Designing a combined Liothyronine (LT3), L-thyroxine (LT4) trial in symptomatic hypothyroid subjects on LT4 – the importance of patient selection, choice of LT3 and trial design

Approximately 10%–15% of subjects with hypothyroidism on L-thyroxine (LT4) alone have persistent symptoms affecting their quality of life (QoL). Although the cause is unclear, there is evidence that “tissue T3 lack” may be responsible. If so, combining liothyronine (LT3) with LT4 would be helpful. However, randomized controlled trials (RCT), have not established greater efficacy for the LT3 + LT4 combination in these subjects than for LT4 alone. While the trial design may have been responsible, the use of unphysiological, short-acting LT3 preparations and non-thyroid-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may have contributed. We recommend attention to the following aspects of trial design for future RCTs of LT3 + LT4 compared to LT4 alone: (a) Subject selection—(i) measurable symptoms (disadvantages should be recognized); (ii) using a validated thyroid specific PROM such as ThyPRO39 or the Composite scale derived from it; (iii) those taking over 1.2 μg/day or 100 μg/day (for pragmatic reasons) of LT4 defining a population likely without intrinsic thyroid activity who depend on exogenous LT4; (iv) recruiting a preponderance of subjects with autoimmune thyroiditis increasing generalisability; and (v) those with a high symptom load with a greater response to combination therapy e.g. those with the deiodinase 2 polymorphism. (b) The use of physiological LT3 preparations producing pharmacokinetic similarities to T3 profiles in unaffected subjects: two long-acting LT3 preparations are currently available and must be tested in phase 2b/3 RCTs. (c) The superiority of a crossover design in limiting numbers and costs while maintaining statistical power and ensuring that all subjects experienced the investigative medication

Liothyronine (LT3) prescribing in England: Are cost constraints inhibiting guideline implementation?

Background: Primary hypothyroidism affects about 3% of the general population in Europe. In most cases people with hypothyroidism are treated with levothyroxine. In the context of the 2023 British Thyroid Association guidance and the 2020 Competitions and Marketing Authority (CMA) ruling, we examined prescribing data for levothyroxine, Natural desiccated thyroid (NDT) and liothyronine by dose, regarding changes over the years 2016–2022. Design: Monthly primary care prescribing data for each British National Formulary code were analysed for levothyroxine, liothyronine and NDT. Patients and Measurements: The rolling 12‐month total/average of cost or prescribing volume was used to identify the moment of change. Results included number of prescriptions, the actual costs, and the cost/prescription/mcg of drug. Results: Liothyronine: In 2016 94% of the total 74,500 prescriptions were of the 20 mcg dose. In 2020 the percentage prescribed in the 5 mcg and 10 mcg doses started to increase so that by 2022 each reached nearly 27% of total liothyronine prescribing. The average cost/prescription in 2016 of 20 mcg was £404/prescription and this fell by 80% to £101 in 2022; while the 10 mcg cost of £348/prescription fell by only 35% to £255 and the 5 mcg cost of £355/prescription fell by 38% to £242/prescription. The total prescriptions of liothyronine in 2016 were 74,605, falling by 30% up to 2019 when they started to grow again ‐ most recently at 60,990−15% lower than the 2016 figure, with the result that total costs fell by 70% to £9 m/year. Conclusions: Liothyronine costs fell after the CMA ruling but remain orders of magnitude higher than for levothyroxine. The remaining 0.2% of patients with liothyronine treated hypothyroidism are still absorbing 16% of medication costs. The lower liothyronine 5cmg and 10 mcg doses as recommended by BTA are 240% the costs of the 20 mcg dose. Thus, following latest BTA guidance which recommends the lower liothyronine doses still incurs substantial additional costs vs the prescribing liothyronine in the no longer recommended treatment regime. High drug price continues to impact clinical decisions, potentially limiting liothyronine therapy availability to a considerable number of patients who could benefit from this treatment

Can Admission and Fasting Glucose Reliably Identify Undiagnosed Diabetes in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome?

OBJECTIVE—Our objectives were to determine the prevalence of previously undiagnosed abnormal glucose tolerance, i.e., diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) in patients with acute coronary syndrome and to assess the utility of admission and fasting glucose in identifying diabetes in these patients

Trace elements in glucometabolic disorders: an update

Many trace elements, among which metals, are indispensable for proper functioning of a myriad of biochemical reactions, more particularly as enzyme cofactors. This is particularly true for the vast set of processes involved in regulation of glucose homeostasis, being it in glucose metabolism itself or in hormonal control, especially insulin. The role and importance of trace elements such as chromium, zinc, selenium, lithium and vanadium are much less evident and subjected to chronic debate. This review updates our actual knowledge concerning these five trace elements. A careful survey of the literature shows that while theoretical postulates from some key roles of these elements had led to real hopes for therapy of insulin resistance and diabetes, the limited experience based on available data indicates that beneficial effects and use of most of them are subjected to caution, given the narrow window between safe and unsafe doses. Clear therapeutic benefit in these pathologies is presently doubtful but some data indicate that these metals may have a clinical interest in patients presenting deficiencies in individual metal levels. The same holds true for an association of some trace elements such as chromium or zinc with oral antidiabetics. However, this area is essentially unexplored in adequate clinical trials, which are worth being performed

Restricted thyroglobulin antibody epitope specificities in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus

Objectives Following iodisation in Sri Lanka we observed a high prevalence of thyroglobulin antibodies (TgAbs) in type 1 diabetic (T1DM) patients. The clinical significance of these TgAbs is uncertain. We sought to obtain a detailed epitope analysis of TgAbs in T1DM patients recruited from diabetes clinics and to compare these with TgAb epitope specificities in patients with autoimmune thyroid disease (AITD) and healthy individuals in that country. Design and methods We used a panel of 10 Tg-MAbs in competitive ELISA reactions in a prospective study of subjects recruited from Colombo, to determine the epitopes recognised by TgAb-positive patients with T1DM (n=58, 34F:24M, median age 16 years), AITD patients (n=42, 33F:9M, median age 37 years) and healthy subjects (n=50, 39F:11M, median age 27 years). The outcomes were a comparison of reactivity with six Tg clusters (I–VI) in these subjects, and the relation of epitope specificity patterns with free thyroxine and TSH. Results Patients with T1DM and AITD but not healthy control subjects preferentially recognised the immunodominant clusters, I, III and IV. Patients with these narrow epitope specificities had higher median TSH levels (1.60 vs 1.06; P=0.01), and were more frequently positive for antibodies to thyroid peroxidase than those with broad specificities (52.3 vs 7.1%; P=0.004). Conclusions The TgAb epitope specificities in euthyroid Sri Lankans with T1DM are similar to AITD patients. TgAb epitope studies may potentially identify T1DM patients at risk of thyroid dysfunction