Background The Lithiumeter was developed as a visual and practical guide for determining lithium levels in the management of bipolar disorder ( BD ). It appears to have been well received, as evidenced by its increasing popularity amongst doctors as a deskside clinical aide, and adoption and reproduction of the schematic in clinical guidelines and texts. However, since its publication 5 years ago, key basic neuroscience and clinical research developments pertaining to lithium have significantly advanced our understanding, necessitating further refinement of guidance concerning the practicalities of lithium therapy. Methods Literature concerning the indications for, and therapeutic levels of, lithium and the associated acute and chronic risks of therapy was scrutinized as part of updating clinical practice guidelines. We have reviewed these updates and identified significant areas of change with respect to the previous Lithiumeter (version 1.0). Results Since 2011, updated clinical practice guidelines have narrowed the indicated plasma lithium concentration for maintenance therapy, suggesting that additional guidance is necessary for optimizing treatment. Relevant updated clinical guidance was integrated to constitute the Lithiumeter 2.0 , which provides a more comprehensive overview of the practical aspects of lithium therapy while maintaining a focus on optimization of lithium levels, such as differential titration of lithium depending on the current mood state. Conclusions The Lithiumeter 2.0 is an update that clinicians will find useful for their practice. By addressing some of the issues faced in clinical practice, translational clinical research will continue to inform the Lithiumeter in future updates.
This article focuses on the controversial decision to exclude the overlapping symptoms of distractibility, irritability, and psychomotor agitation (DIP) with the introduction of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) mixed features specifier. In order to understand the placement of mixed states within the current classification system, we first review the evolution of mixed states. Then, using Kraepelin's original classification of mixed states, we compare and contrast his conceptualization with modern day definitions. The DSM-5 workgroup excluded DIP symptoms, arguing that they lack the ability to differentiate between manic and depressive states; however, accumulating evidence suggests that DIP symptoms may be core features of mixed states. We suggest a return to a Kraepelinian approach to classification-with mood, ideation, and activity as key axes-and reintegration of DIP symptoms as features that are expressed across presentations. An inclusive definition of mixed states is urgently needed to resolve confusion in clinical practice and to redirect future research efforts.
Bernhard T Baune, Philip Boyce, Grace Morris, Amber Hamilton, Darryl Bassett, Malcolm Hopwood, Roger Mulder, Gordon Parker, Richard Porter, Ajeet B Singh, Tim Outhred, Pritha Das, and Gin S Malhi