Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Search in PMCSearch
  • View on publisher site icon
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more:PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews logo

Pharmacological intervention for irritability, aggression, and self‐injury inautism spectrum disorder (ASD)

Michelle Iffland1,Nuala Livingstone2,Mikaela Jorgensen1,Philip Hazell3,Donna Gillies1,4,
Editor:Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning ProblemsGroup
1Senior Practitioner Branch, NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, Penrith, Australia
2Cochrane Evidence Production and Methods Directorate Cochrane, London, UK
3Speciality of Psychiatry, University of Sydney School of Medicine, Sydney, Australia
4Sydney, Australia

Donna Gillies, Senior Practitioner Branch, NDIS Quality and SafeguardsCommission, Penrith, NSW, Australia.donna.gillies@ndiscommission.gov.au.

Corresponding author.

Collection date 2023.

Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Publishedby John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
PMCID: PMC10561353  PMID:37811711
This article is an update ofthe article with doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011769.

Abstract

Background

Pharmacological interventions are frequently used for people with autismspectrum disorder (ASD) to manage behaviours of concern, includingirritability, aggression, and self‐injury. Some pharmacologicalinterventions might help treat some behaviours of concern, but can alsohave adverse effects (AEs).

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness and AEs of pharmacological interventions formanaging the behaviours of irritability, aggression, and self‐injury inASD.

Search methods

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and two trialsregisters up to June 2022. We also searched reference lists of relevantstudies, and contacted study authors, experts and pharmaceuticalcompanies.

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials of participants of any age witha clinical diagnosis of ASD, that compared any pharmacologicalintervention to an alternative drug, standard care, placebo, orwait‐list control.

Data collection and analysis

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

Main results

We included 131 studies involving 7014 participants in this review. Weidentified 26 studies as awaiting classification and 25 as ongoing. Moststudies involved children (53 studies involved only children under 13years), children and adolescents (37 studies), adolescents only (2studies) children and adults (16 studies), or adults only (23 studies).All included studies compared a pharmacological intervention to aplacebo or to another pharmacological intervention.

Atypical antipsychotics versus placebo

At short‐term follow−up (up to 6 months), atypical antipsychoticsprobably reduce irritability compared to placebo (standardised meandifference (SMD) −0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.25 to −0.55, 12studies, 973 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), which mayindicate a large effect. However, there was no clear evidence of adifference in aggression between groups (SMD −0.44, 95% CI −0.89 to0.01; 1 study, 77 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Atypicalantipsychotics may also reduce self‐injury (SMD −1.43, 95% CI −2.24 to−0.61; 1 study, 30 participants; low‐certainty evidence), possiblyindicating 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 effecton other neurological AEs. Increased appetite may be higher in theintervention group (low‐certainty evidence), but we found no clearevidence of an effect on other metabolic AEs. There was no clearevidence of differences between groups in musculoskeletal orpsychological AEs.

Neurohormones versus placebo

At short‐term follow‐up, neurohormones may have minimal to no cleareffect on irritability when compared to placebo (SMD −0.18, 95% CI −0.37to −0.00; 8 studies; 466 participants; very low‐certainty evidence),although the evidence is very uncertain. No data were reported foraggression or self ‐injury.

Neurohormones may reduce the risk of headaches slightly in theintervention group, although the evidence is very uncertain. There wasno clear evidence of an effect of neurohormones on any otherneurological AEs, nor on any psychological, metabolic, ormusculoskeletal AEs (low‐ and very low‐certainty evidence).

Attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)‐related medicationsversus placebo

At short‐term follow‐up, ADHD‐related medications may reduce irritabilityslightly (SMD −0.20, 95% CI −0.40 to −0.01; 10 studies, 400participants; low‐certainty evidence), which may indicate a smalleffect. However, there was no clear evidence that ADHD‐relatedmedications have an effect on self‐injury (SMD −0.62, 95% CI −1.63 to0.39; 1 study, 16 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). No datawere reported for aggression.

Rates of neurological AEs (drowsiness, emotional AEs, fatigue, headache,insomnia, and irritability), metabolic AEs (decreased appetite) andpsychological 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 othermetabolic, neurological, or psychological AEs (very low‐certaintyevidence). No data were reported for musculoskeletal AEs.

Antidepressants versus placebo

At short‐term follow‐up, there was no clear evidence that antidepressantshave an effect on irritability (SMD −0.06, 95% CI −0.30 to 0.18; 3studies, 267 participants; low‐certainty evidence). No data foraggression or self‐injury were reported or could be included in theanalysis.

Rates of metabolic AEs (decreased energy) may be higher in participantsreceiving antidepressants (very low‐certainty evidence), although noother metabolic AEs showed clear evidence of a difference. Rates ofneurological AEs (decreased attention) and psychological AEs (impulsivebehaviour 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), norbetween groups in musculoskeletal AEs (very low‐certainty evidence).

Risk of bias

We rated most of the studies across the four comparisons at unclearoverall risk of bias due to having multiple domains rated as unclear,very few rated as low across all domains, and most having at least onedomain rated as high risk of bias.

Authors' conclusions

Evidence suggests that atypical antipsychotics probably reduceirritability, ADHD‐related medications may reduce irritability slightly,and neurohormones may have little to no effect on irritability in theshort term in people with ASD. There was some evidence that atypicalantipsychotics may reduce self‐injury in the short term, although theevidence is uncertain. There was no clear evidence that antidepressantshad an effect on irritability. There was also little to no difference inaggression between atypical antipsychotics and placebo, or self‐injurybetween ADHD‐related medications and placebo. However, there was someevidence that atypical antipsychotics may result in a large reduction inself‐injury, although the evidence is uncertain. No data were reported(or could be used) for self‐injury or aggression for neurohormonesversus placebo. Studies reported a wide range of potential AEs. Atypicalantipsychotics and ADHD‐related medications in particular wereassociated with an increased risk of metabolic and neurological AEs,although the evidence is uncertain for atypical antipsychotics and veryuncertain for ADHD‐related medications. The other drug classes hadminimal or no associated AEs.

Keywords: Adolescent, Adult, Child, Humans, Aggression, Antidepressive Agents, Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use, Antipsychotic Agents, Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder/drug therapy, Fatigue, Neurotransmitter Agents, Neurotransmitter Agents/pharmacology, Quality of Life, Self-Injurious Behavior, Self-Injurious Behavior/drug therapy

Plain language summary

Which medications reduce irritability, aggression or self‐harm in peoplewith autism spectrum disorder (ASD)?

Key messages

• Only 3 classes of medications showed any reduction in irritability,aggression or self‐harm when compared to placebo (a dummy medication).Atypical (second‐generation) antipsychotic medications probably reduceirritability and aggression, but appear to have little to no effect onself‐injury. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)‐relatedmedications may reduce irritability, although the evidence is uncertain.Neurohormones (oxytocin and secretin) may also reduce irritability, but weare very uncertain about the evidence.

• Antidepressants appear to have no effect on irritability. Studies did notreport on the effects of antidepressants, ADHD‐related medications andneurohormones on aggression or self‐injury.

• Studies reported a wide range of unwanted effects, but only atypicalantipsychotics, ADHD‐related medications, and neurohormones showed evidenceof a higher risk of any unwanted effects compared to placebo.

What is autism spectrum disorder (ASD)?

Autism is a disorder that affects a child's physical, mental and behaviouraldevelopment. It is a lifelong disability that starts in childhood butcontinues throughout adulthood. People with autism may find it difficult tocommunicate and interact with the world. However, autism affects each persondifferently and may be more or less severe in different people, so it isdescribed as a 'spectrum' disorder. Some people with autism spectrumdisorder (ASD) may be irritable, angry or aggressive, or hurt themselvesphysically (self‐injury), which are 'behaviours of concern' that can bedifficult to manage and distressing for the person.

How are behaviours of concern managed?

Behaviours of concern are frequently managed with various types ofmedications that have been developed to treat other conditions. This meansthat their effectiveness for behaviours of concern is largely unknown, andthey may cause serious and varied unwanted effects that affect all parts ofthe body. For example:

• the heart and lungs;

• the stomach and digestive system;

• the immune system;

• movement, joints and bones; and

• mood and emotion.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to know which types of medication were effective in reducingbehaviours of concern in people with ASD and whether they caused unwantedeffects.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that investigated any medication used to managebehaviours of concern. Studies compared the medication with placebo (a dummymedication) or another medication. People in the studies could be adults orchildren, but all had ASD with behaviours of concern. We compared andsummarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in theevidence, based on factors such as study methods and sizes.

What did we find?

We found 131 studies with 7014 people. Most studies involved children,although some studies involved both children and adults, or adults only.Studies looked at a wide range of medications, including those usually usedto treat schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, depression, attention deficithyperactivity disorder (ADHD), convulsions, emotional problems, heart andlungs, dementia, Parkinson's, and anxiety.

Atypical (second‐generation) antipsychotics are usually used to treatschizophrenia or bipolar disorder. They probably reduce irritability, butthey may have little to no effect on aggression and self‐injury. Peoplereceiving antipsychotics might be more likely to experience unwanted effectssuch as increased appetite, dizziness, sedation (slowed thought andmovement), sleepiness, tiredness and tremor compared to those receiving notreatment or other medications. People receiving antipsychotics may be nomore or less likely than those receiving placebo to experience otherunwanted effects.

Neurohormones (such as oxytocin and secretin) may have a minimal to smalleffect on irritability but no studies reported data for the effects ofneurohormones on self‐harm or aggression. People receiving neurohormones maybe no more or less likely than those receiving placebo to experienceunwanted effects.

ADHD‐related medications may reduce irritability but may have no effect onself‐injury. No studies reported data for aggression. People receivingADHD‐related medications might be more likely to experience unwanted effectssuch as drowsiness, tiredness, headache, difficulties sleeping, anddecreased appetite. But they may be no more or less likely than thosereceiving placebo to experience other unwanted effects.

Antidepressants may have little to no effect on irritability. No studiesreported useful data for aggression and self‐injury. People receivingantidepressants might be more likely to experience unwanted effects such asimpulsive behaviour and making repetitive movements or sounds (stereotypy)compared to placebo. But they may be no more or less likely than thosereceiving placebo to experience other types of unwanted effects.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

Most of the studies lasted less than 3 months, and very few studies involvedadults. Therefore, we are uncertain if the same effects would be seen over alonger period of time or in adults.

How up‐to‐date is the evidence?

The review authors searched for studies that had been published up to June2022.

Summary of findings

Summary of findings 1. Atypical antipsychotics compared to placebo for irritability,aggression, and self‐injury in autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Atypical antipsychotics compared to placebo forirritability, aggression, and self‐injury in autismspectrum disorder (ASD)
Patient or population: participants (any age) with aclinical diagnosis of ASD who have displayed one or moreunwanted or challenging behaviours at baselineassessment
Setting: hospital inpatient oroutpatient centres, education or disability settings, mentalhealth settings, or clinics and research centres associatedwith universities
Intervention: atypicalantipsychotics 
Comparison: placebo
OutcomesAnticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)Relative effect
(95% CI)№ of participants
(studies)Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)Comments
Risk with placeboRisk with atypical antipsychotics
Irritability
Follow‐up: short term (up to 6 months)
Measured via Aberrant Behaviour Checklist (Irritabilitysubscale (ABC‐I), score range 0‐45;Aman 1985) and theRitvo Freeman RealLife Rating Scale (RFRLRS;Freeman 1986).
Lower scores indicate lower severity
The mean score in the placebo group ranged from −8.40 to25.5SMD 0.90 lower
(95% CI 1.25 lower to 0.55 lower)973
(12 studies: risperidone 6 studies; aripiprazole 5studies; lurasidone 1 study)⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderatea
An SMD of 0.90 may represent a large effect
(small = 0.2; medium = 0.5; and large = 0.8;Cohen 1988)
Aggression
Follow‐up: short term (up to 6 months)
Measured via: Nisonger Child Behaviour Rating Form (conductproblem subscale;Aman1996)
Score range 0‐48: lower scores indicate lower severity
The mean score in the placebo group was −6.6SMD 0.44 lower
(95% CI 0.89 lower to 0.01 higher)77
(1 study, risperidone)⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowb
There was no clear evidence of a difference however, resultsare uncertain.
Self‐injury
Follow‐up: short term (up to 6 months)
Measured via: Self‐Injurious Behaviour Questionnaire (SIB‐QSelf‐injury subscale;Gualtieri 2002)
Score range 0‐20; lower scores indicate lower severity
The mean score in the placebo group was −4.90SMD 1.43 lower
(95% CI 2.24 lower to 0.61 lower)30
(1 study, risperidone)⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowc
An SMD of 1.43 may represent a large effect (small = 0.2;medium = 0.5; and large =0.8;Cohen 1988)
Adverse effects (AEs)
Follow‐up: short term (up to 6 months)
NeurologicalThere was evidence of a higher rate of AEs in theintervention group fordizziness (14% vs 3%, P =0.04)RR 4.19 (95% CI 1.10 higher to 16.00 higher; 2 studies,risperidone)974
(11 studies)
⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowd
 
There was evidence of a higher rate of AEs in theintervention group forfatigue (15% vs 5%, P <0.001)RR 2.58 (95% CI 1.68 higher to 3.97 higher; aripiprazole 2studies; risperidone 4 studies)
There was evidence of a higher rate of AEs in theintervention group forsedation (18% vs 3%, P =0.02)RR 2.98 (95% CI 1.15 higher to 7.73 higher; aripiprazole 1study; lurasidone 1 study; risperidone 4 studies)
There was evidence of a higher rate of AEs in theintervention group forsomnolence (26% vs 6%, P <0.00001)RR 4.84 (95% CI 3.18 higher to 7.36 higher; aripiprazole 3studies; lurasidone 1 study; risperidone 5 studies)
There was evidence of a higher rate of AEs in theintervention group fortremor (10% vs 1%, P =0.003)RR 5.99 (95% CI 1.87 higher to 19.19 higher; aripiprazole 3studies; risperidone 2 studies)
There was little to no evidence of a difference betweengroups for:drowsiness (P = 0.06);extrapyramidal disorder (P = 0.15);hypersomnia (P = 0.29);lethargy (P =0.19);restlessness (P = 0.98); oragitation(P = 0.23)   
PsychologicalThere was little to no evidence of a difference betweengroups foranxiety (P = 0.42) ordepression (P= 0.21).218
(4 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowe
 
MetabolicThere was evidence of a higher rate of AEs in theintervention group forincreased appetiteRR 2.38 (95% CI 1.69 higher to 3.34 higher; aripiprazole 3studies; risperidone 5 studies)702
(8 studies)
⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowd
 
There was little to no evidence of a difference betweengroups fordecreased appetite (P = 0.11),weightgain (P = 0.10) orthirst (P = 0.39).   
MusculoskeletalThere was little to no evidence of a difference betweengroups forrigidity (P = 0.13),movementdisorder (P = 0.27) ordyskinesia (P =0.28)182
(2 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
Lowf
 
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95%confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in thecomparison group and therelative effect of theintervention (and its 95% CI). 

AE:adverse effect;ASD: autism spectrum disorder;CI: confidence interval;RR: risk ratio;SMD: standardised mean difference
GRADE Working Group grades of evidenceHighcertainty: we are very confident that the trueeffect lies close to that of the estimate of theeffect.
Moderate certainty: we aremoderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effectis likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, butthere is a possibility that it is substantiallydifferent.
Low certainty: our confidence inthe effect estimate is limited: the true effect may besubstantially different from the estimate of theeffect.
Very low certainty: we have verylittle confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect islikely to be substantially different from the estimate ofeffect.

aDowngraded 1 level for study limitations (high risk of biasacross multiple domains). Not downgraded for inconsistency, as highI2 statistic (83%) can be attributed to 2 outlierstudies.
bDowngraded 1 level for study limitations(high risk of bias across multiple domains), 1 level for imprecision(small sample size of 77 participants) and 1 level for imprecision (95%confidence intervals includes both benefit andharm).
cDowngraded 1 level for imprecision (smallsample size of 30 participants), and 1 level for indirectness (availableevidence relates to adults only).
dDowngraded 1 levelfor study limitations (high risk of bias across multiple domains) and 1level for inconsistency (direction of effect varies acrossstudies).
eDowngraded 1 level for study limitations(high risk of bias across multiple domains), 1 level for imprecision(small sample size of 79 participants), and 1 level for indirectness(available evidence relates to childrenonly).
fDowngraded 1 level for study limitations (highrisk of bias across multiple domains), and 1 level for indirectness(available evidence relates to children only) and 1 level forimprecision (small sample size of 182 participants).

Summary of findings 2. Neurohormones compared to placebo for irritability,aggression, and self‐injury in autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Neurohormones compared to placebo for irritability,aggression, and self‐injury in autism spectrum disorder(ASD)
Patient or population: participants (any age) with aclinical diagnosis of ASD who have displayed one or moreunwanted or challenging behaviours at baseline assessment
Setting: hospital inpatient or outpatientcentres, education or disability settings, mental healthsettings, or clinics and research centres associated withuniversities
Intervention: neurohormones
Comparison: placebo
OutcomesAnticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)Relative effect
(95% CI)№ of participants
(studies)Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)Comments
Risk with placeboRisk with neurohormones
Irritability
Follow‐up: short term (up to six months)
Measured via Aberrant Behaviour Checklist (Irritabilitysubscale) (ABC‐I) (Aman1985, Score range (0‐45)).
Lower scores indicate lower severity
See commentSMD 0.18 lower
(95% CI 0.37 lower to 0.00 lower)466
(8 studies: secretin 3 studies; ACTH 1 study;oxytocin 3 studies; vasopressin 1 study)⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowa
An SMD of 0.18 may represent a small effect
(small = 0.2; medium = 0.5; and large = 0.8;Cohen 1988)
AggressionNo data were reported for this outcome in this comparison
Self InjuryNo data were reported for this outcome in this comparison
Adverse effects
Follow‐up: short term (up to six months)
NeurologicalThere was evidence of a lower rate of AEs forheadaches in the neurohormone groupRR 0.58 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.89) (7 studies: oxytocin 6 studies;balovaptan 1 study)863 participants
(10 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowb
 The was little to no evidence of a difference between groupsforabsence seizures (P = 0.52),aggression (P= 0.68),agitation (P = 0.67),decreasedattention (P = 0.68),dizziness (P = 0.69),dysphoria (P = 0.49);excessive talking (P= 0.52),fatigue (P = 0.76),forgetfulness (P= 0.52),insomnia (P = 0.08),irritability (P= 0.22),leg shaking (P = 0.52),nervous sytemdisorders (P = 0.47),oppositional (P =0.69),restlessness (P = 0.67),seizure (P =0.52),sedation (P = 0.16),somnolence (P =0.22),tics (P = 0.49)
PsychologicalThe was little to no evidence of a difference between groupsforanxiety (P = 0.23),depression (P = 0.83),panic attacks (P = 0.45),psychiatricevents (P = 0.21), orself‐injury (P =1.00)570 participants
(6 studies)
⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowc
MetabolicThe was little to no evidence of a difference between groupsfor any of the metabolic AEs includingdecreasedappetite (P = 0.19),increased appetite (P =0.07),metabolism and nutrition disorders (P = 0.57),thirst (P = 0.62),weight change (P = 0.50),weight gain (P = 0.67), andweight loss (P= 0.20)515 participants
(5 studies)
⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowc
MusculoskeletalThe was little to no evidence of a difference between groupsformuscle spasms (P = 0.52),musculoskeletal andconnective tissues disorder (P = 0.50) andrhabdomyolysis (P = 0.81)355 participants
(3 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowd
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95%confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in thecomparison group and therelative effect of theintervention (and its 95% CI). 

AE:adverse effect;ASD: autism spectrum disorder;CI: confidence interval;RR: risk ratio;SMD: standardised mean difference
GRADE Working Group grades of evidenceHighcertainty: we are very confident that the trueeffect lies close to that of the estimate of theeffect.
Moderate certainty: we aremoderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effectis likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, butthere is a possibility that it is substantiallydifferent.
Low certainty: our confidence inthe effect estimate is limited: the true effect may besubstantially different from the estimate of theeffect.
Very low certainty: we have verylittle confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect islikely to be substantially different from the estimate ofeffect.

aDowngraded 1 level for imprecision (95% CI includes bothbenefit and harm), 1 level for study limitations (all studies involvedchildren) and 1 level for imprecision (95% confidence intervals includesboth benefit and harm).
bDowngraded 1 level for studylimitations (high risk of bias across multiple domains), 1 level due toinconsistency (direction of effect varies across studies) and 1 levelfor imprecision (95% confidence intervals includes both benefit andharm).
cDowngraded 1 level for study limitations(high risk of bias across multiple domains), and 1 level for imprecision(95% confidence intervals includes both benefit andharm).
dDowngraded 1 level for imprecision (95% CIincludes both benefit and harm), 1 level for study limitations (highrisk of bias across multiple domains) and 1 level for imprecision (95%confidence intervals includes both benefit and harm).

Summary of findings 3. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)‐related drugscompared to placebo for irritability, aggression, and self‐injury in autismspectrum disorder (ASD).

