Tachycardia in hyperthyroidism: Not so common.

OBJECTIVE: The commonly held association of hyperthyroidism with sinus tachycardia and widened pulse pressure (PP) has not been reassessed in decades despite patients with hyperthyroidism in current practice not always present with these signs. The study objective was to assess prevalence and variability of sinus tachycardia and widened PP in present day among individuals with different degrees of hyperthyroidism.
METHODS: Data was collected retrospectively from 248 adult patients in an outpatient setting with biochemical evidence of hyperthyroidism, recorded heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) who were not treated with medications that can influence these parameters.
RESULTS: Mean age was 42.0 ± 14.2 years with 66.9% being female. Median free thyroxine (fT4) level was 3.49 (IQR 2.42-4.58) ng/dL and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) 0.02 (IQR 0.01-0.03) mIU/L. Tachycardia, defined as HR >100 bpm, was present in 28.2%. In the lowest and highest fT4 quartiles, tachycardia was present in 16.4% and 38.7% respectively. Using logistic regression, tachycardia was associated with higher fT4 and diastolic BP. More lenient outcome of tachycardia with HR >90 bpm was seen in 47.2%. Widened PP, defined as >50 mmHg, was observed in 64.1% of patients and correlated with higher fT4 and BP.
CONCLUSIONS: Tachycardia is not a common feature of hyperthyroidism today. The relatively infrequent finding of tachycardia in this study compared to older studies may reflect differences in the way medicine is practiced today. The increased ordering of thyroid function tests most likely unmasked cases of mild or asymptomatic thyrotoxicosis. A widened PP was a more prevalent clinical finding in this study.

Introduction

Thyroid hormones are well known to have a significant impact on cardiac function through their effect on cardiac gene expression and sensitivity of the sympathetic system [1]. Extensive evidence indicates that even minimal but persistent changes in circulating thyroid hormone levels lead to changes in heart rate (HR) and contractility [2-4]. Consequently, excessive or deficient thyroid hormones lead to profound changes in cardiac function regulation and cardiovascular hemodynamics.

It is a well-established fact that hyperthyroidism enhances myocardial contractility resulting in increased stroke volume and reduces systemic vascular resistance [5]. This combined effect leads to a widened pulse pressure (PP) [6]. Sinus tachycardia, defined as a HR of >100 beats per minutes (bpm), is another common sign of hyperthyroidism present in 70–100% of patients [7-9]. However, the literature on this finding is from the 1980s with tachycardia inconsistently defined and, in some studies, reported as ≥ 90 bpm. In those studies, mean HR ranged from 95 to 105 bpm [7-9].

In our clinical practice, we noted the absence of sinus tachycardia in many newly diagnosed patients with untreated hyperthyroidism, even with elevated free thyroxine (fT4) levels more than two- to four-fold the upper limit of normal. This clinical observation together with the paucity of recent literature on this subject prompted us to explore the prevalence and range of variability of sinus tachycardia and PP in patients with hyperthyroidism of varying degrees of severity.

Methods

Study design

We undertook a retrospective cross-sectional study of adults who were biochemically hyperthyroid with available HR and blood pressure (BP) measurements. Data were obtained from the electronic medical records of outpatients seen in the Cook County Health System and John H. Stroger Jr Hospital of Cook County in Chicago, Illinois. Trained nursing staff in the various clinics using the same standard automated equipment measured the heart rate and blood pressure values. The study was approved by the hospital’s institutional review board committee with a consent waiver.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria included adults >18 years old seen in the outpatient clinics during a two-year period who were biochemically hyperthyroid, defined as having a fT4 >21.1 pmol/L (reference range 7.9–21.1 pmol/L) and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) <0.1 mIU/L (reference range 0.34–5.60 mIU/L), and with available corresponding HR and BP measurements recorded within 30 days of thyroid test dates.

