4.5 Article

Diabetes mellitus risk for 102 drugs and drug combinations used in patients with bipolar disorder

期刊

PSYCHONEUROENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 112, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.104511

关键词

Bipolar; Diabetes; Glucose; Drug; Polypharmacy; Treatment

资金

  1. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) [CER-1507-3160]
  2. PCORI funding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare the largest set of bipolar disorder pharmacotherapies to date (102 drugs and drug combinations) for risk of diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods: The IBM MarketScan (R) database was used to retrospectively analyze data on 565,253 adults with bipolar disorder without prior glucose metabolism-related diagnoses. The pharmacotherapies compared were lithium, mood-stabilizing anticonvulsants, antipsychotics, and antidepressants (monotherapy and multi-class polypharmacy). Cox regression modeling included fixed pre-treatment covariates and time-varying drug exposure covariates to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of each treatment versus No drug. Results: The annual incidence of new-onset diabetes during the exposure period was 3.09 % (22,951 patients). The HR of drug-dependent DM ranged from 0.79 to 2.37. One-third of the studied pharmacotherapies, including most of the antipsychotic-containing regimens, had a significantly higher risk of DM compared to No drug. A significantly lower DM risk was associated with lithium, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine and bupropion monotherapies, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) mono-class therapy and several drug combinations containing bupropion and an SSRI. As additional drugs were combined in more complex polypharmacy, higher HRs were consistently observed. Conclusions: There is an increased risk of diabetes mellitus associated with antipsychotic and psychotropic polypharmacy use in bipolar disorder. The evidence of a lower-than-baseline risk of DM with lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, lithium, and bupropion monotherapy should be further investigated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据