ADHD‐related medications compared to placebo forirritability, aggression, and self‐injury in autismspectrum disorder (ASD)
Patient or population: participants (any age) with aclinical diagnosis of ASD who have displayed one or moreunwanted or challenging behaviours at baselineassessment
Setting: hospital inpatient oroutpatient centres, education or disability settings, mentalhealth settings, or clinics and research centres associatedwith universities
Intervention: ADHD‐relatedmedications
Comparison: placebo
OutcomesAnticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)Relative effect
(95% CI)№ of participants
(studies)Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)Comments
Risk with placeboRisk with ADHD‐related drugs
Irritability
All ADHD‐related medications
Follow‐up: short term (up to six months)
Measured via Aberrant Behaviour Checklist (Irritabilitysubscale) (Score range (0‐45))
(Aman 1985) and theRitvo‐Freeman Real Life Rating Scale (Freeman 1986 (scorerange 0‐15).
Lower scores indicate lower severity.
See commentSMD 0.20 lower
(95% CI 0.40 lower to 0.01 lower)400
(10 studies: methylphenidate 2 studies; clonidine 2studies; guanfacine 2 studies; atomoxetine 4 studies)⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa
An SMD of 0.20 may represent a small effect size (small =0.2; medium =0.5; large = 0.8,Cohen 1988).
AggressionNo data were reported for this outcome in this comparison
Self‐injury
Follow‐up: short term (up to six months)
Measured via the Repetitive Behaviour Scale ‐ Revised(self‐injury subscale) (Bodfish 2000)
See commentSMD 0.62 lower (95% CI 1.63 lower to 0.39 higher)16 participants (1 study)⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowb
There was no clear evidence of a difference, but results areuncertain.
Adverse effects
Follow‐up: short term (up to six months)
NeurologicalThere was evidence of a higher rate of AEs in theintervention group fordrowsinessRR 3.42 (95% CI 1.54 higher to 7.59 higher); atomoxetine 2studies; guanfacine 1 study; methylphenidate 1 study)511
(9 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowc
There was evidence of a higher rate of AEs in theintervention group foremotionalRR 6.32 (95% CI 2.47 higher to 16.18 higher); methylphenidate1 study; guanfacine 1 study
There was evidence of a higher rate of AEs in theintervention group forfatigueRR 3.73 (95% CI 1.98 higher to 7.03higher); atomoxetine 3studies; guanfacine 1 study
There was evidence of a higher rate of AEs in theintervention group forheadacheRR 1.63 (95% CI 1.09 higher to 2.44 higher); atomoxetine 4studies; methylphenidate 2 studies; guanfacine 1 study;amphetamine 1 study
There was evidence of a higher rate of AEs in theintervention group forinsomniaRR 1.58 (95% CI 1.01 higher to 2.47 higher); methylphenidate2 studies; atomoxetine 3 studies; guanfacine 1 study;amphetamine 1 study
There was evidence of a higher rate of AEs in theintervention group forirritabilityRR 1.61 (95% CI 1.25 to 2.07 higher); atomoxetine 3 studies;guanfacine 1 study; methylphenidate 2 studies
There was little to no evidence of a difference betweengroups foraggression (P = 0.82),agitation (P= 0.85),dizziness (P = 0.22),drowsiness (P =0.003),hyperactivity (P = 0.75),increased motoractivity (P = 0.36),motor tics (P = 0.28),nightmares (P = 0.57),repetitivebehaviour (P = 0.23),restlessness (P =0.80),sleep disturbance (P = 0.76),talkingexcessively (P = 0.05),waking (P = 0.59), ortremor (P = 0.48).
PsychologicalThere was evidence of a higher rate ofdepression inthe intervention groupRR 2.45 higher (95% CI 1.12 higher to 5.36 higher);methylphenidate 2 studies; guanfacine 1 study252
(5 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowd
There was little to no evidence of a difference betweengroups foranxiety (P = 0.30);mood change (P= 0.07), "silly behaviour" (P = 0.51),self‐injury (P = 0.19), orsocialwithdrawal (P = 0.36).
MetabolicThere was evidence of a higher rate of AEs in theintervention group fordecreased appetiteRR 2.15 (95% CI 1.55 higher to 2.99 higher); atomoxetine 5studies; guanfacine 1 study; amphetamine 1 study;methylphenidate 2 studies511
(9 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowc
There was little to no evidence of a difference betweengroups for increased appetite (P = 0.63) and increasedenergy (P = 0.31).
MusculoskeletalNo data were reported for this outcome in thiscomparison.
AE: adverse effect;ASD: autism spectrumdisorder;CI: confidence interval;RR: riskratio;SMD: standardised mean difference
GRADE Working Group grades of evidenceHighcertainty: we are very confident that the trueeffect lies close to that of the estimate of theeffect.
Moderate certainty: we aremoderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effectis likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, butthere is a possibility that it is substantiallydifferent.
Low certainty: our confidence inthe effect estimate is limited: the true effect may besubstantially different from the estimate of theeffect.
Very low certainty: we have verylittle confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect islikely to be substantially different from the estimate ofeffect.

aDowngraded 1 level due to study limitations (high risk ofbias across multiple domains) and 1 level due to imprecision (95%confidence intervals includes both benefit andharm).
bDowngraded 1 level due to study limitations(high risk of bias across multiple domains) and 1 level for indirectness(available evidence relates to children only) and 1 level forimprecision (small sample size of n = 16 and 95% confidence intervalsincludes both benefit and harm).
cDowngraded 1 leveldue to study limitations (only involving children), 1 level due toinconsistency (direction of effect varies across studies) and 1 leveldue to imprecision (95% confidence intervals includes both benefit andharm).
dDowngraded 1 level due to study limitations(high risk of bias across multiple domains), 1 level due toinconsistency (direction of effect varies across studies) and 1 leveldue to imprecision (95% confidence intervals includes both benefit andharm).

Summary of findings 4. Antidepressants compared to placebo for irritability,aggression, and self‐injury in autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Antidepressants compared to placebo for irritability,aggression, and self‐injury in autism spectrum disorder(ASD)
Patient or population: participants (any age) with aclinical diagnosis of ASD who have displayed one or moreunwanted or challenging behaviours at baseline assessment
Setting: hospital inpatient or outpatientcentres, education or disability settings, mental healthsettings, or clinics and research centres associated withuniversities
Intervention: antidepressants
Comparison: placebo
OutcomesAnticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)Relative effect
(95% CI)№ of participants
(studies)Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)Comments
Risk with placeboRisk with antidepressants
Irritability
Follow‐up: short term (up to six months)
Measured via Aberrant Behaviour Checklist (Irritabilitysubscale) (ABC‐I) (Aman1985), Score range (0‐45)
Lower scores indicate lower severity
The mean score in the placebo group ranged from 10.2 to13.8SMD 0.06 lower
(95% CI 0.30 lower to 0.18 higher)267
(3 studies)⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa
There was no evidence of a difference, but results areuncertain.
AggressionNo data were reported for this outcome in this comparison
Self‐injurious behaviour ‐ no data could be used forthis outcome because of skewness (seeTable 5)
Adverse effects
Follow‐up: short term (up to six months)
NeurologicalThere was evidence of a higher rate ofdecreasedattention in the intervention groupRR 4.16 (95% CI 1.07 higher to 16.11 higher); citalopram 1study; clomipramine 1 study; fluoxetine 5 studies;fluvoxamine 1 study; sertraline 1 study; tianeptine 1study815
(10 studies)
⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowb
 
The was little to no evidence of a difference between groupsfor any of the other neurological adverse effects includingactivation syndrome (P = 0.64), agitation (P =0.96),aggression or hostility (P = 0.83),angeror irritability (P = 0.35),autonomicdisturbance (P = 0.83),CNS disturbance (P =0.50),diaphoresis (sweating) (P = 0.49),drowsiness (P = 0.50),headache (P =0.23),hyperactivity (P = 0.36),insomnia (P =0.29),sedation (P = 0.16),sleep disturbance(P = 0.76),mood lability (P = 0.43),restlessness (P = 0.13),twitching (P =0.17),tremor (P = 0.22), orvertigo (P =0.65)
PsychologicalThe was evidence of a higher rate of AEs in the interventiongroup for
impulsive behaviour
RR 2.92 (95% CI 1.11 higher to 7.68 higher); citalopram 1study243
(4 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowc
 
The was evidence of a higher rate of AEs in the interventiongroup forstereotypyRR 8.33 (95% CI 1.07 higher to 64.95 higher); citalopram 1study
The was little to no evidence of a difference between groupsforanorexia (P = 0.42),verbal aggression (P= 0.36),suicidal ideation (P = 0.65),baddreams (P = 0.28),unstable mood (P = 0.66),anxiety (P = 0.16) anddepression (P =0.79)
MetabolicThere was evidence of a higher rate ofdecreasedenergy in the antidepressant groupRR 1.94 (95% CI 1.13 higher to 3.33 higher); citalopram 1study512
(7 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowd
 
 The was little to no evidence of a difference between groupsforappetite disturbance (P = 0.40),decreasedappetite (P = 0.39),increased appetite (P =0.85), andweight gain (P = 0.80)
MusculoskeletalThe was little to no evidence of a difference between groupsformotor disturbance (P = 0.30) orneck pain(P = 0.65)202
(2 studies)
⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowe
 
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95%confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in thecomparison group and therelative effect of theintervention (and its 95% CI). 

AE:adverse effect;ASD: autism spectrum disorder;CI: confidence interval;CNS: centralnervous system;RR: risk ratio;SMD:standardised mean difference
GRADE Working Group grades of evidenceHighcertainty: we are very confident that the trueeffect lies close to that of the estimate of theeffect.
Moderate certainty: we aremoderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effectis likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, butthere is a possibility that it is substantiallydifferent.
Low certainty: our confidence inthe effect estimate is limited: the true effect may besubstantially different from the estimate of theeffect.
Very low certainty: we have verylittle confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect islikely to be substantially different from the estimate ofeffect.

aDowngraded 1 level for imprecision (95% confidence intervalsincludes both benefit and harm), and 1 level for imprecision (smallsample size of n = 267). 
bDowngraded 1 level for studylimitations (high risk of bias across multiple domains) and 1 level forimprecision (95% confidence intervals include both benefit andharm).
cDowngraded 1 level for study limitations(high risk of bias across multiple domains), 1 level for inconsistency(direction of effect varied across studies) and 1 level for imprecision(small sample size of n = 279). 
dDowngraded 1 levelfor study limitations (high risk of bias across multiple domains), 1level for inconsistency (direction of effect varied across studies and 1level for imprecision (95% confidence intervals includes both benefitand harm).
eDowngraded 1 level for study limitations(high risk of bias across multiple domains), 1 level for imprecision(small sample size of n=202), and 1 level for imprecision (95%confidence intervals includes both benefit and harm).

1. Antidepressant versus placebo: self‐injurious behaviour resultsthat could not be used in meta‐analyses.

Study nameShort‐/ medium‐/ long‐term outcomesGroup 1Group 2Group 1 sample sizeGroup 2 sample sizeGroup 1 resultsGroup 2 resultsOther dataNotes
Carminati 2016Short‐term self‐injurious behaviourVenlafaxine 18.75 mg/dayPlacebo67Median 1 (range 0‐13)Median 3 (range 0‐8)
King 2001Short‐term self‐injurious behaviourCitalopram (max 20 mg/day)Placebo73762.4 (2.7)2.0 (2.6)Skewed
Mouti 2014Short‐term self‐injurious behaviourFluoxetine (max 20‐30 mg)Placebo53532.09 (3.01)3.55 (4.59)Skewed

Background

Description of the condition

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterised by persistent deficits in socialcommunication and social interaction across multiple contexts, as well asrestricted repetitive patterns of behaviour, interests, or activities (DSM‐5 2013). There are currently fivediagnostic criteria used by theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders, Fifth Edition (DSM‐52013), for the diagnosis of ASD, including 1) persistent deficits insocial communication and social interaction across multiple contexts; 2)restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour, interests, or activities; 3)presentation of symptoms in the early developmental period; 4) symptoms thatcause clinically significant impairment in important areas of currentfunctioning; and 5) disturbances that are not better explained by intellectualdisability (intellectual developmental disorder) or global developmental delay(DSM‐5 2013).

Thirty years ago, research suggested that ASD was a rare categorical disorderwith a prevalence of 4 in 10,000 (Baron‐Cohen2008); more recent prevalence studies show it to be a commoncondition with a prevalence of approximately 1% of the population across mostcountries (Arora 2018;Cleaton 2018;Elsabbagh 2012;Ritchie 2020). However, prevalence variesbetween countries, with higher rates in high‐income countries such as the USAand UK, estimated to be 1% to 3%, whereas rates in lower‐income countries are0.5% or less (Cleaton 2018;Ritchie 2020).

Some have attributed this rise to a true increase in the problems seen in ASD.Others have disputed this, attributing the rise to factors such as earlierdiagnosis, broadening of diagnostic criteria (May 2020;Tantam 2012) andchanges in diagnostic attribution (May2017;Turowetz 2015). Theprevalence of ASD in men is reported to exceed that in women, although the exactratio may be impossible to specify; a recent review reported an overall male tofemale ratio of 3:1 (Loomes 2017).

The lower prevalence of ASD in lower‐income countries has been attributed to arelative lack of epidemiological studies in low‐income countries (Matos 2022), and multiple factorsincluding community awareness, cost and capacity of health and other services,information seeking, and socio‐demographic factors (Zeidan 2022). In addition, some havesuggested that due to financial restraints, low‐income countries often use theirown or other criteria compared to more widely‐used criteria such as theDSM‐5 2013 to diagnose ASD (Peiris 2022). Because various ASD criteriaand diagnostic tools are being used, this may explain the lack of consistencyparticularly between low‐income and high‐income countries.

The authors of this review are aware that a substantial proportion of theautistic community prefer to describe themselves as autistic, an autisticperson, or on the spectrum, rather than person with autism or ASD (Autism Spectrum Australia 2023;Autistic Self Advocacy Network 2023;National Autistic Society 2023). However,preferences vary and throughout this review the authors will be using standardnotation of 'person with ASD'.

Behaviours of concern

The terms 'challenging behaviour' (Emerson1995), and 'behaviours that challenge' (NICE 2015), are widely used in theliterature to describe behaviours such as irritability, aggression, andself‐injury. However, many behaviours seen as being challenging and framedas inherent to the person with autism could be better understood aslegitimate responses to difficult environments and situations (Ramcharan 2009). 'Challengingbehaviours', therefore, have also been described as reactive and responsivebehaviours, distressed behaviours, expressions of unmet need, and inAustralia, behaviours of concern. Throughout this review we use the term'behaviours of concern', because it is a term that is increasingly beingused internationally.

Irritability is an ambiguous term that is often not well‐defined.Irritability is defined by theDSM‐52013 as "persistent anger, a tendency to respond to events withangry outbursts or blaming others, an exaggerated sense of frustration overminor matters". Other emotions and behaviours such as anger and aggressionare often associated with irritability, however, they are usuallyconsequences of irritability rather than a trait of irritability (Benarous 2019;Toohey 2017).

In addition to the core symptoms, people with ASD may exhibit behaviours ofconcern. These can include behaviours such as agitation, aggression,self‐injury, destruction to property, disruptive behaviour, sexualmisconduct, or arson (NICE 2015;Sheehan 2015).Neurodevelopmental disorders included in the DSM‐5 such as attention deficithyperactivity disorder (ADHD), ASD, intellectual disability, specificlearning disorders, or impairments in social interaction, communication, ormovement are associated with behaviours of concern (Cleaton 2018;DSM‐5 2013), with increasing severityof disability associated with an increased likelihood, frequency, andseverity of behaviours of concern (Emerson2001;Matson 2009;McTiernan 2011).

The reported prevalence of behaviours of concern varies. It is estimated thatbetween 5% and 15% of people with ASD develop behaviours of concern (NICE 2015), with a higher prevalenceof greater than 25% reported in children (Hill 2014;Kanne 2011;Soke 2016). Prevalence tends toalso be higher in particular circumstances such as in hospitals, amongstteenagers, people in their early twenties, men and boys, people withcomorbid psychiatric diagnoses (NICE2015), and people with dual diagnoses of intellectual disabilityand ASD (Fitzpatrick 2016;Kanne 2011;Tyrer 2006).

There appears to be a high co‐occurrence of other neurodevelopmentaldisorders with ASD, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD;DSM‐5 2013). People withco‐occurring ASD and ADHD may have a higher incidence of behaviours ofconcern, which is not surprising given that such behaviours are reported inboth disorders (Craig 2015;Ringer 2020). Furthermore, there isalso co‐occurrence of mental health disorders with ASD, notably anxiety anddepression (Hollocks 2019;Koritsas 2015;Lord 2018). Approximately 40% ofchildren and 27% of adults with ASD are reported to also have at least oneanxiety disorder (Hollocks 2019;Van Steensel 2011). Over 20% ofadults with ASD are reported to have a current diagnosis of depression(Van Steensel 2011). When thereare co‐occurring diagnoses, medications such as stimulants, anxiolytics orantidepressants may be prescribed to treat the co‐occurring condition.

The presence of behaviours of concern add complexity to living with andsupporting people with ASD. Not only can this result in families andinformal carers experiencing high levels of stress, they can also createbarriers to adult independence and community involvement (Smith 2014).

Description of the intervention

Interventions that target core symptoms of ASD or co‐occurring difficulties canbe associated with positive outcomes in areas such as cognitive functioning,language skills, social behaviours, and reduction of behaviours of concern(Seida 2009;Weitlauf 2014).

For individuals with ASD, environmental modifications, non‐pharmacologicalinterventions (such as educational interventions and behavioural andpsychological therapies) and pharmacological interventions (medication and otherbiological therapies) are commonly suggested treatments and can help reducebehaviours of concern such as irritability, aggression and self‐injury (Perez 2012;Posey 2001;Sengupta 2017).

This review will focus solely on pharmacological interventions that are used totarget irritability, aggression or self‐injury in people with ASD. The majordrug classes of interest were typical and atypical antipsychotics, ADHD‐relatedmedications, anticonvulsants, anti‐dementia medications, antidepressants,antiparkinsonian medications, anxiolytics, neurohormones, and a number of drugsthat did not fall into any of these classes and that we grouped under an'experimental' category. These drug classes were based on the major classeslisted in the review protocol (Livingstone2015), as well as additional pharmacological classes identified fromthe search results (seeAppendix 1 forsearch strategy).

Antipsychotics

Antipsychotics are medications that treat disorganised thinking and poorawareness of reality. The use of antipsychotics has also been associatedwith reduced irritability, social withdrawal, hyperactivity, andstereotypical behaviours in young people with ASD (Jesner 2007). First‐generation or'typical antipsychotics' such as haloperidol were first used in the 1950s totreat people with schizophrenia. Second‐generation or 'atypicalantipsychotics' such as aripiprazole and risperidone were introduced in the1980s because of their reduced risk of long‐term and irreversible adverseeffects (AEs) when compared to typical antipsychotics. Antipsychoticmedications are psychotropic agents frequently prescribed for people withASD (Coury 2012;Howes 2018;Loy 2017;Madden 2017;Murray 2014;Rasmussen 2019), often in the absenceof a diagnosed mental disorder (Cvejic2018;Deb 2009;Deb 2015;Sheehan 2015). Large‐scale studieshave shown that around 5% to 15% of people with ASD are prescribedantipsychotics (Coury 2012;Howes 2018;Lake 2017;Murray 2014;Rasmussen 2019). Antipsychotics arecommonly prescribed for hyperactivity, aggression, and other behaviours ofconcern (Dinnissen 2020;Henderson 2020), and antipsychoticprescribing is more prevalent amongst people with autism and/or intellectualdisability compared to the general population (Glover 2015;Henderson 2020).

Although antipsychotics are not recommended for the treatment of coresymptoms of ASD (Howes 2018), thereis increasing evidence that antipsychotics decrease behaviours of concern inpeople with ASD (Howes 2018;Jesner 2007). Since publication of theprotocol for this review (Livingstone2015), seven systematic reviews reporting the effectiveness ofantipsychotics on behaviours of concern in people with autism, predominantlychildren and adolescents, have been published (D’Alò 2021;Fallah 2019;Fung 2016;Hirsch 2016;Maneeton 2018a;Maneeton 2018b;Mano‐Sousa 2021). Although resultswere mixed, the majority of evidence for the effectiveness of antipsychoticmedications in reducing behaviours of concern was reported for the atypicalantipsychotics, aripiprazole and risperidone.

There is some concern regarding the long‐term health outcomes ofantipsychotic use, such as significant weight gain (Alvarez‐Jiménez 2008;Bak 2014;Lake 2017), increased risk of diabetesmellitus (Holt 2019), increasedprevalence of cardiovascular disease such as stroke and heart attack (Zivkovic 2019), and increased risk ofall‐cause mortality (Simon 2015;Trifirò 2009). The NationalInstitute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidelines recommend thatantipsychotic medications should only be considered if behaviours of concernhave not been reduced by psychological or other interventions, treatment forany co‐existing psychiatric disorders and the person or others are at severerisk of harm (NICE 2015). Otherguidelines recommend that antipsychotics are only a short‐term option (up to8 weeks) if non‐pharmacological interventions did not reduce the behavioursof concern. Effectiveness should be reviewed after three or four weeks onthe drugs before continuing (SIGN2016), and only one drug should be trialled at any one time todetermine its effectiveness (Deb2009).

ADHD‐related medications

ADHD‐related medications are often prescribed to people with ASD who exhibitbehaviours of concern, at least in part due to some similarities between ASDand ADHD such as hyperactivity, inattention and social or communicationdeficits, or both (Cortese 2012;Hanson 2013;Mikami 2019;Rosello 2018), as well as the highcomorbidity rates of ADHD amongst people with ASD (Antshel 2013;Sokolova 2017). In the past, stimulantmedications have been prescribed to people with ASD who show behaviours ofconcern and have hyperactivity (Cortese2012;Hanson 2013;Mikami 2019;Rosello 2018). Since 2013, when a dualdiagnosis of ADHD and ASD was permitted, a high prevalence of co‐occurringASD and ADHD has been reported (Antshel2013;Sokolova 2017).Stimulants such as methylphenidate are the most commonly prescribedpsychotropic medications for people with ASD aged six years and older, withprescribing rates up to 34% reported in large multinational studies (Houghton 2017;Hsia 2014;Murray 2014), and 17% in an Australianstudy (Rasmussen 2019).

