The GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide reduces serum TSH by its effect on body weight in people with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity leads to a significant reduction in serum thyrotropin (TSH) levels but it is unclear whether this is related to weight loss and improvement in sensitivity to thyroid hormones (TH). DESIGN, PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS: We prospectively analysed clinical and biochemical data in patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity who were commenced on the GLP-1 RA exenatide and followed them for 12 months. We assessed the relationship between changes in body weight and serum TSH and resistance to TH indices. RESULTS: In 112 patients (mean age: 53.5 years, 43.8% female, mean body mass index: 39.8 kg/m2 ), 12 months of exenatide treatment was associated with a mean (95% CI) percent body weight loss of 6.5% (5.0%-8.1%) and change in serum TSH of -0.25 mU/L (-0.43 to -0.06). There was a significant negative and nonlinear relationship between change in serum TSH and percent body weight loss: -0.25 mU/L with 5%, -0.4 mU/L with 10% and -0.5 mU/L with 15%, respectively, whereas a rise in serum TSH of 0.5 mU/L was associated with 5% weight gain. There were no changes observed in serum FT4 levels with weight loss but a significant reduction in resistance to TH indices was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide therapy reduces serum TSH levels and improves central sensitivity to TH action over 12 months via its effect on weight loss. The effectiveness of weight loss strategies, rather than TH replacement, should be investigated in individuals with obesity and mildly raised serum TSH levels.

Optimal pharmacotherapy pathway in adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: the OPTION-DM RCT.

