Aims: To systematically review the existing trials on optimal serum levels for lithium for maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder and to develop clinical recommendations.Methods: Systematic literature search. Discussion of major characteristics, limitations, methodological quality, and results of selected trials. Delphi survey consisting of clinical questions and corresponding statements. For statements endorsed by at least 80% of the members, consensus was considered as having been achieved.Results: With strict inclusion criteria no studies could be selected, making it difficult to formulate evidence‐based recommendations. After loosening the inclusion criteria 7 trials were selected addressing our aims at least to some extent. Four of these studies suggest better efficacy being associated with lithium serum levels in a range above a lower threshold around 0.45/0.60 and up to 0.80/1.00 mmol/L. These findings support the outcome of the Delphi survey.Conclusions: For adults with bipolar disorder there was consensus that the standard lithium serum level should be 0.60‐0.80 mmol/L with the option to reduce it to 0.40‐0.60 mmol/L in case of good response but poor tolerance or to increase it to 0.80‐1.00 mmol/L in case of insufficient response and good tolerance. For children and adolescents there was no consensus, but the majority of the members endorsed the same recommendation. For the elderly there was also no consensus, but the majority of the members endorsed a more conservative approach: usually 0.40‐0.60 mmol/L, with the option to go to maximally 0.70 or 0.80 mmol/L at ages 65‐79 years, and to maximally 0.70 mmol/L over age 80 years.

Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder die on average 15–20 years earlier than the general population often due to sudden death that, in most cases, is caused by cardiovascular disease. This state-of-the-art review aims to address the complex association between SMI and cardiovascular risk, explore disparities in cardiovascular care pathways, describe how to adequately predict cardiovascular outcomes, and propose targeted interventions to improve cardiovascular health in patients with SMI. These patients have an adverse cardiovascular risk factor profile due to an interplay between biological factors such as chronic inflammation, patient factors such as excessive smoking, and healthcare system factors such as stigma and discrimination. Several disparities in cardiovascular care pathways have been demonstrated in patients with SMI, resulting in a 47% lower likelihood of undergoing invasive coronary procedures and substantially lower rates of prescribed standard secondary prevention medications compared with the general population. Although early cardiovascular risk prediction is important, conventional risk prediction models do not accurately predict long-term cardiovascular outcomes as cardiovascular disease and mortality are only partly driven by traditional risk factors in this patient group. As such, SMI-specific risk prediction models and clinical tools such as the electrocardiogram and echocardiogram are necessary when assessing and managing cardiovascular risk associated with SMI. In conclusion, there is a necessity for differentiated cardiovascular care in patients with SMI. By addressing factors involved in the excess cardiovascular risk, reconsidering risk stratification approaches, and implementing multidisciplinary care models, clinicians can take steps towards improving cardiovascular health and long-term outcomes in patients with SMI.