Stimulants and non‐stimulants have also been reported to reduce symptoms ofirritability and aggression in people with ASD (Banas 2020;Handen 2008;Ming 2008), and are some of the mostprescribed psychotropics for people with ASD (Madden 2017). Stimulants such asmethylphenidate, have also been recommended as adjuncts to behaviouralinterventions for hyperactivity in children or young people withco‐occurring ASD and ADHD (SIGN2016). However, a narrative synthesis byGhanizadeh 2019 concluded there wasinadequate evidence to support or refute the effect of methylphenidate onirritability, while a Cochrane Review found no evidence that rates oftreatment‐emergent irritability were different in children and adolescentswith ASD taking methylphenidate (Sturman2017).

Anticonvulsants

Anticonvulsants are primarily used to reduce seizures (Wassenaar 2013;Wlodarczyk 2012). Seizures associatedwith epilepsy are caused by abnormal and asynchronous firing of neurons(nerve cells) which usually end abruptly (DeLorenzo 2005;Geiger2011;Kusmaker 2018;Proix 2018). Mostanticonvulsants such as carbamazepine, phenobarbital and valproate blockvoltage‐gated sodium channels to reduce the firing of neurons (Verrotti 2010). Some anticonvulsantssuch as levetiracetam, topiramate or valproate also have a role in therelease or modulation of the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA (Cortes‐Altamirano 2016), decreasingthe speed and firing of neurons. Some anticonvulsants are also used as moodstabilisers, for example, divalproex sodium, primarily in bipolar illness.Use of these medications has also been associated with reduction inaffective instability, impulsivity and aggression in ASD (Hollander 2001).

In a systematic review of anticonvulsants for psychiatric disorders inchildren and adolescents, two trials of valproate and one of levetiracetamfound no effect on aggression; however, an additional trial reported adecrease of irritability and aggression in the valproate group (Davico 2018). There was no differencein aggression in the remaining trial of participants with ASD, whichcompared to placebo. In another review of GABA modulators in autism byBrondino 2016, there was no differencein aggression and irritability in one study that evaluated valproate, whilethe other found valproate reduced irritability. Similarly, in the systematicreview of the pharmacologic treatment of severe irritability and aggressionin 2‐ to 17‐year‐olds with ASD byFung2016, one of the two small trials comparing valproate to placebofound it reduced the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist Irritability subscale(ABC‐I;Aman 1985) scores, with noapparent effect in the other.

Antidementia medications

Antidementia medications include cholinesterase inhibitors andN‐methyl‐D‐aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, which are primarily usedto treat individuals with Alzheimer’s dementia. Previous studies have shownthat the cholinesterase inhibitor donepezil, has been associated withchanges in aberrant behaviours of children with ASD (Chez 2003). Research also indicatesthat the NMDA receptor antagonist, memantine, could improve socialbehaviour, self‐stimulatory behaviours (Chez 2004), and irritability (Erickson 2007), in people with ASD.

Antidepressants

Antidepressants, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) andtricyclic antidepressants, are used to treat symptoms of depression,anxiety, and obsessionality and are commonly prescribed for people with ASD(Coury 2012;Howes 2018;Murray 2014); often in the absence ofa diagnosed mental disorder (Cvejic2018;Sheehan 2015;Tsouris 2013). Large‐scale studiesinvolving people with ASD have found that antidepressants are prescribed atsimilar rates to antipsychotics and stimulants, and often concurrently (upto 40%) with antipsychotics (Branford2019;Cvejic 2018;Esbensen 2009). In addition, the useof antidepressants amongst people with ASD in large‐scale studies isapproximately eight times higher than in people without ASD (Madden 2017). However, there is noclear evidence of the effectiveness of antidepressants in reducingbehaviours of concern in people with ASD (Branford 2019;Hurwitz2012;Johnco 2015;Williams 2013).

Two Cochrane Reviews evaluated the effects of these two major classes ofantidepressants on ASD. In one Cochrane Review of SSRIs for ASD (Williams 2013), there was limitedevidence that citalopram reduced irritability but no evidence thatfenfluramine and fluoxetine had an effect. In a Cochrane Review of tricyclicantidepressants for ASD in children and adolescents, there was no evidencethat clomipramine and tianeptine improved irritability relative to placebo(Hurwitz 2012); however, thethree included trials were very small. In an additional systematic review ofantidepressant and antianxiety medications for people with ASD (Deb 2021), there was no evidence thatcitalopram, clomipramine, venlafaxine or fluoxetine decreased behaviours ofconcern, but one of two trials of fluvoxamine showed reduced aggression.

Antiparkinsonian medications

Antiparkinsonian medications are primarily used to treat individuals who haveParkinson's disease and Alzheimer’s dementia. Some antiparkinsonianmedications, such as amantadine, have been studied for the treatment ofpeople with ASD to address symptoms of irritability and aggression. Adouble‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of children with ASD aged 5 to 19years found that symptoms of irritability and aggression were reduced inthose receiving amantadine as the active medication (King 2001). Other studies havereported that they may improve language function, social behaviour, andself‐stimulatory behaviours of some people with ASD (Chez 2004). A smaller improvement inirritability symptoms has also been reported (Erickson 2007). In a systematic reviewof pharmacologic treatment in 2‐ to 17‐year‐olds with ASD (Fung 2016), there was no evidence thatamantadine decreased ABC‐I scores in the one small identifiedplacebo‐controlled trial.

Anxiolytics

As anxiety is associated with behaviours of concern (Johnco 2015;Nadeau 2011;NICE 2015), anxiolytics may beeffective in reducing behaviours of concern in people with ASD and anxiety(Bitsika 2016;Johnco 2015). Anxiolytics such asbuspirone are commonly used to treat generalised anxiety disorder (Schmitt 2005). Compared tobenzodiazepines, buspirone has a reduced risk of dependency, abuse andsedation, and so is sometimes considered a safer option for long‐termmanagement of anxiety disorders, particularly amongst the young or elderlypopulations (Crocco 2017;Schmitt 2005). Buspirone is alsoconsidered a treatment for older adults or children with aggression,irritability, or agitation (Aronson2016;Howland 2015), andas such, may be effective in reducing behaviours of concern in people withASD. In the systematic review byDeb2021, one of two parallel trials of buspirone showed a decreasein irritability.

Neurohormones

Neurohormones are hormones produced by nerve cells and secreted into thecirculation with varying mechanisms of action and sites of origin. Twoneurohormones have been investigated in ASD, namely oxytocin and secretin.Secretin has been suggested as potentially beneficial in the management ofASD and related behaviours of concern (McQueen 2002;Tanaka2018). However, in an earlier Cochrane Review of intravenoussecretin compared to placebo treatment in children or adults diagnosed withASD, there was no effect of secretin in any of the three studies thatreported irritability (Williams2012).

Experimental

Effects have previously been reported for a range of medications that do notfall into any of the previously mentioned categories. A systematic review oftrials of GABA modulators in autism evaluated acamprosate, arbaclofen,bumetanide, carnosine, flumazenil, riluzole and valproate (Brondino 2016). However, there wasinsufficient evidence to suggest that any of these medications wereeffective in people with autism (Brondino2016). In a review of the drug riluzole, which also appears toregulate glutamate activity (De Boer2019), two of three studies in children and young adults reportedthat single and adjunct use of riluzole decreased irritability, althoughthere was no effect in the remaining trial. In a meta‐analysis ofn‐acetylcysteine in ASD (Lee 2021),irritability scores were not different across all four identified studies,though a subgroup study indicated effects in one trial.

How the intervention might work

While each of these medications works differently, broadly speaking, medicationsmay act by reducing co‐occurring conditions, like ADHD, anxiety or depression,or will act directly to reduce behaviours of concern. However, there is limitedevidence for the effectiveness of these medications at this stage.

Antipsychotics

ASD has been associated with abnormalities in both the dopaminergic systemand serotoninergic systems (Nakamura2010). Dopamine over‐activation has also been linked withexcessive motor activity and stereotyped behaviours, which are oftenobserved in individuals with ASD (Previc2007). Altered serotonin levels have been found to lead tochanges in several psychological processes, which are also altered inindividuals with ASD, including mood, irritability, and aggression (Young 2002). Typical orfirst‐generation antipsychotics exert their action by blocking dopaminereceptors. However, atypical (second‐generation) antipsychotics also have arange of actions at other neurotransmitter systems, including systems thatmodulate serotonin and norepinephrine receptors.

Antidepressants

The two major classes of antidepressants prescribed for ASD (SSRIs andtricyclic antidepressants) have differing pharmacological actions. SSRIsexert their effects through increasing the availability of serotonin (Williams 2013), whereas tricyclicantidepressants increase the availability of the neurotransmitters serotoninand noradrenaline (Hurwitz 2012;Shojaie 2020). Altered serotoninlevels have been found to lead to changes in several psychologicalprocesses, which are also altered in individuals with ASD, including mood,irritability, and aggression (Young2002;Williams 2013).Antidepressants may be effective in treating some common comorbidities ofASD such as anxiety, depression, and obsessive compulsive disorder, whichcan in turn reduce behaviours of concern (Williams 2013;Zaboski2018).

Anticonvulsants

The mechanism by which antiepileptic medications, such as carbamazepine andlevetiracetam, could affect irritability and aggression remains unclear.What is known is that gabapentin reduces the excitability of nerve cells inthe brain (Guglielmo 2013).

Anticonvulsants such as divalproex sodium are also used as mood stabilisers.It has been suggested that mood stabilisers, such as divalproex sodium, workby enhancing GABA, inhibiting glutamate, acting on serotonin andnorepinephrine systems, and via limbic kindling (Hollander 2001).

ADHD‐related medications

These include stimulants such as methylphenidate and dexamphetamine thatincrease dopamine and noradrenaline activity; and non‐stimulants such asatomoxetine, clonidine and guanfacine, which primarily increasenoradrenaline activity (Osland2018).

Stimulant (Ghanizadeh 2019;Sturman 2017), and nonstimulant (Banas 2020;Ghanizadeh 2013;Patra 2019), ADHD‐related medicationshave been administered to children with ASD with the aim of improvingsymptoms. It is thought that any effects on behaviours of concern withADHD‐related medications are likely to be secondary to improvements inattention, concentration and hyperactivity (Banas 2020).

ADHD is often associated with dopaminergic system dysfunction (Froehlich 2013;Huss 2016;Wu 2012). Dopamine plays an importantrole in planning, motor and motivational processes, which are abnormal inpeople with ADHD (Marinho 2018;Wu 2012). Stimulants such asamphetamine and methylphenidate are thought to improve symptoms of ADHD byincreasing dopamine activity (Wu2012).

The neurotransmitter, noradrenaline, may also decrease symptoms of ADHD as ithas an important role in the prefrontal cortex, an area associated withattention and executive functioning (Patra2019). Non‐stimulants such as atomoxetine, clonidine andguanfacine, which primarily increase noradrenaline activity, are sometimesprescribed as an alternative to stimulant ADHD‐related medications.

Atomoxetine is a dopamine and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (Froehlich 2013;Janak 2012). The increase innorepinephrine and dopamine in the pre‐frontal cortex by atomoxetine isthought to improve ADHD symptoms such as impaired attention and reducedexecutive function (Patra 2019;Ulke 2019). Clonidine andguanfacine are alpha‐2 adrenergic receptor agonists (Giovannitti 2015;Huss 2016), and are thought to improveADHD symptoms by increasing noradrenergic activity in the prefrontal cortex(Caye 2019;Mechler 2022).

Antidementia medications

As described above, impairments in the dopaminergic system have beenassociated with behavioural characteristics of several neurodevelopmentaldisorders, including ASD (DiCarlo2019). Amantadine is an NMDA receptor antagonist with an indirectdopaminergic agonist role (King2001;Müller 2012).

The NMDA receptors play an important role in the cellular processes of thebrain underlying learning and memory function (Chang 2021;Olivares 2012). NMDA also plays a rolein regulating inflammation in the brain (Chang 2021), and it is thought that neuro inflammation isinvolved in neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders (Ricci 2013). The precise mechanisms bywhich NMDA receptor antagonists work is not well known, however, it has beenfound that people with ASD often have abnormally high glutamate and activitylevels of NMDA receptors (Rojas2014). Therefore, it is thought that NMDA receptor antagonists suchas memantine may play a role in reducing the core symptoms of ASD.

Antiparkinsonian medications

Cholinergic neurotransmission, including nicotinic acetylcholine receptors,are involved in several functions including attention, memory, learning,social interactions, movement, and anxiety (Park 2022;Vallés 2021).The cholinergic system is thought to play a central role in Alzheimer'sdisease, particularly the associated cognitive decline (Sabri 2008), and nicotinicacetylcholine receptors are thought to have anti‐inflammatory andneuroprotective properties (Park2022).

According to recent studies, acetylcholine and nicotinic receptor activitymay be lower in brain samples of people with ASD. It has been suggested,therefore, that acetylcholinergic enhancement through the use of donepezilhydrochloride — an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor — may improve somebehaviours associated with ASD (Chez2003).

Anxiolytics

People with ASD commonly have elevated levels of blood serotonin (Anderson 1987), however, people withASD also have an increased risk of alterations to serotonin receptors andsynthesis (Veenstra‐VanderWeele2012). Anxiolytics such as buspirone have a strong attraction toserotonin, both presynaptically and postsynaptically (Ceranoglu 2019;Poisbeau 2018), thereby increasing theavailability of serotonin. Serotonin plays a role in regulating mood andsleep, and medications that increase serotonin are often prescribed foranxiety due to the anxiolytic effect of serotonin (Żmudzka 2018).

Neurohormones

Oxytocin is produced in the hypothalamus (Wilczyński 2019), with the primary role of promoting lactation,facilitating contractions, and promoting bonding between mother and infant(Andari 2010;Green 2010;Taylor 2018). Oxytocin has been foundto be reduced in children with ASD (John2021;Moerkerke 2021),and oxytocin is thought to have a role in ASD behaviours (Gottschalk 2017;Ooi 2017;Yamasue 2017;Yoon 2020). It has been suggested thatincreasing oxytocin will reduce ASD behaviours and this could lead to areduction of behaviours of concern.

Secretin is produced in the gastrointestinal tract and has both digestive andneurological functions (Banko 2011;Welch 2004). Because secretinreceptors are also located in areas of the brain associated with emotion andbehaviour, such as in the amygdala, which regulates emotions and mood, andin the hippocampus, which is associated with memory formation (Banko 2011;Qi 2020), impairments orirregularities in brain neurohormones may be associated with ASD (Chaddad 2017;Gibbard 2018). Secretin has thereforebeen suggested as a potential intervention in the management of ASD (Krishnaswami 2011;McQueen 2002;Tanaka 2018).

Why it is important to do this review

To date, there have been five published Cochrane systematic reviews focusing onthe use of pharmacological interventions in ASD. A review on risperidone foundevidence that the medication may lead to significant improvements inirritability (Jesner 2007). Two reviewson aripiprazole also found evidence of improvements in irritability (Ching 2012;Hirsch 2016). A review of tricyclicantidepressants found small positive effects in children and adolescents withASD, particularly in reducing irritability, although results were inconsistent(Hurwitz 2012). A review of SSRIsfound evidence of improvement in an adult's aggression, but only from studieswith a high risk of bias (Williams2013). To date, no Cochrane Review has focused on any of the remainingpharmacological interventions that can be used to address behaviours of concernin ASD. These previously conducted reviews of single medications or singleclasses of medications have provided useful information regarding theireffectiveness and safety, however, these reviews now require updating.Furthermore, this review includes studies of children and adults with ASD,whereas previous reviews had focused only on either children or adults.

Since the publication of the protocol (Livingstone 2015), 17 systematic reviews have been published. Sevenof these were on antipsychotics, three each on anticonvulsants and'experimental' interventions, and an additional four systematic reviews onantiparkinsonians, anxiolytics, dementia‐related medications, andantidepressants respectively. Each of the systematic reviews reported on theeffectiveness of only one class of drug.

The extent to which the age of the person receiving the treatment will affect theintervention's efficacy remains unclear. ASD is a lifelong condition, andtherefore it is important to understand the effect of interventions, includingmedication, across the lifespan (Tantam2012).

Objectives

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

Methods

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross‐over studies, thatcompare pharmacological interventions to an alternative drug, standard care,placebo, or wait‐list control.

Types of participants

Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they included participantsof any age with a clinical diagnosis of ASD, who displayed one or morebehaviours of concern at baseline assessment, specifically irritability,aggression and self‐injury. People with reported comorbidities were includedin the analysis. We will also include studies that identify a subset ofpeople with ASD.

We included studies where participants were diagnosed according to thecriteria of theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders(DSM) Fourth (DSM‐IV (DSM‐41994); or DSM‐IV‐TR (DSM‐4‐TR2000)) andFifth (DSM‐5;DSM‐5 2013) Editions, or theInternational Classification ofDiseases, 10th Revision (ICD‐10;ICD‐10 2004); and those who had been diagnosed through use of astandardised diagnostic instrument, including the Autism DiagnosticObservation Schedule (ADOS;Lord2000) or the Autism Diagnostic Interview Revised (ADI‐R;Lord 1994).

Types of interventions

Any pharmacological intervention used to manage behaviours of concern inchildren, adolescents or adults with ASD, specifically irritability,aggression, or self‐injury. Interventions may have been given at any dosage,for any duration, and any frequency of administration. Relevantpharmacological interventions included first‐generation ('typical')antipsychotics such as haloperidol, second‐generation ('atypical')antipsychotics such as risperidone and aripiprazole, ADHD‐relatedmedications, anticonvulsants, antidementia medications, antidepressants(including selective SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants), antiparkinsonianmedication, anxiolytics, neurohormones, and a number of other drugs that didnot fall into any of these classes that we grouped under an experimentalcategory.

It was possible that additional eligible interventions that review authorswere not previously aware of may be identified in the course of the review.When we identified any pharmacological interventions that were not initiallyincluded, we considered them as eligible and included them in the reviewafter assessing their comparability with those named above.

Because pharmacological interventions could be used in addition tonon‐pharmacological therapies, we included any studies in which participantsreceived concurrent non‐pharmacological therapies, provided that they wereused in all intervention arms.

The interventions of interest for this review focus on the effectiveness andbenefits and harms associated with pharmacological agents to address thebehaviours of irritability, aggression and self‐injury for people with ASD.Interventions with different foci such as sleep interventions were notincluded in this review.

Types of outcome measures

We classified outcome measures as either primary or secondary outcomes.

Lower scores indicate a more positive response for all outcomes and measuresused apart from quality of life, where higher scores indicate an improvedquality of life.

Where data were insufficient, we provided a narrative account of theoutcomes.

Where feasible, we made comparisons at the following specific follow‐upperiods:

  • short‐term follow‐up (less than 6 months);

  • medium‐term follow‐up (6 to 12 months); and

  • long‐term follow‐up (over 12 months).

Primary outcomes
Behaviours of concern

Behaviours of concern in ASD, specifically:

  • irritability (including outcomes of irritabilityimprovement and irritability relapse as defined by thestudy authors);

  • aggression; and

  • self‐injury.

These outcomes needed to be measured by standardised instruments suchas the 'irritability' subscale of the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist(ABC‐I;Aman 1985). Wherepossible, preference was given to analysing each of these threespecific challenging behaviours separately. Where this was notpossible, we combined measures across studies to create a composite'challenging behaviour' outcome. In the event that study authorsreported several similar scales, we established a hierarchy ofpreferred scales/instruments where the ABC‐I was the preferredscale. This hierarchy was established through discussion with thefull review group.

Adverse effects

AEs (including sedation and weight gain)

Due to the wide range of AE data that we collected during thisreview, we made a postprotocol decision to categorise available datainto the following groups:

  • cardiovascular;

  • gastrointestinal;

  • immune;

  • metabolic system;

  • musculoskeletal;

  • neurological;

  • psychological;

  • respiratory system;

  • skin;

  • urinary; and

  • other.

Secondary outcomes
Quality of life

Quality of life for both the child and the parents or informal carersor family (as measured by standardised instruments such as thePediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL;Varni 1999), or throughquality‐of‐life questionnaires).

Tolerability and acceptability

Tolerability and acceptability of the intervention (as measured byself‐reported or clinician‐reported adherence to treatment).

Summary of findings tables

We used the following outcomes to populate the summary of findingstables for the main comparison:

  • irritability;

  • aggression;

  • self‐injury;

  • AEs.

Search methods for identification of studies

We ran searches in 2020 using the search strategies inAppendix 2. We also ran updated searches in2022, in which we made changes to the original MEDLINE search strategy by addingthe MeSH term for neurodevelopmental disorders to the population section, andincluded more search terms for pharmacological interventions. We adapted therevised MEDLINE search for all databases (Appendix 1), and ran the searches from inception for each sourcebefore de‐duplicating these with the records retrieved by the previoussearch.

Electronic searches

We searched all available years of the following databases.

  • Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2022,Issue 5), in the Cochrane Library. Searched 6 June 2022

  • MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 6 June 2022)

  • MEDLINE In‐Process and Other Non‐indexed Citations Ovid (6 June2022)

  • MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print Ovid (6 June 2022)

  • Embase Ovid (1974 to 6 June 2022)

  • CINAHL EBSCOhost (1937 to 6 June 2022)

  • APA PsycINFO Ovid (1967 to 6 June 2022)

  • ERIC EBSCOhost (1966 to 6 June 2022)

  • Epistemonikos (www.epistemonikos.org/en/). Searched 6 June 2022

  • Sociological Abstracts Proquest, 1952 to 6 June 2022

  • Science Citation Index (SCI) Web of Science Clarivate (1970 to 6June 2022)

  • Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science (CPCI‐S) Web ofScience Clarivate (1990 to 6 June 2022)

  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR; 2020, Issue11), in the Cochrane Library. Searched 6 June 2022

  • Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), in the Centrefor Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) databases. Searched 6 June2022

  • LILACS (lilacs.bvsalud.org/en/). Searched 6 June 2022

  • AutismData (autism.org.uk/autismdata). Not available 6 June2022

  • ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov/). Searched 6 June 2022

  • World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical TrialsRegistry Platform (isrctn.com/). Searched 6 June 2022

We used search filters for RCTs where appropriate. We did not apply anylanguage or date restrictions. We did not restrict by publication status,and we sought translation of documents where necessary.

Searching other resources

We scanned bibliographies of included and excluded studies for possibleadditional references of interest.

We contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, authors, and key scholars toidentify any additional ongoing or missed studies.

Data collection and analysis

The protocol of this review planned to conduct a network meta‐analysis on theavailable data. After assessing the plausibility of the transitivity assumption,we decided that a network meta‐analysis would not be appropriate with theavailable data.

This was due to the variation across studies in participants, interventions andcomparators, that did not allow scope for linking nodes to produce a network fora network meta‐analysis. It was felt that the heterogeneity would have led toissues with transitivity that would have rendered the network unstable.

Network meta‐analyses may still be performed in future updates if moreappropriate data become available. In the following sections, we have onlyreported the methods that were used in this version of the review. For unusedmethods, please refer to the published protocol for this review (Livingstone 2015), andAppendix 3.

Selection of studies

Two of the four review authors (DG, MI, MJ, NL) independently selected andassessed every study at abstract and title level and then full‐text level todetermine whether they met the inclusion criteria for this review. Weresolved any disagreements between the authors through discussion with thefull review group. The selection process is presented in two PRISMA diagrams(Figure 1;Figure 2;Moher 2009).

1.

1

Original search November 2020

2.

2

Search update June 2022

Data extraction and management

Two review authors (DG, MI, MJ, NL) extracted data independently and enteredthem into a piloted data extraction form. We resolved any disagreementsbetween the review authors through discussion with the full review group. Weextracted the following data.

Outcome data

From each included study, we extracted relevant details on all primaryand secondary outcome measures used, as defined by the review authors;and length of follow‐up and summary data, including means, standarddeviations, confidence intervals and significance levels for continuousdata, and proportions for dichotomous data. We extracted arm‐leveldata.

Data on potential effect modifiers

From each included study, we extracted data on the following study,participant, intervention, and comparison characteristics that may haveacted as effect modifiers.

  • Study characteristics (study design, study duration, detailsof attrition, and risk of bias concerns)

  • Participant characteristics (number randomised, age ofparticipants, specific diagnosis, comorbidities, genderdistribution, geographical location of study)

  • Intervention characteristics (type of antidepressant orantipsychotic, dose, duration, frequency, age medicationbegan, concurrent interventions)

  • Comparison characteristics (form, frequency, and duration of'standard care')

Other data

From each included study, we extracted data on the following additionalinformation.

  • Study author(s), year of publication, citation, and contactdetails

  • Sources of funding and other potential commercialinterests

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Two of the four review authors (DG, MI, MJ, NL) independently assessed theseven risk of bias domains for each study and assigned each domain to one ofthe following categories as outlined in theCochrane Handbook forSystematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011):

  • high risk of bias;

  • low risk of bias; or

  • unclear or unknown risk of bias.

When determining quality of evidence, the overall risk of bias of each trialwas assessed independently by two of the review authors and then agreed byconsensus or referral to a third review author. Assessments of risk of biasfor each study were based on the following criteria as outlined in theCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).

  • Sequence generation (was the allocation sequence adequatelygenerated?)

  • Allocation concealment (was allocation adequately concealed?)

  • Blinding of participants and personnel (was knowledge of theallocated intervention adequately prevented during thestudy?)

  • Blinding of outcome assessors (was knowledge of the allocatedintervention adequately prevented during the study?)

  • Incomplete outcome data (were incomplete outcome data adequatelyaddressed?)

  • Selective outcome reporting (are reports of the study free ofsuggestion of selective outcome reporting?)

  • Other sources of bias (was the study apparently free of otherproblems that could put it at a high risk of bias?)

We resolved any disagreements between the review authors through discussionwith the full review group. We reached overall risk of bias judgements byconsidering the results from each relevant risk of bias domain for theoutcome being considered.

Measures of treatment effect

Continuous data

We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidenceintervals (CIs) for continuous outcome data (e.g. scores on standardisedmeasures). We used Cohen's standards for interpreting effect sizes(small = 0.2, medium = 0.5, large = 0.8 (Cohen 1988)).

Dichotomous data

We estimated the pairwise relative treatment effects of the competinginterventions by calculating effect sizes as odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CIs for dichotomous outcome data (e.g. adherence).

Unit of analysis issues

Cross‐over trials

We included cross‐over trials, in which all participants receive both thecontrol and intervention treatment but in a random order. We had aimedonly to use data reported during the first phase of the study, up to thepoint of the first cross‐over, to avoid any carry‐over effect from thefirst to second phase. However, the majority of studies did notdifferentiate data from first and second phases. Therefore, where firstphase data were not reported in cross‐over studies, we included reporteddata from the study but undertook a sensitivity analysis to identifywhether inclusion of these data had a differential effect onmeta‐analytic estimates.

Multiple treatment groups

If two or more eligible intervention groups were compared to a singleeligible control group, we split the sample size for the sharedcomparator group to prevent the same comparator participants beingincluded twice. We clearly documented decisions made during this processin the review.

Dealing with missing data

We contacted the original investigators to request missing data. If we couldnot obtain the data, we made assumptions about whether the data appeared tobe 'missing at random' or 'not missing at random' and followed therecommendations of theCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews ofInterventions (Higgins2022a).

Data that are not missing at random are likely to be missing for reasonsrelated to the outcomes of the missing data. For example, if a participantagrees to take part in a trial but is unhappy with the outcome ofallocation, fails to adhere to the medication or experiences AEs as a resultof the medication, then they may be unwilling to complete any follow‐upassessments. In such a situation, where dichotomous data are missing, weimputed data on the assumption that the participants experienced the lessfavourable outcome (e.g. 'participant did not adhere to the treatment').

When studies provided insufficient information regarding the exact numbermissing from each group, data imputation was not possible, in which case weanalysed only the available data. Where continuous data were missing, weanalysed only the available data.

Where studies had missing summary data, such as missing standard deviations,we derived these where possible using calculations provided in theCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2022a).

We specified the methods used to address any missing data in theCharacteristics of included studiestables. If imputation was not possible, we outlined the reasons for this inthe text.

Assessment of heterogeneity

We examined clinical heterogeneity within each pairwise comparison byinspecting each included study for variability in the participants,interventions or outcomes described. We examined methodologicalheterogeneity within each pairwise comparison by inspecting each includedstudy for variability in the study design and risk of bias. We discussed infull any unexpected variability that arose. In pairwise analyses, weassessed statistically the presence of heterogeneity within each pairwisecomparison using the Chi² statistic and its P value (Deeks 2022), and the I² statistic(Higgins 2003), and its 95%CI.

Assessment of reporting biases

We assessed publication bias and other reporting biases by visuallyinspecting the funnel plots of analyses with more than 10 trials andperforming trim and fill analyses.

Data synthesis

We performed standard pairwise meta‐analyses on the results when data from atleast two included studies were available for any treatment comparison. Dueto expected heterogeneity amongst the included studies, we performed arandom‐effects meta‐analysis using an inverse variance weighting method(Chi2 P value 0.05 or less) using Review Manager (RevMan) Websoftware (RevMan Web 2021). We usedan inverse‐variance approach to meta‐analysis in order to increase thecertainty of the pooled effect estimate, as larger studies with smallerstandard errors are weighted more heavily than smaller studies with largerstandard errors (Deeks 2022). Whenpooling the data was inappropriate, we provided a narrative description ofthe individual study results.

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

We conducted the following subgroup analyses for comparisons with asufficient number of studies that provided specific details:

  • the differential effects of interventions by the age at which thedrug was first administered; for example, infant/toddler (birthto six years of age) versus school age (6 to 12 years of age)versus adolescent (12 to 18 years of age), versus adult (18years of age and over);

  • the differential effects of interventions by communicationability; for example, low communication ability versus highcommunication ability;

  • the differential effects of interventions by cognitive ability;for example, low cognitive ability versus high cognitiveability;

  • the differential effects of interventions by the gender of theparticipant; for example, male versus female.

Because most studies did not specify the ages of children, the subgroupanalyses we conducted were children (up to 17 years of age) compared tochildren and adults, and adult‐only samples.

We also undertook subgroup analyses that were not planned in the protocol.This was because we wanted to identify whether there were differences withinsubclasses of each pharmacological class that had differing mechanisms ofaction, that is, each of the atypical antipsychotics that have differingmechanisms of action, stimulant versus non‐stimulant ADHD‐relatedmedications, SSRI versus dibenzoxazepine antidepressants, differentneurohormones, and between each of the different experimental drugs.

Sensitivity analysis

In the protocol (Livingstone 2015),we stated our aim to perform sensitivity analyses to assess whether thefindings of this review were robust to the following:

  • reanalysis excluding studies according to study quality issues,including those with low sample size, high risk of bias, or highattrition;

  • reanalysis without imputing data for the missingparticipants;

  • reanalysis using a fixed‐effect model.

In addition, as the majority of cross‐over studies did not differentiate datafrom first and second phases, we aimed to undertake sensitivity analyses toidentify whether inclusion of these data had a differential effect onmeta‐analytic estimates.

We used the primary outcome irritability for the comparisons where there weresignificant differences between intervention and placebo groups.

We were only able to undertake sensitivity analyses on the comparisons ofantipsychotics versus placebo, and neurohormone versus placebo as there wereinadequate data for other comparisons. We were unable to do sensitivityanalyses for cross‐over studies in atypical antipsychotics as there were nocross‐over studies included in those comparisons. Also, we did not useimputed data, therefore we undertook sensitivity analysis excluding studiesat:

  • high risk of attrition bias;

  • high risk of other bias; and

  • with a sample size less than 50.

Summary of findings and assessment of the certainty of theevidence

We created summary of findings tables using the system developed by the GRADEWorking Group (Schünemann 2013).

We usedGRADEpro GDT to import datafrom RevMan Web to create summary of findings tables for the maincomparisons and outcomes indicated under 'Types of outcome measures' (RevMan Web 2021).

Three review authors (NL, MI, DG) independently assessed the certainty of theevidence using GRADE. We resolved any disagreements through discussion.

For information regarding the GRADE approach, and factors that influence theassessment, see chapter 14 of theCochrane Handbook for SystematicReviews of Interventions (Schünemann 2022).

The main comparisons in this review as judged by clinical experts and forwhich we created summary of findings tables were as follows.

  • Atypical antipsychotics versus placebo

  • Neurohormones versus placebo

  • ADHD‐related drugs versus placebo

  • Antidepressants versus placebo

We used the following outcomes to populate the summary of findings tables forthe main comparisons.

  • Irritability (short‐term)

  • Aggression (short‐term)

  • Self‐injury (short‐term)

  • AEs (metabolic, musculoskeletal, neurological, and psychological;short‐term)

During the course of this review, many different types of AEs were found tobe reported by the included studies. To make the summary of findings tablesmore readable and useful, the clinical content experts on the review teamwere asked to prioritise the list of available AEs, to decide which shouldbe presented in the summary of findings tables. The clinical experts wereblinded to the type or availability of evidence available for each type ofAE when they made this decision, to ensure their choice was based onclinical importance and not data availability. As a result of thisprioritisation exercise, the decision was made to present a narrativesummary of the most important AEs in the four most clinically importantcategories of AEs ‐ metabolic, musculoskeletal, neurological, andpsychological.

Results

Description of studies

For more information please seeCharacteristicsof included studies,Characteristicsof excluded studies,Characteristicsof studies awaiting classification; andCharacteristics of ongoing studies.

Results of the search

An electronic search conducted in November 2020 yielded 7403 possiblereferences. This was reduced to 5002 possible references once duplicateswere removed. These 5002 references were screened at the title and abstractlevel; 4600 were irrelevant, and we excluded them for reasons such as theywere not RCTs, they used an ineligible study design, were reviews, involvedan irrelevant population or were non‐pharmacological interventions. Thisleft 402 full‐text articles (376 studies) to screen, after which we excluded76 references (as 72 studies), leaving 326 references: 281 references (121studies) included in the analysis; 26 references (22 studies) awaitingclassification; and 19 references (16 studies) for ongoing studies (Figure 1).

A top‐up electronic search was conducted in June 2022, which yielded 1809possible references. This was reduced to 1294 possible references onceduplicates were removed. After initial screening, this was reduced to 48full‐text records that needed screening, after which we excluded 12references (9 studies), leaving 36 references (as 23 studies). These were 10included studies, five studies 'awaiting classification', eight 'ongoingstudies' and 13 secondary references of these studies. SeeFigure 2 for a flow diagram of the searchprocess.

We also contacted a number of study authors to request further information.SeeTable 6 for information about the studies andcontact person.

2. Authors contacted.
Study IDName of contact authorResponse from author
Asadabadi2013S. AkhonzadehNo response
Belsito 2001K. BelsitoNo response
Chugani 2016D. ChuganiNo response
Ghaleiha2013aS. AkhonzadehNo response
Ghaleiha2015S. AkhonzadehNo response
Ghaleiha2016S. AkhonzadehNo response
Handen 2000B. HandenNo response
Handen 2005B. HandenNo response
Handen 2008B. HandenNo response
Handen 2011B. HandenNo response
Mohammadi2013S. AkhonzadehNo response
Nikoo 2015S. AkhonzadehNo response
Hollander2012E. AnagNostouNo response
E. HollanderNo response
Kern 2001aJ. KernNo response
Kern 2002J. KernNo response
King 2001B. KingNo response
Mace 2001N. BlumNo response
McDougle1996C. McDougleEmail bounced
Miral 2008S. MiralNo response
Molloy 2002C. MolloyNo response
Mouti 2014M. O'SullivanNo response
A. MoutiReceived response but referred to another author
D. ReddinhoughWas provided with a full‐text paper containing theadditional data
Munesue 2016T. MunesueNo response
Novotny 2004E. HollanderNo response
Remington2001G. RemingtonNo response
Rezaei 2010S. AkhonzadehNo response
Sandler 1999AD. SandlerNo response
Wasserman2006S. WassermanNo response
Wasserman2006E. AnagNostouNo response

Included studies

We have included 131 studies (291 reports and 149 datasets) involving 7014participants in this review. We identified 25 studies as awaitingclassification (seeStudies awaitingclassification) and 25 ongoing studies (seeOngoing studies). All included studiescompared a pharmacological intervention to a placebo or to anotherpharmacological intervention.

The number of participants in each study ranged from 8 to 321 and moststudies involved children, although some studies involved children andadults and some only adults; 53 studies involved only children under 13years, 37 studies involved children and adolescents, two involvedadolescents only, 16 involved children and adults, and 23 involved onlyadults.

Antipsychotics by comparison
Atypical or typical antipsychotics versus placebo oralternative medication class

Twenty‐four studies (59 reports, 1225 participants, 29 datasets)compared an atypical or typical antipsychotic to a placebo or othertreatment (seeTable 7 for furtherinformation). The number of participants ranged from nine (Dollfus 1992), to 128 (Loebel 2016), with an averageage of 10.4 years. Apart from three studies that included a total of44 adults (Mace 2001;McDougle 1998;Remington 2001), allparticipants were children (< 18 years). All the studies wereshort‐term (less than 6 months) and ranged from 34 days (Mace 2001), to 16 weeks (Findling 2014), although theaverage duration was between eight and 10 weeks. All trials wereparallel RCTs apart fromDollfus1992 andRemington2001, which were cross‐over studies.

3. Summary of all antipsychotic comparisons.
AntipsychoticsPlaceboBromocriptineHaloperidolMemantineRisperidone
Amisulpride Dollfus1992 (n = 9)   
AripiprazoleFindling2014 (n = 85)
Ichikawa2017 (n = 92)
Marcus2009 (n = 105)
NCT00198107 (n = 81)
NCT00468130 (n=15)
Owen2009 (n = 98)
6 studies (n = 476)
   DeVane2019 (n = 61)
Ghanizadeh2014 (n = 59)
HaloperidolMace2001 (n = 7)
Remington2001 (n = 36)
    
LurasidoneLoebel2016 (n = 148)    
OlanzapineHollander2006b (n = 11) Malone2001 (n = 30)  
RisperidoneKent2013 (n = 66)
Luby2006 (n = 23)
McCracken2002 (n = 101)
McDougle1998 (n = 31)
Research Units2005 (n = 32)
NCT01624675 (n = 39)
Shea2004 (n = 79)
Troost2005 (n = 24)
8 studies (n = 395)
 Miral2008 (n = 30)Nikvarz2017 (n = 30) 

n: number of participants

  • Interventions: 16 studies compared an atypicalantipsychotic to a placebo, two studies compared oneatypical antipsychotic to another atypicalantipsychotic, two studies compared a typicalantipsychotic to a placebo, and two studies compared anatypical antipsychotic to a typical antipsychotic. Afurther two studies compared an atypical antipsychoticto an anti‐dementia drug and an atypical antipsychoticto an antiparkinsonian drug, respectively. Furtherinformation can be found inTable 7.

  • Setting: most (17) of the studies were conducted in theUSA apart fromGhanizadeh 2014; andNikvarz 2017,which were conducted in Iran,Ichikawa 2017 andNCT01624675in Japan,Miral2008 in Turkey,Remington 2001 inCanada, andDollfus1992 in France.

  • Inclusion criteria: all studies required a clinicaldiagnosis of ASD and some studies (DeVane 2019;Ichikawa 2017;Marcus 2009;McCracken2002), also required co‐occurring behavioursof concern such as aggression, agitation, irritability,or self‐injury to be assessed at baseline.

  • Exclusion criteria: all studies excluded people withother DSM diagnoses or neurological disorders includingschizophrenia, pervasive developmental disorder nototherwise specified (PDD‐NOS), Rett syndrome, psychosis,unstable seizure disorders, or other significantcardiac, renal or endocrine disorders. Some studies alsoexcluded people who had previously been treated with theintervention or interventions of interest.

  • Participant intellectual ability: the intellectualability of participants varied between trials, with sometrials not providing specific details (DeVane 2019;Kent 2013). Moststudies required participants to have a mental age of atleast 18 months. Some studies included up to 83% ofparticipants with an intellectual disability of varyingseverity (Ichikawa2017;Malone2001;McCracken 2002;Shea 2004).

  • Concomitant medications: most studies requiredparticipants to cease taking all psychotropicmedications before commencing in the trial except forFindling2014, which allowed the use of sleepmedications,Troost2005, which allowed stimulant use forco‐occurring ADHD, andResearch Units 2005 andHollander 2006b,both of which allowed anticonvulsants for participantswith stable epilepsy.

Interventions
  • Amisulpride: one study compared amisulpride to anantiparkinsonian (bromocriptine;Dollfus 1992).Further details are provided below.

  • Aripiprazole: eight studies compared aripiprazole toa placebo or another atypical antipsychotic. Moststudies administered the doses once daily in eithera fixed or flexibly‐dosed manner to a maximum of 15mg/day. The mean daily dose of aripiprazole wasbetween 0.172 mg/day and 0.354 mg/kg/day.

  • Lurasidone: one study compared lurasidone to aplacebo (Loebel2016). Participants received either 20 mgor 60 mg once daily.

  • Olanzapine: two studies compared olanzapine to aplacebo (Hollander2006b), or a typical antipsychotic (Malone 2001).Participants who weighed less than 40 kg received amaximum of 2.5 mg of olanzapine once daily, andchildren 40 kg or heavier received a maximum of 5 mgof olanzapine once daily (Hollander2006b).Malone 2001 administered olanzapine at 2.5mg every second day for children who weighed 40 kgor less, and 2.5 mg once daily for children 41 kgand above with a maximum daily dose of 5 mg.

  • Risperidone: a total of 10 studies comparedrisperidone to a placebo or other treatment. Ninestudies compared risperidone to a placebo, one study(Nikvarz2017), compared risperidone to anantidementia medication, and one study comparedrisperidone to haloperidol (Miral 2008).Apart from the two discontinuation studies thatrequired the intervention to be administered twicedaily, doses were administered once daily. Meandaily dosage of risperidone for children who weighedless than 40 kg was 1.58 mg/day, 2.27 mg/day forchildren 40 kg or heavier, and 3.25 mg/day foradults.

  • Haloperidol: two studies (Mace 2001;Remington 2001),compared haloperidol (a typical antipsychotic) to aplacebo. Both studies administered haloperidol twoto three times daily, however,Remington 2001used fixed doses (mean daily dose of 1.3 mg) whileMace 2001initiated haloperidol at 0.25 mg/day for childrenwho weighed 40 kg or less, and 0.5 mg/day forchildren who weighed 40 kg or more up to a maximumof 5 mg/day (mean daily dose 1.4 mg).

Comparator
  • Placebo: the majority of antipsychotic studiescompared to a placebo, however, apart fromNCT00468130,which used sugar pills, the study authors did notprovide details regarding the ingredients of theplacebo.

  • Haloperidol: two studies (Malone 2001;Miral2008), compared an atypical antipsychotic(olanzapine and risperidone respectively) tohaloperidol. Mean dose of haloperidol was 1.4 mg/dayto 2.6 mg/day. Haloperidol was given up to twicedaily.

  • Bromocriptine: one study (Dollfus 1992),compared amisulpride to bromocriptine. Bromocriptinewas administered at 0.15 mg/kg/day to 0.20 mg/kg/dayfor all participants.

Primary outcomes
  • Irritability: 16 of the studies reportedirritability; the majority used the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985). The exceptions wereMcDougle 1998andMiral2008, which both used the Ritvo FreemanReal Life Rating Scale (RFRLRS;Freeman 1986),to report irritability.

  • Improvement and relapse: amongst those takingrisperidone (Kent2013;McCracken 2002), or aripiprazole (Marcus 2009;Owen2009), improvement was defined as a minimumof 25% improvement in ABC‐I (Kent 2013), inaddition to a rating of much improved or very muchimproved on the Clinician GlobalImpression‐Irritability (CGI‐I) scale (Marcus 2009;McCracken2002;Owen2009). The two discontinuation studies(Research Units2005;Troost 2005), reported relapse, defined asa minimum increase of 25% in ABC‐I scores during thediscontinuation phase.

  • Aggression: one study (Shea 2004),reported aggression using the Nisonger ChildBehavior Rating Form (conduct problem subscale;Aman1996).

  • Self‐injury: three studies reported self‐injuriousbehaviour. One study (McDougle 1998),used the Self‐Injurious Behaviour Questionnaire(SIB‐Q;Gualtieri2002), to measure self‐injurious behaviour,Shea 2004used the Nisonger Child Behaviour Rating Form(Self‐injurious/ stereotypic subscale;Aman 1996), andMace 2001used their own scale to rate self‐injuriousbehaviour (self‐injurious behaviour per hour).

  • AEs: apart from three studies (Mace 2001;Research Units2005;Troost 2005), all studies reported AEs.AEs were analysed and reported based on majorcategories including cardiovascular, metabolic,gastrointestinal, immune system, neurological,psychological, respiratory, skin, and urinary AEs.We could not include data from three studies in theanalysis (Malone2001;Marcus 2009;Owen 2009).Further details can be found inEffects ofinterventions.

Secondary outcomes
  • Quality of life: three trials comparing aripiprazoleto a placebo reported quality‐of‐life outcomes(Findling2014;Marcus 2009;Owen 2009). Eachstudy used the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory(PedsQL;Varni2001).

  • Tolerability and acceptability (loss to follow‐up):231 participants withdrew from studies involving anatypical antipsychotic versus a placebo and were notincluded in the relevant study analyses. Reasons forwithdrawing included lack of efficacy (75), AEs(44), withdrew consent (32), other/not specified(18), lost to follow‐up (14), noncompliance (6),increased behaviours of concern or exacerbation ofmedical condition (5), missed visits (4), andphysician decision (3).

Neurohormones versus placebo or other treatment

Twenty‐four studies (46 reports, 1640 participants, 27 datasets) compareda neurohormone to a placebo. Seven studies involved adult participantsonly (Anagnostou 2012;Bernaerts 2020;Jacob 2022;NCT01337687;NCT02940574;Squassante 2018;Yamasue 2020), one study involvedadolescents and adults (15 to 45 years;Munesue 2016), one study involved children three to eightyears of age (Le 2022), onestudy involved adolescents (12 to 18 years;Guastella 2015a), and fourteenstudies involved only children (< 18 years). Fifteen studies wereparallel trials and nine were cross‐over studies. Study duration rangedfrom four weeks to 24 weeks (Hollander2020b;Jacob 2022;Sikich 2021). All but ninestudies were conducted in the USA. The other studies were conducted inAustralia, Belgium, China, two in Canada, the Netherlands, and three inJapan (Guastella 2015a;Bernaerts 2020;Le 2022;NCT01908205;NCT02940574;Buitelaar 1990;Munesue 2016;Takamitsu 2015a;Yamasue 2020) respectively.

  • Interventions

    • Adrenocorticotrophic hormone: one study involving 14participants compared adrenocorticotrophic hormoneto a placebo (Buitelaar 1990). Doses of eitheradrenocorticotrophic hormone or placebo were fixed(20 mg/day).

    • Balovaptan (RG7314): three studies involving 657adult participants compared balovaptan to a placebo(Hollander2020b;Jacob 2022;Squassante2018). Doses were either 1.5 mg, 4 mg or 10mg once daily of balovaptan in capsule form.

    • Oxytocin: 13 studies involving 709 participantscompared oxytocin to a placebo. All but four studiesrequired participants to take 12 IU of oxytocintwice daily (total of 24 IU daily).Munesue 2016 hada maximum of 8 IU of oxytocin twice daily,Guastella 2015aandSikich2013 had varying levels of oxytocin basedon age (Guastella2015a 18 IU twice daily for children <16 years, and 24 IU twice daily for participants 16to 18 years;Sikich2013 administered up to 24 IU for children3 to 10 years and a maximum of 32 IU for children 11to 17 years),NCT01908205 involved 0.4 IU/kg taken twicedaily up to a maximum of 24 IU per dose.

    • Secretin: five studies involving 211 participantscompared secretin to a placebo. All studies wereeither single‐dose (Carey 2002;Levy 2003;Owley 2001;Unis2002), or two doses separated by two months(Handen2005). All studies used 2 IU/kg perinfusion.

    • Vasopressin: two studies (Parker 2019;Umbricht2017), involving 67 participants comparedvasopressin to a placebo.Parker 2019 wasa four‐week parallel study with vasopressin dosesranging from 4 IU to a maximum of 12 IU twice dailyfor children up to 12.9 years of age, and maximum of16 IU twice daily for children over 12.9 years ofage.Umbricht2017 was a 20‐mg single‐dose cross‐overstudy involving male adults.

  • Comparators: all studies compared a neurohormone to aplacebo. Apart from four studies that used saline solution(Anagnostou2012;Carey2002;NCT01337687;Owley 2001), the ingredients of placebo were notoutlined.

  • Inclusion criteria: all studies required a clinical diagnosisof ASD, Asperger's, or PDD‐NOS to participate in the trial.Six studies also required a CGI severity score (Schopler 2009), above4, four studies restricted participation to maleparticipants only (Bernaerts 2020;Squassante 2018;Takamitsu 2015a;Yamasue 2020), fourstudies required participants to have an IQ above 70 (Munesue 2016;Sikich 2013;Squassante 2018;Yamasue 2020), andsome required participants to either be on stableconcomitant medication (Anagnostou 2012;Munesue 2016;Owley 2001;Sikich 2013), or notto have trialled the intervention previously (Carey 2002).

  • Exclusion criteria: most studies excluded people with aclinical diagnosis of psychosis, other mental disorders, orsignificant neurological or other medical conditions.Additional exclusion criteria included previous use of theintervention (Parker2017;Parker2019;Unis2002), or use of psychotropic or other prohibitedmedications in the period before and during the trial.

  • Setting: apart from one study conducted in Australia (Guastella 2015a), twoin Belgium (Bernaerts2020;NCT02940574), one in Canada (NCT01908205), one inChina (Le 2022), onein the Netherlands (Buitelaar 1990), and three in Japan (Munesue 2016;Takamitsu 2015a;Yamasue 2020), allstudies were conducted in the USA. Studies were conducted ateither outpatient clinics, hospitals or clinics and researchcentres associated with universities.

  • Concomitant medications: six studies provided details ofconcomitant medications.Bernaerts 2020 reported that 27% and 11% ofthose in the intervention and placebo groups respectivelywere taking psychostimulants concomitantly, as well as othermedications including antidepressants, risperidone andaripiprazole.Guastella2015a reported that approximately 35% ofparticipants in both groups were taking other psychotropicmedications.Levy2003 reported that 10 participants out of 62 weretaking one concurrent medication, including guanfacine,methylphenidate, fluoxetine (Prozac), and risperidone, andone participant was taking both guanfacine and Prozacconcurrently.Squassante2018 reported that antipsychotics were beingtaken concurrently by 15% to 28% of participants andconcurrent stimulant use by 13% to 26% of participants.Parker 2017reported concomitant medication use of up to 17% andincluded SSRIs, benzodiazepines, stimulants,anticonvulsants, and guanfacine, andYamasue 2020 reportedantidepressants, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants orhypnotics were being taken concurrently by 12participants.

  • Participant cognitive status: reported IQ varied greatlybetween studies and ranged from 35 to 120.

  • Length of follow‐up: study duration ranged from four weeks to12 weeks (Squassante2018), althoughGuastella 2015a reported three‐month follow‐updata for primary and secondary outcomes.

Primary outcomes
  • Irritability: 10 of the studies reported irritability.All but one study used the ABC‐I scale (Aman 1985),whereasLevy2003 used the Ritvo‐Freeman Real Life RatingScale (affectual responses subscale;Freeman 1986) tomeasure irritability.Umbricht 2017 reported baseline ABC‐I (Aman 1985) but didnot report endpoint data.

  • Self‐injury:Guastella2015a reported self‐injurious behaviour usingthe Repetitive Behaviour Scale ‐ Revised (self‐injurioussubscale) (Bodfish2000).

  • AEs: 14 studies reported AEs, althoughLevy 2003 did notreport AEs for both groups and therefore, the AE datafromLevy 2003could not be included.

Secondary outcomes
ADHD‐related medications versus placebo or othertreatment

Thirteen studies (28 reports, 482 participants, 18 datasets) compared anADHD‐related medication to a placebo or other intervention. All studiesincluded children (< 18 years) with study duration ranging from twoweeks (Quintana 1995), to 11weeks (NCT03242772); the meanwas 5.5 weeks. Seven of the studies were cross‐overs and six wereparallel (Eslamzadeh 2018;Handen 2015;Harfterkamp 2014;NCT03242772;NCT00498173;Scahill 2015).

  • Interventions

    • Amphetamine: one study involving 18 participantscompared amphetamine to a placebo (NCT03242772).Amphetamine was initiated at 3.1 mg once daily for11 weeks and titrated upwards if tolerated.

    • Atomoxetine: five studies involving 274 participantscompared atomoxetine to a placebo (Arnold 2006;Eslamzadeh2018;Handen 2015;Harfterkamp2014;NCT00498173). Atomoxetine commenced at 0.3mg/kg/day to 0.5 mg/kg/day up to a maximum of 1.8mg/kg/day. Mean final doses were 1.2 mg/kg/dayadministered once daily (Harfterkamp2014), 1.2 mg/kg/day twice daily (Eslamzadeh2018), and 1.38 mg/kg/day administered twicedaily (Handen2015).

    • Clonidine: two studies (17 participants) comparedclonidine to a placebo.Fankhauser 1992administered clonidine via a weekly transdermalpatch (approx 0.005 mg/kg/day) andJaselskis 1992administered 0.15 mg/kg/day to 0.20 mg/kg/day acrossthree doses per day.

    • Guanfacine: two studies (73 participants) comparedguanfacine to a placebo. The maximum daily dose ofguanfacine was 3.0 mg/day across three daily doses(mean daily dose 2.68 mg/day;Handen 2008) ora maximum of 3 mg/day for children less than 25 kgand maximum 4 mg/day for children 25 kg or more(Scahill2015).

    • Methylphenidate: three studies (7 datasets, 100participants) compared methylphenidate to a placebo.Methylphenidate was administered two to three timesdaily using fixed doses. All studies were cross‐overstudies:Posey2005 administered three different doses (3datasets) based on bodyweight (0.125 mg/kg/day,0.250 mg/kg/day, 0.500 mg/kg/day);Quintana 1995administered a mean methylphenidate dose of 0.397mg/kg/day; andPearson 2013 had mean doses of 0.21 mg/kg,0.35 mg/kg and 0.48 mg/kg for low, medium and highdoses respectively.

  • Comparators: all studies compared an ADHD‐related medicationto a placebo. Only one study (Handen 2015), provideddetails of the placebo (sugar pill).

  • Inclusion criteria: all studies required participants to meetthe DSM criteria for ASD, Asperger's or PDD‐NOS. Othercriteria included a minimum mental age of 24 months, andsymptoms of hyperactivity or impulsiveness for at least sixmonths.

  • Exclusion criteria: prior exposure to ADHD‐related medicationin the past two years, adverse reaction to the intervention,concurrent psychotropic medication use, other significantneurological, psychiatric, or medical conditions that mayrequire medical management

  • Setting: apart from two trials that were conducted in Iranand the Netherlands respectively (Eslamzadeh 2018;Harfterkamp 2014), allstudies were conducted in the USA, with participantsrecruited from either outpatient clinics or clinics andresearch centres associated with universities.

  • Concomitant medications: all studies required participants tobe free of all psychotropic medications for up to one monthprior to starting the study apart fromPearson 2013, whichallowed stable (> 3 months) medications to be continuedduring the trial.

  • Participant cognitive status: the reported IQ ranged fromsevere intellectual disability to over 90.

  • Length of follow‐up: study duration was between one week(Pearson 2013),and 10 weeks (Handen2015).

Primary outcomes
  • Irritability ‐ all studies apart fromEslamzadeh 2018andNCT03242772reported irritability. All studies apart from one usedthe ABC‐I (Aman1985), however,Posey 2005 did notreport endpoint ABC‐I scores.Fankhauser 1992used the Ritvo‐Freeman Real Life Rating Scale (Freeman 1986).

  • Self‐injury ‐ only one study (Arnold 2006),reported self‐injurious behaviour using the RepetitiveBehaviour Scale ‐ Revised (self‐injury subscale;Bodfish 2000).

  • AEs ‐ nine of the studies reported AEs.

Secondary outcomes
  • Tolerability and acceptability (loss to follow‐up)

Antidepressants versus placebo or other treatment

Ten studies (22 reports, 662 participants, 10 datasets) compared anantidepressant to a placebo or another intervention. An additional study(Remington 2001) comparedclomipramine to a placebo, however, those numbers have already beenincluded in a previous comparison. Three studies involved children only(< 12 years), four studies included children and adolescents (< 18years), two studies included children, adolescent and adult participants(Gordon 1993;Remington 2001), and two studiesincluded only adult participants (Hollander 2012;McDougle1996). Seven studies were parallel and four were cross‐overstudies (Gordon 1993;Hollander 2005;Niederhofer 2003;Remington 2001). Study durationranged from five weeks (Gordon1993) to 12 months (NCT00183339).

  • Interventions

    • Citalopram: one study involving 149 participantscompared citalopram to a placebo (King 2009).Maximum citalopram was 20 mg/day (mean maximum dosewas 16.5 mg/day (+/‐6.5 mg)).

    • Clomipramine: two studies compared clomipramine to aplacebo.Remington2001 (48 participants) commencedclomipramine at 25 mg once daily and increasedincrementally up to 50 mg twice daily.Gordon 1993 (12participants) commenced clomipramine at 25 mg/day upto a maximum of 5 mg/kg/day or maximum of 250mg/day. The participants involved withRemington 2001had previously been counted, so only the 12participants fromGordon 1993 are included in the officialcount.

    • Fluoxetine: five studies involving 401 participantscompared fluoxetine to a placebo (Herscu 2020;Hollander2005;Hollander 2012;Mouti 2014;NCT00183339). Four of the studies involvedonly children (Herscu 2020;Hollander 2005;Mouti2014;NCT00183339). They initiated fluoxetine at2.0 mg/day to 8.0 mg/day depending on weight up to amaximum of 0.8 mg/kg/day (mean final dose 9.9mg/day;Hollander2005), a maximum of 20 mg/day and 30 mg/dayfor children under 40 kg and 40 kg and above (Mouti 2014;NCT00183339), or a maximum of 18 mg/day(mean final dose 11.8 mg ± 6.5;Herscu 2020).Hollander2012, which involved adults, followed fixeddoses of fluoxetine starting with 10 mg/day up to amaximum of 80 mg/day (mean final dose 64.76 mg/day).Most studies required participants to takefluoxetine once daily.

    • Fluvoxamine: one study involving 30 participantscompared fluvoxamine to a placebo (McDougle 1996).Fluvoxamine was initiated at 50 mg once daily,increasing to a maximum of 300 mg/day iftolerated.

    • Sertraline: one study involving 58 participantscompared sertraline to a placebo (Hagerman 2018).Sertraline was administered using fixed doses of 2.5mg/day for children under four years of age, and 5.0mg/day for children four years and over.

    • Tianeptine: one study involving 12 participantscompared tianeptine to a placebo (Niederhofer2003). Fixed doses of 37.5 mg/day wereadministered.

  • Comparators: all studies compared an antidepressant to aplacebo. Details of placebo ingredients were not providedexcept forMcDougle1996, which described placebo as "lactose inidentical‐looking tablets".

  • Inclusion criteria: all studies required participants to meetthe DSM criteria for ASD, Asperger's or PDD‐NOS. Othercriteria included being free of psychotropic medications forup to six weeks prior to the study (Hollander 2012;Niederhofer 2003;Remington 2001),and free of significant medical conditions (Niederhofer 2003).

  • Exclusion criteria: three studies excluded people with otherDSM diagnoses or significant medical conditions includingschizophrenia, hypersensitivity to or previous use of theintervention (Herscu2020;Hollander2005;Hollander2012), three studies excluded people forconcurrent use of psychotropic medications (Herscu 2020;Mouti 2014;Remington 2001), andtwo studies excluded people for positive serum pregnancytest results (McDougle1996;Mouti2014).

  • Setting: all studies were conducted in the USA apart fromMouti 2014 andNiederhofer2003, which were conducted in Australia and Italyrespectively. Participants were recruited from academicmedical centres, tertiary hospitals, or research centresassociated with universities.

  • Concomitant medications: three studies reported that someparticipants were taking medications such as anticonvulsantsand stimulants concurrently (Hagerman 2018;Mouti 2014;Remington 2001),however, most studies did not permit concurrent medicationuse apart from sleep or antiparkinsonian medications (King 2009;Remington 2001).

  • Participant cognitive status: three of the studies reportedthat participants had an IQ of over 70, two studies reportedthat either all or some participants had an IQ of under 70(Niederhofer2003;Mouti2014), one study included only adults who had anaverage IQ of over 100 (McDougle 1996), and the other four studies didnot report cognitive status.

  • Length of follow‐up: ranged from seven weeks (Remington 2001), to 12months (NCT00183339).

Primary outcomes
  • Irritability: all the studies reported irritability usingthe ABC‐I subscale (Aman 1985), exceptMcDougle 1996.

  • Aggression:McDougle1996 was the only study that reportedaggression. The Brown Aggression Scale was used tomeasure aggression (Brown 1979).

  • Self‐injury: two studies (King 2009;Mouti 2014),reported self‐injurious behaviour using the RepetitiveBehaviour Scale‐Revised (Bodfish 2000).

  • AEs: all the studies reported AEs.

Secondary outcomes
  • Tolerability and acceptability (loss to follow‐up): 159participants (23.08%) withdrew and were not included inthe relevant study analyses. Reasons included withdrewconsent (66), loss to follow‐up (23), lack of efficacy(5), AEs (38), other/reason unknown (16), non‐compliance(3), protocol violation (3), clinician decision (4), andno longer met study criteria (1).

Atypical antipsychotic versus another atypicalantipsychotic

Two studies involving 110 participants compared risperidone toaripiprazole (DeVane 2019;Ghanizadeh 2014).Participants were all children (< 18 years). The mean age was 9.6and 9.5 years for aripiprazole and risperidone respectively. Bothstudies were parallel RCTs and were 10 weeks (DeVane 2019) and eight weeks(Ghanizadeh 2014) induration.

  • Interventions

    • Risperidone: both studies used twice‐daily dosesbased on bodyweight.DeVane 2019required participants who weighed 20 kg to 44 kgto take a maximum of 2.5 mg/day, and children 45kg or more were allowed a maximum of 3 mg/day.Ghanizadeh2014 required children up to 39 kg to takea maximum of 2 mg/day of risperidone, and children40 kg and above a maximum of 3 mg/day (mean dose1.12 mg/day).

    • Aripiprazole:Ghanizadeh 2014 allowed a maximum of 10mg/day for children who weighed under 40 kg, and15 mg/day for children who weighed 40 kg or more(mean dose 5.5 mg/day).DeVane 2019allowed a maximum of 15 mg/day of aripiprazoleregardless of weight.

  • Inclusion criteria: both studies required a clinicaldiagnosis of ASD andDeVane 2019 required participants to have anABC‐I (Aman1985), subscale score of > 18 at baseline, aCGI Severity score of 4 or greater (Guy 1976), and amental age of at least 18 months.

  • Exclusion criteria: participants with a history of orcurrent unstable medical conditions, prior use ofrisperidone or aripiprazole for more than two weekswithin the last three years, medical conditions that mayincrease the risk of AEs including liver, renal orcardiovascular conditions, psychiatric disorders thatare currently managed by psychotropic medications, orseizures within the past six months

  • Setting:DeVane2019 was conducted in the USA whilstGhanizadeh 2014was conducted in Iran. All participants were recruitedfrom either outpatient clinics, or clinics and researchcentres associated with universities.

  • Concomitant medications: one study (Ghanizadeh 2014),required participants to be off aripiprazole andrisperidone for at least two weeks prior to and duringthe study, although other concomitant medications wereallowed during the trial provided they were stable andcommenced at least two weeks prior to the trial, whileDeVane 2019did not explicitly state medication requirements exceptthat participants could not have taken eitherintervention for longer than two weeks in the last threeyears (DeVane2019).

  • Participant cognitive status: neither study reported thecognitive status of participants.

