Scott Jan, Geoffroy Pierre Alexis, Sportiche Sarah, Brichant-Petit-Jean Clara, Gard Sebastien, Kahn Jean-Pierre, Azorin Jean-Michel, Henry Chantal, Etain Bruno, Bellivier Frank
Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom; Centre for Affective Disorders, Institute of Psychiatry, London, United Kingdom.
Inserm, U1144, Paris F-75006, France; AP-HP, GH Saint-Louis - Lariboisière - F. Widal, Pôle de Psychiatrie et de Médecine Addictologique, 75475 Paris, France; Fondation FondaMental, Créteil 94000, France; Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, UMR-S 1144, Paris F-75013, France.
J Affect Disord. 2017 Jan 15;208:62-67. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.08.069. Epub 2016 Oct 11.
It is increasingly recognised that reliable and valid assessments of lithium response are needed in order to target more efficiently the use of this medication in bipolar disorders (BD) and to identify genotypes, endophenotypes and biomarkers of response.
In a large, multi-centre, clinically representative sample of 300 cases of BD, we assess external clinical validators of lithium response phenotypes as defined using three different recommended approaches to scoring the Alda lithium response scale. The scale comprises an A scale (rating lithium response) and a B scale (assessing confounders).
Analysis of the two continuous scoring methods (A scale score minus the B scale score, or A scale score in those with a low B scale score) demonstrated that 21-23% of the explained variance in lithium response was accounted for by a positive family history of BD I and the early introduction of lithium. Categorical definitions of response suggest poor response is also associated with a positive history of alcohol and/or substance use comorbidities. High B scale scores were significantly associated with longer duration of illness prior to receiving lithium and the presence of psychotic symptoms.
The original sample was not recruited specifically to study lithium response. The Alda scale is designed to assess response retrospectively.
This cross-validation study identifies different clinical phenotypes of lithium response when defined by continuous or categorical measures. Future clinical, genetic and biomarker studies should report both the findings and the method employed to assess lithium response according to the Alda scale.
人们越来越认识到,为了更有效地将这种药物用于双相情感障碍(BD)并确定反应的基因型、内表型和生物标志物,需要对锂反应进行可靠且有效的评估。
在一个由300例BD患者组成的大型、多中心、具有临床代表性的样本中,我们评估了锂反应表型的外部临床验证指标,这些表型是使用三种不同的推荐方法对阿尔达锂反应量表进行评分来定义的。该量表包括A量表(评定锂反应)和B量表(评估混杂因素)。
对两种连续评分方法(A量表得分减去B量表得分,或B量表得分低者的A量表得分)的分析表明,BD I的阳性家族史和锂的早期使用占锂反应中可解释变异的21%-23%。反应的分类定义表明,反应不佳也与酒精和/或物质使用共病的阳性病史有关。高B量表得分与接受锂治疗前疾病持续时间较长以及存在精神病症状显著相关。
最初的样本并非专门为研究锂反应而招募。阿尔达量表旨在回顾性评估反应。
这项交叉验证研究确定了以连续或分类测量定义时锂反应的不同临床表型。未来的临床、遗传和生物标志物研究应报告根据阿尔达量表评估锂反应的结果和所采用的方法。