Suppr超能文献

双相障碍患者的死亡率与心境稳定剂:2002-2018 年基于倾向评分加权的人群队列研究。

Mortality risk and mood stabilizers in bipolar disorder: a propensity-score-weighted population-based cohort study in 2002-2018.

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry, School of Clinical medicine, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

School of Public Health, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

出版信息

Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2024 May 23;33:e31. doi: 10.1017/S2045796024000337.

Abstract

AIMS

Accumulating studies have assessed mortality risk associated with mood-stabilizers, the mainstay treatment for bipolar disorder (BD). However, existing data were mostly restricted to suicide risk, focused on lithium and valproate and rarely adequately adjusted for potential confounders. This study aimed to assess comparative mortality risk with all, natural and unnatural causes between lithium, valproate and three frequently prescribed second-generation antipsychotics (SGA), with adjustment for important confounders.

METHODS

This population-based cohort study identified 8137 patients with first-diagnosed BD, who had exposed to lithium ( = 1028), valproate ( = 3580), olanzapine ( = 797), quetiapine ( = 1975) or risperidone ( = 757) between 2002 and 2018. Data were retrieved from territory-wide medical-record database of public healthcare services in Hong Kong. Propensity-score (PS)-weighting method was applied to optimize control for potential confounders including pre-existing chronic physical diseases, substance/alcohol use disorders and other psychotropic medications. PS-weighted Cox proportional-hazards regression was conducted to assess risk of all-, natural- and unnatural-cause mortality related to each mood-stabilizer, compared to lithium. Three sets of sensitivity analyses were conducted by restricting to patients with (i) length of cumulative exposure to specified mood-stabilizer ≥90 days and its medication possession ratio (MPR) ≥90%, (ii) MPR of specified mood-stabilizer ≥80% and MPR of other studied mood-stabilizers <20% and (iii) monotherapy.

RESULTS

Incidence rates of all-cause mortality per 1000 person-years were 5.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.5-7.6), 8.4 (7.4-9.5), 11.1 (8.3-14.9), 7.4 (6.0-9.2) and 12.0 (9.3-15.6) for lithium-, valproate-, olanzapine-, quetiapine- and risperidone-treated groups, respectively. BD patients treated with olanzapine (PS-weighted hazard ratio = 2.07 [95% CI: 1.33-3.22]) and risperidone (1.66 [1.08-2.55]) had significantly higher all-cause mortality rate than lithium-treated group. Olanzapine was associated with increased risk of natural-cause mortality (3.04 [1.54-6.00]) and risperidone was related to elevated risk of unnatural-cause mortality (3.33 [1.62-6.86]), relative to lithium. The association between olanzapine and increased natural-cause mortality rate was consistently affirmed in sensitivity analyses. Relationship between risperidone and elevated unnatural-cause mortality became non-significant in sensitivity analyses restricted to low MPR in other mood-stabilizers and monotherapy. Valproate- and lithium-treated groups did not show significant differences in all-, natural- or unnatural-cause mortality risk.

CONCLUSION

Our data showed that olanzapine and risperidone were associated with higher mortality risk than lithium, and further supported the clinical guidelines recommending lithium as the first-line mood-stabilizer for BD. Future research is required to further clarify comparative mortality risk associated with individual SGA agents to facilitate risk-benefit evaluation of alternative mood-stabilizers to minimize avoidable premature mortality in BD.

摘要

目的

已有研究评估了心境稳定剂与双相障碍(BD)相关的死亡率风险,心境稳定剂是 BD 的主要治疗方法。然而,现有数据主要局限于自杀风险,且重点关注锂盐和丙戊酸盐,很少充分调整潜在混杂因素。本研究旨在评估锂盐、丙戊酸盐和三种常用第二代抗精神病药物(SGAs)之间所有、自然和非自然原因死亡率的相对风险,并对重要混杂因素进行调整。

方法

本基于人群的队列研究纳入了 8137 例首次诊断为 BD 的患者,他们在 2002 年至 2018 年期间暴露于锂盐(n = 1028)、丙戊酸盐(n = 3580)、奥氮平(n = 797)、喹硫平(n = 1975)或利培酮(n = 757)。数据来自香港公共医疗服务的全港医疗记录数据库。采用倾向评分(PS)加权法来优化潜在混杂因素的控制,包括预先存在的慢性躯体疾病、物质/酒精使用障碍和其他精神药物。采用 PS 加权 Cox 比例风险回归来评估与锂盐相比,每种心境稳定剂与所有、自然和非自然原因死亡率的相关风险。通过以下三种敏感性分析来限制患者的累积暴露时间(指定心境稳定剂的累积暴露时间≥90 天,其药物维持率(MPR)≥90%)、指定心境稳定剂的 MPR≥80%和其他研究心境稳定剂的 MPR<20%、以及单药治疗,进行了三组敏感性分析。

结果

锂盐、丙戊酸盐、奥氮平、喹硫平和利培酮治疗组的全因死亡率分别为每 1000 人年 5.9(95%置信区间[CI]:4.5-7.6)、8.4(7.4-9.5)、11.1(8.3-14.9)、7.4(6.0-9.2)和 12.0(9.3-15.6)。与锂盐治疗组相比,奥氮平(PS 加权风险比[HR] = 2.07[95%CI:1.33-3.22])和利培酮(1.66[1.08-2.55])治疗的 BD 患者的全因死亡率更高。奥氮平与自然原因死亡率增加相关(3.04[1.54-6.00]),利培酮与非自然原因死亡率升高相关(3.33[1.62-6.86]),与锂盐相比。奥氮平与自然原因死亡率增加的相关性在敏感性分析中也得到了一致的证实。利培酮与非自然原因死亡率升高的相关性在限制其他心境稳定剂的 MPR 较低和单药治疗的敏感性分析中变得不显著。丙戊酸盐和锂盐治疗组在所有、自然或非自然原因死亡率的风险方面没有显著差异。

结论

我们的数据表明,奥氮平和利培酮与锂盐相比,死亡率风险更高,并进一步支持了临床指南推荐锂盐作为 BD 的一线心境稳定剂。需要进一步的研究来阐明与个别 SGA 药物相关的死亡率风险的比较,以促进替代心境稳定剂的风险-效益评估,尽量减少 BD 中不必要的过早死亡。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2596/11362685/910e554ca9ef/S2045796024000337_fig1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验