BACKGROUND: The mainstay of treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain is pharmacotherapy, but the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline is not based on robust evidence, as the treatments and their combinations have not been directly compared. OBJECTIVES: To determine the most clinically beneficial, cost-effective and tolerated treatment pathway for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. DESIGN: A randomised crossover trial with health economic analysis. SETTING: Twenty-one secondary care centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with a 7-day average self-rated pain score of ≥ 4 points (Numeric Rating Scale 0-10). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to three commonly used treatment pathways: (1) amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, (2) duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin and (3) pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline. Participants and research teams were blinded to treatment allocation, using over-encapsulated capsules and matching placebos. Site pharmacists were unblinded. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average 24-hour Numeric Rating Scale score between pathways, measured during the final week of each pathway. Secondary end points included 7-day average daily Numeric Rating Scale pain score at week 6 between monotherapies, quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-36 items), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score, the proportion of patients achieving 30% and 50% pain reduction, Brief Pain Inventory - Modified Short Form items scores, Insomnia Severity Index score, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory score, tolerability (scale 0-10), Patient Global Impression of Change score at week 16 and patients' preferred treatment pathway at week 50. Adverse events and serious adverse events were recorded. A within-trial cost-utility analysis was carried out to compare treatment pathways using incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years from an NHS and social care perspective. RESULTS: A total of 140 participants were randomised from 13 UK centres, 130 of whom were included in the analyses. Pain score at week 16 was similar between the arms, with a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, a mean difference of -0.1 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.5 to 0.3 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin and a mean difference of 0.0 points (98.3% confidence interval -0.4 to 0.4 points) for pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin. Results for tolerability, discontinuation and quality of life were similar. The adverse events were predictable for each drug. Combination therapy (weeks 6-16) was associated with a further reduction in Numeric Rating Scale pain score (mean 1.0 points, 98.3% confidence interval 0.6 to 1.3 points) compared with those who remained on monotherapy (mean 0.2 points, 98.3% confidence interval -0.1 to 0.5 points). The pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline pathway had the fewest monotherapy discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events and was most commonly preferred (most commonly preferred by participants: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, 24%; duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin, 33%; pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, 43%; p = 0.26). No single pathway was superior in cost-effectiveness. The incremental gains in quality-adjusted life-years were small for each pathway comparison [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -0.002 (95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.007) quality-adjusted life-years, amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.002 to 0.014) quality-adjusted life-years and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline 0.007 (95% confidence interval 0.0002 to 0.015) quality-adjusted life-years] and incremental costs over 16 weeks were similar [amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin -£113 (95% confidence interval -£381 to £90), amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £155 (95% confidence interval -£37 to £625) and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin compared with pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline £141 (95% confidence interval -£13 to £398)]. LIMITATIONS: Although there was no placebo arm, there is strong evidence for the use of each study medication from randomised placebo-controlled trials. The addition of a placebo arm would have increased the duration of this already long and demanding trial and it was not felt to be ethically justifiable. FUTURE WORK: Future research should explore (1) variations in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain management at the practice level, (2) how OPTION-DM (Optimal Pathway for TreatIng neurOpathic paiN in Diabetes Mellitus) trial findings can be best implemented, (3) why some patients respond to a particular drug and others do not and (4) what options there are for further treatments for those patients on combination treatment with inadequate pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: The three treatment pathways appear to give comparable patient outcomes at similar costs, suggesting that the optimal treatment may depend on patients' preference in terms of side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered as ISRCTN17545443 and EudraCT 2016-003146-89. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The number of people with diabetes is growing rapidly in the UK and is predicted to rise to over 5 million by 2025. Diabetes causes nerve damage that can lead to severe painful symptoms in the feet, legs and hands. One-quarter of all people with diabetes experience these symptoms, known as 'painful diabetic neuropathy'. Current individual medications provide only partial benefit, and in only around half of patients. The individual drugs, and their combinations, have not been compared directly against each other to see which is best. We conducted a study to see which treatment pathway would be best for patients with painful diabetic neuropathy. The study included three treatment pathways using combinations of amitriptyline, duloxetine and pregabalin. Patients received all three treatment pathways (i.e. amitriptyline treatment for 6 weeks and pregabalin added if needed for a further 10 weeks, duloxetine treatment for 6 weeks and pregabalin added if needed for a further 10 weeks and pregabalin treatment for 6 weeks and amitriptyline added if needed for a further 10 weeks); however, the order of the treatment pathways was decided at random. We compared the level of pain that participants experienced in each treatment pathway to see which worked best. On average, people said that their pain was similar after each of the three treatments and their combinations. However, two treatments in combination helped some patients with additional pain relief if they only partially responded to one. People also reported improved quality of life and sleep with the treatments, but these were similar for all the treatments. In the health economic analysis, the value for money and quality of life were similar for each pathway, and this resulted in uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness conclusions, with no one pathway being more cost-effective than the others. The treatments had different side effects, however; pregabalin appeared to make more people feel dizzy, duloxetine made more people nauseous and amitriptyline resulted in more people having a dry mouth. The pregabalin supplemented by amitriptyline pathway had the smallest number of treatment discontinuations due to side effects and may be the safest for patients.

Comparison of amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin, pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline, and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin for the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (OPTION-DM): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) is common and often distressing. Most guidelines recommend amitriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin, or gabapentin as initial analgesic treatment for DPNP, but there is little comparative evidence on which one is best or whether they should be combined. We aimed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of different combinations of first-line drugs for treatment of DPNP. METHODS: OPTION-DM was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, crossover trial in patients with DPNP with mean daily pain numerical rating scale (NRS) of 4 or higher (scale is 0-10) from 13 UK centres. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), with a predetermined randomisation schedule stratified by site using permuted blocks of size six or 12, to receive one of six ordered sequences of the three treatment pathways: amitriptyline supplemented with pregabalin (A-P), pregabalin supplemented with amitriptyline (P-A), and duloxetine supplemented with pregabalin (D-P), each pathway lasting 16 weeks. Monotherapy was given for 6 weeks and was supplemented with the combination medication if there was suboptimal pain relief (NRS >3), reflecting current clinical practice. Both treatments were titrated towards maximum tolerated dose (75 mg per day for amitriptyline, 120 mg per day for duloxetine, and 600 mg per day for pregabalin). The primary outcome was the difference in 7-day average daily pain during the final week of each pathway. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN17545443. FINDINGS: Between Nov 14, 2017, and July 29, 2019, 252 patients were screened, 140 patients were randomly assigned, and 130 started a treatment pathway (with 84 completing at least two pathways) and were analysed for the primary outcome. The 7-day average NRS scores at week 16 decreased from a mean 6·6 (SD 1·5) at baseline to 3·3 (1·8) at week 16 in all three pathways. The mean difference was -0·1 (98·3% CI -0·5 to 0·3) for D-P versus A-P, -0·1 (-0·5 to 0·3) for P-A versus A-P, and 0·0 (-0·4 to 0·4) for P-A versus D-P, and thus not significant. Mean NRS reduction in patients on combination therapy was greater than in those who remained on monotherapy (1·0 [SD 1·3] vs 0·2 [1·5]). Adverse events were predictable for the monotherapies: we observed a significant increase in dizziness in the P-A pathway, nausea in the D-P pathway, and dry mouth in the A-P pathway. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this was the largest and longest ever, head-to-head, crossover neuropathic pain trial. We showed that all three treatment pathways and monotherapies had similar analgesic efficacy. Combination treatment was well tolerated and led to improved pain relief in patients with suboptimal pain control with a monotherapy. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme.

Frequency, determinants and costs of thyroid function testing in a laboratory serving a large population.

Objective: To assess the rationale and frequency of thyroid function testing and to analyse factors that influence serum thyrotropin (TSH) levels. Patients, design and main outcome measures: Serum TSH levels were evaluated in a hospital laboratory serving a population of 604 000 in 2018. Patients on medications or with conditions affecting thyroid function were excluded. Frequency of thyroid function testing by age and sex was assessed and the relationship between serum TSH with potential predictor variables was analysed using ordinary least square regression analysis allowing for potential non-linearity. Results: Twenty-eight percent of the local population had their thyroid function tested at least once in 2018 with significant differences by sex (28.2% women vs 23.4% men) and by age groups, with less than 2% of <16-year-old people and more than 50% of >80-year-old people being tested. Most of the symptoms commonly attributed to thyroid dysfunction were not higher in the thyroid dysfunction groups. Serum TSH levels were higher in older people particularly after the age of 60 years, in women (by 0.1 mIU/L), during the early hours of the morning, and in winter and spring seasons. There was remarkable uniformity in the frequency of subclinical thyroid dysfunction, as well as substantial cost savings, if TSH reference intervals were recalculated across sexes, age groups, time-periods and seasons. Conclusions: Serum TSH is frequently tested in the population but is not a good discriminant of symptoms attributed to thyroid dysfunction. Furthermore, considering the influence of factors on TSH reference limits could significantly impact patient care and resource utilisation.

The prevalence and significance of nonuniform thyroid radio-isotope uptake in patients with Graves' disease.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence and clinical significance of nonuniform technetium (99m Tc) uptake among patients with Graves' disease (GD). DESIGN, PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Patients with GD, referred between July 2005 and March 2018, had Tc99 - uptake scans and TSH-receptor antibody (TRAb) measured before antithyroid drug (ATD) therapy. Risk of relapse after ATD cessation was monitored until June 2021 and compared between GD patients based on uptake patterns. RESULTS: Of the 276 GD patients (mean age, 49.8 years; 84% female), 25 (9.0%) had nonuniform Tc99 uptake. At diagnosis, individuals with nonuniform uptake were older (mean age of 61.8 vs. 48.5 years, p < .001), had lower mean thyroid hormone levels (free thyroxine: 36.3 vs. 45.4 pmol/L, p = .04 and free triiodothyronine: 10.0 vs. 17.8 pmol/L, p < .001) and median TRAb levels (4.2 vs. 6.6 U/L, p = .04) compared with those with a uniform uptake. Older age was a significant predictor for the presence of nonuniform uptake in GD patients; odds ratio (95% confidence intervals) of 1.07 (1.03 - 1.10). The risk of relapse was similar in both groups after a median (IQR) follow-up of 41 (13-74) months after ATD cessation (56.0% vs. 46.3%, respectively); hazard ratio (95% confidence intervals) of 1.74 (0.96-3.15). CONCLUSIONS: Nonuniform radio-isotope uptake is seen in 1 in 11 patients with GD which could be misdiagnosed as toxic multinodular goitre if TRAb levels are not measured. Treatment of GD patients with nonuniform radio-isotope uptake with ATD therapy as first-line appears to be equally effective as compared with those with uniform uptake. TRAb testing should be the main diagnostic test for patients with suspected GD with radio-labelled uptake scans being reserved for those who are TRAb negative.

