Brito, Juan P.

Abstract Objective This work aims to guide clinicians practicing endocrinology in the use of telehealth (synchronous patient-clinician visits conducted over video or telephone) for outpatient care. Participants The Endocrine Society convened a 9-member panel of US endocrinologists with expertise in telehealth clinical care, telehealth operations, patient-centered care, health care delivery research, and/or evidence-based medicine. Evidence The panel conducted a literature search to identify studies published since 2000 about telehealth in endocrinology. One member extracted a list of factors affecting the quality of endocrine care via telehealth from the extant literature. The panel grouped these factors into 5 domains: clinical, patient, patient-clinician relationship, clinician, and health care setting and technology. Consensus Process For each domain, 2 or 3 members drew on existing literature and their expert opinions to draft a section examining the effect of the domain’s component factors on the appropriateness of telehealth use within endocrine practice. Appropriateness was evaluated in the context of the 6 Institute of Medicine aims for health care quality: patient-centeredness, equity, safety, effectiveness, timeliness, and efficiency. The panel held monthly virtual meetings to discuss and revise each domain. Two members wrote the remaining sections and integrated them with the domains to create the full policy perspective, which was reviewed and revised by all members. Conclusions Telehealth has become a common care modality within endocrinology. This policy perspective summarizes the factors determining telehealth appropriateness in various patient care scenarios. Strategies to increase the quality of telehealth care are offered. More research is needed to develop a robust evidence base for future guideline development.

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)