Treatment Preferences in Patients with Hypothyroidism: an Analysis of Eleven Randomized Controlled Trials.

Fabyan Esberard de Lima Beltrão,Giulia Carvalhal,Daniele Carvalhal de Almeida Beltrão,Fabricia Elisabeth de Lima Beltrão,Miriam O Ribeiro,Matthew D Ettleson,Helton Estrela Ramos,Antonio C Bianco
{"title":"Treatment Preferences in Patients with Hypothyroidism: an Analysis of Eleven Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Fabyan Esberard de Lima Beltrão,Giulia Carvalhal,Daniele Carvalhal de Almeida Beltrão,Fabricia Elisabeth de Lima Beltrão,Miriam O Ribeiro,Matthew D Ettleson,Helton Estrela Ramos,Antonio C Bianco","doi":"10.1210/clinem/dgae651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION\r\nLevothyroxine (L-T4) monotherapy is the standard of care for the treatment of hypothyroidism. A minority of the L-T4-treated patients remain symptomatic and report better outcomes with combination therapy that contains liothyronine (L-T3) or with desiccated thyroid extract (DTE).\r\n\r\nGOAL\r\nTo assess patient preferences in the treatment of hypothyroidism.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nA systematic review, meta-analysis, meta-regression, and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for adults with hypothyroidism (L-T4 vs. L-T4+L-T3 or DTE). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to April 10, 2024. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently performed by four researchers.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nEleven RCTs (eight cross-over studies) with a total of 1,135 patients were considered. Overall, 24% of patients preferred L-T4 versus 52 % who preferred L-T4+L-T3 or DTE; 24% had no preference. The meta-analysis confirmed the preference for combination therapy over L-T4 monotherapy (RR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.38 to 3.52; p = 0.0009). Excluding four studies reduced the high heterogeneity (I2 = 81%) without affecting the results (RR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.52 to 2.54; p < 0.00001; I2 = 24%). This preference profile remained when only crossover studies were considered (RR: 2.84, 95% CI: 1.50 to 5.39; p < 0.00001). Network meta-analysis confirmed the preference for DTE and L-T3+L-T4 versus L-T4 alone.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nPatients with hypothyroidism prefer combination therapy (L-T3+L-T4 or DTE) over L-T4 monotherapy. The strength of these findings justifies considering patient preferences in the setting of shared decision-making in the treatment of hypothyroidism.","PeriodicalId":22632,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgae651","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Levothyroxine (L-T4) monotherapy is the standard of care for the treatment of hypothyroidism. A minority of the L-T4-treated patients remain symptomatic and report better outcomes with combination therapy that contains liothyronine (L-T3) or with desiccated thyroid extract (DTE). GOAL To assess patient preferences in the treatment of hypothyroidism. METHODS A systematic review, meta-analysis, meta-regression, and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for adults with hypothyroidism (L-T4 vs. L-T4+L-T3 or DTE). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to April 10, 2024. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently performed by four researchers. RESULTS Eleven RCTs (eight cross-over studies) with a total of 1,135 patients were considered. Overall, 24% of patients preferred L-T4 versus 52 % who preferred L-T4+L-T3 or DTE; 24% had no preference. The meta-analysis confirmed the preference for combination therapy over L-T4 monotherapy (RR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.38 to 3.52; p = 0.0009). Excluding four studies reduced the high heterogeneity (I2 = 81%) without affecting the results (RR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.52 to 2.54; p < 0.00001; I2 = 24%). This preference profile remained when only crossover studies were considered (RR: 2.84, 95% CI: 1.50 to 5.39; p < 0.00001). Network meta-analysis confirmed the preference for DTE and L-T3+L-T4 versus L-T4 alone. CONCLUSION Patients with hypothyroidism prefer combination therapy (L-T3+L-T4 or DTE) over L-T4 monotherapy. The strength of these findings justifies considering patient preferences in the setting of shared decision-making in the treatment of hypothyroidism.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
甲状腺功能减退症患者的治疗偏好:对 11 项随机对照试验的分析。
简介左旋甲状腺素(L-T4)单一疗法是治疗甲状腺功能减退症的标准疗法。少数接受过 L-T4 治疗的患者仍无症状,并表示接受含有甲状腺氨酸(L-T3)或脱水甲状腺提取物(DTE)的联合治疗效果更好。方法对比较成人甲状腺功能减退症治疗方法(L-T4 与 L-T4+L-T3 或 DTE)的随机对照试验 (RCT) 进行系统综述、荟萃分析、荟萃回归和网络荟萃分析 (NMA)。截至 2024 年 4 月 10 日,在 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 数据库中进行了检索。数据提取和质量评估由四名研究人员独立完成。结果共考虑了 7 项 RCT(8 项交叉研究),共计 1,135 名患者。总体而言,24% 的患者偏好 L-T4,而 52% 的患者偏好 L-T4+L-T3 或 DTE;24% 的患者没有偏好。荟萃分析证实,患者更倾向于联合疗法而非 L-T4 单药疗法(RR:2.20,95% CI:1.38 至 3.52;P = 0.0009)。剔除四项研究降低了高度异质性(I2 = 81%),但不影响结果(RR:1.97,95% CI:1.52 至 2.54;p < 0.00001;I2 = 24%)。仅考虑交叉研究时,这一偏好特征依然存在(RR:2.84,95% CI:1.50 至 5.39;p < 0.00001)。网络荟萃分析证实了 DTE 和 L-T3+L-T4 与 L-T4 单药相比更受青睐。这些研究结果证明,在治疗甲减的共同决策过程中应考虑患者的偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Efficacy and safety of targeted therapy for radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer: a meta-analysis. Treatment Preferences in Patients with Hypothyroidism: an Analysis of Eleven Randomized Controlled Trials. Metabolomics: A Promising Tool in the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Obesity. Association between papillary thyroid cancer and primary aldosteronism in individuals with hypertension. The changing treatment paradigm in prolactinoma - a prospective series of 100 consecutive neurosurgical cases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1