Postradioiodine Graves' management: The PRAGMA study.

OBJECTIVE: Thyroid status in the months following radioiodine (RI) treatment for Graves' disease can be unstable. Our objective was to quantify frequency of abnormal thyroid function post-RI and compare effectiveness of common management strategies. DESIGN: Retrospective, multicentre and observational study. PATIENTS: Adult patients with Graves' disease treated with RI with 12 months' follow-up. MEASUREMENTS: Euthyroidism was defined as both serum thyrotropin (thyroid-stimulating hormone [TSH]) and free thyroxine (FT4) within their reference ranges or, when only one was available, it was within its reference range; hypothyroidism as TSH ≥ 10 mU/L, or subnormal FT4 regardless of TSH; hyperthyroidism as TSH below and FT4 above their reference ranges; dysthyroidism as the sum of hypo- and hyperthyroidism; subclinical hypothyroidism as normal FT4 and TSH between the upper limit of normal and <10 mU/L; and subclinical hyperthyroidism as low TSH and normal FT4. RESULTS: Of 812 patients studied post-RI, hypothyroidism occurred in 80.7% and hyperthyroidism in 48.6% of patients. Three principal post-RI management strategies were employed: (a) antithyroid drugs alone, (b) levothyroxine alone, and (c) combination of the two. Differences among these were small. Adherence to national guidelines regarding monitoring thyroid function in the first 6 months was low (21.4%-28.7%). No negative outcomes (new-onset/exacerbation of Graves' orbitopathy, weight gain, and cardiovascular events) were associated with dysthyroidism. There were significant differences in demographics, clinical practice, and thyroid status postradioiodine between centres. CONCLUSIONS: Dysthyroidism in the 12 months post-RI was common. Differences between post-RI strategies were small, suggesting these interventions alone are unlikely to address the high frequency of dysthyroidism.

Increased Population Risk of AIP-Related Acromegaly and Gigantism in Ireland.

The aryl hydrocarbon receptor interacting protein (AIP) founder mutation R304* (or p.R304* ; NM_003977.3:c.910C>T, p.Arg304Ter) identified in Northern Ireland (NI) predisposes to acromegaly/gigantism; its population health impact remains unexplored. We measured R304* carrier frequency in 936 Mid Ulster, 1,000 Greater Belfast (both in NI) and 2,094 Republic of Ireland (ROI) volunteers and in 116 NI or ROI acromegaly/gigantism patients. Carrier frequencies were 0.0064 in Mid Ulster (95%CI = 0.0027-0.013; P = 0.0005 vs. ROI), 0.001 in Greater Belfast (0.00011-0.0047) and zero in ROI (0-0.0014). R304* prevalence was elevated in acromegaly/gigantism patients in NI (11/87, 12.6%, P < 0.05), but not in ROI (2/29, 6.8%) versus non-Irish patients (0-2.41%). Haploblock conservation supported a common ancestor for all the 18 identified Irish pedigrees (81 carriers, 30 affected). Time to most recent common ancestor (tMRCA) was 2550 (1,275-5,000) years. tMRCA-based simulations predicted 432 (90-5,175) current carriers, including 86 affected (18-1,035) for 20% penetrance. In conclusion, R304* is frequent in Mid Ulster, resulting in numerous acromegaly/gigantism cases. tMRCA is consistent with historical/folklore accounts of Irish giants. Forward simulations predict many undetected carriers; geographically targeted population screening improves asymptomatic carrier identification, complementing clinical testing of patients/relatives. We generated disease awareness locally, necessary for early diagnosis and improved outcomes of AIP-related disease.

Clinical experience in the screening and management of a large kindred with familial isolated pituitary adenoma due to an aryl hydrocarbon receptor interacting protein (AIP) mutation.

CONTEXT: Germline AIP mutations usually cause young-onset acromegaly with low penetrance in a subset of familial isolated pituitary adenoma families. We describe our experience with a large family with R304* AIP mutation and discuss some of the diagnostic dilemmas and management issues. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify and screen mutation carriers in the family. PATIENTS: Forty-three family members participated in the study. SETTING: The study was performed in university hospitals. OUTCOME: We conducted genetic and endocrine screening of family members. RESULTS: We identified 18 carriers of the R304* mutation, three family members with an AIP-variant A299V, and two family members who harbored both changes. One of the two index cases presented with gigantism and pituitary apoplexy, the other presented with young-onset acromegaly, and both had surgery and radiotherapy. After genetic and clinical screening of the family, two R304* carriers were diagnosed with acromegaly. They underwent transsphenoidal surgery after a short period of somatostatin analog treatment. One of these two patients is in remission; the other achieved successful pregnancy despite suboptimal control of acromegaly. One of the A299V carrier family members was previously diagnosed with a microprolactinoma; we consider this case to be a phenocopy. Height of the unaffected R304* carrier family members is not different compared to noncarrier relatives. CONCLUSIONS: Families with AIP mutations present particular problems such as the occurrence of large invasive tumors, poor response to medical treatment, difficulties with fertility and management of pregnancy, and the finding of AIP sequence variants of unknown significance. Because disease mostly develops at a younger age and penetrance is low, the timing and duration of the follow-up of carriers without overt disease requires further study. The psychological and financial impact of prolonged clinical screening must be considered. Excellent relationships between the family, endocrinologists, and geneticists are essential, and ideally these families should be managed in centers with specialist expertise.