Comparative Effectiveness of Generic vs Brand-Name Levothyroxine in Achieving Normal Thyrotropin Levels.

Importance: Whether the use of generic vs brand levothyroxine affects thyrotropin levels remains unclear. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of generic vs brand levothyroxine in achieving and maintaining normal thyrotropin levels among new users. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, 1:1 propensity score-matched longitudinal cohort study used the OptumLabs Data Warehouse administrative claims database linked to laboratory results from commercially insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees throughout the United States. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with thyrotropin levels ranging from 4.5 to 19.9 mIU/L who initiated use of generic or brand-name levothyroxine from January 1, 2008, to October 1, 2017. Data were analyzed from August 13, 2018, to October 25, 2019. Exposure: Patients received generic or brand-name levothyroxine. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of patients with normal vs markedly abnormal thyrotropin levels (<0.1 or >10 mIU/L) within 3 months and with stable thyrotropin levels within 3 months after the thyrotropin value fell into the normal range. Results: A total of 17 598 patients were included (69.0% female; 74.0% White; mean [SD] age, 55.1 [16.0] years), of whom 15 299 filled generic and 2299 filled brand-name levothyroxine prescriptions during the study period. Among 4570 propensity score-matched patients (mean [SD] age, 50.3 [13.8] years; 3457 [75.6%] female; 3510 [76.8%] White), the proportion with normal thyrotropin levels within 3 months of filling levothyroxine prescriptions was similar for patients who received generic vs brand-name levothyroxine (1722 [75.4%; 95% CI, 71.9%-79.0%] vs 1757 [76.9%; 95% CI, 73.4%-80.6%]; P = .23), as was the proportion with markedly abnormal levels (94 [4.1%; 95% CI, 3.4%-5.0%] vs 88 [3.9%; 95% CI, 3.1%-4.7%]; P = .65). Among 1034 propensity score-matched patients who achieved a normal thyrotropin value within 3 months of initiation of levothyroxine, the proportion maintaining subsequent normal thyrotropin levels during the next 3 months was similar for patients receiving generic vs brand-name levothyroxine (427 [82.6%] vs 433 [83.8%]; P = .62). Conclusions and Relevance: Initiation of generic vs brand-name levothyroxine formulations was associated with similar rates of normal and stable thyrotropin levels. These results suggest that generic levothyroxine as initial therapy for mild thyroid dysfunction is as effective as brand-name levothyroxine.

Comparison of Incident Cardiovascular Event Rates Between Generic and Brand l-Thyroxine for the Treatment of Hypothyroidism.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether levothyroxine (L-T4) preparation (generic vs brand) affected hospitalization for cardiovascular events. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis using a large administrative claims database, OptumLabs Data Warehouse, creating two 1-to-1 propensity score-matched cohorts initiating generic or brand L-T4. Patients were followed for a mean of 1.0±1.2 years (range, 0-9.3 years). We included 87,902 propensity score-matched patients (43,951 patients per cohort) initiating generic or brand L-T4. Variables included in matching were age, sex, race/ethnicity, residence region, selected comorbidities, and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score. Patients with previous use of any thyroid preparation, amiodarone, or lithium were excluded. Primary outcomes were the event rates for hospitalizations for incident atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or stroke. RESULTS: In the generic L-T4 cohort, 35,242 (80.2%) were women and 7327 (16.7%) were 65 years of age or older; in the brand L-T4 cohort, 34,633 (78.8%) were women and 8092 (18.4%) were 65 years of age or older. We found no differences in event rates (events per 1000 person-years) for 4 outcomes comparing generic and brand L-T4 therapy: (1) atrial fibrillation (1.82 vs 2.19; hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% CI, 0.90-1.65; P=.19); (2) myocardial infarction (2.12 vs 1.83; HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.64-1.17; P=.35); (3) congestive heart failure (2.27 vs 2.00; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66-1.18; P=.41); and (4) stroke (3.10 vs 2.38; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-1.00; P=.05). Stratification by age group revealed no differences. CONCLUSION: In patients with newly treated hypothyroidism, cardiovascular event rates were similar for generic and brand L-T4.

ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE FOR PAPILLARY THYROID MICROCARCINOMA: NEW CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

OBJECTIVE: The dramatic increase in papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) is primarily a result of early diagnosis of small cancers. Active surveillance is a promising management strategy for papillary thyroid microcarcinomas (PTMCs). However, as this management strategy gains traction in the U.S., it is imperative that patients and clinicians be properly educated, patients be followed for life, and appropriate tools be identified to implement the strategy. METHODS: We review previous active surveillance studies and the parameters used to identify patients who are good candidates for active surveillance. We also review some of the challenges to implementing active surveillance protocols in the U.S. and discuss how these might be addressed. RESULTS: Trials of active surveillance support nonsurgical management as a viable and safe management strategy. However, numerous challenges exist, including the need for adherence to protocols, education of patients and physicians, and awareness of the impact of this strategy on patient psychology and quality of life. The Thyroid Cancer Care Collaborative (TCCC) is a portable record keeping system that can manage a mobile patient population undergoing active surveillance. CONCLUSION: With proper patient selection, organization, and patient support, active surveillance has the potential to be a long-term management strategy for select patients with PTMC. In order to address the challenges and opportunities for this approach to be successfully implemented in the U.S., it will be necessary to consider psychological and quality of life, cultural differences, and the patient's clinical status.

Disparities in participation in cancer clinical trials in the United States : a symptom of a healthcare system in crisis.

Disparities in minorities' representation in cancer clinical trials have been shown only in adult populations, which suggest that the main causes of these disparities relate to health system-based barriers, including issues of poverty (lack of insurance), poor access to trials, and an inadequate number of clinical trials. Initiatives that increase the participation of community physicians in cancer clinical research trials and increase low socioeconomic status patients' access to cancer trials will likely ameliorate this problem.