OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to systematically integrate the available evidence on response prediction to prophylactic lithium based on clinical factors. METHODS: Each clinical variable that was related to lithium response in at least one prior study was examined with respect to response prediction. If several studies were located for the same variable, results were integrated using the meta-analytic approach as suggested by DerSimonian and Laird which was developed for substantial heterogeneity in primary studies. RESULTS: Of 42 potential clinical predictors investigated, five variables were identified as possible response predictors of prophylactic lithium: [1] An episodic pattern of mania-depression-interval, and [2] a high age of illness onset were identified as potentially protective against a recurrence under lithium. [3] A high number of previous hospitalizations, [4] an episodic pattern of depression-mania-interval, and [5] continuous cycling were identified as potential risk factors. Six further variables were found to be significantly related to lithium response, though calculation of fail-safe numbers indicates that current evidence is not sufficient to hold these variables as reliable predictors of lithium response. All effect-sizes relating clinical predictors to response were small to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Although a few variables are quite robustly supported as response-predictors in this review, a more in-depth analysis of each potential predictor is needed. As none of the potential predictors had a very strong impact on response, prediction of lithium response should be based on a multitude of variables.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to systematically integrate the available evidence on response prediction to prophylactic lithium based on clinical factors. METHODS: Each clinical variable that was related to lithium response in at least one prior study was examined with respect to response prediction. If several studies were located for the same variable, results were integrated using the meta-analytic approach as suggested by DerSimonian and Laird which was developed for substantial heterogeneity in primary studies. RESULTS: Of 42 potential clinical predictors investigated, five variables were identified as possible response predictors of prophylactic lithium: [1] An episodic pattern of mania-depression-interval, and [2] a high age of illness onset were identified as potentially protective against a recurrence under lithium. [3] A high number of previous hospitalizations, [4] an episodic pattern of depression-mania-interval, and [5] continuous cycling were identified as potential risk factors. Six further variables were found to be significantly related to lithium response, though calculation of fail-safe numbers indicates that current evidence is not sufficient to hold these variables as reliable predictors of lithium response. All effect-sizes relating clinical predictors to response were small to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Although a few variables are quite robustly supported as response-predictors in this review, a more in-depth analysis of each potential predictor is needed. As none of the potential predictors had a very strong impact on response, prediction of lithium response should be based on a multitude of variables.
Authors: Danella M Hafeman; Brian Rooks; John Merranko; Fangzi Liao; Mary Kay Gill; Tina R Goldstein; Rasim Diler; Neal Ryan; Benjamin I Goldstein; David A Axelson; Michael Strober; Martin Keller; Jeffrey Hunt; Heather Hower; Lauren M Weinstock; Shirley Yen; Boris Birmaher Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Agnieszka Permoda-Osip; Maria Abramowicz; Agnieszka Kraszewska; Aleksandra Suwalska; Maria Chlopocka-Wozniak; Janusz K Rybakowski Journal: Ther Adv Psychopharmacol Date: 2016-04-17
Authors: Mirko Manchia; Mazda Adli; Nirmala Akula; Raffaella Ardau; Jean-Michel Aubry; Lena Backlund; Claudio Em Banzato; Bernhard T Baune; Frank Bellivier; Susanne Bengesser; Joanna M Biernacka; Clara Brichant-Petitjean; Elise Bui; Cynthia V Calkin; Andrew Tai Ann Cheng; Caterina Chillotti; Sven Cichon; Scott Clark; Piotr M Czerski; Clarissa Dantas; Maria Del Zompo; J Raymond Depaulo; Sevilla D Detera-Wadleigh; Bruno Etain; Peter Falkai; Louise Frisén; Mark A Frye; Jan Fullerton; Sébastien Gard; Julie Garnham; Fernando S Goes; Paul Grof; Oliver Gruber; Ryota Hashimoto; Joanna Hauser; Urs Heilbronner; Rebecca Hoban; Liping Hou; Stéphane Jamain; Jean-Pierre Kahn; Layla Kassem; Tadafumi Kato; John R Kelsoe; Sarah Kittel-Schneider; Sebastian Kliwicki; Po-Hsiu Kuo; Ichiro Kusumi; Gonzalo Laje; Catharina Lavebratt; Marion Leboyer; Susan G Leckband; Carlos A López Jaramillo; Mario Maj; Alain Malafosse; Lina Martinsson; Takuya Masui; Philip B Mitchell; Frank Mondimore; Palmiero Monteleone; Audrey Nallet; Maria Neuner; Tomás Novák; Claire O'Donovan; Urban Osby; Norio Ozaki; Roy H Perlis; Andrea Pfennig; James B Potash; Daniela Reich-Erkelenz; Andreas Reif; Eva Reininghaus; Sara Richardson; Guy A Rouleau; Janusz K Rybakowski; Martin Schalling; Peter R Schofield; Oliver K Schubert; Barbara Schweizer; Florian Seemüller; Maria Grigoroiu-Serbanescu; Giovanni Severino; Lisa R Seymour; Claire Slaney; Jordan W Smoller; Alessio Squassina; Thomas Stamm; Jo Steele; Pavla Stopkova; Sarah K Tighe; Alfonso Tortorella; Gustavo Turecki; Naomi R Wray; Adam Wright; Peter P Zandi; David Zilles; Michael Bauer; Marcella Rietschel; Francis J McMahon; Thomas G Schulze; Martin Alda Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 3.240