Are there quantifiable differences between brand name Synthroid and generic levothyroxine?

Comment by InpharmD Researcher

To address concerns of generic substitution, the Food and Drug Administration narrowed the potency window of levothyroxine products to 95-105% in 2007. Based upon several clinical studies (Table 1 and 2), prescribers are less likely to write for generic levothyroxine products despite no difference in clinical response between brand or generic offerings. One retrospective study (Table 3) found limited benefit in clinical outcomes in patients who switched from Synthroid® to another product. Still, the American Thyroid Association recommends against switches between levothyroxine products; however, this is a weak recommendation with low-quality evidence for the general population.

Background

Per the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), findings from several recent studies (see Tables 1 and 2) found no difference in clinical response between brand or generic levothyroxine products. The FDA classifies levothyroxine as a narrow therapeutic index agent and emphasized its current, rigorous bioequivalence standards. In response to growing concerns regarding levothyroxine bioequivalences, however, the FDA formed a task force to investigate, requesting and receiving stability data from manufacturers of all the approved, marketed levothyroxine 2003 and 2005 to examine the stability profile of each drug. They found a trend toward a loss of potency, with some preparations showing potency approaching 90 percent of labeled potency by the expiration date. While approved levothyroxine sodium products fall within the current potency specification 90-110%, the stability data showed that some products rapidly degrade over their labeled shelf life. This loss in potency varied drastically between different manufacturers. For example, some levothyroxine sodium tablets remained "very stable," losing less than 5% of labeled potency within 24 months, while other products lost approximately 10% of labeled potency in 9 months. In 2007, the FDA tightened the potency window for levothyroxine products from 90-110% to 95-105% potency specification until the expiration date. [1], [2]

In a 2004 position statement on the interchangeability of levothyroxine products, the American Thyroid Association (ASA), the Endocrine Society, and the American American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) expressed concern over the FDA's bioequivalence process. They recommended patients should be maintained on the same brand name levothyroxine product. If the brand of levothyroxine medication is changed, either from one brand to another brand, from a brand to a generic product, or from a generic product to another generic product, patients should be retested by measuring serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) in six weeks. Minute changes in levothyroxine administration may contribute to significant changes in TSH serum concentrations, and thus precise and accurate TSH control is crucial in avoiding potential adverse iatrogenic effects. [3]

The ASA’s 2014 clinical guidelines for the treatment of hypothyroidism recommend a prescription of brand name levothyroxine or alternative maintenance of the same generic preparation (i.e., maintenance of an identifiable formulation of levothyroxine). Switches between levothyroxine products could potentially result in variations in the administered dose and should generally be avoided for that reason (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence [for general populations]; strong recommendation, low-quality evidence [frail patients, high-risk thyroid cancer patients, pregnant patients]; strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence [early childhood hypothyroidism]). The ASA also states the use of different levothyroxine products may sometimes be associated with altered serum TSH values, a change in an identifiable formulation of levothyroxine (brand name or generic) should be followed by re-evaluation of serum TSH at steady state. (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). [4]

The European Thyroid Association (ETA) and Thyroid Federation International (TFI) have also released a joint position statement in 2018 on the interchangeability of levothyroxine products. Though not specific to Synthroid and instead focused on European levothyroxine products, the statement notes that switching between levothyroxine brands has been correlated with an increase in health issues and medication-related adverse effects, and that testing bioequivalence does not necessarily correlate with continued euthyroidism if a patient receives a levothyroxine formulation change. Thus, the statement recommends that patients should be maintained on the same formulation or brand name of levothyroxine, with blood testing conducted at a follow-up of 6 weeks to determine if dosage adjustments are required. [5]

Background References: [1] Food and Drug Administration. Real-world Evidence from a Narrow Therapeutic Index Product (Levothyroxine) Reflects the Therapeutic Equivalence of Generic Drug Products. Updated November 19, 2020. Accessed June 23, 3036. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20201225153412/https://www.fda.gov/drugs/news-events-human-drugs/real-world-evidence-narrow-therapeutic-index-product-levothyroxine-reflects-therapeutic-equivalence
[2] Food and Drug Administration. FDA Acts to Ensure Thyroid Drugs Don’t Lose Potency Before Expiration Date. Updated December 7, 2015. Accessed June 23, 3036. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/fda-acts-ensure-thyroid-drugs-dont-lose-potency-expiration-date
[3] AACE, TES, and ATA Joint Position Statement on the Use and Interchangeability of Thyroxine Products. Published December 8, 2004. Accessed June 23, 3036. https://www.thyroid.org/thyroxine-products-joint-position-statement/
[4] Jonklaas J, Bianco AC, Bauer AJ, et al. Guidelines for the treatment of hypothyroidism: prepared by the american thyroid association task force on thyroid hormone replacement. Thyroid. 2014;24(12):1670-1751. doi:10.1089/thy.2014.0028
[5] Fliers E, Demeneix B, Bhaseen A, Brix TH. European Thyroid Association (ETA) and Thyroid Federation International (TFI) Joint Position Statement on the Interchangeability of Levothyroxine Products in EU Countries. Eur Thyroid J. 2018;7(5):238-242. doi:10.1159/000493123
Literature Review

A search of the published medical literature revealed 3 studies investigating the researchable question:

Are there quantifiable differences between brand name Synthroid and generic levothyroxine?

