4.5 Review

A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical predictors of lithium response in bipolar disorder

Journal

ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 140, Issue 2, Pages 94-115

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13062

Keywords

bipolar disorder; clinical aspects; lithium

Categories

Funding

  1. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/P000592/1]
  2. National Institute for Health Research UCLH Biomedical Research Centre

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To determine clinical predictors of lithium response in bipolar disorder. Methods Systematic review of studies examining clinical predictors of lithium response was conducted. Meta-analyses were performed when >= 2 studies examined the same potential predictor. Results A total of 71 studies, including over 12 000 patients, identified six predictors of good response: mania-depression-interval sequence [odds ratio (OR): 4.27; 95% CI: 2.61, 6.97; P < 0.001], absence of rapid cycling (OR for rapid cycling: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.53; P < 0.001), absence of psychotic symptoms (OR for psychotic symptoms: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.79; P = 0.002), family history of bipolar disorder (OR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.03, 2.52; P = 0.036), shorter prelithium illness duration [standardised mean difference (SMD): -0.26; 95% CI: -0.41, -0.12; P < 0.001] and later age of onset (SMD: 0.17; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.36; P = 0.029). Additionally, higher body mass index was associated with poor response in two studies (SMD: -0.61; 95% CI: -0.90, -0.32; P < 0.001). There was weak evidence for number of episodes prior to lithium treatment (SMD: -0.42; 95% CI: -0.84, -0.01; P = 0.046), number of hospitalisations before lithium (SMD: -0.40; 95% CI: -0.81, 0.01; P = 0.055) and family history of lithium response (OR: 10.28; 95% CI: 0.66, 161.26; P = 0.097). Conclusions The relative importance of these clinical characteristics should be interpreted with caution because of potential biases and confounding.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available