Brito, Juan P

Background: The thyroid eye disease (TED) treatment landscape is rapidly evolving. How new treatment options have impacted practice is unknown. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey of American and European Thyroid Association members between June 2 and June 30, 2021. The survey included TED questions about resources for its management, index cases for different severities and presentations of TED, barriers for the management of TED, and participants' concerns about TED. We classified respondents into three geographic categories: North America, Europe, or other regions. Results: Two hundred fifty-two eligible participants started the survey (15% response rate), and 227 completed it. Participants were mostly men (50.2%, 114/227), white (79.7%, 181/227), endocrinologists with a thyroid focus (66.1%, 150/227), practicing in a tertiary academic center (46.7%, 106/227), caring for 10 or more TED patients over the last 12 months (40.5%, 92/227), and reported not having a multidisciplinary TED clinic in their institution (52.8%, 120/227). The majority reported that new TED cases per annum have not changed in the past 10 years (47.5%, 108/227), and that TED patients are found in practice during the management of hyperthyroidism (41.8%, 95/227). For mild active TED, participants from Europe reported a higher use of selenium (73%[96/132] vs. 32%[20/62] of respondents from North America and 24%[8/33] of respondents from other regions). For moderate-to-severe active TED, there was a modest preference for teprotumumab as first-line therapy (37%, 23/62) among North American participants and intravenous (IV) steroids (73%[96/132], and 42%[14/33]) for participants from Europe and other regions, respectively. These treatment preferences did not change in patients with moderate-to-severe active TED with poorly controlled diabetes. In contrast, participants from the three geographic categories preferred IV steroids for optic neuropathy and women planning pregnancy. The three top “very important” concerns about TED management according to participants were: the cost of TED treatment (31.3%, 71/227), lack of effective TED treatments (19.8%, 45/227), and difficulty in predicting whether TED will develop (18.9%, 43/227). Conclusions: There is a marked geographic practice variation in the management of TED. Clinicians' concerns about TED management demand ongoing research on more effective treatment, TED predictive tools, and policy changes to improve the affordability of new TED therapies.

Abstract Context Thyroid nodule risk stratification allows clinicians to standardize the evaluation of thyroid cancer risk according to ultrasound features. Objective To evaluate interrater agreement among clinicians assessing thyroid nodules ultrasound features and thyroid cancer risk categories. Design, setting, and participants We surveyed Endocrine Society and Latin American Thyroid Society members to assess their interpretation of composition, echogenicity, shape, margins, and presence of echogenic foci of 10 thyroid nodule cases. The risk category for thyroid cancer was calculated following the American College of Radiology-Thyroid Imaging Reporting & Data System (ACR-TIRADS) framework from individual responses. Main Outcomes and Measures We used descriptive statistics and Gwet’s agreement coefficient (AC1) to assess the primary outcome of interrater agreement for ACR-TIRADS risk category. As secondary outcomes, the interrater agreement for individual features and a subgroup analysis of interrater agreement for the ACR-TIRADS category were performed (ultrasound reporting system, type of practice, and number of monthly appraisals). Results A total of 144 participants were included, mostly endocrinologists. There was moderate level of agreement for the absence of echogenic foci (AC1 0.53, 95% CI 0.24-0.81) and composition (AC1 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.71). The agreement for margins (AC1 0.24, 95% CI 0.15-0.33), echogenicity (AC1 0.34, 95% CI 0.22-0.46), and shape assessment (AC1 0.42, 95% CI 0.13-0.70) was lower. The overall agreement for ACR-TIRADS assessment was AC1 0.29, (95% CI 0.13-0.45). The AC1 of ACR-TIRADS among subgroups was similar. Conclusions This study found high variation of judgments about ACR-TIRADS risk category and individual features, which poses a potential challenge for the widescale implementation of thyroid nodule risk stratification.

Abstract Background: Trial recruitment of Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) is key for interventions that interact with socioeconomic factors and cultural norms, preferences, and values. We report on our experience enrolling BIPOC participants into a multicenter trial of a shared decision-making intervention about anticoagulation to prevent strokes, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: We enrolled patients with AF and their clinicians in 5 healthcare systems (three academic medical centers, an urban/suburban community medical center, and a safety-net inner-city medical center) located in three states (Minnesota, Alabama, and Mississippi) in the United States. Clinical encounters were randomized to usual care with or without a shared decision-making tool about anticoagulation. Analysis: We analyzed BIPOC patient enrollment by site, categorized reasons for non-enrollment, and examined how enrollment of BIPOC patients was promoted across sites.Results: Of 2247 patients assessed, 922 were enrolled of which 147 (16%) were BIPOC patients. In comparison to trial-eligible White participants, eligible Black participants more frequently did not enroll (102 (11%) vs. 185 (15%); p <.001). The rate of BIPOC patients enrollment varied substantially by site and was generally reflective of the population served at each participating site. Enrollment of BIPOC patients benefited most from including and prioritizing practices most likely to care for BIPOC patients, with lower yield from specific efforts to reach BIPOC clinic attendees and enrolling BIPOC patients first when possible. Conclusions: Enrollment from practices that have implemented policies that favor the care of BIPOC patients can contribute to generate trustworthy estimates of the effect of these interventions in clinical practice that are applicable to BIPOC populations. Best practices to optimize the enrollment of BIPOC participants into trials that examined complex and culturally sensitive interventions remain to be developed.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02905032)

