Lithium use and risk of fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
This systematic review and meta-analysis summarized the results from nine eligible observational studies. Lithium use was significantly associated with a decrease risk of fractures.
The association between lithium use and risk of fracture is uncertain. To date, there have been no meta-analyses that have studied the association between the two. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of lithium medication on the risk of fracture.
A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE to include eligible observational studies. Three reviewers conducted the literature search, study selection, study appraisal, and data abstraction independently. Random effects models were used to obtain the overall estimate for meta-analysis. Cochran’s Q and Higgins’ I2 were used to assess heterogeneity. A funnel plot and Egger’s regression test were employed to assess publication bias.
Of the 3819 studies that were identified by our search strategy, eight were eligible for the systematic review, while seven of them qualified for the meta-analysis. In studies that reported risk ratio (RR) of fracture as an outcome (five studies [n = 1,134,722]), lithium use was associated with a 20% decrease in risk of fracture (RR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73–0.87; p < 0.01). A decreased risk of fracture associated with lithium was also observed in studies that adjusted for previous fractures (RR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73–0.89; p < 0.01). The decreased risk of fracture associated with lithium use remained consistent in all the analyses with different inclusion criteria. Neither significant heterogeneity nor significant publication bias was observed.
The present systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that lithium use was associated with a significant decreased risk of fracture.
KeywordsBone fracture Lithium Meta-analysis Osteoporosis Systematic review
Bone mineral density
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses
Risk ratio or relative risk
Research Electronic Data Capture
We thank X Goodman for her advice on the literature search strategy.
Sources of funding
The project was supported by the Fund of Knowledge from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Compliance with ethical standards
Role of sponsors
In the data collection, management, analysis, and interpretation and in the preparation, review, approval, and study design of the manuscript, funding sponsors were not involved.
Conflicts of interest
- 7.Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergård M et al (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8:136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11657-013-0136-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Chinese Health Promotion Society Summary statement of osteoporosis white paper China 2008. Chin J Health Manag. 2009; 3 (3:):148–154Google Scholar
- 11.Burgess S, Geddes J, Hawton K, et al (2001) Lithium for maintenance treatment of mood disorders. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD003013 . doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003013
- 25.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151(264–269):W64Google Scholar
- 27.Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analysesGoogle Scholar
- 35.Lazarus JH, Davies CJ, Woodhead JS et al (1987) Effect of lithium on the metabolic response to parathyroid hormone. Miner Electrolyte Metab 13:63–66Google Scholar
- 36.Berger C, Langsetmo L, Joseph L, Hanley DA, Davison KS, Josse RG, Prior JC, Kreiger N, Tenenhouse A, Goltzman D, the CaMos Research Group (2009) Association between change in BMD and fragility fracture in women and men. J Bone Miner Res Off J Am Soc Bone Miner Res 24:361–370. https://doi.org/10.1359/jbmr.081004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar