Efficacy of propylthiouracil in the treatment of pregnancy with hyperthyroidism and its effect on pregnancy outcomes: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hyperthyroidism affects about 0.2%-2.7% of all pregnancies, and is generally treated with propylthiouracil (PTU). However, previous studies about the effects of propylthiouracil on maternal or foetal are contentious.
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis was carried out to investigate the safety and efficacy of propylthiouracil during pregnancy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EBSCO, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP database were searched from inception until August 31, 2021 for all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies that evaluated the efficacy of propylthiouracil and its effects on pregnancy outcomes. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for binary variables, weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for continuous variables. RevMan5.4 and Stata 16.0 were used for performing the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: The researchers examined data from 13 randomized controlled trials and cohort studies involving 18948 infants. Congenital anomalies were not significantly associated with PTU in the pooled results (OR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.84-1.25, P = 0.80, I2 = 40.3%). There were no statistically significant differences in neonatal hypothyroidism (OR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.06-4.92, P = 0.593, I2 = 57.0%) or hepatotoxicity (OR = 0.34, 95%CI: 0.08-1.48, P = 0.151, I2 = 0.0%) exposed to PTU compared to the control group. The serum levels of FT3, FT4, TT3, and TT4 were significantly lower in the propylthiouracil group compared to the control group.
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirmed the beneficial effects of propylthiouracil treatment, namely the risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes were not increased, and it also proved PTU's efficacy in the treatment of pregnant women with hyperthyroidism. The findings supported the use of propylthiouracil during pregnancy with hyperthyroidism in order to improve clinical pregnancy outcomes in patients with thyroid dysfunction.

Introduction

Pregnancy hyperthyroidism is one of the most common pregnancy complications, affecting about 0.2–2.7 percent of pregnancies and having an incidence rate of about 65 per 100,000 [1-3]. Graves’ disease and chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG)-mediated hyperthyroidism are the two most common causes of hyperthyroidism during pregnancy [4]. Untreated disease increases the risk of miscarriage, premature delivery, placental abruption, stillbirth, and other complications [5]. Therefore, appropriate management of hyperthyroidism during pregnancy is critical. Clinical guidelines recommending treatment parallels that propylthiouracil should be used as the first line treatment of hyperthyroidism in pregnancy [6, 7]. However, the drug is regarded to pass through the human placenta, it may have an effect on the foetus [8].

Several observational studies have been conducted to investigate the effects of propylthiouracil on the occurrence of adverse pregnancy outcomes, but the findings have been inconclusive and controversial. There is no comprehensive data on the adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with PTU. Several studies have shown that propylthiouracil is hepatotoxic [9, 10], plus research has found that the drug may have teratogenic effects as well [11, 12]. According to a recent cohort study, PTU could lead to neonatal hypothyroidism with or without goitre [13]. In contrast, some studies found no adverse effects of PTU on pregnancy outcomes when conducted retrospectively [14, 15].

As a result, no final conclusion on the use of PTU has been reached, and more research is needed, particularly to investigate the underlying role of propylthiouracil in maternal or foetal health. Therefore, it is necessary to reassess previously published research evidence on the role of PTU treatment in the risk of pregnancy outcomes and its efficacy. Combining and analyzing data from this contentious issue may provide clinical physicians with medication guidelines for pregnant women with hyperthyroidism.

Materials and methods

Literature search

The meta-analysis followed the statement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) [16]. And the following databases were searched: CNKI, Pubmed, Cochrance, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Wanfang and VIP database. These articles were published after inception and before August 2021, which were related to the effectiveness and safety of propylthiouracil treatment on pregnant women. Comparisons with untreated control groups were conducted.

The authors searched independently before the study started for the determination of inclusion criteria. On the basis of MESH, Pubmed was searched first with below keywords: ("pregnancy" OR "Pregnancies" OR "Gestation") AND ("hyperthyroidism" OR "Hyperthyroid" OR "Hyperthyroids" OR "Primary Hyperthyroidism" OR "Hyperthyroidism, Primary"") AND ("Propylthiouracil" OR "6-Propyl-2-Thiouracil" OR "6 Propyl 2 Thiouracil"). Only studies involving humans were included for selection. Moreover, language limitations are English or Chinese. Similar searching strategies were applied in all databases. Searches were performed based on "all fields" in the PubMed and on "titles, abstracts and keywords" in other databases.

