Citations

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.

Abstract Introduction: Anti-thyroid Drugs (ATD) have become the most frequently used treatment for Graves’ disease (GD) in the United States. However, the response to this therapy is variable. Factors that predict biochemically responsive vs. biochemically persistent disease remain unknown. Identifying predictors of disease poorly responsive to ATD can help guide treatment decision making, follow up planning and prognosis. Methods: From a database of patients with GD treated with ATD and receiving care at an academic medical center between 2009–2019, we selected adults with incident GD treated with ≥14 days of ATD. Results: 172 patients (from a database of 730 patients with GD on ATD) were sampled for the purpose of this pilot and 97 of these met inclusion criteria. Patients had a median age of 50 (18–90); female, 70.1%; never smokers, 64.9%; median goiter size of 40 g (15–100); and median TRAb on presentation of 8.1 mIU/L (1.0- 60). Graves’ orbitopathy (GO) was present in 13.4% at baseline. Patients (100%) were started on methimazole at a median dose of 20 mg (2.5–60). The median time from presentation until biochemical improvement (defined as the first instance of FT4 ≤1.7 ng/dL) was 120.9 days (18–1525), and to biochemical euthyroidism (normal TSH & FT4) was 251 days (41–1259) including a median of 3 (0–17) dose adjustments. In a univariate analysis, response to ATD was divided into two groups; biochemically responsive and biochemically persistent disease (based on reaching biochemical improvement in ≤6 months, or >6 months respectively). Biochemically persistent disease was more common in those with GO at presentation (38.5% vs.11.1%) (p .024). There was a trend towards greater prevalence of biochemically persistent disease in those with TRAb ≥ 8.0 mIU/L (46.2% vs. 27.8%) (p .204), and goiter estimated 30 grams or above by physical examination (30.8% vs. 19.4%) (p .460). Biochemically responsive disease was associated with higher frequency of hypothyroidism during treatment (p .047). Conclusion: Our preliminary results illustrate the spectrum of response to ATD and predictors of biochemically persistent disease. We aim to expand this analysis utilizing a large database. As use of ATD increases, clinicians and patients can apply this data to estimate response to therapy, and identify patients that may require more aggressive therapy, thereby tailoring management plans.

Abstract Background: It is estimated that 10-25% of patients with hypothyroidism use desiccated thyroid extract (DTE) as their primary thyroid hormone replacement medication, despite concerns about the risk of thyrotoxicosis associated with DTE use. It is unclear why many patients prefer the use of DTE as a thyroid hormone replacement formulation over guideline-concordant therapies such as levothyroxine (LT4). Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study by analyzing patient-reported information from patient online forums to better understand patient preferences for and attitudes toward the use of DTE to treat hypothyroidism. We searched the 10 most popular patient forums based on number of users (WebMD, Topix, Health questions, Patients like me, Drugs.com, Endocrine Web, Everyday Health, Talk Health Partnership, Spark People and Patients.info) using the key terms: desiccated thyroid extract, desiccated thyroid treatment, thyroid USP, commercial names of DTE (Armour Thyroid® or Natural Thyroid®), thyroid extract, AND hypothyroidism. Unique posts were retrieved from those websites between each forum’s inception to March 2018. From these posts, we extracted descriptive information on patient demographics and clinical characteristics and qualitatively analyzed posts’ content to further explore patient perceptions on DTE and other thyroid hormone replacement therapies. Results: Unique 1,235 posts were initially retrieved from the included patient forums. After the initial screening, we selected data from three of these forums (WebMD, Patients Like Me, and Drugs.com) based on the completeness of the available information (673 posts). Nearly half (45%) of patients reported that a clinician initially drove their interest in trying DTE. Patients described many reasons for switching from a previous therapeutic approach to DTE, including lack of improvement in symptoms (58%) and the development of side effects (22%). Among a majority of patients, DTE was described as moderately-to-majorly effective overall (81%) and more effective than the previous therapy (77%). The most frequently described benefits associated with DTE use were an improvement in clinical symptoms (56%) as well as a change in overall well-being (34%). One-fifth of patients described side effects related to the use of DTE. Qualitative analysis of posts’ content supported these findings and raised additional issues around the need for individualizing therapy approaches for hypothyroidism as well as difficulties obtaining DTE. Conclusions: Among patients with hypothyroidism, a subset may prefer DTE over guideline-concordant therapies for many reasons, including perceived effectiveness, despite the risks associated with DTE. Future work should incorporate patient-reported outcomes to better elucidate the mechanisms responsible for therapy preferences in this subset of 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.