| Literature DB >> 24719634 |
Devi Dayal1, Lokesh Saini1, Savita Verma Attri1, Baljinder Singh2, Anil Kumar Bhalla1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Daily administration of thyroxine has proven efficacy in treatment of children with hypothyroidism. However, the possibility of treatment with longer dosing intervals that offers flexibility and choice in maintaining euthyroid state has not been tested in children.Entities:
Keywords: Children; Hypothyroidism; Thyroxine
Year: 2013 PMID: 24719634 PMCID: PMC3968978 DOI: 10.5812/ijem.9499
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Endocrinol Metab ISSN: 1726-913X
Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population
| Parameter | Group A | Group B | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 91.10±34.36 | 97.80±36.72 | 0.44 |
|
| 0.47 | ||
| Male | 14 (35%) | 13 (43.3%) | |
| Female | 26 (65%) | 17 (56.7%) | |
|
| 25.06±11.61 | 26.06±13.14 | 0.737 |
|
| 119.1±18.01 | 120.50±19.23 | 0.750 |
|
| |||
| At start | 3.02±0.86 | 3.03±0.86 | 0.96 |
| At end | 3.00±0.82 | 3.07±0.91 | 0.73 |
Comparison of Parameters of Thyroid Profiles between Two Study Groups at Baseline andduring Follow Up Visits
| Parameter | Time Point | Group A (Mean ± SD) | Group B (Mean ± SD) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Baseline | 1.46±0.29 | 1.49± 0.35 | 0.753 |
| FU visit 1 | 1.44±0.36 | 1.55±0.39 | 0.252 | |
| FU visit 2 | 1.50±0.31 | 1.50±0.54 | 0.994 | |
| FU visit 3 | 1.44±0.35 | 1.41± 0.38 | 0.722 | |
|
| Baseline | 10.01±1.37 | 10.51± 0.77 | 0.058 |
| FU visit 1 | 9.96±1.95 | 10.98±1.20 | 0.091 | |
| FU visit 2 | 9.84±2.01 | 10.32±0.78 | 0.172 | |
| FU visit 3 | 10.23±1.20 | 10.23± 1.20 | 0.996 | |
|
| Baseline | 2.73± 1.28 | 3.13± 1.07 | 0.159 |
| FU visit 1 | 2.89±1.86 | 2.88±1.69 | 0.976 | |
| FU visit 2 | 2.53±1.25 | 3.03±1.33 | 0.117 | |
| FU visit 3 | 2.76±1.63 | 3.48± 1.51 | 0.061 |
Comparison of AST and ALT Levels between Two Study Groups at Baseline andduring Follow Up Visits
| Parameter | Timepoint | Group A, Mean ±SD | Group B, Mean ±SD | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Baseline | 41.78± 8.27 | 34.4± 8.85 | 0.001 |
| FU visit 1 | 43.98± 11.41 | 36.40± 10.42 | 0.005 | |
| FU visit 2 | 41.23± 8.96 | 34.30± 11.08 | 0.007 | |
| FU visit 3 | 40.15±9.74 | 32.50± 8.10 | 0.001 | |
|
| Baseline | 36.68± 6.61 | 27.31± 7.89 | 0.0001 |
| FU visit 1 | 38.13±7.56 | 28.13±9.49 | 0.0001 | |
| FU visit 2 | 35.83±9.66 | 27.33±8.50 | 0.0003 | |
| FU visit 3 | 36.10±7.14 | 26.47± 7.59 | 0.0001 |
Comparison of Various Parameters of Lipid Profiles Between Two Study Groups at Baseline and During Follow Up Visits
| Parameter | Timepoint | Group A, Mean ±SD | Group B, Mean ±SD | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Baseline | 46.95± 6.14 | 39.74± 5.39 | 0.000 |
| FU visit 1 | 45.33±9.23 | 38.43±6.69 | 0.001 | |
| FU visit 2 | 46.98±6.63 | 40.00±5.03 | 0.000 | |
| FU visit 3 | 48.55±4.20 | 40.80± 5.93 | 0.000 | |
|
| Baseline | 75.24±12.06 | 81.97±7.39 | 0.005 |
| FU visit 1 | 74.93±18.04 | 84.38± 9.12 | 0.006 | |
| FU visit 2 | 74.90±14.18 | 80.30±11.01 | 0.078 | |
| FU visit 3 | 75.91±10.72 | 81.24± 7.02 | 0.014 | |
|
| Baseline | 20.5±6.31 | 19.31± 3.43 | 0.316 |
| FU visit 1 | 22.72±8.44 | 19.97±3.68 | 0.071 | |
| FU visit 2 | 20.02±6.35 | 19.38±3.55 | 0.598 | |
| FU visit 3 | 18.78±6.21 | 18.58± 3.68 | 0.869 | |
|
| Baseline | 101.33± 32.31 | 96.41± 17.34 | 0.417 |
| FU visit 1 | 109.28±41.86 | 99.87±18.39 | 0.210 | |
| FU visit 2 | 100.77±31.30 | 96.90±17.85 | 0.516 | |
| FU visit 3 | 93.94±30.99 | 92.48± 19.10 | 0.810 | |
|
| Baseline | 144.64± 18.36 | 156.28± 16.22 | 0.007 |
| FU visit 1 | 146.68±25.90 | 158.20±17.81 | 0.031 | |
| FU visit 2 | 142.23±17.94 | 155.97±17.82 | 0.002 | |
| FU visit 3 | 145.03±17.47 | 154.70± 16.16 | 0.020 |