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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |