J Craig Nelson1, Pierre Baumann2, Kevin Delucchi3, Russell Joffe4, Cornelius Katona5. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Francisco, 401 Parnassus Avenue, Box 0984, San Francisco, CA 94143-0984, United States. Electronic address: CraigN@lppi.ucsf.edu. 2. Dépt de Psychiatrie-CHUV (DP-CHUV), Site de Cery, CH-1008 Prilly-Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Francisco, United States. 4. Psychiatry, LIJ North Shore Hofstra University School of Medicine, United States. 5. Division of Psychiatry, University College London, Medical Director, Helen Bamber Foundation, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lithium augmentation of antidepressants for treatment of unipolar major depression was one of the first adjunctive strategies based on a neuropharmacologic rationale. Randomized controlled trials supported its efficacy but most trials added lithium to tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). Despite its efficacy, use of lithium augmentation remains infrequent. The current systematic review and meta-analysis examines the efficacy of lithium augmentation as an adjunct to second generation antidepressants as well as to TCAs and considers reasons for its infrequent use. METHOD: A systematic search of Medline and the Cochrane Clinical Trials database was performed. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of lithium augmentation were selected. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed. Odds ratios for response were calculated for each treatment-control contrast, for the trials grouped by type of initial antidepressant (TCA or second generation antidepressant), and as a meta-analytic summary for all treatments combined. RESULTS: Nine trials that included 237 patients were selected. The odds ratio for response to lithium vs. placebo in all contrasts combined was 2.89 (95% CI 1.65, 5.05, z=3.72, p=0.0002). Heterogeneity was very low, I(2)=0%. Adjunctive lithium was effective with TCAs (7 contrasts) and with second generation agents (3 contrasts). Discontinuation due to adverse events was infrequent and did not differ between lithium and placebo. LIMITATIONS: The meta-analysis is limited by the small size and number of trials and limited data for treatment resistant patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive lithium appears to be as effective for second generation antidepressants as it was for the tricyclics.
BACKGROUND:Lithium augmentation of antidepressants for treatment of unipolar major depression was one of the first adjunctive strategies based on a neuropharmacologic rationale. Randomized controlled trials supported its efficacy but most trials added lithium to tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). Despite its efficacy, use of lithium augmentation remains infrequent. The current systematic review and meta-analysis examines the efficacy of lithium augmentation as an adjunct to second generation antidepressants as well as to TCAs and considers reasons for its infrequent use. METHOD: A systematic search of Medline and the Cochrane Clinical Trials database was performed. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of lithium augmentation were selected. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was performed. Odds ratios for response were calculated for each treatment-control contrast, for the trials grouped by type of initial antidepressant (TCA or second generation antidepressant), and as a meta-analytic summary for all treatments combined. RESULTS: Nine trials that included 237 patients were selected. The odds ratio for response to lithium vs. placebo in all contrasts combined was 2.89 (95% CI 1.65, 5.05, z=3.72, p=0.0002). Heterogeneity was very low, I(2)=0%. Adjunctive lithium was effective with TCAs (7 contrasts) and with second generation agents (3 contrasts). Discontinuation due to adverse events was infrequent and did not differ between lithium and placebo. LIMITATIONS: The meta-analysis is limited by the small size and number of trials and limited data for treatment resistant patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive lithium appears to be as effective for second generation antidepressants as it was for the tricyclics.
Authors: Jennifer B Dwyer; Argyris Stringaris; David A Brent; Michael H Bloch Journal: J Child Psychol Psychiatry Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 8.982
Authors: Ricardo P Garay; Carlos A Zarate; Thomas Charpeaud; Leslie Citrome; Christoph U Correll; Ahcène Hameg; Pierre-Michel Llorca Journal: Expert Rev Neurother Date: 2017-01-29 Impact factor: 4.618
Authors: Sidney H Kennedy; Raymond W Lam; Roger S McIntyre; S Valérie Tourjman; Venkat Bhat; Pierre Blier; Mehrul Hasnain; Fabrice Jollant; Anthony J Levitt; Glenda M MacQueen; Shane J McInerney; Diane McIntosh; Roumen V Milev; Daniel J Müller; Sagar V Parikh; Norma L Pearson; Arun V Ravindran; Rudolf Uher Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Rachael W Taylor; Lindsey Marwood; Emanuella Oprea; Valeria DeAngel; Sarah Mather; Beatrice Valentini; Roland Zahn; Allan H Young; Anthony J Cleare Journal: Int J Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 5.176