Age May Influence the Impact of TRAbs on Thyroid Function and Relapse-Risk in Patients With Graves Disease.

CONTEXT: Thyrotropin receptor antibodies (TRAbs) play a crucial role in the pathogenesis of Graves disease (GD). However, factors that influence the association of TRAbs with thyroid hormones and relapse risk in GD remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the associations of TRAbs at diagnosis with thyroid hormones and relapse risk and potential factors that can influence these associations in GD. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective study in an endocrine center in England. PATIENTS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Three hundred eighty-four consecutive patients with GD who had measurements of TRAbs and thyroid hormones at diagnosis. The association of TRAbs with thyroid hormones and relapse risk was assessed through linear regression and Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: TRAbs were nonlinearly associated with thyroid hormones, following a curve with an initial positive slope and a subsequent flattening (P < 0.0001). Higher TRAbs were associated with greater relapse risk [hazard ratio (HR), 1.05 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.08) per 1-U/L increase]. These associations were modified by age, but not by sex, race, smoking, or thyroid peroxidase antibody levels. In younger participants, increasing TRAbs were associated with higher thyroid hormones and greater relapse risk [HR, 1.13 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.23) per 1-U/L increase]. In older participants, TRAbs were not associated with thyroid hormones or relapse risk [HR, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.93 to 1.05) per 1-U/L increase. CONCLUSIONS: In GD, age can influence the effect of TRAbs on thyroid function and relapse risk. TRAbs at diagnosis have better predictive value in younger patients with GD.

The Natural History of Subclinical Hyperthyroidism in Graves' Disease: The Rule of Thirds.

BACKGROUND: There is little information regarding the natural history of subclinical hyperthyroidism (SH) due to Graves' disease (GD). METHODS: A prospective analysis was conducted of patients with SH due to GD between 2007 and 2013 with at least 12 months of follow-up. SH was diagnosed if serum thyrotropin (TSH) was below the laboratory reference range (0.4-4.0 mIU/L) and when thyroid hormones were normal. GD was confirmed by either a raised TSH receptor antibody (TRAb) level or uniform uptake on Technetium scan. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (89% female, 16% current smokers, and 5% with active Graves' orbitopathy) were diagnosed with SH due to GD. Over the follow-up period (median 32 months), approximately one third (34%) of the cohort progressed to overt hyperthyroidism, one third (34%) normalized their thyroid function, slightly less than one third (30%) remained in the SH state, while one person became hypothyroid. Multivariate regression analysis showed that older age and positive antithyroid peroxidase (TPO) antibody status had a positive association with risk of progression to overt hyperthyroidism, with hazard ratios of 1.06 ([confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.10], p < 0.01) per year and 10.15 ([CI 1.83-56.23], p < 0.01), respectively, independent of other risk factors including, smoking, TRAb levels at diagnosis, and sex. CONCLUSIONS: A third each of patients with SH due to GD progress, normalize, or remain in the SH state. Older people and those with positive anti-TPO antibodies have a higher risk of progression of the disease. These novel data need to be verified and confirmed in larger cohorts and over longer periods of follow-up.