Search

Introduction: Hyperthyroidism is a common condition affecting up to 3% of the UK population. Treatment improves symptoms and reduces the risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke that contribute to increased mortality. The most common symptom is weight loss, which is reversed during treatment. However, the weight regain may be excessive, contributing to increased risk of obesity. Current treatment options include antithyroid drugs, radioiodine and thyroidectomy. Whether there are differences in either weight change or the long-term cardiometabolic risk between the three treatments is unclear., Methods and Analysis: The study will establish the natural history of weight change in hyperthyroidism, investigate the risk of obesity and risks of cardiometabolic conditions and death relative to the treatment. The data on patients diagnosed with hyperthyroidism between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 2015 will come from Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics Death Registry. The weight changes will be modelled using a flexible joint modelling, accounting for mortality. Obesity prevalence in the general population will be sourced from Health Survey for England and compared with the post-treatment prevalence of obesity in patients with hyperthyroidism. The incidence and time-to-event of major adverse cardiovascular events, other cardiometabolic outcomes and mortality will be compared between the treatments using the inverse propensity weighting model. Incidence rate ratios of outcomes will be modelled with Poisson regression. Time to event will be analysed using Cox proportional hazards model. A competing risks approach will be adopted to estimate comparative incidences to allow for the impact of mortality., Ethics and Dissemination: The study will bring new knowledge on the risk of developing obesity, cardiometabolic morbidity and mortality following treatment for hyperthyroidism to inform clinical practice and public health policies. The results will be disseminated via open-access peer-reviewed publications and directly to the patients and public groups (Independent Scientific Advisory Committee protocol approval #20_000185)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KRA has served as a paid consultant, providing unrelated methodological advice to Abbvie, Amaris, Allergan, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Creativ-Ceutical, GSK, ICON/Oxford Outcomes, Ipsen, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, NICE, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Pfizer, PRMA, Roche and Takeda, and has received research funding from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries & Associations, Pfizer and Sanofi. He is a partner and director of Visible Analytics Limited, a healthcare consultancy company., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The UK's transition from the European Union creates both an urgent need and key opportunity for the UK and its global collaborators to consider new approaches to the regulation of emerging technologies, underpinned by regulatory science. This survey aimed to identify the most accurate definition of regulatory science, to define strategic areas of the regulation of healthcare innovation which can be informed through regulatory science and to explore the training and infrastructure needed to advance UK and international regulatory science., Methods: A survey was distributed to UK healthcare professionals, academics, patients, health technology assessment agencies, ethicists and trade associations, as well as international regulators, pharmaceutical companies and small or medium enterprises which have expertise in regulatory science and in developing or applying regulation in healthcare. Subsequently, a descriptive quantitative analyses of survey results and directed thematic analysis of free-text comments were applied., Results: Priority areas for UK regulatory science identified by 145 participants included the following: flexibility: the capability of regulations to adapt to novel products and target patient outcomes; co-development: collaboration across sectors, e.g. patients, manufacturers, regulators, and educators working together to develop appropriate training for novel product deployment; responsiveness: the preparation of frameworks which enable timely innovation required by emerging events; speed: the rate at which new products can reach the market; reimbursement: developing effective tools to track and evaluate outcomes for "pay for performance" products; and education and professional development., Conclusions: The UK has a time-critical opportunity to establish its national and international strategy for regulatory science leadership by harnessing broader academic input, developing strategic cross-sector collaborations, incorporating patients' experiences and perspectives, and investing in a skilled workforce.