Table_1_The potential interaction between medical treatment and radioiodine treatment success: A systematic review.docx

IntroductionRadioactive iodine (RAI) therapy is a critical component in the post-surgical management of thyroid cancer patients, as well as being a central therapeutic option in the treatment of hyperthyroidism. Previous work suggests that antithyroid drugs hinder the efficacy of RAI therapy in patients. However, the effects of other background medications on RAI treatment efficacy have not been evaluated. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the potential off-target effects of medication on RAI therapy in patients with thyroid cancer and hyperthyroidism.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis according to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. Databases searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for studies published between 2001 and 2021.ResultsSixty-nine unique studies were identified. After screening, 17 studies with 3313 participants were included. One study investigated thyroid cancer, with the rest targeted to hyperthyroidism. The majority of studies evaluated the effects of antithyroid drugs; the other drugs studied included lithium, prednisone and glycididazole sodium. Antithyroid drugs were associated with negative impacts on post-RAI outcomes (n = 5 studies, RR = 0.81, p = 0.02). However, meta-analysis found moderate heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 51%, τ2 = 0.0199, p = 0.08). Interestingly, lithium (n = 3 studies), prednisone (n = 1 study) and glycididazole (n = 1 study) appeared to have positive impacts on post-RAI outcomes upon qualitative analysis.ConclusionOur systematic review strengthens previous work on antithyroid medication effects on RAI, and highlights that this field remains under researched especially for background medications unrelated to thyroid disease, with very few papers on non-thyroid medications published.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php, identifier CRD42021274026.</p

De-duplication methods.

BackgroundPatients with severe-to-profound hearing loss may benefit from management with cochlear implants. These patients need a referral to a cochlear implant team for further assessment and possible surgery. The referral pathway may result in varied access to hearing healthcare. This study aimed to explore referral patterns and whether there were any socioeconomic or ethnic associations with the likelihood of referral. The primary outcome was to determine factors influencing referral for implant assessment. The secondary outcome was to identify factors impacting whether healthcare professionals had discussed the option of referral.Methods and findingsA multicentre multidisciplinary observational study was conducted in secondary care Otolaryngology and Audiology units in Great Britain. Adults fulfilling NICE (2019) audiometric criteria for implant assessment were identified over a 6-month period between 1 July and 31 December 2021. Patient- and site-specific characteristics were extracted. Multivariable binary logistic regression was employed to compare a range of factors influencing the likelihood of implant discussion and referral including patient-specific (demographics, past medical history, and degree of hearing loss) and site-specific factors (cochlear implant champion and whether the hospital performed implants).Hospitals across all 4 devolved nations of the UK were invited to participate, with data submitted from 36 urban hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. Nine hospitals (25%) conducted cochlear implant assessments. The majority of patients lived in England (n = 5,587, 86.2%); the rest lived in Wales (n = 419, 6.5%) and Scotland (n = 233, 3.6%). The mean patient age was 72 ± 19 years (mean ± standard deviation); 54% were male, and 75·3% of participants were white, 6·3% were Asian, 1·5% were black, 0·05% were mixed, and 4·6% were self-defined as a different ethnicity.Of 6,482 submitted patients meeting pure tone audiometric thresholds for cochlear implantation, 311 already had a cochlear implant. Of the remaining 6,171, 35.7% were informed they were eligible for an implant, but only 9.7% were referred for assessment. When adjusted for site- and patient-specific factors, stand-out findings included that adults were less likely to be referred if they lived in more deprived area decile within Indices of Multiple Deprivation (4th (odds ratio (OR): 2·19; 95% confidence interval (CI): [1·31, 3·66]; p = 0·002), 5th (2·02; [1·21, 3·38]; p = 0·05), 6th (2·32; [1·41, 3·83]; p = 0.05), and 8th (2·07; [1·25, 3·42]; p = 0·004)), lived in London (0·40; [0·29, 0·57]; p p p p p p p p p = 0·001; London 0·44; [0·35, 0·56]; p p p = 0·021), were male (females 1·46; [1·31, 1·62]; p p The study methodology was limited by its observational nature, reliance on accurate documentation of the referring service, and potential underrepresentation of certain demographic groups.ConclusionsThe majority of adults meeting pure tone audiometric threshold criteria for cochlear implantation are currently not appropriately referred for assessment. There is scope to target underrepresented patient groups to improve referral rates. Future research should engage stakeholders to explore the reasons behind the disparities. Implementing straightforward measures, such as educational initiatives and automated pop-up tools for immediate identification, can help streamline the referral process.</div

Baseline characteristics of included patients, stratified by ethnicity.

Data are presented as n (column %) or mean [95% CI], other than age (mean ± SD). dBHL: decibel hearing level. Values are given prior to removal of implanted patients.</p

Exploratory and sensitivity analyses.

BackgroundPatients with severe-to-profound hearing loss may benefit from management with cochlear implants. These patients need a referral to a cochlear implant team for further assessment and possible surgery. The referral pathway may result in varied access to hearing healthcare. This study aimed to explore referral patterns and whether there were any socioeconomic or ethnic associations with the likelihood of referral. The primary outcome was to determine factors influencing referral for implant assessment. The secondary outcome was to identify factors impacting whether healthcare professionals had discussed the option of referral.Methods and findingsA multicentre multidisciplinary observational study was conducted in secondary care Otolaryngology and Audiology units in Great Britain. Adults fulfilling NICE (2019) audiometric criteria for implant assessment were identified over a 6-month period between 1 July and 31 December 2021. Patient- and site-specific characteristics were extracted. Multivariable binary logistic regression was employed to compare a range of factors influencing the likelihood of implant discussion and referral including patient-specific (demographics, past medical history, and degree of hearing loss) and site-specific factors (cochlear implant champion and whether the hospital performed implants).Hospitals across all 4 devolved nations of the UK were invited to participate, with data submitted from 36 urban hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. Nine hospitals (25%) conducted cochlear implant assessments. The majority of patients lived in England (n = 5,587, 86.2%); the rest lived in Wales (n = 419, 6.5%) and Scotland (n = 233, 3.6%). The mean patient age was 72 ± 19 years (mean ± standard deviation); 54% were male, and 75·3% of participants were white, 6·3% were Asian, 1·5% were black, 0·05% were mixed, and 4·6% were self-defined as a different ethnicity.Of 6,482 submitted patients meeting pure tone audiometric thresholds for cochlear implantation, 311 already had a cochlear implant. Of the remaining 6,171, 35.7% were informed they were eligible for an implant, but only 9.7% were referred for assessment. When adjusted for site- and patient-specific factors, stand-out findings included that adults were less likely to be referred if they lived in more deprived area decile within Indices of Multiple Deprivation (4th (odds ratio (OR): 2·19; 95% confidence interval (CI): [1·31, 3·66]; p = 0·002), 5th (2·02; [1·21, 3·38]; p = 0·05), 6th (2·32; [1·41, 3·83]; p = 0.05), and 8th (2·07; [1·25, 3·42]; p = 0·004)), lived in London (0·40; [0·29, 0·57]; p p p p p p p p p = 0·001; London 0·44; [0·35, 0·56]; p p p = 0·021), were male (females 1·46; [1·31, 1·62]; p p The study methodology was limited by its observational nature, reliance on accurate documentation of the referring service, and potential underrepresentation of certain demographic groups.ConclusionsThe majority of adults meeting pure tone audiometric threshold criteria for cochlear implantation are currently not appropriately referred for assessment. There is scope to target underrepresented patient groups to improve referral rates. Future research should engage stakeholders to explore the reasons behind the disparities. Implementing straightforward measures, such as educational initiatives and automated pop-up tools for immediate identification, can help streamline the referral process.</div

Flow chart of included patients.

