Croce Laura, Chytiris Spyridon, Teliti Marsida, Bertini Jacopo, Pizzuto Lidia, Molin Marzia Dal, Limiroli Matteo, Calì Benedetto, Magri Flavia, Rotondi Mario
Department of Internal Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Pavia, Pavia, 27100, Italy.
Istituti Clinici Scientifici Maugeri IRCCS, Unit of Internal Medicine and Endocrinology, Laboratory for Endocrine Disruptors, Pavia, 27100, Italy.
Endocrine. 2025 Aug 8. doi: 10.1007/s12020-025-04375-9.
Since the introduction of an ethanol-free liquid levothyroxine formulation, only few studies assessed its therapeutic efficacy. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of tablet (T-LT4) versus L-EF-LT4 in achieving the patient-specific TSH target in thyroidectomized patients. The primary objective was to assess whether the required LT4 dose differed between formulations in a real-life setting.
The study was conducted on 275 patients who underwent total thyroidectomy and were treated with either T-LT4 (n = 152) or L-EF-LT4 (n = 123) between 2020 and 2023. Clinical and biochemical data, including LT4 dose, BMI, TSH levels, and potential causes of malabsorption, were collected. The primary endpoint was the pro-kg LT4 dose required to achieve individualized TSH targets. Multivariate regression analysis was used to evaluate predictors of LT4 requirement.
At final follow-up, 227 patients (82.5%) achieved their TSH target and were under stable doses of LT4 with no significant difference in mean LT4 dose between groups (T-LT4: 1.54 ± 0.35 µg/kg/day; L-EF-LT4: 1.60 ± 0.32 µg/kg/day, p = 0.160). TSH levels were comparable (p = 0.311). Regression analysis showed that age and BMI were inversely correlated with LT4 dose, while a diagnosis of differentiated thyroid cancer was positively correlated with LT4 dose. Formulation type was not a significant predictor.
In patients with post-surgical hypothyroidism, L-EF-LT4 demonstrated equivalent therapeutic efficacy to T-LT4 in terms of dose requirement and TSH control. These findings support the use of L-EF-LT4 as a viable alternative to tablet LT4, particularly in clinical scenarios where flexible timing of ingestion may improve patient compliance.
自无乙醇液体左甲状腺素制剂推出以来,仅有少数研究评估了其治疗效果。本研究旨在比较片剂(T-LT4)与液体无乙醇左甲状腺素(L-EF-LT4)在甲状腺切除患者中实现个体化促甲状腺激素(TSH)目标的疗效。主要目的是评估在实际临床环境中,两种制剂所需的左甲状腺素剂量是否存在差异。
本研究对275例接受甲状腺全切术的患者进行,这些患者在2020年至2023年间接受了T-LT4(n = 152)或L-EF-LT4(n = 123)治疗。收集了临床和生化数据,包括左甲状腺素剂量、体重指数(BMI)、TSH水平以及吸收不良的潜在原因。主要终点是实现个体化TSH目标所需的每千克体重左甲状腺素剂量。采用多变量回归分析评估左甲状腺素需求量的预测因素。
在最终随访时,227例患者(82.5%)达到了TSH目标,并且左甲状腺素剂量稳定,两组之间的平均左甲状腺素剂量无显著差异(T-LT4:1.54±0.35μg/kg/天;L-EF-LT4:1.60±0.32μg/kg/天,p = 0.160)。TSH水平相当(p = 0.311)。回归分析表明,年龄和BMI与左甲状腺素剂量呈负相关,而分化型甲状腺癌的诊断与左甲状腺素剂量呈正相关。制剂类型不是一个显著的预测因素。
对于术后甲状腺功能减退患者,L-EF-LT4在剂量需求和TSH控制方面显示出与T-LT4相当的治疗效果。这些发现支持将L-EF-LT4作为片剂左甲状腺素的一种可行替代方案,特别是在摄入时间灵活可能提高患者依从性的临床场景中。