| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Endocrine Institute (S.G.-G.) and Department of Medicine E (A.F., L.L.), Rabin Medical Center, and Geha Mental Health Center (E.N., A.W.), Petah-Tiqva 49100, Israel; and Sackler Faculty of Medicine (E.N., A.W., L.L.), Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel
Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Leonard Leibovici, M.D., Department of Medicine E, Beilinson Campus, Petah-Tiqva 49100, Israel. E-mail: leibovic{at}post.tau.ac.il.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Objective: The objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness of T4-T3 combination vs. T4 monotherapy for the treatment of clinical hypothyroidism in adults.
Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched in September 2005. References of all included trials were scanned for additional studies. We put no restrictions on language, year of publication, or publication status.
Study Selection: All randomized trials that compared the effectiveness of T4-T3 combination vs. T4 monotherapy for the treatment of clinical hypothyroidism in adults were included.
Data Extraction: The data were extracted by two independent reviewers.
Data Synthesis: We included 11 studies, in which 1216 patients were randomized. No difference was found in the effectiveness of combination vs. monotherapy in any of the following symptoms: bodily pain [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34, 0.35], depression (SMD 0.07, 95% CI 0.20, 0.34), anxiety (SMD 0.00, 95% CI 0.12, 0.11), fatigue (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.33, 0.09), quality of life (SMD 0.03, 95% CI 0.09, 0.15), body weight, total serum cholesterol, triglyceride levels, low-density lipoprotein, and high-density lipoprotein. Adverse events did not differ between regimens.
Conclusions: T4 monotherapy should remain the treatment of choice for clinical hypothyroidism.
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Studies of hypothyroid rats (after thyroidectomy or after radioiodine therapy) failed to show normalization in tissue concentration of T4 and T3 with T4 monotherapy. However, normalization was achieved with a combination of T4 and T3 (5). In humans, this issue remains controversial. In some patients symptoms of hypothyroidism persist despite T4 therapy. A survey conducted in the United Kingdom found that 32% of patients treated with T4 were above the threshold for significant psychiatric morbidity according to the abbreviated General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), compared with 26% of controls (3). It is not clear whether this is due to comorbidity or because standard T4 replacement therapy is in some way inadequate for these patients (6, 7).
Successful treatment of hypothyroidism with the use of replacement therapy should result in improved signs and symptoms as well as normal thyroid hormone levels in peripheral tissues. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of T4-T3 combination therapy vs. T4 monotherapy for the treatment of clinical hypothyroidism in adults.
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in September 2005. The terms hypothyroidism and similar terms, thyroxine and similar terms, triiodothyronine and similar terms, or combination therapy and similar terms were crossed (8). References of all included trials were scanned for additional studies. We put no restrictions on language, year of publication, or publication status.
Selection
We included all randomized or quasirandomized trials (in which the allocation to study groups is not equivalent to the throw of a coin, e.g. birth date) that compared the effectiveness of T4-T3 combination therapy vs. T4 monotherapy for the treatment of clinical hypothyroidism in adults. Two reviewers independently inspected each reference identified by the search and applied the inclusion criteria. For possibly relevant articles or in cases of disagreement between the two reviewers, we obtained and independently inspected the full article and applied inclusion criteria.
Data abstraction
Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality of included trials. In case of any disagreement between the two reviewers, a third reviewer was consulted. We discussed data extraction, documented decisions, and contacted the authors of trials for missing data or clarifications when necessary.
We assessed the quality of the following trial characteristics: allocation concealment, generation of the allocation sequence, and blinding. We graded allocation concealment and generation as adequate, unclear, or inadequate. Adequate allocation concealment was defined as the use of central randomization, numbered or coded bottles or containers, drugs prepared by the pharmacy, serially numbered sealed opaque envelopes, or other convincing measures. Adequate allocation generation was defined as the use of random-number table, random-number generator, computer generated, coin-tossing, or shuffling. We also recorded data on method of analysis (intention to treat or per protocol), number of dropouts, trial design (parallel or crossover design and washout period), length of follow-up until outcome assessment, and the questionnaires used to assess outcomes.