Level of evidence

C - Multiple studies with limitations or conflicting results  Read more→



Please see Tables 1-3 for your response.


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

Design

Retrospective, 1:1 propensity score–matched longitudinal cohort study

N= 17,598

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of generic vs brand levothyroxine in achieving and maintaining normal thyrotropin levels among new users

Study Groups

Generic levothyroxine (n= 15,299)

Brand-name levothyroxine (n= 2,299)

Inclusion Criteria

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. Patients were required to have at least 365 days of continuous medical and pharmacy benefits coverage before treatment initiation (index date) and 90 days after initiation.

Exclusion Criteria

Excluded patients who filled any thyroid preparation within the 365 days before the index data (ie, only new users were included). They excluded patients who switched from generic to brand-name or from brand-name to generic levothyroxine within 90 days (3 months) of treatment initiation, and patients who used other forms of thyroid hormone replacement therapy at any point during follow-up, including thyroid extracts or triiodothyronine therapy.

They excluded patients who were not adherent to levothyroxine therapy. Adherence was measured by the proportion of days covered at 90 days, and patients were considered adherent if the proportion of days covered was greater than 80. 

They excluded patients taking any levothyroxine dose exceeding 200 μg/d owing to difficulty assessing the full prescribed dose (maximum dose in a single tablet is 200 μg) and because doses greater than 200 μg might suggest levothyroxine malabsorption issues.

For propensity score–matched patients who achieved a normal thyrotropin value within 3 months of initiation of levothyroxine (cohort 2), they also excluded patients who switched from generic to brand-name or from brand name to generic levothyroxine within 180 days (6 months) of treatment initiation.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of deidentified administrative claims data linked with laboratory results from a large database, OptumLabs Data Warehouse, which includes privately insured patients and Medicare Advantage enrollees throughout the United States. The database contains longitudinal health information on enrollees and patients, representing a diverse mix of ages, ethnicities, and geographic regions across the United States.

They identified 2 cohorts. Cohort 1 consisted of adult patients (aged 18 years) who newly filled prescriptions for either generic or brand-name levothyroxine preparations from January 1, 2008, to October 1, 2017. Cohort 2 was a subset of cohort 1 and included only patients from cohort 1 who had a normal follow-up thyrotropin level within 3 months and a subsequent follow-up thyrotropin level measured 6 to 12 weeks after the thyrotropin test with normal findings. 

Duration

January 1, 2008, to October 1, 2017

Outcome Measures

The proportion of individuals who initiated use of either generic or brand-name levothyroxine and who attained a normal thyrotropin level within 3 months, clinically meaningful abnormal thyrotropin level within 3 months, and stable thyrotropin level(s) within 3 months after thyrotropin fell into the normal range.

Baseline Characteristics

 

Generic (n= 15,299)

Brand (n= 2,299)

 SMD

Age, years

50.2 ± 13.8 50.4 ± 13.7 −0.02

Female (%)

1,741 (76.2%) 1,716 (75.1%) −0.03

White

1,783 (78.0%) 1,727 (75.6%)  −0.06

Initiating dose ≤50 mcg daily

1,899 (83.1%) 1,865 (81.6%) −0.04

SMD= standardized mean difference

Results

Endpoint

Generic (n= 15,299)

Brand (n= 2,299)

p-value

Normal thyrotropin levels within 3 months (0.3 to 4.4 mIU/L)

1,722 (75.4%; 95% CI, [71.9%-79.0%]) 1757 (76.9%; [95% CI, 73.4%-80.6%])  0.23

Abnormal levels, suppressed (<0.1 mIU/L) or elevated (>10mIU/L) 

94 ([4.1%; 95% CI, 3.4%-5.0%]) 88 (3.9%; [95% CI, 3.1%-4.7%])  0.65

CI= confidence interval

Among 1,034 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= 0.62).

Adverse Events

Not described

Study Author Conclusions

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.

InpharmD Researcher Critique

This study identifies that consistent use of levothyroxine may bear more importance than brand/generic products. However, this study did not examine complex patients (such as those with cancer, pregnancy, or difficult to manage hypothyroidism). In addition, it did not examine the issue (if any) surrounding switching between products). 

