Redefinition of Successful Treatment of Patients With Hypothyroidism. Is TSH the Best Biomarker of Euthyroidism? (original) (raw)
Related papers
Time for a reassessment of the treatment of hypothyroidism
BMC Endocrine Disorders
Background: In the treatment for hypothyroidism, a historically symptom-orientated approach has given way to reliance on a single biochemical parameter, thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH). Main body: The historical developments and motivation leading to that decision and its potential implications are explored from pathophysiological, clinical and statistical viewpoints. An increasing frequency of hypothyroid-like complaints is noted in patients in the wake of this directional shift, together with relaxation of treatment targets. Recent prospective and retrospective studies suggested a changing pattern in patient complaints associated with recent guideline-led low-dose policies. A resulting dramatic rise has ensued in patients, expressing in various ways dissatisfaction with the standard treatment. Contributing factors may include raised problem awareness, overlap of thyroid-related complaints with numerous non-specific symptoms, and apparent deficiencies in the diagnostic process itself. Assuming that maintaining TSH anywhere within its broad reference limits may achieve a satisfactory outcome is challenged. The interrelationship between TSH, free thyroxine (FT4) and free triiodothyronine (FT3) is patient specific and highly individual. Population-based statistical analysis is therefore subject to amalgamation problems (Simpson's paradox, collider stratification bias). This invalidates group-averaged and range-bound approaches, rather demanding a subject-related statistical approach. Randomised clinical trial (RCT) outcomes may be equally distorted by intra-class clustering. Analytical distinction between an averaged versus typical outcome becomes clinically relevant, because doctors and patients are more interested in the latter. It follows that population-based diagnostic cutoffs for TSH may not be an appropriate treatment target. Studies relating TSH and thyroid hormone concentrations to adverse effects such as osteoporosis and atrial fibrillation invite similar caveats, as measuring TSH within the euthyroid range cannot substitute for FT4 and FT3 concentrations in the risk assessment. Direct markers of thyroid tissue effects and thyroid-specific quality of life instruments are required, but need methodological improvement. Conclusion: It appears that we are witnessing a consequential historic shift in the treatment of thyroid disease, driven by over-reliance on a single laboratory parameter TSH. The focus on biochemistry rather than patient symptom relief should be reassessed. A joint consideration together with a more personalized approach may be required to address the recent surge in patient complaint rates.
Individualised requirements for optimum treatment of hypothyroidism: complex needs, limited options
Drugs in Context, 2019
Levothyroxine (LT4) therapy has a long history, a well-defined pharmacological profile and a favourable safety record in the alleviation of hypothyroidism. However, questions remain in defining the threshold for the requirement of treatment in patients with subclinical hypothyroidism, assessing the dose adequacy of the drug, and selecting the best treatment mode (LT4 monotherapy versus liothyronine [LT3]/LT4 combinations) for subpopulations with persisting complaints. Supplied as a prodrug, LT4 is enzymatically converted into the biologically more active thyroid hormone, triiodothyronine (T3). Importantly, tetraiodothyronine (T4) to T3 conversion efficiency may be impaired in patients receiving LT4, resulting in a loss of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)-mediated feed-forward control of T3, alteration of the interlocking equilibria between serum concentrations of TSH, free thyroxine (FT4), and free triiodothyonine (FT3), and a decrease in FT3 to FT4 ratios. This downgrades the value of the TSH reference system derived in thyroid health for guiding the replacement dose in the treatment situation. Individualised conditionally defined setpoints may therefore provide appropriate biochemical targets to be clinically tested, together with a stronger focus on clinical presentation and future endpoint markers of tissue thyroid state. This cautionary note encompasses the use of aggregated statistical data from clinical trials which are not safely applicable to the individual level of patient care under these circumstances.
Endocrine
Purpose Recently published papers have demonstrated that particularly in untreated individuals, clinical parameters more often associate with thyroid hormone, particularly free thyroxine (FT4), levels than with thyrotropin (TSH) levels. Clinical and research assessments of the thyroid state of peripheral tissues would therefore be more precise if they were based on FT4 levels rather than on TSH levels. In this paper we describe implications of, and opportunities provided by, this discovery. Conclusions The FT4 level may be the best single test of thyroid function. The addition of free triiodothyronine (FT3) and TSH levels would further enhance test sensitivity and distinguish primary from secondary thyroid dysfunction respectively. There are opportunities to reconsider testing algorithms. Additional potential thyroidology research subjects include the peripheral differences between circulating FT4 and FT3 action, and outcomes in patients on thyroid replacement therapy in terms of th...
