N Kleindienst1, R R Engel, W Greil. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Munich, Germany. nikolaus.kliendiest@med.uni-muenchen.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim was to systematically integrate the available evidence on psychosocial and demographic factors associated with response prediction to prophylactic lithium. METHOD: Each psychosocial or demographic variable that was related to lithium response in at least one study was examined with respect to response prediction. If several studies were located for the same variable results were integrated using a meta-analytical approach. To account for heterogeneity of primary studies aggregation of results was based on a random-effects model. RESULTS: Out of 27 psychosocial and demographic variables investigated in this review, nine variables were identified as significantly related to outcome under to prophylactic lithium: (1) high social status, (2) social support, (3) good compliance, and (4) dominance may be protective against a recurrence under lithium. In contrast, (5) stress, (6) high expressed emotions, (7) neurotic personality traits, (8) unemployment, and (9) a high number of life events were identified as possible risk factors for poor response. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review shows a surprisingly high number of psychosocial variables to be related to lithium response. Effect sizes were, however, small to moderate. Many variables should, therefore, be considered simultaneously to predict response.
BACKGROUND: The aim was to systematically integrate the available evidence on psychosocial and demographic factors associated with response prediction to prophylactic lithium. METHOD: Each psychosocial or demographic variable that was related to lithium response in at least one study was examined with respect to response prediction. If several studies were located for the same variable results were integrated using a meta-analytical approach. To account for heterogeneity of primary studies aggregation of results was based on a random-effects model. RESULTS: Out of 27 psychosocial and demographic variables investigated in this review, nine variables were identified as significantly related to outcome under to prophylactic lithium: (1) high social status, (2) social support, (3) good compliance, and (4) dominance may be protective against a recurrence under lithium. In contrast, (5) stress, (6) high expressed emotions, (7) neurotic personality traits, (8) unemployment, and (9) a high number of life events were identified as possible risk factors for poor response. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review shows a surprisingly high number of psychosocial variables to be related to lithium response. Effect sizes were, however, small to moderate. Many variables should, therefore, be considered simultaneously to predict response.
Authors: Azmeraw T Amare; Klaus Oliver Schubert; Liping Hou; Scott R Clark; Sergi Papiol; Urs Heilbronner; Franziska Degenhardt; Fasil Tekola-Ayele; Yi-Hsiang Hsu; Tatyana Shekhtman; Mazda Adli; Nirmala Akula; Kazufumi Akiyama; Raffaella Ardau; Bárbara Arias; Jean-Michel Aubry; Lena Backlund; Abesh Kumar Bhattacharjee; Frank Bellivier; Antonio Benabarre; Susanne Bengesser; Joanna M Biernacka; Armin Birner; Clara Brichant-Petitjean; Pablo Cervantes; Hsi-Chung Chen; Caterina Chillotti; Sven Cichon; Cristiana Cruceanu; Piotr M Czerski; Nina Dalkner; Alexandre Dayer; Maria Del Zompo; J Raymond DePaulo; Bruno Étain; Peter Falkai; Andreas J Forstner; Louise Frisen; Mark A Frye; Janice M Fullerton; Sébastien Gard; Julie S Garnham; Fernando S Goes; Maria Grigoroiu-Serbanescu; Paul Grof; Ryota Hashimoto; Joanna Hauser; Stefan Herms; Per Hoffmann; Andrea Hofmann; Stephane Jamain; Esther Jiménez; Jean-Pierre Kahn; Layla Kassem; Po-Hsiu Kuo; Tadafumi Kato; John Kelsoe; Sarah Kittel-Schneider; Sebastian Kliwicki; Barbara König; Ichiro Kusumi; Gonzalo Laje; Mikael Landén; Catharina Lavebratt; Marion Leboyer; Susan G Leckband; Alfonso Tortorella; Mirko Manchia; Lina Martinsson; Michael J McCarthy; Susan McElroy; Francesc Colom; Marina Mitjans; Francis M Mondimore; Palmiero Monteleone; Caroline M Nievergelt; Markus M Nöthen; Tomas Novák; Claire O'Donovan; Norio Ozaki; Urban Ösby; Andrea Pfennig; James B Potash; Andreas Reif; Eva Reininghaus; Guy A Rouleau; Janusz K Rybakowski; Martin Schalling; Peter R Schofield; Barbara W Schweizer; Giovanni Severino; Paul D Shilling; Katzutaka Shimoda; Christian Simhandl; Claire M Slaney; Alessio Squassina; Thomas Stamm; Pavla Stopkova; Mario Maj; Gustavo Turecki; Eduard Vieta; Julia Volkert; Stephanie Witt; Adam Wright; Peter P Zandi; Philip B Mitchell; Michael Bauer; Martin Alda; Marcella Rietschel; Francis J McMahon; Thomas G Schulze; Bernhard T Baune Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Dong-Hwan Yun; Chi-Un Pae; Antonio Drago; Laura Mandelli; Diana De Ronchi; Ashwin A Patkar; In Ho Paik; Alessandro Serretti; Jung-Jin Kim Journal: Psychiatry Investig Date: 2008-06-30 Impact factor: 2.505