4.4 Article

A 2013 European survey of clinical practice patterns in the management of Graves' disease

期刊

CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 84, 期 1, 页码 115-120

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cen.12688

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR, Rome, Italy) [2012Z3F7HE]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Management of Graves' disease (GD) in Europe was published in 1987. Aim of this survey was to provide an update on clinical practice in Europe, and to compare it with a 2011 American survey. Design Members of the European Thyroid Association (ETA) were asked to participate in a survey on management of GD, using the same questionnaire of a recent American survey. Results A total of 147 ETA members participated. In addition to serum TSH and free T4 assays, most respondents would request TSH-receptor autoantibody (TRAb) measurement (85.6%) and thyroid ultrasound (70.6%) to confirm aetiology, while isotopic studies were selected by 37.7%. Antithyroid drug (ATD) therapy was the preferred first-line treatment (83.8%). Compared to the previous European survey, Europeans currently more frequently use TRAb measurement and thyroid ultrasound for diagnosis and evaluation, but first-line treatment remains ATDs in a similar percentage of respondents. Current clinical practice patterns differ from those in North America, where isotopic studies are more frequently used, and radioiodine (RAI) still is first-line treatment. When RAI treatment is selected in the presence of mild Graves' orbitopathy and/or associated risk factors for its occurrence/exacerbation, steroid prophylaxis is frequently used. The preferred ATD in pregnancy is propylthiouracil in the first trimester and methimazole in the second and third trimesters, similar to North America. Conclusions Significant changes in clinical practice patterns in Europe were noted compared to the previous European survey, as well as persisting differences in diagnosis and therapy between Europe and North America.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据