Against TSH-T 4 Reference Range Thyroidology : The Case for Clinical Thyroidology
2011
The current reliance upon the TSH to both detect hypothyroidism and direct its treatment is illogical and ineffective. Hypothalamic-pituitary function is modified by many known and unknown factors, and is known to deteriorate with age. Even if one could know that a person's hypothalamic-pituitary response is perfect, one cannot assume that the TSH response to once-daily oral thyroid replacement is identical to the response to continual thyroidal hormone production. The TSH level is only a measure of the hypothalamic-pituitary response to thyroid hormones. It is neither a test of free thyroid hormone levels nor of thyroid hormone effects throughout the body. It is useful for determining the cause of hypothyroidism; not for diagnosing or treating it. The most reliable serum tests of thyroid hormone sufficiency are free T4 and free T3, but their broad laboratory reference ranges are neither optimal nor treatment ranges, and there are marked individual variations. Ultimately, both the diagnosis and treatment of hypothyroidism must be clinical. 3 "The ultimate test of whether a patient is experiencing the effects of too much or too little thyroid hormone is not the measurement of hormone concentration in the blood but the effect of thyroid hormones on the peripheral tissues" 1
Journal of Thyroid Research
The pituitary hormone, thyrotropin (TSH), is regarded as the primary biomarker for evaluating thyroid function and is useful in guiding treatment with levothyroxine for patients with hypothyroidism. The amplified response of TSH to slight changes in thyroid hormone levels provides a large and easily measured signal in the routine care setting. Laboratories provide reference ranges with upper and lower cutoffs for TSH to define normal thyroid function. The upper limit of the range, used to diagnose subclinical (mild) hypothyroidism, is itself a matter for debate, with authoritative guidelines recommending treatment to within the lower half of the range. Concomitant diseases, medications, supplements, age, gender, ethnicity, iodine status, time of day, time of year, autoantibodies, heterophilic antibodies, smoking, and other factors influence the level of TSH, or the performance of current TSH assays. The long-term prognostic implications of small deviations of TSH from the reference ...
Background: A number of recent advances in our understanding of thyroid physiology may shed light on why some patients feel unwell while taking levothyroxine monotherapy. The purpose of this task force was to review the goals of levothyroxine therapy, the optimal prescription of conventional levothyroxine therapy, the sources of dissatisfaction with levothyroxine therapy, the evidence on treatment alternatives, and the relevant knowledge gaps. We wished to determine whether there are sufficient new data generated by well-designed studies to provide reason to pursue such therapies and change the current standard of care. This document is intended to inform clinical decision-making on thyroid hormone replacement therapy; it is not a replacement for individualized clinical judgment. Methods: Task force members identified 24 questions relevant to the treatment of hypothyroidism. The clinical literature relating to each question was then reviewed. Clinical reviews were supplemented, when relevant, with related mechanistic and bench research literature reviews, performed by our team of translational scientists. Ethics reviews were provided, when relevant, by a bioethicist. The responses to questions were formatted, when possible, in the form of a formal clinical recommendation statement. When responses were not suitable for a formal clinical recommendation, a summary response statement without a formal clinical recommendation was developed. For clinical recommendations, the supporting evidence was appraised, and the strength of each clinical recommendation was assessed, using the American College of Physicians system. The final document was organized so that each topic is introduced with a question, followed by a formal clinical recommendation. Stakeholder input was received at a national meeting, with some subsequent refinement of the clinical questions addressed in the document. Consensus was achieved for all recommendations by the task force. Results: We reviewed the following therapeutic categories: (i) levothyroxine therapy, (ii) non–levothyroxine-based thyroid hormone therapies, and (iii) use of thyroid hormone analogs. The second category included thyroid extracts, synthetic combination therapy, triiodothyronine therapy, and compounded thyroid hormones. Conclusions: We concluded that levothyroxine should remain the standard of care for treating hypothyroidism. We found no consistently strong evidence for the superiority of alternative preparations (e.g., levothyroxine– liothyronine combination therapy, or thyroid extract therapy, or others) over monotherapy with levothyroxine, in improving health outcomes. Some examples of future research needs include the development of superior bio-markers of euthyroidism to supplement thyrotropin measurements, mechanistic research on serum triiodothyronine
Background: A number of recent advances in our understanding of thyroid physiology may shed light on why some patients feel unwell while taking levothyroxine monotherapy. The purpose of this task force was to review the goals of levothyroxine therapy, the optimal prescription of conventional levothyroxine therapy, the sources of dissatisfaction with levothyroxine therapy, the evidence on treatment alternatives, and the relevant knowledge gaps. We wished to determine whether there are sufficient new data generated by well-designed studies to provide reason to pursue such therapies and change the current standard of care. This document is intended to inform clinical decision-making on thyroid hormone replacement therapy; it is not a replacement for individualized clinical judgment. Methods: Task force members identified 24 questions relevant to the treatment of hypothyroidism. The clinical literature relating to each question was then reviewed. Clinical reviews were supplemented, when relevant, with related mechanistic and bench research literature reviews, performed by our team of translational scientists. Ethics reviews were provided, when relevant, by a bioethicist. The responses to questions were formatted, when possible, in the form of a formal clinical recommendation statement. When responses were not suitable for a formal clinical recommendation, a summary response statement without a formal clinical recommendation was developed. For clinical recommendations, the supporting evidence was appraised, and the strength of each clinical recommendation was assessed, using the American College of Physicians system. The final document was organized so that each topic is introduced with a question, followed by a formal clinical recommendation. Stakeholder input was received at a national meeting, with some subsequent refinement of the clinical questions addressed in the document. Consensus was achieved for all recommendations by the task force. Results: We reviewed the following therapeutic categories: (i) levothyroxine therapy, (ii) non-levothyroxinebased thyroid hormone therapies, and (iii) use of thyroid hormone analogs. The second category included thyroid extracts, synthetic combination therapy, triiodothyronine therapy, and compounded thyroid hormones. Conclusions: We concluded that levothyroxine should remain the standard of care for treating hypothyroidism. We found no consistently strong evidence for the superiority of alternative preparations (e.g., levothyroxineliothyronine combination therapy, or thyroid extract therapy, or others) over monotherapy with levothyroxine, in improving health outcomes. Some examples of future research needs include the development of superior biomarkers of euthyroidism to supplement thyrotropin measurements, mechanistic research on serum triiodothyronine