Eligibility criteria

Types of participants

In this study, the selected participants needed to satisfy the following criteria: a study population including pregnant women who are clinically and laboratory diagnosed with hyperthyroidism. Hyperthyroidism refers to high levels of serum thyroxine and triiodothyronine, and low levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone [17].

Intervention measures

The control group received no treatment.

The experimental group received propylthiouracil treatment.

Outcomes

The primary outcomes:

Congenital anomalies refer to structural or functional defects occurring in prenatal development [18], classified per International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision [ICD-10], codes Q00 to Q99.

Neonatal thyroid hypothyroidism is defined as abnormal indicators of thyroid function such as thyroid volume (TV), thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), T3 and T4.

Hepatotoxicity: Abnormal Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) and Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) were used as indicators of hepatotoxicity [19].

The secondary outcomes:

Thyroid function in pregnant women: free triiodothyronine (FT3), total triiodothyronine (TT3), free thyroxine (FT4), and total thyroxine (TT4) concentrations.

Free triiodothyronine (FT3), free thyroxine (FT4) were measured by an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay on a Cobas Elecsys 601 unit (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland). Total thyroxine(TT4) and total triiodothyronine (TT3) were measured using radioimmunoassay. The FT4 and FT3 reference intervals were 9.2–21.0 pmol/L and 3.52–5.61pmol/L; TT4 was 86.9–213.2nmol/L and TT3 was 1.32–3.72 nmol/L in pregnancy [20].

Exclusion criteria

For the meta-analysis, any study that meets a certain exclusion criterion must be excluded in this paper: (1) Literature with incomplete reporting information for data. (2) Literature without adequate data for result interpretation. (3) Literature that including other anti-thyroid therapies instead of propylthiouracil. (4) Review, studies related to animal trial, in vitro study, case report, meeting abstract.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two reviewers independently performed the research screening. After the databases search were finished, all the filtered titles and abstracts of literature were imported into the document management software for duplicate studies screening. Those failing to satisfy the inclusion criteria were screened, and eventually the studies that meet the inclusion criteria were sorted out through full text reading. In literature screening, if disagreement arose, reviewers should discuss with a third researcher or consult experts relevant to the research field. In case of various papers having been published in the same research, only the research that has the most complete data and the most coincident with the inclusion criteria should be included. All the selected studies satisfying the inclusion criteria were selected and analyzed using computer: basic research information (author, title, study type, year of publication), experimental design (number of cases, dosage, interventions, duration of exposure) and outcome indicators. If there were inconsistent outcome indicator units in the study, the units should be converted in uniform before carrying out subsequent data processing. If some information was missing in the research, the original author should be contacted by telephone or e-mail for relevant data.

Cochrane Handbook recommended a method for System Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0, the evaluation items of which include random grouping methods, use of blind methods, allocation of hidden scheme design, reporting of results data, whether there are other sources of bias, whether there is any selective reporting of research results, etc. The selected studies were evaluated for bias risk using the method and its results were reported as follows: "low risk" represents correct method or the complete data, illustrating small bias risk; "Unclear" means unclear method, illustrating moderate bias risk; "high risk" indicates that incorrect method or incomplete data, illustrating high bias risk. Finally, the bias risk assessment chart could be obtained after the evaluation results were input into RevMan 5.4 software.

Statistical analysis

To analyze statistics, the Software package STATA (version 16; STATA Inc., College Station, TX, USA) was utilized. The weighted mean differences (WMD) were used to compare continuous variables, while categorical data utilized by pooled odds ratios (ORs) were obtained to determine whether there were significant differences in the compared data. Confidence interval (CI) of 95% was used to express the effect of the quantity of counting data and the measurement data.

In the heterogeneity test, in case of the statistics P> 0.1, I2 < 50% was generally regarded as an indicator of a higher homogeneity among study results, revealing no significant statistical difference in the included data. Under the circumstances, the fixed effect model should be employed. In case of statistic P ≤ 0.1, I2 ≥ 50% was generally regarded as an indicator of heterogeneity among study results, indicating significant statistical differences in the inclusion data, and the random effect models were used. And given the factors that might result in heterogeneity, heterogeneity probably exists. If a study varied significantly from all other included studies in methods or results, a sensitivity analysis would be conducted to exclude those studies from the meta-analysis. Funnel plots were generated and the Begg’s and Egger’s test were employed to assess and test publication bias, respectively. P<0.05 indicated statistical significance, unless otherwise specified.

Results

Search results

S1 Materials shows the search strategy in detail. Fig 1 shows the PRISMA flow chart for literature selection and the PRISMA checklist is shown in the S1 Table. There were totally 1912 studies in the nine databases (PubMed: 430; EBSCO: 198; Embase: 707; Web of science: 145; Cochrane: 6; Scopus: 340; CNKI: 49; wanfang database: 24; VIP: 13). There were no additional records from other sources found. After removing duplicates, up to 1090 records remained, and 820 of them were delegated after the titles and abstracts were examined. In addition, full texts of 35 articles were read, with 22 of them being refused. Finally, 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis [14, 15, 21–31].

Fig 1

Flow chart of study selection process.

Study characteristics and quality assessment

This meta-analysis included 13 articles. The experiment group included pregnant women who accepted propylthiouracil treatment for a normal range of thyroid hormone levels during hyperthyroidism. The control group included pregnant women with hyperthyroidism who had not received antithyroid treatment prior to delivery. Table 1 shows the features of articles included in this study.

Table 1

Characteristics of included studies.

Study	Year	Study type	Participants	Controls	Duration of exposure	Outcomes
Hao	2018	RCT	56 women treated with PTU; The initial dose is 100mg, three times a day, and the dosage is increased or decreased according to the disease	122 women not receiving any treatment	Before the end of 18 weeks of gestation	①
Andersen	2017	Cohort study	218 women treated with PTU; Dose unknown	1551 women not receiving any treatment	During the first trimester of pregnancy	①
Ji	2017	RCT	20 women treated with PTU; The initial dose is 100mg, three times a day, and the dosage is increased or decreased according to the disease	20 women not receiving any treatment	During pregnancy	③④⑤⑥⑦
Lo	2015	Cohort study	433 women treated with PTU; Dose unknown	1144 women not receiving any treatment	Before the end of 2 months of gestation	①②
Gianetti	2015	Cohort study	52 women treated with PTU; daily dose ranges from 50 to 200 mg	203 women not receiving any treatment	During the first trimester of pregnancy	①③
Andersen	2014	Cohort study	564 women treated with PTU; Dose unknown	3543 women not receiving any treatment	During the first trimester of pregnancy	①
Guo	2014	RCT	58 women treated with PTU; The initial dose is 100mg, three times a day, and the dosage is increased or decreased according to the disease	52 women not receiving any treatment	During pregnancy	③④⑤⑥⑦
Xu	2013	RCT	65 women treated with PTU; The initial dose is 100mg, three times a day, and the dosage is increased or decreased according to the disease	65 women not receiving any treatment	During the first trimester of pregnancy	①④⑤⑥⑦
Korelitz	2013	Cohort study	915 women treated with PTU; Dose unknown	3236 women not receiving any treatment	Before the end of 6 months of gestation	①②
Yoshihara	2012	Cohort study	1578 women treated with PTU; Dose unknown	2065 women not receiving any treatment	During the first trimester of pregnancy	①
Chen	2011	Case-control	630 women treated with PTU; Dose unknown	2127 women not receiving any treatment	During the first trimester of pregnancy	①
Lian	2005	Case-control	28 women treated with PTU; Dose unknown	61 women not receiving any treatment	During the first trimester of pregnancy	①
Wing	1994	Cohort study	99 women treated with PTU; The median maximal daily medication dose of propylthiouracil was 450 mg with a range of 150 to 600mg	43 women not receiving any treatment	Before the end of 15 weeks of gestation	①③

Note: ①Congenital anomalies ②hepatotoxicity ③infants thyroid dysfunction ④FT3 ⑤FT4 ⑥TT3 ⑦TT4

Figs 2 and 3 depict the risk-of-bias assessment in minute detail. Only two studies demonstrated a low risk of bias [21, 25], and an unclear risk of bias was found in eleven studies [14, 15, 22–24, 26–31]. Six studies’ randomization was handled correctly [21, 22, 25, 28–30], and five studies dealt with allocation-sequence concealment adequately. Details about participants and personnel blinding were provided in nine studies [14, 15, 21–27], while outcome assessor blinding was reported in nine more [14, 15, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29–31]. For each article, the cause and number of withdrawals and dropouts were provided.

