Provider Perspectives on the Current Use of Lithium Medications and Lithium Monitoring Practices for Psychiatric Conditions

Introduction

Lithium medication is commonly used for the treatment of bipolar disorder, other mood disorders, and suicidality.1–3 However, the narrow therapeutic window of lithium prophylaxis, and the risk of adverse side effects, necessitates frequent serum lithium level monitoring.4–6 This can be uncomfortable and inconvenient for the patient and is dependent on patient compliance and ability to regularly attend a pathology clinic. In India, almost 30% of surveyed psychiatrists perceived low adherence to serum-level monitoring as an obstacle for the prescription of lithium, whereas the majority of surveyed psychiatrists in Spain indicated adverse side effects as the main reason to avoid lithium treatment.7,8

Recently, we showed that the monitoring of therapeutic lithium levels in saliva may be a viable alternative to blood tests. Specifically, we showed that saliva lithium levels are correlated with those in blood, and this association could be improved by accounting for daily lithium dose, a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, and smoking status.6 Our findings are consistent with previous studies dating back 30 years that have demonstrated significant correlations between serum lithium and salivary lithium.9–12 However, many of these past studies suffered from inconsistencies in saliva collection and storage procedures, variations in saliva processing methods and differences in the lithium detection method,13 which resulted in weaker saliva-serum associations reported in other studies.14–17

Saliva collection and analysis has many advantages over blood, as it is simple and cost-effective, can be done at home or in the community without the need for trained laboratory personnel, and does not require venipuncture. It is hypothesized that saliva lithium monitoring could therefore circumvent many of the obstacles faced with serum lithium monitoring, increasing the ease of collection and patient compliance.

The advantages of saliva collection and analysis present us with two hypothetical avenues of lithium monitoring: at-home patient self-collection of samples and/or the development of a point-of-care lithium monitoring device. Protocols for at-home saliva collection have increased dramatically since the Covid-19 pandemic with several papers reporting on the feasibility of saliva home collection for monitoring Covid-19 positivity and avoiding in-patient visits.18–21 Point-of-care devices have been investigated and developed by others for lithium monitoring using finger-prick or serum blood samples,22–24 suggesting feasibility for saliva lithium monitoring. Despite these scientific advances in lithium treatment, the percentage of patients with bipolar disorder who are prescribed lithium medication has declined in many parts of the world over the past two decades;8 in the United States, the percentage of clinic appointments which included lithium prescriptions dropped from 30.4% (1997–2000) to 17.6% (2013–2016).25

For saliva lithium monitoring to be pursued as a clinical and viable alternative to blood lithium monitoring, it is necessary to determine whether it would be considered and adopted by current psychiatrists and psychiatric mental health nurses. In this study, we surveyed psychiatrists and psychiatric mental health nurses in the United States to determine their perspectives on lithium treatment, point-of-care devices, and the potential use of at-home saliva collection for lithium monitoring.

Materials and Methods Study Design

The survey used in this study was developed and distributed by researchers from The University of California, Irvine (UCI). The use of an anonymous survey for data collection, which did not collect any Protected Health Information, or any other information which may be used to identify respondents, categorized this study as exempt from UCI Institutional Review Board (IRB) review (UCI IRB policy #12; “exempt self-determination”). Furthermore, the survey was distributed, and data collection, through a public URL link provided to American psychiatric societies for advertisement in associated research newsletters and listservs. As no direct contact was made between researchers and respondents, no informed consent was sought for or required (UCI IRB policy #12). This research study followed the guidelines outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.

The anonymous, online survey was developed based on the structure and content of currently available nation-wide survey studies on lithium prescription, conducted in India and Spain.7,8 Input was also sought from co-author colleagues, including two practicing psychiatrists. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) electronic data capture tools hosted at The University of California, Irvine.26,27 REDCap is a secure, web-based software platform designed to support data capture for research studies, providing 1) an intuitive interface for validated data capture; 2) audit trails for tracking data manipulation and export procedures; 3) automated export procedures for seamless data downloads to common statistical packages; and 4) procedures for data integration and interoperability with external sources.

