Cargando…

Can we check serum lithium levels less often without compromising patient safety?

BACKGROUND: Lithium is viewed as the first-line long-term treatment for prevention of relapse in people with bipolar disorder. AIMS: This study examined factors associated with the likelihood of maintaining serum lithium levels within the recommended range and explored whether the monitoring interva...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heald, Adrian H., Holland, David, Stedman, Michael, Davies, Mark, Duff, Chris J., Parfitt, Ceri, Green, Lewis, Scargill, Jonathan, Taylor, David, Fryer, Anthony A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8715256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34915951
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.1027
_version_ 1784624092833382400
author Heald, Adrian H.
Holland, David
Stedman, Michael
Davies, Mark
Duff, Chris J.
Parfitt, Ceri
Green, Lewis
Scargill, Jonathan
Taylor, David
Fryer, Anthony A.
author_facet Heald, Adrian H.
Holland, David
Stedman, Michael
Davies, Mark
Duff, Chris J.
Parfitt, Ceri
Green, Lewis
Scargill, Jonathan
Taylor, David
Fryer, Anthony A.
author_sort Heald, Adrian H.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Lithium is viewed as the first-line long-term treatment for prevention of relapse in people with bipolar disorder. AIMS: This study examined factors associated with the likelihood of maintaining serum lithium levels within the recommended range and explored whether the monitoring interval could be extended in some cases. METHOD: We included 46 555 lithium rest requests in 3371 individuals over 7 years from three UK centres. Using lithium results in four categories (<0.4 mmol/L; 0.40–0.79 mmol/L; 0.80–0.99 mmol/L; ≥1.0 mmol/L), we determined the proportion of instances where lithium results remained stable or switched category on subsequent testing, considering the effects of age, duration of lithium therapy and testing history. RESULTS: For tests within the recommended range (0.40–0.99 mmol/L categories), 84.5% of subsequent tests remained within this range. Overall, 3 monthly testing was associated with 90% of lithium results remaining within range, compared with 85% at 6 monthly intervals. In cases where the lithium level in the previous 12 months was on target (0.40–0.79 mmol/L; British National Formulary/National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria), 90% remained within the target range at 6 months. Neither age nor duration of lithium therapy had any significant effect on lithium level stability. Levels within the 0.80–0.99 mmol/L category were linked to a higher probability of moving to the ≥1.0 mmol/L category (10%) compared with those in the 0.4–0.79 mmol/L group (2%), irrespective of testing frequency. CONCLUSION: We propose that for those who achieve 12 months of lithium tests within the 0.40–0.79 mmol/L range, the interval between tests could increase to 6 months, irrespective of age. Where lithium levels are 0.80–0.99 mmol/L, the test interval should remain at 3 months. This could reduce lithium test numbers by 15% and costs by ~$0.4 m p.a.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8715256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87152562022-01-07 Can we check serum lithium levels less often without compromising patient safety? Heald, Adrian H. Holland, David Stedman, Michael Davies, Mark Duff, Chris J. Parfitt, Ceri Green, Lewis Scargill, Jonathan Taylor, David Fryer, Anthony A. BJPsych Open Papers BACKGROUND: Lithium is viewed as the first-line long-term treatment for prevention of relapse in people with bipolar disorder. AIMS: This study examined factors associated with the likelihood of maintaining serum lithium levels within the recommended range and explored whether the monitoring interval could be extended in some cases. METHOD: We included 46 555 lithium rest requests in 3371 individuals over 7 years from three UK centres. Using lithium results in four categories (<0.4 mmol/L; 0.40–0.79 mmol/L; 0.80–0.99 mmol/L; ≥1.0 mmol/L), we determined the proportion of instances where lithium results remained stable or switched category on subsequent testing, considering the effects of age, duration of lithium therapy and testing history. RESULTS: For tests within the recommended range (0.40–0.99 mmol/L categories), 84.5% of subsequent tests remained within this range. Overall, 3 monthly testing was associated with 90% of lithium results remaining within range, compared with 85% at 6 monthly intervals. In cases where the lithium level in the previous 12 months was on target (0.40–0.79 mmol/L; British National Formulary/National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria), 90% remained within the target range at 6 months. Neither age nor duration of lithium therapy had any significant effect on lithium level stability. Levels within the 0.80–0.99 mmol/L category were linked to a higher probability of moving to the ≥1.0 mmol/L category (10%) compared with those in the 0.4–0.79 mmol/L group (2%), irrespective of testing frequency. CONCLUSION: We propose that for those who achieve 12 months of lithium tests within the 0.40–0.79 mmol/L range, the interval between tests could increase to 6 months, irrespective of age. Where lithium levels are 0.80–0.99 mmol/L, the test interval should remain at 3 months. This could reduce lithium test numbers by 15% and costs by ~$0.4 m p.a. Cambridge University Press 2021-12-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8715256/ /pubmed/34915951 http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.1027 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Papers
Heald, Adrian H.
Holland, David
Stedman, Michael
Davies, Mark
Duff, Chris J.
Parfitt, Ceri
Green, Lewis
Scargill, Jonathan
Taylor, David
Fryer, Anthony A.
Can we check serum lithium levels less often without compromising patient safety?
title Can we check serum lithium levels less often without compromising patient safety?
title_full Can we check serum lithium levels less often without compromising patient safety?
title_fullStr Can we check serum lithium levels less often without compromising patient safety?
title_full_unstemmed Can we check serum lithium levels less often without compromising patient safety?
title_short Can we check serum lithium levels less often without compromising patient safety?
title_sort can we check serum lithium levels less often without compromising patient safety?
topic Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8715256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34915951
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2021.1027
work_keys_str_mv AT healdadrianh canwecheckserumlithiumlevelslessoftenwithoutcompromisingpatientsafety
AT hollanddavid canwecheckserumlithiumlevelslessoftenwithoutcompromisingpatientsafety
AT stedmanmichael canwecheckserumlithiumlevelslessoftenwithoutcompromisingpatientsafety
AT daviesmark canwecheckserumlithiumlevelslessoftenwithoutcompromisingpatientsafety
AT duffchrisj canwecheckserumlithiumlevelslessoftenwithoutcompromisingpatientsafety
AT parfittceri canwecheckserumlithiumlevelslessoftenwithoutcompromisingpatientsafety
AT greenlewis canwecheckserumlithiumlevelslessoftenwithoutcompromisingpatientsafety
AT scargilljonathan canwecheckserumlithiumlevelslessoftenwithoutcompromisingpatientsafety
AT taylordavid canwecheckserumlithiumlevelslessoftenwithoutcompromisingpatientsafety
AT fryeranthonya canwecheckserumlithiumlevelslessoftenwithoutcompromisingpatientsafety