↓ Skip to main content

Role of Lithium Augmentation in the Management of Major Depressive Disorder

Overview of attention for article published in CNS Drugs, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 Mendeley
Title
Role of Lithium Augmentation in the Management of Major Depressive Disorder
Published in
CNS Drugs, March 2014
DOI 10.1007/s40263-014-0152-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Bauer, Mazda Adli, Roland Ricken, Emanuel Severus, Maximilian Pilhatsch

Abstract

The high rate of non-responders to initial treatment with antidepressants requires subsequent treatment strategies such as augmentation of antidepressants. Clinical guidelines recommend lithium augmentation as a first-line treatment strategy for non-responding depressed patients. The objectives of this review were to discuss the current place of lithium augmentation in the management of treatment-resistant depression and to review novel findings concerning lithium's mechanisms of action. We conducted a comprehensive and critical review of randomized, placebo-controlled trials, controlled and naturalistic comparator studies, and continuation-phase and discontinuation studies of lithium augmentation in major depression. The outcomes of interest were efficacy, factors allowing outcome prediction and results from preclinical studies investigating molecular mechanisms of lithium action. Substantial efficacy of lithium augmentation in the acute treatment of major depression has been demonstrated in more than 30 open-label studies and 10 placebo-controlled trials. In a meta-analysis addressing the efficacy of lithium in 10 randomized, controlled trials, it had a significant positive effect versus placebo, with an odds ratio of 3.11 corresponding to a number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 5 and a mean response rate of 41.2 % (versus 14.4 % in the placebo group). The main limitations of these studies were the relatively small numbers of study participants and the fact that most studies included augmentation of tricyclic antidepressants, which are not in widespread use anymore. Evidence from continuation-phase studies is sparse but suggests that lithium augmentation should be maintained in the lithium-antidepressant combination for at least 1 year to prevent early relapses. Concerning outcome prediction, single studies have reported associations of better outcome rates with more severe depressive symptomatology, significant weight loss, psychomotor retardation, a history of more than three major depressive episodes and a family history of major depression. Additionally, one study suggested a predictive role of the -50T/C single nucleotide polymorphism of the glycogen synthase kinase 3 beta (GSK3B) gene in the probability of response to lithium augmentation. With regard to novel mechanisms of action, GABAergic, neurotrophic and genetic effects might explain the effects of lithium augmentation. In conclusion, augmentation of antidepressants with lithium remains a first-line, evidence-based management option for patients with major depression who have not responded adequately to antidepressants. While the mechanisms of action are currently widely studied, further clinical research on the role of lithium potentiation of the current generation of antidepressants is warranted to reinforce its role as a gold-standard treatment for patients who respond inadequately to antidepressants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Latvia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 134 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Bachelor 22 16%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 33 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 24%
Psychology 19 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 7%
Neuroscience 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 41 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,343,573
of 23,921,147 outputs
Outputs from CNS Drugs
#188
of 1,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,886
of 224,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CNS Drugs
#4
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,921,147 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,343 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 224,732 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.