MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4410548025 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd014965.pub2

Atypical antipsychotics for autism spectrum disorder: a network meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4410548025 sur OpenAlexaff
Nicolás Meza, Juan Víctor Ariel Franco, Yanina Sguassero, Camila Micaela Escobar Liquitay, Reginald Rees, Katrina Williams, Valeria Rojas, Francisca Rojas, Tamara Pringsheim, Eva Madrid

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAutism spectrum disorderMeta-analysisAutismMedicinePsychiatryPsychologyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) exhibit a wide variety of symptoms related to social interaction and behaviour. Atypical antipsychotics have been widely evaluated and prescribed to treat distressing symptoms (e.g. irritability, aggression, obsessions, repetitive behaviours, etc.) in children and adults with ASD. Still, their effects and relative efficacy remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to assess the comparative benefits of atypical antipsychotics for irritability through network meta-analyses in children and adults with ASD at short-term follow-up. Secondary: to assess the benefits and harms of atypical antipsychotics, compared to placebo or any other atypical antipsychotic, for different symptoms (e.g. aggression, obsessive-compulsive behaviours, inappropriate speech) and side effects (e.g. extrapyramidal symptoms, weight gain, metabolic side effects) in children and adults with ASD at short-, medium- and long-term follow-up. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, 10 other databases, and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify studies for inclusion. The latest search was 3 January 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any atypical antipsychotic drug with placebo or another atypical antipsychotic drug for adults and children with a clinical diagnosis of ASD. OUTCOMES: Critical outcomes included irritability, aggression, weight gain, extrapyramidal side effects, obsessive-compulsive behaviours and inappropriate speech. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias in the included studies. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We performed statistical analyses using a frequentist network meta-analysis for combined estimates for the outcome irritability and a random-effects model for pairwise comparisons for other outcomes. We rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 17 studies with 1027 randomised participants. One study evaluated adults (31 participants); the remaining 16 studies evaluated children (996 participants). The interventions were risperidone, aripiprazole, lurasidone and olanzapine. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Comparative efficacy on irritability Based on the network meta-analysis, risperidone and aripiprazole may reduce symptoms of irritability compared to placebo in the short term in children with ASD (risperidone: mean difference (MD) -7.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.37 to -6.42; 13 studies, 906 participants; low-certainty evidence; aripiprazole: MD -6.26, 95% CI -7.62 to -4.91; 13 studies, 906 participants; low-certainty evidence). Lurasidone probably results in little to no difference in irritability compared to placebo in the short term (MD -1.30, 95% CI -5.46 to 2.86; 13 studies, 906 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Efficacy and safety on other outcomes We are very uncertain about the effects of atypical antipsychotics on aggression compared to placebo at short-term follow-up in children with ASD (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.17; 1 study, 66 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was very low due to concerns about risk of bias and serious imprecision. We are very uncertain about the effects of atypical antipsychotics on the occurrence of weight gain (above predefined levels) compared to placebo in the short term in children with ASD (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.25 to 4.60; 7 studies, 434 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are also very uncertain about the effects of atypical antipsychotics on weight gain (in kilograms) compared to placebo in the short term in children with ASD (MD 1.22 kg, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.88; 3 studies, 297 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In both, the certainty of the evidence was very low due to concerns about risk of bias and serious imprecision. We are very uncertain about the effects of atypical antipsychotics on the occurrence of extrapyramidal side effects compared to placebo in the short term in children with ASD (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.22 to 4.59; 6 studies, 511 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was very low due to concerns about risk of bias and serious imprecision. Atypical antipsychotics may improve obsessive-compulsive behaviours compared to placebo in the short term in children with ASD (MD -1.36, 95% CI -2.45 to -0.27; 5 studies, 467 participants; low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low due to concerns about risk of bias and heterogeneity. Atypical antipsychotics may reduce inappropriate speech compared to placebo in the short term in children with ASD (MD -1.44, 95% CI -2.11 to -0.77; 8 studies, 676 participants; low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low due to concerns about risk of bias and heterogeneity. We were unable to evaluate the effects of other atypical antipsychotics. Furthermore, our findings on adults with autism were scarce due to the lack of available studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone and aripiprazole may reduce symptoms of irritability compared to placebo in children with ASD in the short term, but lurasidone probably has little to no effect on irritability compared to placebo. Other benefits and potential harms observed ranged from moderate- to very low-certainty evidence. The available data did not allow comprehensive subgroup analyses. New randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes are needed to balance the efficacy and safety of interventions with enough certainty, which are currently scarce (or even absent in the case of the adult population). Authors should report population and intervention characteristics transparently, providing disaggregated or individual patient data when possible. Furthermore, consistent measurement methods for each outcome should be reported to avoid problems during the data synthesis process. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via 10.1002/14651858.CD014965.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,015
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: Méta-analyse
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,081

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0150,038
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0150,034
Bibliométrie0,0100,009
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0030,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,274
Tête enseignante GPT0,449
Écart entre enseignants0,175 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeMéta-analyse
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations11
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsMême sujetAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchTravaux en français237 207