4.5 Review

Clinical trials in autism spectrum disorder: evidence, challenges and future directions

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN NEUROLOGY
Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 119-125

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000542

Keywords

autism; clinical trials; comorbidities; pharmacology; psychopharmacology

Funding

  1. Roche
  2. Takeda
  3. AMO pharma
  4. Ontario Brain Institute
  5. CIHR
  6. NIH
  7. Brain Canada
  8. DoD
  9. HRSA
  10. Autism Speaks
  11. Elpida foundation
  12. Ontario brain Institute POND network

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of review The purpose of this manuscript is to review the evidence generated by clinical trials of pharmaceuticals in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), describe challenges in the conduct of such trials, and discuss future directions Recent findings Clinical trials in ASD have produced several compounds to adequately support the pharmacological treatment of associated symptom domains: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and alpha agonists), irritability/aggression (risperidone and aripiprazole), sleep (melatonin), and weight gain associated with atypical antipsychotic use (metformin). However, there is no evidence yet to support the routine use of pharmaceuticals for the treatment of core symptom domains. Challenges in the field include biological heterogeneity within ASD, lack of biomarkers that clarify biological heterogeneity or predict response to treatment, lack of data across the lifespan, and suboptimal outcome measures. Summary Several compounds have evidence for the treatment of co-occurring symptoms in children and youth with ASD, although pharmacological interventions for core symptoms are still lacking. Identifying the various biologies underling ASD and developing biomarkers that stratify biologically homogeneous populations are both necessary to realize the promise of precision medicine in ASD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available