Our predefined primary outcomes were symptoms (bodily pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and insomnia) and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included cognitive performance, thyroid function test levels, serum lipids levels, adverse effects, and weight changes. To decide which questionnaires were most appropriate for assessment of the predefined outcomes, we consulted two senior psychiatrists who were blinded to trial results.
Quantitative data synthesis
When an outcome was assessed using different scales and the direction of the scales was different, i.e. higher scores indicated improved outcomes in some scales and worse outcomes in others, we standardized the direction by using the inversion of measurements of one of the two types of scales. We pooled data recorded at the end of follow-up in each trial unless otherwise specified. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous data measured. All biochemical determinations (including TSH) were expressed in the same units for all trials, and thus, the WMD was used for data synthesis.
If continuous outcomes were conceptually the same but measured using different questionnaires, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was used. Relative risks and 95% CIs were calculated for dichotomous data and pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method. A fixed-effect model was used unless significant heterogeneity was observed, and then a random effects model was used. Heterogeneity in the results of the trials was assessed using a
2 test and the I-square measure of inconsistency. We predefined significant heterogeneity as a
2 test P < 0.1 or an I-square measure greater than 50% (9). For our primary analysis, we divided trials into trials with a crossover and noncrossover design to assess whether the results of these two groups of trials differed. Meta-regression was performed to assess the effect of T3 dosage, percentage of athyreotic patients, and length of follow-up on trial results.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
No difference was found in the effectiveness of combination therapy or monotherapy in any of the following symptoms: bodily pain (SMD 0.00, 95% CI 0.34, 0.35; four studies, Fig. 2
); quality of life (SMD 0.03, 95% CI 0.09, 0.15; Fig. 3
); depression (SMD 0.07; 95% CI 0.20, 0.34; all studies, Fig. 4
); fatigue (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.33, 0.09; six studies, Fig. 5
); and anxiety (SMD 0.00, 95% CI 0.12, 0.11; seven studies, Fig. A1 in supplemental data). Due to scarcity of data, we could not assess the effect of combination therapy on sleeping patterns.
|
|
|
|
Cognitive function was tested in the included trials using two standard, well-validated tests: the Symbol Digit Modalities (31), which assesses cognitive efficiency and ability to undertake a novel task, and the Digit Span Sub-Test (both forward and backward) of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III (32), which assesses immediate auditory memory, attention, and concentration. Seven studies (11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20) reported results of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test. No significant difference was detected (WMD 0.15, 95% CI 0.79, 1.08), (Fig. A2 in supplemental data).
Eight studies reported results of the Digit Span Sub-Test (both forward and backward) of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21). No significant difference was found between the two treatment groups: forward subtest, WMD 0.02 (95% CI 0.25, 0.22; Fig. A3 in supplemental data); backward subtest, WMD 0.07 (95% CI 0.30, 0.15; Fig. A4 in supplemental data).
Weight changes
Weight changes were measured in seven studies (11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21). In three of four studies, weight remained stable or decreased during the study period (11, 14, 18). Bunevicius et al. (13) did not specify weight at baseline. In the study by Clyde et al. (14), baseline mean weight in the two treatment groups was significantly different, and we therefore used the change in weight in each group in the analysis. The weight in the combination group was lower at the end of the study, and this difference reached statistical significance, but the magnitude of the difference is negligible: WMD 0.10 kg; 95% CI 0.13, 0.07 kg; Fig. A5 in supplemental data).
Biochemistry results
The results of the thyroid function tests [TSH, free T4 (FT4), and total T3 (TT3), supplemental Figs. A6, A7, and A8] and the serum lipid levels (total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein, and triglycerides, supplemental Figs. A9, A10, A11, and A12) are documented in Table 3
, and but for levels of T4 (as expected), no differences were apparent between study groups.
|
All studies reported adverse effects, which were similar between study groups (relative risk 1.19, 95% CI 0.63, 2.24) (Fig. 6
).
|
Because eight of the 11 studies were graded A (adequate) for allocation concealment, sensitivity analysis was not performed. Meta-regression demonstrated no association among length of follow-up, percentage of athyreotic patients or dose of T3, and trial results for the primary outcomes.
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Trials also varied in the T4 to T3 ratio, the absolute doses prescribed, and duration of treatment. However, the differences in primary outcomes did not depend on T3 dose and duration of treatment.
Whether combination therapy offers an advantage is of particular interest for patients who are dissatisfied with monotherapy or continue to be symptomatic despite monotherapy and normalized serum free T4 and TSH levels. Four trials addressed this group of patients. Walsh et al. (18) found no benefit associated with combination therapy in a subgroup of patients dissatisfied with the results of monotherapy. Appelhof et al. (11) found that results for patients in the highest tertile of SCL-90 (psychiatric Symptoms Checklist) total scores did not differ from the overall results. Bunevicius et al. (12) reported no difference in results for depressed patients, compared with patients without depression, and Rodriguez et al. (21) reported no difference in patients with high and low fatigue levels.
Only one trial (12) found significant benefit of combination therapy over the monotherapy. It was later suggested that this benefit was associated with the cause of hypothyroidism and that only athyreotic thyroid cancer patients benefited from combination therapy, whereas patients with autoimmune thyroiditis did not (13, 38). However in the present review, we were unable to show a relation between the percentages of athyreotic patients included in the study and the effect of combination therapy on symptoms.
Limitations
It should be noted that we used mean (± SD) TSH values in the meta-analysis, although TSH values are not normally distributed. In addition, five of the included studies were crossover studies. Therefore, observations are not independent because the same patients receive both therapies (combination and monotherapy).
Implications for practice and research
Given the conclusive evidence, monotherapy with T4 should remain the standard treatment for hypothyroidism. It is doubtful whether further trials evaluating combination therapy are needed because the chances that the accumulated evidence will change are low.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
| Footnotes |
|---|
First Published Online May 2, 2006
Abbreviations: CI, Confidence interval; FT4, free T4; SMD, standardized mean difference; TT3, total T3; WMD, weighted mean difference.
Received February 27, 2006.
Accepted April 24, 2006.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
V. Panicker, P. Saravanan, B. Vaidya, J. Evans, A. T. Hattersley, T. M. Frayling, and C. M. Dayan Common Variation in the DIO2 Gene Predicts Baseline Psychological Well-Being and Response to Combination Thyroxine Plus Triiodothyronine Therapy in Hypothyroid Patients J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., May 1, 2009; 94(5): 1623 - 1629. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Fast, V. E. Nielsen, S. J. Bonnema, and L. Hegedus Time to reconsider nonsurgical therapy of benign non-toxic multinodular goitre: focus on recombinant human TSH augmented radioiodine therapy Eur. J. Endocrinol., April 1, 2009; 160(4): 517 - 528. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Vaidya and S. H S Pearce Management of hypothyroidism in adults BMJ, July 28, 2008; 337(jul28_1): a801 - a801. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
J. Jonklaas, B. Davidson, S. Bhagat, and S. J. Soldin Triiodothyronine Levels in Athyreotic Individuals During Levothyroxine Therapy JAMA, February 20, 2008; 299(7): 769 - 777. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. S. Cooper Thyroxine Monotherapy After Thyroidectomy: Coming Full Circle JAMA, February 20, 2008; 299(7): 817 - 819. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Saravanan, T. J. Visser, and C. M. Dayan Psychological Well-Being Correlates with Free Thyroxine But Not Free 3,5,3'-Triiodothyronine Levels in Patients on Thyroid Hormone Replacement J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., September 1, 2006; 91(9): 3389 - 3393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Endocrinology | Endocrine Reviews | J. Clin. End. & Metab. |
| Molecular Endocrinology | Recent Prog. Horm. Res. | All Endocrine Journals |