The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been a global challenge. High mortality rates have been reported in some risk groups, including patients with pre-existing mental disorders.

We used electronic health records to retrospectively identify people infected due to COVID-19 (between March 2020 and March 2021) in the three territories of the Basque Country. COVID-19 cases were defined as individuals who had tested positive on a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models and multilevel analyses with generalized estimated equations were used to determine factors associated with COVID-19-related mortality and hospital admission.

The COVID-19 mortality rate was increased for patients with psychotic disorders [odds ratio (OR) adjusted: 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.09–1.94), p = 0.0114] and patients with substance abuse [OR adjusted: 1.88, 95% CI (1.13–3.14, p < 0.0152)]. The mortality rate was lower for patients with affective disorders [OR adjusted: 0.80, 95% CI (0.61–0.99), p = 0.0407]. Hospital admission rates due to COVID-19 were higher in psychosis [OR adjusted: 2.90, 95% CI (2.36–3.56), p < 0.0001] and anxiety disorder groups [OR adjusted: 1.54, 95% CI (1.37–1.72), p < 0.0001]. Among admitted patients, COVID-19 mortality rate was decreased for those with affective disorders rate [OR adjusted: 0.72, 95% CI (0.55–0.95), p = 0.0194].

COVID-19-related mortality and hospitalizations rates were higher for patients with a pre-existing psychotic disorder.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) exposed to coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) are at high risk of developing mental health concerns across several domains. The aim of this study is to determine the updated, global frequency of these outcomes.

A multistep literature search was performed from database inception until March 1, 2021. PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic review and PROSPERO protocol were used to identify studies reporting on depression, anxiety, acute stress, post-traumatic symptoms, insomnia, and burnout in HCWs exposed to COVID-19. A quantitative meta-analysis with random effects was conducted to analyze the proportion rate of the mental health disorders. Sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the effect of the different continents and scales. Meta-regression analyses were conducted to examine the effect of gender, age, and work position.

239 articles were included (n = 271,319 HCWs, mean age = 36.08 ± 8.33 (66.99% female). 33% HCWs exposed to COVID-19 reported depressive symptoms (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 28–38%), 42% anxiety features (95% CI = 35–48), 40% acute stress (95% CI = 32–47), 32% post-traumatic symptoms (95% CI = 26–37%), 42% insomnia (95% CI = 36–48), 37% burnout (95% CI = 31–42). Sensitivity analyses did not show statistically significant differences. Meta-regressions found a statistically significant lower prevalence of post-traumatic symptoms in Asia.

HCWs exposed to COVID-19 were found to have a significant prevalence of mental health concerns in all domains analyzed. The effects of COVID-19 on HCWs’ mental health could be underestimated and the future consequences dismissed.

The clinical outcomes of individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis (CHR-P) who do not transition to psychosis are heterogeneous and inconsistently reported. We aimed to comprehensively evaluate longitudinally a wide range of outcomes in CHR-P individuals not developing psychosis.

“Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses” and “Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology”-compliant meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42021229212) searching original CHR-P longitudinal studies in PubMed and Web of Science databases up to 01/11/2021. As primary analysis, we evaluated the following outcomes within CHR-P non-transitioning individuals: (a) change in the severity of attenuated psychotic symptoms (Hedge's g); (b) change in the severity of negative psychotic symptoms (Hedge's g); (c) change in the severity of depressive symptoms (Hedge's g); (d) change in the level of functioning (Hedge's g); (e) frequency of remission (at follow-up). As a secondary analysis, we compared these outcomes in those CHR-P individuals who did not transition vs. those who did transition to psychosis at follow-up. We conducted random-effects model meta-analyses, sensitivity analyses, heterogeneity analyses, meta-regressions and publication bias assessment. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).

Twenty-eight studies were included (2756 CHR-P individuals, mean age = 20.4, 45.5% females). The mean duration of follow-up of the included studies was of 30.7 months. Primary analysis: attenuated psychotic symptoms [Hedges’ g = 1.410, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.002–1.818]; negative psychotic symptoms (Hedges’ g = 0.683, 95% CI 0.371–0.995); depressive symptoms (Hedges’ g = 0.844, 95% CI 0.371–1.317); and functioning (Hedges’ g = 0.776, 95% CI 0.463–1.089) improved in CHR-P non-transitioning individuals; 48.7% remitted at follow-up (95% CI 39.3–58.2%). Secondary analysis: attenuated psychotic symptoms (Hedges’ g = 0.706, 95% CI 0.091–1.322) and functioning (Hedges’ g = 0.623, 95% CI 0.375–0.871) improved in CHR-P individuals not-transitioning compared to those transitioning to psychosis, but there were no differences in negative or depressive symptoms or frequency of remission (p > 0.05). Older age was associated with higher improvements of attenuated psychotic symptoms (β = 0.225, p = 0.012); publication years were associated with a higher improvement of functioning (β = −0.124, p = 0.0026); a lower proportion of Brief Limited Intermittent Psychotic Symptoms was associated with higher frequencies of remission (β = −0.054, p = 0.0085). There was no metaregression impact for study continent, the psychometric instrument used, the quality of the study or proportion of females. The NOS scores were 4.4 ± 0.9, ranging from 3 to 6, revealing the moderate quality of the included studies.

Clinical outcomes improve in CHR-P individuals not transitioning to psychosis but only less than half remit over time. Sustained clinical attention should be provided in the longer term to monitor these outcomes.

To determine the proportion of patients in symptomatic remission and recovery following a first-episode of psychosis (FEP).