Questionnaire

The purpose of the anonymous survey was to investigate the perspectives of American psychiatrists and psychiatric mental health nurses on lithium treatment, point-of-care devices, and the potential use of at-home saliva collection for lithium monitoring. The survey contained 24 multiple-choice, likert-scale and single-response questions, and a final text box where participants may freely input any concerns or comments regarding the study or field. Questions regarding sample characteristics (total questions: 7) covered participant demographic data (age, gender, US state), place, type and years of work, and pay/insurance model. These were followed with questions regarding the participant’s experience in prescribing lithium and current lithium-treated cohort, including whether they used the Lithiumeter visual guide for lithium decision-making (total questions: 6), and their perspectives on the incorporation of point-of-care devices and at-home saliva collection for lithium monitoring (total questions: 11) (Figure S1). A question pertaining to the use of the Lithiumeter guide was included due to its developed purpose as a visual guide to combat clinical misconceptions surrounding lithium use, which may influence the prescription of lithium medications.28 Request emails were distributed to a total of 82 American psychiatric societies (Table S1), and participant responses were obtained, between October 2021 and February 2022. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, which were obtained directly from REDCap, or exported into Excel. All sample and percentage values reported in this paper refer to the number and percentage of psychiatrist and psychiatric mental health nurse respondents who indicated the associated response, except where clearly defined otherwise.

Results Respondent Characteristics

A total of 65 responses were obtained from 21 US states. The majority of respondents were psychiatrists (96.9%), female (53.8%), over 65 (38.5%), and/or had practiced for 30 years or more (46.2%) (Table 1). We queried respondents on how many of their patients lived more than 1 hour commute away, as these patients would likely benefit from at home saliva collection, or self-administered point-of-care devices. Unfortunately, responses were received as either percentages or absolute numbers. Considering only responses that included a clear percentage (69.2%), respondents reported a median 20% of their patients lived more than 1 hour commute away (range = 0–80%).

Table 1 Respondent Characteristics

Lithium-Prescribed Patient Characteristics

At the time of survey completion, respondents reported having a median of 5 patients currently on lithium medication (range 0–100). Sixty-three (96.9%) respondents prescribed lithium to patients; of these, all prescribed it for treatment of bipolar disorder (n = 63; 100%), followed by schizoaffective disorder (n = 40; 63.5%), depression (n = 37; 58.7%), and suicidal or self-injurious behavior (n = 37; 58.7%) (Table 1). Of the respondents who prescribed lithium, two (3.2%) prescribed lithium to patients 10 years of age and under, 24 (38.0%) prescribed lithium to patients ages 11–20, and the majority prescribed to patients aged between 21 and 50 (n = 53–59, 84.2–93.7%), followed by age 51 and above (n = 34–49, 54.0–77.8%) (Table 1).

Protocol for Prescribing Lithium

The determination of an appropriate maintenance level lithium dose was decided by the ongoing remission of symptoms for 50 respondents (76.9%), and the measurement of blood lithium levels being within range for 53 respondents (81.5%). Four respondents outlined additional means of determining an appropriate maintenance level lithium dose, such as patient history of wellbeing at a previous blood lithium level, remission at the lowest blood lithium level, the presence of dyscoordination as a sign of toxicity, and tolerability (Table 2). The majority of respondents (n = 46; 70.8%) were not familiar with the Lithiumeter visual guide for determining lithium levels;15,28 of the remaining respondents, 11 (16.9%) did not use the Lithiumeter guide, and 8 (12.3%) did. The majority of respondents preferred to monitor maintenance lithium levels every 6 months in outpatients (n = 28; 43.1%), and every month in new, stabilized patients (n = 26; 40.0%). For the majority of respondents, obstacles to lithium prescription included adverse drug effects (n = 40; 61.5%), and the need to monitor levels (n = 34; 52.3%) (Table 2).

