Hyperthyroidism is a common endocrine disease. Although thionamide antithyroid drugs are the cornerstone of hyperthyroidism treatment, some patients cannot tolerate this drug class because of its serious side effects including agranulocytosis, hepatotoxicity, and vasculitis. Therefore, nonthionamide antithyroid drugs (NTADs) still have an important role in controlling hyperthyroidism in clinical practice. Furthermore, some situations such as thyroid storm or preoperative preparation require a rapid decrease in thyroid hormone by combination treatment with multiple classes of antithyroid drugs. NTADs include iodine-containing compounds, lithium carbonate, perchlorate, glucocorticoid, and cholestyramine. In this narrative review, we summarize the mechanisms of action, indications, dosages, and side effects of currently used NTADs for the treatment of hyperthyroidism. In addition, we also describe the state-of-the-art in future drugs under development including rituximab, small-molecule ligands (SMLs), and monoclonal antibodies with a thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor (TSHR) antagonist effect.

Purpose: This study identified the obstacles to diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) from healthcare professionals’ perspectives in Thailand. Patients and methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at 613 hospitals throughout Thailand from December 2016 to March 2017. A self-completion questionnaire on the characteristics of, and obstacles to, diabetes education was sent to administrators, doctors, and diabetes educators (DEs). The views of DEs at public and private hospitals on the characteristics of diabetes education were compared. The obstructing factors reported by administrators, doctors, and DEs were also analyzed. Results: The overall response was 76.6%; the response rates of DEs, doctors, and administrators were 85.6%, 58.9%, and 46.5%, respectively. Although the respondents reported that 75% of patients received diabetes education, only 30% of the DEs believed it was successful. An individual-patient education approach was used by 95.1% of public and 81.4% of private hospitals. The median durations of the individual education sessions were 15 (IQR 10, 28) and 30 (IQR 15, 30) minutes for public and private hospitals, respectively. The DE workload at public hospitals was 3 times heavier than at private hospitals (60 [IQR 30, 140] vs 20 [IQR 10, 33] patients per week; p<0.001). Obstacles to diabetes education were a lack of time due to other duties, a lack of skills in assisting patients with behavior change, inadequate DE numbers, patient disinterest in diabetes education, and patient reluctance to change unhealthy behaviors. Conclusions: High workloads, unclear DE roles, and a lack of DE skills to support patients with behavior change are the primary obstacles to diabetes education.

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) is highly heterogeneous in disease progression and risk of complications. This study aimed to categorize Thai T2D into subgroups using variables that are commonly available based on routine clinical parameters to predict disease progression and treatment outcomes. Research design and methods: This was a cohort study. Data-driven cluster analysis was performed using a Python program in patients with newly diagnosed T2D (n=721) of the Siriraj Diabetes Registry using five variables (age, body mass index (BMI), glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c), triglyceride (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C)). Disease progression and risk of diabetic complications among clusters were compared using the Χ² and Kruskal-Wallis test. Cox regression and the Kaplan-Meier curve were used to compare the time to diabetic complications and the time to insulin initiation. Results: The mean age was 53.4±11.3 years, 58.9% were women. The median follow-up time was 21.1 months (9.2–35.2). Four clusters were identified: cluster 1 (18.6%): high HbA_1c, low BMI (insulin-deficiency diabetes); cluster 2 (11.8%): high TG, low HDL-C, average age and BMI (metabolic syndrome group); cluster 3 (23.3%): high BMI, low HbA_1c, young age (obesity-related diabetes); cluster 4 (46.3%): older age and low HbA_1c at diagnosis (age-related diabetes). Patients in cluster 1 had the highest prevalence of insulin treatment. Patients in cluster 2 had the highest risk of diabetic kidney disease and diabetic retinopathy. Patients in cluster 4 had the lowest prevalence of diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy, and insulin use. Conclusions: We were able to categorize Thai patients with newly diagnosed T2D into four clusters using five routine clinical parameters. This clustering method can help predict disease progression and risk of diabetic complications similar to previous studies using parameters including insulin resistance and insulin sensitivity markers.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics, glycemic control, and microvascular complications compared between young-onset type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients at Siriraj Hospital. Patients and Methods: We collected demographic, clinical, glycemic control, and microvascular complication data of young-onset (onset < 30 years of age) T1DM and T2DM patients at our center using February 2019-December 2020 data from the Thai Type 1 Diabetes and Diabetes diagnosed Age before 30 years Registry, Care and Network (T1DDAR CN). Results: Of 396 patients, 76% had T1DM and 24% had T2DM. At diagnosis, T1DM were significantly younger (9.7± 5.4 vs 16.9± 6.4 years, p< 0.001), had a lower body mass index (17.2± 4.1 vs 30.8± 7.9 kg/m², p< 0.001), higher prevalence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) (66.1% vs 13.7%, p< 0.001), and higher HbA_1c level (12.8± 2.6% vs 10.9± 3.1%, p=0.002) compared to T2DM. Regarding glycemic control, the mean HbA_1c at registry enrollment did not differ between groups (T1DM 8.3± 1.8% vs T2DM 8.1± 2.2%, p=0.303), but T1DM achieved HbA_1c < 7% significantly less than T2DM (19.3% vs 47.8%, p< 0.001). T1DM showed deterioration of glycemic control during 10– 20 years of age, and gradually improved during 20– 30 years of age, whereas patients with T2DM showed progressive worsening of glycemic control over time. Concerning microvascular complications, the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (10.6% vs 9%, p=0.92) and diabetic neuropathy (3.4% vs 5.5%, p=0.514) between T1DM and T2DM was not significantly different. However, T2DM had a significantly higher prevalence of diabetic nephropathy (T1DM 10.1% vs T2DM 40.2%, p< 0.001) that developed within a significantly shorter duration of diabetes (T1DM 11.0± 6.8 vs T2DM 4.3± 5.1 years, p< 0.001) compared to T1DM. Conclusion: T1DM had a significantly high prevalence of DKA at presentation, and most T1DM did not achieve the glycemic target, especially during adolescence. T2DM had a significantly higher prevalence of diabetic nephropathy that developed within a shorter duration of diabetes compared to T1DM.