Real Practice Assessment of Persistent Symptoms After Initiation of Levothyroxine.

OBJECTIVE: Levothyroxine (LT4) is the standard treatment for hypothyroidism. However, certain patients experience persistent symptoms even after achieving euthyroid status with LT4 therapy. We aimed to determine the frequency of persistent or new symptoms in patients with hypothyroidism after initiating LT4. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with hypothyroidism who started on LT4 between January 2017 and December 2019 at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, USA. Five hundred patient charts were randomly selected for review. Patients with at least 1 documented follow-up encounter after LT4 initiation were evaluated for ≤3 follow-up visits regarding their biochemical status and symptoms. RESULTS: We included 356 patients, a majority of whom were female (66.6%), white (92.3%), and obese (71.9%), with an average age of 59.5 years. At the baseline visit, approximately one-half of the patients (177/356, 47.7%) reported hypothyroid symptoms, with fatigue being the most common symptom. During the follow-up periods, we observed that 17.8% (28/157), 17.9% (19/106), and 19.3% (11/57) of patients had normal thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) values but persistent symptoms, while 12.3% (19/156), 19.9% (16/107), and 8.9% (5/56) had normal TSH values but new symptoms. Overall, during each respective follow-up period, 26.7% (42/157), 27.3% (29/106), and 28% (16/57) of patients experienced persistent or new symptoms alongside normal TSH values, with fatigue being the most constant symptom. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that approximately 1 in every 4 patients with hypothyroidism receiving LT4 therapy and achieving normal TSH levels experience persistent or new hypothyroid symptoms. The cause of these symptoms remains unclear, emphasizing the need for a better understanding of their underlying causes and the development of effective management strategies.

Does the duration of ambulatory consultations affect the quality of healthcare? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The objective is to examine and synthesise the best available experimental evidence about the effect of ambulatory consultation duration on quality of healthcare. METHODS: We included experimental studies manipulating the length of outpatient clinical encounters between adult patients and clinicians (ie, therapists, pharmacists, nurses, physicians) to determine their effect on quality of care (ie, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, safety, equity, patient-centredness and patient satisfaction). INFORMATION SOURCES: Using controlled vocabulary and keywords, without restriction by language or year of publication, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus from inception until 15 May 2023. RISK OF BIAS: Cochrane Risk of Bias instrument. DATA SYNTHESIS: Narrative synthesis. RESULTS: 11 publications of 10 studies explored the relationship between encounter duration and quality. Most took place in the UK's general practice over two decades ago. Study findings based on very sparse and outdated evidence-which suggested that longer consultations improved indicators of patient-centred care, education about prevention and clinical referrals; and that consultation duration was inconsistently related to patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes-warrant low confidence due to limited protections against bias and indirect applicability to current practice. CONCLUSION: Experimental evidence for a minimal or optimal duration of an outpatient consultation is sparse and outdated. To develop evidence-based policies and practices about encounter length, randomised trials of different consultation lengths-in person and virtually, and with electronic health records-are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: OSF Registration DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/EUDK8.

Financial Toxicity in the Clinical Encounter: A Paired Survey of Patient and Clinician Perceptions.

Objective: To compare the agreement between patient and clinician perceptions of care-related financial issues. Patients and Methods: We surveyed patient-clinician dyads immediately after an outpatient medical encounter between September 2019 and May 2021. They were asked to separately rate (1-10) patient's level of difficulty in paying medical bills and the importance of discussing cost issues with that patient during clinical encounters. We calculated agreement between patient-clinician ratings using the intraclass correlation coefficient and used random effects regression models to identify patient predictors of paired score differences in difficulty and importance of ratings. Results: 58 pairs of patients (n=58) and clinicians (n=40) completed the survey. Patient-clinician agreement was poor for both measures, but higher for difficulty in paying medical bills (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.375; 95% CI, 0.13-0.57) than for the importance of discussing cost (-0.051; 95% CI, -0.31 to 0.21). Agreement on difficulty in paying medical bills was not lower in encounters with conversations about the cost of care. In adjusted models, poor patient-clinician agreement on difficulty in paying medical bills was associated with lower patient socioeconomic status and education level, whereas poor agreement on patient-perceived importance of discussing cost was significant for patients who were White, married, reported 1 or more long-term conditions, and had higher education and income levels. Conclusion: Even in encounters where cost conversations occurred, there was poor patient-clinician agreement on ratings of the patient's difficulty in paying medical bills and perceived importance of discussing cost issues. Clinicians need more training and support in detecting the level of financial burden and tailoring cost conversations to the needs of individual patients.