4.7 Article

A cross-sectional and a prospective study of thyroid disorders in lithium-treated patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
Volume 87, Issue 2-3, Pages 313-317

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2005.03.010

Keywords

lithium; thyroid; hypothyroidism; thyrotoxicosis; antibody

Funding

  1. Medical Research Council [G9810900] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Medical Research Council [G9810900] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline
  4. MRC [G9810900] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The effects of lithium treatment on the thyroid gland have been demonstrated in a number of studies. Most of this research is based on cross-sectional studies and prospective studies are required to confirm these observations. Method: During our genetic association studies, we recruited 115 males and 159 females suffering with affective disorders who had received lithium treatment. We observed longitudinally 57 of these patients, who attended our clinic for between 1 and 7 years and had no thyroid abnormalities at baseline. We performed regular checks of thyroid antibodies, thyroid function tests and lithium levels. Results: Hypo- and hyperthyroidism, including cases that developed prior to lithium treatment, were more common in women (25.8%) than in men (8.7%) and increased with age. By the age of 65, the risk in women increased to 50%. Hypothyroidism was induced by lithium in 17% women. In the prospective study, 4 out of 33 women developed hypothyroidism (an incidence of 27.4 cases per 1000 years). One woman developed thyrotoxicosis. Conclusions: The risk for hypothyroidism induced by lithium is especially increased in women over the age of 50. Women should be warned of the risks involved when offered lithium treatment. The frequency of lithium-induced thyrotoxicosis is very low. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available