The number of trials aimed at evaluating treatments for autism spectrum disorder has been increasing progressively. However, it is not clear which outcome measures should be used to assess their efficacy, especially for treatments which target core symptoms. The present review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview regarding the outcome measures used in clinical trials for people with autism spectrum disorder. We systematically searched the Web of Knowledge ^SM database between 1980 and 2016 to identify published controlled trials investigating the efficacy of interventions in autism spectrum disorder. We included 406 trials in the final database, from which a total of 327 outcome measures were identified. Only seven scales were used in more than 5% of the studies, among which only three measured core symptoms (Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Childhood Autism Rating Scale, and Social Responsiveness Scale). Of note, 69% of the tools were used in the literature only once. Our systematic review has shown that the evaluation of efficacy in intervention trials for autism spectrum disorder relies on heterogeneous and often non-specific tools for this condition. The fragmentation of tools may significantly hamper the comparisons between studies and thus the discovery of effective treatments for autism spectrum disorder. Greater consensus regarding the choice of these measures should be reached.

Background: Several neurobiological mechanisms have been proposed to support the hypothesis of a higher COVID-19 risk in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, no real-world data are available on this population. Methods: We compared the period prevalence (March–May 2020) and symptom presentation of COVID-19 infections between a sample of individuals with severe ASD (n = 36) and the staff personnel (n = 35) of two specialized centers. Anti-SARS-Cov-2 antibody positivity was used as a proxy of infection. Additionally, we evaluated vaccine side effects in the same groups. Results: No significant difference was found between the prevalence of COVID-19 positivity between autistic participants and staff personnel. Levels of antibodies against the spike protein and the receptor binding domain were not significantly different between autistic and staff participants. The level of antibodies against the N-terminal domain were higher in autistic individuals. There was a significant difference between the prevalence of symptomatic COVID-19 in autistic participants (9.1%) compared to staff personnel (92.3%). The most frequent side effect among autistic participants was light fever. Conclusions: The present study provides preliminary data on COVID-19 transmission and presentation in ASD. Our data do not support the hypothesis of a higher susceptibility and severity of COVID-19 in people with ASD.

Background: At present, there are no approved pharmacological treatments for people at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P). We sought to assess the acceptability of cannabidiol (CBD): a promising candidate treatment for this population. Methods: CHR-P individuals completed a survey which assessed their views on the acceptability of CBD, its expected effectiveness and side effects, and on formulation preferences. Results: The sample comprised 55 CHR-P individuals (24.3 years and 69% female). Most (91%) were familiar with CBD, and had previously used cannabis (64%), and around half (42%) had tried over-the-counter CBD. 75% were willing to take CBD as an intervention for mental health problems. Most participants anticipated fewer side effects with CBD than with existing medications, and preferred tablet or capsule formulations over liquids. Discussion: CBD is perceived as a highly acceptable treatment among CHR-P individuals.

Introduction: Suicidal ideation and behaviors (SIB) are common among individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR‐P), but their relationship with the overall clinical profile remains unclear. This study aimed to identify sociodemographic/clinical factors associated with SIB in CHR‐P individuals and to examine whether subthreshold psychotic symptom severity increases with suicidal risk. Methods: Data from the AMP SCZ initiative included 1443 CHR‐P participants aged 12–30 years. SIB were assessed using the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C‐SSRS). Three Elastic Net regression models examined associations between suicidal ideation severity, intensity, and behaviors using 54 variables spanning sociodemographics, general psychopathology, subthreshold psychotic symptoms, and socio‐occupational functioning. Moreover, ANCOVA compared overall psychotic symptom severity across five groups defined by increasing severity on the C‐SSRS. Results: Sixty‐eight percent of participants reported lifetime suicidal ideation, and 26% reported previous suicidal behaviors. Model performance was modest but significant (cross‐validated ideation severity: R ² = 0.161, RMSE = 0.916; ideation intensity: R ² = 0.193, RMSE = 0.898; suicidal behavior: accuracy = 0.685; AUC = 0.675; p < 0.001). Across all models, concurrent depressive symptoms, present/past diagnosis of depression, female sex at birth, cannabis use, visual/gustatory abnormalities, guilt, and lower role functioning were the most consistent correlates of SIB. Ideation was associated with lower disorganized communication expression and lower negative symptoms, whereas behaviors were associated with schizotypal personality disorder. Other core CHR‐P symptoms, including Unusual Thoughts and Experiences, did not contribute to any model. ANCOVA ( p < 0.001, partial η ² = 0.041) indicated increasing overall subthreshold psychotic symptoms across the SIB spectrum. Conclusion: SIB in CHR‐P individuals reflects a multidimensional clinical profile primarily outside of core psychosis‐risk symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05905003