MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2025· review· en· W4410548025 on 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

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutism spectrum disorderMeta-analysisAutismMedicinePsychiatryPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.034
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.274
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207