Fig 2

Risk of bias assessment.

Fig 3

Trial quality assessment.

Meta analysis results

Many studies have been conducted to assess the risk of congenital anomalies, neonatal hypothyroidism, and hepatotoxicity in pregnant women exposed to propylthiouracil, but the associations are unclear. The current findings provide greater power to the results of pregnancy outcomes for PTU treatment based on 13 RCTs and cohort studies.

Congenital anomalies

Eleven studies with a total of 18460 infants reported findings on congenital anomalies. Because heterogeneity analysis revealed that the included studies were highly homogeneous (I2 = 40.3%, P = 0.08), the fixed effect model was chosen, and sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were reliable. The meta-analysis of these eleven studies on the association of propylthiouracil treatment with congenital malformations yielded a pooled OR of 1.03, with a 95% CI of 0.84–1.25, demonstrating no significant differences in this outcome between the treatment group and control group (P = 0.80). This finding illustrated that propylthiouracil did not pose a significant teratogenic risk (Fig 4).

Fig 4

Forest plots of showing the effects of PTU on congenital anomalies.

Neonatal hypothyroidism

Four studies involving 547 infants reported findings on neonatal hypothyroidism. The heterogeneity test for these outcomes was significant (I2 = 57.0%, P = 0.073), so the random effects model was adopted. There were no statistically significant differences in the pooled odds ratios of neonatal hypothyroidism between women treated with PTU and the control group (OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.06–4.92, P = 0.593). Sensitivity analyses using sequential omission of individual studies had no significant effect on the overall combined OR, indicating that the combined OR was credible and valid. We found no link between the use of propylthiouracil in pregnancy and the risk of neonatal thyroid dysfunction in women with hyperthyroidism (Fig 5).

Fig 5

Forest plots of showing the effects of PTU on neonatal hypothyroidism.

Hepatotoxicity

Two studies with a total of 8012 patients reported hepatotoxicity findings. There was no statistical heterogeneity among the research (I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.959), so the fixed effect model was used. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in hepatotoxicity between propylthiouracil treatment group and the control group in pregnant women with hyperthyroidism (OR 0.34, 95%CI: 0.08–1.48, P = 0.151) (Fig 6). We found no evidence of an increased risk of liver disease in women who took propylthiouracil.

Fig 6

Forest plots of showing the effects of PTU on hepatotoxicity.

To explore the efficacy of the propylthiouracil in pregnant women, we also analyzed the values of FT3, FT4, TT3 and TT4 at the same time.

FT3

Three studies with 215 patients reported results on FT3. There was no statistical heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.552), so the fixed effect model was adopted. In women with hyperthyroidism, the value of FT3 was significantly decreased in propylthiouracil treatment than the control group(WMD:-14.09,95%CI: -14,51– -13.68, P<0.001) (Fig 7). Propylthiouracil achieved a stable FT3 state in patients, according to the findings.

Fig 7

Forest plots of showing the effects of PTU on FT3.

FT4

Three studies with a total of 215 patients reported FT4 results. There was a little statistical heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 55.3%, P = 0.107), so random effects model was adopted. All of these studies concluded that propylthiouracil significantly reduced the value of FT4 in hyperthyroid women (WMD: -53.98, 95%CI: -56.06–-51.87, P<0.001). Our study revealed that propylthiouracil could improve thyroid function in pregnant women with hyperthyroidism (Fig 8).

Fig 8

Forest plots of showing the effects of PTU on FT4.

TT3

A total of two studies were included in this study, and there was low statistical heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.623). Therefore, the fixed effect model was used for meta-analysis, and it seemed that the difference in TT3 between the treatment group and the control group was statistically significant. In patients with hyperthyroidism, the value of TT3 was significantly decreased in the experimental group vs. the control group (WMD: -1.45,95%CI: -1.73– -1.17, P<0.001) (Fig 9). Propylthiouracil was found to be effective in the treatment of hyperthyroidism.

Fig 9

Forest plots of showing the effects of PTU on TT3.

TT4

A total of 3 studies were included in this study, and the statistical heterogeneity among literature was small (I2 = 38.1%, P = 0.199). Therefore, the fixed effect model was used for meta-analysis. We did find a significant difference in the value of TT4 (WMD: -153.67, 95%CI: -160.73–-146.62, P<0.001) (Fig 10). The combined results of these studies revealed that propylthiouracil treatment had a remarkable effect on the TT4.