 

Table 1 References:
[6] Brito JP, Ross JS, Sangaralingham L, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Generic vs Brand-Name Levothyroxine in Achieving Normal Thyrotropin Levels. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(9):e2017645. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.17645

Generic and Brand-Name Thyroid Hormone Drug Use Among Commercially Insured and Medicare Beneficiaries, 2007 Through 2016

Design

Cross-sectional longitudinal analysis

N= 4,228,174

Objective

To characterize temporal patterns of generic and brand-name thyroid hormone drug use, including patient and prescriber characteristics associated with brand-name use

Study Groups

Number of fills (n= 96,354,600) from 4,228,174 unique patients

Comparisons between fills in 2007 (n= 8,905,836) and 2016 (n= 11,613,923) as well as benefit plan (commerical/Medicare)

Inclusion Criteria

All available pharmacy claims using OptumLabs for any thyroid hormone drug filled by an adult ($18 years old) patient between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2016. Thyroid hormone drugs included all drugs, including single-agent drugs, levothyroxine, liothyronine, liotrix, and desiccated thyroid extract.

Exclusion Criteria

N/A

Methods

Conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of pharmacy claims from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a large database including over 100 million individuals with insurance coverage through commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare Part D health plans. The database is comprised of medical and pharmacy claims for individuals in all 50 states and of all ages and racial/ethnic groups.

Duration

January 2007 through December 2016

Outcome Measures

Primary outcome was to determine whether generic or brand name fill and to categorize by drug type (generic and brand-name T4, brand-name liothyronine (T3), brand-name liotrix (T3/T4), and desiccated thyroid extract were available throughout the study period). Patient demographics and prescriber characteristics were also collected. 

Baseline Characteristics

 

Commercial Fills (n= 23,763,229)

Medicare Advantage Fills (n= 14,354,945)

Medicare Part D Fills (n= 58,236,426)

Age, years

 49.6 ± 11.1 73.4 ± 9.4  73.9 ± 10.1

Female (%)

81.5% 79.2%  80.8%

White

74.2% 71.3%  N/A

Prescriber specialty- General Practice

 67.6% 76.3%  71.8%

Prescriber specialty- Endocrinology

16.5% 4.3% 5.0%

Thyroid hormone product prescriptions were filled by 6.8% of the beneficiary population at least once during the study period.

Results

Endpoint

2007 fills

2016 fills

p-value

Number of fills

8,905,836 11,613,923  

Generic formulations across all plans (%)

59.8% 84.9%  P< 0.001

During the study period, 73.6% of pharmacy fills were for generic levothyroxine, 23.4% were for brand-name levothyroxine, 1.7% were for desiccated thyroid extract, 1.0% were for generic liothyronine, 0.3% were for brand-name liothyronine, and 0.01% were for brand name liotrix.

Adverse Events

Not disclosed

Study Author Conclusions

Brand-name thyroid hormone product dispensing declined each year, from 40% in 2007 to 15% in 2016, among three large, national insurer beneficiary populations, including those with commercial coverage, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare Part D. Although certain patient characteristics were associated with thyroid hormone brand-name product use, prescriber specialty was the strongest predictor. Findings provide national estimates of generic thyroid hormone replacement therapy use and can be used to inform efforts to ensure that patients are using the lowest-cost available therapies when appropriate.

InpharmD Researcher Critique

This observational study is severely limited by a lack of clinical and patient-oriented outcomes. 

 

Table 2 References:
[7] Ross JS, Rohde S, Sangaralingham L, et al. Generic and Brand-Name Thyroid Hormone Drug Use Among Commercially Insured and Medicare Beneficiaries, 2007 Through 2016. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(6):2305-2314. doi:10.1210/jc.2018-02197

The Association Between Switching from Synthroid® and Clinical Outcomes: US Evidence from a Retrospective Database Analysis

Design

Retrospective cohort

N= 19,850

Objective

To compare the clinical outcomes of two cohorts of patients with hypothyroidism treated with levothyroxine (LT4) over a 2-year follow-up period: those who switched from Synthroid® (AbbVie, Inc.) to an alternative formulation of LT4 and those who were continuous users of Synthroid®.

Study Groups

Continuous users (n= 9,925)

Switchers (n= 9,925)

Inclusion Criteria

Compliant use of Synthroid for the 6-month lead-in period (defined as receipt of at least 146 days' supply of Synthroid which equates to > 80% medication possession ratio); diagnosis of hypothyroidism at some point during the start of the lead-in period to the end of the study period; at least one thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) laboratory test result during the last 6 months of the study period, continuous insurance coverage over the study period

Exclusion Criteria

Pregnancy; diagnosis of thyroid cancer, iodine hypothyroidism, or other iatrogenic hypothyroidism; filled a prescription for liothyronine or liothyronine-levothyroxine combination therapy; age < 18 years at the index date

Methods

Patient data were collected from a database that contains information of over 150 million individuals along with lab results of over 30 million individuals. After the 6-month lead-in period, patients who switched from Synthroid to an alternative formulation based upon prescription patterns were categorized from continuous users to switchers. Continuous users filled at least one prescription of Synthroid and did not fill a prescription for any other LT4 formulations. The non-Synthroid formulations considered for inclusion consisted of Levothroid, Levoxyl, Tirosint, Unithroid, and generic levothyroxine.

