| Literature DB >> 36133316 |
Andrea Esposito1, Maria Cristina Vigone2, Miriam Polizzi3, Malgorzata Gabriela Wasniewska4, Alessandra Cassio5, Alessandro Mussa6, Roberto Gastaldi7, Raffaella Di Mase3, Gaia Vincenzi2, Clara Pozzi2, Elena Peroni8, Carmela Bravaccio1, Donatella Capalbo3, Dario Bruzzese9, Mariacarolina Salerno1.
Abstract
Objectives: We designed a multicentre open prospective randomized trial to evaluate the risk-benefit profile of two different initial treatment schemes with levothyroxine (L-T4), 10-12.5 μg/kg/day vs 12.6-15 μg/kg/day, on growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with congenital hypothyroidism (CH) detected by neonatal screening to identify the best range dose to achieve optimal neurocognitive development. Design patients and methods: Children detected by neonatal screening were randomly assigned to receive an initial L-T4 dose of 10-12.5 μg/kg/day (Low) or 12.6-15 μg/kg/day (High). All patients underwent periodical clinical examination with measurement of growth parameters and measurement of TSH and FT4. Neurocognitive development was evaluated at the age of 24 months using Griffiths Mental Development Scales (GMDS) and cognitive and behavioral assessment was performed at 48 months of age using Wechsler Preschool and Primary scale of Intelligence (WIPPSI-III). The study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05371262).Entities:
Keywords: congenital hypothyroidism; growth; levothyroxine treatment; neonatal screening; neurocognitive
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36133316 PMCID: PMC9484273 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.923448
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 6.055
Figure 1Flow-chart of the recruitment process. Of the 125 potentially recruitable patients with CH 53 were excluded because did not fulfil all inclusion and exclusion criteria or because parents refused to participate in the study. Thus, 72 patients were enrolled in the study and randomised in the two treatment groups. During the follow up period, 17 patients drop out from the study before 24 months of life and additional 10 were lost to follow up after 24 months. Thus, the modified ITT population consisted of 45 patients followed longitudinally in the first 4 years of life.
Baseline characteristics of patients randomized in the two groups of treatment at the enrollment in the study.
| Low (10-12.5 μg/kg/day) | High (12.6-15 μg/kg/day) | |
|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 36 | 36 |
| Sex Female/Male (%) | 61.8/38.2 | 57.6/42.4 |
| Gestational age (weeks) | 39 (37-41) | 40 (37-41) |
| Graffar Score | 13 (4-18) | 14 (4-18) |
| Age at diagnosis (days) | 13.36 ± 5.55 | 13.71 ± 6.85 |
| Moderate CH/Severe CH (%) | 63.6/36.4 | 66.7/33.3 |
| Adequate bone maturation/Retarded bone maturation (%) | 80/20 | 64/36 |
| Eutopic gland (%) | 46.2 | 25 |
| Ectopy gland (%) | 38.5 | 45.8 |
| Athyreosis (%) | 15.4 | 29.2 |
| TSH at diagnosis (mIU/l) | 296.0 ± 235.0 | 341.2 ± 279.7 |
| FT4 at diagnosis (ng/dl) | 0.55 ± 0.31 | 0.53 ± 0.34 |
| Initial L-T4 dose (μg/kg/day) | 11.69 ± 0.65 | 13.47 ± 0.84 |
Data are expressed as percentage, median and range or mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 2Serum concentrations of TSH (A), FT4 (B) and L-T4 dose (C) in CH patients divided in the two treatment groups throughout the study. According to study protocol, thyroid hormones levels were evaluated at the enrollment, 10 days after L-T4 start and subsequently at the chronological age of 1.5, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months of life. * Changes in TSH and FT4 levels and in L-T4 dose at the age of 3 years are due to L-T4 withdrawal in the majority of patients for the re-evaluation thyroid function.
Figure 3Weight (A) and height (B) in CH patients in the two treatment groups throughout the study. According to study protocol, enrolled patients underwent clinical evaluation at the enrollment, 10 days after L-T4 start and subsequently at the chronological age of 1.5, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 months of life.
