↓ Skip to main content

Suicide risk in Veterans Health Administration patients with mental health diagnoses initiating lithium or valproate: a historical prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, December 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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Suicide risk in Veterans Health Administration patients with mental health diagnoses initiating lithium or valproate: a historical prospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12888-014-0357-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric G Smith, Karen L Austin, Hyungjin Myra Kim, Donald R Miller, Susan V Eisen, Cindy L Christiansen, Amy M Kilbourne, Brian C Sauer, John F McCarthy, Marcia Valenstein

Abstract

BackgroundLithium has been reported in some, but not all, studies to be associated with reduced risk of suicide death or suicidal behavior. The objective of this nonrandomized cohort study was to examine whether lithium was associated with reduced risk of suicide death in comparison to the commonly-used alternative treatment, valproate.MethodsA propensity score-matched cohort study was conducted of Veterans Health Administration patients (n¿=¿21,194/treatment) initiating lithium or valproate from 1999¿2008.ResultsMatching produced lithium and valproate treatment groups that were highly similar in all 934 propensity score covariates, including indicators of recent suicidal behavior, but recent suicidal ideation was not able to be included. In the few individuals with recently diagnosed suicidal ideation, a significant imbalance existed with suicidal ideation more prevalent at baseline among individuals initiating lithium than valproate (odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% CI 1.09, 1.54; p¿=¿0.003). No significant differences in suicide death were observed over 0¿365 days in A) the primary intent-to-treat analysis (lithium/valproate conditional odds ratio (cOR) 1.22, 95% CI 0.82, 1.81; p¿=¿0.32); B) during receipt of initial lithium or valproate treatment (cOR 0.86, 0.46, 1.61; p¿=¿0.63); or C) after such treatment had been discontinued/modified (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.91, 2.50; p¿=¿0.11). Significantly increased risks of suicide death were observed after the discontinuation/modification of lithium, compared to valproate, treatment over the first 180 days (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.21, 6.11; p¿=¿0.015).ConclusionsIn this somewhat distinct sample (a predominantly male Veteran sample with a broad range of psychiatric diagnoses), no significant differences in associations with suicide death were observed between lithium and valproate treatment over 365 days. The only significant difference was observed over 0¿180 days: an increased risk of suicide death, among individuals discontinuing or modifying lithium, compared to valproate, treatment. This difference could reflect risks either related to lithium discontinuation or higher baseline risks among lithium recipients (i.e., confounding) that became more evident when treatment stopped. Our findings therefore support educating patients and providers about possible suicide-related risks of discontinuing lithium even shortly after treatment initiation, and the close monitoring of patients after lithium discontinuation, if feasible. If our findings include residual confounding biasing against lithium, however, as suggested by the differences observed in diagnosed suicidal ideation, then the degree of beneficial reduction in suicide death risk associated with lithium treatment would be underestimated. Further research is urgently needed, given the lack of interventions against suicide and the uncertainties concerning the degree to which lithium may reduce suicide risk during active treatment, increase risk upon discontinuation, or both.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 30%
Psychology 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 14 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 27 July 2015.
All research outputs
#3,380,080
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,328
of 5,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,643
of 349,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#16
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,502 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 349,157 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.