Dataset Information

Liothyronine for hypothyroidism: a candidate for disinvestment or in need of further research? A value of information analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Medicines with limited evidence of effectiveness are prime candidates for disinvestment. However, investment in further research may be preferable to deimplementation, given that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and research can inform formulary decisions. A case in point is liothyronine, which is sometimes prescribed to levothyroxine-treated patients who continue to experience hypothyroid symptoms. It is a putative low value medicine, associated with uncertainties in both clinical and cost-effectiveness. The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of liothyronine in this context, and estimate the value of conducting further research.

Design

Cost utility and value of information analyses.

Setting

Primary care within the National Health Service in the UK.

Participants

Fifty-four levothyroxine-treated patients with persistent symptoms of hypothyroidism.

Interventions

Liothyronine plus levothyroxine versus levothyroxine alone.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and the expected monetary value of sample information.

Results

20/54 (37%) of patients who responded to the survey reported severe problems in carrying out usual activities of everyday living and 12/54 (22%) reported severe anxiety or depression symptoms. Mean (SD) utility was 0.53 (0.23). The differences in expected total, 10-year costs and QALYs between a treatment strategy of liothyronine/levothyroxine combination therapy, and levothyroxine alone, was £12 053 and 1.014, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £11 881 per QALY gained was sensitive to the price of liothyronine. The probability of liothyronine/levothyroxine combination therapy being cost effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY was 0.56. The value of reducing uncertainty in the efficacy of treatment was £3.64 m per year in the UK.

Conclusions

A definitive clinical trial to confirm clinical effectiveness may be preferable to immediate disinvestment, and would be justified given the value of the information gained far exceeds the cost.

SUBMITTER: Hughes DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8647544 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Fourteen clinical trials have not shown a consistent benefit of combination therapy with levothyroxine (LT4) and liothyronine (LT3). Despite the publication of these trials, combination therapy is widely used and patients reporting benefit continue to generate patient and physician interest in this area. Recent scientific developments may provide insight into this inconsistency and guide future studies. Methods: The American Thyroid Association (ATA), British Thyroid Association (BTA), and European Thyroid Association (ETA) held a joint conference on November 3, 2019 (live-streamed between Chicago and London) to review new basic science and clinical evidence regarding combination therapy with presentations and input from 12 content experts. After the presentations, the material was synthesized and used to develop Summary Statements of the current state of knowledge. After review and revision of the material and Summary Statements, there was agreement that there was equipoise for a new clinical trial of combination therapy. Consensus Statements encapsulating the implications of the material discussed with respect to the design of future clinical trials of LT4/LT3 combination therapy were generated. Authors voted upon the Consensus Statements. Iterative changes were made in several rounds of voting and after comments from ATA/BTA/ETA members. Results: Of 34 Consensus Statements available for voting, 28 received at least 75% agreement, with 13 receiving 100% agreement. Those with 100% agreement included studies being powered to study the effect of deiodinase and thyroid hormone transporter polymorphisms on study outcomes, inclusion of patients dissatisfied with their current therapy and requiring at least 1.2 μg/kg of LT4 daily, use of twice daily LT3 or preferably a slow-release preparation if available, use of patient-reported outcomes as a primary outcome (measured by a tool with both relevant content validity and responsiveness) and patient preference as a secondary outcome, and utilization of a randomized placebo-controlled adequately powered double-blinded parallel design. The remaining statements are presented as potential additional considerations. Discussion: This article summarizes the areas discussed and presents Consensus Statements to guide development of future clinical trials of LT4/LT3 combination therapy. The results of such redesigned trials are expected to be of benefit to patients and of value to inform future thyroid hormone replacement clinical practice guidelines treatment recommendations.

Project description:BackgroundFourteen clinical trials have not shown a consistent benefit of combination therapy with levothyroxine (LT4) and liothyronine (LT3). Despite the publication of these trials, combination therapy is widely used and patients reporting benefit continue to generate patient and physician interest in this area. Recent scientific developments may provide insight into this inconsistency and guide future studies.MethodsThe American Thyroid Association (ATA), British Thyroid Association (BTA), and European Thyroid Association (ETA) held a joint conference on November 3, 2019 (live-streamed between Chicago and London) to review new basic science and clinical evidence regarding combination therapy with presentations and input from 12 content experts. After the presentations, the material was synthesized and used to develop Summary Statements of the current state of knowledge. After review and revision of the material and Summary Statements, there was agreement that there was equipoise for a new clinical trial of combination therapy. Consensus Statements encapsulating the implications of the material discussed with respect to the design of future clinical trials of LT4/LT3 combination therapy were generated. Authors voted upon the Consensus Statements. Iterative changes were made in several rounds of voting and after comments from ATA/BTA/ETA members.ResultsOf 34 Consensus Statements available for voting, 28 received at least 75% agreement, with 13 receiving 100% agreement. Those with 100% agreement included studies being powered to study the effect of deiodinase and thyroid hormone transporter polymorphisms on study outcomes, inclusion of patients dissatisfied with their current therapy and requiring at least 1.2 µg/kg of LT4 daily, use of twice daily LT3 or preferably a slow-release preparation if available, use of patient-reported outcomes as a primary outcome (measured by a tool with both relevant content validity and responsiveness) and patient preference as a secondary outcome, and utilization of a randomized placebo-controlled adequately powered double-blinded parallel design. The remaining statements are presented as potential additional considerations.DiscussionThis article summarizes the areas discussed and presents Consensus Statements to guide development of future clinical trials of LT4/LT3 combination therapy. The results of such redesigned trials are expected to be of benefit to patients and of value to inform future thyroid hormone replacement clinical practice guidelines treatment recommendations.

Project description:Background: Value of information (VOI) analysis quantifies the value of additional research in reducing decision uncertainty. It addresses adoption and research decisions simultaneously by comparing the expected benefits and costs of research studies. Nevertheless, the application of this approach in practice remains limited. Objectives: To apply VOI analysis in health care interventions to guide adoption decisions, optimize trial design, and prioritize research. Methods: The analysis was from the perspective of Queensland Health, Australia. It included four interventions: clinically indicated catheter replacement, tissue adhesive for securing catheters, negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in caesarean sections, and nutritional support for preventing pressure ulcers. For each intervention, cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, decision uncertainty characterized, and VOI calculated using Monte Carlo simulations. The benefits and costs of additional research were considered together with the costs and consequences of acting now versus waiting for more information. All values are reported in 2014 Australian dollars (AU$). Results: All interventions were cost-effective, but with various levels of decision uncertainty. The current evidence is sufficient to support the adoption of clinically indicated catheter replacement. For the tissue adhesive, an additional study before adoption is worthwhile with a four-arm trial of 220 patients per arm. Additional research on NPWT before adoption is worthwhile with a two-arm trial of 200 patients per arm. Nutritional support should be adopted with a two-arm trial of 1200 patients per arm. Based on the expected net monetary benefits, the studies were ranked as follows: 1) NPWT (AU$1.2 million), 2) tissue adhesive (AU$0.3 milliion), and 3) nutritional support (AU$0.1 million). Conclusions: VOI analysis is a useful and practical approach to inform adoption and research decisions. Efforts should be focused on facilitating its integration into decision making frameworks.