Montori, Víctor M.

Background: Subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) has been associated with increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in some, but not all, studies. Uncertainty remains regarding the impact of levothyroxine (LT4) therapy on improving health outcomes in pregnant women with SCH. The objective of this study was to assess the potential benefits of LT4 therapy in pregnant women with SCH. Methods: The medical records were reviewed of pregnant women with SCH, defined as an elevated serum thyrotropin (TSH) of >2.5 mIU/L for the 1st trimester or >3 mIU/L for the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, but ≤10 mIU/L. Pregnant women were divided into two groups depending on whether they received LT4 (group A) or not (group B). Pregnancy loss and other pre-specified adverse outcomes were evaluated during follow-up. Results: There were 82 women in group A and 284 in group B. Group A had a higher body mass index ( p = 0.04) and a higher serum TSH level ( p < 0.0001) compared with group B. Group A had fewer pregnancies lost ( n = 5 [6.1%] vs. n = 25 [8.8%]; p = 0.12), low birth weight (LBW) offspring (1.3% vs. 10%; p < 0.001), and no neonates with a five-minute Apgar score ≤7 (0% vs. 7%; p < 0.001) compared with group B. Other pregnancy-related adverse outcomes were similar between the two groups. Inferences remained unchanged after considering different models to adjust for potential predictors of outcome. Conclusions: LT4 therapy is associated with a decreased risk of LBW and a low Apgar score among women with SCH. This association awaits confirmation in randomized trials before the widespread use of LT4 therapy in pregnant women with SCH.

AbstractPeople with diabetes often live with other chronic conditions and lead complicated lives. Determining what is the best management decision for a patient requires consideration of each individual's personal, social and biomedical context, what he or she values, the reasons he or she has to value the available options, and the relative contribution of each option in terms of benefits, harms, costs and inconveniences. Empathic conversations between patients and clinicians to diagnose the patient situation that necessitates action and the range of evidence‐based actions that best address the situation, so‐called shared decision‐making, are essential to the personalized care of people with diabetes. The aim of the present review was to present key elements of shared decision‐making and propose three different approaches for its application. The first approach focuses on transferring information to patients so that they can make decisions. The second approach, choice, focuses on cultivating the individual's ability to give voice to which choice is best for them. The third approach, conversation, establishes an empathic conversational environment through which the individual with diabetes and their clinician think and talk through how to address the problems of living with diabetes and related illnesses. These approaches are manifest in the design of evidence‐based decision aids created to support shared decision‐making. In randomized trials, decision aids can efficiently improve patient's knowledge, satisfaction, risk awareness, decisional conflict and involvement. Further research, however, is needed to better understand when and how to promote the empathic conversations, patient, clinician and service and policy contexts necessary to routinely implement shared decision‐making in different at scale healthcare systems. In the interim, sufficient evidence and tools exist for persons with diabetes and their clinicians to gain expertise in making decisions together.

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).

Background— Whether knowledge of genetic risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) affects health-related outcomes is unknown. We investigated whether incorporating a genetic risk score (GRS) in CHD risk estimates lowers low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Methods and Results— Participants (n=203, 45–65 years of age, at intermediate risk for CHD, and not on statins) were randomly assigned to receive their 10-year probability of CHD based either on a conventional risk score (CRS) or CRS + GRS ( + GRS). Participants in the + GRS group were stratified as having high or average/low GRS. Risk was disclosed by a genetic counselor followed by shared decision making regarding statin therapy with a physician. We compared the primary end point of LDL-C levels at 6 months and assessed whether any differences were attributable to changes in dietary fat intake, physical activity levels, or statin use. Participants (mean age, 59.4±5 years; 48% men; mean 10-year CHD risk, 8.5±4.1%) were allocated to receive either CRS (n=100) or + GRS (n=103). At the end of the study period, the + GRS group had a lower LDL-C than the CRS group (96.5±32.7 versus 105.9±33.3 mg/dL; P =0.04). Participants with high GRS had lower LDL-C levels (92.3±32.9 mg/dL) than CRS participants ( P =0.02) but not participants with low GRS (100.9±32.2 mg/dL; P =0.18). Statins were initiated more often in the + GRS group than in the CRS group (39% versus 22%, P <0.01). No significant differences in dietary fat intake and physical activity levels were noted. Conclusions— Disclosure of CHD risk estimates that incorporated genetic risk information led to lower LDL-C levels than disclosure of CHD risk based on conventional risk factors alone. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01936675.