Thyroid hormones treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What are the benefits and harms of thyroid hormones for adults with subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH)? This guideline was triggered by a recent systematic review of randomised controlled trials, which could alter practice. CURRENT PRACTICE: Current guidelines tend to recommend thyroid hormones for adults with thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels >10 mIU/L and for people with lower TSH values who are young, symptomatic, or have specific indications for prescribing. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline panel issues a strong recommendation against thyroid hormones in adults with SCH (elevated TSH levels and normal free T4 (thyroxine) levels). It does not apply to women who are trying to become pregnant or patients with TSH >20 mIU/L. It may not apply to patients with severe symptoms or young adults (such as those ≤30 years old). HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. THE EVIDENCE: The systematic review included 21 trials with 2192 participants. For adults with SCH, thyroid hormones consistently demonstrate no clinically relevant benefits for quality of life or thyroid related symptoms, including depressive symptoms, fatigue, and body mass index (moderate to high quality evidence). Thyroid hormones may have little or no effect on cardiovascular events or mortality (low quality evidence), but harms were measured in only one trial with few events at two years' follow-up. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: The panel concluded that almost all adults with SCH would not benefit from treatment with thyroid hormones. Other factors in the strong recommendation include the burden of lifelong management and uncertainty on potential harms. Instead, clinicians should monitor the progression or resolution of the thyroid dysfunction in these adults. Recommendations are made actionable for clinicians and their patients through visual overviews. These provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of thyroid hormones in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available in MAGIC (https://app.magicapp.org/) to support shared decisions and adaptation of this guideline.

Thyroid hormones treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism: a clinical practice guideline

What are the benefits and harms of thyroid hormones for adults with subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH)? This guideline was triggered by a recent systematic review of randomised controlled trials, which could alter practice. Current guidelines tend to recommend thyroid hormones for adults with thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels >10 mIU/L and for people with lower TSH values who are young, symptomatic, or have specific indications for prescribing. The guideline panel issues a strong recommendation against thyroid hormones in adults with SCH (elevated TSH levels and normal free T4 (thyroxine) levels). It does not apply to women who are trying tobecome pregnant or patients with TSH >20 mIU/L. It may not apply to patients with severe symptoms or youngadults (such as those ≤30 years old).

Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee arthritis and meniscal tears: a clinical practice guideline

The role of arthroscopic surgery in degenerative knee disease was evaluated in this guideline.

Oxygen therapy for acutely ill medical patients: a clinical practice guideline

What is the best way to use oxygen therapy for patients with an acute medical illness? A systematic review published in the Lancet in April 2018 found that supplemental oxygen in inpatients with normal oxygen saturation increases mortality.1 Its authors concluded that oxygen should be administered conservatively, but they did not make specific recommendations on how to do it. An international expert panel used that review to inform this guideline. It aims to promptly and transparently translate potentially practice-changing evidence to usable recommendations for clinicians and patients.2 The panel used the GRADE framework and following standards for trustworthy guidelines.3

Prevalence, clinical associations, and impact of intimate partner violence among HIV-infected gay and bisexual men: a population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a risk factor for HIV infection. Little is known, however, about the prevalence, clinical associations, and impact of IPV among patients living with HIV. METHODS: HIV-infected gay and bisexual men in Southern Alberta, Canada were screened for IPV between May 2009 and December 2011. The associations with IPV of sociodemographic factors, psychological factors, clinical status, and HIV-related and HIV-unrelated hospitalizations, data for which were obtained from a regional database, were evaluated using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Of 687 gay and bisexual patients, 22.4% had experienced one or several types of IPV. Patients disclosing IPV were more likely to be Aboriginal [adjusted prevalence ratio (APR) = 2.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-5.20], to be younger (APR/year = 0.97; 95% CI 0.95-0.99), to be victims of childhood abuse (APR = 4.27; 95% CI 2.84-6.41), to be smokers (APR = 2.53; 95% CI 1.59-4.00), to have had depression prior to HIV diagnosis (APR = 1.87; 95% CI 1.10-3.16), to use ongoing psychiatric resources (APR = 3.53; 95% CI 2.05-6.10), to have recently participated in unprotected sex (APR = 2.29; 95% CI 1.10-4.77), and to have poor or fair vs. very good or excellent health-related quality of life (APR = 2.91; 95% CI 1.57-5.39). IPV was also associated with a higher rate of clinically relevant interruptions in care (APR = 1.95; 95% CI 1.23-3.08), a higher incidence of AIDS among patients presenting early to care (CD4 count ≥ 200 cells/µL; APR = 2.06; 95% CI 1.15-3.69), and an increased rate of HIV-related hospitalizations [relative risk (RR) = 1.55; 95% CI 0.99-2.33], especially after HIV diagnosis was established (RR = 2.46; 95% CI 1.51-3.99). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of IPV is high among HIV-infected gay and bisexual men and is associated with poor social, psychiatric, and medical outcomes. IPV is an under-recognized social determinant of health in this community that may be amenable to meaningful clinical interventions.