BackgroundPatients with severe-to-profound hearing loss may benefit from management with cochlear implants. These patients need a referral to a cochlear implant team for further assessment and possible surgery. The referral pathway may result in varied access to hearing healthcare. This study aimed to explore referral patterns and whether there were any socioeconomic or ethnic associations with the likelihood of referral. The primary outcome was to determine factors influencing referral for implant assessment. The secondary outcome was to identify factors impacting whether healthcare professionals had discussed the option of referral.Methods and findingsA multicentre multidisciplinary observational study was conducted in secondary care Otolaryngology and Audiology units in Great Britain. Adults fulfilling NICE (2019) audiometric criteria for implant assessment were identified over a 6-month period between 1 July and 31 December 2021. Patient- and site-specific characteristics were extracted. Multivariable binary logistic regression was employed to compare a range of factors influencing the likelihood of implant discussion and referral including patient-specific (demographics, past medical history, and degree of hearing loss) and site-specific factors (cochlear implant champion and whether the hospital performed implants).Hospitals across all 4 devolved nations of the UK were invited to participate, with data submitted from 36 urban hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. Nine hospitals (25%) conducted cochlear implant assessments. The majority of patients lived in England (n = 5,587, 86.2%); the rest lived in Wales (n = 419, 6.5%) and Scotland (n = 233, 3.6%). The mean patient age was 72 ± 19 years (mean ± standard deviation); 54% were male, and 75·3% of participants were white, 6·3% were Asian, 1·5% were black, 0·05% were mixed, and 4·6% were self-defined as a different ethnicity.Of 6,482 submitted patients meeting pure tone audiometric thresholds for cochlear implantation, 311 already had a cochlear implant. Of the remaining 6,171, 35.7% were informed they were eligible for an implant, but only 9.7% were referred for assessment. When adjusted for site- and patient-specific factors, stand-out findings included that adults were less likely to be referred if they lived in more deprived area decile within Indices of Multiple Deprivation (4th (odds ratio (OR): 2·19; 95% confidence interval (CI): [1·31, 3·66]; p = 0·002), 5th (2·02; [1·21, 3·38]; p = 0·05), 6th (2·32; [1·41, 3·83]; p = 0.05), and 8th (2·07; [1·25, 3·42]; p = 0·004)), lived in London (0·40; [0·29, 0·57]; p p p p p p p p p = 0·001; London 0·44; [0·35, 0·56]; p p p = 0·021), were male (females 1·46; [1·31, 1·62]; p p The study methodology was limited by its observational nature, reliance on accurate documentation of the referring service, and potential underrepresentation of certain demographic groups.ConclusionsThe majority of adults meeting pure tone audiometric threshold criteria for cochlear implantation are currently not appropriately referred for assessment. There is scope to target underrepresented patient groups to improve referral rates. Future research should engage stakeholders to explore the reasons behind the disparities. Implementing straightforward measures, such as educational initiatives and automated pop-up tools for immediate identification, can help streamline the referral process.</div

Map of the number of adults submitted to the study according to the region of residence.

Black shading indicates data was not submitted from this region. The image of the UK was adapted from mapSVG under the creative commons license (https://mapsvg.com/maps/united-kingdom).</p

Results of simple and multivariable logistic regression analysis for the primary outcome: whether patients were referred for surgical management of their hearing or not.

Results of simple and multivariable logistic regression analysis for the primary outcome: whether patients were referred for surgical management of their hearing or not.</p

COVID restrictions.

BackgroundPatients with severe-to-profound hearing loss may benefit from management with cochlear implants. These patients need a referral to a cochlear implant team for further assessment and possible surgery. The referral pathway may result in varied access to hearing healthcare. This study aimed to explore referral patterns and whether there were any socioeconomic or ethnic associations with the likelihood of referral. The primary outcome was to determine factors influencing referral for implant assessment. The secondary outcome was to identify factors impacting whether healthcare professionals had discussed the option of referral.Methods and findingsA multicentre multidisciplinary observational study was conducted in secondary care Otolaryngology and Audiology units in Great Britain. Adults fulfilling NICE (2019) audiometric criteria for implant assessment were identified over a 6-month period between 1 July and 31 December 2021. Patient- and site-specific characteristics were extracted. Multivariable binary logistic regression was employed to compare a range of factors influencing the likelihood of implant discussion and referral including patient-specific (demographics, past medical history, and degree of hearing loss) and site-specific factors (cochlear implant champion and whether the hospital performed implants).Hospitals across all 4 devolved nations of the UK were invited to participate, with data submitted from 36 urban hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. Nine hospitals (25%) conducted cochlear implant assessments. The majority of patients lived in England (n = 5,587, 86.2%); the rest lived in Wales (n = 419, 6.5%) and Scotland (n = 233, 3.6%). The mean patient age was 72 ± 19 years (mean ± standard deviation); 54% were male, and 75·3% of participants were white, 6·3% were Asian, 1·5% were black, 0·05% were mixed, and 4·6% were self-defined as a different ethnicity.Of 6,482 submitted patients meeting pure tone audiometric thresholds for cochlear implantation, 311 already had a cochlear implant. Of the remaining 6,171, 35.7% were informed they were eligible for an implant, but only 9.7% were referred for assessment. When adjusted for site- and patient-specific factors, stand-out findings included that adults were less likely to be referred if they lived in more deprived area decile within Indices of Multiple Deprivation (4th (odds ratio (OR): 2·19; 95% confidence interval (CI): [1·31, 3·66]; p = 0·002), 5th (2·02; [1·21, 3·38]; p = 0·05), 6th (2·32; [1·41, 3·83]; p = 0.05), and 8th (2·07; [1·25, 3·42]; p = 0·004)), lived in London (0·40; [0·29, 0·57]; p p p p p p p p p = 0·001; London 0·44; [0·35, 0·56]; p p p = 0·021), were male (females 1·46; [1·31, 1·62]; p p The study methodology was limited by its observational nature, reliance on accurate documentation of the referring service, and potential underrepresentation of certain demographic groups.ConclusionsThe majority of adults meeting pure tone audiometric threshold criteria for cochlear implantation are currently not appropriately referred for assessment. There is scope to target underrepresented patient groups to improve referral rates. Future research should engage stakeholders to explore the reasons behind the disparities. Implementing straightforward measures, such as educational initiatives and automated pop-up tools for immediate identification, can help streamline the referral process.</div

STROBE checklist.

BackgroundPatients with severe-to-profound hearing loss may benefit from management with cochlear implants. These patients need a referral to a cochlear implant team for further assessment and possible surgery. The referral pathway may result in varied access to hearing healthcare. This study aimed to explore referral patterns and whether there were any socioeconomic or ethnic associations with the likelihood of referral. The primary outcome was to determine factors influencing referral for implant assessment. The secondary outcome was to identify factors impacting whether healthcare professionals had discussed the option of referral.Methods and findingsA multicentre multidisciplinary observational study was conducted in secondary care Otolaryngology and Audiology units in Great Britain. Adults fulfilling NICE (2019) audiometric criteria for implant assessment were identified over a 6-month period between 1 July and 31 December 2021. Patient- and site-specific characteristics were extracted. Multivariable binary logistic regression was employed to compare a range of factors influencing the likelihood of implant discussion and referral including patient-specific (demographics, past medical history, and degree of hearing loss) and site-specific factors (cochlear implant champion and whether the hospital performed implants).Hospitals across all 4 devolved nations of the UK were invited to participate, with data submitted from 36 urban hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. Nine hospitals (25%) conducted cochlear implant assessments. The majority of patients lived in England (n = 5,587, 86.2%); the rest lived in Wales (n = 419, 6.5%) and Scotland (n = 233, 3.6%). The mean patient age was 72 ± 19 years (mean ± standard deviation); 54% were male, and 75·3% of participants were white, 6·3% were Asian, 1·5% were black, 0·05% were mixed, and 4·6% were self-defined as a different ethnicity.Of 6,482 submitted patients meeting pure tone audiometric thresholds for cochlear implantation, 311 already had a cochlear implant. Of the remaining 6,171, 35.7% were informed they were eligible for an implant, but only 9.7% were referred for assessment. When adjusted for site- and patient-specific factors, stand-out findings included that adults were less likely to be referred if they lived in more deprived area decile within Indices of Multiple Deprivation (4th (odds ratio (OR): 2·19; 95% confidence interval (CI): [1·31, 3·66]; p = 0·002), 5th (2·02; [1·21, 3·38]; p = 0·05), 6th (2·32; [1·41, 3·83]; p = 0.05), and 8th (2·07; [1·25, 3·42]; p = 0·004)), lived in London (0·40; [0·29, 0·57]; p p p p p p p p p = 0·001; London 0·44; [0·35, 0·56]; p p p = 0·021), were male (females 1·46; [1·31, 1·62]; p p The study methodology was limited by its observational nature, reliance on accurate documentation of the referring service, and potential underrepresentation of certain demographic groups.ConclusionsThe majority of adults meeting pure tone audiometric threshold criteria for cochlear implantation are currently not appropriately referred for assessment. There is scope to target underrepresented patient groups to improve referral rates. Future research should engage stakeholders to explore the reasons behind the disparities. Implementing straightforward measures, such as educational initiatives and automated pop-up tools for immediate identification, can help streamline the referral process.</div

Fig 2 -

(a) Population pyramid by age and sex assigned at birth. (b–d) Population age distribution of Asian (b), black (c), and white (d) adults.</p