Table 2 Protocol and Obstacles for Lithium Monitoring

Perspectives on Point-of-Care Devices

The majority of respondents (46.2%) believed that a point-of-care device would be very useful, whereas only two respondents (3.1%) believed that the device would not be useful (Table 3). Most respondents indicated that a point-of-care device would be useful when modifying a lithium dose (87.3%), followed by “monitoring for medication adherence” (79.4%) and “in patients who do not tolerate venipuncture” (76.2%) (Table 3). Respondents who selected “other” as an option (7.9%), provided instances such as “just being able to get a lab done”, when patients are not adherent with lab requests, any time a patient is not hospitalized, and during a pregnancy (Table 3).

Table 3 Respondent Perspectives on Point-of-Care Devices and Saliva Lithium Monitoring

The preferred means of billing for a point-of-care test was as an office visit (Table S2). For respondents who indicated that they would use a cash payment model (Table 1) and bill a point-of-care test as an office visit (Table S2), the majority indicated that they would charge $25 or less per test (n = 7; 46.7%), with all relevant respondents indicating a value that was $50 or less per test (Table S2).

Monitoring of Lithium in Saliva

Sixty-four respondents (98.5%) stated that they would find it useful if lithium levels could effectively be monitored in saliva instead of blood. When asked whether they would find it useful if patients could collect saliva samples at home and mail in or drop off the samples for lithium monitoring, the majority (41.5%) responded on a likert-like scale that they would find it “very useful”. The majority (83.6%) of respondents reported that saliva lithium monitoring would be useful in patients who do not tolerate venipuncture, followed by patients who have a long or inconvenient commute and when changing the dose (80.3%) (Table 3). Finally, 93.8% of respondents indicated that they would be willing to provide patients with at-home saliva collection kits to take home, and 93.8% indicated that they believed their patients would be at least somewhat compliant with at-home saliva collection (Table 3).

Respondent Comments and/or Concerns

Respondents were provided the opportunity to express any additional comments or concerns. Two respondents commented that they treated high-functioning patient populations who would benefit from saliva lithium monitoring or a point-of-care device, however one respondent noted that blood draws would still be necessary for the measurement of other markers such as thyroid-stimulating hormone, blood urea nitrogen, and creatinine. Other respondents raised concerns regarding the time-lag between at-home saliva collection, and reception by a laboratory, however noted that a time delay currently exists with serum lithium monitoring as well. Two respondents stated that they would prefer to obtain and monitor saliva lithium levels in an office, rather than via at-home collection, whereas another stated that patients with good adherence would benefit from at home monitoring if it was properly structured. Overall, respondents’ main concern regarded the validity, including time sensitivity, of saliva collection and lithium monitoring, followed by the cost (see Table S3 for all feedback).

Discussion

In this study, we found that overall, psychiatrists in the United States were open to the potential use of saliva, and point-of-care devices, for lithium monitoring. The majority of respondents indicated that the need for monitoring, and the potential for adverse side effects, were obstacles they had encountered regarding the prescription of lithium, mirroring reports from India and Spain.7,8 Interestingly, the need for monitoring, and the potential for side effects, were not perceived as barriers by psychiatrists in Saskatchewan, Canada, suggesting nation-specific perspectives on lithium monitoring.29 Our survey results suggest that saliva lithium monitoring would be most useful for the monitoring of new, stabilized lithium-users, as the majority of respondents indicated that they would prefer to monitor lithium levels in these patients every month. For outpatients, the majority of respondents indicated that they would prefer to monitor lithium levels every 6 months. These findings can be compared to that of a previous worldwide survey study, which found that the majority of psychiatrists preferred to monitor maintenance lithium levels 1–3 times per year, followed by 4 or more times per year.30 Despite these findings, which are in line with the International Society for Bipolar Disorders guidelines for maintenance level lithium monitoring,5 it is likely that patients are not attending the recommended number of pathology visits. While we did not query patient attendance of scheduled appointments, 33.8% of respondents reported that a “patient’s low adherence to monitoring of drug levels and serum chemistry” was an obstacle for lithium monitoring. Similarly, a study conducted in Sao Paulo, Brazil, found that none of their 36 study participants attended the recommended minimum of two blood tests per year,31 and a large retrospective study in the Netherlands found that only 46% of patients were monitored every 6 months.32

