Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: D. B. DUNGER x
  • Refine by Access: Open Access content only x
Clear All Modify Search
Open access

Claire L Wood, Michael Cole, Malcolm Donaldson, David B Dunger, Ruth Wood, Niamh Morrison, John N S Matthews, Simon H S Pearce, Timothy D Cheetham, and the British Society for Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes (BSPED)

Objective

First-line treatment of thyrotoxicosis in young people is thionamide anti-thyroid drug (ATD) in a blocking dose with levothyroxine replacement (block and replace, BR) or in a smaller dose tailored to render the patient euthyroid (dose titration, DT). Our objective was to determine which regimen provides more stable biochemical control.

Design

A multi-centre phase III, open-label randomised trial comparing BR with DT in patients aged 2–17 years with newly diagnosed thyrotoxicosis at 15 UK centres.

Methods

Patients were randomised shortly after diagnosis and treated for 3 years. The primary outcome was the percentage of serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels in the reference range between 6 months and 3 years. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of Free thyroxine (FT4) levels in the reference range, adverse event frequency and 4 years outcome (remission/relapse).

Results

Eighty-two patients were randomised, with details on clinical course in 81 (62 Female); 40 were allocated to BR (41 DT). Three withdrew with one ineligible. The mean percentage of serum TSH within reference range was 60.2% in BR and 63.8% in DT patients; adjusted difference 4.3%, 95% CI (−7.8 to 16.4); P = 0.48. Proportions for FT4 were 79.2% in BR and 85.7% in DT patients; adjusted difference 6.8%, (−0.2 to 15.6); P = 0.13. Three patients developed neutropenia – all on BR. 6 BR and 10 DT patients were in remission at 4y.

Conclusion

This randomised trial has shown no evidence to suggest that BR, when managing the young patient with thyrotoxicosis, is associated with improved biochemical stability when compared to DT.

Open access

D B Allen, P Backeljauw, M Bidlingmaier, B M K Biller, M Boguszewski, P Burman, G Butler, K Chihara, J Christiansen, S Cianfarani, P Clayton, D Clemmons, P Cohen, F Darendeliler, C Deal, D Dunger, E M Erfurth, J S Fuqua, A Grimberg, M Haymond, C Higham, K Ho, A R Hoffman, A Hokken-Koelega, G Johannsson, A Juul, J Kopchick, P Lee, M Pollak, S Radovick, L Robison, R Rosenfeld, R J Ross, L Savendahl, P Saenger, H Toft Sorensen, K Stochholm, C Strasburger, A Swerdlow, and M Thorner

Recombinant human GH (rhGH) has been in use for 30 years, and over that time its safety and efficacy in children and adults has been subject to considerable scrutiny. In 2001, a statement from the GH Research Society (GRS) concluded that ‘for approved indications, GH is safe’; however, the statement highlighted a number of areas for on-going surveillance of long-term safety, including cancer risk, impact on glucose homeostasis, and use of high dose pharmacological rhGH treatment. Over the intervening years, there have been a number of publications addressing the safety of rhGH with regard to mortality, cancer and cardiovascular risk, and the need for long-term surveillance of the increasing number of adults who were treated with rhGH in childhood. Against this backdrop of interest in safety, the European Society of Paediatric Endocrinology (ESPE), the GRS, and the Pediatric Endocrine Society (PES) convened a meeting to reappraise the safety of rhGH. The ouput of the meeting is a concise position statement.