Exclusion criteria included patients treated with any of the following medications listed within 90 days of the thyroid tests: levothyroxine (LT4), beta-blockers, digoxin and other anti-hypertensive drugs including calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, hydralazine, aldosterone receptor blockers and diuretics. Patients treated with methimazole (MMI) or propylthiouracil (PTU) within 30 days of the thyroid tests were also excluded from the study.

Study group

We obtained data from 141,439 observations of 59,400 patients who had thyroid function testing done during a two-year period (Fig 1). The study population was narrowed to 35,681 patients who had both TSH and fT4 levels and HR and BP measurements within 30 days of measuring the thyroid function tests (TFTs). Fig 1 further explains the exclusion steps based on LT4, beta-blockers, digoxin, and anti-hypertensive medications within 90 days of TFTs. Patients with normal or low fT4 (fT4 ≤1.64 ng/dL) and/or TSH ≥0.1 mIU/mL were also excluded. The last exclusion factor was the use of anti-thyroid drugs within 30 days of TFTs. The final sample population was 248 patients. For each patient, a detailed chart review was performed, including confirmation of the diagnosis of hyperthyroidism based on laboratory values, functional imaging (if performed), and clinic notes. For patients with two or more documented HR and BP measurements during the clinic visit, the values were averaged.

Fig 1

Flow chart for inclusion and exclusion of the study population with hyperthyroidism.

Outcomes

The main outcomes related to the levels of thyroid hormones were HR, BP, and PP. For HR, sinus tachycardia was defined as HR >100 bpm [10]. Previous literature has inconsistently defined tachycardia with mean HR ranging between 90–105 bpm [8-11]. Taking into account an inherent error of 5% in measurements, we calculated a second more lenient outcome of tachycardia with HR >90 bpm.

A widened PP was defined as >50 mmHg. Although there were no cutoff values delineating normal levels for different age groups, a widened PP of more than 50 mmHg has been suggested [12]. For older hypertensive individuals, a PP of >60 mmHg has been linked to increased cardiovascular disease-related mortality [13, 14]. We therefore defined pulse pressure of >60 mmHg as an elevated PP in this study.

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics were presented as means ± SD for normally distributed values or as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR). Categorical data were presented by frequency and percentage. Comparisons between interquartile groups were made using ANOVA. To determine the relationship between variables, bivariate correlation, and multivariate linear and logistic regression analyses were used. Two-tailed P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS statistics, version 24.0.

Results

The study group included 248 patients, 67.8% of whom were females (Table 1). Mean age was 42.0 ± 14.2 years ranging from 19–89 years of age. Median fT4 level was 3.49 (IQR 2.42–4.58) ng/dL and median TSH was 0.02 (IQR 0.01–0.03) mIU/L. Mean HR was 91.0 ± 19.2 bpm with tachycardia defined as HR >100 bpm, present in 28.2%. HR >90 bpm was present in 47.2%. The mean PP was 56.5 ± 14.4 mm Hg with 64.1% having a widened PP of >50 mm Hg.

Table 1

Clinical characteristics of the study group.

	Patients (N = 248)	Range
Age (years)	42.0 ± 14.2	19–89
Female, n (%)	168 (67.7)
fT4 (ng/dL)	3.49 (IQR 2.42–4.58)	1.65–6.00
TSH (mIU/mL)	0.02 (0.01–0.03)	0.010–0.09
Heart rate, bpm	91.0 ± 19.2	44–151
Tachycardia, HR >100 bpm, n (%)	70 (28.2)
HR >90 bpm, n (%)	117(47.2)
Systolic BP, mm Hg	126.2 ± 17.5	88–180
Diastolic BP, mm Hg	69.7 ± 12.0	15–121
Pulse pressure, mm Hg	56.5 ± 14.4	19–105
Widened PP, >50 mm Hg, n (%)	159 (64.1)
Elevated PP, >60 mm Hg, n (%)	86 (34.7)

Data presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD), number (percentage), or median (interquartile range).