Developmental Quotients and subscale scores at 24 months of age and Intelligence Quotients and subtest scores at 48 months of age in the two groups of patients with different initial treatment regimen.
| Low (10-12.5 μg/kg/day) | High (12.6-15 μg/kg/day) | Between-Group Difference (95% CI) | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Number of patients | 28 | 27 | ||
| Developmental quotient | 100.6 ± 15.5 | 96.9 ± 16.6 | 3.8 (-4.9 to 12.4) | 0.39 |
| Subscale A | 112.1 ± 21.4 | 109.1 ± 23.3 | 3 (-9.1 to 15.1) | 0.62 |
| Subscale B | 100.5 ± 20.7 | 93.3 ± 25.3 | 7.2 (-5.3 to 19.7) | 0.26 |
| Subscale C | 90.6 ± 19.7 | 87.7 ± 21.7 | 2.8 (-8.4 to 14) | 0.61 |
| Subscale D | 105.4 ± 13.5 | 100.7 ± 17.5 | 4.7 (-3.8 to 13.1) | 0.27 |
| Subscale E | 105.0 ± 14.9 | 102.4 ± 15.4 | 2.6 (-5.6 to 10.7) | 0.53 |
|
| ||||
| Number | 24 | 21 | ||
| Total Intelligence Quotient | 104.2 ± 11.4 | 101.0 ± 20.3 | 3.1 (-6.6 to 12.8) | 0.54 |
| Verbal Intelligence Quotient | 103.9 ± 11.5 | 98.7 ± 15.1 | 5.2 (-2.8 to 13.3) | 0.20 |
| Performance Intelligence Quotient | 105.3 ± 10.4 | 100.3 ± 19.8 | 5 (-4.3 to 14.3) | 0.31 |
| Processing Speed Quotient | 99.2 ± 13.1 | 97.1 ± 18.3 | 2.1 (-7.4 to 11.5) | 0.67 |
| Information | 10.2 ± 2.3 | 9.1 ± 3.3 | 1.1 (-0.6 to 2.8) | 0.21 |
| Vocabulary | 11.5 ± 2.4 | 10.2 ± 2.6 | 1.3 (-0.3 to 2.8) | 0.10 |
| Word Reasoning | 10.3 ± 3.1 | 10.1 ± 2.8 | 0.2 (-1.6 to 2) | 0.82 |
| Block Design | 9.7 ± 2.2 | 8.6 ± 3.6 | 1.1 (-0.6 to 2.9) | 0.22 |
| Matrix Reasoning | 10.7 ± 2.6 | 11.6 ± 3.6 | -0.9 (-2.8 to 1) | 0.35 |
| Picture Concepts | 11.5 ± 2.8 | 10.0 ± 3.2 | 1.5 (-0.2 to 3.2) | 0.10 |
| Symbol Search | 10.6 ± 2.6 | 9.5 ± 3.4 | 1.1 (-0.7 to 3) | 0.22 |
| Coding | 9.1 ± 2.5 | 9.6 ± 3.7 | -0.5 (-2.4 to 1.4) | 0.60 |
Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
Impact of Graffar score and femoral nucleus diameter on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.
| Graffar score | Femoral nucleus diameter | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Developmental quotient |
| 0.8 (0.56 to 1.12) p=0.2 |
| Subscale A | 1.1 (0.89 to 1.42) p=0.43 |
|
| Subscale B |
|
|
| Subscale C | 1.05 (0.91 to 1.21) p=0.54 | 0.98 (0.77 to 1.26) p=0.89 |
| Subscale D |
| 0.75 (0.49 to 1.1) p=0.16 |
| Subscale E | 1.18 (0.94 to 1.61) p=0.2 | 1.06 (0.72 to 1.62) p=0.77 |
|
| ||
| Total Intelligence Quotient |
|
|
| Verbal Intelligence Quotient | 1.26 (0.99 to 1.74) p=0.1 | 0.8 (0.54 to 1.13) p=0.21 |
| Performance Intelligence Quotient |
|
|
| Processing Speed Quotient |
|
|
Data are expressed as Odds Ratio for having a long-term neurodevelopmental outcome lower than clinical threshold (<85 point) for every unit increase in Graffar score or femoral nucleus. Results were obtained using univariable logistic regression models. Bold values has been used to underline the results but it is not necessary.