4.7 Article

Spontaneous subclinical hypothyroidism in patients older than 55 years:: An analysis of natural course and risk factors for the development of overt thyroid failure

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 89, 期 10, 页码 4890-4897

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2003-032061

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We aimed to analyze the natural course of subclinical hypothyroidism, quantify the incidence rate of overt hypothyroidism, and evaluate the risk factors for the development of definitive thyroid failure in elderly patients. One hundred seven patients ( 93 women and 14 men) over age 55 yr with subclinical hypothyroidism and no previous history of thyroid disease were prospectively studied. Subjects were followed up for 6-72 months (mean, 31.7 months) with repeated determinations of TSH and free T-4. Twenty-eight patients (26.8%) developed overt hypothyroidism, and 40 (37.4%) showed normalization of their TSH values. The incidence rate of overt hypothyroidism was 9.91 cases per 100 patient-years in the whole population, and 1.76, 19.67, and 73.47 cases per 100 patient-years in subjects with initial TSH values between 5.0-9.9, 10.0-14.9, and 15.0-19.9 mU/liter, respectively. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the development of definitive thyroid hypofunction was significantly related to the presence of symptoms of hypothyroidism, goiter, positive thyroid antibodies (P < 0.05), and mainly low normal free T-4 (P < 0.01) and high TSH (P < 0.0001) concentrations at baseline. A step-wise multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that the only significant factor for progression to overt hypothyroidism was serum TSH concentration ( P < 0.0001). In conclusion, TSH concentration is the most powerful predictor for the outcome of spontaneous subclinical hypothyroidism in patients over age 55 yr. Subjects with mildly elevated TSH have a low incidence rate of overt hypothyroidism. We recommend follow-up with clinical and biochemical monitoring in these patients.

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

4.7
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