Lithium for Bipolar Disorder and Risk of Thyroid Dysfunction and Chronic Kidney Disease
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Literature indicates adverse effects of lithium on thyroid and kidney function. However, existing data are heterogeneous, with limitations in quality and lack evaluation of adverse effects of lithium vs other mood stabilizers, especially commonly prescribed second-generation antipsychotics. Lithium serum level thresholds associated with thyroid and kidney abnormalities remain unknown. Objective: To examine risk of thyroid and kidney dysfunction in patients with incident bipolar disorder (BD) treated with lithium and other mood stabilizers and antipsychotics in an Asian population and to determine lithium serum level cutoffs associated with these physical complications. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based retrospective cohort study identified patients aged 15 years or older with first-diagnosed BD in Hong Kong from 2002 to 2018, utilizing a medical record database of public health care services. Data analysis was performed from February to May 2024. Exposures: Lithium vs nonlithium treatment. The nonlithium group was further stratified into valproate, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone groups. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, and chronic kidney disease stage 3 or higher (CKD3+), with additional investigation on CKD stage 4 or higher (CKD4+) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Outcomes were ascertained using laboratory test results. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed for risk estimation with adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs. Receiver operating characteristic analyses with the Youden index were employed to determine lithium serum level cutoffs associated with thyroid and kidney dysfunction. Results: There were 4752 individuals with analyzable data for hypothyroidism (mean [SD] age, 39.5 [15.6] years; mean [SD] follow-up, 8.4 [4.8] years; 2889 female [60.8%]), 4500 with data for hyperthyroidism (mean [SD] age, 39.7 [15.6] years; mean [SD] follow-up, 8.7 [4.7] years; 2716 female [60.4%]), and 7029 with data for CKD (mean [SD] age, 37.9 [14.8] years; mean [SD] follow-up, 8.3 [4.8] years; 4251 female [60.5%]). Lithium was associated with increased risk of hypothyroidism (aHR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.72-2.33) and CKD3+ (aHR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.15-1.60), but not CKD4+ or ESKD, compared with nonlithium treatments. Higher lithium serum levels were associated with elevated rates of hypothyroidism (aHR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.67-2.59), hyperthyroidism (aHR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.31-2.50), and CKD3+ (aHR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.57-2.85). Greater number of lithium toxicity episodes was associated with increased CKD3+ risk. Valproate, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone generally exhibited reduced likelihood of thyroid dysfunction and CKD3+ compared with lithium, without any difference in advanced CKD. Mean lithium serum levels greater than 0.5028 mEq/L, greater than 0.5034 mEq/L, and greater than 0.5865 mEq/L represented thresholds associated with hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, and CKD3+, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with incident BD, lithium was associated with a mildly increased risk of thyroid dysfunction and CKD in a predominantly Chinese population. The identified lithium level thresholds associated with risks of physical complications may facilitate the development of evidence-based guidelines recommending lithium treatment, particularly in Asian populations, and the promotion of personalized care and risk-benefit balancing in the treatment for BD.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».