Cognitive impairment (CI) is one of the most prevalent and burdensome consequences of COVID-19 infection, which can persist up to months or even years after remission of the infection. Current guidelines on post-COVID CI are based on available knowledge on treatments used for improving CI in other conditions. The current review aims to provide an updated overview of the existing evidence on the efficacy of treatments for post-COVID CI.

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies published up to December 2023 using three databases (PubMed–Scopus–ProQuest). Controlled and noncontrolled trials, cohort studies, case series, and reports testing interventions on subjects with CI following COVID-19 infection were included.

After screening 7790 articles, 29 studies were included. Multidisciplinary approaches, particularly those combining cognitive remediation interventions, physical exercise, and dietary and sleep support, may improve CI and address the different needs of individuals with post-COVID-19 condition. Cognitive remediation interventions can provide a safe, cost-effective option and may be tailored to deficits in specific cognitive domains. Noninvasive brain stimulation techniques and hyperbaric oxygen therapy showed mixed and preliminary results. Evidence for other interventions, including pharmacological ones, remains sparse. Challenges in interpreting existing evidence include heterogeneity in study designs, assessment tools, and recruitment criteria; lack of long-term follow-up; and under-characterization of samples in relation to confounding factors.

Further research, grounded on shared definitions of the post-COVID condition and on the accurate assessment of COVID-related CI, in well-defined study samples and with longer follow-ups, is crucial to address this significant unmet need.

Codes of ethics provide guidance to address ethical challenges encountered in clinical practice. The harmonization of global, regional, and national codes of ethics is important to avoid gaps and discrepancies.

We compare the European Psychiatric Association (EPA) and the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) Codes of Ethics, addressing main key points, similarities, and divergences.

The WPA and EPA codes are inspired by similar fundamental values but do show a few differences. The two codes have a different structure. The WPA code includes 4 sections and lists 5 overarching principles as the basis of psychiatrists’ clinical practice; the EPA code is articulated in 8 sections, lists 4 ethical principles, and several fundamental values. The EPA code does not include a section on psychiatrists’ education and does not contain specific references to domestic violence and death penalty. Differences can be found in how the two codes address the principle of equity: the EPA code explicitly refers to the principle of universal health care, while the WPA code mentions the principle of equity as reflected in the promotion of distributive justice.

We recommend that both WPA and EPA periodically update their ethical codes to minimize differences, eliminate gaps, and help member societies to develop or revise national codes in line with the principles of the associations they belong to.

Minimizing differences between national and international codes and fostering a continuous dialogue on ethical issues will provide guidance for psychiatrists and will raise awareness of the importance of ethics in our profession.

The conceptualization of negative symptoms (NS) in schizophrenia is still controversial. Recent confirmatory factor-analytic studies suggested that the bi-dimensional model (motivational deficit [MAP] and expressive deficit [EXP]) may not capture the complexity of NS structure, which could be better defined by a five-factor (five NS domains) or a hierarchical model (five NS domains as first-order factors, and MAP and EXP, as second-order factors). A validation of these models is needed to define the structure of NS. To evaluate the validity and temporal stability of the five-factor or the hierarchical structure of the brief negative symptom scale (BNSS) in individuals with schizophrenia (SCZ), exploring associations between these models with cognition, social cognition, functional capacity, and functioning at baseline and at 4 years follow-up.

Clinical variables were assessed using state-of-the-art tools in 612 SCZ at two-time points. The validity of the five-factor and the hierarchical models was analyzed through structural equation models.

The two models had both a good fit and showed a similar pattern of associations with external validators at the two-time points, with minor variations. The five-factor solution had a slightly better fit. The associations with external validators favored the five-factor structure.

Our findings suggest that both five-factor and hierarchical models provide a valid conceptualization of NS in relation to external variables and that five-factor solution provides the best balance between parsimony and granularity to summarize the BNSS structure. This finding has important implications for the study of pathophysiological mechanisms and the development of new treatments.