Cited by 16Thyroid Disorders and TreatmentsHealthcare cost, quality, practicesPharmaceutical Economics and Policy

Trends in costs and prescribing for liothyronine and levothyroxine in England and wales 2011–2020

Open access
Stedman, Michael, Taylor, Peter, Premawardhana, Lakdasa, Okosieme, Onyebuchi, Dayan, Colin, Heald, Adrian H.·2021·Clinical Endocrinology

Abstract

Introduction: Recent prescribing policies in England and Wales have imposed significant restrictions on liothyronine prescribing in general practice driven by the prohibitive costs and uncertain benefits of liothyronine in the management of hypothyroidism. However, the impact of these policies on liothyronine usage and costs is still unclear. Methods: Data were downloaded from the NHS monthly General Practice Prescribing Data in England and from the Comparative Analysis System for Prescribing Audit (CASPA) in Wales for 2011–2020. Trends over the period in amount and costs of levothyroxine and liothyronine prescribing were analysed. Results: The total medication costs per year for England Wales for hypothyroidism rose from £60.8 million to £129.8 million in 2015–16 and have since reduced to £88.4 million. Levothyroxine prescriptions have been growing above the population growth rate at 0.7%/annum in England and 1.1% in Wales. The costs/patient/year for liothyronine rose from £550 to £3000 in 2015–16 and has since fallen to £2500. Use of liothyronine as a percentage of levothyroxine started to fall in 2015–16 at 7%/annum in England and 3% in Wales. Nevertheless, 0.5% of levothyroxine‐treated patients continue to receive liothyronine. All Clinical Commission Groups (CCGs) in England continue to have at least one liothyronine prescribing practice and 48.5% of English general practices prescribed liothyronine in 2019–20. Conclusion: In spite of strenuous attempts to limit prescribing of liothyronine in general practice, a significant number of patients continue to receive this therapy. The price differential of liothyronine vs levothyroxine should be examined again in light of the continuing use of liothyronine.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cen.14414

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Recent surveys of the UK population have revealed significant variability in practice reflecting differences in local guidance, access to liothyronine across health authorities, and interpretations of existing guidelines.

    “Recent surveys of the UK population have revealed significant variability in practice reflecting differences in local guidance, access to liothyronine across health authorities, and interpretations of existing guidelines. 60,61”

    From Use of liothyronine (T3) in hypothyroidism: Joint British Thyroid Association/Society for endocrinology consensus statement (2023) · cites this paper as [60]

    Section 3.5 reports significant variation in liothyronine prescribing across English clinical commissioning groups, and the Discussion reports a difference between England and Wales. The paper analyzes prescribing data rather than surveys of the UK population; it does not establish that differences in local guidance, access, or interpretations of guidelines caused the variation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The high costs of liothyronine in the UK has undoubtedly contributed to this variation.

    “The high costs of liothyronine in the UK has undoubtedly contributed to this variation.186”

    From Hypothyroidism (2024) · cites this paper as [186]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stedman, M., Taylor, P., Premawardhana, L., Okosieme, O., Dayan, C., & Heald, A. H.
Affiliations
  • Res Consortium Andover UK
  • Cardiff University (GB)
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
Corresponding author
Heald, Adrian H.
Venue
Clinical Endocrinology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-03-21
Volume
94
Issue
6
Pages
980-989
ISSN
  • 0300-0664 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2265
OpenAlex
W3118285466
Cited by
16
References
13
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4
FWCI
2.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Endocrinology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • ChesterRep (University of Chester) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Thyroid Disorders and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Keywords
liothyronine, levothyroxine, hypothyroidism, prescribing trends, drug costs, prescribing restrictions, primary care prescribing, price differentials, thyroid hormone replacement, England and Wales
MeSH terms
England, Humans, Hypothyroidism, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Thyroxine, Triiodothyronine, Wales

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