The economic impact of switching from Synthroid for the treatment of hypothyroidism

Exploring patient medication adherence and data mining methods in clinical big data: A contemporary review

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, patient medication adherence data are being consolidated from claims databases and electronic health records (EHRs). Such databases offer an indirect avenue to gauge medication adherence in our data-rich healthcare milieu. The surge in data accessibility, coupled with the pressing need for its conversion to actionable insights, has spotlighted data mining, with machine learning (ML) emerging as a pivotal technique. Nonadherence poses heightened health risks and escalates medical costs. This paper elucidates the synergistic interaction between medical database mining for medication adherence and the role of ML in fostering knowledge discovery.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive review of EHR applications in the realm of medication adherence, leveraging ML techniques. We expounded on the evolution and structure of medical databases pertinent to medication adherence and harnessed both supervised and unsupervised ML paradigms to delve into adherence and its ramifications.

RESULTS

Our study underscores the applications of medical databases and ML, encompassing both supervised and unsupervised learning, for medication adherence in clinical big data. Databases like SEER and NHANES, often underutilized due to their intricacies, have gained prominence. Employing ML to excavate patient medication logs from these databases facilitates adherence analysis. Such findings are pivotal for clinical decision-making, risk stratification, and scholarly pursuits, aiming to elevate healthcare quality.

CONCLUSION

Advanced data mining in the era of big data has revolutionized medication adherence research, thereby enhancing patient care. Emphasizing bespoke interventions and research could herald transformative shifts in therapeutic modalities.

Levothyroxine Treatment Adequacy and Formulation Changes in Patients with Hypothyroidism: A Retrospective Study of Real-World Data from the United States

Background: The prevalence of hypothyroidism (HT) has increased over time. To assess the effectiveness of treatment, we (1) studied thyrotropin (TSH) levels among patients receiving levothyroxine (LT4) and (2) determined the percentages of patients switching among LT4 formulations. Methods: Data on patients with HT receiving LT4 from the Optum™ Clinical and Claims Database were analyzed from March 2013 through February 2020. Eligible adult patients had ≥1 medical claim with an HT diagnosis and all patients were observed for ≥12 months. Patients included in Objective 1 were indexed on a randomly selected TSH result and had ≥2 results for TSH 1-15 months apart. Patients included in Objective 2 were indexed on a randomly selected LT4 pharmacy claim and had ≥2 LT4 claims ≥1 month apart and ≥1 claim during follow-up. Outcomes were the proportion of patients with low, normal, or high (<0.45, 0.45-4.5, or >4.5 mIU/L, respectively) TSH levels and the proportion of patients switching LT4 formulations, respectively. Data were stratified by age group, sex, and insurance type. All data reported were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Of patients who were in the indexed TSH group, 81.1% [confidence intervals: 80.4-81.8; n/N = 9130/11,259] achieved normal TSH values. When stratified by age group, sex, and insurance type, ≥70% of patients in each of these subgroups exhibited normal mean TSH values at follow-up. For Objective 2 (N = 25,076), 24.9% (N = 6238) of the LT4-indexed group had ≥1 formulation switch in 12 months, of which 67.3% only switched once, and 41.4% (N = 10,370) had ≥1 formulation switch in up to 24 months. A significantly higher proportion of Medicare vs. commercially insured patients had switched formulations (26.2% vs. 23.1%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Most LT4-treated patients maintain normal TSH levels, which is an improvement vs. previous reports. Continued physician engagement and patient education are advised to further reduce the number of patients who maintain off-target TSH levels. Contrary to clinical recommendations, about 25% of patients receiving LT4 switched formulations within 1 year, with >40% switching within 2 years; among patients who switched, most only switched once.

Rates of, and factors associated with, switching among generic levothyroxine preparations in commercially insured American adults

IMPORTANCE

Some practice guidelines warn against generic L-thyroxine preparation switching.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the rates of generic L-thyroxine preparation switching within one year of initiating L-thyroxine, and to examine factors associated with switching.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective study using national data from a large administrative claims database from January 2008 through November 2018.

PATIENTS

Medicare or commercially insured adults (≥18 years) who filled a generic L-thyroxine preparation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

At least one switch from one generic L-thyroxine preparation to another within 1 year of L-thyroxine initiation defined by prescription fills.

RESULTS

From January 2008 to November 2018, we included 483,390 patients who initiated generic L-thyroxine: mean (SD) age was 61.4 years (15.2), 75.2% were female, 72.6% were white. Within 1 year of initiating therapy, 98,013 (20%) switched to another L-thyroxine generic preparation at least once. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, factors associated with switching included the number of pharmacies visited to fill L-thyroxine (>2 vs 1 adjusted OR [aOR] 7.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.97-7.34), age ≥75 vs. <45 years (aOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.26-1.33), history of thyroid surgery (aOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13-1.31), and first L-thyroxine fill date in 2018 vs. 2008 (aOR 3.32, 95% CI 3.14-3.51).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

One in five patients switched among generic L-thyroxine manufacturers within one year of treatment initiation. Generic L-thyroxine switching occurred more often when more pharmacies were used to fill L-thyroxine. Given existing guideline recommendations, additional studies should clarify the impact of generic L-thyroxine switching on thyroid hormone values.

Comparative Effectiveness of Persistent Use of a Name-Brand Levothyroxine (Synthroid®) vs. Persistent Use of Generic Levothyroxine on TSH Goal Achievement: A Retrospective Study Among Patients with Hypothyroidism in a Managed Care Setting

Introduction

Levothyroxine monotherapy (Synthroid® or multiple generic levothyroxine [GL] formulations) is standard treatment for hypothyroidism. Our objective was to compare effectiveness (as measured by achievement of thyroid-stimulating hormone [TSH] levels) and economic outcomes of Synthroid vs. any one of multiple GLs in patients with hypothyroidism.

Methods

Data for this retrospective cohort study were obtained from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database®. All study patients had ≥ 2 claims between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2017 with ICD-9/10-CM diagnosis codes for hypothyroidism; were persistent users of Synthroid vs. any GL; and had ≥ 1 TSH laboratory result during 12-month follow-up. Patients were divided into one of two cohorts based on index medication and were 1:1 matched using propensity scores. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with last TSH laboratory result during follow-up within the reference range (0.3–4.12 mIU/L). Secondary outcomes included all-cause and hypothyroidism-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs.

Results

After propensity score matching, the Synthroid and GL cohorts each contained 18,382 patients. At follow-up, significantly more patients receiving Synthroid were in the TSH reference range vs. GL (78.5% vs. 77.2%, respectively, p =  0.002). HCRU and costs were broadly similar between the cohorts in terms of all-cause inpatient hospitalizations, emergency department visits, outpatient services, and pharmacy fills. Irrespective of index medication, patients with TSH within the reference range had significantly lower hypothyroidism-related medical and total costs compared to those outside the range.

Conclusions

This real-world data study showed Synthroid was associated with better TSH target achievement vs. GL in a US managed care population. Achieving TSH goals may provide substantial economic value by reducing hypothyroidism-related HCRU and costs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01969-3.

The Association Between Switching from Synthroid® and Clinical Outcomes: US Evidence from a Retrospective Database Analysis

Introduction

Clinical guidelines recommend levothyroxine as the standard of care for hypothyroidism and that patients should be treated with a consistent preparation of synthetic levothyroxine without switching among formulations. This study examines the likelihoods of negative clinical outcomes between continuous users of Synthroid^® (AbbVie, Inc.) and patients who switch from Synthroid^® to an alternative formulation of levothyroxine.

Methods

This retrospective cohort analysis utilized data from Optum Clinformatics™ DataMart covering May 1, 2000 to March 30, 2016. After 6 months of consistent use of Synthroid^®, patients were categorized as continuous users or as switchers (by filling a prescription for an alternative formulation). Key outcomes included the likelihood of a thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) laboratory value out of a guideline recommended range and/or an adverse clinical composite endpoint identified by ICD codes in the patient’s claims data over the following 2 years for any of the following: chronic kidney disease, depression, fatigue, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, or obesity. Individual components of the composite endpoint were also examined. Outcomes were analyzed using multivariable logistic models on propensity score matched cohorts. Analyses controlled for patient characteristics using SAS 9.4 software. Chi-square and t tests were employed and P < 0.05 was pre-specified as statistically significant.

Results

Propensity score matching resulted in a sample of 9925 continuous users and 9925 switchers. Switchers were significantly more likely than continuers to have a TSH laboratory value out-of-range in the post-period [odds ratio (OR) 1.15; 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.08–1.23)]. Switchers were also more likely to have the composite clinical endpoint [OR 1.23; CI (1.12–1.37)] and to have individual diagnoses of chronic kidney disease, depression, fatigue, hypertension, or obesity in the post-period.

Conclusions

Results of this large retrospective study over an extended time horizon support clinical guideline recommendations that switching among alternative formulations of synthetic levothyroxine should generally be avoided. Continuous use of Synthroid^® was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of maintaining the TSH laboratory value within a guideline recommended range and a significantly lower likelihood of being diagnosed with adverse clinical outcomes.

Use of Thyroid Hormones in Hypothyroid and Euthyroid Patients; the 2019 Italian Survey

BACKGROUND

The incidence and prevalence of hypothyroidism are increasing and the threshold for the treatment of hypothyroid as well as individuals without evident thyroid disease with thyroid hormone is declining.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate endocrinologists' use of thyroid hormones in hypothyroid and euthyroid patients in Italy, a country where different formulations of levothyroxine (LT4; tablet, liquid solution and soft-gel capsule) are available on the market.

METHODS

Members of the Associazione Medici Endocrinologi (Italian Association of Clinical Endocrinologists) were invited to participate in a web-based survey investigating the topic.

RESULTS

A total of 797 of 2,028 (39.3%) members completed all the sections of the survey; 98.7% declared that the treatment of choice for hypothyroidism is LT4. A significant minority (37.3%) indicated that LT4 may be considered in infertile euthyroid women seeking pregnancy and harbouring positive thyroperoxidase antibodies (TPOAb) and in goitre increasing in size (18.1%). LT4 + LT3 was considered by 43.2% for LT4-replaced patients and normal TSH, if they reported persistent symptoms. High percentages of respondents chose LT4 in a liquid solution or soft-gel capsules when taken together with other drugs interfering with LT4 absorption (81.8%), in patients with a history of celiac disease, malabsorption, lactose intolerance, intolerance to common excipients (96.6%), or unexplained poor biochemical control of hypothyroidism (74.4%), or in patients not able to adhere to ingesting LT4 fasted and/or separated from food/drink (98.9%). In total, 43.6% of responders would use LT4 in a liquid solution or soft-gel capsules for hypothyroid patients with biochemical euthyroidism on LT4, who had persistent symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The preferred treatment for hypothyroidism is LT4; LT3 + LT4 combination treatment is mainly considered in patients with persistent symptoms. A significant minority would offer LT4 to euthyroid women with positive TPOAb and infertility and to euthyroid patients with progressive simple goitre. Alternative LT4 formulations like liquid solution or soft-gel capsules are largely reserved for specific conditions (interfering drugs, actual or suspected malabsorption, inability to take LT4 in the fasting state, unexplained poor biochemical control of hypothyroidism).

Levothyroxine Formulations: Pharmacological and Clinical Implications of Generic Substitution

Oral levothyroxine (LT4) is the standard therapy for patients with hypothyroidism. Oral LT4 is available in several formulations, including tablets, soft gel capsules and oral solution. Multiple brand-name and generic LT4 tablets are available. In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has developed a protocol for establishing bioequivalence of LT4 formulations based on serum thyroxine (T4) levels after a single oral dose administered to healthy volunteers. This protocol has been criticized by professional endocrinology associations for using healthy individuals and ignoring serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels. In addition, the protocol did not initially correct for baseline T4 levels, although this was changed in a later version. There are concerns that the FDA's protocol could allow products with clinically significant differences in bioavailability to be declared therapeutically equivalent and interchangeable. Once a generic LT4 has been shown to be bioequivalent to a brand-name LT4, it may be substituted for that brand-name LT4 with no need for dose adjustment or follow-up therapeutic monitoring. Often, the substitution is made by the pharmacy without the physician's knowledge. Even small differences between LT4 formulations can cause significant changes in TSH levels. This may be a particular concern in vulnerable populations, including elderly, pregnant, and pediatric patients. Problems that can be encountered when switching between formulations or when original products are reformulated are discussed in this review. These problems include altered efficacy and adverse events, some of which can be caused by excipients. Patients should be maintained on the same LT4 preparation if possible. If the LT4 preparation is changed, TSH levels should be evaluated and, if necessary, the dose of LT4 adjusted.Funding: Merck.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary available for this article.