Fig 10

Forest plots of showing the effects of PTU on TT4.

Publication bias

To assess the study’s quality and risk of bias, various complementary methods were used, including funnel plots, Begg’s and Egger’s tests. In studies on hyperthyroid patients, there was a clear symmetry funnel plot for congenital anomalies (Fig 11). The results of Egger’s (P = 0.768) and Begg’s (P = 0.64) tests also confirmed that there was no significant risk of bias in the study.

Fig 11

Funnel plot of congenital anomalies.

Discussion

Thyroid hormone is essential for normal pregnancy and intrauterine foetal development, particularly growth of the fetal brain [32, 33]. There is compelling evidence that pregnant women should be treated for hyperthyroidism [34, 35]. However, the therapy for hyperthyroidism is limited because all available treatments have reported adverse effects on pregnancy. The option is ultimately dependent on the balance of undesirable side effect burden associated with these medications. PTU is commonly used in the first trimester of pregnancy, but the risks of propylthiouracil-related pregnancy outcomes are debatable.

In this report, we utilized meta-analysis for the first time to summarize the pooled ORs of pregnancy outcomes and efficacy after exposure to propylthiouracil in pregnant women. Concerning the safety profile, we discovered that hyperthyroidism patients treated with PTU had no significant differences in the OR of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as congenital anomalies, hepatotoxicity, and neonatal thyroid hypothyroidism, when compared to no treatment controls, indicating that propylthiouracil therapy did not increase the risk of unwanted side effects on pregnancy outcomes. The study also discovered the effectiveness of propylthiouracil on the therapy among pregnant women with hyperthyroidism. Further research revealed that propylthiouracil may significantly lower serum levels of FT4, FT3, TT4, and TT3.

The current study team analyzed the effect sizes of all included studies and discovered that PTU had no relationship with congenital anomalies. In the present study, ten of the eleven studies that evaluated the relationship between propylthiouracil and the risk of congenital anomalies found no link. Our findings were consistent with previous systematic reviews [36-38], which found that the risk of congenital anomalies was similar in hyperthyroid women treated with PTU and those who did not accept any antithyroid drug. Previous research by Li, H et al. [39] suggested that the risk of birth defects increased with PTU exposure, which contradicted our findings. Perhaps the reason was that the subjects in their control group were healthy women. It is possible that the risk of propylthiouracil-induced anomalies is higher than in women without hyperthyroidism, but not higher than the risk in hyperthyroid patients who do not receive treatment. Furthermore, due to its high molecular weight and low placental passage rate, PTU has a lower impact on the foetus when compared to other commonly used drugs.

Second, we investigated the effects of PTU on neonatal hypothyroidism, which had not been analyzed in the previous meta-analysis. In animal studies, the current study found that PTU could cause foetal goitre [40]. Because propylthiouracil can suppress foetal thyroid function after the 11th post-conceptional week of pregnancy, when colloid begins to emerge in thyroid follicles and thyroxin can be detected, it should be avoided [41, 42]. Despite the theoretical link between PTU and foetal and neonatal thyroid hypothyroidism, our study found no significant difference. One possible mechanism is that the risk of neonatal hypothyroidism is significantly associated with the duration and cumulative dose of PTU, while the drugs used in the studies were clinically recommended doses. Propylthiouracil has no potential side effects for neonatal hypothyroidism or goitre if the dose is appropriately adjusted.

The current meta-analysis found that hyperthyroidism women treated with propylthiouracil had no significant differences in the ORs of hepatotoxicity compared to the control group, which was consistent with a previous study by Ping L et al. [43] Although PTU-induced liver disease was well documented in adults and children, there was limited data on hepatotoxicity in pregnant women and even less on effects on the foetus, resulting in conflicting opinions. Korelitz [15] discovered that women with hyperthyroidism who were not treated with PTU had higher rates of liver dysfunction than those who received PTU treatment. These findings could be explained by the link between untreated or inactive hyperthyroidism and elevated liver transaminases, or by the link between autoimmune disease and liver problems. There may be women whose pregnancy has been complicated by hyperthyroidism who are not being treated, and in these women, abnormalities in liver function tests are not uncommon, especially in women with hyperemesis gravidarum. It’s also possible that doctors avoided giving antithyroid drugs to women who already had liver problems.