  • Length of follow‐up:DeVane 2019 andGhanizadeh 2014were 10 and 8 weeks in duration respectively. Neitherstudy followed up after the endpoint.

Primary outcomes
  • Irritability: both studies reported irritabilityusing the ABC‐I subscale (Aman 1985). Thebaseline ABC‐I scores of all participants were above20.

  • AEs: both studies reported AEs.

Secondary outcomes
  • Tolerability and acceptability (loss to follow‐up):16 participants (14.5%) withdrew from theirrespective interventions and were not included inthe relevant study analyses. Reasons for withdrawingfrom the risperidone groups included AEs (9), missedvisits (4), increased behaviours of concern orexacerbation of medical condition (2), or physiciandecision (1).

Atypical antipsychotic versus an antidementiadrug

One, eight‐week, parallel study involving 34 participants comparedrisperidone to memantine (Nikvarz2017). Participants were all under 18 years (mean 6.7years).

  • Interventions: once‐daily doses of risperidone commencedat 0.02 mg/kg/day, increasing to a maximum of 0.08mg/kg/day or 3 mg/day. Memantine was administered inonce‐daily doses of 20 mg if tolerated (mean daily doseof 0.4 mg/kg/day).

  • Inclusion criteria: participants were 5 to 17 years ofage with a clinical diagnosis of ASD and had notreceived any pharmacological treatments for ASD or thetreatments had been ineffective.

  • Exclusion criteria: people with a neurological disorderexcept for controlled epilepsy (defined as experiencingno seizures for at least one month prior to the study),history of substance abuse, any other significantmedical conditions including cardiac, liver or kidneyfailure, pregnant or breastfeeding, previous allergicreactions to either risperidone or memantine, andcurrently taking stimulants.

  • Setting: an outpatient child and adolescent clinicassociated with a university in Iran

  • Concomitant medications: details were not provided.

  • Participant cognitive status: details were notprovided.

Primary outcomes
  • Irritability: irritability was reported using theABC‐I subscale (Aman 1985). The baseline ABC‐I scores ofall participants were above 20.

  • AEs: AEs were not reported fully for both groupsapart from somnolence, which we included in theanalyses.

Secondary outcomes
  • Tolerability and acceptability (loss to follow‐up):four participants (11.76%) withdrew and were notincluded in the relevant study analyses. Reasonsincluded changing psychiatrist (1) and lack ofefficacy (3).

Atypical antipsychotic versus an antiparkinsoniandrug (bromocriptine)

One study involving nine participants compared amisulpride tobromocriptine (Dollfus1992). The four‐week cross‐over study was conducted in Franceand involved children aged between 4 and 13 years of age.

  • Intervention (amisulpride plus placebo): amisulpride wasadministered at 1.5 mg/kg/day over a four‐week periodwith a six‐week washout period between the twophases.

  • Comparator (bromocriptine plus placebo): bromocriptinewas administered at 0.15 mg/kg/day to 0.20 mg/kg/dayplus placebo over a four‐week period with a six‐weekwashout period between the two phases.

  • Inclusion criteria: children aged 4 to 13 years with aclinical diagnosis of ASD, and a Childhood Autism RatingScale (Schopler2009), score of at least 36 indicating'severely autistic'.

  • Exclusion criteria: no neuroleptic or other psychotropicmedications were allowed during the trial, except forbenzodiazepine, niaprazine, or hydroxyzine for severesleep disorders.

  • Concomitant medications: three out of nine children weretaking other permitted medications during the trial,including one child who was taking three differentmedications.

Outcomes
  • AEs was the only relevant outcome reported in thisstudy.

Anticonvulsants versus placebo or other treatment

Six studies (12 reports, 165 participants, 6 datasets) compared ananticonvulsant to a placebo. All participants were children (< 18years) apart from one adult inHollander 2006a. All trials were parallel studies, withstudy duration ranging from eight to 18 weeks (Belsito 2001), (mean 10 weeks) andapart from one study (Rezaei2010 (Iran)) all trials were conducted in the USA.

  • Interventions

    • Divalproex sodium: two trials involving 40participants compared divalproex sodium to aplacebo.Hollander2010 commenced divalproex sodium at 125mg/day once to twice daily for children up to 40 kg,and a maximum of 250 mg/day for children over 40 kg.Hollander2006a increased divalproex sodium from 125mg/day to a maximum of 30 mg/kg/day (mean final dose822.92 mg/kg/day).

    • Lamotrigine: one study involving 35 participantscompared lamotrigine to a placebo. Lamotriginecommenced at 0.5 mg/kg twice daily up to a maximumof 5.0 mg/kg twice daily (Belsito2001).

    • Levetiracetam: one study involving 20 participantscompared levetiracetam to a placebo.Wasserman 2006commenced levetiracetam at 125 mg/day up to amaximum of 20 mg/kg/day to 30 mg/kg/day (meanmaximum dose 862.50 mg/day).

    • Topiramate: one study involving 40 participantscompared risperidone plus topiramate to risperidoneplus placebo (Rezaei 2010). The analysis for this studyis topiramate versus placebo. The maximum dose oftopiramate was 100 mg/day for children under 30 kgor three to six years of age, and maximum of 200mg/day for children 30 kg or more, or 7 to 12 yearsof age.

    • Valproate: one study involving 30 participantscompared valproate to a placebo (Hellings 2005).The maximum valproate dose was 20 mg/kg/day.

  • Comparators: all studies compared an anticonvulsant to aplacebo. Further details regarding placebo ingredients werenot provided.

  • Inclusion criteria: all studies required participants to havea clinical diagnosis of ASD, Asperger's or PDD‐NOS, be freeof other medications for at least two weeks prior to thestudy, and six of the studies required significantoveractivity or inattention or a dual diagnosis of ADHD andASD.

  • Exclusion criteria: most studies excluded people withunstable seizure disorders or other significant medicalconditions including past or present psychotic disorders,and the concomitant use of psychotropic medications duringthe study.

  • Setting: apart fromRezaei2010, all studies were conducted in the USA ateither outpatient clinics, hospitals or clinics and researchcentres associated with universities.Rezaei 2010 wasconducted at a hospital associated with a university inIran.

  • Concomitant medications: all but two studies did not allowthe use of psychoactive medications during the study.Handen 2008 had eightparticipants who were taking a range of psychotropicmedications, including methylphenidate, risperidone, andanticonvulsants.Handen2015 allowed the use of a single anticonvulsantfor seizure disorders provided that seizures were stable,and the participant had been seizure‐free for at least sixmonths.

  • Participant cognitive status: five of the studies reportedIQ, all of which had a mean IQ of less than 90.

  • Length of follow‐up: length of follow‐up ranged from eight to18 weeks (mean 10 weeks).

Primary outcomes
  • Irritability: all studies apart from one (Hollander 2006a),reported irritability. All studies used the ABC‐Isubscale to measure irritability, however,Wasserman 2006only reports baseline ABC‐I data.

  • Aggression: one study (Hellings 2005), reports aggression. TheOvert Aggression Scale (parent‐rated;Yudofsky 2003),was used to measure aggression.

  • AEs: all six studies reported AEs.

Secondary outcomes
  • Tolerability and acceptability (loss to follow‐up): 21participants (12.73%) withdrew and were not included inthe relevant study analyses. Reasons includedwithdrawing consent (9), difficulty administering themedication (1); increased behavioural difficulties (4);increased symptoms associated with ASD (3); lack ofefficacy (2); seizures (1); and skin rash (1).

Antidementia interventions versus placebo or othertreatments

Eight studies (641 participants, 17 reports, 9 datasets) compared anantidementia intervention to a placebo or other treatment. Four studiescompared memantine to a placebo, one study compared piracetam, onegalantamine, and one compared donepezil to a placebo. All studies wereparallel trials, were either 10 or 12 weeks in duration, and involvedchildren (< 18 years). Four studies were conducted in the USA (Aman 2017;Handen 2011;NCT01972074;Soorya 2021), one study wasconducted in multiple countries (Hardan2019), and the other three were conducted in Iran. Moststudies included children up to twelve years of age only, apart fromHanden 2011 andNCT01972074, which involvedchildren up to 17 years of age.

  • Interventions

    • Memantine: five studies involving 527 participantscompared memantine to a placebo (Aman 2017;Ghaleiha 2013a;Hardan2019;NCT01972074;Soorya 2021).All studies administered memantine once daily apartfromNCT01972074, which involved twice‐dailydoses. Two studies had maximum memantine doses of 15mg/day (Ghaleiha2013a;Hardan 2019),Aman 2017administered 3 mg/day to 18 mg/day, depending onbodyweight, and children inNCT01972074received a maximum of 20 mg/day.

    • Piracetam: one study involving 40 participantscompared piracetam to a placebo (Akhondzadeh2008). Piracetam was administered up to 800mg/day in addition to 2 mg/day of risperidone forchildren up to 40 kg, and 3 mg/day for children 41kg and above.

    • Galantamine: one study involving 40 participantscompared galantamine to a placebo (Ghaleiha 2014).Galantamine was administered up to 12 mg/day forchildren up to 19 kg, 16 mg/day for children 20 kgto 30 kg, 20 mg/day for children 31 kg to 40 kg, and24 mg/day for children over 40 kg. Risperidone wasalso administered up to 1 mg/day for children lessthan 20 kg, and 2 mg/day for children 20 kg andabove.

    • Donepezil: one study involving 34 participantscompared donepezil to a placebo (Handen 2011).The trial involved 5 mg/day of donepezil for fourweeks and progressed to a maximum of 10 mg/day ofdonepezil for another four weeks if tolerated.

  • Comparators: three studies compared the intervention to aplacebo plus risperidone, however, the analysis for thesestudies only included intervention versus placebo becauserisperidone was also added to the intervention (Akhondzadeh 2008;Ghaleiha 2013a;Ghaleiha 2014).None of the studies provided details of the placebo.

  • Inclusion criteria: all studies required participants to havea clinical diagnosis of ASD based on DSM criteria; twostudies specified a minimum ABC‐I score of 12 (Ghaleiha 2013a;Ghaleiha 2014), and amaximum ABC‐I score of 16 (Hardan 2019). Two studies required either aminimum of 5 on the CGI‐Severity scale (NCT01972074), orpresentation of severe symptoms related to ASD (Akhondzadeh 2008).

  • Exclusion criteria: most studies excluded people withco‐occurring psychiatric disorders, history of or currentsignificant medical conditions including renal,cardiovascular, neurological, current or recent treatmentwith psychotropic medications or other medicationsprohibited for use during the study, and two studiesexcluded people with severe intellectual disabilities (Akhondzadeh 2008;Ghaleiha2014).

  • Setting: four studies were primarily based in the USA atclinics and hospitals, three studies in Iran at clinics andhospitals associated with a university, and one study wasconducted in 15 countries (Hardan 2019).

  • Concomitant medications: two studies provided details ofconcomitant medication use (Handen 2011;Hardan 2019).Handen 2011 allowed medications that did notinteract with donepezil. Concurrent medication use includedatomoxetine (1 participant in each group), stimulants (2participants in each group), and sertraline (1 participantin intervention group) and citalopram (1 participant inintervention group).Hardan2019 reported that approximately 10% ofparticipants were taking risperidone, amongst othersupplements and medications.

  • Participant cognitive status: not reported

  • Length of follow‐up: all studies were either 10 weeks or 12weeks in duration and none of the studies followed up afterthe endpoint of the trial.

Primary outcomes
Secondary outcomes
  • Tolerability and acceptability (loss to follow‐up): 54participants (8.7%) withdrew from the studies and werenot included in the relevant study analyses. Reasonsincluded withdrawing consent (15); AEs (15), protocolviolations (5); lost to follow‐up (4); lack of efficacy(5); no longer met inclusion/exclusion criteria (2);other (7); tolerability (2); and increased behaviours ofconcern (1).

Antiparkinsonian interventions versus placebo or othertreatments

Two studies (3 reports, 79 participants, 2 datasets) compared anantiparkinsonian intervention to a placebo (King 2001;Mohammadi 2013). Both studiescompared amantadine to a placebo, however,Mohammadi 2013 compared amantadineplus risperidone to placebo plus risperidone. The analysis forMohammadi 2013 only includedamantadine versus placebo. Both studies were parallel.King 2001 was five weeks induration and was conducted in the USA at medical centres associated withuniversities.Mohammadi 2013 was10 weeks in duration and was conducted in Iran at a hospital associatedwith a university. All participants were children and were approximatelythe same age (mean age 7.0 years).

  • Interventions:King2001 required children to take 5 mg/kg/day ofamantadine over two daily doses regardless of weight, whilstMohammadi 2013required children who weighed 30 kg to take 100 mg/day ofamantadine or 150 mg/day over two daily doses for children30 kg or over.

  • Comparators: both studies compared amantadine to a placebohowever neither study described the ingredients of theplacebo.Mohammadi2013 compared amantadine to a placebo plusrisperidone, although the analysis is only amantadine versusplacebo.

  • Inclusion criteria: both studies required participants tohave a diagnosis of ASD based on the DSM criteria and ascore of 12 or higher on the ABC‐I subscale.Mohammadi 2013 alsorequired presentation of severely disruptive symptomsassociated with ASD.

  • Exclusion criteria: both studies excluded people withsignificant medical conditions requiring medications,allergies to the intervention, and psychotropic use in thesix weeks prior to enrolment (Mohammadi 2013), ortaking neuroleptic, anticonvulsant or stimulants (King 2001).

  • Concomitant medications:King 2001 allowed the use of SSRIs provided thedose had been stable for at least one month prior to thetrial and the dose did not change during the trial.Mohammadi 2013 did notallow the use of any psychotropic medications.

  • Participant cognitive status: neither study provideddetails.

  • Length of follow‐up:King2001 was five weeks andMohammadi 2013 10weeks in duration. Neither study followed up after theendpoint of the trial.

Primary outcomes
  • Irritability: both studies reported irritability usingthe ABC‐I subscale (Aman 1985), however,King 2001 did notreport endpoint ABC‐I data (only baseline). Participantsin both studies had baseline ABC‐I scores of at least18.

  • AEs: both studies reported AEs.

Secondary outcomes
  • Tolerability and acceptability (loss to follow‐up):Mohammadi 2013excluded one participant (1.3%) from the analysis butdid not provide the reason.

Anxiolytic interventions versus placebo or othertreatment

Two studies (4 reports, 200 participants, 3 datasets) compared ananxiolytic to a placebo (Chugani2016;Ghanizadeh2015). Both studies compared buspirone, however,Ghanizadeh 2015 compared buspironeplus risperidone to placebo plus risperidone. The analysis forGhanizadeh 2015 was buspironeversus placebo. Both studies were parallel, howeverChugani 2016 was 24 weeks induration and was based at six academic medical centres in the USA, andGhanizadeh 2015 was eightweeks in duration and was conducted at a child and adolescent psychiatryclinic associated with a university in Iran. All participants were under18 years old, howeverChugani2016 only included children under six years of age andGhanizadeh 2015 included childrenup to 17 years of age.

  • Interventions:Chugani2016 required participants to take buspironetwice daily at either 2.5 mg/dose (5 mg/day) or 5 mg/dose(10 mg/day).Ghanizadeh2015 required children who weighed less than 40kg to have a maximum of 5 mg twice daily (10 mg/day), or amaximum of 10 mg twice daily (20 mg/day) for children whoweighed 40 kg or more.

  • Comparators: both studies compared buspirone to a placebohoweverGhanizadeh2015 compared buspirone plus risperidone toplacebo plus risperidone. As mentioned previously, theanalysis only involved buspirone versus placebo.

  • Inclusion criteria: both studies required participants tomeet the DSM‐IV criteria for ASD;Ghanizadeh 2015required participants to have at least a moderate rating onthe CGI‐Severity score.

  • Exclusion criteria: both studies excluded people who hadunstable medical conditions that required medication,including neurological, liver, kidney, cardiac or psychoticdisorders.Chugani2016 excluded people who were taking medicationssuch as anticonvulsants, antidepressants, benzodiazepines,or neuroleptics in the six weeks prior to the trial,Ghanizadeh 2015excluded people who had taken antipsychotics in the twomonths prior to the study.

  • Concomitant medications:Ghanizadeh 2015 allowed participants to takestable medications apart from antipsychotics provided thatthey were maintained at a constant dose throughout thetrial.

  • Participant cognitive status: neither study provided detailsregarding cognitive status.

  • Length of follow‐up:Chugani2016 was 24 weeks in duration andGhanizadeh 2015 waseight weeks in duration.

Primary outcomes
Secondary outcomes
  • Tolerability and acceptability (loss to follow‐up): 30participants (15%) withdrew and were not included in therelevant study analyses. Reasons included withdrawingconsent (6); AEs (13), lost to follow‐up (5); no longermet inclusion/exclusion criteria (2); clinical decision(2); participant moved(1); other (1).

Experimental interventions versus placebo or othertreatment:

Forty‐two studies (72 reports, 1920 participants, 43 datasets) comparedan experimental interventional drug to a placebo. The majority ofstudies only included children, however, five studies included onlyadults (Chez 2020;Danforth 2018;Hollander 2020a;Lewis 2018;Willemsen‐Swinkels 1995), twostudies included both adolescents (12 years and over) and adults (Veenstra‐VanderWeele 2017;Wink 2018), one study includedonly adolescents (11 to 17 years;Ayatollahi 2020), and one study involved children and adultsup to 21 years of age (Aran2021). Study duration ranged from seven days (Lewis 2018), to six months (Danfors 2005), with a meanduration of 10 weeks. Eighteen studies were conducted in Iran, 14 wereconducted in the USA, four in the Netherlands (Sprengers 2021;VanAndel 2022;Willemsen‐Swinkels 1996;Willemsen‐Swinkels 1995), one inIsrael (Aran 2021), China,Sweden, Australia, France and Austria respectively (Dai 2021;Danfors 2005;Dean 2019;Lemonnier 2017;Niederhofer 2002). All wereparallel studies apart from 10, which were cross‐over studies.

  • Interventions

    • Arbaclofen: one study involving 150 participantscompared arbaclofen to a placebo (Veenstra‐VanderWeele2017). Mean age of participants was 11.6years (range 5 years to 21 years). Arbaclofen wasadministered twice daily, up to maximum of 10 mg/dayfor children under 12 years and a maximum of 15 mgfor participants 12 years and above.

    • Baclofen plus risperidone: one study involving 58participants 4 to 12 years of age compared baclofen(plus risperidone) to a placebo (plus risperidone;Mahdavinasab2019). Risperidone commenced at 0.5 mg/dayto a maximum of 1.5 mg/day and baclofen wasadministered three times daily at 0.6 mg/kg. Theanalysis was baclofen compared to placebo.

    • Bumetanide: four studies involving 335 participantsup to 18 years of age compared bumetanide to aplacebo (Dai2021;Lemonnier 2017;Sprengers 2021;VanAndel2022). Participants inLemonnier 2017were allocated to either 0.5 mg, 1 mg, or 2 mg ofbumetanide twice daily.Sprengers 2021administered bumetanide in liquid form twice dailywith a mean dose of 0.0482 mg/kg/day, andDai 2021administered 0.5 mg of bumetanide twice daily.

    • Cannabidiol: one cross‐over study involving 88participants aged 5 to 21 years compared cannabidiolto a placebo (Aran2021). Participants received 1 mg/kg ofcannabidiol per day for 12 weeks.

    • Celecoxib plus risperidone: one study involving 40participants compared celecoxib to a placebo (Asadabadi 2013).Maximum celecoxib was 200 mg/day plus 2 mg/day ofrisperidone for children who weighed 10 kg to 30 kg,and 30 mg/day of celecoxib plus 3 mg/day ofrisperidone for children 31 kg and over. Equivalentplacebo plus risperidone was provided toparticipants in the placebo group. The analysis forthis study is celecoxib versus placebo.

    • Cyproheptadine plus haloperidol: one study involving40 participants compared cyproheptadine plushaloperidol to a placebo plus haloperidol (Akhondzadeh2004). Maximum cyproheptadine was 0.2mg/kg/day and maximum haloperidol was 0.05mg/kg/day. The analysis for this study wascyproheptadine versus placebo.

    • D‐cycloserine plus social skills training: one studyinvolving 67 participants compared D‐cycloserineplus social skills training to a placebo plus socialskills training (Minshawi 2016). Participants received 50mg of D‐cycloserine or placebo 30 minutes prior toweekly social skills training sessions.

    • Dextromethorphan: one study involving eightparticipants compared dextromethorphan to a placebo(sweetened syrup;Woodard 2007). Children aged 6 to 12 yearsand 13 years and over received 30 mg or 60 mg ofdextromethorphan, respectively, every 12 hours.

    • Dextromethorphan plus quinidine: one study involving14 participants compared dextromethorphan plusquinidine (Chez2020). Participants received 20 mg ofdextromethorphan plus 10 mg of quinidine in tabletform (Nuedexta) once daily for the first week andthen twice daily for the following seven weeks.

    • Fenfluramine: one study involving 11 participantscompared fenfluramine to a placebo (Campbell 1987).Fenfluramine was initiated at 1.0 mg/kg/day acrosstwo daily doses, increasing to a maximum of 60mg/day.

    • Folinic acid plus risperidone: one study involving 55participants compared folinic acid plus risperidoneto a placebo plus risperidone (Batebi 2021).Folinic acid was administered at 2 mg/kg up to amaximum of 50 mg/day. Maximum risperidone forchildren who weighed up to 19 kg and 20 kg and overwas 1 mg/day and 2 mg/day respectively. The analysisfor this study was folinic acid versus placebo.

