4.5 Review

Pharmacological and dietary-supplement treatments for autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

期刊

MOLECULAR AUTISM
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13229-022-00488-4

关键词

Autism; Meta-analysis; Treatment; Response; Social communication; Restricted and repetitive behaviors; Irritability; ADHD; Anxiety; Caregiver stress

资金

  1. Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking [777394]
  2. European Union
  3. EFPIA
  4. AUTISM SPEAKS
  5. Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities
  6. ERDF Funds from the European Commission
  7. European Union Structural Funds
  8. Fundacion Familia Alonso
  9. Fundacion Alicia Koplowitz
  10. Fundacion Mutua Madrilena
  11. Autistica
  12. SFARI
  13. Madrid Regional Government [B2017/BMD-3740 AGES-CM-2]
  14. CIBERSAM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This network meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of pharmacological and dietary-supplement treatments for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The results showed that some medications may improve the core symptoms and associated symptoms of ASD, but there is still insufficient evidence regarding their safety and efficacy. Therefore, routine prescription of medications for the core symptoms of ASD cannot be recommended based on the current evidence.
Background There is still no approved medication for the core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This network meta-analysis investigated pharmacological and dietary-supplement treatments for ASD. Methods We searched for randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) with a minimum duration of seven days in ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, WHO-ICTRP (from inception up to July 8, 2018), CENTRAL and PubMed (up to November 3, 2021). The co-primary outcomes were core symptoms (social-communication difficulties-SCD, repetitive behaviors-RB, overall core symptoms-OCS) measured by validated scales and standardized-mean-differences (SMDs). Associated symptoms, e.g., irritability/aggression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms, dropouts and important side-effects, were investigated as secondary outcomes. Studies in children/adolescents and adults were analyzed separately in random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses. Results We analyzed data for 41 drugs and 17 dietary-supplements, from 125 RCTs (n = 7450 participants) in children/adolescents and 18 RCTs (n = 1104) in adults. The following medications could improve at least one core symptom domain in comparison with placebo: aripiprazole (k = 6 studies in analysis, SCD: SMD = 0.27 95% CI [0.09, 0.44], RB: 0.48 [0.26, 0.70]), atomoxetine (k = 3, RB:0.49 [0.18, 0.80]), bumetanide (k = 4, RB: 0.35 [0.09, 0.62], OCS: 0.61 [0.31, 0.91]), and risperidone (k = 4, SCM: 0.31 [0.06, 0.55], RB: 0.60 [0.29, 0.90]; k = 3, OCS: 1.18 [0.75, 1.61]) in children/adolescents; fluoxetine (k = 1, RB: 1.20 [0.45, 1.96]), fluvoxamine (k = 1, RB: 1.04 [0.27, 1.81]), oxytocin (k = 6, RB:0.41 [0.16, 0.66]) and risperidone (k = 1, RB: 0.97 [0.21,1.74]) in adults. There were some indications of improvement by carnosine, haloperidol, folinic acid, guanfacine, omega-3-fatty-acids, probiotics, sulforaphane, tideglusib and valproate, yet imprecise and not robust. Confidence in these estimates was very low or low, except moderate for oxytocin. Medications differed substantially in improving associated symptoms, and in their side-effect profiles. Limitations Most of the studies were inadequately powered (sample sizes of 20-80 participants), with short duration (8-13 weeks), and about a third focused on associated symptoms. Networks were mainly star-shaped, and there were indications of reporting bias. There was no optimal rating scale measuring change in core symptoms. Conclusions Some medications could improve core symptoms, although this could be likely secondary to the improvement of associated symptoms. Evidence on their efficacy and safety is preliminary; therefore, routine prescription of medications for the core symptoms cannot be recommended. Trial registration PROSPERO-ID CRD42019125317.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据