Treating subclinical hypothyroidism in individuals with or without mental health problems -A Delphi based expert consensus study in two countries.

Background: Subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) is a common endocrine problem with prevalence estimates between 4% and 20%. Symptoms are often non-specific but can substantially affect well-being leading to repeated medical consultations. The effect of thyroid hormone replacement therapy (THRT) in patients with SCH remains uncertain. Current guidelines, limited by the lack of high-quality evidence, have been controversial with limited adherence in clinical practice. Methods: Three-round modified Delphi method to establish consensus regarding diagnosis and treatment of individuals with SCH with and without affective disorder or anxiety, conducted with clinicians from three specialties, general practice, endocrinology and psychiatry, and two countries, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Results: Sixty clinicians, 20 per specialty, were recruited. Fifty-three (88%) participants completed all three rounds. The participants reached consensus on five of the 26 practice statements that (a) repeated testing was required for the diagnosis of subclinical hypothyroidism, (b) antibody screening should usually occur, and (c and d) antibody screening would strengthen the indication for thyroid hormone replacement therapy in both individuals with or without affective disorder or anxiety. The participants disagreed with (e) a requirement of a TSH threshold ≥ 20 mIU/L for thyroid hormone replacement therapy start. Psychiatrists and GPs but not endocrinologists, agreed that there was a frequent discrepancy between laboratory results and clinical symptoms, and disagreed that testing for thyroid dysfunction was overused in patients presenting with depression or anxiety, or fatigue. Conclusions: In many aspects, attitudes toward diagnosing and treating SCH remain diverse. The inability of our Delphi panel to achieve consensus on most items and the disagreement with a TSH ≥ 20 mIU/L threshold for treatment suggest that the concept of SCH may need rethinking with a better understanding of the hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid physiology. Given that the scientific evidence is currently not conclusive, guidelines in this area should not be taken as definitive.

Hypothyroidism and Somatization: Results from E-Mode Patient Self-Assessment of Thyroid Therapy, a Cross-Sectional, International Online Patient Survey.

Background: Between 10% and 15% of hypothyroid patients experience persistent symptoms despite achieving biochemical euthyroidism. Unexplained persistent symptoms can be a sign of somatization. This is associated with distress and high health care resource use and can be classified as somatic symptom disorder (SSD). Prevalence rates for SSD differ depending on classification criteria and how they are ascertained, varying between 4% and 25%. As this has not been studied in hypothyroid patients before, the aim of this study was to document somatization in people with hypothyroidism and to explore associations with other patient characteristics and outcomes. Methods: Online, multinational cross-sectional survey of individuals with self-reported, treated hypothyroidism, which included the validated Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) for assessment of somatization. Chi-squared tests with the Bonferroni correction were used to explore outcomes for respondents with a PHQ-15 score ≥10 (probable somatic symptom disorder [pSSD]) versus a PHQ-15 score <10 (absence of SSD). Results: A total of 3915 responses were received, 3516 of which contained the valid PHQ-15 data (89.8%). The median score was 11.3 (range 0-30 [confidence interval 10.9-11.3]). The prevalence of pSSD was 58.6%. Associations were found between pSSD and young age (p < 0.001), women (p < 0.001), not working (p < 0.001), having below average household income (p < 0.001), being treated with levothyroxine (LT4) (rather than combination of LT4 and L-triiodothyronine [LT3], LT3 alone, or desiccated thyroid extract) (p < 0.001), expression of the view that the thyroid medication taken did not control the symptoms of hypothyroidism well (p < 0.001), and with number of comorbidities (p < 0.001). pSSD was associated with respondent attribution of most PHQ-15 symptoms to the hypothyroidism or its treatment (p < 0.001), dissatisfaction with care and treatment of hypothyroidism (p < 0.001), a negative impact of hypothyroidism on daily living (p < 0.001), and with anxiety and low mood/depression (p < 0.001). Conclusions: This study demonstrates a high prevalence of pSSD among people with hypothyroidism and associations between pSSD and negative patient outcomes, including a tendency to attribute persistent symptoms to hypothyroidism or its treatment. SSD may be an important determinant of dissatisfaction with treatment and care among some hypothyroid patients.

Identifying the top research priorities in medically not yet explained symptoms (MNYES): a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership.

OBJECTIVES: This study establishes research priorities for medically not yet explained symptoms (MNYES), also known as persistent physical symptoms or medically unexplained symptoms, from the perspective of patients, caregivers and clinicians, in a priority setting partnership (PSP) following the James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach. Research into such symptoms in general has been poorly funded over the years and so far has been primarily researcher-led with minimal input from patients, caregivers and clinicians; and sometimes has been controversial. DESIGN: JLA PSP method. The PSP termed these symptoms MNYES. METHODS: The study was conducted according to the JLA's detailed methodology for conducting priority setting exercises. It involved five key stages: defining the appropriate term for the conditions under study by the PSP Steering Group; gathering questions on MNYES from patients, caregivers and clinicians in a publicly accessible survey; checking these research questions against existing evidence; interim prioritisation in a second survey; and a final multi-stakeholder consensus meeting to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions using the modified nominal group methodology. RESULTS: Over 700 responses from UK patients, caregivers and clinicians were identified in the two surveys and charities contributed from a broad range of medical specialties and primary care. The final top 10 unanswered research questions cover, among others: treatment strategies, personalisation of treatment, collaborative care pathways, training for clinicians and outcomes that matter to patients. INTERPRETATION: The top 10 unanswered research questions are expected to generate much needed, relevant and impactful research into MNYES.

Neurocognitive functioning in patients with conversion disorder/functional neurological disorder.

Neurocognitive symptoms are common in individuals with somatic symptom and related disorders (SSRD), but little is known about the specific impairments in neurocognitive domains in patients with conversion disorder (CD)/functional neurological disorder (FND). This study examines neurocognitive functioning in patients with CD/FND compared to patients with other SSRD. The sample consisted of 318 patients. Twenty-nine patients were diagnosed with CD/FND, mean age 42.4, standard deviation (SD) = 13.8 years, 79.3% women, and 289 patients had other SSRD (mean age 42.1, SD = 13.3, 60.2% women). Patients completed a neuropsychological test battery that addressed a broad range of neurocognitive domains, including information processing speed, attention and executive functioning. Patients with CD/FND had clinically significant neurocognitive deficits in all neurocognitive domains based on normative data comparison. Patients with CD/FND also performed significantly worse than patients with other SSRD on information processing speed (Digit Symbol Substitution Test (V = .115, p = .035), Stroop Color-Word Test (SCWT) card 1 (V = .190, p = .006), and SCWT card 2 (V = .244, p < .001). No CD/FND vs. other SSRD differences were observed in other neurocognitive domains. These findings indicate the patients with CD/FND perform worse on information processing speed tests compared to patients with other SSRD.

Workplace Stress, Presenteeism, Absenteeism, and Resilience Amongst University Staff and Students in the COVID-19 Lockdown.

Background: This study explored how the COVID-19 outbreak and arrangements such as remote working and furlough affect work or study stress levels and functioning in staff and students at the University of York, UK. Methods: An invitation to participate in an online survey was sent to all University of York staff and students in May-June 2020. We measured stress levels [VAS-scale, Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ)], mental health [anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9)], physical health (PHQ-15, chronic medical conditions checklist), presenteeism, and absenteeism levels (iPCQ). We explored demographic and other characteristics as factors which may contribute to resilience and vulnerability for the impact of COVID-19 on stress. Results: One thousand and fifty five staff and nine hundred and twenty five students completed the survey. Ninety-eight per cent of staff and seventy-eight per cent of students worked or studied remotely. 7% of staff and 10% of students reported sickness absence. 26% of staff and 40% of the students experienced presenteeism. 22-24% of staff reported clinical-level anxiety and depression scores, and 37.2 and 46.5% of students. Staff experienced high stress levels due to COVID-19 (66.2%, labeled vulnerable) and 33.8% experienced low stress levels (labeled resilient). Students were 71.7% resilient vs. 28.3% non-resilient. Predictors of vulnerability in staff were having children [OR = 2.23; CI (95) = 1.63-3.04] and social isolation [OR = 1.97; CI (95) = 1.39-2.79] and in students, being female [OR = 1.62; CI (95) = 1.14-2.28], having children [OR = 2.04; CI (95) = 1.11-3.72], and social isolation [OR = 1.78; CI (95) = 1.25-2.52]. Resilience was predicted by exercise in staff [OR = 0.83; CI (95) = 0.73-0.94] and in students [OR = 0.85; CI (95) = 0.75-0.97]. Discussion: University staff and students reported high psychological distress, presenteeism and absenteeism. However, 33.8% of staff and 71.7% of the students were resilient. Amongst others, female gender, having children, and having to self-isolate contributed to vulnerability. Exercise contributed to resilience. Conclusion: Resilience occurred much more often in students than in staff, although psychological distress was much higher in students. This suggests that predictors of resilience may differ from psychological distress per se. Hence, interventions to improve resilience should not only address psychological distress but may also address other factors.