Thyrotoxic patients exhibit increased levels of immune activation molecules (soluble interleukin-2 receptor [sIL-2R], intercellular adhesion molecule-1 [ICAM-1], and endothelial-leukocyte adhesion molecule-1 [ELAM-1]) in serum, although the clinical significance of these measurements remains unclear. In a randomized 4-week study, we have recently shown that in the treatment of hyperthyroidism, the combination of cholestyramine and methimazole (MMI) resulted in faster lowering of serum thyroid-hormone levels than did MMI alone. Stored serial serum samples from patients participating in this randomized treatment trial were analyzed for sIL-2R, soluble ICAM-1 (sICAM-1), and soluble ELAM-1 (sELAM-1). The levels of all three molecules were elevated in patients with hyperthyroidism. Although the levels of sICAM-1 and sELAM-1 remained elevated through the 4-week follow-up period in both groups of patients, the sIL-2R levels (normal levels, 1.0 to 4.2 ng/ml) decreased significantly in the 10 patients who received cholestyramine in addition to MMI (week 0, 14.2 ؎ 1.5 ng/ml; week 2, 10.8 ؎ 1.2 ng/ml; week 4, 8.9 ؎ 1.5 ng/ml). In eight patients who received MMI alone, sIL-2R decreased less rapidly (week 0, 12.3 ؎ 1.4 ng/ml; week 2, 12.3 ؎ 1.3 ng/ml; week 4, 10.9 ؎ 1.3 ng/ml). sICAM-1 and sELAM-1 were elevated at baseline but did not decrease during therapy. In the former group, free thyroxine and free triiodothyronine decreased faster. These data show that levels of sIL-2R in serum, but not those of sICAM-1 and sELAM-1, may be of clinical use in the early follow-up evaluation of medically treated patients.

Peer review is routine among physicians, nurses, and pharmacy staff yet is uncommon in the field of nuclear medicine technology. Although not a requirement of regulatory agencies, nuclear medicine technical peer review can greatly enhance the quality of patient care in both hospital and outpatient settings. To date, detailed methods for accomplishing this task have not been published. 19,688 nuclear medicine studies performed at a single institution over a 5-y period were critically reviewed. Major findings (errors with potential to change physician interpretation of the study or resulting in prescription error) and minor findings (errors without an adverse effect on study outcome or interpretation) were identified and tabulated monthly according to finding type, study type, and individual staff member. The technical peer review method used at our institution provided a comprehensive means to measure the rate and types of errors. Over time, this system tracked the performance of nuclear medicine staff and students, providing feedback that led to a measurable reduction in errors. We present a technical peer review system based on our own experience that can be adapted by other nuclear medicine facilities to fit their needs.