ABSTRACT
Graves' disease is an autoimmune condition in which the patient develops autoantibodies that stimulate the thyroid gland, leading to thyrotoxicosis. We report the case of a 29-year-old female who presented one month postpartum with typical symptoms and signs of thyrotoxicosis. Biochemical and radiological investigations confirmed thyrotoxicosis due to Graves' disease. She received methimazole (MMI) treatment, leading to an allergic reaction in the form of a generalized rash on the body precluding its use. We later started the treatment with propylthiouracil, which she initially tolerated well. During her treatment, she became pregnant and delivered a baby girl by cesarean section at 37 weeks of gestation. The baby developed neonatal thyrotoxicosis due to the transplacental transmission of maternal thyrotropin receptor antibodies. Thyrotoxicosis was short-lived, without consequences, and treated with antithyroid drugs. Three months after delivery, thyroid hormone levels rose considerably, requiring higher doses of propylthiouracil, which resulted in severe hepatic dysfunction, and therefore we stopped the therapy. We admitted her to the hospital for rapid correction of thyroid hormones using steroids, supersaturated potassium iodide, and cholestyramine before she underwent a total thyroidectomy. Our case highlights the challenges the patients and clinicians can face while managing Graves' disease. We discuss the role of a multidisciplinary team approach to care and the options available for treatment in such difficult situations.
ABSTRACT
SARS-CoV-2 pandemic resulted in the fast development of new vaccines, which helped contain the pandemic, but some adverse events started to rise. Recently, post-administration of mRNA-based vaccines, varicella-zoster virus (VZV) reactivation was reported. We report a case of disseminated herpes zoster with polyneuropathy and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) findings following the Pfizer-BioNTechvaccine. Our observation aims to increase clinicians' awareness of a possible relationship between herpes zoster reactivation and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.
ABSTRACT
Introduction The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated a change in the manner outpatient fracture clinics are conducted due to the need to reduce footfall in hospitals. While studies regarding virtual fracture clinics have shown these to be useful and effective, they focus exclusively on remote consultations. However, our service was bespoke to the patient - either a face-to-face, a telephone consultation or both, depending on patient need - a 'hybrid virtual fracture clinic' (HVFC). We report patient satisfaction and outcomes with this service from the first wave of the pandemic. Methods We retrospectively interviewed patients who availed of the HVFC service at our institution during the first two weeks of national lockdown in England from March 23 to April 5, 2020. The number and type of consultations, patient vulnerability to COVID-19, and type of management (surgical vs non-surgical) were among the factors taken into consideration. Patient experience was assessed using the Net Promoter Score (NPS), Customer Effort Score (CES), and Customer Satisfaction Score (CSS) on a scale of 0-10. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the EuroQol-5D-5L score (including EQ Visual Analogue Scale {EQ-VAS} scoring on a scale of 0-100). Results The mean overall NPS, CES, and CSS for the service were 7.32, 7.24, and 7.49, respectively. The mean self-reported EQ-VAS rating was 77.5. Of 442 consultations, 246 were conducted virtually; 10% were face-to-face, 29% virtual, and 61% were hybrid consultations. The HVFC resulted in a 55.65% reduction in footfall. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference across any outcome measure when compared between hybrid, virtual, and face-to-face consultations. Patients vulnerable to COVID-19 and those who did not require surgery tended to report better overall scores. Conclusion Our study indicates that the HVFC format can reduce patient footfall significantly (>50%) while providing effective and satisfactory outpatient care. There appears to be no difference in patient-reported outcomes between face-to-face consultations and hybrid or virtual consultations. Patients would recommend HVFC to family and friends, found it was easy to use, and reported good satisfaction with the service.