Natural history of non-functioning pituitary microadenomas: results from the UK non-functioning pituitary adenoma consortium.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal approach to the surveillance of non-functioning pituitary microadenomas (micro-NFPAs) is not clearly established. Our aim was to generate evidence on the natural history of micro-NFPAs to support patient care. DESIGN: Multi-centre, retrospective, cohort study involving 23 endocrine departments (UK NFPA consortium). METHODS: Clinical, imaging, and hormonal data of micro-NFPA cases between January, 1, 2008 and December, 21, 2021 were analysed. RESULTS: Data for 459 patients were retrieved [median age at detection 44 years (IQR 31-57)-152 males/307 females]. Four hundred and nineteen patients had more than two magnetic resonance imagings (MRIs) [median imaging monitoring 3.5 years (IQR 1.71-6.1)]. One case developed apoplexy. Cumulative probability of micro-NFPA growth was 7.8% (95% CI, 4.9%-8.1%) and 14.5% (95% CI, 10.2%-18.8%) at 3 and 5 years, respectively, and of reduction 14.1% (95% CI, 10.4%-17.8%) and 21.3% (95% CI, 16.4%-26.2%) at 3 and 5 years, respectively. Median tumour enlargement was 2 mm (IQR 1-3) and 49% of micro-NFPAs that grew became macroadenomas (nearly all >5 mm at detection). Eight (1.9%) patients received surgery (only one had visual compromise with surgery required >3 years after micro-NFPA detection). Sex, age, and size at baseline were not predictors of enlargement/reduction. At the time of detection, 7.2%, 1.7%, and 1.5% patients had secondary hypogonadism, hypothyroidism, and hypoadrenalism, respectively. Two (0.6%) developed hypopituitarism during follow-up (after progression to macroadenoma). CONCLUSIONS: Probability of micro-NFPA growth is low, and the development of new hypopituitarism is rare. Delaying the first follow-up MRI to 3 years and avoiding hormonal re-evaluation in the absence of tumour growth or clinical manifestations is a safe approach for micro-NFPA surveillance.

Use of liothyronine (T3) in hypothyroidism: Joint British Thyroid Association/Society for endocrinology consensus statement.

Persistent symptoms in patients treated for hypothyroidism are common. Despite more than 20 years of debate, the use of liothyronine for this indication remains controversial, as numerous randomised trials have failed to show a benefit of treatment regimens that combine liothyronine (T3) with levothyroxine over levothyroxine monotherapy. This consensus statement attempts to provide practical guidance to clinicians faced with patients who have persistent symptoms during thyroid hormone replacement therapy. It applies to non-pregnant adults and is focussed on care delivered within the UK National Health Service, although it may be relevant in other healthcare environments. The statement emphasises several key clinical practice points for patients dissatisfied with treatment for hypothyroidism. Firstly, it is important to establish a diagnosis of overt hypothyroidism; patients with persistent symptoms during thyroid hormone replacement but with no clear biochemical evidence of overt hypothyroidism should first have a trial without thyroid hormone replacement. In those with established overt hypothyroidism, levothyroxine doses should be optimised aiming for a TSH in the 0.3-2.0 mU/L range for 3 to 6 months before a therapeutic response can be assessed. In some patients, it may be acceptable to have serum TSH below reference range (e.g. 0.1-0.3 mU/L), but not fully suppressed in the long term. We suggest that for some patients with confirmed overt hypothyroidism and persistent symptoms who have had adequate treatment with levothyroxine and in whom other comorbidities have been excluded, a trial of liothyronine/levothyroxine combined therapy may be warranted. The decision to start treatment with liothyronine should be a shared decision between patient and clinician. However, individual clinicians should not feel obliged to start liothyronine or to continue liothyronine medication provided by other health care practitioners or accessed without medical advice, if they judge this not to be in the patient's best interest.

Diabetes and COVID-19: Role of insulin resistance as a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Patients with diabetes are more susceptible to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and as a consequence, develop more severe form of disease. This is partly due to a systemic inflammatory state and pro thrombotic milieu seen in metabolic syndrome. In this review, we attempt to explore the pathogenetic links between insulin resistance and COVID-19 disease severity. Insulin resistance is an underlying condition for metabolic syndromes, including type 2 diabetes, which impairs insulin signaling pathways affecting metabolic and cardiovascular homeostasis. A high concentration of circulating insulin shifts the balance to mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK)-dependent signaling and causes endothelial cell damage. The phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase and MAPK dependent signaling pathways maintain a balance between nitric oxide-dependent vasodilator and endothelin-1 dependent vasoconstriction actions of insulin. Vascular smooth muscle cell dysfunction is responsible for inflammation and blood coagulation leading to microvascular and macrovascular complications in diabetes. Hyperactivity in renin-angiotensin system is implicated in development of islet oxidative stress and subsequent ß-cell dysfunction, as it alters the islet blood flow. These deleterious effects of insulin resistance involving altered blood pressure, vascular dysfunction, and inflammation could be associated with increased severity in COVID-19 patients. We conclude that clinical and/or biochemical markers of insulin resistance should be included as prognostic markers in assessment of acute COVID-19 disease.

Outcomes of Patients with Nelson's Syndrome after Primary Treatment: A Multicenter Study from 13 UK Pituitary Centers.

CONTEXT: Long-term outcomes of patients with Nelson's syndrome (NS) have been poorly explored, especially in the modern era. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate tumor control rates, effectiveness of various treatments, and markers of prognostic relevance in patients with NS. PATIENTS, DESIGN, AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of 68 patients from 13 UK pituitary centers with median imaging follow-up of 13 years (range 1-45) since NS diagnosis. RESULTS: Management of Cushing's disease (CD) prior to NS diagnosis included surgery+adrenalectomy (n = 30; eight patients had 2 and one had 3 pituitary operations), surgery+radiotherapy+adrenalectomy (n = 17; two received >1 courses of irradiation, two had ≥2 pituitary surgeries), radiotherapy+adrenalectomy (n = 2), and adrenalectomy (n = 19). Primary management of NS mainly included surgery, radiotherapy, surgery+radiotherapy, and observation; 10-year tumor progression-free survival was 62% (surgery 80%, radiotherapy 52%, surgery+radiotherapy 81%, observation 51%). Sex, age at CD or NS diagnosis, size of adenoma (micro-/macroadenoma) at CD diagnosis, presence of pituitary tumor on imaging prior adrenalectomy, and mode of NS primary management were not predictors of tumor progression. Mode of management of CD before NS diagnosis was a significant factor predicting progression, with the group treated by surgery+radiotherapy+adrenalectomy for their CD showing the highest risk (hazard ratio 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-13.5). During follow-up, 3% of patients had malignant transformation with spinal metastases and 4% died of aggressively enlarging tumor. CONCLUSIONS: At 10 years follow-up, 38% of the patients diagnosed with NS showed progression of their corticotroph tumor. Complexity of treatments for the CD prior to NS diagnosis, possibly reflecting corticotroph adenoma aggressiveness, predicts long-term tumor prognosis.

Achieving a Preoperative Target HbA1c of < 69 mmol/mol in Elective Vascular and Orthopedic Surgery: A Retrospective Single Center Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is present in 10-15% of the surgical population. It is a known risk factor for adverse postoperative outcomes. UK perioperative guidance recommends optimizing glycemic control preoperatively, aiming for a target glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of < 69 mmol/mol. However, real-world compliance with this guidance remains unknown. The aim of our study was to determine how many patients with DM undergoing elective orthopedic and vascular surgery had a preoperative HbA1c of < 69 mmol/mol. We also reviewed the surgical reasons for non-concordance with the recommended preoperative HbA1c target. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of 1000 consecutive patients who had been referred for elective vascular and orthopedic surgery at a large tertiary center. Data were collected on these patients, both those with and without DM, between January 2016 and February 2017. Electronic databases were used to collect information on the patients' preoperative HbA1c concentration and to determine whether there was a resulting delay in surgery when the preoperative HbA1c target of < 69 mmol/mol was exceeded. RESULTS: Of the 1000 patients referred for surgery (500 orthopedic and 500 vascular patients) included in the study, 201 (20%) had diabetes. Among these 201 people with DM, 155 (77%) had a preoperative HbA1c < 69 mmol/mol. Among the 46 people with DM whose HbA1c exceeded the recommended target, 41 were operated on despite the high HbA1c level, and only five had their surgery deferred or canceled due to suboptimal preoperative glycemic control. CONCLUSIONS: Our data shows that the majority (77% ) of people undergoing elective vascular and orthopedic surgery were able to achieve a target HbA1c of < 69 mmol/mol. The current preoperative guidance is therefore achievable in a real-life setting. However, as is stated in the national guidance, this target should only be used where it is safe to do so and a degree of clinical discretion is necessary.

Emerging role of insulin with incretin therapies for management of type 2 diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a progressive disease warranting intensification of treatment, as beta-cell function declines over time. Current treatment algorithms recommend metformin as the first-line agent, while advocating the addition of either basal-bolus or premixed insulin as the final level of intervention. Incretin therapy, including incretin mimetics or enhancers, are the latest group of drugs available for treatment of T2DM. These agents act through the incretin axis, are currently recommended as add-on agents either as second-or third-line treatment, without concurrent use of insulin. Given the novel role of incretin therapy in terms of reducing postprandial hyperglycemia, and favorable effects on weight with reduced incidence of hypoglycemia, we explore alternative options for incretin therapy in T2DM management. Furthermore, as some evidence alludes to incretins potentially increasing betacell mass and altering disease progression, we propose introducing these agents earlier in the treatment algorithm. In addition, we suggest the concurrent use of incretins with insulin, given the favorable effects especially in relation to weight gain.

[Management of type 2 diabetes: from guidelines to clinical practice]. / Tratamiento de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 a partir de las directrices de práctica clínica.

The current era is seeing an unprecedented rise in the incidence of type 2 diabetes, related to increasing adiposity levels. In addition, the complex nature of the disease with a much younger patient group than before makes prescribing a challenging task for physicians today. The advent of incretin based agents makes therapeutics exciting but warrants judicious use given the higher prescription costs and limited safety data. At the same time, mounting evidence not only supports a "treat early" approach but also cautions against achieving tight glycaemic control too quickly in certain patient groups particularly those of long disease duration and evidence of cardiovascular disease. In this conundrum, guidelines help to bring the best clinical evidence closer to practise. In this chapter, we discuss the latest clinical guidelines for management of type 2 diabetes based on recommendations from the American Diabetes Association, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (UK). At the same time we highlight the limitations of guidelines as they are unable to provide options for all "real life" scenarios. Though guidelines are instrumental in bringing evidence closer to practise, it is ultimately up to the clinician to rationalise therapy as per the needs of the individual patient. At the same time, it is also crucial to achieve meaningful outcomes in patients' lives especially in the current "pay for performance" culture in health care with the aim of providing world class care to each and every patient with diabetes.