Background: The gut–brain axis (GBA) has been demonstrated to be involved in normal neurodevelopment, with its dysfunction potentially contributing to the onset of mental disorders. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to examine the relationship between levels of specific biomarkers of intestinal permeability or inflammation and scores of depressive symptoms or suicidality. Methods: All studies investigating the link between depressive symptoms and/or suicidality and biomarkers associated with intestinal permeability or inflammation were included. Studies providing data for comparisons between two groups—depressive or suicidal patients vs. healthy controls, or suicidal vs. non-suicidal patients—were included in the meta-analysis. Studies examining the correlation between depressive symptoms and biomarker levels were also included into the review. Data were independently extracted and reviewed by multiple observers. A random-effects model was employed for the analysis, and Hedge’s g was pooled for the effect size. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² index. Results: Twenty-two studies provided data for inclusion in the meta-analysis, while nineteen studies investigated the correlation between depressive symptoms and biomarker levels. For depressive symptoms, when compared to the controls, patients showed significantly increased levels of intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP) (ES = 0.36; 95% CI = 0.11 to 0.61; p = 0.004; I² = 71.61%), zonulin (ES = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.02 to 1.36; p = 0.044; I² = 92.12%), antibodies against bacterial endotoxins (ES = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.54 to 0.98; p < 0.001; I² = 0.00%), and sCD14 (ES = 0.11; 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.21; p = 0.038; I² = 10.28%). No significant differences were found between the patients and controls in levels of LPS-binding protein (LBP) and alpha-1 antitrypsin (A-1-AT). For suicidality, four studies were identified for quantitative analysis, three of which focused on I-FABP. No significant differences in I-FABP levels were observed between suicidal patients and the controls (ES = 0.24; 95% CI = −0.30 to 0.79; p = 0.378; I² = 86.44%). Studies investigating the correlation between depressive symptoms and levels of intestinal permeability and inflammation biomarkers did not provide conclusive results. Conclusions: A significant difference was observed between patients with depressive symptoms and controls for biomarkers of intestinal permeability (zonulin, which regulates tight junctions), inflammatory response to bacterial endotoxins (antibodies to endotoxins and sCD14—a soluble form of the CD14 protein that modulates inflammation triggered by lipopolysaccharides), and acute intestinal epithelial damage (I-FABP, released upon enterocyte injury). Studies investigating suicidality and related biomarkers were limited in number and scope, preventing definitive conclusions. Overall, these findings suggest that biomarkers of gut permeability represent a promising area for further investigation in both psychiatric and forensic pathology. They may have practical applications, such as supporting diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making in clinical settings and providing pathologists with additional information to help determine the manner of death in forensic investigations.

Background: Mental capacity is a fundamental aspect that enables patients to fully participate in various healthcare procedures. To assist healthcare professionals (HCPs) in assessing patients’ capacity, especially in the mental health field, several standardized tools have been developed. These tools include the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T), the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR), and the Competence Assessment Tool for Psychiatric Advance Directives (CAT-PAD). The core dimensions explored by these tools include Understanding, Appreciation, Reasoning, and Expression of a choice. Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to investigate potential differences in decision-making capacity within the healthcare context among groups of patients with bipolar disorders (BD) and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD). Methods: A systematic search was conducted on Medline/Pubmed, and Scopus. Additionally, Google Scholar was manually inspected, and a manual search of emerging reviews and reference lists of the retrieved papers was performed. Eligible studies were specifically cross-sectional, utilizing standardized assessment tools, and involving patients diagnosed with BD and SSD. Data from the studies were independently extracted and pooled using random-effect models. Hedges’ g was used as a measure for outcomes. Results: Six studies were identified, with three studies using the MacCAT-CR, two studies the MacCAT-T, and one the CAT-PAD. The participants included 189 individuals with BD and 324 individuals with SSD. The meta-analysis revealed that patients with BD performed slightly better compared to patients with SSD, with the difference being statistically significant in the domain of Appreciation (ES = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.04, p = 0.037). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for Understanding (ES = 0.09, 95% CI:−0.10 to 0.27, p = 0.352), Reasoning (ES = 0.18, 95% CI: −0.12 to 0.47, p = 0.074), and Expression of a choice (ES = 0.23, 95% CI: −0.01 to 0.48, p = 0.60). In the sensitivity analysis, furthermore, when considering only studies involving patients in symptomatic remission, the difference for Appreciation also resulted in non-significant (ES = 0.21, 95% CI: −0.04 to 0.46, p = 0.102). Conclusions: These findings indicate that there are no significant differences between patients with BD and SSD during remission phases, while differences are minimal during acute phases. The usefulness of standardized assessment of capacity at any stage of the illness should be considered, both for diagnostic-therapeutic phases and for research and advance directives. Further studies are necessary to understand the reasons for the overlap in capacity between the two diagnostic categories compared in this study.

Background: This article presents an international comparative review of involuntary psychiatric care, Community Treatment Orders (CTOs), and forensic mental health services, with operational implications for Italy. Italy has a community-based model inspired by the “Basaglia Law” (Law No. 180/1978), emphasizing deinstitutionalization and continuity of care. Nevertheless, risk governance gaps persist for high-complexity patients, imposing a disproportionate legal and clinical burden on mental health professionals. This group includes individuals who refuse treatment despite meeting criteria for compulsory admission, patients at elevated risk with substantial management complexity, and offenders with a current or suspected psychiatric disorder. Methods: We conducted a comparative legal and policy review across seven jurisdictions (Italy, England and Wales (UK), France, Germany, Spain, the United States, and Canada) to map frameworks for involuntary treatment, forensic services, CTOs (or equivalents), and community-based risk management. We also extracted procedural safeguards, duration and renewal limits, and interfaces with forensic services. Results: CTOs are available in five of the seven jurisdictions (England and Wales, France, Spain, the United States, and Canada) but are absent in Italy and Germany. We propose a three-pillar framework: (1) enforceable outpatient measures, including CTOs; (2) Forensic Psychiatry Units within Local Health Authorities; and (3) oversight boards with judicial, clinical, and social representatives. These components aim to redistribute responsibility, ensure continuity of care, and provide proportional oversight within a least restrictive, graduated system. Conclusions: When narrowly targeted, time limited, and paired with robust safeguards and service-quality standards, CTOs can support adherence and continuity for patients who repeatedly disengage from care. For Italy, integrating this instrument within the three-pillar framework and under independent oversight could strengthen patient rights and public safety, reduce revolving-door admissions, and improve outcomes.

Background: Mental capacity is a fundamental aspect that enables patients to fully par-ticipate in various healthcare procedures. To assist healthcare professionals (HCPs) in assessing patients' capacity, especially in the mental health field, several standardized tools have been developed. These tools include the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T), the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR), and the Competence Assessment Tool for Psychiatric Advance Directives (CAT-PAD). The core dimensions explored by these tools include Understanding, Appreciation, Reasoning, and Expression of a choice. Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to investigate potential differences in deci-sion-making capacity within the healthcare context among groups of patients with bi-polar disorder (BD) and schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD). Methods: A systematic search was conducted on Medline/Pubmed, and Scopus. Addi-tionally, Google Scholar was manually inspected, and a manual search of emerging re-views and reference lists of the retrieved papers was performed. Eligible studies were specifically cross-sectional, utilizing standardized assessment tools, and involving pa-tients diagnosed with BD and SSD. Data from the studies were independently extracted and pooled using random-effect models. Hedges g was used as a measure for outcomes. Results: Six studies were identified, with three studies using the MacCAT-CR, two studies the MacCAT-T, and one the CAT-PAD. The participants included 189 individuals with BD and 324 individuals with SSD. The meta-analysis revealed that patients with BD performed slightly better, and the difference was statistically significant, compared to patients with SSD, particularly in the domain of Appreciation (ES=0.23, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.04, p=0.037). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for Understanding (ES=0.09, 95% CI: - 0.10 to 0.27, p=0.352), Reasoning (ES=0.18, 95% CI: - 0.12 to 0.47, p=0.074), and Expression of a choice (ES = 0.23, 95% CI: - 0.01 to 0.48, p=0.60). In the sensitivity analysis, furthermore, when considering only studies involving patients in symptomatic remission, the difference for Appreciation also resulted in non-significant (ES=0.21, 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.46, p=0.102). (ES=0.21, 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.46, p=0.102). Conclusions: These findings indicate that there are no significant differences between patients with BD and SSD during remission phases, while differences are minimal during acute phases. The usefulness of standardized assessment of capacity at any stage of the illness should be considered, both for diagnostic-therapeutic phases and for research and advance directives. Further studies are necessary to understand the reasons for the overlap in capacity between the two diagnostic categories compared in this study.