A multistep literature search using the Web of Science database, Cochrane Central Register of Reviews, Ovid/PsychINFO, and trial registries from database inception to November 5, 2020, was performed. Cohort studies and randomized control trials (RCT) investigating the proportion of remission and recovery following a FEP were included. Two independent researchers searched, following PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines and using a PROSPERO protocol. We performed meta-analyses regarding the proportion of remission/recovery (symptomatic plus functional outcomes). Heterogeneity was measured employing Q statistics and I2 test. To identify potential predictors, meta-regression analyses were conducted, as well as qualitative reporting of studies included in a systematic review. Sensitivity analyses were performed regarding different times of follow-up and type of studies.

One hundred articles (82 cohorts and 18 RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled proportion of symptomatic remission was 54% (95%CI [30, 49–58]) over a mean follow-up period of 43.57 months (SD = 51.82) in 76 studies. After excluding RCT from the sample, the proportion of remission remained similar (55%). The pooled proportion of recovery was 32% (95%CI [27–36]) over a mean follow-up period of 71.85 months (SD = 73.54) in 40 studies. After excluding RCT from the sample, the recovery proportion remained the same. No significant effect of any sociodemographic or clinical predictor was found.

Half of the patients are in symptomatic remission around 4 years after the FEP, while about a third show recovery after 5.5 years.

Individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis (CHR-P) recruited in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational cohorts may display a different enrichment and hence risk of transition to psychosis. No meta-analysis has ever addressed this issue.

“Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) and “Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology” (MOOSE)–compliant meta-analysis. PubMed and Web of Science were searched until November 2020 (PROSPERO:CRD42021229223). We included nonoverlapping longitudinal studies (RCTs-control condition and observational cohorts) reporting the transition to psychosis in CHR-P individuals. The primary effect size measure was the cumulative risk of transition at 0.5, 1, and 2 years follow-up in RCTs compared to observational cohorts. Random effects meta-analyses, heterogeneity assessment, quality assessment, and meta-regressions were conducted.

Ninety-four independent studies (24 RCTs, 70 observational cohorts) and 9,243 individuals (mean age = 20.1 ± 3.0 years; 43.7% females) were included. The meta-analytical risk of transitioning to psychosis from a CHR-P stage was 0.091 (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.068–0.121) at 0.5 years, 0.140 (95% CI = 0.101–0.191) at 1 year and 0.165 (95% CI = 0.097–0.267) at 2 years follow-up in RCTs, and 0.081 (95% CI = 0.067–0.099) at 0.5 years, 0.138 (95% CI = 0.114–0.167) at 1 year, and 0.174 (95% CI = 0.156–0.193) at 2 years follow-up in observational cohorts. There were no between-group differences in transition risks (p > 0.05). The proportion of CHR-P individuals with substance use disorders (excluding alcohol and cannabis) was higher in observational cohorts (16.8, 95% CI = 13.3–21.0%) than in RCTs (3.4, 95% CI = 0.8–12.7%; p = 0.018).

There is no meta-analytic evidence supporting sampling biases in RCTs of CHR-P individuals. Further RCTs are needed to detect effective interventions to prevent psychosis in this at-risk group.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telemedicine as a way to reduce COVID-19 infections was noted and consequently deregulated. However, the degree of telemedicine regulation varies from country to country, which may alter the widespread use of telemedicine. This study aimed to clarify the telepsychiatry regulations for each collaborating country/region before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We used snowball sampling within a global network of international telepsychiatry experts. Thirty collaborators from 17 different countries/regions responded to a questionnaire on barriers to the use and implementation of telepsychiatric care, including policy factors such as regulations and reimbursement at the end of 2019 and as of May 2020.

Thirteen of 17 regions reported a relaxation of regulations due to the pandemic; consequently, all regions surveyed stated that telepsychiatry was now possible within their public healthcare systems. In some regions, restrictions on prescription medications allowed via telepsychiatry were eased, but in 11 of the 17 regions, there were still restrictions on prescribing medications via telepsychiatry. Lower insurance reimbursement amounts for telepsychiatry consultations v. in-person consultations were reevaluated in four regions, and consequently, in 15 regions telepsychiatry services were reimbursed at the same rate (or higher) than in-person consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our results confirm that, due to COVID-19, the majority of countries surveyed are altering telemedicine regulations that had previously restricted the spread of telemedicine. These findings provide information that could guide future policy and regulatory decisions, which facilitate greater scale and spread of telepsychiatry globally.

Psychosis is associated with a reasoning bias, which manifests as a tendency to ‘jump to conclusions’. We examined this bias in people at clinical high-risk for psychosis (CHR) and investigated its relationship with their clinical outcomes.

In total, 303 CHR subjects and 57 healthy controls (HC) were included. Both groups were assessed at baseline, and after 1 and 2 years. A ‘beads’ task was used to assess reasoning bias. Symptoms and level of functioning were assessed using the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States scale (CAARMS) and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), respectively. During follow up, 58 (16.1%) of the CHR group developed psychosis (CHR-T), and 245 did not (CHR-NT). Logistic regressions, multilevel mixed models, and Cox regression were used to analyse the relationship between reasoning bias and transition to psychosis and level of functioning, at each time point.

There was no association between reasoning bias at baseline and the subsequent onset of psychosis. However, when assessed after the transition to psychosis, CHR-T participants showed a greater tendency to jump to conclusions than CHR-NT and HC participants (55, 17, 17%; χ2 = 8.13, p = 0.012). There was a significant association between jumping to conclusions (JTC) at baseline and a reduced level of functioning at 2-year follow-up in the CHR group after adjusting for transition, gender, ethnicity, age, and IQ.

In CHR participants, JTC at baseline was associated with adverse functioning at the follow-up. Interventions designed to improve JTC could be beneficial in the CHR population.