-up (37.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI 24.2–50.1%], I 2 97.5%). Subgroup analysis showed that patients with a previous diagnosis of overt hypothyroidism (OH) were less likely to remain euthyroid (11.8% [CI 0.4–23.2%], I 2 90.3%) than patients with a prior diagnosis of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) (35.6% [CI 8.2–62.9%], I 2 94.0%). No study followed a framework for systematically deprescribing LT4. Conclusions: Low-quality evidence suggests that up to a third of patients remained euthyroid after thyroid hormone discontinuation, with a higher proportion of patients with an initial diagnosis of SCH remaining euthyroid than patients with an initial diagnosis of OH. A deprescribing framework focusing on adequate selection of patients for deprescribing LT4 and a systematic process is warranted to guide clinicians in re-evaluating the need for LT4 in their patients.

Despite the evolving evidence in favor of shared decision making (SDM) and of decades-long calls for its adoption, SDM remains uncommon in routine care. Reflecting on this lack of progress, we sought to reimagine the future of SDM and the path to take us there. In late 2017, a multidisciplinary and international group of six researchers were challenged by a senior SDM scholar to envision the future and, based on a provocatively critical view of the present, to write letters to themselves from the year 2028. Letters were exchanged and discussed electronically. The group then met in person to discuss the letters. Since the letters painted a dystopian picture, they triggered questions about the nature of SDM, who should benefit from SDM, how to measure its contribution to care, and what new ways can be invented to design and test interventions to implement SDM in routine care. Through contrasting the purposefully generated dystopias with an ideal future for SDM, we generated reflections on a research agenda for SDM. These reflections hinged on recognizing SDM’s contributing to care, that is, as a way to advance the problematic human situation of patients. These focused on three distinct yet complimentary contributors to SDM: 1) the process of making decisions, 2) humanistic communication, and 3) fit-to-care of the resulting decision. The group then concluded that to move SDM from envisioned to routine practice, and to ensure it reaches all, particularly persons rendered vulnerable by current forms of health care, a substantial investment in implementation research is necessary. Perhaps the discussion of these reflections can contribute to a path forward that will improve the likelihood of the future we dream for SDM.