    • L‐carnosine plus risperidone: one study involving 42participants compared L‐carnosine plus risperidoneto a placebo plus risperidone (Hajizadeh‐Zaker2018). Participants received 400 mg ofL‐carnosine twice daily plus a maximum of 1 mg/dayof risperidone (children under 20 kg) or 2 mg/day ofrisperidone (children over 20 kg). The analysis forthis study was L‐carnosine versus placebo.

    • Lofexedine: one study involving 12 participantscompared lofexedine to a placebo (Niederhofer2002). Lofexedine commenced at 0.4 mg/day upto a maximum of 1.2 mg/day over three dailydoses.

    • MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine) pluspsychotherapy: one study involving 12 adultscompared MDMA plus psychotherapy to a placebo pluspsychotherapy (Danforth 2018). Following three 60‐ to90‐minute psychotherapy sessions, participantsreceived either 75 mg to 125 mg of MDMA or placeboon two occasions approximately one month apart.

    • Mecamylamine: one study involving 20 participantscompared mecamylamine to a placebo (Arnold 2012a).Mecamylamine was administered in fixed dosesstarting at 0.5 mg/day up to 5 mg/day iftolerated.

    • Minocycline plus risperidone: one study involving 46participants compared minocycline plus risperidoneto a placebo plus risperidone (Ghaleiha 2016).Minocycline was administered in fixed doses of 100mg/day plus risperidone 1 mg/day (children under 20kg) or 2 mg/day (children over 20 kg). The analysisfor this study was minocycline versus placebo.

    • N‐acetylcysteine plus risperidone: two studiesinvolving 71 participants compared N‐acetylcysteineplus risperidone to a placebo plus risperidone(Ghanizadeh2013;Nikoo 2015).

    • N‐acetylcysteine: three studies involving 156participants compared N‐acetylcysteine to a placebo(Dean2019;Hardan2012;Wink2016).

    • Naltrexone: three studies involving 93 participantscompared naltrexone to a placebo (Campbell 1993;Willemsen‐Swinkels 1995;Willemsen‐Swinkels1996).

    • Nicotine: one study involving seven adultparticipants compared nicotine to a placebo (Lewis 2018).Participants applied 7 mg of nicotine or placebodaily via skin patches.

    • Palmitoylethanolamide plus risperidone: one studyinvolving 62 participants comparedpalmitoylethanolamide plus risperidone to a placeboplus risperidone (Khalaj 2018); 600 mg ofpalmitoylethanolamide was administered twice dailyin addition to 1 mg/day of risperidone (childrenunder 20 kg) or 2 mg/day (children over 20 kg). Theanalysis for this study was palmitoylethanolamideversus placebo.

    • Pentoxifylline plus risperidone: one study involving40 participants compared pentoxifylline plusrisperidone to a placebo plus risperidone (Akhondzadeh2010). Maximum pentoxifylline was 400 mg/dayfor children who weighed up to 40 kg, or a maximumof 600 mg/day for children 41 kg and above.Risperidone was administered up to 2 mg/day forchildren who weighed up to 40 kg, or a maximum of 3mg/day for children above 40 kg. The analysis forthis study was pentoxifylline versus placebo.

    • Pioglitazone plus risperidone: one study involving 44participants compared pioglitazone plus risperidoneto a placebo plus risperidone (Ghaleiha 2015);15 mg of pioglitazone was administered twice dailyin addition to an initial 0.5 mg/day of risperidone,increasing to 1 mg/day (children under 20 kg) or 2mg/day (children over 20 kg). The analysis for thisstudy was pioglitazone versus placebo.

    • Prednisolone plus risperidone: one study involving 26participants compared prednisolone plus risperidoneto a placebo plus risperidone (Malek 2020).Prednisolone was administered at 1 mg/kg/day inaddition to an initial 0.5 mg/day of risperidone,increasing to 1 mg/day (children under 20 kg) or 2mg/day (children over 20 kg). The analysis for thisstudy was prednisolone versus placebo.

    • Pregnenolon plus risperidone: one study involving 59participants compared pregnenolon plus risperidoneto a placebo plus risperidone (Ayatollahi2020). Pregnenolon was administered in fixeddoses of 100 mg twice daily. Risperidone wasadministered at maximum doses of 2.5 mg/day forchildren who weighed 20 kg to 45 kg, or a maximum of3.5 mg/day for children who weighed above 45 kg. Theanalysis for this study was pregnenolone versusplacebo.

    • Propentofylline plus risperidone: one study involving48 participants compared propentofylline to aplacebo (Behmanesh2019). Propentofylline commenced at 300 mgonce daily and increased to 300 mg twice daily(children under 45 kg) or propentofylline increasedto 300 mg three times daily (children 45 kg orover). Risperidone commenced at 0.5 mg/day andincreased to 1 mg/day for children who weighed under20 kg or 2 mg/day for those who weighed 20 kg orabove. The analysis for this study waspropentofylline versus placebo.

    • Resveratrol plus risperidone: one study involving 62participants compared resveratrol plus risperidoneto a placebo plus risperidone (Hendouei 2019).Resveratrol was administered as a fixed dose of 250mg twice daily in addition to risperidone (initialdose of 0.5 mg/day increasing by 0.5 mg/day eachweek for the first three weeks). The analysis forthis study was resveratrol versus placebo.

    • Riluzole: one study involving seven participantscompared riluzole to a placebo (Wink 2018).Riluzole commenced at 50 mg/day and increased to 100mg twice daily.

    • Riluzole plus risperidone: one study involving 40participants compared riluzole plus risperidone to aplacebo plus risperidone (Ghaleiha 2013b).Riluzole was administered 25 mg/day to 50 mg/day forchildren who weighed 10 kg to 40 kg, or a maximum of100 mg/day for children over 40 kg. Maximumrisperidone was 2 mg/day for children who weighed upto 40 kg and a maximum of 3 mg/day for children 41kg and above.

    • Simvastatin plus risperidone: one study involving 66participants compared simvastatin plus risperidoneto a placebo plus risperidone (Moazen‐Zadeh2018). Simvastatin was administered ateither 20 mg/day for children under 10 years of ageor 40 mg/day for children 10 years and over. Theanalysis for this study was simvastatin versusplacebo.

    • Sulforaphane plus risperidone: one study involving 60participants compared sulforaphane plus risperidoneto a placebo plus risperidone (Montazmenesh2020). Sulforaphane was administered at 50μmol /day for children who weighed less than 45 kg,or 100 μmol for children 45 kg to 90 kg. Risperidonewas administered at a maximum of 1 mg/day forchildren under 20 kg, 2.5 mg/day for children 20 kgto 45 kg, and 3.5 mg/day for children who weighedover 45 kg.

    • Tetrahydrobiopterin: two studies involving 58participants compared tetrahydrobiopterin to aplacebo (Danfors2005;Klaiman 2013).Danfors 2005administered tetrahydrobiopterin at a maximum of 3mg/kg/day across two daily doses, whileKlaiman 2013administered tetrahydrobiopterin in tablet form at20 mg/kg once daily (mean final dose was 385mg/day).

    • Trichuris suis ova: one study involving 10adult participants comparedTrichuris suisova to a placebo (Hollander 2020a). Participants received adose of 2500 ova every two weeks.

  • Comparators: all studies compared an experimentalintervention to a placebo, although 16 of the studies werecompared to a placebo plus risperidone, one study wascompared to a placebo plus haloperidol (Akhondzadeh 2004), andone study compared to placebo plus psychotherapy (Danforth 2018). Onlythree studies provided details of the placebo, sugar pill(Hardan 2012;Minshawi 2016)or sweetened syrup (Woodard2007).

  • Inclusion criteria: all studies required participants to havea clinical diagnosis of ASD, and additional criteriaincluded a minimum of 15 on the ABC‐I subscale (Asadabadi 2013;Ayatollahi 2020;Lewis 2018;Wink 2018;Woodard 2007), or ascore of moderate or higher on the CGI‐Severity score (Minshawi 2016;Veenstra‐VanderWeele2017), or the presentation of aggressive anddisruptive behaviours (Akhondzadeh 2004;Akhondzadeh 2010;Behmanesh 2019;Ghaleiha 2015;Ghaleiha 2016;Malek 2020).

  • Exclusion criteria: the majority of studies excluded peoplewith a history of or current medical or psychiatricconditions and also people who had been taking psychotropicmedications or other prohibited medications in the periodleading up to the trial. Some studies also excluded peoplewith severe intellectual disabilities (Akhondzadeh 2010;Asadabadi 2013;Batebi 2021;Ghaleiha 2013b;Ghaleiha 2016;Hajizadeh‐Zaker2018;Khalaj2018;Montazmenesh 2020;Moazen‐Zadeh 2018),were pregnant or breastfeeding (Hollander 2020a),currently using tobacco or nicotine products (Lewis 2018), or had anallergy or intolerance to the intervention (Ayatollahi 2020;Behmanesh 2019;Nikoo 2015;Veenstra‐VanderWeele2017).

  • Concomitant medications: studies required participants tohave been off medications for at least one month and sixmonths prior to the study (Niederhofer 2002;Batebi 2021), remainon stable psychotropic medications for at least three months(Arnold 2012a;Hollander2020a), and two weeks prior to randomisationrespectively (Campbell1987;Hardan2012;Minshawi2016), or stable medication with no changes inthe past 14 days (Lewis2018). One study allowed the use ofanticonvulsants, supplements, or sleep medications, however,any other psychotropic medications were not allowed (Klaiman 2013).

  • Participant cognitive status: most studies did not report theaverage IQ of participants apart from seven studies (Arnold 2012a;Danfors 2005;Dean 2019;Minshawi 2016;Niederhofer 2002;Sprengers 2021;Wink 2016). IQranged from 53 to 100 across these studies.

  • Length of follow‐up: study duration ranged from seven days(Lewis 2018), tosix months (Danfors2005). Mean duration was 9.6 weeks.

Primary outcomes
Secondary outcomes
  • Tolerability and acceptability (loss to follow‐up): 230participants (13%) withdrew and were not included in therelevant study analyses. Reasons included withdrawingconsent (103); AEs (32), lost to follow‐up (23) ;poor/non‐compliance (20), protocol violations (10); lackof efficacy (9); due to an error (4); no longer metinclusion/exclusion criteria (4); clinical decision (2);participant moved (1); other (22).

Excluded studies

The full‐text screening resulted in 88 references (as 81 studies) beingexcluded due to ineligible criteria. Full‐text copies of the studies listedin this section were reviewed as it was not clear whether they met theinclusion criteria for the review based on title and abstract. Furtherscreening of the full‐text reports of these studies found that they did notmeet our inclusion criteria. Reasons for exclusion included: did not focuson population of interest; did not have a focus on unwanted behaviours(irritability, aggression, self‐injury); ineligible study design (non‐RCT);non‐pharmacological intervention; irrelevant comparator; and terminatedstudies.

Risk of bias in included studies

SeeFigure 3 for a risk of bias summary, andFigure 4 for a risk of bias graph.

3.

3

Risk of bias in included studies

4.

4

Visual representation of risk of bias across all included studies

See below for more detailed information on risk of bias.

Allocation

  • Atypical or typical antipsychotics versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated 16 studies as unclear risk of biasfor randomisation and allocation concealment, mostly due to alack of details regarding methods of randomisation andallocation concealment. We rated three studies (20%) as lowbecause they conducted randomisation using a computer‐generatedcode, and one study as high due to a clear lack of randomisationand allocation concealment.

  • Neurohormones versus placebo or other treatment: we rated12 studies as unclear and 12 studies as having a low risk ofbias. Studies rated as unclear either did not provide details orprovided very vague details regarding the randomisation andallocation of participants. We rated studies as low risk of biasbecause randomisation was conducted using a computer‐generatedcode.

  • ADHD‐related medications versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated 10 studies as unclear risk of biasdue to a lack of details regarding methods of randomisation andallocation concealment. We rated one study as low and twostudies as high. The reason for the high ratings was because theinvestigators used 'sequential assignment'. The study rated aslow randomised using a computer‐generated method.

  • Antidepressants versus placebo or other treatment: werated eight studies as unclear due to a lack of detailsregarding methods of randomisation and allocation concealment.We rated the other two studies as low risk of bias asrandomisation was conducted externally to the trial.

  • Atypical antipsychotic versus another atypicalantipsychotic: we rated allocation concealment asunclear for both of the studies due to a lack ofinformation.

  • Atypical antipsychotic versus an anti‐dementia drug: werated allocation concealment as unclear forNikvarz 2017 becausealthough referred to as "simple balanced blocked randomisation",the study authors did not provide information on how allocationwas concealed.

  • Atypical antipsychotic versus an antiparkinsonian drug(bromocriptine): we rated allocation concealment asunclear forDollfus 1992due to a lack of information.

  • Anticonvulsants versus placebo or other treatment: werated five studies as having an unclear risk of bias due to alack of details and one study as low because it conductedrandomisation using a computer‐generated code.

  • Antidementia interventions versus placebo or othertreatments: we rated six studies as low risk of biasbecause they conducted randomisation using a computer‐generatedcode, and the other two studies as unclear due to a lack ofdetail regarding the allocation process.

  • Antiparkinsonian interventions versus placebo or othertreatments: we rated one study as low because itconducted randomisation using a computer‐generated code and theother study as having an unclear risk of bias due toinsufficient details regarding allocation concealment.

  • Anxiolytic interventions versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated one study as unclear due to a lackof details and the other study as low risk of bias because itconducted randomisation using a computer‐generated code.

  • Experimental interventions versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated 24 studies as low risk of biasbecause they conducted randomisation using a computer‐generatedcode. We rated the remaining 18 studies as unclear, mainly dueto a lack of details regarding randomisation methods andallocation concealment.

Blinding

  • Atypical or typical antipsychotics versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated 14 studies as unclear risk of biasdue to a lack of details regarding blinding and who was blinded,and the remaining six studies as low risk of bias.

  • Neurohormones versus placebo or other treatment: we rated13 studies as unclear and the remaining 11 studies as having lowrisk of bias. Studies with an unclear risk of bias usually didnot provide further details apart from stating that they useddouble‐blinding.

  • ADHD‐related medications versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated eight studies as unclear risk ofbias, three as low risk of bias and the remaining two studies ashigh risk of bias. This was due to investigators beingunblinded.

  • Antidepressants versus placebo or other treatment: werated seven studies as unclear risk of bias, with the remainingthree studies at low risk of bias.

  • Atypical antipsychotic versus another atypicalantipsychotic: we rated one study as a low risk of biasand the other as high due to some participants being unblindedand an unblinded clinician.

  • Atypical antipsychotic versus an anti‐dementia drug: werated this study as having a high risk of bias due to being anopen‐label (randomised) study and therefore lackingblinding.

  • Atypical antipsychotic versus an antiparkinsonian(bromocriptine): we rated this study as having anunclear risk of bias because it did not provide detailsregarding blinding.

  • Anticonvulsants versus placebo or other treatment: werated three studies as being of low risk of bias and threestudies as unclear, mainly due to lack of details.

  • Antidementia interventions versus placebo or othertreatments: we rated six studies as having low risk ofbias because they clearly stated the blinding methods that theyused, and the other two studies as unclear risk of bias due tolack of further details apart from stating the study wasdouble‐blinded.

  • Antiparkinsonian interventions versus placebo or othertreatments: we rated one study as low risk of biasbecause different people were involved in the allocation ofparticipants and the measurement of outcomes. We rated the otherstudy as unclear risk of bias due to insufficient detailsregarding blinding.

  • Anxiolytic interventions versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated one study as low risk of biasbecause an external person, who was not involved in enrolment orallocation, monitored outcomes. We rated the other study asunclear risk of bias because although the study stated that theyused double‐blinding, the person who allocated participants togroups was unblinded.

  • Experimental interventions versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated 30 studies as low risk of bias, 11as unclear, and one as high risk of bias due to the use ofsingle‐blinding only. The studies rated as unclear were due to alack of details regarding blinding and who was blinded, and thehigh risk of bias was because the assessors were unblinded.

Incomplete outcome data

  • Atypical or typical antipsychotics versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated 12 studies at low risk of bias, witha further four studies being rated as unclear and four studiesas high risk of bias due to high rates of attrition, notincluding some participants in the analysis due to lack ofefficacy, or lack of details regarding participants lost tofollow‐up. We rated studies as unclear due to vague detailsregarding imputation of missing data, or an intention‐to‐treatanalysis that did not include all participants.

  • Neurohormones versus placebo or other treatment: we rated13 studies as low, six studies as unclear and five as high riskof bias. Studies rated as high had up to 50% missing data or didnot provide reasons for loss to follow‐up. Studies rated asunclear did not provide reasons for participants lost tofollow‐up, or some participants were not accounted for inanalysis or numbers of participants lost to follow‐up. Studiesrated as low had included all participants in the analysis andused an intention‐to‐treat analysis for any participants who didnot complete the trial.

  • ADHD‐related medications versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated five studies as unclear, two as lowand six as high. We judged studies as high risk due tounexplained loss to follow‐up, incomplete data or lack ofpost‐baseline ratings. Ratings of unclear were because the studyauthors did not clearly report numbers of participants whocompleted the study and any who were lost to follow‐upthroughout the study. Studies with ratings of low had includedall participants in the final analysis or used anintention‐to‐treat analysis, or both.

  • Antidepressants versus placebo or other treatment: werated four studies as having an unclear risk of bias, threestudies as high and three studies as low risk of bias. 'Unclear'ratings were because it was not clear how many participants wereincluded in the analysis, or loss to follow‐up was not reportedby group. Reasons for a judgement of high risk of bias includedhigh attrition of 20% to 25%, and not providing reasons forparticipant loss to follow‐up. The studies rated as low risk ofbias used an intention‐to‐treat analysis and included allparticipants in the final analysis.

  • Atypical antipsychotic versus another atypicalantipsychotic: we rated both studies as having a lowrisk of bias as all participants were included in theanalysis.

  • Atypical antipsychotic versus an anti‐dementia drug: werated the study as high risk of bias because data were notimputed for participants who discontinued.

  • Atypical antipsychotic versus an antiparkinsonian(bromocriptine): we rated the study as having a low riskof bias because only one participant did not complete the study,and it used a last observation carried forward.

  • Anticonvulsants versus placebo or other treatment: werated three studies as unclear risk of bias and three studies ashigh risk of bias. The ratings of unclear were mainly due tounaccounted for participants, not imputing data whereparticipants were lost to follow‐up, or lack of clarityregarding the number included in the analysis. The studies ratedas high risk of bias were because of incomplete data.

  • Anti‐dementia interventions versus placebo or othertreatments: we rated six studies as having low risk ofbias, one study as high and one study as unclear risk of bias.The study with a high risk of bias had almost 50% attrition andthe study rated as unclear provided vague details regarding lossto follow‐up and number analysed. Studies rated as low risk ofbias included all participants in the analysis and used anintention‐to‐treat analysis for any participants who did notcomplete the trial.

  • Antiparkinsonian interventions versus placebo or othertreatments: we rated one study as low risk of biasbecause all participants were included in the analysis, while werated the other study as unclear due to imputation using lastobservation carried forward for all participants with at leastone measurement post‐baseline.

  • Anxiolytic interventions versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated one study as unclear and the otherstudy as high risk of bias. The high risk of bias was due to notreporting outcome data at one of the prespecified time pointsand the study rated as unclear was due to "unavailable data" foralmost half of the discontinued participants.

  • Experimental interventions versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated 17 studies as low risk of bias, 14as unclear and 11 studies as high risk of bias. The studiesrated at high risk of bias were mainly due to significantattrition or not reporting reasons for loss to follow‐up. Theratings of unclear were because it was unclear how many wereincluded in the analysis, or no further statistical measuressuch as intention‐to‐treat were used for those lost tofollow‐up.

Selective reporting

  • Atypical or typical antipsychotics versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated nine studies as high risk of bias,seven studies as low and four studies as unclear risk of bias.We rated the nine studies as high because of incomplete orabsent reporting of outcomes, and not reporting AEs when it ishighly likely they would have occurred. The studies rated as lowwere because all outcomes listed in the protocol or on the trialregistry were reported in the published paper. The unclearratings were due to lack of a protocol.

  • Neurohormones versus placebo or other treatment: we rated11 studies as low risk of bias because outcomes reported matchedthose listed in the protocol, seven studies as unclear due to anabsence of a published protocol or trial registration, and sixas high risk of bias. Studies rated as high risk of bias did notreport outcomes that were mentioned or listed on the clinicaltrials registry.

  • ADHD‐related medications versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated seven studies as high risk of bias,three studies as low and two were unclear. The reasons for thehigh ratings were either incomplete or absent outcome data. Theratings of unclear were because of the absence of a publishedpaper and details only provided on the trial registry. Theratings of low were because all outcomes listed in the protocolor on the trial registry were reported in the publishedpaper.

  • Antidepressants versus placebo or other treatment: werated four studies as low risk of bias, four studies as unclearand two studies as high risk of bias. Reasons for a rating ofhigh were incomplete or absent outcome data. We rated studies aslow because all outcomes listed in the protocol or on the trialsregistry were reported in the published paper. The unclearratings were because of an absence of a published paper anddetails only provided on the trial registry.

  • Atypical antipsychotic versus another atypicalantipsychotic: we rated one study as having a high riskof bias, due to conflicting statements that disagree with thestatistics that they provided, and the other study as low riskof bias.

  • Atypical antipsychotic versus an antidementia drug: werated this study as having an unclear risk of bias due to lackof a protocol.

  • Atypical antipsychotic versus an antiparkinsonian(bromocriptine): we rated this study as having anunclear risk of bias due to lack of a protocol.