FT3, FT4, TT3 and TT4 are the first line parameters for diagnosis of clinical hyperthyroidism. These substances each have their own functions in the body and collectively reflect the thyroid gland’s function. In our study of hyperthyroid women, TT3 and TT4 values were significantly lower in the treatment group compared to the control group. A recently published study lent support to this conclusion, claiming that propylthiouracil improved patient prognosis by controlling thyroid hormone levels in patients [43]. And FT3 and FT4 are hormones that bind to target cell receptors to perform their functions. Our study also analyzed the influence of PTU on FT3, FT4, and found that there was a significant difference in favour of PTU treatment. It is reasonable to expect that propylthiouracil can clearly relieve hyperthyroidism symptoms and improve thyroid gland function in pregnant patients with hyperthyroidism.

The current meta-analysis differed from others in that it assessed not only the influence of propylthiouracil in pregnant women with congenital anomalies, but also other effects of adverse pregnancy outcomes and its effectiveness.

Limitations in current evidence

This meta-analysis has some limitations. First, we are unable to analyse specific birth defects because the included studies do not provide the original data. Equally important, children should be followed up after birth, and an agreement should be reached on the best time to follow up because some anomalies are not visible at birth. These factors may have influenced the results.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the results of this meta-analysis for PTU treatment during pregnancy are reassuring because they show that it does not increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and can improve thyroid function in pregnant women with hyperthyroidism. Our evidence suggests that propylthiouracil is a safer and more effective option for treating pregnant women with hyperthyroidism. We believe our findings could be useful to physicians prescribing PTU to pregnant women with hyperthyroidism in the future, but more research is needed to confirm this conclusion.

Search strategy.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

PRISMA checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

25 Jan 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Surasak Saokaew, PharmD, PhD, BPHCP, FACP, FCPA

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a good-written manuscript presenting interesting research that aimed to finding outcome of efficacy and safety to use propylthiouracil during pregnancy with hyperthyroidism. Overall, methodology is valid and clearly. Studies were combinable and appropriate statistical methods used to combine results. Results and conclusion are generalizable.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presents a meta-analysis that investigates the safety and efficacy of propylthiouracil during pregnancy. Results confirm the beneficial effects of propylthiouracil treatment. The risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes were not increased. PTU's efficacy in the treatment of pregnant women with hyperthyroidism was proven. The findings support the use of propylthiouracil during pregnancy with hyperthyroidism. This meta-analysis is important in order to summarize existing evidence and may provide clinical physicians with medication guidelines for pregnant women with hyperthyroidism. There are a few points to consider before publication can be recommended.

General: Improve spelling and mode of expression. There are several unfinished sentences and wrong phrases. In addition check whether correct English is used. Examples (not complete):

- people (abstract, better: patients, infants, pregnant women)

- sensitivity conducted analysis was conducted (methods)

- The study selection process is in Fig. 1. (results, better: is shown)

- propyliouracil instead of propylthiouracil (results, three times)

- A total of two literature were included in this study (results, better: studies)

- pregnant outcomes (discussion, better: pregnancy outcomes)

- in pregnant In this report (discussion, incomplete sentence)

- than those who were. (discussion, unfinished sentence)

- the treatment group significantly reduced the value of TT3, TT4 (discussion)

Introduction: "The evidence previously published research on the role of PTU treatment on the risk of pregnancy outcomes and its efficacy must be updated." Please check and improve this sentence.

Methods: "English language and Humans are limitations for searching"? What does this mean?

Intervention measures: "The experimental group received propylthiouracil treatment." The timing of treatment is important! The effect on birth defects can only be investigated when administered in the first trimester of pregnancy. Please add information on the timing of treatment from the original studies.

Exclusion criteria: "(4) Non-randomized controlled trials." What about cohort studies? Cohort studies were included in the analysis.

Description of bias risk may be wrong: "high risk" represents correct method or the complete data, illustrating small bias risk; "Unclear" means unclear method, illustrating moderate bias

risk; "low risk" indicates that incorrect method or incomplete data, illustrating high bias

risk. Other way round?

Supporting information

"Supplementary material 1. Search strategy." There is another supplementary material (not mentioned in this section).

Figure 1. Flowchart. Please add more numbers. What happened to 1017 records after checking for duplicates? Please add information on that. Please add numbers to the reasons. (-animal experiment (n=xx)).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Natthaya chaomuang

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

16 Feb 2022

February 16, 2022

Response for manuscript PONE-D-21-34654 “Efficacy of propylthiouracil in the treatment of pregnancy with hyperthyroidism and its effect on pregnancy outcomes: A meta-analysis”

Dear Surasak Saokaew, PharmD, PhD, BPHCP, FACP, FCPA Academic Editors:

Thank you for providing us with such a great opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript. Meanwhile, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the reviewers for their detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. According to those helpful suggestions, we have extensively revised the manuscript by correcting mistakes pointed out and supplemented the required materials to make our results convincing. At the same time, we ensure that the manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements and has registered an ORCID iD of 0000-0002-6084-3662. All data, models, and code generated or used during the study appear in the submitted article.

We hope you will be satisfied with the revised version and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

The authors

Encl. Responses to the comments from Reviewer 1 and 2.

Reply to Reviewer #1

Dear Natthaya chaomuang,

Thank you very much for your time spent in reviewing our manuscript and for your encouraging comments on its merits. After careful consideration, we have further revised the article. We hope that you will be more satisfied with the revised version.

Comments:

“This is a good-written manuscript presenting interesting research that aimed to finding outcome of efficacy and safety to use propylthiouracil during pregnancy with hyperthyroidism. Overall, methodology is valid and clearly. Studies were combinable and appropriate statistical methods used to combine results. Results and conclusion are generalizable.”

Thank you very much for your affirmation of this article. We hope you will find this revised version more satisfactory. We are more than happy to make any further changes that will improve the article and facilitate successful publication.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Reply to Reviewer #2

Dear Reviewer,

We are really grateful to you for your time and efforts put into the comments. Those comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our manuscript.

In the remainder of this letter, we discuss each of your comments individually along with our corresponding responses. We appreciate your clear and detailed feedback and hope that the explanation has fully addressed all your concerns.

Comments:

“The manuscript presents a meta-analysis that investigates the safety and efficacy of propylthiouracil during pregnancy. Results confirm the beneficial effects of propylthiouracil treatment. The risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes were not increased. PTU's efficacy in the treatment of pregnant women with hyperthyroidism was proven. The findings support the use of propylthiouracil during pregnancy with hyperthyroidism. This meta-analysis is important in order to summarize existing evidence and may provide clinical physicians with medication guidelines for pregnant women with hyperthyroidism. There are a few points to consider before publication can be recommended.”

Thank you for your positive and valuable comments and hope our responses will exactly meet all your expectations.

To facilitate this discussion, we first retype your comments in italic font and then present our response to the comments.

Comment 1:

General: Improve spelling and mode of expression. There are several unfinished sentences and wrong phrases. In addition check whether correct English is used. Examples (not complete):

- people (abstract, better: patients, infants, pregnant women)

- sensitivity conducted analysis was conducted (methods)

- The study selection process is in Fig. 1. (results, better: is shown)

- propyliouracil instead of propylthiouracil (results, three times)

- A total of two literature were included in this study (results, better: studies)

- pregnant outcomes (discussion, better: pregnancy outcomes)

- in pregnant In this report (discussion, incomplete sentence)

- than those who were. (discussion, unfinished sentence)

- the treatment group significantly reduced the value of TT3, TT4 (discussion)

Response 1:

We really appreciate your suggestion. At the same time, we feel quite sorry and guilty that we have made such mistakes in spelling, grammar and expression. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Many thanks for your support! After careful examination, we have corrected those mistakes based on your helpful comments. We have also carefully reviewed the entire article to make sure that there is no other similar mistake.

-The researchers examined data from 13 randomized controlled trials and cohort studies involving 18948 infants. (The line number 16)

-If a study varied significantly from all other included studies in methods or results, a sensitivity analysis was used to exclude those studies from the meta-analysis. (The line number 152)

-Fig 1 shows the PRISMA flow chart for literature selection and the PRISMA checklist is shown in the S2. (The line number158)

-We have revised all propyliouracil to propylthiouracil.(The line number169, 195, 215)

-A total of two studies were included in this study. (The line number 232)

-We have revised all pregnant outcomes to pregnancy outcomes. (The line number185, 262, 265, 268)

-In this report, we utilized meta-analysis for the first time to summarize the pooled ORs of pregnancy outcomes and efficacy after exposure to propylthiouracil in pregnant women . (The line number 261)

-Korelitz[15] discovered that women with hyperthyroidism who were not treated with PTU had higher rates of liver dysfunction than those who received PTU treatment. (The line number 304)

-In our study of hyperthyroid women, TT3 and TT4 values were significantly lower in the treatment group compared to the control group. (The line number 314)

Comment 2:

Introduction: "The evidence previously published research on the role of PTU treatment on the risk of pregnancy outcomes and its efficacy must be updated." Please check and improve this sentence.

Response 2:

We feel great thanks for your kind comment. After much thought, we have changed this sentence to “Therefore, it is necessary to reassess previously published research evidence on the role of PTU treatment in the risk of pregnancy outcomes and its efficacy.” (The line number 53)

Comment 3:

Methods: "English language and Humans are limitations for searching"? What does this mean?

Response 3:

Thank you very much for pointing it out. In fact, our original intention is to include the English literature and exclude studies related to animal trial. According to your comment, We have changed this sentence to “Only studies involving humans were included for selection. Moreover, language limitations are English or Chinese.” (The line number 71)

Comment 4:

Intervention measures: "The experimental group received propylthiouracil treatment." The timing of treatment is important! The effect on birth defects can only be investigated when administered in the first trimester of pregnancy. Please add information on the timing of treatment from the original studies.

Response 4:

Your suggestion really mean a lot to us. We feel very sorry that we did not provide enough information about the timing of treatment before. According to your comment, we have added the duration of exposure of each study and it has been shown in table 1.

Comment 5:

Exclusion criteria: "(4) Non-randomized controlled trials." What about cohort studies? Cohort studies were included in the analysis.

Response 5:

Thank you for your nice suggestion. This research covers both RCT and cohort studies, so the exclusion criteria here have been changed to “(4)review, studies related to animal trial, in vitro study, case report and meeting abstract.” (The line number 108)

Comment 6:

Description of bias risk may be wrong: "high risk" represents correct method or the complete data, illustrating small bias risk; "Unclear" means unclear method, illustrating moderate bias

risk; "low risk" indicates that incorrect method or incomplete data, illustrating high bias

risk. Other way round?

Response 6:

Thank you for your reminding. We feel really sorry for this mistake. The sentence has been changed to‘"low risk" represents correct method or the complete data, illustrating small bias risk; "Unclear" means unclear method, illustrating moderate bias risk; "high risk" indicates that incorrect method or incomplete data, illustrating high bias risk.’ (The line number 132)

Comment 7:

Supporting information

"Supplementary material 1. Search strategy." There is another supplementary material (not mentioned in this section).

Response 7:

We are grateful to you for pointing it out. Actually, there was only one supplementary document, but in the process of revision and improvement, we added another one, and now there are two supplementary materials. One is search strategy, the other is PRISMA checklist. Therefore, we have changed this expression to "S1 materials. Search strategy." based on your comment. (The line number 158)

Comment 8:

Figure 1. Flowchart. Please add more numbers. What happened to 1017 records after checking for duplicates? Please add information on that. Please add numbers to the reasons. (-animal experiment (n=xx)).

Response 8:

Thanks for your nice suggestions. According to your comment, we have reworked the flow chart, and it is showed in Fig 1.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your time and efforts put into our manuscript, which is of great help to improve the quality of our manuscript. We hope you will be satisfied with our revised version.

We hope our revision covers all your concerns about the article. We would appreciate it if there are any other changes needing to be made to improve the quality of our article. We sincerely hope this article will be acceptable to be published on PLOS ONE.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

23 Feb 2022

Efficacy of propylthiouracil in the treatment of pregnancy with hyperthyroidism and its effect on pregnancy outcomes: A meta-analysis

PONE-D-21-34654R1

Dear Dr.  Yiqun Miao,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Surasak Saokaew, PharmD, RPh, PhD, BPHCP, FACP, FCPA

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

28 Feb 2022

PONE-D-21-34654R1

Efficacy of propylthiouracil in the treatment of pregnancy with hyperthyroidism and its effect on pregnancy outcomes: A meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Miao:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Surasak Saokaew

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE