Montori, Víctor M.

Abstract Objective: The aim was to formulate practice guidelines for endocrine evaluation and treatment of pituitary incidentalomas. Consensus Process: Consensus was guided by systematic reviews of evidence and discussions through a series of conference calls and e-mails and one in-person meeting. Conclusions: We recommend that patients with a pituitary incidentaloma undergo a complete history and physical examination, laboratory evaluations screening for hormone hypersecretion and for hypopituitarism, and a visual field examination if the lesion abuts the optic nerves or chiasm. We recommend that patients with incidentalomas not meeting criteria for surgical removal be followed with clinical assessments, neuroimaging (magnetic resonance imaging at 6 months for macroincidentalomas, 1 yr for a microincidentaloma, and thereafter progressively less frequently if unchanged in size), visual field examinations for incidentalomas that abut or compress the optic nerve and chiasm (6 months and yearly), and endocrine testing for macroincidentalomas (6 months and yearly) after the initial evaluations. We recommend that patients with a pituitary incidentaloma be referred for surgery if they have a visual field deficit; signs of compression by the tumor leading to other visual abnormalities, such as ophthalmoplegia, or neurological compromise due to compression by the lesion; a lesion abutting the optic nerves or chiasm; pituitary apoplexy with visual disturbance; or if the incidentaloma is a hypersecreting tumor other than a prolactinoma.

This article provides an analysis of ‘decision aids’, interventions to support patients facing tough decisions. Interest has increased since the concept of shared decision making has become widely considered to be a means of achieving desirable clinical outcomes. We consider the aims of these interventions and examine assumptions about their use. We propose three categories, interventions that are used in face-to-face encounters, those designed for use outside clinical encounters and those which are mediated, using telephone or other communication media. We propose the following definition: decision support interventions help people think about choices they face; they describe where and why choice exists; they provide information about options, including, where reasonable, the option of taking no action. These interventions help people to deliberate, independently or in collaboration with others, about options, by considering relevantattributes; they support people to forecast how they might feel about short, intermediate and long-term outcomes which have relevant consequences, in ways which help the process of constructing preferences and eventual decision making, appropriate to their individual situation. Although quality standards have been published for these interventions, we are also cautious about premature closure and consider that the need for short versions for use inside clinical encounters and long versions for external use requires further research. More work is also needed on the use of narrative formats and the translation of theory into practical designs. The interest in decision support interventions for patients heralds a transformation in clinical practice although many important areas remain unresolved.

OBJECTIVE The negative results of two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have challenged current guideline recommendations for using aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events among patients with diabetes. We therefore sought to determine if the effect of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events and mortality differs between patients with and without diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus since their inceptions until November 2008 for RCTs of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Blinded pairs of reviewers evaluated studies and extracted data. Random-effects meta-analysis and Bayesian logistic regression were used to estimate the ratios of relative risks (RRs) of outcomes of interest among patients with and without diabetes. A 95% CI that crosses 1.00 indicates that the effect of aspirin does not differ between patients with and without diabetes. RESULTS Nine RCTs with moderate to high methodological quality contributed data to the analyses. The ratios of RRs comparing the benefit of aspirin among patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes for mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke were 1.12 (95% CI 0.92–1.35), 1.19 (0.82–1.17), and 0.70 (0.25–1.97), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Whereas estimates of benefit among patients with diabetes remain imprecise, our analysis suggests that the relative benefit of aspirin is similar in patients with and without diabetes.

Background. Statin Choice is a decision aid about taking statins. The optimal mode of delivering Statin Choice (or any other decision aid) in clinical practice is unknown. Methods. To investigate the effect of mode of delivery on decision aid efficacy, the authors further explored the results of a concealed 2 × 2 factorial clustered randomized trial enrolling 21 endocrinologists and 98 diabetes patients and randomizing them to 1) receive either the decision aid or pamphlet about cholesterol, and 2) have these delivered either during the office visit (by the clinician) or before the visit (by a researcher). We estimated between-group differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for acceptability of information delivery (1—7), knowledge about statins and coronary risk (0—9), and decisional conflict about statin use (0—100) assessed immediately after the visit. Follow-up was 99%. Results. The relative efficacy of the decision aid v. pamphlet interacted with the mode of delivery. Compared with the pamphlet, patients whose clinicians delivered the decision aid during the office visit showed significant improvements in knowledge (difference of 1.6 of 9 questions, CI 0.3, 2.8) and nonsignificant trends toward finding the decision aid more acceptable (odds ratio 3.1, CI 0.9, 11.2) and having less decisional conflict (difference of 7 of 100 points, CI - 4, 18) than when a researcher delivered the decision aid just before the office visit. Conclusions. Delivery of decision aids by clinicians during the visit improves knowledge and shows a trend toward better acceptability and less decisional conflict.