Thyroxine: anatomy of a health scare
BMJ 2009; 339 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b5613 (Published 29 December 2009) Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b5613All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
This article blames the 'health scare' (sic) for reported reactions
to introduction of re-formulated Eltroxin on the media and the involvement
of a 'champion' small-town pharmacist. Surely the authors have missed the
point. Regulatory authorities have a duty of care to investigate concerns
over drug product safety and efficacy over and above simply checking that
all the usual procedures have been carried out. Demonstrating their
adherence to the rule rather than the spirit of regulation is more about
defending their honour and reputation.
The key issues that need investigation in such cases are on the
product side:- ingredient quality, ingredient changes, manufacturing
changes and bioavailability; and on the affected patient side:- adverse
reactions/side-effects, toxicity and interactions with other drugs and
conditions.
Product issues
Changes in taste and colour (from 'white' to 'white to off-white')
will upset some patients but usually reassurance that the main ingredient
is exactly the same will satisfy most people. The new formulation's
twofold 1. increase in rate of dissolution - not on the tongue as stated
but in the stomach - could arguably make a difference to the reaction of
patients to taking this drug.
Levothyroxine sodium, the 'active ingredient' remained the same as did the
excipient Magnesium stearate. Other excipients changed namely Lactose
monohydrate to Microcrystalline cellulose, Maize starch to Pre-gelatinized
maize starch. Another excipient Acacia was also dropped and replaced by
both Purified talc and Silicon dioxide (Colloidal anhydrous silica). The
manufacturing method also changed in the order of blending and the
addition of ingredients.
GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK) own bioequivalence study between the old and
new formulations was carried out on 35 healthy male and female volunteers
from 17 December 2002 - 26 February 2003 basically showed no differences
but points out that its bioequivalence study is not designed to compare
adverse reactions in medicines.
Patient issues
When investigating patients and their reactions (changed or not) to
taking the new product we should listen to and examine patients and take
their concerns seriously not simply re-check regulatory procedures. Even
if bioavailability of Eltroxin to individual patients was reduced or
increased in individual patients it is unlikely that the effects of this
would be noticed for several weeks or even months of taking a changed
formulation. Re-testing individual's thyroid stimulating hormone (TSR)
could provide evidence of reduced bioavailablity although there is often
little correlation between a patient's symptoms or their lack (e.g.
slowness, dry or falling hair, thickening of the skin, deepening of the
voice, weight gain, cold intolerance, and constipation)bradycardia and
constipation). Clinical examination (confirmation of symptoms and checking
for bradycardia), seeking biochemical evidence of adequate thyroid
hormone replacement and looking for possible interactions between all the
ingredients of all the products taken by the patient.
Side-Effects
The authors reference to ingredients excluding levothyroxine as inert
is wrong. Helium in an inert gas but if I inhale some my speech sounds
like Donald Duck. Nor should it should be assumed that ingredients such as
excipients, preservatives and colouring - intended as inactive - have no
action other than contributing to product form, appearance and shelf life.
Indeed when new products are tested they are treated as single unified
entities in trials using adequate numbers of volunteers to reveal expected
and unexpected effects or lack of these.
The authors' attribution of the symptoms (side effects in my book)
reported such as 'weight gain, lethargy, muscle pain, joint pain, and
depression' to the disease being treated - Hypothyroidism - simply does
not stand up to scrutiny as the majority of the New Zealand patients would
not have been new but would have been on treatment for some time.
Side effect of drugs for replacement therapy are usually indicative of
excessive dosage and for Levothyroxine these include: anginal pain,
cardiac arrhythmias, palpitations, cramps in skeletal muscles.
tachycardia, diarrhoea, vomiting, tremors, restlessness, excitability,
insomnia, headache, flushing, sweating, excessive loss of weight, and
muscular weakness. The question is not - can some of the reported symptoms
be ascribed to idea that 'hypothyroid patients, even those taking
thyroxine replacement therapy, have been found to have greater levels of
emotional distress and more physical symptoms than people without
hypothyroidism'? - but rather - does this essentially new product have the
propensity to cause the reported side effects of 'conjunctivitis, eye
pain, headache, itching, skin rash, abnormal or blurred vision, nausea,
and indigestion'?. Only thorough investigation can answer this question -
certainly these side-effects are common with nearly all drugs - could this
be to do with excipients?
So what should regulators do to fully meet their remit for drug safety. A
clue lies in the authors third reference to a study by Saravanan et al 2.
on psychological well-being in patients on "adequate" doses of L-
thyroxine. This was done by searching the computerised prescribing records
of patients of five general practices who had been on thyroxine. Nowadays,
with the increased used of coded data entry in the full (not just
prescribing) electronic patient record (EPR) not only can the patients
taking thyroxine be identified but all their other medications, diseases,
laboratory tests and results, symptoms signs and so on can be collected,
analysed, audited and researched.
Lessons
In my view the real lessons to be learned from this affair are:
1) Consideration be given to the idea that re-formulated drug
products should be subjected to the same regulatory test procedures as new
products;
2) Medicines regulators should access and commission detailed
analyses from anonymised coded Primary Care (GP) Electronic Care Records
(ECRs)
1. http://www.medsafe.gov.nz/hot/alerts/EltroxinInfo.asp
2. Saravanan P, Chau WF, Roberts N, Vedhara K, Greenwood R, Dayan CM.
Psychological well-being in patients on "adequate" doses of L-thyroxine:
results of a large, controlled community-based questionnaire study. Clin
Endocrinol (Oxf) 2002;57:577-85
Competing interests:
Roger Weeks is the Chairman of the charity Doctors' Independent Network (DIN) which collects anonymised data from GP's Electronic Patient Records for the advancement of patient care through research and audit.
Competing interests: No competing interests
It so happened that once the presentation of an ayurvedic constipation drug such as natural
isapgula was changed in our country. people who were used to
the brand- colour of the carton, colour of the powder, smell of the powder
started reacting as if the new presentation was ineffective!! Sales dropped
suddenly. people went and hoarded the old packets. The company soon realised
and went back to the old packaging!! And the efficacy improved.
In a country where literacy is very high people react funnily when the
presentation changes but the bioequality remains the same. Which proves
all human beings are same whether literate or not!!!
finally do not blame India for everything: we have reasonably good
manufacturing practices. Our drugs are reasonable, affordable and
effective.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
It was disappointing to note that the rumour that eltroxin
manufactured in India was used to spread panic about the drug in
Newzealand.(1) It is not the first attempt to malign the fair name of
India. Earlier too fake antimalarials which had been exported from China
but were labelled as "Made in India" had been seized in Nigeria.(2)
India has an excellent pharmaceutical industry which provides not just
quality drugs but also at a cost which is affordable to the poorest. Such
rumours will only compromise the effort to provide low cost quality drugs
to the worlds' poorest nations.
1.Faasse K, Cundy T, Petrie KJ. Thyroxine: anatomy of a health scare.
BMJ. 2009
Dec 29;339:b5613. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b5613.
2. Lewis K. China's counterfeit medicine trade booming. CMAJ
2009;181:E237-8.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
In the interests of fairplay
I would like interested readers to consider the expert review
conducted by MHRA, of Medsafe's pre-licensing assessment and
pharmacovigilence activities for the new formulation of Eltroxin.
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/hot/alerts/MHRA%20Report.pdf
The report directs criticism at Medsafe, although it tries to justify
it, which could be expected in a peer review. Take particular note that
bioequivalence was assessed against the European manufactured Eltroxin,
not the Canadian manufactured Eltroxin patients were taking in New
Zealand.
The changed formulation was also approved in Denmark and Germany. We
now know there has been a marked increase in reported side effects in
Denmark.
http://www.dkma.dk/1024/visUKLSArtikel.asp?artikelID=16024
In Germany, where there are a number of brands of thyroxine already
available, therefore the prescribing of GSK Eltroxin could be limited in
numbers.
Two completely different manufacturing processes involved in the
products - which is a notoriously unstable product to manufacture - as
well as the change to excipients, coupled with a Government agency who
dismissed patient concerns with a public statement "it is all in patients’
minds" and that "the affected were all elderly and mainly women" which was
manifestly untrue, left people bewildered that a Government Agency could
be so dismissive.
"It's all in patients minds" etcetera, became the catch-phrase
repeated by Doctors and Pharmacists when they encountered what was deemed
"a difficult patient". These patients were not difficult, they were
seriously unwell.
NZ had thyroid patients stabilised for many years on the "old
formula" Eltroxin, so their dismay at being branded "nutters" was
profound. Hearing those words, and having their concerns summarily
dismissed, was the catalyst for mistrust in a great deal of Doctor/patient
relationships.
I intend making comment on Kate Faasse, Tim Cundy, and Keith Petrie's
report in the near future.
Competing interests:
I am the small town Pharmacist, criticised in "Thyroxine: anatomy of a health scare"
Competing interests: No competing interests