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 biomarkers of euthyroidism to supplement thyrotropin measurements, mechanistic research on serum triiodothyronine levels (including effects of age and disease status, relationship with tissue concentrations, as well as potential therapeutic targeting), and long-term outcome clinical trials testing combination therapy or thyroid extracts (including subgroup effects). Additional research is also needed to develop thyroid hormone analogs with a favorable benefit to risk profile.

Background: Approximately 15% more patients taking levothyroxine (LT4) report impaired quality of life compared to controls. This could be explained by additional diagnoses independently affecting quality of life and complicating assignment of causation. This study sought to investigate the underpinnings of reduced quality of life in hypothyroid patients and to provide data for discussion at a symposium addressing hypothyroidism. Methods: An online survey for hypothyroid patients was posted on the American Thyroid Association Web site and forwarded to multiple groups. Respondents were asked to rank satisfaction with their treatment for hypothyroidism and their treating physician. They also ranked their perception regarding physician knowledge about hypothyroidism treatments, need for new treatments, and life impact of hypothyroidism on a scale of 1–10. Respondents reported the therapy they were taking, categorized as LT4, LT4 and liothyronine (LT4 + LT3), or desiccated thyroid extract (DTE). They also reported sex, age, cause of hypothyroidism, duration of treatment, additional diagnoses, and prevalence of symptoms. Results: A total of 12,146 individuals completed the survey. The overall degree of satisfaction was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] = 3–8). Among respondents without self-reported depression, stressors, or medical conditions (n = 3670), individuals taking DTE reported a higher median treatment satisfaction of 7 (IQR = 5–9) compared to other treatments. At the same time, the LT4 treatment group exhibited the lowest satisfaction of 5 (IQR = 3–7), and for the LT4 + LT3 treatment group, satisfaction was 6 (IQR = 3–8). Respondents taking DTE were also less likely to report problems with weight management, fatigue/energy levels, mood, and memory compared to those taking LT4 or LT4 + LT3. Conclusions: A subset of patients with hypothyroidism are not satisfied with their current therapy or their physicians. Higher satisfaction with both treatment and physicians is reported by those patients on DTE. While the study design does not provide a mechanistic explanation for this observation, future studies should investigate whether preference for DTE is related to triiodothyronine levels or other unidentified causes.

Context: Thyroid cancer predominately affects women, carries a worse prognosis in older age, and may have higher mortality in men. Superimposed on these observations is the fact that most women have attained menopause by age 55 yr. Objective: The objective of the study was to determine whether men contribute disproportionately to papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) mortality or whether menopause affects PTC prognosis. Design: Gender-specific mortality was normalized using age-matched subjects from the U.S. population. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models incorporating gender, age, and National Thyroid Cancer Treatment Cooperative Study Group stage were used to model disease-specific survival (DSS). Participants and Setting: Patients were followed in a prospective registry. Main Outcome Measure: The relationships between gender, age, and PTC outcomes were analyzed. Results: The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for DSS for women was 0.40 [confidence interval (CI) 0.24–0.65]. This female advantage diminished when DSS was adjusted for age at diagnosis and stage with a HR encompassing unity (HR 0.72, CI 0.44–1.19). Additional multivariate models of DSS considering gender, disease stage, and various age groupings showed that the DSS for women diagnosed at under 55 yr was improved over men (HR 0.33, CI 0.13–0.81). However, the HR for DSS increased to become similar to men for women diagnosed at 55–69 yr (HR 1.01, CI 0.42–2.37) and at 70 yr or greater (HR 1.17, CI 0.48–2.85). Conclusions: Although the overall outcome of women with PTC is similar to men, subgroup analysis showed that this composite outcome is composed of two periods with different outcomes. The first period is a period with better outcomes for women than men when the diagnosis occurs at younger than 55 yr; the second is a period with similar outcomes for both women and men diagnosed at ages greater than 55 yr. These data raise the question of whether an older age cutoff would improve current staging systems. We hypothesize that older age modifies the effect of gender on outcomes due to menopause-associated hormonal alterations.

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.