Background/Objectives: Lurasidone ((3aR,4S,7R,7aS)-2-{(1R,2R)-2-[4-(1,2-benzisothiazol-3-yl)piperazin-1-ylmethyl]cyclohexylmethyl}hexahydro-4,7-methano-2H-isoindole-1,3-dione) is a second-generation antipsychotic approved for schizophrenia and mood disorders. Adolescents and children with bipolar disorder receive treatments that expose them to weight gain and metabolic syndrome. Lurasidone is relatively free from such side effects, so it may constitute a useful alternative for the treatment of these patients. We focused on the use of lurasidone in children and adolescents with bipolar disorder. Methods: On 11 June 2025, we used the following strategy on PubMed: lurasidone AND (“bipolar disorder” OR “bipolar depression” OR mania OR manic). We filtered for humans and ages 0–18 years and included case reports and clinical studies. Similar strategies adapted to each database were used to carry out our systematic review on CINAHL, PsycINFO/PsycARTICLES, Scopus, and the ClinicalTrials.gov register on the same date. We excluded reports without children/adolescent participants, those grouping adult participants with children/adolescents without providing data separately, reviews, and opinions/editorials with no data. Eligibility was determined through Delphi rounds; it was required that consensus was reached among all authors. We followed the PRISMA-2020 Statement. Results: Our search produced 38 results on PubMed on 11 June 2025. We included four case reports/series and five studies. One additional eligible study emerged from our Scopus inquiry, raising the number of eligible studies to six. One case series was moderately positive; one case report was neutral, another was positive, and one reported the induction of mania. The six longitudinal studies involved 16,735 participants and showed generally good efficacy. Conclusions: The use of lurasidone in adolescents/children with bipolar disorder obtains favorable results regarding the excitatory and depressive symptoms of bipolar disorder with no significant side effects.

Background/Objectives: Dopamine partial agonists are drugs initially developed to treat schizophrenia, seeking a double effect of increased dopaminergic transmission in the prefrontal cortex and decrease in the accumbens/striatum. Of these drugs, aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and cariprazine are currently marketed and used in schizophrenia spectrum and mood disorders. It is debated whether patients with psychiatric disorders becoming pregnant should discontinue or continue their antipsychotic treatment despite some risks for the fetus, i.e., whether it is worse to have an untreated disorder or treating it with drugs. The safety of drugs for mother and baby extend from pregnancy to the postpartum, when breastfeeding assumes great importance. We set to investigate the use of dopamine partial agonists in pregnancy and lactation. Methods: On 23 June 2025, we used suitable strategies for identifying cases and studies of cariprazine, aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, dopamine partial agonists in pregnancy, perinatal period, and/or lactation on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo/PsycArticles, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We used the PRISMA Statement in developing our review. We included case reports and clinical studies. We excluded reports without pregnancy or focused on other drugs than the above. We reached consensus on eligibility with Delphi rounds among all authors. Results: Our searches produced 386 results on the above databases. We included 24 case reports/series and 15 studies. Most studies showed no negative pregnancy outcomes. There were serious concerns about the use of dopamine D₂/D₃ partial agonists during lactation. Conclusions: The use of dopamine partial agonists during pregnancy appears to be safe, but during breastfeeding they should be better avoided.

Background and Objectives: Psychological resilience is increasingly recognized as a determinant of how patients respond to surgical stress, yet its role in perioperative medicine remains poorly defined. This narrative review aims to synthesize current evidence on resilience in surgical populations from a psychobiological perspective, spanning conceptual models, measurement approaches, clinical correlates, biological mechanisms, and intervention strategies. Materials and Methods: This narrative review was conducted to examine psychological resilience in adult surgical populations from an integrated psychobiological and perioperative perspective. A structured literature search was performed in December 2026 using PubMed, Scopus, and PsycInfo, combining resilience-related constructs with surgical, perioperative, biological, and clinical outcome keywords. Eligible publications included observational, longitudinal, interventional, translational, and conceptually relevant studies addressing resilience in adult surgical settings. Evidence was synthesized qualitatively across predefined domains, including conceptualization and measurement of resilience, associations with perioperative outcomes, neuroendocrine and inflammatory mechanisms, and resilience-modulating interventions within perioperative and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) frameworks. Results: Contemporary models conceptualize resilience as a dynamic, context-dependent process supported by interacting psychological, biological, and social factors. In surgical cohorts, higher resilience is consistently associated with better patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life, pain control, and emotional adjustment, and in some studies with survival and functional recovery. Preoperative depression, anxiety, maladaptive coping, and low social support converge as components of a broader “resilience profile” linked to poorer postoperative trajectories. Biologically, resilient phenotypes are characterized by more regulated hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal and autonomic responses and reduced inflammatory activation. Psychological therapies, prehabilitation programs, and selected pharmacological strategies show convergent, though heterogeneous, signals of benefit and can be interpreted as indirect resilience-enhancing interventions. Conclusions: Resilience appears to be a clinically meaningful, potentially modifiable construct that links psychosocial functioning, biological vulnerability, and postoperative outcomes. Incorporating resilience assessment into preoperative risk stratification and systematically embedding resilience-building strategies within perioperative and ERAS pathways may support more personalized, psychologically informed surgical care. Prospective, multidomain studies are needed to validate measurement tools, clarify mechanisms, and test resilience-targeted interventions in surgical populations.