解读欧洲Graves眼病专家组管理共识

Graves眼病(GO)的管理存在一些分歧,主要是循证医学的证据太少.为了规范GO的管理,欧洲GO专家组(EUGOGO)组织了相关多学科的专家讨论.最后形成了 EUGOGO共识.该共识的主要内容包括:(1)强调建立多学科组成的甲状腺眼病专科团队,且不主张非专科医生诊治GO.(2)提出了实用的GO病情评估指标.(3)活动性中、重度GO患者可行甲基强的松龙(甲强龙)冲击治疗,且最好与眼眶放射治疗合用.必要时可行减压手术.(4)康复或矫形手术应在GO稳定6个月以上才能进行.     

A questionnaire survey on the management of Graves' orbitopathy in Europe

OBJECTIVE: To determine management patterns among clinicians who treat patients with Graves' orbitopathy (GO) in Europe. DESIGN AND METHODS: Questionnaire survey including a case scenario of members of professional organisations representing endocrinologists, ophthalmologists and nuclear medicine physicians. RESULTS: A multidisciplinary approach to manage GO was valued by 96.3% of responders, although 31.5% did not participate or refer to a multidisciplinary team and 21.5% of patients with GO treated by responders were not managed in a multidisciplinary setting. Access to surgery for sight-threatening GO was available only within weeks or months according to 59.5% of responders. Reluctance to refer urgently to an ophthalmologist was noted by 32.7% of responders despite the presence of suspected optic neuropathy. The use of steroids was not influenced by the age of the patient, but fewer responders chose to use steroids in a diabetic patient (72.1 vs 90.5%, P<0.001). Development of cushingoid features resulted in a reduction in steroid use (90.5 vs 36.5%, P<0.001) and increase in the use of orbital irradiation (from 23.8% to 40.4%, P<0.05) and surgical decompression (from 20.9 to 52.9%, P<0.001). More ophthalmologists chose surgical decompression for patients with threatened vision due to optic neuropathy, who were intolerant to steroids than other specialists (70.3 vs 41.8%, P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Deficiencies in the management of patients with GO in Europe were identified by this survey. Further training of clinicians, easier access of patients to specialist multidisciplinary centres and the publication of practice guidelines may help improve the management of this condition in Europe.     

Psychological implications of Graves' orbitopathy

Patients with thyroid eye disease, Graves' orbitopathy (GO), often appear distressed and it is likely that features of the condition such as disturbances in visual function, orbital discomfort and alterations in facial appearance can impart significant psychological morbidity upon the patient, which in turn can be detrimental to their quality of life. When considering the psychological impact of GO, two elements of the disease are important. The disfiguring changes to the eyes and face can have a direct effect upon psychological health, while physical aspects of the disease such as altered visual acuity, diplopia, orbital pain and lacrimation may influence psychological function as a secondary phenomenon, due to interference with daily living. Evidence appears to confirm the anecdotal impression of many clinicians dealing with GO patients that the prevalence of psychological morbidity in this patient group is high. A 'biopsychosocial' approach to care that addresses biological and psychosocial functioning as major determinants of health is an appropriate strategy when treating patients with GO.     

Psychosocial morbidity of Graves' orbitopathy

OBJECTIVE: Ocular diseases markedly impair daily function. In Graves' orbitopathy (GO), an associated psychosocial burden is present due to disfiguring proptosis and/or diplopia, signs with significant impact on functional status and well-being. We have therefore surveyed and assessed the psychosocial morbidity of GO. DESIGN: A prospective controlled study on subjects with GO using internationally validated, self-reporting questionnaires. PATIENTS: One hundred and two consecutive patients with varying degrees of severity and activity of GO. Measurements Emotional distress, coping styles and quality of life (QoL) were assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, by a German adaptation of the Ways-of-Coping Checklist, and with the 36-item Short Form, respectively. Stressful events in the 6 months preceding diagnosis were registered with the Life Experience Survey. QoL findings were compared to German reference values, as well as to 102 age- and gender-matched patients, each with type 1 diabetes (insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, IDDM) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), respectively. RESULTS: Compared to the German reference population, all QoL scales were at a lower rate and were especially decreased in subjects with active and/or severe GO, orbital pain, diplopia and stressful life events. Compared to diabetics, psychosocial scales were considerably reduced in GO (z = -1 vs. 0.1, P < 0.001) and higher scores for depressive coping (2.32 vs. 1.71, P < 0.001) and trivializing (2.37 vs. 1.97, P < 0.006) were noted. In GO, depressive coping and trivializing were negatively correlated with the mental (r = -0.603 and r =-0.411, both P < 0.001) and physical (r = -0.487 and r = -0.354, both P < 0.001) components of QoL. Depressive coping also positively correlated with anxiety (r = 0.636) and depression (r = 0.590), respectively, both P < 0.001. Emotional distress noted in 46 subjects, mostly with active and severe GO, was associated with poor QoL. Anxiety and depression were present in 41 and 24 GO patients, respectively. The number of stressful events positively correlated with the scores of anxiety (r = 0.3335) and depression (r = 0.3178), both P = 0.001. Foremost emotional distress, but also diplopia, stressful events and depressive coping had a major impact on QoL (proportion of variance explained = 13.1%, P < 0.001, multiple regression analysis). More than 75% of the psychosocial impairment in GO (R2= 0.76, P < 0.001) was associated with seven variables only (e.g. depression and anxiety). Six months prior to GO onset, 74 patients experienced a mean of 4 (range 0-13) stressful life events. Subjects with optic neuropathy had more stressful events than those without nerve involvement (5.1 vs. 2.7, P = 0.0425). CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial morbidity is present in severe and/or active GO, which negatively affects QoL. The patients are not only physically ill, they also exhibit emotional distress. Accompanying psychosomatic treatment is indicated among about half of all GO patients.     

Multi-center study on the characteristics and treatment strategies of patients with Graves' orbitopathy: the first European Group on Graves' Orbitopathy experience

To improve management of patients with Graves' orbitopathy, a multi-center collaborative approach is necessary in order to have large enough sample sizes for meaningful randomized clinical trials. This is hampered by a lack of consensus on how to investigate the eye condition. The European Group on Graves' Orbitopathy aims to overcome this and has designed a preliminary case record form (CRF) to assess Graves' orbitopathy patients. This form was used in this first multi-center study. AIM: To investigate patient characteristics and treatment strategies in 152 new consecutively referred patients with thyroid eye disease seen in nine large European referral centers. METHODS: Newly referred patients with Graves' orbitopathy were included who were seen between September and December 2000. Demographic data and a complete ophthalmological assessment were recorded. RESULTS: One-hundred and fifty-two patients (77% females) were included. Diabetes was present in 9%, and glaucoma or cataract in 14% of patients. Forty percent were current smokers, 9% also had dermopathy, and only 33% reported a positive family history of thyroid disease. Mild eye disease was seen in 40%, moderately severe eye disease was seen in 33% and severe eye disease was seen in 28% of patients. Soft tissue involvement was the most frequent abnormality (seen in 75%), proptosis > or =21 mm was found in 63%, eye motility dysfunction in 49%, keratopathy in 16% and optic nerve involvement was found in 21% of patients. According to the clinical impression, 60% had active eye disease. Immunosuppressive treatment was planned more frequently in active patients (57/86; 66%) than in inactive patients (5/57, 9%; Chi-square 46.16; P<0.02). There were no important differences among the eight centers regarding the severity and the activity of their patients. CONCLUSIONS: In view of the large number of patients recruited in only 4 months, multi-center studies in the eight EUGOGO centers appear to be feasible.     

Consensus statement: medical management of acromegaly

In November 2003, the Pituitary Society and the European Neuroendocrine Association sponsored a consensus workshop in Seville to address challenging issues in the medical management of acromegaly. Participants comprised 70 endocrinologists and neurosurgeons with international expertise in managing patients with acromegaly. All participants participated in the workshop proceedings, and the final document written by the scientific committee reflects the consensus opinion of the interactive deliberations. The meeting was supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Ipsen. No pharmaceutical representatives participated in the program planning or in the scientific deliberations.     

Consensus statement on negative pressure wound therapy (V.A.C. Therapy) for the management of diabetic foot wounds

In 2004, a multidisciplinary expert panel convened at the Tucson Expert Consensus Conference (TECC) to determine appropriate use of negative pressure wound therapy as delivered by a Vacuum Assisted Closure device (V.A.C. Therapy, KCI, San Antonio, Texas) in the treatment of diabetic foot wounds. These guidelines were updated by a second multidisciplinary expert panel at a consensus conference on the use of V.A.C. Therapy, held in February 2006, in Miami, Florida. This updated version of the guidelines summarizes current clinical evidence, provides practical guidance, offers best practices to clinicians treating diabetic foot wounds, and helps direct future research. The Miami consensus panel discussed the following 12 key questions regarding V.A.C. Therapy: (1) How long should V.A.C. Therapy be used in the treatment of a diabetic foot wound? (2) Should V.A.C." Therapy be applied without debriding the wound? (3) How should the patient using V.A.C. Therapy be evaluated on an outpatient basis? (4) When should V.A.C. Therapy be applied following revascularization? (5) When should V.A.C. Therapy be applied after incision, drainage, and debridement of infection? (6) Should V.A.C. Therapy be applied over an active soft tissue infection? (7) How should V.A.C. Therapy be used in patients with osteomyelitis? (8) How should noncompliance to V.A.C. Therapy be defined? (9) How should V.A.C. Therapy be used in combination with other modalities? (10) Should small, superficial wounds be considered for V.A.C. Therapy? (11) How should success in the use of V.A.C. Therapy be defined? (12) How can one combine effective offloading and V.A.C. Therapy?