Meza Nicolás, Franco Juan Va, Sguassero Yanina, Núñez Vicente, Escobar Liquitay Camila Micaela, Rees Reginald, Williams Katrina, Rojas Valeria, Rojas Francisca, Pringsheim Tamara, Madrid Eva
Interdisciplinary Centre for Health Studies CIESAL, Universidad de Valparaíso, Viña del Mar, Chile.
Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 May 21;5(5):CD014965. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014965.pub2.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Critical outcomes included irritability, aggression, weight gain, extrapyramidal side effects, obsessive-compulsive behaviours and inappropriate speech.
We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias in the included studies.
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.
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.
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.
This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.
Protocol available via 10.1002/14651858.CD014965.
自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)患者表现出与社交互动和行为相关的多种症状。非典型抗精神病药物已被广泛评估并用于治疗患有ASD的儿童和成人的困扰症状(如易怒、攻击行为、强迫观念、重复行为等)。然而,它们的效果和相对疗效仍不明确。
主要目的:通过网络荟萃分析评估非典型抗精神病药物在短期随访中对患有ASD的儿童和成人易怒症状的比较益处。次要目的:评估非典型抗精神病药物与安慰剂或其他任何非典型抗精神病药物相比,在短期、中期和长期随访中对患有ASD的儿童和成人不同症状(如攻击行为、强迫行为、不当言语)和副作用(如锥体外系症状、体重增加、代谢副作用)的益处和危害。
我们检索了Cochrane中心对照试验注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE以及其他10个数据库和两个试验注册库,并进行参考文献核对、引文检索以及与研究作者联系以确定纳入研究。最新检索日期为2024年1月3日。
比较任何非典型抗精神病药物与安慰剂或另一种非典型抗精神病药物用于临床诊断为ASD的成人和儿童的随机对照试验(RCT)。
关键结局包括易怒、攻击行为、体重增加、锥体外系副作用、强迫行为和不当言语。
我们使用Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具2(RoB 2)评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。
我们使用频率学派网络荟萃分析对易怒结局进行合并估计,并使用随机效应模型对其他结局进行成对比较。我们使用GRADE对证据的确定性进行评级。
我们纳入了17项研究,共1027名随机参与者。一项研究评估了成人(31名参与者);其余16项研究评估了儿童(996名参与者)。干预措施包括利培酮、阿立哌唑、鲁拉西酮和奥氮平。
易怒症状的比较疗效基于网络荟萃分析,在患有ASD的儿童中,与安慰剂相比,利培酮和阿立哌唑在短期内可能减轻易怒症状(利培酮:平均差(MD)-7.89,95%置信区间(CI)-9.37至-6.42;13项研究,906名参与者;低确定性证据;阿立哌唑:MD -6.26,95% CI -7.62至-4.91;13项研究,906名参与者;低确定性证据)。与安慰剂相比,鲁拉西酮在短期内可能对易怒症状几乎没有影响(MD -1.30,95% CI -5.46至2.86;13项研究,906名参与者;中等确定性证据)。其他结局的疗效和安全性在患有ASD的儿童中,与安慰剂相比,我们对非典型抗精神病药物在短期随访中对攻击行为的影响非常不确定(风险比(RR)1.06,95% CI 0.96至1.17;1项研究,66名参与者;极低确定性证据)。由于担心偏倚风险和严重不精确性,证据的确定性非常低。在患有ASD的儿童中,与安慰剂相比,我们对非典型抗精神病药物在短期内对体重增加(超过预定义水平)的影响非常不确定(RR 2.40,95% CI 1.25至4.60;7项研究,434名参与者;极低确定性证据)。在患有ASD的儿童中,与安慰剂相比,我们对非典型抗精神病药物在短期内对体重增加(以千克为单位)的影响也非常不确定(MD 1.22 kg,95% CI 0.55至1.88;3项研究,297名参与者;极低确定性证据)。在这两种情况下由于担心偏倚风险和严重不精确性,证据的确定性非常低。在患有ASD的儿童中,与安慰剂相比,我们对非典型抗精神病药物在短期内对锥体外系副作用发生的影响非常不确定(RR 2.36,95% CI 1.22至4.59;6项研究,511名参与者;极低确定性证据)。由于担心偏倚风险和严重不精确性,证据的确定性非常低。与安慰剂相比,非典型抗精神病药物在患有ASD的儿童中短期内可能改善强迫行为(MD -1.36,95% CI -2.45至-0.27;5项研究,467名参与者;低确定性证据)。由于担心偏倚风险和异质性,证据的确定性较低。与安慰剂相比,非典型抗精神病药物在患有ASD的儿童中短期内可能减少不当言语(MD -1.44,95% CI -2.11至-0.77;8项研究,676名参与者;低确定性证据)。由于担心偏倚风险和异质性,证据的确定性较低。我们无法评估其他非典型抗精神病药物的效果。此外,由于缺乏可用研究,我们对自闭症成人患者的研究结果很少。
与安慰剂相比,利培酮和阿立哌唑在短期内可能减轻患有ASD儿童的易怒症状,但与安慰剂相比,鲁拉西酮对易怒症状可能几乎没有影响。观察到的其他益处和潜在危害的证据确定性从中等至极低。现有数据不允许进行全面的亚组分析。需要开展样本量更大的新随机对照试验,以足够的确定性平衡干预措施的疗效和安全性,目前这方面的数据很少(在成人患者中甚至不存在)。作者应透明地报告人群和干预特征,尽可能提供分类或个体患者数据。此外,应报告每个结局的一致测量方法,以避免数据综合过程中出现问题。
本Cochrane综述没有专门的资金支持。
方案可通过10.1002/14651858.CD014965获取。