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

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences Pub Date : 2024-05-23 DOI:10.1017/S2045796024000337
Joe Kwun Nam Chan, Corine Sau Man Wong, Catherine Zhiqian Fang, Samson Chun Hung, Heidi Ka Ying Lo, Wing Chung Chang
{"title":"Mortality risk and mood stabilizers in bipolar disorder: a propensity-score-weighted population-based cohort study in 2002-2018.","authors":"Joe Kwun Nam Chan, Corine Sau Man Wong, Catherine Zhiqian Fang, Samson Chun Hung, Heidi Ka Ying Lo, Wing Chung Chang","doi":"10.1017/S2045796024000337","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This population-based cohort study identified 8137 patients with first-diagnosed BD, who had exposed to lithium (<i>n</i> = 1028), valproate (<i>n</i> = 3580), olanzapine (<i>n</i> = 797), quetiapine (<i>n</i> = 1975) or risperidone (<i>n</i> = 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":11787,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796024000337","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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 (n = 1028), valproate (n = 3580), olanzapine (n = 797), quetiapine (n = 1975) or risperidone (n = 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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
双相情感障碍患者的死亡风险与情绪稳定剂:2002-2018 年基于倾向分数加权的人群队列研究。
目的:越来越多的研究评估了与情绪稳定剂(双相情感障碍(BD)的主要治疗药物)相关的死亡风险。然而,现有数据大多局限于自杀风险,主要集中在锂和丙戊酸钠,而且很少对潜在的混杂因素进行充分调整。本研究旨在评估锂、丙戊酸钠和三种常用的第二代抗精神病药物(SGA)在所有原因、自然原因和非自然原因下的死亡风险比较,并对重要的混杂因素进行调整:这项基于人群的队列研究确定了8137名首次诊断为BD的患者,他们在2002年至2018年期间接触过锂(n = 1028)、丙戊酸钠(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。采用倾向分数(PS)加权法对潜在的混杂因素进行了优化控制,这些混杂因素包括原有的慢性身体疾病、药物/酒精使用障碍和其他精神药物。与锂相比,采用 PS 加权 Cox 比例危险度回归法评估与每种情绪稳定剂相关的全因、自然原因和非自然原因死亡风险。进行了三组敏感性分析,仅限于以下患者:(i) 使用特定情绪稳定剂的累计时间≥90 天,且其药物占有率(MPR)≥90%;(ii) 特定情绪稳定剂的药物占有率≥80%,且其他所研究的情绪稳定剂的药物占有率≥80%:锂、丙戊酸钠、奥氮平、喹硫平和利培酮治疗组的每千人年全因死亡率分别为 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)。接受奥氮平(PS加权危险比=2.07 [95% CI:1.33-3.22])和利培酮(1.66 [1.08-2.55])治疗的BD患者的全因死亡率明显高于锂治疗组。与锂相比,奥氮平会增加自然死亡风险(3.04 [1.54-6.00]),利培酮会增加非自然死亡风险(3.33 [1.62-6.86])。在敏感性分析中,奥氮平与非自然原因死亡率升高之间的关系得到了证实。在敏感性分析中,利培酮与非自然原因死亡率升高的关系变得不显著,敏感性分析仅限于其他情绪稳定剂和单一疗法的低MPR。丙戊酸钠和锂治疗组在全因、自然或非自然死亡风险方面没有显著差异:我们的数据显示,与锂相比,奥氮平和利培酮与更高的死亡风险相关,这进一步支持了临床指南推荐将锂作为治疗BD的一线情绪稳定剂。未来的研究需要进一步明确与单个 SGA 药物相关的死亡风险比较,以促进对替代情绪稳定剂的风险-效益评估,从而最大限度地减少 BD 患者可避免的过早死亡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
1.20%
发文量
121
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences is a prestigious international, peer-reviewed journal that has been publishing in Open Access format since 2020. Formerly known as Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale and established in 1992 by Michele Tansella, the journal prioritizes highly relevant and innovative research articles and systematic reviews in the areas of public mental health and policy, mental health services and system research, as well as epidemiological and social psychiatry. Join us in advancing knowledge and understanding in these critical fields.
期刊最新文献
Factors associated with chronic depressive symptoms across adolescence and young adulthood: a UK birth cohort study. Longitudinal associations between post-traumatic stress and post-traumatic growth among older adults 11 years after a disaster. Contribution of diversity of social participation on the mental health of humanitarian migrants during resettlement. Mortality risk and mood stabilizers in bipolar disorder: a propensity-score-weighted population-based cohort study in 2002-2018. Time-varying living arrangements and suicide death in the general population sample: 14-year causal survival analysis via pooled logistic regression.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1