Block & replace regime versus titration regime of antithyroid drugs for the treatment of Graves' disease: a retrospective observational study.

CONTEXT: Two widely used antithyroid drug (ATD) regimes for Graves' disease (GD) include the 'block & replace' (B&R) regime (a fixed high-dose of ATD combined with levothyroxine) and the 'titration' regime (a titrating dose of ATD). Anecdotally, it is believed that B&R is less prone to fluctuating thyroid function. OBJECTIVE: To study whether, in routine clinical practice, the B&R regime, compared with the titration regime, is associated with more stable thyroid function. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed case-records for 450 patients treated with ATDs for GD at a secondary care hospital. Exclusion criteria included treatment with ATDs for <6 months, thyrotoxicosis due to other causes, treatment with radioiodine or thyroidectomy and pregnancy. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty three patients were treated with the B&R regime ('B&R group'), 149 with the titration regime ('titration group') and 78 with both regimes. The number of thyroid function tests (TFTs) performed per year (mean(SD): 3·2(1·2) vs 3·4(1·5); adjusted mean difference = -0·4; 95% CI: -0·7 to -0·1; and P = 0·008) and the number of hospital clinic visits per year (mean (SD): 2·9 (1·0) vs 3·2 (1·3); adjusted mean difference = -0·4; 95% CI: -0·7 to -0·2; and P = 0·002) were lower in the B&R group than the titration group. The number of abnormal TFT results per year was similar in the two groups (mean(SD): 1·8(1·3) vs 1·8(1·4); adjusted mean difference = 0·05; 95%CI: -0·3 to 0·4; and P = 0·74). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, there was little evidence that patients under B&R have more stable thyroid function. Further data from prospective studies, however, are needed to confirm this finding.

Variability in thyroid function test requests across general practices in south-west England.

BACKGROUND: The number of thyroid function tests (TFTs) performed in the UK and other countries has increased considerably in recent years. Inconsistent clinical practice associated with inappropriate requests for tests is thought to be an important cause for this increase. AIM: To study the extent of variability in requests for TFTs from general practices. METHODS: We analysed routine data on all TFTs on patients aged 16 years and over carried out by two hospitals in south-west England (Royal Cornwall Hospital and Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital) during 2010 at the request of 107 general practices. RESULTS: A total of 195 309 TFT requests were made for 148 412 patients (63% female). The total requests included 192 108 tests for thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), 43 069 for free thyroxine (FT4) and 1972 for free tri-iodothyronine (FT3). The number of TSH tests per 1000 list size varied widely across the practices, ranging from 84 to 482. Most of the variation was due to heterogeneity across practices and only 24% of this was accounted for by prevalence of hypothyroidism and socio-economic deprivation. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in TFT requests from general practice and scope to reduce both unnecessary TFTs and the variability in the clinical practice. Further studies are required to understand the causes for the variability in testing thyroid function.

Can primary care nurse administered pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) be implemented for the prevention and treatment of urinary incontinence? A study protocol.

BACKGROUND: We aim to evaluate if Pelvic Floor Muscle Training (PFMT) delivered in primary care results in fewer referrals to secondary care for urinary incontinence (UI), thereby reducing the number and associated costs of surgical procedures for UI. Methods / design: The study will consist of two populations - a prevention group and a treatment group who will both be offered PFMT in primary care. The prevention group will consist of parous women aged 25-64 attending for a routine cervical smear. Their pelvic floor will be assessed using the Modified Oxford Scale (MOS) and a baseline data form will be completed that asks about the frequency and associated bother of urine leakage. From the answers given, the group will be subdivided into two groups. The first (prevention) group will be subdivided into a primary prevention arm (no symptoms of urinary incontinence and pelvic floor strength ≤2 on MOS) and a secondary prevention arm (women reporting symptoms of urine leakage irrespective of MOS). The second (treatment) group will be women of any age who may or may not have had a vaginal birth presenting to their GP with UI. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews will be conducted with a subset of patients and staff with the aim of identifying barriers and facilitators in delivering PFMT in primary care. DISCUSSION: A recently completed community study showed good outcomes with practice nurse delivery of PFMT. We suggest if this were to be implemented more widely it would reduce the need for referral to secondary care. We believe that this study will show whether implementing a package of PFMT delivered in primary care can treat as well as prevent UI and will also be helpful in exploring the benefits / drawbacks of such implementation, thus providing lessons for implementation in other Primary Care Trusts (PCTs).