Background Guidelines promote shared decision‐making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within‐encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision‐making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool changed adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety end points. Methods and Results We conducted a multicenter, encounter‐level, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with versus without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months after enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled for direct oral anticoagulant, and as time in therapeutic range for warfarin). We also noted any strokes, transient ischemic attacks, major bleeding, or deaths as safety end points. We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (Anticoagulation Choice=463, and UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow‐up. We found no differences between arms in either primary adherence (78% of patients in the SDM arm filled their first prescription versus 81% in UC arm) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (percentage days covered of the direct oral anticoagulant was 74.1% in SDM versus 71.6% in UC; time in therapeutic range for warfarin was 66.6% in SDM versus 64.4% in UC). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% of participants in the SDM arm and 14% in the UC arm. Conclusions In this large, randomized trial comparing UC with a tool to promote SDM against UC alone, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or in clinical safety outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02905032.

AbstractObjectiveTo support patient‐centred care and the collaboration of patients and clinicians, we developed and pilot tested a conversation aid for patients with thyroid nodules.Design, Patient and MeasurementsWe developed a web‐based Thyroid NOdule Conversation aid (TNOC) following a human‐centred design. A proof of concept observational pre–post study was conducted (TNOC vs. usual care [UC]) to assess the impact of TNOC on the quality of conversations. Data sources included recordings of clinical visits, post‐encounter surveys and review of electronic health records. Summary statistics and group comparisons are reported.ResultsSixty‐five patients were analysed (32 in the UC and 33 in the TNOC cohort). Most patients were women (89%) with a median age of 57 years and were incidentally found to have a thyroid nodule (62%). Most thyroid nodules were at low risk for thyroid cancer (71%) and the median size was 1.4 cm. At baseline, the groups were similar except for higher numeracy in the TNOC cohort. The use of TNOC was associated with increased involvement of patients in the decision‐making process, clinician satisfaction and discussion of relevant topics for decision making. In addition, decreased decisional conflict and fewer thyroid biopsies as the next management step were noted in the TNOC cohort. No differences in terms of knowledge transfer, length of consultation, thyroid cancer risk perception or concern for thyroid cancer diagnosis were found.ConclusionIn this pilot observational study, using TNOC in clinical practice was feasible and seemed to help the collaboration of patients and clinicians.

Background: Combined therapy with levothyroxine (LT4)/L-triiodothyronine (LT3) has garnered attention among clinicians and patients as a potential treatment alternative to LT4 monotherapy. The objective of this study was to compare the benefits and harms of LT4/LT3 combined therapy and LT4 monotherapy for patients with hypothyroidism. Methods: A systematic search in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed by a librarian from inception date until September 2020. Randomized clinical trials and quasiexperimental studies comparing combined therapy (LT4/LT3) versus monotherapy (LT4) for adult patients with hypothyroidism were considered for inclusion. Independent data extraction was performed by paired reviewers. A meta-analysis comparing standardized mean differences of the effect of each therapy was performed on clinical outcomes and patient preferences. Proportions of adverse events and reactions were assessed narratively. Results: A total of 1398 references were retrieved, from which 18 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Results supported by evidence at low-to-moderate certainty evidence did not display a difference in treatment effect between therapies on clinical status, quality of life, psychological distress, depressive symptoms, and fatigue; all measured with standardized questionnaires. Furthermore, meta-analysis of patient preferences revealed higher proportions of choice for combined therapy (43%) when compared with monotherapy (23%) or having no preference (30%). When evaluating treatment adverse events or adverse reactions, similar proportions were observed between treatment groups; meta-analysis was not possible. Conclusions: The available evidence at low-to-moderate certainty demonstrates that there is no difference in clinical outcomes between LT4/LT3 combined therapy and LT4 monotherapy for treating hypothyroidism in adults, except for a higher proportion of patient preferring combined therapy. Adverse events and reactions appear to be similar across both groups, however, this observation is only narrative. These results could inform shared decision-making conversations between patients with hypothyroidism and their clinicians. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42020202658.