Notably, our survey respondents reported a median 20% of total patients who lived an hour or more commute away, and 10.9% and 12.5% of survey respondents indicated that they preferred to monitor lithium levels “based on feasibility” in current outpatients, and new, stabilized inpatients, respectively. Therefore, it is possible that despite psychiatrists preferring patients to attend the recommended 2–4 serum lithium monitoring appointments per year, many patients may find it difficult to attend these in-office or pathology-based appointments, either due to a long commute, or other factors not queried, such as personal circumstances or symptom presentation.33 Indeed, the majority of our survey respondents indicated that at-home saliva collection would be useful for patients who either do not tolerate venipuncture (83.6%) or have long commutes (80.3%). In addition, the current COVID-19 pandemic presents a third scenario where at-home collection of samples would be advantageous: current recommendations suggest that patients monitor symptoms at-home during lockdown or restriction periods, and attend a consultation when possible to measure lithium levels.34 The measurement of lithium levels, and other blood markers, may therefore be a limiting factor in the otherwise telehealth treatment of patients, and in some cases may be the sole reason why a patient would need to attend a clinic. Furthermore, the Lithiumeter clinical guidelines recommend adjusting the maintenance lithium dose depending on the presentation of symptoms (mania, depression, or maintenance);28 at-home sample collection would allow clinicians to monitor lithium levels at the time of symptom presentation, rather than when circumstances permit the patient to attend a pathology clinic. At-home collection would also allow patients to collect samples closer to the 12-hour post-dose time-point that is currently used to determine serum lithium levels for dose adjustment; a requirement that one respondent noted their patients rarely get right. Of note, for the sake of survey simplicity, we queried psychiatrists on the percentage of total patients with a long commute, rather than the percentage of lithium-prescribed patients; however, with additional research, saliva monitoring of therapeutic drugs may be expanded beyond that of lithium and thus the findings of this study, with regard to saliva monitoring, may be applicable to remote patients who are and are not currently on lithium medication.

While most respondents (93.8%) would be willing to provide patients with an at-home saliva collection kit to drop-off or mail-in samples for analysis, a number of respondents expressed concerns regarding the at-home collection model. One limitation to the implementation of saliva lithium monitoring, as noted by one respondent, is the concurrent need for a blood draw to measure other biological markers, such thyroid-stimulating hormone, blood urea nitrogen, and creatinine. Previous studies by Nederlof et al found that prescribers of lithium reported that markers of renal function, thyroid function, and electrolytes are most often measured 2–3 times per year in patients on maintenance lithium treatment,30 however creatine and thyroid-stimulating hormone are often measured fewer times than guidelines recommend.32 In line with the drawback of no at-home testing for other markers, two respondents in our study indicated a preference for in-office or point-of-care lithium monitoring, over at-home collection and mail-in of saliva samples. Overall, respondents’ main concern was the validity of saliva lithium monitoring, and potential time delay associated with both saliva and serum lithium monitoring. Through another study in progress, which utilizes at-home collection and mail-in of saliva samples from participants with bipolar disorder, we have observed a sample return rate of approximately 85% and have confirmed that saliva lithium levels are not affected by up to 4 days at room temperature, as may occur with the mail-in of samples (unpublished; data not shown). Anecdotally, and in line with the respondents’ concern, the greatest obstacle faced in this in-progress study has been the timeliness of saliva collection and mail-in – a factor which may vary if saliva collection were for clinical, rather than research, purposes.

Regarding the validity of saliva lithium monitoring, we have previously shown that saliva lithium levels are highly correlated with serum lithium levels, which is consistent with other, older studies and methodologies,9,35–38 and that this correlation may be improved through consideration and incorporation of daily lithium dose, smoking status, and diabetes status.6 Further research into potentially confounding factors in the prediction of serum lithium levels from saliva would improve the validity of saliva lithium monitoring. In our earlier publication, we also found that the relationship between saliva and serum lithium levels was less variable for participants under 55 years of age.6 The majority of psychiatrist and psychiatric mental-health nurse respondents in the current study (84.2–93.7%) reported prescribing lithium to patients between 21 and 50 years of age, which suggests that their patient population would be appropriate for saliva lithium monitoring from this perspective. Moreover, 93.8% of respondents indicated that a point-of-care device would be at least somewhat useful in monitoring lithium levels and, while most agreed with all uses presented (when: changing the dose; monitoring for medication adherence; monitoring side effects, and in patients who do not tolerate venipuncture), other instances included: just being able to get a lab done; any time a patient is not hospitalized; and during pregnancy. The use of an in-office point-of-care device, at a respondent-suggested cost of $50 or less to the patient, would reduce perceived issues with time-delay, either from time of appointment to sample collection, or sample collection to analysis, as well as the need for patients to attend a pathology service. While this may not reduce the need for patients to travel to a hospital or clinic, as at-home collection would do, it would likely reduce the duration of a clinical appointment – by replacing a pathology appointment with an in-office test- and, if saliva-based, the need for venipuncture or a fingerprick. Patient attendance at scheduled clinic appointments may alternatively be improved through more in depth patient education regarding the need to monitor lithium levels.39 For example, in the UK, increased education on the side effects of lithium, the risk factors for toxicity, and the signs and symptoms of toxicity, coincided with an increase in the frequency of maintenance serum lithium level testing.40 In our study, two respondents commented on the stigma regarding lithium treatment, both in the public and health-care community. Patient education may also be limited by low psychiatrist education on lithium prophylaxis: while only one respondent in our study indicated “lack of experience or training” as a barrier to prescribing lithium, we acknowledge that this is a subjective measure. In addition, 70.8% of respondents were not familiar with the Lithiumeter visual guide for determining optimal plasma lithium levels.28 While familiarity of the Lithiumeter visual guide is not itself an indication of psychiatrist education or awareness, the guide was developed to combat misconceptions surrounding lithium use, and so this lack of familiarity may suggest that clinical practices do not see the need and/or have not made attempts to improve clinician awareness. We acknowledge that our findings are limited by a moderate sample size, and that the perspectives of psychiatrists in the U.S., where lithium is underutilized, may not be generalized globally.41 We also acknowledge that, while our survey was distributed to 82 American psychiatric societies and responses were received from 21 states, our response rate was overall low (on average less than 1 response per society) and predominated by older psychiatrists; therefore, our findings may not be representative of all American prescribers of lithium.

Conclusion

Overall, our study suggests that the implementation of both saliva lithium monitoring, and at-home sample collection, may be too novel and preliminary for current clinical practice; however, the incorporation of a point-of-care lithium monitoring device, particularly for saliva, into offices may reduce the need for pathology appointments, and increase medication adherence. Following the development and analysis of this study, we, in collaboration with others, have begun research into at-home collection and mail-in of saliva samples, the diurnal characteristics of saliva lithium levels, and the development of a saliva-based lithium point-of-care device.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Elisabeth Severance Prentiss Foundation. The sponsor was not involved in study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. We would like to thank Prof. Douglas Granger, Prof. Michael J. McCarthy, Dr. Soe Thein, and Assistant Prof. Kate Kuhlman for providing feedback on study design and survey content.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

1. Shorter E. The history of lithium therapy. Bipolar Disord. 2009;11:4–9. doi:10.1111/j.1399-5618.2009.00706.x

2. Cade JF. Lithium salts in the treatment of psychotic excitement. Med J Aust. 1949;2:349–352. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1949.tb36912.x

3. Guzzetta F, Tondo L, Centorrino F, Baldessarini RJ. Lithium treatment reduces suicide risk in recurrent major depressive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2007;68(3):380–383. doi:10.4088/JCP.v68n0304

4. Kirkham E, Bazire S, Anderson T, et al. Impact of active monitoring on lithium management in Norfolk. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2013;3(5):260–265. doi:10.1177/2045125313486510

5. Ng F, Mammen OK, Wilting I, et al. The International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) consensus guidelines for the safety monitoring of bipolar disorder treatments. Bipolar Disord. 2009;11(6):559–595. doi:10.1111/j.1399-5618.2009.00737.x

6. Parkin GM, McCarthy MJ, Thein SH, et al. Saliva testing as a means to monitor therapeutic lithium levels in patients with psychiatric disorders: identification of clinical and environmental covariates, and their incorporation into a prediction model. Bipolar Disord. 2021;23(7):679–688. doi:10.1111/bdi.13128

7. Mandal S, Mamidipalli SS, Mukherjee B, Hara SKH. Perspectives, attitude, and practice of lithium prescription among psychiatrists in India. Indian J Psychiatry. 2019;61(5):451. doi:10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_451_18

8. de Mendiola XP, Hidalgo-Mazzei D, Vieta E, González-Pinto A. Overview of lithium’s use: a nationwide survey. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2021;9(1):1–8. doi:10.1186/s40345-020-00204-2

9. Shetty SJ, Desai PB, Patil NM, Nayak RB. Relationship between serum lithium, salivary lithium, and urinary lithium in patients on lithium therapy. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2012;147(1):59–62. doi:10.1007/s12011-011-9295-3

10. Ben-Aryeh H, Laor R, Szargel R, et al. Saliva for monitoring of patients with primary affective disorders. Isr J Med Sci. 1984;20(3):197–201.

11. Khare C, Sankaranarayanan A, Goel A, Khandelwal S, Srinivasa Murthy R. Saliva lithium levels for monitoring lithium prophylaxis of manic depressive psychosis. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1983;21(9):451–453.

12. Rosman AW, Sczupak CA, Pakes GE. Correlation between saliva and serum lithium levels in manic-depressive patients. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1980;37(4):514–518.

13. Gałuszko-Węgielnik M, Jakuszkowiak-Wojten K, Wiglusz MS, et al. Lithium therapeutic dose monitoring in human saliva. Psychiatr Danub. 2017;29(3):361–364.

14. Bowden CL, Houston JP, Shulman RS, Clothier JM. Clinical utility of salivary lithium concentration. Int Pharmacopsychiatry. 1982;17:104–113. doi:10.1159/000468563

15. McKeage M, Maling T. Saliva lithium: a poor predictor of plasma and erythrocyte levels. N Z Med J. 1989;102(878):559–560.

16. Nataraj G, Bhat V. Reliability of saliva lithium level—a prospective study. Indian J Psychiatry. 1981;23(2):115.

17. Obach R, Borja J, Prunonosa J, et al. Lack of correlation between lith therapeutic drug monitoringium pharmacokinetic parameters obtained from plasma and saliva. Ther Drug Monit. 1988;10(3):265–268. doi:10.1097/00007691-198803000-00004

18. Valentine-Graves M, Hall E, Guest JL, et al. At-home self-collection of saliva, oropharyngeal swabs and dried blood spots for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and serology: post-collection acceptability of specimen collection process and patient confidence in specimens. PLoS One. 2020;15(8):e0236775. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236775

19. Braz-Silva PH, Mamana AC, Romano CM, et al. Performance of at-home self-collected saliva and nasal-oropharyngeal swabs in the surveillance of COVID-19. J Oral Microbiol. 2021;13(1):1858002. doi:10.1080/20002297.2020.1858002

20. Guest JL, Sullivan PS, Valentine-Graves M, et al. Suitability and sufficiency of telehealth clinician-observed, participant-collected samples for SARS-CoV-2 testing: the iCollect cohort pilot study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020;6(2):e19731. doi:10.2196/19731

21. Mahoney MC, Park E, Schlienz NJ, Duerr C, Hawk LW. Transitioning to remote clinic visits in a smoking cessation trial during the COVID-19 Pandemic: mixed methods evaluation. JMIR Form Res. 2021;5(4):e25541. doi:10.2196/25541

22. Vrouwe EX, Luttge R, Vermes I, van den Berg A. Microchip capillary electrophoresis for point-of-care analysis of lithium. Clin Chem. 2007;53(1):117–123. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2007.073726

23. Singh U, Kumbhat S. Ready to use electrochemical sensor strip for point‐of‐care monitoring of serum lithium. Electroanalysis. 2021;33(2):393–399. doi:10.1002/elan.202060393

24. Glazer WM, Sonnenberg JG, Reinstein MJ, Akers RF. A novel, point-of-care test for lithium levels: description and reliability. J Clin Psychiatry. 2004;65:652–655. doi:10.4088/JCP.v65n0508

25. Rhee TG, Olfson M, Nierenberg AA, Wilkinson ST. 20-year trends in the pharmacologic treatment of bipolar disorder by psychiatrists in outpatient care settings. Am J Psychiatry. 2020;177(8):706–715. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2020.19091000

26. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208

27. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010

28. Malhi GS, Gershon S, Outhred T. Lithiumeter: version 2.0. Bipolar Disord. 2016;18(8):631–641. doi:10.1111/bdi.12455

29. Adebiyi O, Peters E, Marcoux G, et al. A survey of Saskatchewan family physicians, psychiatrists and pharmacists assessing barriers in lithium use. J Affect Disord Rep. 2021;6:100286. doi:10.1016/j.jadr.2021.100286

30. Nederlof M, Heerdink ER, Egberts A, et al. Monitoring of patients treated with lithium for bipolar disorder: an international survey. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2018;6(1):1–9. doi:10.1186/s40345-018-0120-1

31. Souza C, Vedana KGG, BPdC M, Miasso AI. Bipolar disorder and medication: adherence, patients’ knowledge and serum monitoring of lithium carbonate. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2013;21:624–631. doi:10.1590/S0104-11692013000200021

32. Nederlof M, Egberts TC, van Londen L, et al. Compliance with the guidelines for laboratory monitoring of patients treated with lithium: a retrospective follow‐up study among ambulatory patients in the Netherlands. Bipolar Disord. 2019;21(5):419–427. doi:10.1111/bdi.12730

33. Mitchell AJ, Selmes T. Why don’t patients attend their appointments? Maintaining engagement with psychiatric services. Adv Psychiatr Treat. 2007;13(6):423–434. doi:10.1192/apt.bp.106.003202

34. Hernández-Gómez A, Andrade-González N, Lahera G, Vieta E. Recommendations for the care of patients with bipolar disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Affect Disord. 2020;275:117–121.

35. Ben-Aryeh H, Naon H, Szargel R, Gutman D, Hefetz A. Salivary lithium concentration—a tool for monitoring psychiatric patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1980;50(2):127–129. doi:10.1016/0030-4220(80)90198-X

36. Serdarević N, Kozjek F, Malešič I. Saliva and serum lithium monitoring in hospitalized patients and possibility to replace serum to saliva. Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2006;6(4):32. doi:10.17305/bjbms.2006.3191

37. Sankaranarayanan A, Goel A, Pant V. Variation in the relationship between serum and saliva lithium levels. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1985;23(7):365–366.

38. Verghese A, Indrani N, Kuruvilla K, Hill PG. Usefulness of saliva lithium estimation. Br J Psychiatry. 1977;130(2):148–150. doi:10.1192/bjp.130.2.148

39. Gomes FA, Brietzke E, Bauer M, Post RM. A call for improving lithium literacy among clinicians and patients. Int J Bipolar Disord. 2022;10(1):1–2. doi:10.1186/s40345-022-00250-y

40. Paton C, Adroer R, Barnes TR. Monitoring lithium therapy: the impact of a quality improvement programme in the UK. Bipolar Disord. 2013;15(8):865–875. doi:10.1111/bdi.12128

41. Post RM. The new news about lithium: an underutilized treatment in the United States. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018;43(5):1174–1179. doi:10.1038/npp.2017.238

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif