COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March 2020, resulting in many countries worldwide calling for lockdowns. This study aimed to review the existing literature on the effects of the lockdown measures established as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of children and adolescents. Embase, Ovid, Global Health, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and pre-print databases were searched in this PRISMA-compliant systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42021225604). We included individual studies reporting on a wide range of mental health outcomes, including risk and protective factors, conducted in children and adolescents (aged ≤ 19 years), exposed to COVID-19 lockdown. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by independent researchers, and results were synthesised by core themes. 61 articles with 54,999 children and adolescents were included (mean age = 11.3 years, 49.7% female). Anxiety symptoms and depression symptoms were common in the included studies and ranged 1.8–49.5% and 2.2–63.8%, respectively. Irritability (range = 16.7–73.2%) and anger (range = 30.0–51.3%), were also frequently reported by children and adolescents. Special needs and the presence of mental disorders before the lockdown, alongside excessive media exposure, were significant risk factors for anxiety. Parent–child communication was protective for anxiety and depression. The COVID-19 lockdown has resulted in psychological distress and highlighted vulnerable groups such as those with previous or current mental health difficulties. Supporting the mental health needs of children and adolescents at risk is key. Clinical guidelines to alleviate the negative effects of COVID-19 lockdown and public health strategies to support this population need to be developed.

Background: Catatonic features can appear in autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). There can be overlap in symptoms across catatonia and ASD. The overall aim of this review is to provide evidence for the presence of catatonic features in subjects with ASD.Methods: A systematic literature search using the Web of Science database from inception to July 10, 2021 was conducted following PRISMA, MOOSE guidelines and the PROSPERO protocol. (CRD42021248615). Twelve studies with information about catatonia and ASD were reviewed. Data from a subset was used to conduct meta-analyses of the presence of catatonia in ASD.Results: The systematic review included 12 studies, seven of which were used for the meta-analysis, comprising 969 individuals. The mean age was 21.25 (7.5) years. Two studies (16.6%) included only children and adolescents. A total of 70–100% were males. Our meta-analysis showed that 10.4% (5.8–18.0 95%CI) of individuals with ASD have catatonia. Motor disturbances were common in ASD subjects with catatonia. No differences were found in comorbidity. Several treatments have been used in ASD with catatonic features, including benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The findings of the systematic review showed that ECT might help manage catatonic symptoms.Conclusions: Different features of catatonia can exist in individuals with ASD and core symptoms of catatonia are reported in ASD. Longitudinal and longer-term studies are required to understand the relationship between catatonia and ASD, and the response of catatonic symptoms to treatment.

Comorbid mental disorders in subjects at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) may impact preventive care. We conducted a PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic meta-analysis, searching PubMed/PsycInfo up to June 21st, 2021 for observational studies/randomized controlled trials reporting on comorbid DSM/ICD-mental disorders in CHR-P subjects (protocol). The primary and secondary outcomes were baseline and follow-up prevalence of comorbid mental disorders. We also explored the association of comorbid mental disorders compared with CHR-P versus psychotic/non-psychotic control groups, their impact on baseline functioning and transition to psychosis. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression, and assessed heterogeneity/publication bias/quality (Newcastle Ottawa Scale, NOS). We included 312 studies (largest meta-analyzed sample = 7834, any anxiety disorder, mean age = 19.98 (3.40), females = 43.88%, overall NOS > 6 in 77.6% of studies). The prevalence was 0.78 (95% CI = 0.73–0.82, k = 29) for any comorbid non-psychotic mental disorder, 0.60 (95% CI = 0.36–0.84, k = 3) for anxiety/mood disorders, 0.44 (95% CI = 0.39–0.49, k = 48) for any mood disorders, 0.38 (95% CI = 0.33–0.42, k = 50) for any depressive disorder/episode, 0.34 (95% CI = 0.30–0.38, k = 69) for any anxiety disorder, 0.30 (95% CI 0.25–0.35, k = 35) for major depressive disorders, 0.29 (95% CI, 0.08–0.51, k = 3) for any trauma-related disorder, 0.23 (95% CI = 0.17–0.28, k = 24) for any personality disorder, and 50% in 71.01% estimates). The prevalence of any comorbid mental disorder decreased over time (0.51, 95% CI = 0.25–0.77 over 96 months), except any substance use which increased (0.19, 95% CI = 0.00–0.39, k = 2, >96 months). Compared with controls, the CHR-P status was associated with a higher prevalence of anxiety, schizotypal personality, panic, and alcohol use disorders (OR from 2.90 to 1.54 versus without psychosis), a higher prevalence of anxiety/mood disorders (OR = 9.30 to 2.02) and lower prevalence of any substance use disorder (OR = 0.41, versus psychosis). Higher baseline prevalence of alcohol use disorder/schizotypal personality disorder was negatively associated with baseline functioning (beta from −0.40 to −0.15), while dysthymic disorder/generalized anxiety disorder with higher functioning (beta 0.59 to 1.49). Higher baseline prevalence of any mood disorder/generalized anxiety disorder/agoraphobia (beta from −2.39 to −0.27) was negatively associated with transition to psychosis. In conclusion, over three-quarters of CHR-P subjects have comorbid mental disorders, which modulate baseline functionig and transition to psychosis. Transdiagnostic mental health assessment should be warranted in subjects at CHR-P.

Emotional dysregulation and irritability are common in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We conducted the first meta-analysis assessing the efficacy of a broad range of pharmacological interventions for emotional dysregulation and irritability in ASD and predictors of response. Following a preregistered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42021235779), we systematically searched multiple databases until January 1, 2021. We included placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and evaluated the efficacy of pharmacological interventions and predictors of response for emotional dysregulation and irritability. We assessed heterogeneity using Q statistics and publication bias. We conducted subanalyses and meta-regressions to identify predictors of response. The primary effect size was the standardized mean difference. Quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB2). A total of 2,856 individuals with ASD in 45 studies were included, among which 26.7% of RCTs had a high risk of bias. Compared to placebo, antipsychotics (standardized mean difference = 1.028, 95% CI = 0.824-1.232) and medications used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (0.471, 0.061-0.881) were significantly better than placebo in improving emotional dysregulation and irritability, whereas evidence of efficacy was not found for other drug classes (p > .05). Within individual medications, evidence of efficacy was found for aripiprazole (1.179, 0.838-1.520) and risperidone (1.074, 0.818-1.331). Increased rates of comorbid epilepsy (β = -0.049, p = .026) were associated with a lower efficacy. Some pharmacological interventions (particularly risperidone and aripiprazole) have proved efficacy for short-term treatment of emotional dysregulation and irritability in ASD and should be considered within a multimodal treatment plan, taking into account also the tolerability profile and families' preferences.

(1) The consistency and magnitude of the prevalence of Clinical High-Risk for Psychosis (CHR-P) individuals are undetermined, limiting efficient detection of cases. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of CHR-P individuals systematically assessed in the general population or clinical samples. (2) PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant (PROSPERO: CRD42020168672) meta-analysis of multiple databases until 21/01/21: a random-effects model meta-analysis, heterogeneity analysis, publication bias and quality assessment, sensitivity analysis—according to the gold-standard CHR-P and pre-screening instruments—leave-one-study-out analyses, and meta-regressions were conducted. (3) 35 studies were included, with 37,135 individuals tested and 1554 CHR-P individuals identified (median age = 19.3 years, Interquartile range (IQR) = 15.8–22.1; 52.2% females, IQR = 38.7–64.4). In the general population (k = 13, n = 26,835 individuals evaluated), the prevalence of the CHR-P state was 1.7% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.0–2.9%). In clinical samples (k = 22, n = 10,300 individuals evaluated), the prevalence of the CHR-P state was 19.2% (95% CI = 12.9–27.7%). Using a pre-screening instrument was associated with false negatives (5.6%, 95% CI = 2.2–13.3%) and a lower CHR-P prevalence (11.5%, 95% CI = 6.2–20.5%) compared to using CHR-P instruments only (28.5%, 95% CI = 23.0–34.7%, p = 0.003). (4) The prevalence of the CHR-P state is low in the general population and ten times higher in clinical samples. The prevalence of CHR-P may increase with a higher proportion of females in the general population and with a younger population in clinical samples. The CHR-P state may be unrecognized in routine clinical practice. These findings can refine detection and preventive strategies.