A Phase II Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Arbaclofen Administered for the Treatment of Social Function in Children and Adolescents With Autism Spectrum Disorders: Study Protocol for AIMS-2-TRIALS-CT1

Synapse and primary cilia dysfunctions in Autism Spectrum Disorders. Avenues to normalize these functions

AIM

An update on the plasticity of the brain networks involved in autism (autism spectrum disorders [ASD]), and the increasing role of their synapses and primary non-motile cilia.

METHODS

Data from PubMed and Google on this subject, published until February 2024, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Structural and functional brain characteristics and genetic particularities involving synapses and cilia that modify neuronal circuits are observed in ASD, such as reduced pruning of dendrites, minicolumnar pathology, or persistence of connections usually doomed to disappear. Proteins involved in synapse functions (such as neuroligins and neurexins), in the postsynaptic architectural scaffolding (such as Shank proteins) or in cilia functions (such as IFT-independent kinesins) are often abnormal. There is an increase in glutaminergic transmission and a decrease in GABA inhibition. ASD may occur in genetic ciliopathies. The means of modulating these specificities, when deemed useful, are described.

INTERPRETATION

The wide range of clinical manifestations of ASD is strongly associated with abnormalities in the morphology, functions, and plasticity of brain networks, involving their synapses and non-motile cilia. Their modulation offers important research perspectives on treatments when needed, especially since brain plasticity persists much later than previously thought. Improved early detection of ASD and additional studies on synapses and primary cilia are needed.

Identifying drug targets for schizophrenia through gene prioritization

Background

Schizophrenia genome-wide association studies (GWASes) have identified >250 significant loci and prioritized >100 disease-related genes. However, gene prioritization efforts have mostly been restricted to locus-based methods that ignore information from the rest of the genome.

Methods

To more accurately characterize genes involved in schizophrenia etiology, we applied a combination of highly-predictive tools to a published GWAS of 67,390 schizophrenia cases and 94,015 controls. We combined both locus-based methods (fine-mapped coding variants, distance to GWAS signals) and genome-wide methods (PoPS, MAGMA, ultra-rare coding variant burden tests). To validate our findings, we compared them with previous prioritization efforts, known neurodevelopmental genes, and results from the PsyOPS tool.

Results

We prioritized 62 schizophrenia genes, 41 of which were also highlighted by our validation methods. In addition to DRD2, the principal target of antipsychotics, we prioritized 9 genes that are targeted by approved or investigational drugs. These included drugs targeting glutamatergic receptors (GRIN2A and GRM3), calcium channels (CACNA1C and CACNB2), and GABAB receptor (GABBR2). These also included genes in loci that are shared with an addiction GWAS (e.g. PDE4B and VRK2).

Conclusions

We curated a high-quality list of 62 genes that likely play a role in the development of schizophrenia. Developing or repurposing drugs that target these genes may lead to a new generation of schizophrenia therapies. Rodent models of addiction more closely resemble the human disorder than rodent models of schizophrenia. As such, genes prioritized for both disorders could be explored in rodent addiction models, potentially facilitating drug development.

Psychopharmacology in children and adolescents: unmet needs and opportunities

Psychopharmacological treatment is an important component of the multimodal intervention approach to treating mental health conditions in children and adolescents. Currently, there are many unmet needs but also opportunities, alongside possible risks to consider, regarding the pharmacological treatment of mental health conditions in children and adolescents. In this Position Paper, we highlight and address these unmet needs and opportunities, including the perspectives of clinicians and researchers from the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology-Child and Adolescent Network, alongside those of experts by lived experience from national and international associations, via a survey involving 644 participants from 13 countries, and of regulators, through representation from the European Medicines Agency. We present and discuss the evidence base for medications currently used for mental disorders in children and adolescents, medications in the pipeline, opportunities in the development of novel medications, crucial priorities for the conduct of future clinical studies, challenges and opportunities in terms of the regulatory and legislative framework, and innovations in the way research is conducted, reported, and promoted.

Pharmacological intervention for irritability, aggression, and self-injury in autism spectrum disorder (ASD)

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological interventions are frequently used for people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to manage behaviours of concern, including irritability, aggression, and self-injury. Some pharmacological interventions might help treat some behaviours of concern, but can also have adverse effects (AEs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and AEs of pharmacological interventions for managing the behaviours of irritability, aggression, and self-injury in ASD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and two trials registers up to June 2022. We also searched reference lists of relevant studies, and contacted study authors, experts and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of participants of any age with a clinical diagnosis of ASD, that compared any pharmacological intervention to an alternative drug, standard care, placebo, or wait-list control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were behaviours of concern in ASD, (irritability, aggression and self-injury); and AEs. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, and tolerability and acceptability. Two review authors independently assessed each study for risk of bias, and used GRADE to judge the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 131 studies involving 7014 participants in this review. We identified 26 studies as awaiting classification and 25 as ongoing. Most studies involved children (53 studies involved only children under 13 years), children and adolescents (37 studies), adolescents only (2 studies) children and adults (16 studies), or adults only (23 studies). All included studies compared a pharmacological intervention to a placebo or to another pharmacological intervention. Atypical antipsychotics versus placebo At short-term follow-up (up to 6 months), atypical antipsychotics probably reduce irritability compared to placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.25 to -0.55, 12 studies, 973 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), which may indicate a large effect. However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in aggression between groups (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.01; 1 study, 77 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Atypical antipsychotics may also reduce self-injury (SMD -1.43, 95% CI -2.24 to -0.61; 1 study, 30 participants; low-certainty evidence), possibly indicating a large effect. There may be higher rates of neurological AEs (dizziness, fatigue, sedation, somnolence, and tremor) in the intervention group (low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear evidence of an effect on other neurological AEs. Increased appetite may be higher in the intervention group (low-certainty evidence), but we found no clear evidence of an effect on other metabolic AEs. There was no clear evidence of differences between groups in musculoskeletal or psychological AEs. Neurohormones versus placebo At short-term follow-up, neurohormones may have minimal to no clear effect on irritability when compared to placebo (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.00; 8 studies; 466 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although the evidence is very uncertain. No data were reported for aggression or self -injury. Neurohormones may reduce the risk of headaches slightly in the intervention group, although the evidence is very uncertain. There was no clear evidence of an effect of neurohormones on any other neurological AEs, nor on any psychological, metabolic, or musculoskeletal AEs (low- and very low-certainty evidence). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-related medications versus placebo At short-term follow-up, ADHD-related medications may reduce irritability slightly (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.01; 10 studies, 400 participants; low-certainty evidence), which may indicate a small effect. However, there was no clear evidence that ADHD-related medications have an effect on self-injury (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -1.63 to 0.39; 1 study, 16 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for aggression. Rates of neurological AEs (drowsiness, emotional AEs, fatigue, headache, insomnia, and irritability), metabolic AEs (decreased appetite) and psychological AEs (depression) may be higher in the intervention group, although the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups for any other metabolic, neurological, or psychological AEs (very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for musculoskeletal AEs. Antidepressants versus placebo At short-term follow-up, there was no clear evidence that antidepressants have an effect on irritability (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.18; 3 studies, 267 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data for aggression or self-injury were reported or could be included in the analysis. Rates of metabolic AEs (decreased energy) may be higher in participants receiving antidepressants (very low-certainty evidence), although no other metabolic AEs showed clear evidence of a difference. Rates of neurological AEs (decreased attention) and psychological AEs (impulsive behaviour and stereotypy) may also be higher in the intervention group (very low-certainty evidence) although the evidence is very uncertain. There was no clear evidence of any difference in the other metabolic, neurological, or psychological AEs (very low-certainty evidence), nor between groups in musculoskeletal AEs (very low-certainty evidence). Risk of bias We rated most of the studies across the four comparisons at unclear overall risk of bias due to having multiple domains rated as unclear, very few rated as low across all domains, and most having at least one domain rated as high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that atypical antipsychotics probably reduce irritability, ADHD-related medications may reduce irritability slightly, and neurohormones may have little to no effect on irritability in the short term in people with ASD. There was some evidence that atypical antipsychotics may reduce self-injury in the short term, although the evidence is uncertain. There was no clear evidence that antidepressants had an effect on irritability. There was also little to no difference in aggression between atypical antipsychotics and placebo, or self-injury between ADHD-related medications and placebo. However, there was some evidence that atypical antipsychotics may result in a large reduction in self-injury, although the evidence is uncertain. No data were reported (or could be used) for self-injury or aggression for neurohormones versus placebo. Studies reported a wide range of potential AEs. Atypical antipsychotics and ADHD-related medications in particular were associated with an increased risk of metabolic and neurological AEs, although the evidence is uncertain for atypical antipsychotics and very uncertain for ADHD-related medications. The other drug classes had minimal or no associated AEs.

Twenty years of discoveries emerging from mouse models of autism

More than 100 single gene mutations and copy number variants convey risk for autism spectrum disorder. To understand the extent to which each mutation contributes to the trajectory of individual symptoms of autism, molecular genetics laboratories have introduced analogous mutations into the genomes of laboratory mice and other species. Over the past twenty years, behavioral neuroscientists discovered the consequences of mutations in many risk genes for autism in animal models, using assays with face validity to the diagnostic and associated behavioral symptoms of people with autism. Identified behavioral phenotypes complement electrophysiological, neuroanatomical, and biochemical outcome measures in mutant mouse models of autism. This review describes the history of phenotyping assays in genetic mouse models, to evaluate social and repetitive behaviors relevant to the primary diagnostic criteria for autism. Robust phenotypes are currently employed in translational investigations to discover effective therapeutic interventions, representing the future direction of an intensely challenging research field.

Keeping the balance: Trade-offs between human brain evolution, autism, and schizophrenia

The unique qualities of the human brain are a product of a complex evolutionary process. Evolution, famously described by François Jacob as a “tinkerer,” builds upon existing genetic elements by modifying and repurposing them for new functions. Genetic changes in DNA may lead to the emergence of new genes or cause altered gene expression patterns. Both gene and regulatory element mutations may lead to new functions. Yet, this process may lead to side-effects. An evolutionary trade-off occurs when an otherwise beneficial change, which is important for evolutionary success and is under strong positive selection, concurrently results in a detrimental change in another trait. Pleiotropy occurs when a gene affects multiple traits. Antagonistic pleiotropy is a phenomenon whereby a genetic variant leads to an increase in fitness at one life-stage or in a specific environment, but simultaneously decreases fitness in another respect. Therefore, it is conceivable that the molecular underpinnings of evolution of highly complex traits, including brain size or cognitive ability, under certain conditions could result in deleterious effects, which would increase the susceptibility to psychiatric or neurodevelopmental diseases. Here, we discuss possible trade-offs and antagonistic pleiotropies between evolutionary change in a gene sequence, dosage or activity and the susceptibility of individuals to autism spectrum disorders and schizophrenia. We present current knowledge about genes and alterations in gene regulatory landscapes, which have likely played a role in establishing human-specific traits and have been implicated in those diseases.

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

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13229-022-00488-4.