The thyroid and cardiac values per fT4 quartile are shown in Table 2 with HR distribution across fT4 quartiles shown in Fig 2. In the first two quartiles, tachycardia was present in 16.4% and 23.8%, respectively, compared to 33.9% and 38.7% in the third and fourth quartile. There were statistically significant differences in HR between the quartiles by one-way ANOVA [F (3, 244) = 8.0, p <0.001]. The interquartile variability range of heart rate within each fT4 quartile ranged from 20–28.5 bpm.

Table 2

Thyroid function and cardiac values per fT4 quartile.

fT4 Quartile (Range in ng/dL)	1 (1.65–2.38)	2 (2.42–3.48)	3 (3.49–4.57)	4 (4.58–6.00)
Patients, n	61	63	62	62
Mean HR, bpm	82.6 ± 15.2	89.7 ± 18.2	93.3 ± 16.7	98.4 ± 22.7
Median HR, bpm	82.0 (72.0–92.0)	88.0 (79.0–100.0)	95.0 (79.0–107.5)	97.5 (85.5–111.0)
Mean PP, mm Hg	51.7 ± 13.8	55.1 ± 11.6	55.8 ± 14.4	63.2 ± 15.2
Median PP, mm Hg	51.0 (42.5–59.5)	54.0 (49.0–60.5)	57.5 (45.8–66.0)	62.0 (53.5–73.0)
Tachycardia, bpm, n (%)	10 (16.4)	15 (23.8)	21 (33.9)	24 (38.7)
HR >90 bpm, n (%)	18 (29.5)	23 (36.5)	37 (59.7)	39 (62.9)
Widened PP, >50 mm Hg, n (%)	30 (49.2)	41 (65.1)	39 (62.9)	49 (79.0)
Elevated PP, >60 mm Hg, n (%)	13 (21.3)	16 (25.4)	25 (40.3)	32 (51.6)

Fig 2

Median heart rate and IQR in four fT4 quartiles: Solid line represents tachycardia (HR >100 bpm), whereas broken line denotes HR >90 bpm.

In bivariate correlation analysis, fT4 positively correlated with HR, PP and systolic BP, and negatively correlated with age (p <0.005 for each variable). In multivariate regression analysis, increased heart rate correlated with younger age (p = 0.017), higher fT4 (p <0.001), and higher diastolic BP (p <0.001) [F (3, 244) = 17.21, p <0.001, R2 = 0.18]. The presence of sinus tachycardia >100 bpm in logistic regression analysis correlated with higher fT4 (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.05) and diastolic BP (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.06).

A widened PP (Fig 3) was observed in more than 50% of patients in all quartiles and over 75% in the fourth quartile. In contrast, elevated PP (>60 mm Hg) was observed in fewer than 50% in the first three quartiles and 51.6% in the fourth quartile. There were statistically significant differences in pulse pressure between the quartiles based on one-way ANOVA [F (3, 244) = 7.60, p <0.001].

Fig 3

Median pulse pressure and IQR in four fT4 quartiles: Solid line represents widened pulse pressure >50 mm Hg, whereas broken line denotes elevated pulse pressure >60 mm Hg, a known risk factor for cardiomyopathy.

Widening PP correlated with higher fT4 (p = 0.005), systolic BP (p <0.001) and lower diastolic BP (p = 0.030) using bivariate correlation analysis.

Discussion

This study evaluated the prevalence and variability of tachycardia in patients with hyperthyroidism. The incidence of tachycardia defined as HR >100 bpm was 28.1% in this study, much lower than the incidence of 70–100% previously reported [7–9, 11, 15]. Given the inconsistent definitions of tachycardia in older studies, we calculated a second scenario of tachycardia with HR >90 bpm and still the incidence was fewer than half of patients.

