BackgroundSerotonin syndrome is a toxic state, caused by serotonin (5HT) excess in the central nervous system. Serotonin syndrome’s main feature is neuro-muscular hyperexcitability, which in many cases is mild but in some cases can become life-threatening. The diagnosis of serotonin syndrome remains challenging since it can only be made on clinical grounds. Three diagnostic criteria systems, Sternbach, Radomski and Hunter classifications, are available. Here we test the validity of four assumptions that have become widely accepted: (1) The Hunter classification performs clinically better than the Sternbach and Radomski criteria; (2) in contrast to neuroleptic malignant syndrome, the onset of serotonin syndrome is usually rapid; (3) hyperthermia is a hallmark of severe serotonin syndrome; and (4) serotonin syndrome can readily be distinguished from neuroleptic malignant syndrome on clinical grounds and on the basis of medication history.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of all cases of serotonin syndrome and toxicity published between 2004 and 2014, using PubMed and Web of Science.ResultsTwo of the four assumptions (1 and 2) are based on only one published study each and have not been independently validated. There is little agreement between current criteria systems for the diagnosis of serotonin syndrome. Although frequently thought to be the gold standard for the diagnosis of the serotonin syndrome, the Hunter criteria did not perform better than the Sternbach and Radomski criteria. Not all cases seem to be of rapid onset and only relatively few cases may present with hyperthermia. The 0 differential diagnosis between serotonin syndrome and neuroleptic malignant syndrome is not always clear-cut.ConclusionsOur findings challenge four commonly made assumptions about serotonin syndrome. We propose our meta-analysis of cases (MAC) method as a new way to systematically pool and interpret anecdotal but important clinical information concerning uncommon or emergent phenomena that cannot be captured in any other way but through case reports.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12883-016-0616-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

When prescribing lithium, the risk of toxicity remains a concern. In this study, we examined a cohort of patients exposed to lithium between 1997 and 2013. The aims of this study were to determine the frequency of lithium intoxication and to evaluate the clinical course and changes in renal function. Of 1340 patients, 96 had experienced at least one episode of lithium levels ⩾1.5 mmol/L, yielding an incidence of 0.01 per patient-year. Seventy-seven patients available for review had experienced 91 episodes, of whom 34% required intensive care and 13% were treated with haemodialysis. There were no fatalities. Acute kidney injury occurred, but renal function at baseline was not different to renal function after the episode. Renal impairment was often associated with co-morbidities and other factors. Both intermittent and continuous-venovenous haemodialysis were used, but the clearance of continuous-venovenous haemodialysis can be too low in cases where large amounts of lithium have been ingested. Saline and forced diuresis have been used and are safe. Lithium intoxication seems rare and can be safely managed in most cases. Physicians should not withhold lithium for fear of intoxication in patients who benefit from it. Yet, physicians should have a low threshold to screen for toxicity.

BackgroundLithium remains first choice as maintenance treatment for bipolar affective disorder. Yet, about half of all individuals may stop their treatment at some point, despite lithium’s proven benefits concerning the prevention of severe affective episodes and suicide.MethodsRetrospective cohort study in the Swedish region of Norrbotten into the causes of lithium discontinuation. The study was set up to (1) test whether patients with bipolar affective disorder or schizoaffective disorder, treated with lithium maintenance therapy, were more likely to discontinue lithium because of adverse effects than lack of therapeutic effectiveness, (2) explore gender differences, (3) understand the role of diagnosis and (4) identify who, patient or doctor, took the initiative to stop lithium. Review of medical records for all episodes of lithium discontinuation that had occurred between 1997 and 2013 with the intent to stop lithium for good.ResultsOf 873 patients treated with lithium, 54% discontinued lithium, corresponding to 561 episodes of lithium discontinuation. In 62% of episodes, lithium was discontinued due to adverse effects, in 44% due to psychiatric reasons, and in 12% due to physical reasons interfering with lithium treatment. The five single most common adverse effects leading to lithium discontinuation were diarrhoea (13%), tremor (11%), polyuria/polydipsia/diabetes insipidus (9%), creatinine increase (9%) and weight gain (7%). Women were as likely as men to take the initiative to stop lithium, but twice as likely to consult a doctor before taking action (p < 0.01). Patients with type 1 BPAD or SZD were more likely to discontinue lithium than patients with type 2 or unspecified BPAD (p < 0.01). Patients with type 1 BPAD or SZD were more likely to refuse medication (p < 0.01). Conversely, patients with type 2 or unspecified BPAD were three times as likely to discontinue lithium for lack or perceived lack of effectiveness (p < 0.001).ConclusionsStopping lithium treatment is common and occurs mostly due to adverse effects. It is important to discuss potential adverse effects with patients before initiation and continuously during lithium treatment, to reduce the frequency of potentially unnecessary discontinuations.

Objective To establish whether lithium or anticonvulsant should be used for maintenance treatment for bipolar affective disorder (BPAD) if the risks of suicide and relapse were traded off against the risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Method Decision analysis based on a systematic literature review with two main decisions: (1) use of lithium or at treatment initiation and (2) the potential discontinuation of lithium in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) after 20 years of lithium treatment. The final endpoint was 30 years of treatment with five outcomes to consider: death from suicide, alive with stable or unstable BPAD, alive with or without ESRD. Results At the start of treatment, the model identified lithium as the treatment of choice. The risks of developing CKD or ESRD were not relevant at the starting point. Twenty years into treatment, lithium still remained treatment of choice. If CKD had occurred at this point, stopping lithium would only be an option if the likelihood of progression to ESRD exceeded 41.3% or if anticonvulsants always outperformed lithium regarding relapse prevention. Conclusion At the current state of knowledge, lithium initiation and continuation even in the presence of long-term adverse renal effects should be recommended in most cases.

Wernicke’s encephalopathy (WE) is an acute neuropsychiatric state. Untreated, WE can lead to coma or death, or progress to Korsakoff syndrome (KS) – a dementia characterized by irreversible loss of anterograde memory. Thiamine (vitamin B1) deficiency lies at the heart of this condition. Yet, our understanding of thiamine regarding prophylaxis and treatment of WE remains limited. This may contribute to the current undertreatment of WE in clinical practice. The overall aim of this review is to identify the best strategies for prophylaxis and treatment of WE in regard to (a) dose of thiamine, (b) mode of administration, (c) timing of switch from one mode of administration to another, (d) duration of administration, and (e) use of magnesium along thiamine as an essential cofactor. Evidence from randomized controlled trials and other intervention studies is virtually absent. Therefore, we have to resort to basic science for proof of principle instead. Here, we present the first part of our clinical review, in which we explore the physiology of thiamine and the pathophysiology of thiamine deficiency. We first explore both of these in their historical context. We then review the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of thiamine, exploring the roles of the six currently known thiamine compounds, their transporters, and target enzymes. We also explore the significance of magnesium as a cofactor in thiamine-facilitated enzymatic reactions and thiamine transport. In the second (forthcoming) part of this review, we will use the findings of the current review to make evidence-based inferences about strategies for prophylaxis and treatment of WE.