Published in

SAGE Publications, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 5(51), p. 524-530, 2016

DOI: 10.1177/0004867416664794

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Clinical factors associated with lithium response in bipolar disorders

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Background: Bipolar disorder is a common chronic illness characterized by high levels of morbidity and all-cause mortality. Lithium is one of the gold standard mood stabilizer treatments, but the identification of good, partial and non-responders in clinical settings is inconsistent. Methods: We used an established rating scale (the Alda scale) to classify the degree of lithium response (good response, partial response, non-response) in a large, multicentre clinically representative sample of well-characterized cases of bipolar disorders I and II. Next, we examined previously reported clinical predictors of response to determine which factors significantly differentiated between the three response groups. Results: Of 754 cases, 300 received lithium, for at least 6 months, as a treatment for bipolar disorder (40%). Of these cases, 17% were classified as good response, 52% as partial response and 31% as non-response. Lifetime history of mixed episodes ( p = 0.017) and alcohol use disorders ( p = 0.015) both occurred in >20% of partial response and non-response groups but <10% of good response cases. Family history of bipolar disorder I was of borderline statistical significance, being more frequent in the good response group (38%) compared with the non-response group (18%). There was a trend ( p = 0.06) for bipolar disorder II to be associated with non-response. Conclusions: Only three factors previously identified as predictors of lithium response significantly differentiated the response groups identified in our sample. Interestingly, these factors have all been found to co-occur more often than expected by chance, and it can be hypothesized that they may represent a shared underlying factor or dimension. Further prospective studies of predictors and the performance of the Alda scale are recommended.