Conversion to Armour Thyroid from Levothyroxine Improved Patient Satisfaction

An interesting article by Gary M. Pepper & Paul Y.  Casanova-Romero in the Journal of Endocrinology, Diabetes & Obesity,  2(3): 1055, (2014), which contains this telling sentence:

. . . treatment of hypothyroidism with levothyroxine (L-T4) monotherapy has been the standard of care in the United States for over 3 decades. This is despite the reported failure of this form of therapy to result in satisfactory resolution of symptoms in a portion of treated individuals.

Abstract

The use of Armour Thyroid (natural desiccated thyroid) in the treatment of hypothyroidism has generated debate among endocrinologists although there is evidence that a significant percentage of patients prefer this medication to T4-only replacement strategies. In this retrospective analysis we investigate the preference for replacement therapy of patients with persistent subjective symptoms of  hypothyroidism on T4-only treatment who subsequently switched to Armour Thyroid (AT).

Methods: 450 consecutive patients being treated for hypothyroidism were screened. Of these, 154 had been switched from either generic or brand T4 replacement to AT for treatment of persistent symptoms of hypothyroidism. Patients undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer or on suppression therapy for nodular thyroid disease were excluded. Patients were instructed to have their blood sampled for thyroid function testing in the morning after taking their medication. After a minimum of 4 weeks on medication patients were asked to compare AT treatment versus T4-only treatment using a 5 point satisfaction rating scale. Results are reported as mean ± SD.

Results: On a 5 point Satisfaction Rating Scale with “5” indicative of the highest level of satisfaction, 117 (78.0%) patients gave a score of greater than “3” in preference for AT. Three patients treated with AT and one treated with LT4 reported adverse events, all minor. TSH was 1.30 ± 1.9 mIU/L and T3 1.81 ± 0.78 pmol/L on L-T4 monotherapy while TSH was 1.27 ± 2.2 mIU/L and T3 2.31 ± 1.33 pmol/L on AT (NS for TSH and p<0.003 for T3 ). T4 to T3 ratio on L-T4 monotherapy was 8.45 ± 3.7 while it was 4.70 ± 2.0 (p<0.001) on AT. There was no significant change in weight after switching to AT.

Conclusion: AT treatment produced high satisfaction scores in a group of hypothyroid patients with persistent symptoms on L-T4 therapy. Our findings suggest that AT preference is not due to placebo effect, induction of hyperthyroidism or weight loss. No significant untoward effects of this therapy were noted inclusive of 30 subjects 65 yrs of age and older. As suggested by Hershman [20], AT seems no more dangerous than adding T3 to L-T4 therapy and can be offered to patients who “don’t feel normal” on L-T4 monotherapy. Larger prospective studies would help clarify what role AT plays in replacement therapy of   patients dissatisfied with L-T4 monotherapy for hypothyroidism. Our results are encouraging to clinicians that this drug does provide a viable treatment alternative.

ABBREVIATIONS

TSH: Thyroid Stimulating Hormone; L-T4: Levothyroxine; T4: Thyroxine; T3: Triiodothyronine; AT: Armour Thyroid; L-T4 levothyroxine; NT: No Thyroid Disease; SRS: Satisfaction Rating Scale

See the full article at:

http://www.jscimedcentral.com/Endocrinology/endocrinology-2-1055.pdf

Previous Post
Next Post
Share
Posted in Diagnosis & Treatment of Thyroid Problems, Evidence Based Medicine, Natural Desiccated Thyroid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


four + = 12

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>