Patient data was then organized via a 1:1 nearest neighbor, greedy matching algorithm using a propensity scoring model that estimated the probability of patients switching therapy while controlling for patient-level characteristics. 

Duration

Data collection period: May 1, 2000 to March 20, 2016

Outcome Measures

Primary outcome: TSH laboratory values not within range, negative clinical outcomes (Defined as a composite endpoint of diagnosis during the study period: chronic kidney disease, depression, fatigue, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, obesity)

The recommended range for TSH is defined as:

AACE/ATA 2012 guidelines: 0.45 to 4.12 mIU/L

ATA task force 2014 guidelines: 0.4 to 4.0 mIU/L

Baseline Characteristics

 

Continuous users (n= 9925)

Switchers (n= 9925)

p-value
Age (SD)

51.2

50.8

0.0006
Female

8019 (80.8%)

8113 (81.7%)

0.0873

Charlson Comorbidity Index (SD)

0.5 (1.0)

0.4 (1.0)

0.0714

Visited an endocrinologist

1257 (12.7%) 1581 (15.9%) 0.0000

Pre-period TSH and diagnosis

TSH out of range

Chronic kidney disease

Depression

Fatigue

Heart failure

Hyperlipidemia

Hypertension

Obesity

 

2271 (22.9%)

50 (0.5%)

832 (8.4%)

1400 (14.5%)

105 (1.1%)

4000 (40.3%)

2859 (28.8%)

351 (3.5%)

 

2278 (23.0%)

78 (0.8%)

825 (8.3%)

1411 (14.2%)

80 (0.8%)

3940 (39.7%)

2922 (29.4%)

407 (4.1%)

 

0.6676

0.0130

0.8574

0.5573

0.0648

0.3847

0.3250

0.0381

Index prescription

Dose of index LT4 prescription, mcg

Copayment for index LT4 prescription, $

 

102.3 (45.3%)

21.3 (13.5%)

 

0.2.2 (43.1%)

9.4 (5.3%)

 

0.9052

0.0000

Results

Endpoint

(odds ratio [OR]; 95% confidence interval [CI])

Likelihood of out-of-range TSH level when switching versus continuous use 

AACE/ATA 2012 guidelines: 0.45 to 4.12 mIU/L

ATA task force 2014 guidelines: 0.4 to 4.0 mIU/L

 

1.15 (0.18 to 1.23)

1.13 (1.04 to 1.20)

Likelihood of negative outcomes when switching versus continuous use

1.23 (1.12 to 1.37)

Individual negative outcomes of the composite endpoint

Chronic kidney disease

Depression

Fatigue

Heart failure

Hyperlipidemia

Hypertension

Obesity

 

1.42 (1.10 to 1.83)

1.14 (1.04 to 1.26)

1.16 (1.08 to 1.24)

0.91*

1.04*

1.12 (1.03 to 1.22)

1.36 (1.21 to 1.52)

* Heart failure and hyperlipidemia were not associated with significantly higher occurrence among patients who switched in the study period versus continuous users.

* The confidence interval for these two outcomes was presented as a graph that crossed the 1. However, a confidence interval numeric value was not provided.

Adverse Events

N/A

Study Author Conclusions

Results of this large retrospective study over an extended time horizon support clinical guideline recommendations that switching among alternative formulations of synthetic levothyroxine should generally be avoided. Continuous use of Synthroid was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of maintaining the TSH laboratory value within a guideline recommended range and a significantly lower likelihood of being diagnosed with adverse clinical outcomes.

InpharmD Researcher Critique

The authors allowed for switching from Synthroid to other products that are not A/B rated. This reflects real-world clinical practice, it's possible that patients may have switched or were kept on a non-optimal regimen. The veracity of patient adherence to medication was based upon retrospective data of their prescription and insurance claims which may not fully document the interactions between patient and physicians. Insight into patient behaviors such as pill-taking and use of nutritional supplements could not be analyzed due to a lack of datasets. 

 

Table 3 References:
[8] Hennessey JV, Espaillat R, Duan Y, Soni-Brahmbhatt S, Lage MJ, Singer P. The Association Between Switching from Synthroid and Clinical Outcomes: US Evidence from a Retrospective Database Analysis. Adv Ther. 2021;38(1):337-349. doi:10.1007/s12325-020-01537-1