Search

BackgroundIn non-randomized studies (NRSs) where a continuous outcome variable (e.g., depressive symptoms) is assessed at baseline and follow-up, it is common to observe imbalance of the baseline values between the treatment/exposure group and control group. This may bias the study and consequently a meta-analysis (MA) estimate. These estimates may differ across statistical methods used to deal with this issue. Analysis of individual participant data (IPD) allows standardization of methods across studies. We aimed to identify methods used in published IPD-MAs of NRSs for continuous outcomes, and to compare different methods to account for baseline values of outcome variables in IPD-MA of NRSs using two empirical examples from the Thyroid Studies Collaboration (TSC).MethodsFor the first aim we systematically searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane from inception to February 2021 to identify published IPD-MAs of NRSs that adjusted for baseline outcome measures in the analysis of continuous outcomes. For the second aim, we applied analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), change score, propensity score and the naïve approach (ignores the baseline outcome data) in IPD-MA from NRSs on the association between subclinical hyperthyroidism and depressive symptoms and renal function. We estimated the study and meta-analytic mean difference (MD) and relative standard error (SE). We used both fixed- and random-effects MA.ResultsTen of 18 (56%) of the included studies used the change score method, seven (39%) studies used ANCOVA and one the propensity score (5%). The study estimates were similar across the methods in studies in which groups were balanced at baseline with regard to outcome variables but differed in studies with baseline imbalance. In our empirical examples, ANCOVA and change score showed study results on the same direction, not the propensity score. In our applications, ANCOVA provided more precise estimates, both at study and meta-analytical level, in comparison to other methods. Heterogeneity was higher when change score was used as outcome, moderate for ANCOVA and null with the propensity score.ConclusionANCOVA provided the most precise estimates at both study and meta-analytic level and thus seems preferable in the meta-analysis of IPD from non-randomized studies. For the studies that were well-balanced between groups, change score, and ANCOVA performed similarly.

ObjectiveFew prospective studies have assessed whether individuals with subclinical thyroid dysfunction are more likely to develop diabetes, with conflicting results. In this study, we conducted a systematic review of the literature and an individual participant data analysis of multiple prospective cohorts to investigate the association between subclinical thyroid dysfunction and incident diabetes.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of the literature in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 11, 2022. A two-stage individual participant data analysis was conducted to compare participants with subclinical hypothyroidism and subclinical hyperthyroidism vs euthyroidism at baseline and the adjusted risk of developing diabetes at follow-up.ResultsAmong 61 178 adults from 18 studies, 49% were females, mean age was 58 years, and mean follow-up time was 8.2 years. At the last available follow-up, there was no association between subclinical hypothyroidism and incidence of diabetes (odds ratio (OR) = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.88–1.17, I2 = 0%) or subclinical hyperthyroidism and incidence of diabetes (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.82–1.30, I2 = 0%), in age- and sex-adjusted analyses. Time-to-event analysis showed similar results (hazard ratio for subclinical hypothyroidism: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.87–1.11; hazard ratio for subclinical hyperthyroidism: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.88–1.29). The results were robust in all sub-group and sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsThis is the largest systematic review and individual participant data analysis to date investigating the prospective association between subclinical thyroid dysfunction and diabetes. We did not find an association between subclinical thyroid dysfunction and incident diabetes. Our results do not support screening patients with subclinical thyroid dysfunction for diabetes.Significance statementEvidence is conflicting regarding whether an association exists between subclinical thyroid dysfunction and incident diabetes. We therefore aimed to investigate whether individuals with subclinical thyroid dysfunction are more prone to develop diabetes in the long run as compared to euthyroid individuals. We included data from 18 international cohort studies with 61 178 adults and a mean follow-up time of 8.2 years. We did not find an association between subclinical hypothyroidism or subclinical hyperthyroidism at baseline and incident diabetes at follow-up. Our results have clinical implications as they neither support screening patients with subclinical thyroid dysfunction for diabetes nor treating them in the hope of preventing diabetes in the future. Objective: Few prospective studies have assessed whether individuals with subclinical thyroid dysfunction are more likely to develop diabetes, with conflicting results. In this study, we conducted a systematic review of the literature and an individual participant data analysis of multiple prospective cohorts to investigate the association between subclinical thyroid dysfunction and incident diabetes. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 11, 2022. A two-stage individual participant data analysis was conducted to compare participants with subclinical hypothyroidism and subclinical hyperthyroidism vs euthyroidism at baseline and the adjusted risk of developing diabetes at follow-up. Results: Among 61 178 adults from 18 studies, 49% were females, mean age was 58 years, and mean follow-up time was 8.2 years. At the last available follow-up, there was no association between subclinical hypothyroidism and incidence of diabetes (odds ratio (OR) = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.88-1.17, I2 = 0%) or subclinical hyperthyroidism and incidence of diabetes (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.82-1.30, I2 = 0%), in age- and sex-adjusted analyses. Time-to-event analysis showed similar results (hazard ratio for subclinical hypothyroidism: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.87-1.11; hazard ratio for subclinical hyperthyroidism: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.88-1.29). The results were robust in all sub-group and sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: This is the largest systematic review and individual participant data analysis to date investigating the prospective association between subclinical thyroid dysfunction and diabetes. We did not find an association between subclinical thyroid dysfunction and incident diabetes. Our results do not support screening patients with subclinical thyroid dysfunction for diabetes. Significance statement: Evidence is conflicting regarding whether an association exists between subclinical thyroid dysfunction and incident diabetes. We therefore aimed to investigate whether individuals with subclinical thyroid dysfunction are more prone to develop diabetes in the long run as compared to euthyroid individuals. We included data from 18 international cohort studies with 61 178 adults and a mean follow-up time of 8.2 years. We did not find an association between subclinical hypothyroidism or subclinical hyperthyroidism at baseline and incident diabetes at follow-up. Our results have clinical implications as they neither support screening patients with subclinical thyroid dysfunction for diabetes nor treating them in the hope of preventing diabetes in the future.

BACKGROUND Antithyroid antibodies increase the likelihood of developing overt hypothyroidism, but their clinical utility remains unclear. No large randomized controlled trial (RCT) has assessed whether older adults with subclinical hypothyroidism (SHypo) caused by autoimmune thyroid disease derive more benefits from levothyroxine treatment (LT4). OBJECTIVE To determine whether older adults with SHypo and positive antibodies derive more clinical benefits from LT4 than those with negative antibodies. METHODS We pooled individual participant data from two RCTs, Thyroid Hormone Replacement for Untreated Older Adults with Subclinical Hypothyroidism and IEMO 80+. Participants with persistent SHypo were randomly assigned to receive LT4 or placebo. We compared the effects of LT4 versus placebo in participants with and without anti-thyroid peroxidase (TPO) at baseline. The two primary outcomes were 1-year change in Hypothyroid Symptoms and Tiredness scores on the Thyroid-Related Quality-of-Life Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire. RESULTS Among 660 participants (54% women) ≥65 years, 188 (28.5%) had positive anti-TPO. LT4 versus placebo on Hypothyroid Symptoms lead to an adjusted between-group difference of -2.07 (95% confidence interval: -6.04 to 1.90) for positive antibodies versus 0.89 (-1.76 to 3.54) for negative antibodies (p for interaction = 0.31). Similarly, there was no treatment effect modification by baseline antibody status for Tiredness scores-adjusted between-group difference 1.75 (-3.60 to 7.09) for positive antibodies versus 1.14 (-1.90 to 4.19) for negative antibodies (p for interaction = 0.98). Positive anti-TPO were not associated with better quality of life, improvement in handgrip strength, or fewer cardiovascular outcomes with levothyroxine treatment. CONCLUSIONS Among older adults with SHypo, positive antithyroid antibodies are not associated with more benefits on clinical outcomes with LT4.

In subclinical hypothyroidism, the presence of depressive symptoms is often a reason for starting levothyroxine treatment. However, data are conflicting on the association between subclinical thyroid dysfunction and depressive symptoms. We aimed to examine the association between subclinical thyroid dysfunction and depressive symptoms in all prospective cohorts with relevant data available. We performed a systematic review of the literature from Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Library from inception to 10th May 2019. We included prospective cohorts with data on thyroid status at baseline and depressive symptoms during follow-up. The primary outcome was depressive symptoms measured at first available follow-up, expressed on the Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI) scale (range 0-63, higher values indicate more depressive symptoms, minimal clinically important difference: 5 points). We performed a two-stage individual participant data (IPD) analysis comparing participants with subclinical hypo- or hyperthyroidism versus euthyroidism, adjusting for depressive symptoms at baseline, age, sex, education, and income (PROSPERO CRD42018091627). Six cohorts met the inclusion criteria, with IPD on 23,038 participants. Their mean age was 60 years, 65% were female, 21,025 were euthyroid, 1342 had subclinical hypothyroidism and 671 subclinical hyperthyroidism. At first available follow-up [mean 8.2 (± 4.3) years], BDI scores did not differ between participants with subclinical hypothyroidism (mean difference = 0.29, 95% confidence interval = - 0.17 to 0.76, I 2 = 15.6) or subclinical hyperthyroidism (- 0.10, 95% confidence interval = - 0.67 to 0.48, I 2 = 3.2) compared to euthyroidism. This systematic review and IPD analysis of six prospective cohort studies found no clinically relevant association between subclinical thyroid dysfunction at baseline and depressive symptoms during follow-up. The results were robust in all sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Our results are in contrast with the traditional notion that subclinical thyroid dysfunction, and subclinical hypothyroidism in particular, is associated with depressive symptoms. Consequently, our results do not support the practice of prescribing levothyroxine in patients with subclinical hypothyroidism to reduce the risk of developing depressive symptoms.

IntroductionProspective cohort studies on the association between subclinical thyroid dysfunction and depressive symptoms have yielded conflicting findings, possibly because of differences in age, sex, thyroid-stimulating hormone cut-off levels or degree of baseline depressive symptoms. Analysis of individual participant data (IPD) may help clarify this association.Methods and analysis: We will conduct a systematic review and IPD meta-analysis of prospective studies on the association between subclinical thyroid dysfunction and depressive symptoms. We will identify studies through a systematic search of the literature in the Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases from inception to April 2019 and from the Thyroid Studies Collaboration. We will ask corresponding authors of studies that meet our inclusion criteria to collaborate by providing IPD. Our primary outcome will be depressive symptoms at the first available individual follow-up, measured on a validated scale. We will convert all the scores to the Beck Depression Inventory scale. For each cohort, we will estimate the mean difference of depressive symptoms between participants with subclinical hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism and control adjusted for depressive symptoms at baseline. Furthermore, we will adjust our multivariable linear regression analyses for age, sex, education and income. We will pool the effect estimates of all studies in a random-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity will be assessed by I2. Our secondary outcomes will be depressive symptoms at a specific follow-up time, at the last available individual follow-up and incidence of depression at the first, last and at a specific follow-up time. For the binary outcome of incident depression, we will use a logistic regression model.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. Our findings will have considerable implications for patient care. We will seek to publish this systematic review and IPD meta-analysis in a high-impact clinical journal This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/