This story is about a study on the frequency of different side effects of four drugs used in the treatment of bipolar disorders. The researchers conclude that lithium should be used more widely, given its lower rate of side effects.
The story notes that lithium is documented by other studies to lower the risk of suicide, something that few treatments do in people with bipolar disorders–and a significant advantage given the substantial suicide risk in this group. It also notes that some of the drug’s bad reputation likely stemmed from the higher doses used in decades past and subsequent more side effects.
All in all, the story hit many of the important points in explaining the findings, though we wanted to see some discussion on the limitations of this kind of research, as well as costs of the drugs.
Bipolar disorder, previously known as manic depressive disorder, is relatively common with a lifetime prevalence of about 3% in general population. Understanding the side effect profile of the drugs used to treat this disease, along with their relative effectiveness in reducing the burden of disease, are both essential in identifying the best treatment options for people. Unfortunately, comparative effectiveness studies are uncommon, but those that have been done have shown that the newer drugs are not better than lithium in terms of effectiveness. This study adds the important finding that lithium’s side effects are also not as burdensome as thought. It’s vital that this new information is conveyed accurately to the public.
The story did not address costs. Because this ran in the U.S. edition of The Guardian, this is important and useful information for readers stateside, who often have substantial out-of-pocket drug costs.
The research examined the side effect profiles of lithium, valproate, olanzapine, and quetiapine and provided hazard ratios for the most commonly recognized side effects.
The Guardian story reflects those findings in a qualitative way with some quantitative details, such as: “Meanwhile, lithium patients were less likely to put on weight than patients on the other drugs. While 15%-20% of those on the three other drugs were more likely to gain more than 15% of their body weight, just 10% of those on lithium put on the same amount of extra pounds.”
The story does a reasonable job in outlining the side effects seen with the four drugs in question and provides them in context.
The reader is told: “The researchers studied a nationally representative sample of 6,671 patients across the UK who were treated for bipolar disorder between 1995 and 2013. Of those, 2,148 had taken lithium, 1,670 had used valproate, 1,477 had been on olanzapine and 1,376 had taken quetiapine. They experienced side-effects including chronic kidney disease, thyroid disease, weight gain and high blood pressure.”
These are important details, but we also wanted to see some nod to the caveats of the study, which were noted by the researchers in their paper in the “strengths and limitations” section.
There is no evidence of disease mongering. Given the seriousness of the disorder and its prevalence, we would have liked to have seen read more on how many people it affects.
Although the majority of the quotes come from a senior author of the research, the comments of Stephen Buckley, head of information at the charity Mind were welcomed and provided an important second voice. A few words from other clinicians would have been a bonus.
The research examined the side effect profiles of the most commonly used drugs to treat bipolar disorder, it also discusses “talk therapy” (but not until the end of the story).
The story makes it clear that the four drugs studied are indeed available.
The story begins with: The new study is the first to compare the side-effects of the four main mood-stabilising drugs prescribed by the NHS.” Based on our review of the medical literature, we agree.
The story does not appear to rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.