Safety and efficacy of lithium in combination with riluzole for treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Open accessAbstract
Background In a pilot study, lithium treatment slowed progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). We aimed to confirm or disprove these findings by assessing the safety and efficacy of lithium in combination with riluzole in patients with ALS.Methods We did a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with a time-to-event design. Between January and June, 2009, patients with ALS who were taking a stable dose of riluzole for at least 30 days were randomly assigned (1:1) by a centralised computer to receive either lithium or placebo. Patients, caregivers, investigators, and all site study staff with the exception of site pharmacists were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the time to an event, defined as a decrease of at least six points on the revised ALS functional rating scale score or death. Interim analyses were planned for when 84 patients had been allocated treatment, 6 months later or after 55 events, and after 100 events. Analysis was by intention to treat. The stopping boundary for futility at the first interim analysis was a p value of at least 0.68. We used a log-rank test to compare the distributions of the time to an event between the lithium and placebo groups. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00818389.Findings At the first interim analysis, 22 of 40 patients in the lithium group had an event compared with 20 of 44 patients in the placebo group (log rank p=0.51). The hazard ratio of reaching the primary endpoint was 1.13 (95% CI 0.61-2.07). The study was stopped at the first interim analysis because criterion for futility was met (p=0.78). The difference in mean decline in the ALS functional rating scale score between the lithium group and the placebo group was 0.15 (95% CI -0.43 to 0.73, p=0.61). There were no major safety concerns. Falls (p=0.04) and back pain (p=0.05) were more common in the lithium group than in the placebo group.Interpretation We found no evidence that lithium in combination with riluzole slows progression of ALS more than riluzole alone. The time-to-event endpoint and use of prespecified interim analyses enabled a clear result to be obtained rapidly. This design should be considered for future trials testing the therapeutic efficacy of drugs that are easily accessible to people with ALS.Funding National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, ALS Association, and ALS Society of Canada.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Despite early enthusiasm over lithium in patients and mouse models, five subsequent trials showed no clinical benefit in survival or neuromuscular outcomes for ALS patients.
“Despite early enthusiasm over lithium in patients and mouse models [505,506], five subsequent trials showed no clinical benefit in survival or neuromuscular outcomes for ALS patients [507–511].”
From Autophagy and ALS: mechanistic insights and therapeutic implications (2022) · cites this paper as [507]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 26 · Cited by 195
- Authors
- Aggarwal, S. P., Zinman, L., Simpson, E., McKinley, J., Jackson, K. E., Pinto, H., Kaufman, P., Conwit, R. A., Schoenfeld, D., Shefner, J., & Cudkowicz, M.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- SUNY Upstate Medical University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Aggarwal, Swati P
- Venue
- The Lancet Neurology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-05
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 481-488
- ISSN
- 1474-4422 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3071495
- OpenAlex
- W2013284164
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 14.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- The Lancet Neurology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Association
- ALS Society of Canada
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Amyloidosis: Diagnosis, Treatment, Outcomes
- Keywords
- amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, lithium, riluzole, disease progression, ALS Functional Rating Scale, drug safety, falls, back pain, interim analysis, combination therapy, neurodegenerative disease treatment, time-to-event outcomes, hazard ratio, treatment safety
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Double-Blind Method, Drug Therapy, Combination, Humans, Lithium, Male, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Treatment Outcome, Medical Futility, Disease Progression, Patient Selection, Riluzole, Intention to Treat Analysis, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review