Cited by 85Thyroid Disorders and TreatmentsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods

Are Bioequivalence Studies of Levothyroxine Sodium Formulations in Euthyroid Volunteers Reliable?

Blakesley, Vicky, Awni, Walid, Locke, Charles, Ludden, Thomas, Granneman, G. Richard, Braverman, Lewis E.·2004·Thyroid

Abstract

Levothyroxine (LT4) has a narrow therapeutic index. Consequently, precise standards for assessing the bioequivalence of different LT4 products are vital. We examined the methodology that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends for comparing the bioavailability of LT4 products, as well as three modifications to correct for endogenous, thyroxine (T4) levels, to determine if the methodology could distinguish LT4 products that differ by 12.5%, 25%, or 33%. With no baseline correction for the endogenous T4 pool, differences in administered LT4 doses that differed by 25%-33% could not be detected (450 microg and 400 microg doses versus 600 microg dose, respectively). The three mathematical correction methods could distinguish the doses that differed by 25% and 33%. None of the correction methods could distinguish dosage strengths that differed by 12.5% (450 microg versus 400 microg). Dose differences within this range are known to result in clinically relevant differences in safety and effectiveness. Methods of analysis of bioequivalence data that do not consider endogenous T4 concentrations confound accurate quantitation and interpretation of LT4 bioavailability. As a result, products inappropriately deemed bioequivalent may put patients at risk for iatrogenic hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism. More precise methods for defining bioequivalence are required in order to ensure that LT4 products accepted as bioequivalent will perform equivalently in patients without the need for further monitoring and retitration of their dose.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/105072504773297867

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Blakesley et al. could not distinguish acute LT4 doses differing by 12.5% even after correction for endogenous T4, leaving open the sensitivity of the FDA pharmacokinetic method to exclude clinically meaningful bioavailability differences between products considered equivalent.

    “Even when correction was made for endogenous serum T4 levels in healthy individuals, enabling the detection of differences in the administered dose of 25% and 33%, they could not distinguish acute LT4 doses that differed by 12.5%, leaving open the precise sensitivity of this method to exclude clinically meaningful differences in bioavailability between products considered equivalent.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 24 · Cited by 85

Authors
Blakesley, V., Awni, W., Locke, C., Ludden, T., Granneman, G. R., & Braverman, L. E.
Affiliations
  • Abbott (United States) (US)
  • GloboMax LLC, Pharmacometric Research and Development, Washington, DC
  • Boston University (US)
Venue
Thyroid
Published
2004-03
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
191-200
ISSN
  • 1050-7256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9077
OpenAlex
W2097782586
Cited by
85
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Thyroid (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Abbott Laboratories
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Thyroid Disorders and Treatments
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Biosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Keywords
levothyroxine sodium, bioequivalence, bioavailability, iatrogenic hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, thyroid hormone replacement
MeSH terms
Adult, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reference Values, Therapeutic Equivalency, Thyroxine, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Guidelines as Topic, Cross-Over Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review