McKnight Rebecca F, de La Motte de Broöns de Vauvert Saïk J G N, Chesney Edward, Amit Ben H, Geddes John, Cipriani Andrea
Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Warneford Lane, Oxford, UK, OX3 7JX.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 1;6(6):CD004048. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004048.pub4.
Bipolar disorder is a common condition associated with high morbidity; developing efficacious, safe treatments is therefore essential. Lithium is an effective maintenance treatment for bipolar disorder. It acts as mood stabiliser and reduces the risk of suicide. However, evidence assessing the efficacy of lithium in the treatment of acute mania is less robust. Current evidence-based guidelines cite multiple anti-dopaminergic and mood-stabilising agents as initial treatments: more definite evidence is needed to decide if lithium should be the first-line therapy.
We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. We also searched the World Health Organization trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant systematic reviews. We have incorporated studies from searches to 18 May 2018 into the current analyses.
Prospective randomised controlled studies comparing lithium with placebo or alternative drug treatment in treatment of acute mania. We included anyone with bipolar disorder, male and female, of any age.
At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. We used odds ratios (ORs) to analyse binary efficacy outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuously distributed outcomes. We used a fixed-effect model unless heterogeneity was moderate or substantial, in which case we used a random-effects model. We used Review Manager 5 to analyse data. We assessed the certainty of evidence for individual outcomes using the GRADE approach.
We found 36 randomised controlled studies comparing lithium with placebo, one of 12 drugs, or electroconvulsive therapy for treatment of acute mania. Studies included male and female participants (n = 4220), of all ages, who all fitted criteria for a manic episode within the context of a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.Risk of bias was variable; 12 studies had a high risk of bias in one domain and 27 gave inadequate information on randomisation leading to an 'unclear' rating for selection bias.Lithium versus placeboHigh-certainty evidence found that lithium was an effective treatment for acute mania and was more effective than placebo at inducing a response (OR 2.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.73 to 2.63; participants = 1707; studies = 6; I = 16%; high-certainty evidence), or remission (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.73 to 2.69; participants = 1597; studies = 5; I = 21%; high-certainty evidence).Lithium was more likely than placebo to cause tremor (OR 3.25, 95% CI 2.10 to 5.04; participants = 1241; studies = 6; I = 0%; high-certainty evidence), and somnolence (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.58; participants = 1351; studies = 7; I = 0%; high-certainty evidence).There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of lithium for all-cause dropouts (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.25; participants = 1353; studies = 7; I = 75%; moderate-certainty evidence), and weight gain (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.92; participants = 735, studies = 3; I= 51%; moderate-certainty evidence).Lithium versus antipsychotics or mood stabilisersFor the outcome of inducing a response, there was only very low-certainty evidence regarding lithium compared to haloperidol (MD -2.40, 95% CI -6.31 to 1.50; participants = 80; studies = 3; I = 95%), quetiapine (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.55; participants = 335; studies = 2; I = 71%), and carbamazepine (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.60; participants = 102; studies = 3; I = 0%).Lithium was probably less likely to induce a response than olanzapine (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.94; participants = 180; studies = 2; I = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence).Lithium may be less likely to induce a response than risperidone (MD 7.28, 95% CI 5.22 to 9.34; participants = 241; studies = 3; I = 49%; low-certainty evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between lithium and valproate (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.70; participants = 607; studies = 5; I = 22%; moderate-certainty evidence).There was moderate-certainty evidence that lithium was more effective than topiramate at treating acute mania (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.63 to 3.20; participants = 660; studies = 1).Data on adverse events for these comparisons contained too few studies to provide high-certainty evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review indicates that lithium is more effective than placebo as a treatment for acute mania but increases the risk for somnolence and tremor. Limited evidence suggests little or no difference between lithium and other mood stabilisers (valproate, carbamazepine) or antipsychotics (risperidone, quetiapine, haloperidol). Olanzapine may be an exception, as it is probably slightly more effective than lithium. There is uncertain evidence that risperidone may also be more effective than lithium. Lithium is probably more effective at treating acute mania than topiramate. When compared to placebo, lithium was more likely to cause adverse events. However, when compared to other drugs, too few studies provided data on adverse effects to provide high-certainty evidence. More, rigorously designed, large-scale studies are needed to definitively conclude if lithium is superior to other interventions in treating acute mania.
双相情感障碍是一种常见疾病,发病率高,因此开发有效、安全的治疗方法至关重要。锂盐是双相情感障碍的一种有效维持治疗药物。它作为情绪稳定剂,可降低自杀风险。然而,评估锂盐治疗急性躁狂疗效的证据并不充分。当前基于证据的指南列举了多种抗多巴胺能和情绪稳定药物作为初始治疗药物:需要更明确的证据来确定锂盐是否应作为一线治疗药物。
我们检索了Cochrane常见精神障碍对照试验注册库、CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase和PsycINFO。我们还检索了世界卫生组织试验平台(ICTRP)和ClinicalTrials.gov。我们检查了所有纳入研究和相关系统评价的参考文献列表。我们已将截至2018年5月18日检索到的研究纳入当前分析。
比较锂盐与安慰剂或替代药物治疗急性躁狂的前瞻性随机对照研究。我们纳入了任何年龄、任何性别的双相情感障碍患者。
至少两名综述作者独立提取数据并评估方法学质量。我们使用比值比(OR)分析二元疗效结局,使用均值差(MD)或标准化均值差(SMD)分析连续分布结局。除非异质性为中度或高度,否则我们使用固定效应模型,在这种情况下我们使用随机效应模型。我们使用Review Manager 5分析数据。我们使用GRADE方法评估个体结局证据的确定性。
我们发现36项随机对照研究比较了锂盐与安慰剂、12种药物之一或电休克治疗急性躁狂的效果。研究纳入了所有年龄的男性和女性参与者(n = 4220),他们均符合双相情感障碍诊断背景下躁狂发作的标准。偏倚风险各不相同;12项研究在一个领域存在高偏倚风险,27项研究提供的随机化信息不足,导致选择偏倚评分为“不清楚”。
锂盐与安慰剂
高确定性证据表明,锂盐是急性躁狂的有效治疗药物,在诱导反应方面比安慰剂更有效(OR 2.13,95%置信区间(CI)1.73至2.63;参与者 = 1707;研究 = 6;I² = 16%;高确定性证据),或缓解方面(OR 2.16,95% CI 1.73至2.69;参与者 = 1597;研究 = 5;I² = 21%;高确定性证据)。
锂盐比安慰剂更易引起震颤(OR 3.25,95% CI 2.10至5.04;参与者 = 1241;研究 = 6;I² = 0%;高确定性证据)和嗜睡(OR 2.28,95% CI 1.46至3.58;参与者 = 1351;研究 = 7;I² = 0%;高确定性证据)。
没有足够证据确定锂盐对全因退出的影响(OR 0.76;95% CI 0.46至1.25;参与者 =