Brito, Juan P

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.

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.

There is controversy on the treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH). While a number of guidelines from professional societies recommend treatment of SCH based on TSH levels, age, and presence of comorbidities, a recent guideline issued a recommendation against thyroid hormone treatment in adults with SCH. In this debate article, we explore this controversy by presenting two points of view about SCH and its treatment. Treatment of patients who are pregnant or trying to become pregnant will not be discussed.

Abstract Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has affected millions of people and may disproportionately affect those with hypertension and diabetes. Because of inadequate methods in published systematic reviews, the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension and associated risks of poor outcomes in Covid-19 patients are unknown. We searched databases from December 1, 2019, to April 6, 2020, and selected observational peer-reviewed studies in English of patients with Covid-19. Independent reviewers extracted data on study participants, interventions, and outcomes and assessed risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence. We included 65 (15 794 participants) observational studies at moderate to high risk of bias. Overall prevalence of diabetes and hypertension was 12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10-15; n = 12 870; I2: 89%), and 17% (95% CI, 13-22; n = 12 709; I2: 95%), respectively. In severe Covid-19, the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension were 18% (95% CI, 16-20; n = 1099; I2: 0%) and 32% (95% CI, 16-54; n = 1078; I2: 63%), respectively. Unadjusted relative risk for intensive care unit admission and mortality were 1.96 (95% CI, 1.19-3.22; n = 8890; I2: 80%; P = .008) and 2.78 (95% CI, 1.39-5.58; n = 2058; I2: 75%; P = .0004) for diabetics; and 2.95 (95% CI, 2.18-3.99; n = 1737; I2: 0%; P < .001) and 2.39 (95% CI, 1.54-3.73; n = 3107; I2: 66%; P < .001) for hypertensives. Neither diabetes (1.50; 95% CI, 0.90-2.50; n = 1991; I2: 74%; P = .119) nor hypertension (1.48; 95% CI, 0.99-2.23; n = 2023; I2: 69%; P = .058) was associated with severe Covid-19. In conclusion, the risk of intensive care unit admission and mortality for patients with diabetes or hypertension who developed Covid-19 is increased compared with those without these comorbidities. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020176582.

Objectives The use of more medicalised labels can increase both concern about illness and the desire for more invasive treatment. This study analyses the media’s coverage of an Analysis article in The BMJ which generated a large amount of high-profile international media coverage. It aims to understand how to better communicate messages about low-risk cancers and overdiagnosis to the public. Design Content analysis of media coverage. Setting Media was identified by Isentia Media Portal, searched in Google News and cross-checked in Factiva and Proquest databases from August 2018. Methods Media headlines, full text and open access public comments responding to the coverage on the article proposing to ‘rename low-risk conditions currently labelled as cancer’ were analysed to determine the main themes. Results 45 original media articles and their associated public comments (n=167) were identified and included in the analysis. Overall, headlines focused on cancer generally and there was little mention of ‘low-risk’, ‘overdiagnosis’ or ‘overtreatment’. The full text generally presented a more balanced view of the evidence and were supportive of the proposal, however, public responses tended to be more negative towards the idea of renaming low-risk cancers and indicated confusion. Comments seemed to focus on the headlines rather than the full article. Conclusions This study offers a novel insight into media coverage of the complex and counterintuitive problem of overdiagnosis. Continued deliberation on how to communicate similar topics to the public through the mainstream media is needed. Future work in the area of low-risk cancer communication should consider the powerful impact of people’s previous experience with a cancer diagnosis and the criticism about being paternalistic and concealing the truth from patients.

ObjectiveShared decision‐making (SDM) is a strongly endorsed approach by which patients and clinicians work together to formulate a sensible care plan. The present study was undertaken to conduct a systematic review of SDM trials in patients considering knee arthroplasty (KA) to characterize how SDM was supported and the impact on care received.MethodsWe searched multiple bibliographic databases from inception to December 31, 2019. A pair of reviewers working independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated each trial’s risk of bias.ResultsWe found 6 eligible randomized trials (4 included KA and hip arthroplasty), all of which tested the same proprietary decision aid (DA) (Treatment Choices for Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis), with some adding other materials to support SDM. These trials, all of which had moderate‐to‐high risk of bias, focused on assessing the effect of the DA on patient knowledge about the options while not explicitly supporting other aspects of SDM, such as choice awareness, deliberation, or decision‐making. One trial found an increase in the number of African American patients undergoing KA in the 12 months following the intervention. No other trials found that SDM impacts clinical outcomes.ConclusionEvidence for SDM in patients considering KA is mostly limited to a single DA. While use of this DA improves patient knowledge about their treatment options, this tool has not been shown to promote SDM, impact treatment decisions, or satisfaction with care. Future work should seek to support SDM directly and assess effects on treatment decisions, functional outcomes, and satisfaction.