Cutaneous adverse reaction during lithium treatment: a case report and updated systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To present a new case of adverse cutaneous reaction during lithium treatment and to update the systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence of this adverse reaction. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search (performed in September 2016) for peer-reviewed articles in English indexed in Medline (2011-present). Meta-analytical estimates were obtained using the "Metafor" package. CASE PRESENTATION: Ms. H., a 31-year-old Caucasian woman with BD1, was admitted to the inpatient unit for a full-blown psychotic episode and treated with carbamazepine 400 mg q.d., lithium carbonate 450 mg q.d., and risperidone 4 mg q.d. with clinical improvement. After 12 days from the start of psychopharmacological treatment, she manifested a cutaneous reaction that motivated the stop of carbamazepine treatment, as well as the increase in lithium carbonate dose (750 mg q.d.). Risperidone dose remained unvaried. Since the skin lesion persisted after 8 days from withdrawal of carbamazepine, the private practitioner stopped also lithium carbonate treatment (de-challenge), maintaining risperidone treatment. The cutaneous reaction resolved spontaneously after six days from withdrawal of lithium carbonate. Subsequently, the worsening of psychopathological conditions motivated a new admission during which lithium carbonate was reintroduced (16 days after its suspension) (re-challenge). On the following day, we observed an itching erythematous maculopapular rash involving the trunk, the four limbs, and the oral mucosa. CONCLUSIONS: Our case of an erythematous maculopapular rash during lithium treatment was the first to present a challenge-de-challenge-re-challenge sequence that suggests causality. Although meta-analysis does not point to an increased rate of adverse skin reaction during lithium treatment, clinicians should not neglect to monitor cutaneous symptoms during lithium treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".