Evaluation of thyroid function monitoring in people treated with lithium: Advice based on real-world data.

INTRODUCTION: Blood test monitoring is essential for the management of lithium treatment and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance recommends 6-monthly serum testing of thyroid function. We examined conformity to these guidelines and the impact of monitoring outside these intervals. METHODS: We extracted serum lithium and thyroid hormone results at one centre between January 2009 and December 2020. We identified 266 patients who started lithium during this period with no history of thyroid abnormality within the previous 2 years and were at risk of developing thyroid abnormalities. We examined the interval between tests, time between onset of lithium testing and first thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) outside the laboratory reference range and assessed impact of testing outside recommended 6-monthly intervals. RESULTS: The most common testing frequency was 3 months (±1 month), accounting for 17.3% of test intervals. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that most thyroid dysfunction manifests within 3 years (proportion with abnormal TSH at 3 years = 91.4%, 19.9% of total patients). In the first 3 months after commencing lithium therapy, eight patients developed subclinical hypothyroidism and had clinical follow-up data available. Of these, half spontaneously normalized without clinical intervention. In the remaining patients, thyroxine replacement was only initiated after multiple occasions of subclinical hypothyroidism (median = 2 years after initiating lithium, range: 6 months to 3 years). CONCLUSION: The peak interval at 3 months suggests that thyroid function is frequently checked at the same time as serum lithium, indicating too frequent testing. Our data support the recommended 6-monthly testing interval and highlight poor adherence to it.

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 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.

Serum lithium test requesting across three UK regions: an evaluation of adherence to monitoring guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder is the fourth most common mental health condition, affecting ~ 1% of UK adults. Lithium is an effective treatment for prevention of relapse and hospital admission, and is widely recommended as a first-line treatment. We previously showed in other areas that laboratory testing patterns are variable with sub-optimal conformity to guidance. We therefore examined lithium results and requesting patterns relative to monitoring recommendations. METHODS: Data on serum lithium levels and intervals between requests were extracted from Clinical Biochemistry laboratory information systems at the University Hospitals of North Midlands, Salford Royal Foundation Trust and Pennine Acute Hospitals from 2012 to 2018 (46,555 requests; 3371 individuals). Data were examined with respect to region/source of request, age and sex. RESULTS: Across all sites, lithium levels on many requests were outside the recommended UK therapeutic range (0.4-0.99 mmol/L); 19.2% below the range and 6.1% above the range (median [Li]: 0.60 mmol/L). A small percentage were found at the extremes (3.2% at < 0.1 mmol/L, 1.0% at ≥1.4 mmol/L). Most requests were from general practice (56.3%) or mental health units (34.4%), though those in the toxic range (≥1.4 mmol/L) were more likely to be from secondary care (63.9%). For requesting intervals, there was a distinct peak at 12 weeks, consistent with guidance for those stabilised on lithium therapy. There was no peak at 6 months, as recommended for those aged < 65 years on unchanging therapy, though re-test intervals in this age group were more likely to be longer. There was a peak at 0-7 days, reflecting those requiring closer monitoring (e.g. treatment initiation, toxicity). However, for those with initial lithium concentrations within the BNF range (0.4-0.99 mmol/L), 69.4% of tests were requested outside expected testing frequencies. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed: (a) lithium levels are often maintained at the lower end of the recommended therapeutic range, (b) patterns of lithium results and testing frequency were comparable across three UK sites with differing models of care and, (c) re-test intervals demonstrate a noticeable peak at the recommended 3-monthly, but not at 6-monthly intervals. Many tests were repeated outside expected frequencies, indicating the need for measures to minimise inappropriate testing.