In the hyperthyroid state, chronotropic alterations manifesting as sinus tachycardia, atrial fibrillation, and shortened PR interval, and inotropic alterations including increased cardiac index, stroke volume and pulse pressure have been well described [16-18]. Early literature with studies conducted between 1943 and 1945 found 72% of thyrotoxic patients had HR of 100–140 bpm [19]. This was comparable to later studies done from 1960–1988 which showed tachycardia in 70–84% of hyperthyroid patients [18]. In a more recent study conducted in a cohort of 3,049 patients [20], while the incidence of tachycardia was not measured, the incidence of other hyperadrenergic signs were 50% lower compared to the 1945 study. Due to a lack of recent literature, we studied the relative prevalence of cardiovascular signs in hyperthyroid patients.

Our study showed tachycardia was present in fewer than one-third of patients. Even if the heart rate threshold were to be lowered for better comparison to previous studies with inconsistent definitions of tachycardia, a little more than half of patients still had HR less than 90 bpm. This significant decline in the prevalence of tachycardia in recent times may be due to the increasing utilization of readily available and highly sensitive thyroid function assays [21, 22]. This widespread change in clinical practice may lead to diagnoses of hyperthyroidism in patients with fewer symptoms. In the earlier studies from 1940 to 1980, there may have been ascertainment bias where only patients who presented with symptoms and advanced thyrotoxicosis were subjected to the then cumbersome thyroid tests available, making tachycardia much more common during those times.

In this study, the level of fT4 was the major determinant of heart rate. However, even in the highest quartile of fT4, tachycardia occurred in only 40.0% of patients. If the HR threshold was lowered to >90 bpm, then the percentage increased to 63.1% in the fourth quartile. The inconsistent effect of hyperthyroidism on HR was also shown in hyperthyroid animal studies. Isolated heart preparations in different study settings noted tachycardia was abolished while the inotropic effect persisted [23-25]. In this study, as in other studies, older age was related to a lower heart rate [20, 26–28].

The hyperthyroid state causes predictable decreases in systemic vascular resistance and diastolic BP and increases in systolic BP and cardiac output [5, 29]. This leads to a widened PP which has been described in thyrotoxic patients in previous literature [30, 31]. In this study, 63.5% of patients and 78.5% in the highest fT4 quartile had widened PP. Based on these findings, one can postulate that a widened PP may be a useful physical finding in the clinical diagnosis of hyperthyroidism. Elevated PP (>60 mm Hg), which has been shown to be associated with heart failure and myocardial infarction [32, 33], was found in 33.8% of our patients and positively correlated with levels of fT4.

In this study, we found wide variabilities in heart rate and pulse pressure within each fT4 quartile, with interquartile ranges varying from 20 to 26 bpm for heart rate and 14 to 20 mm Hg for pulse pressure (Figs 2 and 3). In fact, in clinical practice, it has been found that the intensity of thyrotoxic symptoms and the level of thyroid hormones do not correlate so well [34]. Thyroid function test results may be markedly abnormal in patients exhibiting only mild symptoms, or conversely, mild to moderately abnormal levels can be seen in overtly symptomatic patients [11, 34]. This discrepancy may be secondary to the poor reflection of serum fT4 to the intracellular thyroid hormone concentrations [34], cellular variations in nuclear thyroid hormone receptor sensitivity [35], or differences in adrenergic-mediated hyperthyroid symptoms [36, 37]. However, new data suggests that clinical parameters such as cardiovascular disease had a stronger association of up to 50% with fT4 levels as compared to 23% with TSH levels [38].

The limitation of this study is that it is mainly cross-sectional and does not have longitudinal information of thyroid hormone levels and cardiac parameters, though some patients had more than one observation. Patients who were treated with beta-blockers were excluded and one can assume that beta blockade was used to mitigate the tachycardia and thus many patients with tachycardia were not captured in this study. However, the study was done in a comprehensive public health clinical setting with big central lab, and it is conceivable that most patients with hyperthyroidism and tachycardia were captured before the beta-blockers were started. Atrial fibrillation was not found in the study group. One explanation is that some patients are admitted to the hospital because of symptomatic atrial fibrillation and undiagnosed hyperthyroidism and are started with beta-blockade before the thyroid function tests are back and, therefore, excluded from the study. However, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the sinus tachycardia as a response to elevated thyroid hormones and not to include cardiac arrhythmias. Another limitation was the exclusion of total or free triiodothyronine (T3) levels which were unavailable for most patients. Since a minor percentage (11%) of patients with untreated thyrotoxicosis have T3 thyrotoxicosis [39], the absence of T3 testing only minimally impacts the overall result of the study.

The novelty of this study is that literature concerning the prevalence and range of variability of sinus tachycardia and PP has not been re-examined in decades. This study shows clear change in the disease manifestation most likely brought about by the current practice patterns with ease of thyroid testing and its increased usage thus allowing diagnosis of mild or asymptomatic forms of hyperthyroidism. This study shows that tachycardia is not such a common feature of hyperthyroidism today. A widened pulse pressure was a more prevalent clinical finding in this study.

Hyperthyroid tachycardia data de-identified.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

2 Aug 2022

Indicate the novelty of the manuscript clearly.

Tables should be in accordance with author guidelines.

Update the references in accordance with the format and include the latest references.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by August 15, 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

11 Aug 2022

Please see our rebuttal in italics for every reviewer point indicating also the exact locations of the revisions.

PONE-D-22-07597

Tachycardia in Hyperthyroidism: Not So Common

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Leon Fogelfeld,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

• Indicate the novelty of the manuscript clearly.

• The novelty of the manuscript is added in the abstract objective and in the conclusion (last paragraph).

• Tables should be in accordance with author guidelines.

• Was done.

• Update the references in accordance with the format and include the latest references.

• Was done.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by August 15, 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• 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'.

• Was done

• 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'.

• Was done

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

• Was done

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 HYPERLINK "https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols"& HYPERLINK "https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols"utm_source=authorletters HYPERLINK "https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols"& HYPERLINK "https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols"utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dr. Anu Sayal, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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"

Manuscript reviewed and appears to meet the guidelines.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

More information about IRB approval and consent waiver provided on page 4 at the end of the Study Design paragraph.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

De-identified data file will be included in supplemental materials.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reference list reviewed and revised in format where need to match Vancouver style. No references were deleted or added.

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: I Don't Know

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: Yes

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: Yes

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: Please mention the full form of TSH and FT4 in the abstract for the first time.

Corrected.

Please separate methods from findings in the abstract.

Corrected.

Please address the novelty of your study.

The novelty has been added to the abstract objective and to the end of the discussion in the last conclusion paragraph.

Please mention that you reported categorical variables by frequency and percent.

Added to Statistical Analysis, page 7.

Please revise the tables and justify them based on the authors' guidelines.

On review, the tables appear to meet the table formatting guidelines. Please advise if anything requires revision.

Please update your references. You have references from 1946.

The reference from 1946 is appropriate in the context (Discussion, page 10) of the discussion of past historical findings concerning tachycardia in those with hyperthyroidism.

You have to revise some of your references based on the Vancouver style.

References have been revised.

With regards,

Reviewer #2: An interesting report in issuing current practice that may effect the previous usual findings. It will be good to have more extensive parameters being reports in this report.

The study reported the outcomes for all the relevant parameters pertaining to hyperthyroidism and tachycardia available for our study group.

The usage of the abbreviation can be reduced to enhanced easy to understand reading among readers.

Unsure which abbreviation is lacking clarity. Abbreviations after the tables and figures have been removed since it does not appear to fit the format of PLOS One.

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: Afagh Hassanzadeh Rad

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.

Figures checked via PACE with PACE figures uploaded.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 8-11-22.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 Aug 2022

Tachycardia in Hyperthyroidism: Not So Common

PONE-D-22-07597R1

Dear Dr. Leon Fogelfeld,

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,

Dr. Anu Sayal, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

26 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-07597R1

Tachycardia in Hyperthyroidism: Not So Common

Dear Dr. Fogelfeld:

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. Anu Sayal

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE