Nancy A. Melville

The Endocrine Society has issued an updated clinical practice guideline on the prevention and management of hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes who are at high risk, addressing the wide variety of treatment advances, such as insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, that have appeared since the publication of the society’s last guideline on hypoglycemia, in 2009.

“CGM and insulin pumps have been much more commonly used in the last decade among people with diabetes, including children, and there are new forms of glucagon available,” said Anthony L. McCall, MD, PhD, chair of the panel that wrote the guideline.

“We had to update our guideline to match these developments in the diabetes field,” noted Dr. McCall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, in a press statement.

The new guideline, developed by a multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, addresses 10 key clinical questions regarding current issues relevant to hypoglycemia prevention and treatment in adult or pediatric patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes in the outpatient or inpatient setting.
 

Key guideline recommendations

The recommendations are based on factors including critical outcomes, implementation feasibility, and patient preferences.

Key guideline recommendations that are considered “strong,” based on evidence, include:

• The use of CGM rather than self-monitoring of blood glucose by fingerstick for patients with type 1 diabetes receiving multiple daily injections. The panel underscored that “comprehensive patient education on how to use and troubleshoot CGM devices and interpret these data is critically important for maximum benefit and successful outcomes.”

The use of a structured program for patient education versus unstructured advice for adult and pediatric outpatients with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes receiving insulin therapy.

• Structured education on how to avoid repeated hypoglycemia is critical, and this education should be performed by experienced diabetes clinicians,” the panel asserts. “Moreover, insurance coverage for education should be available for all insulin-using patients.”
• The use of glucagon preparations that do not have to be reconstituted, as opposed to those that do (that is, available as a powder and diluent) in the treatment of outpatients with severe hypoglycemia.

Guideline recommendations that received conditional recommendations include: 

• Use of real-time CGM and algorithm-driven insulin pumps in people with type 1 diabetes.
• Use of CGM for outpatients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia.
• Use of long-acting and rapid-acting insulin analogs for patients at high risk for hypoglycemia.

Noting that there is “moderate-certainty” evidence for severe hypoglycemia reduction as an outcome in those using long-acting analog insulins versus human neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, the panel cautions that “most studies of long-acting analog insulins do not assess for significant adverse effects, including cardiovascular outcomes, and that many studies were designed to demonstrate noninferiority of analog insulin, compared with human NPH insulin.”

• Initiation of and continuation of CGM for select inpatient populations at high risk for hypoglycemia.

Hypoglycemia: One of top three preventable adverse drug reactions

The updated guidelines are especially important considering the common incidence of hypoglycemia, which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has determined to be one of the top 3 preventable adverse drug reactions, the panel says.

They note that between January 2007 and December 2011, emergency department visits for therapy-associated hypoglycemia among Medicare beneficiaries resulted in more than $600 million in spending.

Meanwhile, many people with type 1 or 2 diabetes may not experience or recognize the symptoms of hypoglycemia, which, in severe cases, can lead to unconsciousness or seizures, in addition to affecting quality of life, social life, work productivity, and ability to drive safely.

The key to accurate diagnosis of those patients is assessment of the three levels of hypoglycemia, described in a 2018 consensus statement:

• Level 1: Glucose less than 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) and greater than or equal to 54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L). This level of hypoglycemia should alert patients that they may need to ingest carbohydrate to prevent progressive hypoglycemia.
• Level 2: Glucose less than 54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L). This level of hypoglycemia is associated with increased risk for cognitive dysfunction and mortality.
• Level 3: A severe event characterized by altered mental and/or physical status requiring assistance. This level of hypoglycemia is life-threatening and requires emergent treatment, typically with glucagon.

Ultimately, “new technology and medications will help reduce hypoglycemia, and [clinicians] can better treat patients now with new, easier glucagons,” Dr. McCall told this news organization.

“People with diabetes, their caregivers, and diabetes specialists will all benefit from our guideline with a better understanding of best practices and interventions,” the panel notes.
 

Disparities still exist in access to insulin pumps

Separately, new research shows that while use of insulin pumps to manage type 1 diabetes has grown over 20 years, there has been no improvement in racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in their use in the United States. The findings are reported in Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics.

Using data from the SEARCH for Diabetes Youth Study across four time periods between 2001 and 2019, the researchers show that by the end of the period studied, insulin pump use was 67% among non-Hispanic White people, 41% among Hispanic people, 29% among Black people, and 46% among other racial and ethnic groups.

In addition, 70% of people with bachelor’s degrees or higher used the pumps, compared with 56% among those with some college, 40% among holders of high school degrees, and 18% among those with no high school education. By income level, 74% of those with household incomes of $75,000 or more, 66% with $50,000-$74,999, 51% with $25,000-$49,999, and 41% with less than $25,000 used the pumps.

“Diabetes technology has numerous benefits for patients with type 1 diabetes, but the problem is that there is a huge divide in who actually has access to these technologies,” said study lead Estelle Everett, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at the University of California, Los Angeles.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Endocrine Society has issued an updated clinical practice guideline on the prevention and management of hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes who are at high risk, addressing the wide variety of treatment advances, such as insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, that have appeared since the publication of the society’s last guideline on hypoglycemia, in 2009.

“CGM and insulin pumps have been much more commonly used in the last decade among people with diabetes, including children, and there are new forms of glucagon available,” said Anthony L. McCall, MD, PhD, chair of the panel that wrote the guideline.

“We had to update our guideline to match these developments in the diabetes field,” noted Dr. McCall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, in a press statement.

The new guideline, developed by a multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, addresses 10 key clinical questions regarding current issues relevant to hypoglycemia prevention and treatment in adult or pediatric patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes in the outpatient or inpatient setting.
 

Key guideline recommendations

The recommendations are based on factors including critical outcomes, implementation feasibility, and patient preferences.

Key guideline recommendations that are considered “strong,” based on evidence, include:

• The use of CGM rather than self-monitoring of blood glucose by fingerstick for patients with type 1 diabetes receiving multiple daily injections. The panel underscored that “comprehensive patient education on how to use and troubleshoot CGM devices and interpret these data is critically important for maximum benefit and successful outcomes.”

The use of a structured program for patient education versus unstructured advice for adult and pediatric outpatients with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes receiving insulin therapy.

• Structured education on how to avoid repeated hypoglycemia is critical, and this education should be performed by experienced diabetes clinicians,” the panel asserts. “Moreover, insurance coverage for education should be available for all insulin-using patients.”
• The use of glucagon preparations that do not have to be reconstituted, as opposed to those that do (that is, available as a powder and diluent) in the treatment of outpatients with severe hypoglycemia.

Guideline recommendations that received conditional recommendations include: 

• Use of real-time CGM and algorithm-driven insulin pumps in people with type 1 diabetes.
• Use of CGM for outpatients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia.
• Use of long-acting and rapid-acting insulin analogs for patients at high risk for hypoglycemia.

Noting that there is “moderate-certainty” evidence for severe hypoglycemia reduction as an outcome in those using long-acting analog insulins versus human neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, the panel cautions that “most studies of long-acting analog insulins do not assess for significant adverse effects, including cardiovascular outcomes, and that many studies were designed to demonstrate noninferiority of analog insulin, compared with human NPH insulin.”

• Initiation of and continuation of CGM for select inpatient populations at high risk for hypoglycemia.

Hypoglycemia: One of top three preventable adverse drug reactions

The updated guidelines are especially important considering the common incidence of hypoglycemia, which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has determined to be one of the top 3 preventable adverse drug reactions, the panel says.

They note that between January 2007 and December 2011, emergency department visits for therapy-associated hypoglycemia among Medicare beneficiaries resulted in more than $600 million in spending.

Meanwhile, many people with type 1 or 2 diabetes may not experience or recognize the symptoms of hypoglycemia, which, in severe cases, can lead to unconsciousness or seizures, in addition to affecting quality of life, social life, work productivity, and ability to drive safely.

The key to accurate diagnosis of those patients is assessment of the three levels of hypoglycemia, described in a 2018 consensus statement:

• Level 1: Glucose less than 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) and greater than or equal to 54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L). This level of hypoglycemia should alert patients that they may need to ingest carbohydrate to prevent progressive hypoglycemia.
• Level 2: Glucose less than 54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L). This level of hypoglycemia is associated with increased risk for cognitive dysfunction and mortality.
• Level 3: A severe event characterized by altered mental and/or physical status requiring assistance. This level of hypoglycemia is life-threatening and requires emergent treatment, typically with glucagon.

Ultimately, “new technology and medications will help reduce hypoglycemia, and [clinicians] can better treat patients now with new, easier glucagons,” Dr. McCall told this news organization.

“People with diabetes, their caregivers, and diabetes specialists will all benefit from our guideline with a better understanding of best practices and interventions,” the panel notes.
 

Disparities still exist in access to insulin pumps

Separately, new research shows that while use of insulin pumps to manage type 1 diabetes has grown over 20 years, there has been no improvement in racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in their use in the United States. The findings are reported in Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics.

Using data from the SEARCH for Diabetes Youth Study across four time periods between 2001 and 2019, the researchers show that by the end of the period studied, insulin pump use was 67% among non-Hispanic White people, 41% among Hispanic people, 29% among Black people, and 46% among other racial and ethnic groups.

In addition, 70% of people with bachelor’s degrees or higher used the pumps, compared with 56% among those with some college, 40% among holders of high school degrees, and 18% among those with no high school education. By income level, 74% of those with household incomes of $75,000 or more, 66% with $50,000-$74,999, 51% with $25,000-$49,999, and 41% with less than $25,000 used the pumps.

“Diabetes technology has numerous benefits for patients with type 1 diabetes, but the problem is that there is a huge divide in who actually has access to these technologies,” said study lead Estelle Everett, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at the University of California, Los Angeles.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Endocrine Society has issued an updated clinical practice guideline on the prevention and management of hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes who are at high risk, addressing the wide variety of treatment advances, such as insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, that have appeared since the publication of the society’s last guideline on hypoglycemia, in 2009.

“CGM and insulin pumps have been much more commonly used in the last decade among people with diabetes, including children, and there are new forms of glucagon available,” said Anthony L. McCall, MD, PhD, chair of the panel that wrote the guideline.

“We had to update our guideline to match these developments in the diabetes field,” noted Dr. McCall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, in a press statement.

The new guideline, developed by a multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, addresses 10 key clinical questions regarding current issues relevant to hypoglycemia prevention and treatment in adult or pediatric patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes in the outpatient or inpatient setting.
 

Key guideline recommendations

The recommendations are based on factors including critical outcomes, implementation feasibility, and patient preferences.

Key guideline recommendations that are considered “strong,” based on evidence, include:

• The use of CGM rather than self-monitoring of blood glucose by fingerstick for patients with type 1 diabetes receiving multiple daily injections. The panel underscored that “comprehensive patient education on how to use and troubleshoot CGM devices and interpret these data is critically important for maximum benefit and successful outcomes.”

The use of a structured program for patient education versus unstructured advice for adult and pediatric outpatients with type 1 diabetes or type 2 diabetes receiving insulin therapy.

• Structured education on how to avoid repeated hypoglycemia is critical, and this education should be performed by experienced diabetes clinicians,” the panel asserts. “Moreover, insurance coverage for education should be available for all insulin-using patients.”
• The use of glucagon preparations that do not have to be reconstituted, as opposed to those that do (that is, available as a powder and diluent) in the treatment of outpatients with severe hypoglycemia.

Guideline recommendations that received conditional recommendations include: 

• Use of real-time CGM and algorithm-driven insulin pumps in people with type 1 diabetes.
• Use of CGM for outpatients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia.
• Use of long-acting and rapid-acting insulin analogs for patients at high risk for hypoglycemia.

Noting that there is “moderate-certainty” evidence for severe hypoglycemia reduction as an outcome in those using long-acting analog insulins versus human neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, the panel cautions that “most studies of long-acting analog insulins do not assess for significant adverse effects, including cardiovascular outcomes, and that many studies were designed to demonstrate noninferiority of analog insulin, compared with human NPH insulin.”

• Initiation of and continuation of CGM for select inpatient populations at high risk for hypoglycemia.

Hypoglycemia: One of top three preventable adverse drug reactions

The updated guidelines are especially important considering the common incidence of hypoglycemia, which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has determined to be one of the top 3 preventable adverse drug reactions, the panel says.

They note that between January 2007 and December 2011, emergency department visits for therapy-associated hypoglycemia among Medicare beneficiaries resulted in more than $600 million in spending.

Meanwhile, many people with type 1 or 2 diabetes may not experience or recognize the symptoms of hypoglycemia, which, in severe cases, can lead to unconsciousness or seizures, in addition to affecting quality of life, social life, work productivity, and ability to drive safely.

The key to accurate diagnosis of those patients is assessment of the three levels of hypoglycemia, described in a 2018 consensus statement:

• Level 1: Glucose less than 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) and greater than or equal to 54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L). This level of hypoglycemia should alert patients that they may need to ingest carbohydrate to prevent progressive hypoglycemia.
• Level 2: Glucose less than 54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L). This level of hypoglycemia is associated with increased risk for cognitive dysfunction and mortality.
• Level 3: A severe event characterized by altered mental and/or physical status requiring assistance. This level of hypoglycemia is life-threatening and requires emergent treatment, typically with glucagon.

Ultimately, “new technology and medications will help reduce hypoglycemia, and [clinicians] can better treat patients now with new, easier glucagons,” Dr. McCall told this news organization.

“People with diabetes, their caregivers, and diabetes specialists will all benefit from our guideline with a better understanding of best practices and interventions,” the panel notes.
 

Disparities still exist in access to insulin pumps

Separately, new research shows that while use of insulin pumps to manage type 1 diabetes has grown over 20 years, there has been no improvement in racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in their use in the United States. The findings are reported in Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics.

Using data from the SEARCH for Diabetes Youth Study across four time periods between 2001 and 2019, the researchers show that by the end of the period studied, insulin pump use was 67% among non-Hispanic White people, 41% among Hispanic people, 29% among Black people, and 46% among other racial and ethnic groups.

In addition, 70% of people with bachelor’s degrees or higher used the pumps, compared with 56% among those with some college, 40% among holders of high school degrees, and 18% among those with no high school education. By income level, 74% of those with household incomes of $75,000 or more, 66% with $50,000-$74,999, 51% with $25,000-$49,999, and 41% with less than $25,000 used the pumps.

“Diabetes technology has numerous benefits for patients with type 1 diabetes, but the problem is that there is a huge divide in who actually has access to these technologies,” said study lead Estelle Everett, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at the University of California, Los Angeles.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer and lymph node metastasis show no significant increase in tumor recurrence when undergoing lobectomy compared with a total thyroidectomy, new research shows.

“Results of this cohort study suggest that patients with ipsilateral clinical lateral neck metastasis (cN1b) papillary thyroid cancer who underwent lobectomy exhibited recurrence-free survival rates similar to those who underwent total thyroidectomy after controlling for major prognostic factors,” the authors conclude in the study published online in JAMA Surgery.

“These findings suggest that cN1b alone should not be an absolute indication for total thyroidectomy,” they note.

The study, involving the largest cohort to date to compare patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer treated with lobectomy versus total thyroidectomy, “challenged the current guidelines and pushed the boundary of limited surgical treatment even further,” say Michelle B. Mulder, MD, and Quan-Yang Duh, MD, of the department of surgery, University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

“It can be a game changer if confirmed by future prospective and multicenter studies,” they add.
 

Guidelines still recommend total thyroidectomy with subsequent RAI

While lower-intensity treatment options, with a lower risk of complications, have gained favor in the treatment of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer, guidelines still recommend the consideration of total thyroidectomy and subsequent radioactive iodine ablation (RAI) for intermediate-risk cancers because of the higher chance of recurrence, particularly among those with clinically positive nodes.

However, data on the superiority of a total thyroidectomy, with or without RAI, versus lobectomy is inconsistent, prompting first author Siyuan Xu, MD, of the department of head and neck surgical oncology, National Cancer Center, Beijing, and colleagues to compare the risk of recurrence with the two approaches.

For the study, patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer treated at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Cancer Hospital in Beijing between January 2000 and December 2017, who had a lobectomy or total thyroidectomy, were paired 1:1 in a propensity score matching analysis.

Other than treatment type, the 265 pairs of patients were matched based on all other potential prognostic factors, including age, sex, primary tumor size, minor extrathyroidal extension, multifocality, number of lymph node metastases, and lymph node ratio.

Participants were a mean age of 37 years and 66% were female.

With a median follow-up of 60 months in the lobectomy group and 58 months in the total thyroidectomy group, structural recurrences occurred in 7.9% (21) and 6.4% (17) of patients, respectively, which was not significantly different.

The primary endpoint, 5-year rate of recurrence-free survival, was also not significantly different between the lobectomy (92.3%) and total thyroidectomy groups (93.7%) (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10; P = .77).

In a further stratified analysis of patients treated with total thyroidectomy along with RAI (n = 75), the lack of a significant difference in recurrence-free survival versus lobectomy remained (aHR, 0.59; P = .46).

The results were similar in unadjusted as well as adjusted analyses, and a power analysis indicated that the study had a 90% power to detect a more than 4.9% difference in recurrence-free survival.

“Given the lower complication rate of lobectomy, a maximal 4.9% recurrence-free survival difference is acceptable, which enhances the reliability of the study results,” the authors say.

They conclude that “our findings call into question whether cN1b alone [ipsilateral clinical lateral neck metastasis papillary thyroid cancer] should be an absolute determinant for deciding the optimal extent of thyroid surgery for papillary thyroid cancer.”
 

With total thyroidectomy, RAI can be given

An important argument in favor of total thyroidectomy is that with the complete resection of thyroid tissue, RAI ablation can then be used for postoperative detection of residual or metastatic disease, as well as for treatment, the authors note.

Indeed, a study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database showed RAI ablation is associated with a 29% reduction in the risk of death in patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer, with a hazard risk of 0.71.

However, conflicting data from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, suggests no significant benefit with total thyroidectomy and RAI ablation.

The current study’s analysis of patients treated with RAI, though limited in size, supports the latter study’s findings, the authors note.

“When we performed further stratified analyses in patients treated with total thyroidectomy plus RAI ablation and their counterparts, no significant difference was found, which conformed with [the] result from the whole cohort.”

“Certainly, the stratified comparison did not have enough power to examine the effect of RAI ablation on tumor recurrence subject to the limitation of sample size and case selection [and] further study is needed on this topic,” they write.
 

Some limitations warrant cautious interpretation

In their editorial, Dr. Mulder and Dr. Duh note that while some previous studies have shown similar outcomes relating to tumor size, thyroid hormone suppression therapy, and multifocality, “few have addressed lateral neck involvement.”

They suggest cautious interpretation, however, due to limitations, acknowledged by the authors, including the single-center nature of the study.

“Appropriate propensity matching may mitigate selection bias but cannot eliminate it entirely and their findings may not be replicated in other institutions by other surgeons,” they note.

Other limitations include that changes in clinical practice and patient selection were likely over the course of the study because of significant changes in American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines between 2009 and 2017, and characteristics including molecular genetic testing, which could have influenced final results, were not taken into consideration.

Furthermore, for patients with intermediate-risk cancer, modifications in postoperative follow-up are necessary following lobectomy versus total thyroidectomy; “the role of radioiodine is limited and the levels of thyroglobulin more complicated to interpret,” they note.

The study and editorial authors had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer and lymph node metastasis show no significant increase in tumor recurrence when undergoing lobectomy compared with a total thyroidectomy, new research shows.

“Results of this cohort study suggest that patients with ipsilateral clinical lateral neck metastasis (cN1b) papillary thyroid cancer who underwent lobectomy exhibited recurrence-free survival rates similar to those who underwent total thyroidectomy after controlling for major prognostic factors,” the authors conclude in the study published online in JAMA Surgery.

“These findings suggest that cN1b alone should not be an absolute indication for total thyroidectomy,” they note.

The study, involving the largest cohort to date to compare patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer treated with lobectomy versus total thyroidectomy, “challenged the current guidelines and pushed the boundary of limited surgical treatment even further,” say Michelle B. Mulder, MD, and Quan-Yang Duh, MD, of the department of surgery, University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

“It can be a game changer if confirmed by future prospective and multicenter studies,” they add.
 

Guidelines still recommend total thyroidectomy with subsequent RAI

While lower-intensity treatment options, with a lower risk of complications, have gained favor in the treatment of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer, guidelines still recommend the consideration of total thyroidectomy and subsequent radioactive iodine ablation (RAI) for intermediate-risk cancers because of the higher chance of recurrence, particularly among those with clinically positive nodes.

However, data on the superiority of a total thyroidectomy, with or without RAI, versus lobectomy is inconsistent, prompting first author Siyuan Xu, MD, of the department of head and neck surgical oncology, National Cancer Center, Beijing, and colleagues to compare the risk of recurrence with the two approaches.

For the study, patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer treated at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Cancer Hospital in Beijing between January 2000 and December 2017, who had a lobectomy or total thyroidectomy, were paired 1:1 in a propensity score matching analysis.

Other than treatment type, the 265 pairs of patients were matched based on all other potential prognostic factors, including age, sex, primary tumor size, minor extrathyroidal extension, multifocality, number of lymph node metastases, and lymph node ratio.

Participants were a mean age of 37 years and 66% were female.

With a median follow-up of 60 months in the lobectomy group and 58 months in the total thyroidectomy group, structural recurrences occurred in 7.9% (21) and 6.4% (17) of patients, respectively, which was not significantly different.

The primary endpoint, 5-year rate of recurrence-free survival, was also not significantly different between the lobectomy (92.3%) and total thyroidectomy groups (93.7%) (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10; P = .77).

In a further stratified analysis of patients treated with total thyroidectomy along with RAI (n = 75), the lack of a significant difference in recurrence-free survival versus lobectomy remained (aHR, 0.59; P = .46).

The results were similar in unadjusted as well as adjusted analyses, and a power analysis indicated that the study had a 90% power to detect a more than 4.9% difference in recurrence-free survival.

“Given the lower complication rate of lobectomy, a maximal 4.9% recurrence-free survival difference is acceptable, which enhances the reliability of the study results,” the authors say.

They conclude that “our findings call into question whether cN1b alone [ipsilateral clinical lateral neck metastasis papillary thyroid cancer] should be an absolute determinant for deciding the optimal extent of thyroid surgery for papillary thyroid cancer.”
 

With total thyroidectomy, RAI can be given

An important argument in favor of total thyroidectomy is that with the complete resection of thyroid tissue, RAI ablation can then be used for postoperative detection of residual or metastatic disease, as well as for treatment, the authors note.

Indeed, a study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database showed RAI ablation is associated with a 29% reduction in the risk of death in patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer, with a hazard risk of 0.71.

However, conflicting data from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, suggests no significant benefit with total thyroidectomy and RAI ablation.

The current study’s analysis of patients treated with RAI, though limited in size, supports the latter study’s findings, the authors note.

“When we performed further stratified analyses in patients treated with total thyroidectomy plus RAI ablation and their counterparts, no significant difference was found, which conformed with [the] result from the whole cohort.”

“Certainly, the stratified comparison did not have enough power to examine the effect of RAI ablation on tumor recurrence subject to the limitation of sample size and case selection [and] further study is needed on this topic,” they write.
 

Some limitations warrant cautious interpretation

In their editorial, Dr. Mulder and Dr. Duh note that while some previous studies have shown similar outcomes relating to tumor size, thyroid hormone suppression therapy, and multifocality, “few have addressed lateral neck involvement.”

They suggest cautious interpretation, however, due to limitations, acknowledged by the authors, including the single-center nature of the study.

“Appropriate propensity matching may mitigate selection bias but cannot eliminate it entirely and their findings may not be replicated in other institutions by other surgeons,” they note.

Other limitations include that changes in clinical practice and patient selection were likely over the course of the study because of significant changes in American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines between 2009 and 2017, and characteristics including molecular genetic testing, which could have influenced final results, were not taken into consideration.

Furthermore, for patients with intermediate-risk cancer, modifications in postoperative follow-up are necessary following lobectomy versus total thyroidectomy; “the role of radioiodine is limited and the levels of thyroglobulin more complicated to interpret,” they note.

The study and editorial authors had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer and lymph node metastasis show no significant increase in tumor recurrence when undergoing lobectomy compared with a total thyroidectomy, new research shows.

“Results of this cohort study suggest that patients with ipsilateral clinical lateral neck metastasis (cN1b) papillary thyroid cancer who underwent lobectomy exhibited recurrence-free survival rates similar to those who underwent total thyroidectomy after controlling for major prognostic factors,” the authors conclude in the study published online in JAMA Surgery.

“These findings suggest that cN1b alone should not be an absolute indication for total thyroidectomy,” they note.

The study, involving the largest cohort to date to compare patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer treated with lobectomy versus total thyroidectomy, “challenged the current guidelines and pushed the boundary of limited surgical treatment even further,” say Michelle B. Mulder, MD, and Quan-Yang Duh, MD, of the department of surgery, University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

“It can be a game changer if confirmed by future prospective and multicenter studies,” they add.
 

Guidelines still recommend total thyroidectomy with subsequent RAI

While lower-intensity treatment options, with a lower risk of complications, have gained favor in the treatment of low-risk papillary thyroid cancer, guidelines still recommend the consideration of total thyroidectomy and subsequent radioactive iodine ablation (RAI) for intermediate-risk cancers because of the higher chance of recurrence, particularly among those with clinically positive nodes.

However, data on the superiority of a total thyroidectomy, with or without RAI, versus lobectomy is inconsistent, prompting first author Siyuan Xu, MD, of the department of head and neck surgical oncology, National Cancer Center, Beijing, and colleagues to compare the risk of recurrence with the two approaches.

For the study, patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer treated at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Cancer Hospital in Beijing between January 2000 and December 2017, who had a lobectomy or total thyroidectomy, were paired 1:1 in a propensity score matching analysis.

Other than treatment type, the 265 pairs of patients were matched based on all other potential prognostic factors, including age, sex, primary tumor size, minor extrathyroidal extension, multifocality, number of lymph node metastases, and lymph node ratio.

Participants were a mean age of 37 years and 66% were female.

With a median follow-up of 60 months in the lobectomy group and 58 months in the total thyroidectomy group, structural recurrences occurred in 7.9% (21) and 6.4% (17) of patients, respectively, which was not significantly different.

The primary endpoint, 5-year rate of recurrence-free survival, was also not significantly different between the lobectomy (92.3%) and total thyroidectomy groups (93.7%) (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10; P = .77).

In a further stratified analysis of patients treated with total thyroidectomy along with RAI (n = 75), the lack of a significant difference in recurrence-free survival versus lobectomy remained (aHR, 0.59; P = .46).

The results were similar in unadjusted as well as adjusted analyses, and a power analysis indicated that the study had a 90% power to detect a more than 4.9% difference in recurrence-free survival.

“Given the lower complication rate of lobectomy, a maximal 4.9% recurrence-free survival difference is acceptable, which enhances the reliability of the study results,” the authors say.

They conclude that “our findings call into question whether cN1b alone [ipsilateral clinical lateral neck metastasis papillary thyroid cancer] should be an absolute determinant for deciding the optimal extent of thyroid surgery for papillary thyroid cancer.”
 

With total thyroidectomy, RAI can be given

An important argument in favor of total thyroidectomy is that with the complete resection of thyroid tissue, RAI ablation can then be used for postoperative detection of residual or metastatic disease, as well as for treatment, the authors note.

Indeed, a study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database showed RAI ablation is associated with a 29% reduction in the risk of death in patients with intermediate-risk papillary thyroid cancer, with a hazard risk of 0.71.

However, conflicting data from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, suggests no significant benefit with total thyroidectomy and RAI ablation.

The current study’s analysis of patients treated with RAI, though limited in size, supports the latter study’s findings, the authors note.

“When we performed further stratified analyses in patients treated with total thyroidectomy plus RAI ablation and their counterparts, no significant difference was found, which conformed with [the] result from the whole cohort.”

“Certainly, the stratified comparison did not have enough power to examine the effect of RAI ablation on tumor recurrence subject to the limitation of sample size and case selection [and] further study is needed on this topic,” they write.
 

Some limitations warrant cautious interpretation

In their editorial, Dr. Mulder and Dr. Duh note that while some previous studies have shown similar outcomes relating to tumor size, thyroid hormone suppression therapy, and multifocality, “few have addressed lateral neck involvement.”

They suggest cautious interpretation, however, due to limitations, acknowledged by the authors, including the single-center nature of the study.

“Appropriate propensity matching may mitigate selection bias but cannot eliminate it entirely and their findings may not be replicated in other institutions by other surgeons,” they note.

Other limitations include that changes in clinical practice and patient selection were likely over the course of the study because of significant changes in American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines between 2009 and 2017, and characteristics including molecular genetic testing, which could have influenced final results, were not taken into consideration.

Furthermore, for patients with intermediate-risk cancer, modifications in postoperative follow-up are necessary following lobectomy versus total thyroidectomy; “the role of radioiodine is limited and the levels of thyroglobulin more complicated to interpret,” they note.

The study and editorial authors had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As fentanyl-related overdose deaths continue to increase, clinicians should take note of important differences that set the drug apart from the other drugs of misuse – and the troubling reality that fentanyl now contaminates most of them.

“It would be fair to tell patients, if you’re buying any illicit drugs – pills, powder, liquid, whatever it is, you’ve got to assume it’s either contaminated with or replaced by fentanyl,” said Edwin Salsitz, MD, an associate clinical professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, during a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

In many if not most cases, he noted, patients become addicted to fentanyl unknowingly. They assume they are ingesting oxycodone, cocaine, or another drug, and have no realization that they are even exposed to fentanyl until they test positive for it – or overdose.

Meanwhile, the high potency of fentanyl can overcome the opioid blockade of addiction treatment therapies – methadone and buprenorphine – that take away the high that users get from less potent drugs such as heroin.

“Fentanyl is overcoming this blockade that methadone and buprenorphine used to provide,” Dr. Salsitz said. “With fentanyl having such a higher potency, patients are saying ‘no, I still feel the fentanyl effects,’ and they continue feeling it even with 200 milligrams of methadone or 24 milligrams of buprenorphine.”
 

‘Wooden chest syndrome’

Among the lesser-known dangers of fentanyl is the possibility that some overdose deaths may occur as the result of a syndrome previously reported as a rare complication following the medical use of fentanyl in critically ill patients – fentanyl-induced chest-wall rigidity, or “wooden chest syndrome,” Dr. Salsitz explained.

In such cases, the muscles of respiration become rigid and paralyzed, causing suffocation within a matter of minutes – too soon to benefit from the overdose rescue medication naloxone.

In one recent study published in Clinical Toxicology , nearly half of fentanyl overdose deaths were found to have occurred even before the body had a chance to produce norfentanyl, a metabolite of fentanyl that takes only about 2-3 minutes to appear in the system, suggesting the deaths occurred rapidly.

In the study of 48 fentanyl deaths, no appreciable concentrations of norfentanyl could be detected in 20 of the 48 overdose deaths (42%), and concentrations were less than 1 ng/mL in 25 cases (52%).

“The lack of any measurable norfentanyl in half of our cases suggests a very rapid death, consistent with acute chest rigidity,” the authors reported.

“In several cases fentanyl concentrations were strikingly high (22 ng/mL and 20 ng/mL) with no norfentanyl detected,” they said.

Dr. Salsitz noted that the syndrome is not well known among the addiction treatment community.

“This is different than the usual respiratory opioid overdose where there’s a gradual decrease in the breathing rate and a gradual decrease in how much air is going in and out of the lungs,” Dr. Salsitz explained.

“With those cases, some may survive for an hour or longer, allowing time for someone to administer naloxone or to get the patient to the emergency room,” he said. “But with this, breathing stops and people can die within minutes.

“I think that this is one of the reasons that fentanyl deaths keep going up despite more and more naloxone availability out there,” he said.
 

Clearance may take longer

In toxicology testing for fentanyl, clinicians should also note the important difference between fentanyl and other opioids – that fentanyl, because of its high lipophilicity, may be detected in urine toxicology testing up to 3 weeks after last use. This is much longer than the 2- to 4-day clearance observed with other opioids, possibly causing patients to continue to test positive for the drug weeks after cessation.

This effect was observed in one recent study of 12 opioid use disorder patients in a residential treatment program who had previously been exposed to daily fentanyl.

The study showed the mean amount of time of fentanyl clearance was 2 weeks, with a range of 4-26 days after last use.

The authors pointed out that the findings “might explain recent reports of difficulty in buprenorphine inductions for persons who use fentanyl, and point to a need to better understand the pharmacokinetics of fentanyl in the context of opioid withdrawal in persons who regularly use fentanyl.”

Though the study was small, Dr. Salsitz said “that’s not a stumbling block to the important finding that, with regular use of fentanyl, the drug may stay in the urine for a long time.”

Dr. Salsitz noted that similar observations have been made at his center, with clinicians logically assuming that patients were still somehow getting fentanyl.

“When we initially found this in patients, we thought that they were using on the unit, perhaps that they brought in the fentanyl, because otherwise how could it stay in the urine that long,” he noted. “But fentanyl appears to be more lipophilic and gets into the fat; it’s then excreted very slowly and then stays in the urine.”

Dr. Salsitz said most practitioners think of fentanyl as a short-acting drug, so “it’s important to realize that people may continue to test positive and it should be thought of as a long-acting opioid.”
 

Opiate screening tests don’t work

Dr. Salsitz warned of another misconception in fentanyl testing – the common mistake of assuming that fentanyl should show up in a test for opiates – when in fact fentanyl is not, technically, an opiate.

“The word opiate only refers to morphine, codeine, heroin and sometimes hydrocodone,” he explained. “Other opioids are classified as semisynthetic, such as oxycodone, or synthetics, such as fentanyl and methadone, buprenorphine.”

“In order to detect the synthetics, you must have a separate strip for each one of those drugs. They will not show up positive on a screen for opiates,” he noted.

The belief that fentanyl and other synthetic and semisynthetic opioids will show positive on an opiate screen is a common misconception, he said. “The misunderstanding in toxicology interpretation is a problem for many practitioners, [but] it’s essential to understand because otherwise false assumptions about the patient will be considered.”

Another important testing misreading can occur with the antidepressant drug trazodone, which Dr. Salsitz cautioned may falsely test as positive for fentanyl on immunoassays.

“Trazodone is very commonly used in addiction treatment centers, but it can give a false positive on the fentanyl immunoassay and we’ve had a number of those cases,” he said.

Dr. Salsitz had no disclosures to report.

The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

As fentanyl-related overdose deaths continue to increase, clinicians should take note of important differences that set the drug apart from the other drugs of misuse – and the troubling reality that fentanyl now contaminates most of them.

“It would be fair to tell patients, if you’re buying any illicit drugs – pills, powder, liquid, whatever it is, you’ve got to assume it’s either contaminated with or replaced by fentanyl,” said Edwin Salsitz, MD, an associate clinical professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, during a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

In many if not most cases, he noted, patients become addicted to fentanyl unknowingly. They assume they are ingesting oxycodone, cocaine, or another drug, and have no realization that they are even exposed to fentanyl until they test positive for it – or overdose.

Meanwhile, the high potency of fentanyl can overcome the opioid blockade of addiction treatment therapies – methadone and buprenorphine – that take away the high that users get from less potent drugs such as heroin.

“Fentanyl is overcoming this blockade that methadone and buprenorphine used to provide,” Dr. Salsitz said. “With fentanyl having such a higher potency, patients are saying ‘no, I still feel the fentanyl effects,’ and they continue feeling it even with 200 milligrams of methadone or 24 milligrams of buprenorphine.”
 

‘Wooden chest syndrome’

Among the lesser-known dangers of fentanyl is the possibility that some overdose deaths may occur as the result of a syndrome previously reported as a rare complication following the medical use of fentanyl in critically ill patients – fentanyl-induced chest-wall rigidity, or “wooden chest syndrome,” Dr. Salsitz explained.

In such cases, the muscles of respiration become rigid and paralyzed, causing suffocation within a matter of minutes – too soon to benefit from the overdose rescue medication naloxone.

In one recent study published in Clinical Toxicology , nearly half of fentanyl overdose deaths were found to have occurred even before the body had a chance to produce norfentanyl, a metabolite of fentanyl that takes only about 2-3 minutes to appear in the system, suggesting the deaths occurred rapidly.

In the study of 48 fentanyl deaths, no appreciable concentrations of norfentanyl could be detected in 20 of the 48 overdose deaths (42%), and concentrations were less than 1 ng/mL in 25 cases (52%).

“The lack of any measurable norfentanyl in half of our cases suggests a very rapid death, consistent with acute chest rigidity,” the authors reported.

“In several cases fentanyl concentrations were strikingly high (22 ng/mL and 20 ng/mL) with no norfentanyl detected,” they said.

Dr. Salsitz noted that the syndrome is not well known among the addiction treatment community.

“This is different than the usual respiratory opioid overdose where there’s a gradual decrease in the breathing rate and a gradual decrease in how much air is going in and out of the lungs,” Dr. Salsitz explained.

“With those cases, some may survive for an hour or longer, allowing time for someone to administer naloxone or to get the patient to the emergency room,” he said. “But with this, breathing stops and people can die within minutes.

“I think that this is one of the reasons that fentanyl deaths keep going up despite more and more naloxone availability out there,” he said.
 

Clearance may take longer

In toxicology testing for fentanyl, clinicians should also note the important difference between fentanyl and other opioids – that fentanyl, because of its high lipophilicity, may be detected in urine toxicology testing up to 3 weeks after last use. This is much longer than the 2- to 4-day clearance observed with other opioids, possibly causing patients to continue to test positive for the drug weeks after cessation.

This effect was observed in one recent study of 12 opioid use disorder patients in a residential treatment program who had previously been exposed to daily fentanyl.

The study showed the mean amount of time of fentanyl clearance was 2 weeks, with a range of 4-26 days after last use.

The authors pointed out that the findings “might explain recent reports of difficulty in buprenorphine inductions for persons who use fentanyl, and point to a need to better understand the pharmacokinetics of fentanyl in the context of opioid withdrawal in persons who regularly use fentanyl.”

Though the study was small, Dr. Salsitz said “that’s not a stumbling block to the important finding that, with regular use of fentanyl, the drug may stay in the urine for a long time.”

Dr. Salsitz noted that similar observations have been made at his center, with clinicians logically assuming that patients were still somehow getting fentanyl.

“When we initially found this in patients, we thought that they were using on the unit, perhaps that they brought in the fentanyl, because otherwise how could it stay in the urine that long,” he noted. “But fentanyl appears to be more lipophilic and gets into the fat; it’s then excreted very slowly and then stays in the urine.”

Dr. Salsitz said most practitioners think of fentanyl as a short-acting drug, so “it’s important to realize that people may continue to test positive and it should be thought of as a long-acting opioid.”
 

Opiate screening tests don’t work

Dr. Salsitz warned of another misconception in fentanyl testing – the common mistake of assuming that fentanyl should show up in a test for opiates – when in fact fentanyl is not, technically, an opiate.

“The word opiate only refers to morphine, codeine, heroin and sometimes hydrocodone,” he explained. “Other opioids are classified as semisynthetic, such as oxycodone, or synthetics, such as fentanyl and methadone, buprenorphine.”

“In order to detect the synthetics, you must have a separate strip for each one of those drugs. They will not show up positive on a screen for opiates,” he noted.

The belief that fentanyl and other synthetic and semisynthetic opioids will show positive on an opiate screen is a common misconception, he said. “The misunderstanding in toxicology interpretation is a problem for many practitioners, [but] it’s essential to understand because otherwise false assumptions about the patient will be considered.”

Another important testing misreading can occur with the antidepressant drug trazodone, which Dr. Salsitz cautioned may falsely test as positive for fentanyl on immunoassays.

“Trazodone is very commonly used in addiction treatment centers, but it can give a false positive on the fentanyl immunoassay and we’ve had a number of those cases,” he said.

Dr. Salsitz had no disclosures to report.

The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

As fentanyl-related overdose deaths continue to increase, clinicians should take note of important differences that set the drug apart from the other drugs of misuse – and the troubling reality that fentanyl now contaminates most of them.

“It would be fair to tell patients, if you’re buying any illicit drugs – pills, powder, liquid, whatever it is, you’ve got to assume it’s either contaminated with or replaced by fentanyl,” said Edwin Salsitz, MD, an associate clinical professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, during a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

In many if not most cases, he noted, patients become addicted to fentanyl unknowingly. They assume they are ingesting oxycodone, cocaine, or another drug, and have no realization that they are even exposed to fentanyl until they test positive for it – or overdose.

Meanwhile, the high potency of fentanyl can overcome the opioid blockade of addiction treatment therapies – methadone and buprenorphine – that take away the high that users get from less potent drugs such as heroin.

“Fentanyl is overcoming this blockade that methadone and buprenorphine used to provide,” Dr. Salsitz said. “With fentanyl having such a higher potency, patients are saying ‘no, I still feel the fentanyl effects,’ and they continue feeling it even with 200 milligrams of methadone or 24 milligrams of buprenorphine.”
 

‘Wooden chest syndrome’

Among the lesser-known dangers of fentanyl is the possibility that some overdose deaths may occur as the result of a syndrome previously reported as a rare complication following the medical use of fentanyl in critically ill patients – fentanyl-induced chest-wall rigidity, or “wooden chest syndrome,” Dr. Salsitz explained.

In such cases, the muscles of respiration become rigid and paralyzed, causing suffocation within a matter of minutes – too soon to benefit from the overdose rescue medication naloxone.

In one recent study published in Clinical Toxicology , nearly half of fentanyl overdose deaths were found to have occurred even before the body had a chance to produce norfentanyl, a metabolite of fentanyl that takes only about 2-3 minutes to appear in the system, suggesting the deaths occurred rapidly.

In the study of 48 fentanyl deaths, no appreciable concentrations of norfentanyl could be detected in 20 of the 48 overdose deaths (42%), and concentrations were less than 1 ng/mL in 25 cases (52%).

“The lack of any measurable norfentanyl in half of our cases suggests a very rapid death, consistent with acute chest rigidity,” the authors reported.

“In several cases fentanyl concentrations were strikingly high (22 ng/mL and 20 ng/mL) with no norfentanyl detected,” they said.

Dr. Salsitz noted that the syndrome is not well known among the addiction treatment community.

“This is different than the usual respiratory opioid overdose where there’s a gradual decrease in the breathing rate and a gradual decrease in how much air is going in and out of the lungs,” Dr. Salsitz explained.

“With those cases, some may survive for an hour or longer, allowing time for someone to administer naloxone or to get the patient to the emergency room,” he said. “But with this, breathing stops and people can die within minutes.

“I think that this is one of the reasons that fentanyl deaths keep going up despite more and more naloxone availability out there,” he said.
 

Clearance may take longer

In toxicology testing for fentanyl, clinicians should also note the important difference between fentanyl and other opioids – that fentanyl, because of its high lipophilicity, may be detected in urine toxicology testing up to 3 weeks after last use. This is much longer than the 2- to 4-day clearance observed with other opioids, possibly causing patients to continue to test positive for the drug weeks after cessation.

This effect was observed in one recent study of 12 opioid use disorder patients in a residential treatment program who had previously been exposed to daily fentanyl.

The study showed the mean amount of time of fentanyl clearance was 2 weeks, with a range of 4-26 days after last use.

The authors pointed out that the findings “might explain recent reports of difficulty in buprenorphine inductions for persons who use fentanyl, and point to a need to better understand the pharmacokinetics of fentanyl in the context of opioid withdrawal in persons who regularly use fentanyl.”

Though the study was small, Dr. Salsitz said “that’s not a stumbling block to the important finding that, with regular use of fentanyl, the drug may stay in the urine for a long time.”

Dr. Salsitz noted that similar observations have been made at his center, with clinicians logically assuming that patients were still somehow getting fentanyl.

“When we initially found this in patients, we thought that they were using on the unit, perhaps that they brought in the fentanyl, because otherwise how could it stay in the urine that long,” he noted. “But fentanyl appears to be more lipophilic and gets into the fat; it’s then excreted very slowly and then stays in the urine.”

Dr. Salsitz said most practitioners think of fentanyl as a short-acting drug, so “it’s important to realize that people may continue to test positive and it should be thought of as a long-acting opioid.”
 

Opiate screening tests don’t work

Dr. Salsitz warned of another misconception in fentanyl testing – the common mistake of assuming that fentanyl should show up in a test for opiates – when in fact fentanyl is not, technically, an opiate.

“The word opiate only refers to morphine, codeine, heroin and sometimes hydrocodone,” he explained. “Other opioids are classified as semisynthetic, such as oxycodone, or synthetics, such as fentanyl and methadone, buprenorphine.”

“In order to detect the synthetics, you must have a separate strip for each one of those drugs. They will not show up positive on a screen for opiates,” he noted.

The belief that fentanyl and other synthetic and semisynthetic opioids will show positive on an opiate screen is a common misconception, he said. “The misunderstanding in toxicology interpretation is a problem for many practitioners, [but] it’s essential to understand because otherwise false assumptions about the patient will be considered.”

Another important testing misreading can occur with the antidepressant drug trazodone, which Dr. Salsitz cautioned may falsely test as positive for fentanyl on immunoassays.

“Trazodone is very commonly used in addiction treatment centers, but it can give a false positive on the fentanyl immunoassay and we’ve had a number of those cases,” he said.

Dr. Salsitz had no disclosures to report.

The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

From providing virtual therapy sessions to patients in the front seats of their cars, to sessions with patients who turn out to be in another state, the new paradigm of telepsychiatry is presenting clinicians with a host of situations with unwritten or constantly changing rules.

But key practice tips are emerging for the optimization of virtual sessions, said Sanjay Gupta, MD, chief medical officer of the BryLin Behavioral Health System in Buffalo, N.Y., during a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Dr. Gupta noted that while “many pitfalls [may] occur,” an overriding rule that should be emphasized with telepsychiatry is that “[virtual visits] are held to the same standard of care as an in-person visit.” This “rule” needs to be followed diligently, he said, as the key difference in virtual visits is a reduced sense of the formality of a psychotherapy session.

With virtual sessions, the therapeutic experience “can feel kind of trivialized,” said Dr. Gupta, who is also a clinical professor in the department of psychiatry, State University of New York at Buffalo. He noted that it is crucial that “the sacredness of a private setting should not be diluted.”

Challenges in finding that privacy for some, however, lead to the issue of the “patients in cars” scenario, Dr. Gupta said. Still, he added, while psychiatric sessions should never be conducted when a patient is driving, the front seat of a parked car may, for some, be the most private setting available.

“For many patients, their car may be the only private place from which they can take a video call,” Dr. Gupta noted. “Perhaps they are at work and the only way they could fit in the appointment is by going out to their car on their break. Or patients may even be at home, but they’re not alone and need to go out to their car for privacy.”

If the car isn’t being driven, sitting inside it should be fine for virtual therapy, but even there, clinicians should retain a focus on the consistency of care regardless of the setting.

Meanwhile, psychiatrists can take key measures to keep things professional, at least on their end of the session.

Before starting, for instance, keep in mind the patient’s viewing experience, Dr. Gupta suggested. Tips he offered include:

• Keep the background of your video image subtle, with no distractions, such as windows looking out to an ocean or other distracting background elements.
• The camera should be above eye level to suggest a face-to-face conversation more effectively.
• Try not to have other browser windows open and look directly into the camera lens so that the patient knows they have your full attention.
• Try not to take notes or document in the electronic health record during the session, which also can give the impression of being distracted and not listening to the patient.

Psychiatrists should remember that older patients – who may be uncomfortable with email, much less video conferencing – may still struggle with video-calling technology. In such cases, consider:

• Sending the patient instructions in advance of the appointment.
• Have your office hold a “tech check” prior to the appointment to ensure the patient is ready.
• Be prepared to provide troubleshooting.

Whether the patient is tech savvy or not, make sure communication is clear:

• Speak in short sentences on teleconferencing sessions.
• Speak slowly and use a lower frequency.
• Recognize that non-native English speakers may struggle with comprehension, and explore interpreter options.

Dr. Gupta noted that the first minute of the virtual therapy session is crucial in setting the tone.

“The patient wants to hear a professional, confident tone on the other end at the beginning of the session,” he said. “Be warm and respectful throughout the visit, and make sure to explain to the patient how the session will be reconnected if the call is interrupted.”

Clinicians should also make sure to identify the patient’s physical location during the session in case of an emergency, such as the patient becoming suicidal.
 

Impending ‘telehealth cliff’

Many laws and licensing requirements for telehealth are still relatively loose, falling under the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) policies. These policies allow practitioners who are eligible to bill Medicare for telehealth services regardless of where the patient or provider is located, and providers can also deliver telehealth services across state lines, depending on state and federal rules.

However, Dr. Gupta warns that practitioners should be prepared for the potential “telehealth cliff” that is anticipated when those PHE policies are lifted, as barriers in licensing, billing, and other factors, such as HIPAA, are reinstated.

“HIPAA is [flexible] now as long as the public emergency policies exist,” Dr. Gupta said. “However, in noncrisis times, technology will be required to be HIPAA compliant. If you are a solo provider, for instance, you really need to choose a telepsychiatry platform that is HIPAA compliant before that happens.”

While the timing of the “telehealth cliff” is still uncertain, providers have been promised a 60-day advance notice of the PHE end, and at that time, there will be an additional 151-day grace period before the waivers lift.

A key federal measure that could protect more favorable telemedicine policies across state lines, the Temporary Reciprocity to Ensure Access to Treatment Act, currently remains stalled in Congress.

Regardless of those developments, Dr. Gupta underscored that “telepsychiatry is here to stay because the patients and their families like it, and they will be the driving factors.”

He noted that “the future is likely going to be a hybrid model of in-person and virtual visits,” to accommodate the various scenarios in which in-person visits may be preferred or necessary, but many will still likely choose the convenience and greater flexibility of virtual sessions.

Dr. Gupta serves or has served as a speaker or member of a speaker’s bureau for AbbVie, Acadia, Alkermes, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Neurocrine, and Otsuka, and serves as a consultant/on an advisory board for Intra-Cellular Therapies.

The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

From providing virtual therapy sessions to patients in the front seats of their cars, to sessions with patients who turn out to be in another state, the new paradigm of telepsychiatry is presenting clinicians with a host of situations with unwritten or constantly changing rules.

But key practice tips are emerging for the optimization of virtual sessions, said Sanjay Gupta, MD, chief medical officer of the BryLin Behavioral Health System in Buffalo, N.Y., during a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Dr. Gupta noted that while “many pitfalls [may] occur,” an overriding rule that should be emphasized with telepsychiatry is that “[virtual visits] are held to the same standard of care as an in-person visit.” This “rule” needs to be followed diligently, he said, as the key difference in virtual visits is a reduced sense of the formality of a psychotherapy session.

With virtual sessions, the therapeutic experience “can feel kind of trivialized,” said Dr. Gupta, who is also a clinical professor in the department of psychiatry, State University of New York at Buffalo. He noted that it is crucial that “the sacredness of a private setting should not be diluted.”

Challenges in finding that privacy for some, however, lead to the issue of the “patients in cars” scenario, Dr. Gupta said. Still, he added, while psychiatric sessions should never be conducted when a patient is driving, the front seat of a parked car may, for some, be the most private setting available.

“For many patients, their car may be the only private place from which they can take a video call,” Dr. Gupta noted. “Perhaps they are at work and the only way they could fit in the appointment is by going out to their car on their break. Or patients may even be at home, but they’re not alone and need to go out to their car for privacy.”

If the car isn’t being driven, sitting inside it should be fine for virtual therapy, but even there, clinicians should retain a focus on the consistency of care regardless of the setting.

Meanwhile, psychiatrists can take key measures to keep things professional, at least on their end of the session.

Before starting, for instance, keep in mind the patient’s viewing experience, Dr. Gupta suggested. Tips he offered include:

• Keep the background of your video image subtle, with no distractions, such as windows looking out to an ocean or other distracting background elements.
• The camera should be above eye level to suggest a face-to-face conversation more effectively.
• Try not to have other browser windows open and look directly into the camera lens so that the patient knows they have your full attention.
• Try not to take notes or document in the electronic health record during the session, which also can give the impression of being distracted and not listening to the patient.

Psychiatrists should remember that older patients – who may be uncomfortable with email, much less video conferencing – may still struggle with video-calling technology. In such cases, consider:

• Sending the patient instructions in advance of the appointment.
• Have your office hold a “tech check” prior to the appointment to ensure the patient is ready.
• Be prepared to provide troubleshooting.

Whether the patient is tech savvy or not, make sure communication is clear:

• Speak in short sentences on teleconferencing sessions.
• Speak slowly and use a lower frequency.
• Recognize that non-native English speakers may struggle with comprehension, and explore interpreter options.

Dr. Gupta noted that the first minute of the virtual therapy session is crucial in setting the tone.

“The patient wants to hear a professional, confident tone on the other end at the beginning of the session,” he said. “Be warm and respectful throughout the visit, and make sure to explain to the patient how the session will be reconnected if the call is interrupted.”

Clinicians should also make sure to identify the patient’s physical location during the session in case of an emergency, such as the patient becoming suicidal.
 

Impending ‘telehealth cliff’

Many laws and licensing requirements for telehealth are still relatively loose, falling under the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) policies. These policies allow practitioners who are eligible to bill Medicare for telehealth services regardless of where the patient or provider is located, and providers can also deliver telehealth services across state lines, depending on state and federal rules.

However, Dr. Gupta warns that practitioners should be prepared for the potential “telehealth cliff” that is anticipated when those PHE policies are lifted, as barriers in licensing, billing, and other factors, such as HIPAA, are reinstated.

“HIPAA is [flexible] now as long as the public emergency policies exist,” Dr. Gupta said. “However, in noncrisis times, technology will be required to be HIPAA compliant. If you are a solo provider, for instance, you really need to choose a telepsychiatry platform that is HIPAA compliant before that happens.”

While the timing of the “telehealth cliff” is still uncertain, providers have been promised a 60-day advance notice of the PHE end, and at that time, there will be an additional 151-day grace period before the waivers lift.

A key federal measure that could protect more favorable telemedicine policies across state lines, the Temporary Reciprocity to Ensure Access to Treatment Act, currently remains stalled in Congress.

Regardless of those developments, Dr. Gupta underscored that “telepsychiatry is here to stay because the patients and their families like it, and they will be the driving factors.”

He noted that “the future is likely going to be a hybrid model of in-person and virtual visits,” to accommodate the various scenarios in which in-person visits may be preferred or necessary, but many will still likely choose the convenience and greater flexibility of virtual sessions.

Dr. Gupta serves or has served as a speaker or member of a speaker’s bureau for AbbVie, Acadia, Alkermes, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Neurocrine, and Otsuka, and serves as a consultant/on an advisory board for Intra-Cellular Therapies.

The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

From providing virtual therapy sessions to patients in the front seats of their cars, to sessions with patients who turn out to be in another state, the new paradigm of telepsychiatry is presenting clinicians with a host of situations with unwritten or constantly changing rules.

But key practice tips are emerging for the optimization of virtual sessions, said Sanjay Gupta, MD, chief medical officer of the BryLin Behavioral Health System in Buffalo, N.Y., during a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Dr. Gupta noted that while “many pitfalls [may] occur,” an overriding rule that should be emphasized with telepsychiatry is that “[virtual visits] are held to the same standard of care as an in-person visit.” This “rule” needs to be followed diligently, he said, as the key difference in virtual visits is a reduced sense of the formality of a psychotherapy session.

With virtual sessions, the therapeutic experience “can feel kind of trivialized,” said Dr. Gupta, who is also a clinical professor in the department of psychiatry, State University of New York at Buffalo. He noted that it is crucial that “the sacredness of a private setting should not be diluted.”

Challenges in finding that privacy for some, however, lead to the issue of the “patients in cars” scenario, Dr. Gupta said. Still, he added, while psychiatric sessions should never be conducted when a patient is driving, the front seat of a parked car may, for some, be the most private setting available.

“For many patients, their car may be the only private place from which they can take a video call,” Dr. Gupta noted. “Perhaps they are at work and the only way they could fit in the appointment is by going out to their car on their break. Or patients may even be at home, but they’re not alone and need to go out to their car for privacy.”

If the car isn’t being driven, sitting inside it should be fine for virtual therapy, but even there, clinicians should retain a focus on the consistency of care regardless of the setting.

Meanwhile, psychiatrists can take key measures to keep things professional, at least on their end of the session.

Before starting, for instance, keep in mind the patient’s viewing experience, Dr. Gupta suggested. Tips he offered include:

• Keep the background of your video image subtle, with no distractions, such as windows looking out to an ocean or other distracting background elements.
• The camera should be above eye level to suggest a face-to-face conversation more effectively.
• Try not to have other browser windows open and look directly into the camera lens so that the patient knows they have your full attention.
• Try not to take notes or document in the electronic health record during the session, which also can give the impression of being distracted and not listening to the patient.

Psychiatrists should remember that older patients – who may be uncomfortable with email, much less video conferencing – may still struggle with video-calling technology. In such cases, consider:

• Sending the patient instructions in advance of the appointment.
• Have your office hold a “tech check” prior to the appointment to ensure the patient is ready.
• Be prepared to provide troubleshooting.

Whether the patient is tech savvy or not, make sure communication is clear:

• Speak in short sentences on teleconferencing sessions.
• Speak slowly and use a lower frequency.
• Recognize that non-native English speakers may struggle with comprehension, and explore interpreter options.

Dr. Gupta noted that the first minute of the virtual therapy session is crucial in setting the tone.

“The patient wants to hear a professional, confident tone on the other end at the beginning of the session,” he said. “Be warm and respectful throughout the visit, and make sure to explain to the patient how the session will be reconnected if the call is interrupted.”

Clinicians should also make sure to identify the patient’s physical location during the session in case of an emergency, such as the patient becoming suicidal.
 

Impending ‘telehealth cliff’

Many laws and licensing requirements for telehealth are still relatively loose, falling under the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) policies. These policies allow practitioners who are eligible to bill Medicare for telehealth services regardless of where the patient or provider is located, and providers can also deliver telehealth services across state lines, depending on state and federal rules.

However, Dr. Gupta warns that practitioners should be prepared for the potential “telehealth cliff” that is anticipated when those PHE policies are lifted, as barriers in licensing, billing, and other factors, such as HIPAA, are reinstated.

“HIPAA is [flexible] now as long as the public emergency policies exist,” Dr. Gupta said. “However, in noncrisis times, technology will be required to be HIPAA compliant. If you are a solo provider, for instance, you really need to choose a telepsychiatry platform that is HIPAA compliant before that happens.”

While the timing of the “telehealth cliff” is still uncertain, providers have been promised a 60-day advance notice of the PHE end, and at that time, there will be an additional 151-day grace period before the waivers lift.

A key federal measure that could protect more favorable telemedicine policies across state lines, the Temporary Reciprocity to Ensure Access to Treatment Act, currently remains stalled in Congress.

Regardless of those developments, Dr. Gupta underscored that “telepsychiatry is here to stay because the patients and their families like it, and they will be the driving factors.”

He noted that “the future is likely going to be a hybrid model of in-person and virtual visits,” to accommodate the various scenarios in which in-person visits may be preferred or necessary, but many will still likely choose the convenience and greater flexibility of virtual sessions.

Dr. Gupta serves or has served as a speaker or member of a speaker’s bureau for AbbVie, Acadia, Alkermes, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Neurocrine, and Otsuka, and serves as a consultant/on an advisory board for Intra-Cellular Therapies.

The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

While nearly a quarter of patients with schizophrenia are reported to have primary treatment resistance, clozapine, known as the most effective antipsychotic for treatment-resistant schizophrenia – but burdened by concerns of side effects – remains significantly underprescribed, and when it is used, the drug is often delayed by several crucial years, reducing chances of efficacy.

“Despite being the only pharmacological therapy approved for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine is underutilized globally, even in developed countries, where only about 30% of patients who would benefit from the drug receive it,” said John M. Kane, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, N.Y., in a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Clozapine, a tricyclic dibenzodiazepine available in branded and various generic versions, is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a third-line therapy for severe, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, with studies showing benefits exceeding those of any other antipsychotics for the indication.

But while recommendations suggest use after a trial of two or more antipsychotics, with at least one being an atypical antipsychotic, one recent review finds delays in clozapine commencement ranging from 19.3 weeks to 5.5 years, and the duration of illness prior to clozapine use ranging from 1.1 to 9.7 years.
 

Blood monitoring, side effects

The key deterrents preventing many clinicians and patients from trying clozapine sooner are the drug’s safety and tolerability profiles, and notably the requirement of regular blood testing due to an increased risk of agranulocytosis.

Specifically, the blood testing is required every week for 6 months, then every other week for the next 6 months, and then once a month after that; however, “many of us think that that’s excessive at this point in time,” Dr. Kane noted.

Various other potential side effects are also of concern, including myocarditis, seizures, constipation, arrhythmia, hypersalivation, pneumonia, and metabolic symptoms including diabetes.

In terms of the common strategies that clinicians turn to when patients fail to respond to their current antipsychotic, including increasing doses, combining agents, or treatment switching, “none of the strategies likely rival clozapine in terms of efficacy,” Dr. Kane said.

Regarding higher dosing: “There is very little data suggesting that higher doses of antipsychotic drugs will work when the moderate or recommended dose has not worked,” he said.

Combination therapy strategies may provide benefits, but “they’re not a substitute for clozapine,” Dr. Kane added, noting that the combinations that do appear to be the most effective involve clozapine.

And regarding drug switching, studies suggest the likelihood of response in switching from one drug to another is “actually very low,” Dr. Kane added.

Clozapine also doesn’t work for all – the response rate runs between about 30% and 60%, Dr. Kane said, but when it is effective, the benefits can be profound.

“There are some patients who have a very pronounced response to clozapine – some patients describe it as life-changing,” he said.
 

Treatment delays reduce efficacy

Importantly, the delays before receiving clozapine are not inconsequential – data show that each outpatient antipsychotic trial prior to clozapine reduces the likelihood of response by 8%-11%, and each hospital admission further reduces the likelihood of response by 4%-8%, underscoring the need to identify treatment resistance as early as possible, Dr. Kane said.

“It’s critically important to try to identify treatment resistance earlier than we usually do because if we can get it under control sooner, we have a better chance of improving the patient’s outcome, and this has been shown in a number of studies,” he said.

“The longer you wait, the less likely you are to see a good response even to clozapine.”

Despite the concerns about clozapine, Dr. Kane notes that even the blood monitoring does not appear to be a big complaint for patients, especially they are improving.

“In our experience, the patients who benefit from clozapine don’t really have a problem with the monitoring,” he said.

“In fact, patients who benefit from clozapine are much more adherent to the medication than other patients that we see, which is understandable, because if you feel you’re really getting a benefit from medicine, you’re going to be much more motivated to take it even if it has side effects.”

A recent systematic review of 13 studies and 1,487 patients backs that up, concluding that “patients generally have a favorable experience when being treated with clozapine,” with the caveat that “conclusions are limited by the risk of bias, particularly survivorship bias.”

Preference for clozapine over other antipsychotic medications was reported by 54%-86% of patients in the review, with specific improvements in mood (11%-78%) and cognition (5%-68%).
 

Clinicians the biggest ‘obstacle’

Dr. Kane notes that an important factor in underutilization could indeed be the manner in which clinicians discuss clozapine with their patients – often opening the discussion by focusing on the negative aspects that, without the context of the potential benefits, can be deal-breakers for patient from the start.

“The clinicians in my opinion are really the obstacle,” Dr. Kane said. “What we always hear from clinicians is ‘I can’t do it because the patient refuses, or the patient doesn’t like the side effects’.”

Dr. Kane notes that most side effects can indeed be managed – regarding the risk for metabolic syndrome, for instance, he recommends that patients should be given metformin from the beginning when they’re started on clozapine.

He adds that in most cases, a 3-month trial is enough to answer the question of whether clozapine is working or not.

“Three months is a good trial, but it may not even tell you the total response to clozapine because that may actually accrue over time,” he said. “We’ve seen patients who actually get better and better beyond 3 months.”

Not offering the drug to patients, however, is doing them a serious disservice, Dr. Kane added.

“What I tell patients and families is that it would be a shame to miss this opportunity for a potential treatment that could be life-changing,” he said. “Does it have potential side effects? Yes. Do you have to get blood tests? Yes. And I can’t tell by evaluating a patient’s history or examining that patient whether or not they’re going to be a good responder. But would you really want to miss an opportunity to find that out?”

“To me the argument is – let’s try this drug for 3 months and see what effect it has, and at that point you’ll be in a much better position to make a decision about the benefits versus risk,” Dr. Kane said.
 

The only FDA-approved drug for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

Remarkably, clozapine isn’t just the only drug to currently have approval from the FDA for treatment-resistant schizophrenia – it has been for the last 3 decades.

“There have been attempts to develop medications with similar efficacy, but they have not succeeded,” Dr. Kane said in an interview. “We are still uncertain as to what accounts for clozapine’s unique qualities.”

Yet, with treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients representing some of the most dire mental illness cases clinicians may face, the need for better treatment decisions – and additional options – is pressing, Dr. Kane said.

“[The lack of any other drugs] is a big embarrassment to our field, in my opinion,” he said. “I’m a big proponent of clozapine, but we should have found another substance by now that could substitute for clozapine, which obviously has a lot of side effects and is not the easiest drug to use.”

Dr. Kane reported relationships either as a speaker or consultant/advisory board member and/or receives research grant support from Alkermes, Allergan, Click Therapeutics, Dainippon Sumitomo, H. Lundbeck, HLS Therapeutics, Indivior, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Johnson & Johnson, LB Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Minerva, Neurocrine, Neumora Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka, Reviva, Roche, Saladax, Sunovion, Takeda, and Teva. Dr. Kane receives non-mutual funds stock ownership/stock options from LB Pharmaceuticals, Vanguard Research Group, and North Shore Therapeutics, and receives patent holder/royalties paid by UpToDate.

The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

While nearly a quarter of patients with schizophrenia are reported to have primary treatment resistance, clozapine, known as the most effective antipsychotic for treatment-resistant schizophrenia – but burdened by concerns of side effects – remains significantly underprescribed, and when it is used, the drug is often delayed by several crucial years, reducing chances of efficacy.

“Despite being the only pharmacological therapy approved for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine is underutilized globally, even in developed countries, where only about 30% of patients who would benefit from the drug receive it,” said John M. Kane, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, N.Y., in a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Clozapine, a tricyclic dibenzodiazepine available in branded and various generic versions, is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a third-line therapy for severe, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, with studies showing benefits exceeding those of any other antipsychotics for the indication.

But while recommendations suggest use after a trial of two or more antipsychotics, with at least one being an atypical antipsychotic, one recent review finds delays in clozapine commencement ranging from 19.3 weeks to 5.5 years, and the duration of illness prior to clozapine use ranging from 1.1 to 9.7 years.
 

Blood monitoring, side effects

The key deterrents preventing many clinicians and patients from trying clozapine sooner are the drug’s safety and tolerability profiles, and notably the requirement of regular blood testing due to an increased risk of agranulocytosis.

Specifically, the blood testing is required every week for 6 months, then every other week for the next 6 months, and then once a month after that; however, “many of us think that that’s excessive at this point in time,” Dr. Kane noted.

Various other potential side effects are also of concern, including myocarditis, seizures, constipation, arrhythmia, hypersalivation, pneumonia, and metabolic symptoms including diabetes.

In terms of the common strategies that clinicians turn to when patients fail to respond to their current antipsychotic, including increasing doses, combining agents, or treatment switching, “none of the strategies likely rival clozapine in terms of efficacy,” Dr. Kane said.

Regarding higher dosing: “There is very little data suggesting that higher doses of antipsychotic drugs will work when the moderate or recommended dose has not worked,” he said.

Combination therapy strategies may provide benefits, but “they’re not a substitute for clozapine,” Dr. Kane added, noting that the combinations that do appear to be the most effective involve clozapine.

And regarding drug switching, studies suggest the likelihood of response in switching from one drug to another is “actually very low,” Dr. Kane added.

Clozapine also doesn’t work for all – the response rate runs between about 30% and 60%, Dr. Kane said, but when it is effective, the benefits can be profound.

“There are some patients who have a very pronounced response to clozapine – some patients describe it as life-changing,” he said.
 

Treatment delays reduce efficacy

Importantly, the delays before receiving clozapine are not inconsequential – data show that each outpatient antipsychotic trial prior to clozapine reduces the likelihood of response by 8%-11%, and each hospital admission further reduces the likelihood of response by 4%-8%, underscoring the need to identify treatment resistance as early as possible, Dr. Kane said.

“It’s critically important to try to identify treatment resistance earlier than we usually do because if we can get it under control sooner, we have a better chance of improving the patient’s outcome, and this has been shown in a number of studies,” he said.

“The longer you wait, the less likely you are to see a good response even to clozapine.”

Despite the concerns about clozapine, Dr. Kane notes that even the blood monitoring does not appear to be a big complaint for patients, especially they are improving.

“In our experience, the patients who benefit from clozapine don’t really have a problem with the monitoring,” he said.

“In fact, patients who benefit from clozapine are much more adherent to the medication than other patients that we see, which is understandable, because if you feel you’re really getting a benefit from medicine, you’re going to be much more motivated to take it even if it has side effects.”

A recent systematic review of 13 studies and 1,487 patients backs that up, concluding that “patients generally have a favorable experience when being treated with clozapine,” with the caveat that “conclusions are limited by the risk of bias, particularly survivorship bias.”

Preference for clozapine over other antipsychotic medications was reported by 54%-86% of patients in the review, with specific improvements in mood (11%-78%) and cognition (5%-68%).
 

Clinicians the biggest ‘obstacle’

Dr. Kane notes that an important factor in underutilization could indeed be the manner in which clinicians discuss clozapine with their patients – often opening the discussion by focusing on the negative aspects that, without the context of the potential benefits, can be deal-breakers for patient from the start.

“The clinicians in my opinion are really the obstacle,” Dr. Kane said. “What we always hear from clinicians is ‘I can’t do it because the patient refuses, or the patient doesn’t like the side effects’.”

Dr. Kane notes that most side effects can indeed be managed – regarding the risk for metabolic syndrome, for instance, he recommends that patients should be given metformin from the beginning when they’re started on clozapine.

He adds that in most cases, a 3-month trial is enough to answer the question of whether clozapine is working or not.

“Three months is a good trial, but it may not even tell you the total response to clozapine because that may actually accrue over time,” he said. “We’ve seen patients who actually get better and better beyond 3 months.”

Not offering the drug to patients, however, is doing them a serious disservice, Dr. Kane added.

“What I tell patients and families is that it would be a shame to miss this opportunity for a potential treatment that could be life-changing,” he said. “Does it have potential side effects? Yes. Do you have to get blood tests? Yes. And I can’t tell by evaluating a patient’s history or examining that patient whether or not they’re going to be a good responder. But would you really want to miss an opportunity to find that out?”

“To me the argument is – let’s try this drug for 3 months and see what effect it has, and at that point you’ll be in a much better position to make a decision about the benefits versus risk,” Dr. Kane said.
 

The only FDA-approved drug for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

Remarkably, clozapine isn’t just the only drug to currently have approval from the FDA for treatment-resistant schizophrenia – it has been for the last 3 decades.

“There have been attempts to develop medications with similar efficacy, but they have not succeeded,” Dr. Kane said in an interview. “We are still uncertain as to what accounts for clozapine’s unique qualities.”

Yet, with treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients representing some of the most dire mental illness cases clinicians may face, the need for better treatment decisions – and additional options – is pressing, Dr. Kane said.

“[The lack of any other drugs] is a big embarrassment to our field, in my opinion,” he said. “I’m a big proponent of clozapine, but we should have found another substance by now that could substitute for clozapine, which obviously has a lot of side effects and is not the easiest drug to use.”

Dr. Kane reported relationships either as a speaker or consultant/advisory board member and/or receives research grant support from Alkermes, Allergan, Click Therapeutics, Dainippon Sumitomo, H. Lundbeck, HLS Therapeutics, Indivior, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Johnson & Johnson, LB Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Minerva, Neurocrine, Neumora Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka, Reviva, Roche, Saladax, Sunovion, Takeda, and Teva. Dr. Kane receives non-mutual funds stock ownership/stock options from LB Pharmaceuticals, Vanguard Research Group, and North Shore Therapeutics, and receives patent holder/royalties paid by UpToDate.

The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

While nearly a quarter of patients with schizophrenia are reported to have primary treatment resistance, clozapine, known as the most effective antipsychotic for treatment-resistant schizophrenia – but burdened by concerns of side effects – remains significantly underprescribed, and when it is used, the drug is often delayed by several crucial years, reducing chances of efficacy.

“Despite being the only pharmacological therapy approved for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine is underutilized globally, even in developed countries, where only about 30% of patients who would benefit from the drug receive it,” said John M. Kane, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, N.Y., in a presentation on the subject at the 21st Annual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Clozapine, a tricyclic dibenzodiazepine available in branded and various generic versions, is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a third-line therapy for severe, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, with studies showing benefits exceeding those of any other antipsychotics for the indication.

But while recommendations suggest use after a trial of two or more antipsychotics, with at least one being an atypical antipsychotic, one recent review finds delays in clozapine commencement ranging from 19.3 weeks to 5.5 years, and the duration of illness prior to clozapine use ranging from 1.1 to 9.7 years.
 

Blood monitoring, side effects

The key deterrents preventing many clinicians and patients from trying clozapine sooner are the drug’s safety and tolerability profiles, and notably the requirement of regular blood testing due to an increased risk of agranulocytosis.

Specifically, the blood testing is required every week for 6 months, then every other week for the next 6 months, and then once a month after that; however, “many of us think that that’s excessive at this point in time,” Dr. Kane noted.

Various other potential side effects are also of concern, including myocarditis, seizures, constipation, arrhythmia, hypersalivation, pneumonia, and metabolic symptoms including diabetes.

In terms of the common strategies that clinicians turn to when patients fail to respond to their current antipsychotic, including increasing doses, combining agents, or treatment switching, “none of the strategies likely rival clozapine in terms of efficacy,” Dr. Kane said.

Regarding higher dosing: “There is very little data suggesting that higher doses of antipsychotic drugs will work when the moderate or recommended dose has not worked,” he said.

Combination therapy strategies may provide benefits, but “they’re not a substitute for clozapine,” Dr. Kane added, noting that the combinations that do appear to be the most effective involve clozapine.

And regarding drug switching, studies suggest the likelihood of response in switching from one drug to another is “actually very low,” Dr. Kane added.

Clozapine also doesn’t work for all – the response rate runs between about 30% and 60%, Dr. Kane said, but when it is effective, the benefits can be profound.

“There are some patients who have a very pronounced response to clozapine – some patients describe it as life-changing,” he said.
 

Treatment delays reduce efficacy

Importantly, the delays before receiving clozapine are not inconsequential – data show that each outpatient antipsychotic trial prior to clozapine reduces the likelihood of response by 8%-11%, and each hospital admission further reduces the likelihood of response by 4%-8%, underscoring the need to identify treatment resistance as early as possible, Dr. Kane said.

“It’s critically important to try to identify treatment resistance earlier than we usually do because if we can get it under control sooner, we have a better chance of improving the patient’s outcome, and this has been shown in a number of studies,” he said.

“The longer you wait, the less likely you are to see a good response even to clozapine.”

Despite the concerns about clozapine, Dr. Kane notes that even the blood monitoring does not appear to be a big complaint for patients, especially they are improving.

“In our experience, the patients who benefit from clozapine don’t really have a problem with the monitoring,” he said.

“In fact, patients who benefit from clozapine are much more adherent to the medication than other patients that we see, which is understandable, because if you feel you’re really getting a benefit from medicine, you’re going to be much more motivated to take it even if it has side effects.”

A recent systematic review of 13 studies and 1,487 patients backs that up, concluding that “patients generally have a favorable experience when being treated with clozapine,” with the caveat that “conclusions are limited by the risk of bias, particularly survivorship bias.”

Preference for clozapine over other antipsychotic medications was reported by 54%-86% of patients in the review, with specific improvements in mood (11%-78%) and cognition (5%-68%).
 

Clinicians the biggest ‘obstacle’

Dr. Kane notes that an important factor in underutilization could indeed be the manner in which clinicians discuss clozapine with their patients – often opening the discussion by focusing on the negative aspects that, without the context of the potential benefits, can be deal-breakers for patient from the start.

“The clinicians in my opinion are really the obstacle,” Dr. Kane said. “What we always hear from clinicians is ‘I can’t do it because the patient refuses, or the patient doesn’t like the side effects’.”

Dr. Kane notes that most side effects can indeed be managed – regarding the risk for metabolic syndrome, for instance, he recommends that patients should be given metformin from the beginning when they’re started on clozapine.

He adds that in most cases, a 3-month trial is enough to answer the question of whether clozapine is working or not.

“Three months is a good trial, but it may not even tell you the total response to clozapine because that may actually accrue over time,” he said. “We’ve seen patients who actually get better and better beyond 3 months.”

Not offering the drug to patients, however, is doing them a serious disservice, Dr. Kane added.

“What I tell patients and families is that it would be a shame to miss this opportunity for a potential treatment that could be life-changing,” he said. “Does it have potential side effects? Yes. Do you have to get blood tests? Yes. And I can’t tell by evaluating a patient’s history or examining that patient whether or not they’re going to be a good responder. But would you really want to miss an opportunity to find that out?”

“To me the argument is – let’s try this drug for 3 months and see what effect it has, and at that point you’ll be in a much better position to make a decision about the benefits versus risk,” Dr. Kane said.
 

The only FDA-approved drug for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

Remarkably, clozapine isn’t just the only drug to currently have approval from the FDA for treatment-resistant schizophrenia – it has been for the last 3 decades.

“There have been attempts to develop medications with similar efficacy, but they have not succeeded,” Dr. Kane said in an interview. “We are still uncertain as to what accounts for clozapine’s unique qualities.”

Yet, with treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients representing some of the most dire mental illness cases clinicians may face, the need for better treatment decisions – and additional options – is pressing, Dr. Kane said.

“[The lack of any other drugs] is a big embarrassment to our field, in my opinion,” he said. “I’m a big proponent of clozapine, but we should have found another substance by now that could substitute for clozapine, which obviously has a lot of side effects and is not the easiest drug to use.”

Dr. Kane reported relationships either as a speaker or consultant/advisory board member and/or receives research grant support from Alkermes, Allergan, Click Therapeutics, Dainippon Sumitomo, H. Lundbeck, HLS Therapeutics, Indivior, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Johnson & Johnson, LB Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Minerva, Neurocrine, Neumora Therapeutics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka, Reviva, Roche, Saladax, Sunovion, Takeda, and Teva. Dr. Kane receives non-mutual funds stock ownership/stock options from LB Pharmaceuticals, Vanguard Research Group, and North Shore Therapeutics, and receives patent holder/royalties paid by UpToDate.

The Psychopharmacology Update was sponsored by Medscape Live. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

MONTREAL – In the treatment of thyroid nodules with radiofrequency ablation (RFA), the amount of energy delivered per unit volume of the nodule strongly correlates with the extent of nodule volume reduction after 6 and 12 months, suggesting an important indicator of treatment success.

The findings “provide an objective measure or goal energy input to achieve during the [RFA] procedure rather than relying only on the subjective judgment of sonographic changes, and in turn, produce more reliable outcomes for our patients,” first author Samantha A. Wolfe, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Wolfe, of the department of otolaryngology – head and neck surgery at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, presented the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

Commenting on the study, Insoo Suh, MD, an associate professor and associate vice chair of Surgical Innovation at New York University Langone Health, agreed that “an accounting of the total amount of energy delivered can be a useful additional data point for the operator when they are determining whether an ablation is successful.”

He noted, however, that the location of a nodule can be an important factor when deciding upon amounts of RF energy.

“Some target areas are too close for comfort to critical structures, such as the trachea or the recurrent laryngeal nerve, so sound judgment would dictate that the energy be dialed down in those areas, even if the price you pay is a slightly lower volume reduction,” he explained. 
 

Analysis of patients given RFA at Johns Hopkins

RFA utilizes RF energy for the reduction of nodule compression and aesthetic symptoms, avoiding the need for thyroid hormone replacement or surgery.

And while decisions regarding RFA treatment location and duration are commonly guided by the operator’s judgment of sonographic changes, those assessments can potentially result in inconsistent outcomes.

In observing a relationship between higher amounts of RF energy and nodule volume reduction, Dr. Wolfe and associates conducted their prospective study of nodules treated by two experienced endocrine surgeons at Johns Hopkins between June 2019 and May 2022 at 6 and 12 months in relation to the amount of total energy delivered during the treatment.

The analysis included 101 nodules, which had a median initial volume of 12.9 mL.

After 6 months, the median volume reduction ratio was 60%, and at 12 months, the median reduction was 64%.

In terms of the goal of achieving 50% or more volume reduction at 6 months, the median energy delivered was significantly higher for nodules that did reach that goal compared with those that had a volume reduction of less than 50% (2,317 vs. 1,912 J/mL, respectively; P = .01).

The figures were similar at 12 months (2,031 vs. 1254 J/mL; P < .01).

In a logistic regression analysis, the amount of energy delivered strongly increased the odds of obtaining a volume reduction ratio of at least 50% (odds ratio, 2.58; P = .048).

“Every twofold increase in energy delivered increases the odds of achieving a 50% volume ratio reduction by 2.58 times,” Dr. Wolfe explained.

Likewise, the same twofold increase in energy delivered also increased the odds of achieving a greater than 80% volume ratio reduction by 2.55 times (OR, 2.55; P = .038), she added.
 

Information may help to decide who needs multiple ablations

Of note, the effect was stronger with smaller nodules. Those with an initial volume of less than 20 mL had a significantly greater volume ratio reduction than nodules that were 20 mL or larger (61% vs. 48%, respectively; P = .05).

The initial volume of nodules that did, and did not, achieve a 50% volume ratio reduction at 6 months were 10.9 mL versus 19.1 mL, and the initial volumes of those that did, and did not, have at least a 50% reduction at 12 months were 10.5 mL and 41.5 mL.

“At 6 and 12 months, the successfully treated nodules had a significantly smaller immediate initial volume than those that did not,” Dr. Wolfe said.

“This information may aid in identifying patients with large nodules that are less likely to achieve a greater than 50% volume reduction ratio and may require multiple treatments,” she added.

Other factors – including the probe tip size and total energy delivered – did not significantly correlate with volume ratio reduction at 6 or 12 months.

There was also no significant difference in terms of thyroid-stimulating hormone levels among nodules that achieved at least a 50% volume reduction and those that did not.

Nodules that did not have a satisfactory volume reduction at 12 months had a relatively large median total energy value delivered during ablation (103,463 J, compared with 25,969 J among those achieving more than 50% volume ratio reduction), which Dr. Wolfe said likely reflects that those nodules had a large initial volume.

“This speaks to the importance of describing the energy utilized per unit of nodule volume rather than just a gross measurement,” she said during her presentation.

Dr. Wolfe added that in terms of strategies for getting more energy into the nodule, a key approach is time.

“Sometimes you will see sonographic changes very quickly in the nodule, and it could be tempting to consider that area ablated and move on if you only rely on sonographic changes,” she said in an interview. “However, our research shows that, by spending more time, and thus inputting more energy into the nodule, we had better volume reduction.”

Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Suh reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – In the treatment of thyroid nodules with radiofrequency ablation (RFA), the amount of energy delivered per unit volume of the nodule strongly correlates with the extent of nodule volume reduction after 6 and 12 months, suggesting an important indicator of treatment success.

The findings “provide an objective measure or goal energy input to achieve during the [RFA] procedure rather than relying only on the subjective judgment of sonographic changes, and in turn, produce more reliable outcomes for our patients,” first author Samantha A. Wolfe, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Wolfe, of the department of otolaryngology – head and neck surgery at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, presented the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

Commenting on the study, Insoo Suh, MD, an associate professor and associate vice chair of Surgical Innovation at New York University Langone Health, agreed that “an accounting of the total amount of energy delivered can be a useful additional data point for the operator when they are determining whether an ablation is successful.”

He noted, however, that the location of a nodule can be an important factor when deciding upon amounts of RF energy.

“Some target areas are too close for comfort to critical structures, such as the trachea or the recurrent laryngeal nerve, so sound judgment would dictate that the energy be dialed down in those areas, even if the price you pay is a slightly lower volume reduction,” he explained. 
 

Analysis of patients given RFA at Johns Hopkins

RFA utilizes RF energy for the reduction of nodule compression and aesthetic symptoms, avoiding the need for thyroid hormone replacement or surgery.

And while decisions regarding RFA treatment location and duration are commonly guided by the operator’s judgment of sonographic changes, those assessments can potentially result in inconsistent outcomes.

In observing a relationship between higher amounts of RF energy and nodule volume reduction, Dr. Wolfe and associates conducted their prospective study of nodules treated by two experienced endocrine surgeons at Johns Hopkins between June 2019 and May 2022 at 6 and 12 months in relation to the amount of total energy delivered during the treatment.

The analysis included 101 nodules, which had a median initial volume of 12.9 mL.

After 6 months, the median volume reduction ratio was 60%, and at 12 months, the median reduction was 64%.

In terms of the goal of achieving 50% or more volume reduction at 6 months, the median energy delivered was significantly higher for nodules that did reach that goal compared with those that had a volume reduction of less than 50% (2,317 vs. 1,912 J/mL, respectively; P = .01).

The figures were similar at 12 months (2,031 vs. 1254 J/mL; P < .01).

In a logistic regression analysis, the amount of energy delivered strongly increased the odds of obtaining a volume reduction ratio of at least 50% (odds ratio, 2.58; P = .048).

“Every twofold increase in energy delivered increases the odds of achieving a 50% volume ratio reduction by 2.58 times,” Dr. Wolfe explained.

Likewise, the same twofold increase in energy delivered also increased the odds of achieving a greater than 80% volume ratio reduction by 2.55 times (OR, 2.55; P = .038), she added.
 

Information may help to decide who needs multiple ablations

Of note, the effect was stronger with smaller nodules. Those with an initial volume of less than 20 mL had a significantly greater volume ratio reduction than nodules that were 20 mL or larger (61% vs. 48%, respectively; P = .05).

The initial volume of nodules that did, and did not, achieve a 50% volume ratio reduction at 6 months were 10.9 mL versus 19.1 mL, and the initial volumes of those that did, and did not, have at least a 50% reduction at 12 months were 10.5 mL and 41.5 mL.

“At 6 and 12 months, the successfully treated nodules had a significantly smaller immediate initial volume than those that did not,” Dr. Wolfe said.

“This information may aid in identifying patients with large nodules that are less likely to achieve a greater than 50% volume reduction ratio and may require multiple treatments,” she added.

Other factors – including the probe tip size and total energy delivered – did not significantly correlate with volume ratio reduction at 6 or 12 months.

There was also no significant difference in terms of thyroid-stimulating hormone levels among nodules that achieved at least a 50% volume reduction and those that did not.

Nodules that did not have a satisfactory volume reduction at 12 months had a relatively large median total energy value delivered during ablation (103,463 J, compared with 25,969 J among those achieving more than 50% volume ratio reduction), which Dr. Wolfe said likely reflects that those nodules had a large initial volume.

“This speaks to the importance of describing the energy utilized per unit of nodule volume rather than just a gross measurement,” she said during her presentation.

Dr. Wolfe added that in terms of strategies for getting more energy into the nodule, a key approach is time.

“Sometimes you will see sonographic changes very quickly in the nodule, and it could be tempting to consider that area ablated and move on if you only rely on sonographic changes,” she said in an interview. “However, our research shows that, by spending more time, and thus inputting more energy into the nodule, we had better volume reduction.”

Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Suh reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – In the treatment of thyroid nodules with radiofrequency ablation (RFA), the amount of energy delivered per unit volume of the nodule strongly correlates with the extent of nodule volume reduction after 6 and 12 months, suggesting an important indicator of treatment success.

The findings “provide an objective measure or goal energy input to achieve during the [RFA] procedure rather than relying only on the subjective judgment of sonographic changes, and in turn, produce more reliable outcomes for our patients,” first author Samantha A. Wolfe, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Wolfe, of the department of otolaryngology – head and neck surgery at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, presented the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

Commenting on the study, Insoo Suh, MD, an associate professor and associate vice chair of Surgical Innovation at New York University Langone Health, agreed that “an accounting of the total amount of energy delivered can be a useful additional data point for the operator when they are determining whether an ablation is successful.”

He noted, however, that the location of a nodule can be an important factor when deciding upon amounts of RF energy.

“Some target areas are too close for comfort to critical structures, such as the trachea or the recurrent laryngeal nerve, so sound judgment would dictate that the energy be dialed down in those areas, even if the price you pay is a slightly lower volume reduction,” he explained. 
 

Analysis of patients given RFA at Johns Hopkins

RFA utilizes RF energy for the reduction of nodule compression and aesthetic symptoms, avoiding the need for thyroid hormone replacement or surgery.

And while decisions regarding RFA treatment location and duration are commonly guided by the operator’s judgment of sonographic changes, those assessments can potentially result in inconsistent outcomes.

In observing a relationship between higher amounts of RF energy and nodule volume reduction, Dr. Wolfe and associates conducted their prospective study of nodules treated by two experienced endocrine surgeons at Johns Hopkins between June 2019 and May 2022 at 6 and 12 months in relation to the amount of total energy delivered during the treatment.

The analysis included 101 nodules, which had a median initial volume of 12.9 mL.

After 6 months, the median volume reduction ratio was 60%, and at 12 months, the median reduction was 64%.

In terms of the goal of achieving 50% or more volume reduction at 6 months, the median energy delivered was significantly higher for nodules that did reach that goal compared with those that had a volume reduction of less than 50% (2,317 vs. 1,912 J/mL, respectively; P = .01).

The figures were similar at 12 months (2,031 vs. 1254 J/mL; P < .01).

In a logistic regression analysis, the amount of energy delivered strongly increased the odds of obtaining a volume reduction ratio of at least 50% (odds ratio, 2.58; P = .048).

“Every twofold increase in energy delivered increases the odds of achieving a 50% volume ratio reduction by 2.58 times,” Dr. Wolfe explained.

Likewise, the same twofold increase in energy delivered also increased the odds of achieving a greater than 80% volume ratio reduction by 2.55 times (OR, 2.55; P = .038), she added.
 

Information may help to decide who needs multiple ablations

Of note, the effect was stronger with smaller nodules. Those with an initial volume of less than 20 mL had a significantly greater volume ratio reduction than nodules that were 20 mL or larger (61% vs. 48%, respectively; P = .05).

The initial volume of nodules that did, and did not, achieve a 50% volume ratio reduction at 6 months were 10.9 mL versus 19.1 mL, and the initial volumes of those that did, and did not, have at least a 50% reduction at 12 months were 10.5 mL and 41.5 mL.

“At 6 and 12 months, the successfully treated nodules had a significantly smaller immediate initial volume than those that did not,” Dr. Wolfe said.

“This information may aid in identifying patients with large nodules that are less likely to achieve a greater than 50% volume reduction ratio and may require multiple treatments,” she added.

Other factors – including the probe tip size and total energy delivered – did not significantly correlate with volume ratio reduction at 6 or 12 months.

There was also no significant difference in terms of thyroid-stimulating hormone levels among nodules that achieved at least a 50% volume reduction and those that did not.

Nodules that did not have a satisfactory volume reduction at 12 months had a relatively large median total energy value delivered during ablation (103,463 J, compared with 25,969 J among those achieving more than 50% volume ratio reduction), which Dr. Wolfe said likely reflects that those nodules had a large initial volume.

“This speaks to the importance of describing the energy utilized per unit of nodule volume rather than just a gross measurement,” she said during her presentation.

Dr. Wolfe added that in terms of strategies for getting more energy into the nodule, a key approach is time.

“Sometimes you will see sonographic changes very quickly in the nodule, and it could be tempting to consider that area ablated and move on if you only rely on sonographic changes,” she said in an interview. “However, our research shows that, by spending more time, and thus inputting more energy into the nodule, we had better volume reduction.”

Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Suh reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and no prior history of thyroid dysfunction show signs of thyroiditis that, although asymptomatic, continue to persist for up to a year after infection, according to research that adds to evidence on the complex involvement of the thyroid in COVID-19.

“To our knowledge these findings are novel,” first author Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, an assistant professor in endocrinology in the department of clinical sciences and community health, University of Milan, told this news organization.

“Little has been written about the long-term follow-up of thyroid function after severe COVID-19 disease, and we have followed patients up to 1 year after infection.”

The effects are seen in about 10%-15% of patients, and “[while] the thyroid dysfunction is transient, ultrasound areas of thyroiditis may persist after 1 year, even if they progressively shrink,” said Dr. Muller, who presented the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.
 

Immunological scars? Clinical implications unclear

The nature and implications of the persistent thyroiditis areas are uncertain, Dr. Muller noted. “These areas of thyroiditis are likely a sort of ‘immunologic scar’ of the previous SARS-CoV-2 infection,” she explained. “We still don’t know if there are clinical implications, even if they seem unlikely.”

Of note, increases in autoimmune processes or a higher incidence of thyroid dysfunction after COVID-19 have not been observed, and the shrinkage of the areas of thyroiditis over time is encouraging, she said.

The reasons why some patients develop atypical thyroiditis and others don’t are also unclear, with Dr. Muller’s team investigating further. Importantly, similar effects have been associated with other severe infections, not just COVID-19. “It is well known that in classic subacute thyroiditis due to other viral infections, the areas of thyroiditis persist for months, so this phenomenon might not be unique to COVID-19,” she explained.

Commenting on the story, Jeffrey R. Garber, MD, also noted that such thyroiditis areas stemming from other types of infection may persist – but go unnoticed.

“Resolution is the clinical rule, [and] we generally do not restudy in detail those who clinically recover,” he said in an interview. “However, there is evidence of impaired thyroid reserve in those who recover from viral thyroiditis due to other sources.”

“Thyroid symptoms are often not specific, so ‘atypical’ [cases] are common, [and] resolution with restoring thyroid status to normal is mixed,” noted Dr. Garber, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the division of endocrinology at Atrius Health, Boston.

In terms of clinical practice, while such issues should be kept in mind when evaluating abnormal thyroid tests during severe COVID-19, “it is not a call for routinely checking it in the absence of clinical suspicion,” he observed.
 

Study details

Dr. Muller and her team previously observed that patients hospitalized in intensive care with COVID-19 often had low or suppressed serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels, with and without elevated free thyroxine (FT₄) concentrations, suggestive of thyrotoxicosis.

Upon investigating those cases, they found, as in their previous study reported by this news organization, that a painless, atypical thyroiditis occurs with nonthyroidal illness syndrome among patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. The atypical thyroiditis was slightly more common in men and was associated with lymphopenia.

To further investigate those cases and follow patients up to 1 year, the team conducted a longitudinal study of 183 patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 in Italy. The patients, who had no known prior history of thyroid dysfunction, were assessed for serum thyroid function, autoantibodies, and inflammatory markers.

At baseline, 10% of the patients were found to have thyrotoxicosis, and ultrasound performed within 2-3 months postinfection on 65 patients showed that 18 (28%) had areas of thyroiditis.

Importantly, 60% of those patients with the areas of thyroiditis had low TSH levels, while 25% had normal TSH levels (P = .034).

In addition, those showing the presence of thyroiditis on ultrasound at 23 months were more likely to have elevated serum concentrations of FT₄ (P = .018) and higher levels of interleukin-26 (P = .016), compared with those with normal ultrasound readings.

In a longitudinal analysis further following patients post infection, among 15 patients who were evaluated at 6 months, most, 13 (87%), still had areas of thyroiditis, and 6 of 12 (50%) had thyroiditis areas that, though reduced in size, still persisted even at 12 months.

In terms of thyroid uptake, at 3 months, 14 of 17 patients (82%) had diffused or focal areas of a reduction of uptake. After 6 months, there was a recovery, with a median of 28% of thyroid uptake recovered, however, 67% of patients still had some focal or diffused reduction in thyroid uptake.

Of note, the indications of thyroiditis on imaging persisted even though patients’ TSH levels had quickly normalized at the end of infection and remained normal up to 1 year of follow-up.

The patients showed no apparent development of thyroglobulin antibody, thyroid peroxidase antibodies, or TSH receptor antibodies.

A further fine needle aspiration analysis of eight patients with atypical thyroiditis at 3 months after infection showed that those patients had tissue resident memory T cells (CD4+/CD8+/CD103+/CD69+) within the thyroid, but not in the blood as expected.

Additional assessments at 8 months after infection showed those tissue resident memory T cells continued to be present on imaging.

The results showed “SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells were enriched within the thyroid compared with the blood, many with a tissue resident phenotype,” Dr. Muller explained.

The findings are notable in that “such an in-depth characterization of areas of thyroiditis triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection combining ultrasound, scintigraphy, and immunological phenotyping has not been performed so far,” she said.

“In particular, SARS-CoV-2–specific tissue-resident memory T lymphocytes have not been described before in the thyroid gland.”

Dr. Muller and Dr. Garber have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and no prior history of thyroid dysfunction show signs of thyroiditis that, although asymptomatic, continue to persist for up to a year after infection, according to research that adds to evidence on the complex involvement of the thyroid in COVID-19.

“To our knowledge these findings are novel,” first author Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, an assistant professor in endocrinology in the department of clinical sciences and community health, University of Milan, told this news organization.

“Little has been written about the long-term follow-up of thyroid function after severe COVID-19 disease, and we have followed patients up to 1 year after infection.”

The effects are seen in about 10%-15% of patients, and “[while] the thyroid dysfunction is transient, ultrasound areas of thyroiditis may persist after 1 year, even if they progressively shrink,” said Dr. Muller, who presented the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.
 

Immunological scars? Clinical implications unclear

The nature and implications of the persistent thyroiditis areas are uncertain, Dr. Muller noted. “These areas of thyroiditis are likely a sort of ‘immunologic scar’ of the previous SARS-CoV-2 infection,” she explained. “We still don’t know if there are clinical implications, even if they seem unlikely.”

Of note, increases in autoimmune processes or a higher incidence of thyroid dysfunction after COVID-19 have not been observed, and the shrinkage of the areas of thyroiditis over time is encouraging, she said.

The reasons why some patients develop atypical thyroiditis and others don’t are also unclear, with Dr. Muller’s team investigating further. Importantly, similar effects have been associated with other severe infections, not just COVID-19. “It is well known that in classic subacute thyroiditis due to other viral infections, the areas of thyroiditis persist for months, so this phenomenon might not be unique to COVID-19,” she explained.

Commenting on the story, Jeffrey R. Garber, MD, also noted that such thyroiditis areas stemming from other types of infection may persist – but go unnoticed.

“Resolution is the clinical rule, [and] we generally do not restudy in detail those who clinically recover,” he said in an interview. “However, there is evidence of impaired thyroid reserve in those who recover from viral thyroiditis due to other sources.”

“Thyroid symptoms are often not specific, so ‘atypical’ [cases] are common, [and] resolution with restoring thyroid status to normal is mixed,” noted Dr. Garber, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the division of endocrinology at Atrius Health, Boston.

In terms of clinical practice, while such issues should be kept in mind when evaluating abnormal thyroid tests during severe COVID-19, “it is not a call for routinely checking it in the absence of clinical suspicion,” he observed.
 

Study details

Dr. Muller and her team previously observed that patients hospitalized in intensive care with COVID-19 often had low or suppressed serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels, with and without elevated free thyroxine (FT₄) concentrations, suggestive of thyrotoxicosis.

Upon investigating those cases, they found, as in their previous study reported by this news organization, that a painless, atypical thyroiditis occurs with nonthyroidal illness syndrome among patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. The atypical thyroiditis was slightly more common in men and was associated with lymphopenia.

To further investigate those cases and follow patients up to 1 year, the team conducted a longitudinal study of 183 patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 in Italy. The patients, who had no known prior history of thyroid dysfunction, were assessed for serum thyroid function, autoantibodies, and inflammatory markers.

At baseline, 10% of the patients were found to have thyrotoxicosis, and ultrasound performed within 2-3 months postinfection on 65 patients showed that 18 (28%) had areas of thyroiditis.

Importantly, 60% of those patients with the areas of thyroiditis had low TSH levels, while 25% had normal TSH levels (P = .034).

In addition, those showing the presence of thyroiditis on ultrasound at 23 months were more likely to have elevated serum concentrations of FT₄ (P = .018) and higher levels of interleukin-26 (P = .016), compared with those with normal ultrasound readings.

In a longitudinal analysis further following patients post infection, among 15 patients who were evaluated at 6 months, most, 13 (87%), still had areas of thyroiditis, and 6 of 12 (50%) had thyroiditis areas that, though reduced in size, still persisted even at 12 months.

In terms of thyroid uptake, at 3 months, 14 of 17 patients (82%) had diffused or focal areas of a reduction of uptake. After 6 months, there was a recovery, with a median of 28% of thyroid uptake recovered, however, 67% of patients still had some focal or diffused reduction in thyroid uptake.

Of note, the indications of thyroiditis on imaging persisted even though patients’ TSH levels had quickly normalized at the end of infection and remained normal up to 1 year of follow-up.

The patients showed no apparent development of thyroglobulin antibody, thyroid peroxidase antibodies, or TSH receptor antibodies.

A further fine needle aspiration analysis of eight patients with atypical thyroiditis at 3 months after infection showed that those patients had tissue resident memory T cells (CD4+/CD8+/CD103+/CD69+) within the thyroid, but not in the blood as expected.

Additional assessments at 8 months after infection showed those tissue resident memory T cells continued to be present on imaging.

The results showed “SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells were enriched within the thyroid compared with the blood, many with a tissue resident phenotype,” Dr. Muller explained.

The findings are notable in that “such an in-depth characterization of areas of thyroiditis triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection combining ultrasound, scintigraphy, and immunological phenotyping has not been performed so far,” she said.

“In particular, SARS-CoV-2–specific tissue-resident memory T lymphocytes have not been described before in the thyroid gland.”

Dr. Muller and Dr. Garber have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and no prior history of thyroid dysfunction show signs of thyroiditis that, although asymptomatic, continue to persist for up to a year after infection, according to research that adds to evidence on the complex involvement of the thyroid in COVID-19.

“To our knowledge these findings are novel,” first author Ilaria Muller, MD, PhD, an assistant professor in endocrinology in the department of clinical sciences and community health, University of Milan, told this news organization.

“Little has been written about the long-term follow-up of thyroid function after severe COVID-19 disease, and we have followed patients up to 1 year after infection.”

The effects are seen in about 10%-15% of patients, and “[while] the thyroid dysfunction is transient, ultrasound areas of thyroiditis may persist after 1 year, even if they progressively shrink,” said Dr. Muller, who presented the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.
 

Immunological scars? Clinical implications unclear

The nature and implications of the persistent thyroiditis areas are uncertain, Dr. Muller noted. “These areas of thyroiditis are likely a sort of ‘immunologic scar’ of the previous SARS-CoV-2 infection,” she explained. “We still don’t know if there are clinical implications, even if they seem unlikely.”

Of note, increases in autoimmune processes or a higher incidence of thyroid dysfunction after COVID-19 have not been observed, and the shrinkage of the areas of thyroiditis over time is encouraging, she said.

The reasons why some patients develop atypical thyroiditis and others don’t are also unclear, with Dr. Muller’s team investigating further. Importantly, similar effects have been associated with other severe infections, not just COVID-19. “It is well known that in classic subacute thyroiditis due to other viral infections, the areas of thyroiditis persist for months, so this phenomenon might not be unique to COVID-19,” she explained.

Commenting on the story, Jeffrey R. Garber, MD, also noted that such thyroiditis areas stemming from other types of infection may persist – but go unnoticed.

“Resolution is the clinical rule, [and] we generally do not restudy in detail those who clinically recover,” he said in an interview. “However, there is evidence of impaired thyroid reserve in those who recover from viral thyroiditis due to other sources.”

“Thyroid symptoms are often not specific, so ‘atypical’ [cases] are common, [and] resolution with restoring thyroid status to normal is mixed,” noted Dr. Garber, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and chief of the division of endocrinology at Atrius Health, Boston.

In terms of clinical practice, while such issues should be kept in mind when evaluating abnormal thyroid tests during severe COVID-19, “it is not a call for routinely checking it in the absence of clinical suspicion,” he observed.
 

Study details

Dr. Muller and her team previously observed that patients hospitalized in intensive care with COVID-19 often had low or suppressed serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels, with and without elevated free thyroxine (FT₄) concentrations, suggestive of thyrotoxicosis.

Upon investigating those cases, they found, as in their previous study reported by this news organization, that a painless, atypical thyroiditis occurs with nonthyroidal illness syndrome among patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. The atypical thyroiditis was slightly more common in men and was associated with lymphopenia.

To further investigate those cases and follow patients up to 1 year, the team conducted a longitudinal study of 183 patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 in Italy. The patients, who had no known prior history of thyroid dysfunction, were assessed for serum thyroid function, autoantibodies, and inflammatory markers.

At baseline, 10% of the patients were found to have thyrotoxicosis, and ultrasound performed within 2-3 months postinfection on 65 patients showed that 18 (28%) had areas of thyroiditis.

Importantly, 60% of those patients with the areas of thyroiditis had low TSH levels, while 25% had normal TSH levels (P = .034).

In addition, those showing the presence of thyroiditis on ultrasound at 23 months were more likely to have elevated serum concentrations of FT₄ (P = .018) and higher levels of interleukin-26 (P = .016), compared with those with normal ultrasound readings.

In a longitudinal analysis further following patients post infection, among 15 patients who were evaluated at 6 months, most, 13 (87%), still had areas of thyroiditis, and 6 of 12 (50%) had thyroiditis areas that, though reduced in size, still persisted even at 12 months.

In terms of thyroid uptake, at 3 months, 14 of 17 patients (82%) had diffused or focal areas of a reduction of uptake. After 6 months, there was a recovery, with a median of 28% of thyroid uptake recovered, however, 67% of patients still had some focal or diffused reduction in thyroid uptake.

Of note, the indications of thyroiditis on imaging persisted even though patients’ TSH levels had quickly normalized at the end of infection and remained normal up to 1 year of follow-up.

The patients showed no apparent development of thyroglobulin antibody, thyroid peroxidase antibodies, or TSH receptor antibodies.

A further fine needle aspiration analysis of eight patients with atypical thyroiditis at 3 months after infection showed that those patients had tissue resident memory T cells (CD4+/CD8+/CD103+/CD69+) within the thyroid, but not in the blood as expected.

Additional assessments at 8 months after infection showed those tissue resident memory T cells continued to be present on imaging.

The results showed “SARS-CoV-2–specific T cells were enriched within the thyroid compared with the blood, many with a tissue resident phenotype,” Dr. Muller explained.

The findings are notable in that “such an in-depth characterization of areas of thyroiditis triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection combining ultrasound, scintigraphy, and immunological phenotyping has not been performed so far,” she said.

“In particular, SARS-CoV-2–specific tissue-resident memory T lymphocytes have not been described before in the thyroid gland.”

Dr. Muller and Dr. Garber have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Expanding eligibility for active surveillance in low-risk papillary thyroid cancer appears to be safe, a new prospective trial indicates.

Researchers found that doubling the limits for tumor size to 2 cm and nearly doubling the limits for tumor growth in low-risk papillary thyroid cancer showed no increased risk of adverse outcomes or mortality for patients undergoing active surveillance versus surgery.

“The results of this nonrandomized controlled trial suggest the basis of a more permissive strategy for thyroid cancer management, strengthening the evidence for active surveillance and broadening potential candidacy to most diagnosed thyroid cancers,” the authors conclude. “By extending [tumor] size/growth limits, these study results potentially broaden the potential candidacy for active surveillance and reduce the likelihood of surgery by lengthening the window of observation.”

However, “the expanded parameters are quite controversial,” first author Allen S. Ho, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization. Prior studies have only examined tumor size limits up to 1 cm and “clinicians rarely recommend active surveillance up to 2 cm,” Dr. Ho noted. “As far as we know, Cedars-Sinai is the only place that will consider it.”

In addition, the ultimate decision surrounding active surveillance versus surgery may depend on the patient’s level of anxiety, researchers found.

The research was published in JAMA Oncology.

The potential to expand criteria for thyroid cancer active surveillance comes amid ongoing concerns surrounding overtreatment. Advances in technology have led to increased detection of small, often indolent thyroid cancers that can likely be monitored safely through active surveillance but may present decision-making challenges for clinicians about whether to treat or watch and wait.

Similar challenges in prostate cancer have been addressed with tiered risk stratification, but such guidelines have not been as firmly established in thyroid cancer.

Guidelines from the American Thyroid Association in 2015 suggest active surveillance as an alternative for very low-risk tumors; however, studies in general have recommended the approach for initial tumor sizes of only up to 1 cm and with growth of less than 3 mm. And overall, active surveillance has not been broadly adopted as an option in thyroid cancer, the authors explained.

To determine if criteria for active surveillance can be safely expanded to tumors up to 2 cm and for those with growth up to 5 mm, Dr. Ho and colleagues compared outcomes among 222 patients with Bethesda 5 or 6 nodules of 2 cm or smaller who received either active surveillance or immediate surgery.

The patients were recruited from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between 2014 and 2021. Patients were a median 46.8 years old; 76% were female.

The median size of tumors was 11 mm, with about 60% representing larger tumors (10.1 to 20 mm) and 20.6% measuring 15.1 to 20 mm.

About half of patients (n = 112) chose active surveillance. The median size of tumors in this group was smaller than those in the surgery group (10.1 mm vs. 12 mm). Tumor growth exceeded 5 mm in 3.6% of cases, and tumor volume increases of more than 100% occurred in 7% of cases.

With a mean follow-up of 37 months, 90% (101) of those on active surveillance continued with that approach. Notably, 41% of these patients demonstrated a decrease in tumor size, and no cases of metastatic lymph nodes or distant metastases emerged.

Of the 110 patients who elected to undergo immediate surgery, 19% (21) had equivocal-risk or undetermined features on final pathology, but the disease severity for these patients remained classified as stage I thyroid cancer.

The disease-specific survival and overall survival rates were the same in both groups, at 100%.

Although a general concern is that larger tumors may be more likely to grow, it’s important to note that “papillary thyroid cancer exists in a spectrum,” Dr. Ho explained. What that means is “some smaller cancers grow quickly, while some larger cancers are stable for decades.”

“We believe that a 1 cm cutoff is arbitrary,” Dr. Ho said, adding that 2 cm cancers that grow will still be within the therapeutic window for safe surgery.

However, a key factor in treatment decisions is patient fear. The authors also looked at the anxiety levels in both groups, using the 18-item Thyroid Cancer Modified Anxiety Scale.

Among the 59 patients who participated, those who chose immediate surgery had significantly higher baseline anxiety levels, compared with those who opted for active surveillance. Notably, these higher rates of anxiety endured over time, including after the intervention.

“It is unsurprising that patients choosing surgery possess a higher baseline level of worry,” Dr. Ho said. “However, we were astonished to find that such patients retained high levels of worry, even after surgery and presumed cure of their cancer.”

The role of the anxiety, however, underscores the need for clinicians to be mindful of the often profound psychological impacts of cancer, even low-risk disease.

“We always encourage clinicians to educate patients on active surveillance, especially as it gets highlighted more in official guidelines,” Dr. Ho noted. “However, we certainly acknowledge that cancer is a life-changing diagnosis, and the term can carry enormous psychological weight.”

The authors also acknowledged several study limitations, including the single-center, nonrandomized design and small sample size, and urge follow-up analyses to “independently verify our findings.”

In an accompanying editorial, Andrea L. Merrill, MD, from Boston Medical Center, and Priya H. Dedhia, MD, PhD, with Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, said the findings have important clinical implications.

“This provocative study not only lays the groundwork for expanding active surveillance criteria for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer but may also improve use of current American Thyroid Association guidelines for active surveillance by demonstrating that use of active surveillance for Bethesda 5 or 6 nodules 20 mm or smaller was not associated with an increase in staging or disease-specific mortality,” they write.

The study is also notable for being among the first to assess the role of patient anxiety in the selection of immediate surgery versus active surveillance, Dr. Merrill and Dr. Dedhia added.

“These findings imply that patient anxiety should be an essential component of shared decision-making and selection of strategies for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer,” they say.

The study authors and editorial authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Expanding eligibility for active surveillance in low-risk papillary thyroid cancer appears to be safe, a new prospective trial indicates.

Researchers found that doubling the limits for tumor size to 2 cm and nearly doubling the limits for tumor growth in low-risk papillary thyroid cancer showed no increased risk of adverse outcomes or mortality for patients undergoing active surveillance versus surgery.

“The results of this nonrandomized controlled trial suggest the basis of a more permissive strategy for thyroid cancer management, strengthening the evidence for active surveillance and broadening potential candidacy to most diagnosed thyroid cancers,” the authors conclude. “By extending [tumor] size/growth limits, these study results potentially broaden the potential candidacy for active surveillance and reduce the likelihood of surgery by lengthening the window of observation.”

However, “the expanded parameters are quite controversial,” first author Allen S. Ho, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization. Prior studies have only examined tumor size limits up to 1 cm and “clinicians rarely recommend active surveillance up to 2 cm,” Dr. Ho noted. “As far as we know, Cedars-Sinai is the only place that will consider it.”

In addition, the ultimate decision surrounding active surveillance versus surgery may depend on the patient’s level of anxiety, researchers found.

The research was published in JAMA Oncology.

The potential to expand criteria for thyroid cancer active surveillance comes amid ongoing concerns surrounding overtreatment. Advances in technology have led to increased detection of small, often indolent thyroid cancers that can likely be monitored safely through active surveillance but may present decision-making challenges for clinicians about whether to treat or watch and wait.

Similar challenges in prostate cancer have been addressed with tiered risk stratification, but such guidelines have not been as firmly established in thyroid cancer.

Guidelines from the American Thyroid Association in 2015 suggest active surveillance as an alternative for very low-risk tumors; however, studies in general have recommended the approach for initial tumor sizes of only up to 1 cm and with growth of less than 3 mm. And overall, active surveillance has not been broadly adopted as an option in thyroid cancer, the authors explained.

To determine if criteria for active surveillance can be safely expanded to tumors up to 2 cm and for those with growth up to 5 mm, Dr. Ho and colleagues compared outcomes among 222 patients with Bethesda 5 or 6 nodules of 2 cm or smaller who received either active surveillance or immediate surgery.

The patients were recruited from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between 2014 and 2021. Patients were a median 46.8 years old; 76% were female.

The median size of tumors was 11 mm, with about 60% representing larger tumors (10.1 to 20 mm) and 20.6% measuring 15.1 to 20 mm.

About half of patients (n = 112) chose active surveillance. The median size of tumors in this group was smaller than those in the surgery group (10.1 mm vs. 12 mm). Tumor growth exceeded 5 mm in 3.6% of cases, and tumor volume increases of more than 100% occurred in 7% of cases.

With a mean follow-up of 37 months, 90% (101) of those on active surveillance continued with that approach. Notably, 41% of these patients demonstrated a decrease in tumor size, and no cases of metastatic lymph nodes or distant metastases emerged.

Of the 110 patients who elected to undergo immediate surgery, 19% (21) had equivocal-risk or undetermined features on final pathology, but the disease severity for these patients remained classified as stage I thyroid cancer.

The disease-specific survival and overall survival rates were the same in both groups, at 100%.

Although a general concern is that larger tumors may be more likely to grow, it’s important to note that “papillary thyroid cancer exists in a spectrum,” Dr. Ho explained. What that means is “some smaller cancers grow quickly, while some larger cancers are stable for decades.”

“We believe that a 1 cm cutoff is arbitrary,” Dr. Ho said, adding that 2 cm cancers that grow will still be within the therapeutic window for safe surgery.

However, a key factor in treatment decisions is patient fear. The authors also looked at the anxiety levels in both groups, using the 18-item Thyroid Cancer Modified Anxiety Scale.

Among the 59 patients who participated, those who chose immediate surgery had significantly higher baseline anxiety levels, compared with those who opted for active surveillance. Notably, these higher rates of anxiety endured over time, including after the intervention.

“It is unsurprising that patients choosing surgery possess a higher baseline level of worry,” Dr. Ho said. “However, we were astonished to find that such patients retained high levels of worry, even after surgery and presumed cure of their cancer.”

The role of the anxiety, however, underscores the need for clinicians to be mindful of the often profound psychological impacts of cancer, even low-risk disease.

“We always encourage clinicians to educate patients on active surveillance, especially as it gets highlighted more in official guidelines,” Dr. Ho noted. “However, we certainly acknowledge that cancer is a life-changing diagnosis, and the term can carry enormous psychological weight.”

The authors also acknowledged several study limitations, including the single-center, nonrandomized design and small sample size, and urge follow-up analyses to “independently verify our findings.”

In an accompanying editorial, Andrea L. Merrill, MD, from Boston Medical Center, and Priya H. Dedhia, MD, PhD, with Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, said the findings have important clinical implications.

“This provocative study not only lays the groundwork for expanding active surveillance criteria for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer but may also improve use of current American Thyroid Association guidelines for active surveillance by demonstrating that use of active surveillance for Bethesda 5 or 6 nodules 20 mm or smaller was not associated with an increase in staging or disease-specific mortality,” they write.

The study is also notable for being among the first to assess the role of patient anxiety in the selection of immediate surgery versus active surveillance, Dr. Merrill and Dr. Dedhia added.

“These findings imply that patient anxiety should be an essential component of shared decision-making and selection of strategies for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer,” they say.

The study authors and editorial authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Expanding eligibility for active surveillance in low-risk papillary thyroid cancer appears to be safe, a new prospective trial indicates.

Researchers found that doubling the limits for tumor size to 2 cm and nearly doubling the limits for tumor growth in low-risk papillary thyroid cancer showed no increased risk of adverse outcomes or mortality for patients undergoing active surveillance versus surgery.

“The results of this nonrandomized controlled trial suggest the basis of a more permissive strategy for thyroid cancer management, strengthening the evidence for active surveillance and broadening potential candidacy to most diagnosed thyroid cancers,” the authors conclude. “By extending [tumor] size/growth limits, these study results potentially broaden the potential candidacy for active surveillance and reduce the likelihood of surgery by lengthening the window of observation.”

However, “the expanded parameters are quite controversial,” first author Allen S. Ho, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization. Prior studies have only examined tumor size limits up to 1 cm and “clinicians rarely recommend active surveillance up to 2 cm,” Dr. Ho noted. “As far as we know, Cedars-Sinai is the only place that will consider it.”

In addition, the ultimate decision surrounding active surveillance versus surgery may depend on the patient’s level of anxiety, researchers found.

The research was published in JAMA Oncology.

The potential to expand criteria for thyroid cancer active surveillance comes amid ongoing concerns surrounding overtreatment. Advances in technology have led to increased detection of small, often indolent thyroid cancers that can likely be monitored safely through active surveillance but may present decision-making challenges for clinicians about whether to treat or watch and wait.

Similar challenges in prostate cancer have been addressed with tiered risk stratification, but such guidelines have not been as firmly established in thyroid cancer.

Guidelines from the American Thyroid Association in 2015 suggest active surveillance as an alternative for very low-risk tumors; however, studies in general have recommended the approach for initial tumor sizes of only up to 1 cm and with growth of less than 3 mm. And overall, active surveillance has not been broadly adopted as an option in thyroid cancer, the authors explained.

To determine if criteria for active surveillance can be safely expanded to tumors up to 2 cm and for those with growth up to 5 mm, Dr. Ho and colleagues compared outcomes among 222 patients with Bethesda 5 or 6 nodules of 2 cm or smaller who received either active surveillance or immediate surgery.

The patients were recruited from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between 2014 and 2021. Patients were a median 46.8 years old; 76% were female.

The median size of tumors was 11 mm, with about 60% representing larger tumors (10.1 to 20 mm) and 20.6% measuring 15.1 to 20 mm.

About half of patients (n = 112) chose active surveillance. The median size of tumors in this group was smaller than those in the surgery group (10.1 mm vs. 12 mm). Tumor growth exceeded 5 mm in 3.6% of cases, and tumor volume increases of more than 100% occurred in 7% of cases.

With a mean follow-up of 37 months, 90% (101) of those on active surveillance continued with that approach. Notably, 41% of these patients demonstrated a decrease in tumor size, and no cases of metastatic lymph nodes or distant metastases emerged.

Of the 110 patients who elected to undergo immediate surgery, 19% (21) had equivocal-risk or undetermined features on final pathology, but the disease severity for these patients remained classified as stage I thyroid cancer.

The disease-specific survival and overall survival rates were the same in both groups, at 100%.

Although a general concern is that larger tumors may be more likely to grow, it’s important to note that “papillary thyroid cancer exists in a spectrum,” Dr. Ho explained. What that means is “some smaller cancers grow quickly, while some larger cancers are stable for decades.”

“We believe that a 1 cm cutoff is arbitrary,” Dr. Ho said, adding that 2 cm cancers that grow will still be within the therapeutic window for safe surgery.

However, a key factor in treatment decisions is patient fear. The authors also looked at the anxiety levels in both groups, using the 18-item Thyroid Cancer Modified Anxiety Scale.

Among the 59 patients who participated, those who chose immediate surgery had significantly higher baseline anxiety levels, compared with those who opted for active surveillance. Notably, these higher rates of anxiety endured over time, including after the intervention.

“It is unsurprising that patients choosing surgery possess a higher baseline level of worry,” Dr. Ho said. “However, we were astonished to find that such patients retained high levels of worry, even after surgery and presumed cure of their cancer.”

The role of the anxiety, however, underscores the need for clinicians to be mindful of the often profound psychological impacts of cancer, even low-risk disease.

“We always encourage clinicians to educate patients on active surveillance, especially as it gets highlighted more in official guidelines,” Dr. Ho noted. “However, we certainly acknowledge that cancer is a life-changing diagnosis, and the term can carry enormous psychological weight.”

The authors also acknowledged several study limitations, including the single-center, nonrandomized design and small sample size, and urge follow-up analyses to “independently verify our findings.”

In an accompanying editorial, Andrea L. Merrill, MD, from Boston Medical Center, and Priya H. Dedhia, MD, PhD, with Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, said the findings have important clinical implications.

“This provocative study not only lays the groundwork for expanding active surveillance criteria for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer but may also improve use of current American Thyroid Association guidelines for active surveillance by demonstrating that use of active surveillance for Bethesda 5 or 6 nodules 20 mm or smaller was not associated with an increase in staging or disease-specific mortality,” they write.

The study is also notable for being among the first to assess the role of patient anxiety in the selection of immediate surgery versus active surveillance, Dr. Merrill and Dr. Dedhia added.

“These findings imply that patient anxiety should be an essential component of shared decision-making and selection of strategies for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer,” they say.

The study authors and editorial authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Pediatric patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) who are spared radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy show no increases in the risk of remission, compared with those who do receive it, supporting guidelines that recommend against use of RAI in such patients.

“In 2015, when the American Thyroid Association [ATA] created their pediatric guidelines [on RAI therapy in DTC], they were taking a leap of faith that these [pediatric DTC] patients would be able to achieve remission without RAI,” said first author Mya Bojarsky, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), when presenting the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

“This is the first study to validate those guidelines and support the sentiment that for ATA low-risk pediatric thyroid cancer patients, withholding RAI therapy is clinically beneficial as it reduces exposure to radiation while having no negative impact on remission,” she said.

Prior to 2015, thyroidectomy in combination with RAI was the standard treatment for DTC in pediatric patients. However, data showing that radiation exposure in children increases the risk of secondary hematologic malignancies by 51% and solid malignancies by 23% over a lifetime raised concerns and led to a push to change the treatment approach.

In response, the 2015 ATA pediatric guidelines recommended that patients not receive RAI for the treatment of DTC that was mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease).

Senior author Andrew J. Bauer, MD, noted that, in addition to being the first study to confirm that withholding RAI in low-risk patients is associated with the same rate of achieving remission as patients treated with RAI, the study also endorses that assessments at 1 year can be reliable predictors of remission.

“For these patients, the 1-year mark post-initial treatment (thyroidectomy) is an early and accurate time point for initial assessment of remission, with increasing rates of remission with continued surveillance (at last clinical follow-up) of approximately 90% 2 years post initial treatment,” said Dr. Bauer, medical director, CHOP, and professor of pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“This approach has recently been validated through a prospective study in adult patients,” he added. A large recent study of 730 patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, supported the omission of RAI in low-risk DTC in adults, showing that, compared with those who received RAI, the no-RAI group was noninferior in the occurrence of functional, structural, and biologic events at 3 years.
 

Safe to eliminate RAI therapy in low-risk DTC in children

With limited data on how or if the change in treatment had an impact on rates of remission in pediatric patients, Ms. Bojarsky and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients under the age of 19 years with ATA low-risk DTC who had undergone a total thyroidectomy at CHOP between 2010 and 2020.

Overall, they identified 95 patients, including 50 who had been treated with RAI in addition to thyroidectomy and 45 who did not receive RAI. Among those who did receive RAI, 31 were treated prior to 2015, and 19 were treated after 2019.

For the study, remission was defined as having undetectable thyroglobulin levels as well as no evidence of disease by ultrasound, Ms. Bojarsky said.

“This is important to show, because we want to ensure that as we are reducing our RAI use in the pediatric population, we were not negatively impacting their ability to achieve remission,” she explained.

The percentage of low-risk pediatric patients with DTC treated with RAI had already dropped from 100% in 2010 down to 38% by 2015 when the guidelines were issued, and after a slight rise to 50% by 2018, the practice plummeted to 0% by 2020, the study shows.

In terms of remission, at 1 year post-treatment, 80% of patients who received RAI were in remission, and the rate was even slightly higher, at 84%, among those who did not receive RAI, for a difference that was not significant.

Further looking at disease status as of the last clinical evaluation, 90% in the group treated with RAI had no evidence of disease at a median of 4.9 years of follow-up, and the rate was 87% in the group not receiving RAI, which had a median of 2.7 years of follow-up.

“In ATA low-risk patients, there is no detriment in achieving remission if RAI therapy is withheld,” say investigators.   

The median tumor size in the RAI group was larger (19.5 mm vs. 12.0 mm; P < .001), and the primary tumor was T1 in 44% of the RAI group but 82% in the no-RAI group (P < .001).

The lymph node status was N0 in 72% of those receiving RAI and 76% in the no RAI group, which was not significantly different.

The leading risk factors associated with treatment with RAI included larger primary tumor size (OR, 1.07; P = .003), lymph node metastasis (OR, 3.72; P = .036), and surgery pre-2015 (OR, 9.83; P < .001).

RAI administration, N1a disease, and surgery prior to 2015 were not independent risk factors for evidence of persistent disease or indeterminate status.

Ms. Bojarsky has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Pediatric patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) who are spared radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy show no increases in the risk of remission, compared with those who do receive it, supporting guidelines that recommend against use of RAI in such patients.

“In 2015, when the American Thyroid Association [ATA] created their pediatric guidelines [on RAI therapy in DTC], they were taking a leap of faith that these [pediatric DTC] patients would be able to achieve remission without RAI,” said first author Mya Bojarsky, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), when presenting the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

“This is the first study to validate those guidelines and support the sentiment that for ATA low-risk pediatric thyroid cancer patients, withholding RAI therapy is clinically beneficial as it reduces exposure to radiation while having no negative impact on remission,” she said.

Prior to 2015, thyroidectomy in combination with RAI was the standard treatment for DTC in pediatric patients. However, data showing that radiation exposure in children increases the risk of secondary hematologic malignancies by 51% and solid malignancies by 23% over a lifetime raised concerns and led to a push to change the treatment approach.

In response, the 2015 ATA pediatric guidelines recommended that patients not receive RAI for the treatment of DTC that was mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease).

Senior author Andrew J. Bauer, MD, noted that, in addition to being the first study to confirm that withholding RAI in low-risk patients is associated with the same rate of achieving remission as patients treated with RAI, the study also endorses that assessments at 1 year can be reliable predictors of remission.

“For these patients, the 1-year mark post-initial treatment (thyroidectomy) is an early and accurate time point for initial assessment of remission, with increasing rates of remission with continued surveillance (at last clinical follow-up) of approximately 90% 2 years post initial treatment,” said Dr. Bauer, medical director, CHOP, and professor of pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“This approach has recently been validated through a prospective study in adult patients,” he added. A large recent study of 730 patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, supported the omission of RAI in low-risk DTC in adults, showing that, compared with those who received RAI, the no-RAI group was noninferior in the occurrence of functional, structural, and biologic events at 3 years.
 

Safe to eliminate RAI therapy in low-risk DTC in children

With limited data on how or if the change in treatment had an impact on rates of remission in pediatric patients, Ms. Bojarsky and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients under the age of 19 years with ATA low-risk DTC who had undergone a total thyroidectomy at CHOP between 2010 and 2020.

Overall, they identified 95 patients, including 50 who had been treated with RAI in addition to thyroidectomy and 45 who did not receive RAI. Among those who did receive RAI, 31 were treated prior to 2015, and 19 were treated after 2019.

For the study, remission was defined as having undetectable thyroglobulin levels as well as no evidence of disease by ultrasound, Ms. Bojarsky said.

“This is important to show, because we want to ensure that as we are reducing our RAI use in the pediatric population, we were not negatively impacting their ability to achieve remission,” she explained.

The percentage of low-risk pediatric patients with DTC treated with RAI had already dropped from 100% in 2010 down to 38% by 2015 when the guidelines were issued, and after a slight rise to 50% by 2018, the practice plummeted to 0% by 2020, the study shows.

In terms of remission, at 1 year post-treatment, 80% of patients who received RAI were in remission, and the rate was even slightly higher, at 84%, among those who did not receive RAI, for a difference that was not significant.

Further looking at disease status as of the last clinical evaluation, 90% in the group treated with RAI had no evidence of disease at a median of 4.9 years of follow-up, and the rate was 87% in the group not receiving RAI, which had a median of 2.7 years of follow-up.

“In ATA low-risk patients, there is no detriment in achieving remission if RAI therapy is withheld,” say investigators.   

The median tumor size in the RAI group was larger (19.5 mm vs. 12.0 mm; P < .001), and the primary tumor was T1 in 44% of the RAI group but 82% in the no-RAI group (P < .001).

The lymph node status was N0 in 72% of those receiving RAI and 76% in the no RAI group, which was not significantly different.

The leading risk factors associated with treatment with RAI included larger primary tumor size (OR, 1.07; P = .003), lymph node metastasis (OR, 3.72; P = .036), and surgery pre-2015 (OR, 9.83; P < .001).

RAI administration, N1a disease, and surgery prior to 2015 were not independent risk factors for evidence of persistent disease or indeterminate status.

Ms. Bojarsky has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Pediatric patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) who are spared radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy show no increases in the risk of remission, compared with those who do receive it, supporting guidelines that recommend against use of RAI in such patients.

“In 2015, when the American Thyroid Association [ATA] created their pediatric guidelines [on RAI therapy in DTC], they were taking a leap of faith that these [pediatric DTC] patients would be able to achieve remission without RAI,” said first author Mya Bojarsky, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), when presenting the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

“This is the first study to validate those guidelines and support the sentiment that for ATA low-risk pediatric thyroid cancer patients, withholding RAI therapy is clinically beneficial as it reduces exposure to radiation while having no negative impact on remission,” she said.

Prior to 2015, thyroidectomy in combination with RAI was the standard treatment for DTC in pediatric patients. However, data showing that radiation exposure in children increases the risk of secondary hematologic malignancies by 51% and solid malignancies by 23% over a lifetime raised concerns and led to a push to change the treatment approach.

In response, the 2015 ATA pediatric guidelines recommended that patients not receive RAI for the treatment of DTC that was mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease).

Senior author Andrew J. Bauer, MD, noted that, in addition to being the first study to confirm that withholding RAI in low-risk patients is associated with the same rate of achieving remission as patients treated with RAI, the study also endorses that assessments at 1 year can be reliable predictors of remission.

“For these patients, the 1-year mark post-initial treatment (thyroidectomy) is an early and accurate time point for initial assessment of remission, with increasing rates of remission with continued surveillance (at last clinical follow-up) of approximately 90% 2 years post initial treatment,” said Dr. Bauer, medical director, CHOP, and professor of pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“This approach has recently been validated through a prospective study in adult patients,” he added. A large recent study of 730 patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, supported the omission of RAI in low-risk DTC in adults, showing that, compared with those who received RAI, the no-RAI group was noninferior in the occurrence of functional, structural, and biologic events at 3 years.
 

Safe to eliminate RAI therapy in low-risk DTC in children

With limited data on how or if the change in treatment had an impact on rates of remission in pediatric patients, Ms. Bojarsky and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients under the age of 19 years with ATA low-risk DTC who had undergone a total thyroidectomy at CHOP between 2010 and 2020.

Overall, they identified 95 patients, including 50 who had been treated with RAI in addition to thyroidectomy and 45 who did not receive RAI. Among those who did receive RAI, 31 were treated prior to 2015, and 19 were treated after 2019.

For the study, remission was defined as having undetectable thyroglobulin levels as well as no evidence of disease by ultrasound, Ms. Bojarsky said.

“This is important to show, because we want to ensure that as we are reducing our RAI use in the pediatric population, we were not negatively impacting their ability to achieve remission,” she explained.

The percentage of low-risk pediatric patients with DTC treated with RAI had already dropped from 100% in 2010 down to 38% by 2015 when the guidelines were issued, and after a slight rise to 50% by 2018, the practice plummeted to 0% by 2020, the study shows.

In terms of remission, at 1 year post-treatment, 80% of patients who received RAI were in remission, and the rate was even slightly higher, at 84%, among those who did not receive RAI, for a difference that was not significant.

Further looking at disease status as of the last clinical evaluation, 90% in the group treated with RAI had no evidence of disease at a median of 4.9 years of follow-up, and the rate was 87% in the group not receiving RAI, which had a median of 2.7 years of follow-up.

“In ATA low-risk patients, there is no detriment in achieving remission if RAI therapy is withheld,” say investigators.   

The median tumor size in the RAI group was larger (19.5 mm vs. 12.0 mm; P < .001), and the primary tumor was T1 in 44% of the RAI group but 82% in the no-RAI group (P < .001).

The lymph node status was N0 in 72% of those receiving RAI and 76% in the no RAI group, which was not significantly different.

The leading risk factors associated with treatment with RAI included larger primary tumor size (OR, 1.07; P = .003), lymph node metastasis (OR, 3.72; P = .036), and surgery pre-2015 (OR, 9.83; P < .001).

RAI administration, N1a disease, and surgery prior to 2015 were not independent risk factors for evidence of persistent disease or indeterminate status.

Ms. Bojarsky has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Patients who discontinue levothyroxine for subclinical hypothyroidism may gravitate towards becoming mildly hypothyroid again, but they importantly show no differences in terms of symptoms and quality of life – and sometimes show even improvement – compared with those who continue treatment, new research shows.

“Our results show feasibility of patient enrollment and safety of discontinuing levothyroxine in patients with subclinical hypothyroidism,” said first author Spyridoula Maraka, MD, when presenting the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

Recommendations against levothyroxine for subclinical hypothyroidism

Subclinical hypothyroidism is commonly over-diagnosed, and treatment with thyroid hormone replacement, levothyroxine, has been shown to provide little, if any, benefit in terms of quality of life or relief of thyroid-related symptoms for these patients.

The treatment is meanwhile associated with burdens including cost and lifestyle adjustments, and one guideline panel recently issued a strong recommendation against routine levothyroxine use in most adults with subclinical hypothyroidism.

Nevertheless, levothyroxine treatment has soared in popularity and become one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States.

With research lacking on one key solution of discontinuation of the therapy, Dr. Maraka, who is part of the Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. In total, 50 patients treated for subclinical hypothyroidism were randomized 1:1 to continue receiving levothyroxine (25-75 mcg daily) or to discontinue treatment and receive a placebo instead, with a planned 6-month follow-up.

In the current interim analysis, Dr. Maraka reported results for the first 40 patients, including 20 randomized to levothyroxine and 20 to discontinuation.

There were no significant differences between the discontinuation and levothyroxine groups at baseline, which were of a similar age (66.2 vs. 70.8 years) and gender (75% women vs. 85% men).

The groups had similar baseline thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels (3.0 vs. 2.6 mIU/L), free T4 (both 0.9 ng/dL), thyroid peroxidase antibody positivity (17% vs. 11%), and similar clinical symptoms. All patients had at least one elevated TSH reading prior to starting levothyroxine.

With a follow-up of 6-8 weeks, 36.8% of patients in the discontinuation group had subclinical hypothyroidism, compared with 10% of patients who remained on levothyroxine (P = .0648), TSH levels were 5.5 versus 2.7 mIU/L (P = .001) and free T4 levels were 0.8 versus 0.9 ng/dL (P = .011).
 

No differences in symptoms, quality of life between groups

Importantly, there were no significant differences between the discontinuation versus levothyroxine groups in terms of symptoms, and even some improvements with discontinuation, including Thyroid-Specific Quality of Life Patient-Reported Outcome (ThyPRO)-Hypothyroid Symptoms score (4.6 reduction vs. 2.2 increase), tiredness (2.6 reduction vs. 1.1 increase), and EuroQoL 5-Dimension Self-Report Questionnaire (EQ-5D) quality of life score, for which there were no differences between groups.

There were no reports of overt hypothyroidism; hyperthyroidism; cardiovascular events including atrial fibrillation, stroke, or heart failure; osteoporotic fractures; or deaths.

One patient in the discontinuation group had a TSH level of 11 mIU/L at 6-8 weeks and switched to open-label levothyroxine 75 mcg daily. Another patient in the discontinuation group switched to open-label levothyroxine 75 mcg daily at 10 weeks due to fatigue; however, the patient was diagnosed with metastatic colon cancer 1 month later.

The finding that only about a third of patients who discontinued levothyroxine developed subclinical hypothyroidism was lower than expected, Dr. Maraka noted.

“This was ... unexpected ... for us,” she said. “We were expecting a larger number of patients to develop hypothyroidism, but to our surprise, that was not the case.”

“But what is more important is that there was no difference in the quality of life measures,” she added. “If anything, the placebo group was a little better, though the [differences] were not statistically significant.”

Dr. Maraka also noted that in further research and a final 6-month analysis, the authors will look at factors associated with developing subclinical hypothyroidism after treatment discontinuation, among other issues.
 

Discontinuation of levothyroxine is manageable

The results are encouraging, as they provide assurance that discontinuation of levothyroxine is manageable.

“This research will pave the way for initiatives to promote levothyroxine deprescription and implementation of evidence-based care for patients with subclinical hypothyroidism,” she said.

In further comments, Dr. Hennessey noted that the dilemma of having patients on levothyroxine who may not be benefitting from treatment is “significant,” with patients sometimes reluctant to discontinue treatment due to concerns of developing hypothyroidism-associated symptoms such as brain fog and weight gain.

He noted, however, that “many with mildly elevated TSH actually go on to normalize with time, so they are not really hypothyroid, [and] if we remove thyroxine from people with normal thyroid function, they will remain normal.”

Dr. Maraka has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hennessey has reported consulting for pharmaceutical companies to design clinical studies for thyroid medications.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Patients who discontinue levothyroxine for subclinical hypothyroidism may gravitate towards becoming mildly hypothyroid again, but they importantly show no differences in terms of symptoms and quality of life – and sometimes show even improvement – compared with those who continue treatment, new research shows.

“Our results show feasibility of patient enrollment and safety of discontinuing levothyroxine in patients with subclinical hypothyroidism,” said first author Spyridoula Maraka, MD, when presenting the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

Recommendations against levothyroxine for subclinical hypothyroidism

Subclinical hypothyroidism is commonly over-diagnosed, and treatment with thyroid hormone replacement, levothyroxine, has been shown to provide little, if any, benefit in terms of quality of life or relief of thyroid-related symptoms for these patients.

The treatment is meanwhile associated with burdens including cost and lifestyle adjustments, and one guideline panel recently issued a strong recommendation against routine levothyroxine use in most adults with subclinical hypothyroidism.

Nevertheless, levothyroxine treatment has soared in popularity and become one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States.

With research lacking on one key solution of discontinuation of the therapy, Dr. Maraka, who is part of the Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. In total, 50 patients treated for subclinical hypothyroidism were randomized 1:1 to continue receiving levothyroxine (25-75 mcg daily) or to discontinue treatment and receive a placebo instead, with a planned 6-month follow-up.

In the current interim analysis, Dr. Maraka reported results for the first 40 patients, including 20 randomized to levothyroxine and 20 to discontinuation.

There were no significant differences between the discontinuation and levothyroxine groups at baseline, which were of a similar age (66.2 vs. 70.8 years) and gender (75% women vs. 85% men).

The groups had similar baseline thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels (3.0 vs. 2.6 mIU/L), free T4 (both 0.9 ng/dL), thyroid peroxidase antibody positivity (17% vs. 11%), and similar clinical symptoms. All patients had at least one elevated TSH reading prior to starting levothyroxine.

With a follow-up of 6-8 weeks, 36.8% of patients in the discontinuation group had subclinical hypothyroidism, compared with 10% of patients who remained on levothyroxine (P = .0648), TSH levels were 5.5 versus 2.7 mIU/L (P = .001) and free T4 levels were 0.8 versus 0.9 ng/dL (P = .011).
 

No differences in symptoms, quality of life between groups

Importantly, there were no significant differences between the discontinuation versus levothyroxine groups in terms of symptoms, and even some improvements with discontinuation, including Thyroid-Specific Quality of Life Patient-Reported Outcome (ThyPRO)-Hypothyroid Symptoms score (4.6 reduction vs. 2.2 increase), tiredness (2.6 reduction vs. 1.1 increase), and EuroQoL 5-Dimension Self-Report Questionnaire (EQ-5D) quality of life score, for which there were no differences between groups.

There were no reports of overt hypothyroidism; hyperthyroidism; cardiovascular events including atrial fibrillation, stroke, or heart failure; osteoporotic fractures; or deaths.

One patient in the discontinuation group had a TSH level of 11 mIU/L at 6-8 weeks and switched to open-label levothyroxine 75 mcg daily. Another patient in the discontinuation group switched to open-label levothyroxine 75 mcg daily at 10 weeks due to fatigue; however, the patient was diagnosed with metastatic colon cancer 1 month later.

The finding that only about a third of patients who discontinued levothyroxine developed subclinical hypothyroidism was lower than expected, Dr. Maraka noted.

“This was ... unexpected ... for us,” she said. “We were expecting a larger number of patients to develop hypothyroidism, but to our surprise, that was not the case.”

“But what is more important is that there was no difference in the quality of life measures,” she added. “If anything, the placebo group was a little better, though the [differences] were not statistically significant.”

Dr. Maraka also noted that in further research and a final 6-month analysis, the authors will look at factors associated with developing subclinical hypothyroidism after treatment discontinuation, among other issues.
 

Discontinuation of levothyroxine is manageable

The results are encouraging, as they provide assurance that discontinuation of levothyroxine is manageable.

“This research will pave the way for initiatives to promote levothyroxine deprescription and implementation of evidence-based care for patients with subclinical hypothyroidism,” she said.

In further comments, Dr. Hennessey noted that the dilemma of having patients on levothyroxine who may not be benefitting from treatment is “significant,” with patients sometimes reluctant to discontinue treatment due to concerns of developing hypothyroidism-associated symptoms such as brain fog and weight gain.

He noted, however, that “many with mildly elevated TSH actually go on to normalize with time, so they are not really hypothyroid, [and] if we remove thyroxine from people with normal thyroid function, they will remain normal.”

Dr. Maraka has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hennessey has reported consulting for pharmaceutical companies to design clinical studies for thyroid medications.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MONTREAL – Patients who discontinue levothyroxine for subclinical hypothyroidism may gravitate towards becoming mildly hypothyroid again, but they importantly show no differences in terms of symptoms and quality of life – and sometimes show even improvement – compared with those who continue treatment, new research shows.

“Our results show feasibility of patient enrollment and safety of discontinuing levothyroxine in patients with subclinical hypothyroidism,” said first author Spyridoula Maraka, MD, when presenting the findings at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

Recommendations against levothyroxine for subclinical hypothyroidism

Subclinical hypothyroidism is commonly over-diagnosed, and treatment with thyroid hormone replacement, levothyroxine, has been shown to provide little, if any, benefit in terms of quality of life or relief of thyroid-related symptoms for these patients.

The treatment is meanwhile associated with burdens including cost and lifestyle adjustments, and one guideline panel recently issued a strong recommendation against routine levothyroxine use in most adults with subclinical hypothyroidism.

Nevertheless, levothyroxine treatment has soared in popularity and become one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States.

With research lacking on one key solution of discontinuation of the therapy, Dr. Maraka, who is part of the Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. In total, 50 patients treated for subclinical hypothyroidism were randomized 1:1 to continue receiving levothyroxine (25-75 mcg daily) or to discontinue treatment and receive a placebo instead, with a planned 6-month follow-up.

In the current interim analysis, Dr. Maraka reported results for the first 40 patients, including 20 randomized to levothyroxine and 20 to discontinuation.

There were no significant differences between the discontinuation and levothyroxine groups at baseline, which were of a similar age (66.2 vs. 70.8 years) and gender (75% women vs. 85% men).

The groups had similar baseline thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels (3.0 vs. 2.6 mIU/L), free T4 (both 0.9 ng/dL), thyroid peroxidase antibody positivity (17% vs. 11%), and similar clinical symptoms. All patients had at least one elevated TSH reading prior to starting levothyroxine.

With a follow-up of 6-8 weeks, 36.8% of patients in the discontinuation group had subclinical hypothyroidism, compared with 10% of patients who remained on levothyroxine (P = .0648), TSH levels were 5.5 versus 2.7 mIU/L (P = .001) and free T4 levels were 0.8 versus 0.9 ng/dL (P = .011).
 

No differences in symptoms, quality of life between groups

Importantly, there were no significant differences between the discontinuation versus levothyroxine groups in terms of symptoms, and even some improvements with discontinuation, including Thyroid-Specific Quality of Life Patient-Reported Outcome (ThyPRO)-Hypothyroid Symptoms score (4.6 reduction vs. 2.2 increase), tiredness (2.6 reduction vs. 1.1 increase), and EuroQoL 5-Dimension Self-Report Questionnaire (EQ-5D) quality of life score, for which there were no differences between groups.

There were no reports of overt hypothyroidism; hyperthyroidism; cardiovascular events including atrial fibrillation, stroke, or heart failure; osteoporotic fractures; or deaths.

One patient in the discontinuation group had a TSH level of 11 mIU/L at 6-8 weeks and switched to open-label levothyroxine 75 mcg daily. Another patient in the discontinuation group switched to open-label levothyroxine 75 mcg daily at 10 weeks due to fatigue; however, the patient was diagnosed with metastatic colon cancer 1 month later.

The finding that only about a third of patients who discontinued levothyroxine developed subclinical hypothyroidism was lower than expected, Dr. Maraka noted.

“This was ... unexpected ... for us,” she said. “We were expecting a larger number of patients to develop hypothyroidism, but to our surprise, that was not the case.”

“But what is more important is that there was no difference in the quality of life measures,” she added. “If anything, the placebo group was a little better, though the [differences] were not statistically significant.”

Dr. Maraka also noted that in further research and a final 6-month analysis, the authors will look at factors associated with developing subclinical hypothyroidism after treatment discontinuation, among other issues.
 

Discontinuation of levothyroxine is manageable

The results are encouraging, as they provide assurance that discontinuation of levothyroxine is manageable.

“This research will pave the way for initiatives to promote levothyroxine deprescription and implementation of evidence-based care for patients with subclinical hypothyroidism,” she said.

In further comments, Dr. Hennessey noted that the dilemma of having patients on levothyroxine who may not be benefitting from treatment is “significant,” with patients sometimes reluctant to discontinue treatment due to concerns of developing hypothyroidism-associated symptoms such as brain fog and weight gain.

He noted, however, that “many with mildly elevated TSH actually go on to normalize with time, so they are not really hypothyroid, [and] if we remove thyroxine from people with normal thyroid function, they will remain normal.”

Dr. Maraka has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hennessey has reported consulting for pharmaceutical companies to design clinical studies for thyroid medications.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.