  • Anticonvulsants versus placebo or other treatment: werated five studies as high risk of bias and one as low risk. Theratings of high risk of bias were due to lack of outcome data,the use of P values or t‐values to report data, or differencesbetween information in published papers and the clinical trialsregistry. The rating of low was because outcomes reportedmatched those listed in the protocol or on the trialsregistry.

  • Antidementia interventions versus placebo or othertreatments: we rated three studies as having a high riskof bias, four studies as low and one study as having an unclearrisk of bias. The unclear rating was because of an absence of apublished protocol, and the low ratings were because alloutcomes listed in a protocol or trial registry were reported bythe study authors in the published paper. The ratings of highwere because outcome data were not reported.

  • Antiparkinsonian interventions versus placebo or othertreatments: we rated one study as low risk of bias andthe other as unclear because it used last observation carriedforward for any participant with at least one post‐baselinemeasure.

  • Anxiolytic interventions versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated one study as low risk of biasbecause all outcomes listed in a protocol or trial registry werereported by the study authors in the published paper, and thestudy rated as high risk of bias was due to outcome measures notreported at the time points mentioned.

  • Experimental interventions versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated 21 studies as low risk of biasbecause outcomes reported matched those listed in the protocol,12 as unclear due to an absence of a published protocol or trialregistry, and nine studies as high. The reasons for high risk ofbias were failure to report outcomes mentioned in protocols oron trial registries, or reporting data at different time pointsto that mentioned in the protocol or trial registry.

Other potential sources of bias

  • Atypical or typical antipsychotics versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated six studies as low risk of bias,eight as high risk of bias, and six as unclear. Most of thestudies rated as high risk of bias were because of funding orother support by pharmaceutical companies, agreements betweenstudy authors and sponsors regarding the publishing of results,a small proportion of the sample with a diagnosis of autismdespite the title mentioning autism spectrum disorder, or studyauthors' direct involvement in the ethics committee or fundingprocess. The studies rated as unclear were because of somefinancial or other support from pharmaceutical companies. Thesix studies rated as low were because we identified no othersources of bias.

  • Neurohormones versus placebo or other treatment: we ratednine studies as high risk of bias, 10 as low and five studies asunclear risk of bias. All studies rated as high risk of biaswere either funded by pharmaceutical companies, thepharmaceutical companies were involved in the analysis, orparticipants were responders to the intervention in a previoustrial. Studies rated as low were because we did not identify anyother sources of bias, and the studies rated as unclear were dueto some involvement by pharmaceutical companies in thestudy.

  • ADHD‐related medications versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated five studies as high risk of biasdue to a lack of standardised measures, having received fundingby pharmaceutical companies, or study authors' directinvolvement in the ethics committee or funding process. We ratedfive studies as unclear due to highly divergent samples inaddition to small sample sizes or lack of details regardingsponsorship or funding, and three studies as low because we didnot identify any other sources of bias.

  • Antidepressants versus placebo or other treatment: werated five studies as unclear risk of bias because of lack ofdetails regarding funding, a published paper not beingavailable, or a lack of baseline comparisons reported by group.We rated one study as low and four as high risk of bias. Werated studies as high risk of bias due to involvement oremployment of study authors by pharmaceutical companies, studyauthors' direct involvement in the ethics committee or fundingprocess, or an imbalance in baseline characteristics between thetwo groups. The one study rated as low was because we did notidentify any other sources of bias.

  • Atypical antipsychotic versus another atypicalantipsychotic: we rated both studies as having a lowrisk of bias because we did not identify any other sources ofbias.

  • Atypical antipsychotic versus an antidementia drug: werated this study as having a low risk of bias because we did notidentify any other sources of bias.

  • Atypical antipsychotic versus an antiparkinsonian(bromocriptine): we rated this study as having anunclear risk of bias because we did not identify any othersources of bias. However, without a protocol or trial registryentry, it is difficult to know.

  • Anticonvulsants versus placebo or other treatment: werated three studies as unclear risk of bias, two as high and oneas low risk of bias. The studies rated as unclear were due tofunding or other support from pharmaceutical companies, and thestudies rated as high were due to a change in study durationwithout explanation or study authors' direct involvement in theethics committee or funding process. The study rated as low wasbecause we did not identify any other sources of bias.

  • Antidementia interventions versus placebo or othertreatments: we rated one study as a low risk of biasbecause we did not identify any other sources of bias. We ratedseven studies as high risk of bias due to funding and otherinvolvement by pharmaceutical companies or study authors' directinvolvement in the ethics committee or funding process.

  • Antiparkinsonian interventions versus placebo or othertreatments: we rated one study as unclear risk of biasdue to pharmaceutical companies providing funding and theunknown role they may have had in the study. We rated the otherstudy as high risk of bias due to study authors' directinvolvement in the ethics committee or funding process.

  • Anxiolytic interventions versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated one study as unclear and the otheras a high risk of bias because the study was retrospectivelyregistered on the clinical trials website.

  • Experimental interventions versus placebo or othertreatment: we rated six studies as low risk of biasbecause we did not identify any other sources of bias, sixstudies as unclear and 30 studies as high risk of bias. Thereasons for high risk of bias were funding or other involvementby pharmaceutical companies in the studies, study authors beingemployed by the pharmaceutical companies funding the study, orstudy authors' direct involvement in the ethics committee orfunding process. The reasons for an unclear rating were becauseof some involvement of pharmaceutical companies, or studyauthors did not provide baseline details regarding groupdifferences.

Effects of interventions

See:Table 1;Table 2;Table 3;Table 4

Atypical antipsychotics versus placebo

Primary outcomes
Behaviours of concern
Irritability

Atypical antipsychotics probably reduce irritability in the shortterm when compared to participants taking placebo (SMD −0.90,95% CI −1.25 to −0.55; I2 = 83%; 12 studies, 973participants; moderate‐certainty evidence;Analysis 1.1). The highlevel of heterogeneity across these 12 studies was reduced to42% when we removedIchikawa2017 andTroost2005 from the analysis (SMD −0.67, 95% CI −0.87 to−0.48; I2 = 42%; 10 studies; 857 participants).Please refer toTable 1 for moreinformation.

1.1. Analysis.

1.1

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 1: Irritability

There were differences between types of atypical antipsychotics(P = 0.0005), however, there were no clear differences betweenatypical antipsychotics (P = 0.76) when we removedLoebel 2016 (lurasidone)from the analysis.

There were no clear differences between groups when we comparedchildren only, and adults only (P = 0.87). There wasinsufficient information to conduct a subgroup analysis ofirritability by cognitive or communication ability.

We were unable to include irritability data from one study in themeta‐analyses because the data were skewed (Findling 2014). Detailscan be found inTable 8.

4. Atypical antipsychotics versus placebo:irritability results that could not be used inmeta‐analyses.
Study nameShort‐/medium‐/long‐term outcomesGroup 1Group 2Group 1 sample sizeGroup 2 sample sizeGroup 1 results
Mean (standarddeviation)Group 2 results
Mean (standarddeviation)Other dataNotes
Findling2014Short‐term irritabilityAripiprazole (max 15 mg/day)Placebo39435.2 (10.05)9.6 (10.23)Skewed

As there were more than 10 studies in this analysis, we created afunnel plot for this outcome but found no evidence of asymmetry(Figure 5).

5.

5

SE: standard error;SMD: standardised meandifference

Atypical antipsychotics versus placebo (12 studies, 973participants;Analysis1.1)

Improvement

Participants were twice as likely to improve, defined as aminimum 25% decrease in the ABC‐I scores (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.39to 3.12; I2 = 53%; 4 studies, 470 participants;Analysis 1.3). There wereno clear differences between groups when risperidone andaripiprazole were compared (P = 0.17).

1.3. Analysis.

1.3

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 3: Improvement

Relapse

Participants were less likely to relapse, defined as a minimum25% increase in ABC‐I scores, if they received risperidonecompared to the placebo group (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.68;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 56 participants;Analysis 1.2).

1.2. Analysis.

1.2

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 2: Relapse

Because both studies involved children, we could not conduct asubgroup analysis. There was insufficient information to conducta subgroup analysis by communication or cognitive ability.

Aggression

There was no clear evidence of an effect of atypicalantipsychotics (risperidone) on aggression in the short term(SMD −0.44; 95% CI −0.89 to 0.01; I2 = not applicable(NA); 1 study, 77 participants; very low‐certainty evidence;Analysis 1.4). Pleaserefer toTable 1 for moreinformation.

1.4. Analysis.

1.4

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 4: Aggression

Only one study provided data for this outcome, so we were unableto conduct subgroup analyses.

We could not include data from one study in the meta‐analysesbecause the paper did not report endpoint data (Hollander 2006b). Detailscan be found inTable 9.

5. Atypical antipsychotic versus placebo:aggression results that could not be used inmeta‐analyses.
Study nameShort‐/medium‐/ long‐term outcomesGroup 1Group 2Group sample sizeGroup 2 sample sizeGroup 1 resultsGroup 2 resultsOther dataNotes
Hollander2006aShort‐term aggressionOlanzapine max 20 mg/dayPlacebo65Not providedNot provided"we did not find any evidence for significantchange on the CY‐BOCS, the OAS‐M irritabilitymeasure, or the OAS‐M aggression measure"
CY‐BOCS: Children's Yale Bown Obsessivecompulsive Scale;OAS‐M: Overt AggressionScale ‐ Modified
Self‐injury

The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of atypicalantipsychotics compared with placebo on self‐injurious behaviourin the short term (SMD −1.43 95% CI −2.24 to −0.61; P <0.0001; I2 = NA; 1 study, 30 participants; verylow‐certainty evidence;Analysis1.5). Please refer toTable 1 for more information.

1.5. Analysis.

1.5

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 5: Self‐injury

We could not include data from one study in the meta‐analysesbecause the data were skewed. Please refer toTable 10 for more information.

6. Atypical antipsychotic versus placebo:self‐injurious behaviour results that could not be used inthe meta‐analyses.
Study nameShort‐/medium‐/long‐term outcomesGroup 1Group 2Group sample sizeGroup 2 sample sizeGroup 1 results
Mean (standarddeviation)Group 2 results
Mean (standarddeviation)Other dataNotes
Shea 2004Short‐term self‐injurious behaviourRisperidone maximum 0.02 mg/kg/dayPlacebo3938−2.6 (3.3)−1.3 (2.8)Skewed

Only one study provided data for this outcome, so we could notconduct subgroup analyses.

Adverse effects
Cardiovascular

Participants were more likely to have tachycardia than thosereceiving placebo (RR 7.53, 95% CI 1.40 to 40.52; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 179 participants;Analysis 1.6).

1.6. Analysis.

1.6

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 6: Adverse effects:cardiovascular

Gastrointestinal

There was no clear evidence of a difference between participantsreceiving atypical antipsychotics and those receiving placebo(Analysis 1.7), inthe reported rates of:

1.7. Analysis.

1.7

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 7: Adverse effects:gastrointestinal

  • diarrhoea (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.88;I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 318 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • dry mouth (RR 1.97, 95% CI 0.75 to 5.20;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 131 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • dyspepsia (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.69;I2 = NA; 1 study, 31 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • nausea (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.56; I2 =0%; 4 studies, 531 participants; low‐certaintyevidence); or

  • stomach ache (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.32;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 166 participants;low‐certainty evidence)

However, participants receiving atypical antipsychotics were morelikely to report:

  • abdominal pain (RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.07;I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 400 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • constipation (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.28 to 4.34; 7studies, 596 participants; I2 = 0%,low‐certainty evidence);

  • drooling (RR 9.64, 95% CI 1.29 to 72.10; 2 studies,313 participants; I2 = 0%, low‐certaintyevidence);

  • hypersalivation (RR 4.15, 95% CI 1.77 to 9.71; 5studies, 449 participants; I2 = 0%,low‐certainty evidence); and

  • vomiting/nausea (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.74; 9studies, 920 participants; I2 = 0%,low‐certainty evidence).

Immune system

There was no clear evidence of a difference between atypicalantipsychotics and placebo groups (Analysis 1.8), in:

1.8. Analysis.

1.8

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 8: Adverse effects:immune system

  • pyrexia (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.86; I2= 0%; 5 studies, 540 participants);

  • cough (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.34; I2 =0%; 3 studies, 444 participants);

  • flu‐like symptoms (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.04;I2 = NA; 1 study, 79 participants);

  • sore throat (RR 5.20, 95% CI 0.63 to 42.96;I2 = NA; 1 study, 100 participants);and

  • earache (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.71; I2= NA; 1 study, 100 participants)

Metabolic

The antipsychotic group may be more likely to have an increase inappetite than the placebo group (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.69 to 3.34;I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 702 participants;low‐certainty evidence;Analysis1.9).

1.9. Analysis.

1.9

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 9: Adverse effects:metabolic (dichotomous)

There was no difference between groups in:

  • decreased appetite (RR 2.12, 95% CI 0.84 to 5.33;I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 426 participants;moderate‐certainty evidence;Analysis1.9);

  • thirst (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.87; I2 =0%; 3 studies, 382 participants;Analysis1.9);

  • weight gain (RR 2.30, 95% CI 0.84 to 6.30;I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 470 participants;Analysis1.9); or

  • weight gain in kilograms (MD 2.35, 95% CI 0.73 to3.97; I2 = NA; 1 study, 23 participants;Analysis1.10).

1.10. Analysis.

1.10

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 10: Adverse effects:metabolic (continuous)

We could not include data from one study in the analysis becauseit did not report data for both groups, and described weightgain by change in BMI (Malone2010). In addition, we could not include data fromOwen 2009 and thethree datasets fromMarcus2009 because the data were skewed. Further detailscan be found inTable 11.

7. Atypical antipsychotics versus placebo:adverse effects data that could not be used in themeta‐analyses.
Study nameShort‐/medium‐/long‐term outcomesGroup 1Group 2Group 1 sample sizeGroup 2 sample sizeGroup 1 results
Mean (standarddeviation)Group 2 results
Mean (standarddeviation)Other dataNotes
Malone2001Short‐term weight gainOlanzapine 2.5‐2 mg/dayPlaceboNot described. 33 in totalNot described. 33 in totalNot outlined for each group. Weight gain wasdescribed as change in BMI category from baselineto endpoint and summarised as a group BMIchange.
AEs were measured at baseline and after week 12(not after blinded phase)
Not outlined for each group. See Group 1At baseline, 70.3% of children were at ahealthy weight, 21.6% were overweight, 2.7% wereobese, and 5.4% were underweight. By week 12,42.4% were healthy weight, 21.2% were overweight,and 36.4% were obese. 
Marcus2009Short‐term weight gain (kg)Aripiprazole 5 mg/dayPlacebo44131.5 (2.65)0.4 (1.85)"All aripiprazole treatment groups wereassociated with significantly greater change inweight compared with the placebo at endpoint.Aripiprazole 5 mg/day and aripiprazole 15 mg/daywere associated with a greater prevalence ofclinically significant weight gain than theplacebo, and aripiprazole 15 mg/day was alsoassociated with significantly greater increases inbody mass index than the placebo"Skewed
Aripiprazole 10 mg/dayPlacebo49131.4 (2.1)0.4 (1.85)
Aripiprazole 15 mg/dayPlacebo47131.6 (2.06)0.4 (1.85)
Owen 2009Short‐term weight gain (kg)Aripiprazole
(2‐15 mg/day)
Placebo47502.0 (12.15)0.8 (12.15)"Aripiprazole treatment was associated withsignificantly greater mean weight change comparedwith placebo at endpoint (LOCF: 2.0 vs 0.8 kg (P.005); observed case: 1.9 vs 0.5 kg (P .01)).Aripiprazole was also associated with a greaterincidence of clinically significant weight gain(>7% increase from baseline) than placebo(LOCF: 28.9% vs 6.1%; P.01)"Skewed
AE: adverse effect;BMI: bodymass index;LOCF: Last observation carriedforward

As there were more than 10 studies in this analysis, we created afunnel plot for this outcome but found no evidence of asymmetry(Figure 6).

6.

6

log: logarithm;SE: standard error;RR: risk ratio

Atypical antipsychotics versus placebo (8 studies, 702participants;Analysis1.9)

Musculoskeletal

In the one study with 100 participants that compared atypicalantipsychotics and placebo (Analysis 1.11), there was no difference in:

1.11. Analysis.

1.11

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 11: Adverse effects:musculoskeletal

  • rigidity (RR 5.20, 95% CI 0.63 to 42.96;low‐certainty evidence);

  • movement disorder (RR 5.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 111.14;low‐certainty evidence); or

  • dyskinesia (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.55 to 7.87;low‐certainty evidence).

Neurological

A number of neurological AEs may be more likely to be reported inparticipants receiving atypical antipsychotics compared withplacebo (Analysis 1.12).These were:

1.12. Analysis.

1.12

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 12: Adverse effects:neurological

  • dizziness (RR 4.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 16.00;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 139 participants,low‐certainty evidence);

  • fatigue (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.97; I2= 0%; 8 studies, 881 participants; low‐certaintyevidence);

  • sedation (RR 2.98, 95% CI 1.15 to 7.73; I2= 21%; 5 studies, 366 participants; low‐certaintyevidence);

  • somnolence (RR 4.84, 95% CI 3.18 to 7.36;I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 869 participants,low‐certainty evidence); and

  • tremor (RR 5.99, 95% CI 1.87 to 19.19; I2= 0%; 5 studies, 574 participants; low‐certaintyevidence).

There was no clear evidence of a difference between atypicalantipsychotics and placebo groups in:

  • agitation/excitation (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.62;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 97participants);

  • aggression (dichotomous) (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to0.98; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 461participants);

  • apathy (RR 10.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 187.79; P = 0.10;I2 = NA; 1 study, 79 participants);

  • drowsiness (RR 4.26, 95% CI 0.95 to 19.02; P = 0.06;I2 = NA; 1 study, 97 participants);

  • extrapyramidal disorder (RR 7.83, 95% CI 0.47 to130.01; P = 0.15; I2 = NA; 1 study, 216participants);

  • hypersomnia (RR 2.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 16.52;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 282participants);

  • insomnia (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.04; I2= 0%; 7 studies, 679 participants);

  • presyncope (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.04 to 22.72;I2 = NA; 1 study, 216participants);

  • headache (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.15; I2= 9%; 6 studies, 597 participants);

  • lethargy (RR 6.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 110.35;I2 = NA; 1 study, 216participants);

  • hyperactivity (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.70;I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 305 participants);and

  • restlessness (akathisia) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.40 to2.43; I2 = 1%; 4 studies, 531participants).

As there were more than 10 studies in this analysis, we created afunnel plot for this outcome but found no evidence of asymmetry(Figure 7).

7.

7

log: logarithm;RR: risk ratio;SE:standard error;SMD: standardised meandifference

Atypical antipsychotics versus placebo (11 studies, 974participants;Analysis1.12)

Psychological

There was no clear evidence of a difference between atypicalantipsychotic and placebo groups in

  • anxiety (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.76; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 139 participants; verylow‐certainty evidence); or

  • depression (RR 3.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 32.60;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 79 participants;very low‐certainty evidence;Analysis1.13).

1.13. Analysis.

1.13

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 13: Adverse effects:psychological

Respiratory

There was no clear evidence of a difference between the atypicalantipsychotic and placebo groups in the respiratory symptomsof:

  • ear infection (RR 5.63, 95% CI 0.28 to 112.84;I2 = NA; 1 study, 66 participants);

  • epistaxis (RR 5.63, 95% CI 0.28 to 112.84;I2 = NA; 1 study, 66 participants);

  • nasal congestion (RR 2.39, 95% CI 0.52 to 11.00;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 313participants);

  • nasopharyngitis (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.17;I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 702participants);

  • pharyngolaryngeal pain (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.48;I2 = NA; 1 study, 216 participants);or

  • rhinitis (RR 2.68, 95% CI 0.93 to 7.71; I2= NA; 1 study, 79 participants).

However, there was a higher rate of upper respiratory tractinfection in the antipsychotic group (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.08 to4.27; I2 = 8%; 6 studies, 640 participants;Analysis 1.14).

1.14. Analysis.

1.14

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 14: Adverse effects:respiratory

Skin

There was no clear evidence of a difference between groups in thelikelihood of:

  • bruise (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.96; I2 =NA; 1 study, 92 participants); or

  • rash (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.14 to 4.62; I2 =0%; 2 studies, 228 participants;Analysis1.15).

1.15. Analysis.

1.15

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 15: Adverse effects:skin

Urinary

Enuresis was not different between the atypical antipsychotic andplacebo groups (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.86; I2 =0%; 6 studies, 552 participants;Analysis 1.16).

1.16. Analysis.

1.16

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 16: Adverse effects:urinary

Other adverse effects

No other AEs were reported.

Secondary outcomes
Quality of life
Child, adolescent or adult with autism

Quality of life was not different at endpoint in participantsreceiving aripiprazole compared to those receiving placebo (SMD0.95, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.76; I2 = 75%; 2 studies, 135participants;Analysis1.17).

1.17. Analysis.

1.17

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 17: Quality oflife

We could not include two of the quality‐of‐life datasets (5mg/day and 10 mg/day) fromMarcus 2009 in the meta‐analysis because the datawere skewed. Details can be found inTable 12.

8. Atypical antipsychotics versus placebo:quality‐of‐life results that could not be used in themeta‐analyses.
Study nameShort‐/medium‐/long‐term outcomesGroup 1Group 2Group 1 sample sizeGroup 2 sample sizeGroup 1 results
Mean (standarddeviation)Group 2 results
Mean (standarddeviation)Other dataNotes
Marcus2009Short‐term QoLAripiprazole 5 mg/dayPlacebo431214 (15.74)10.6 (15.82)"Although patients receiving aripiprazole 5 and10 mg/day had improvement in these 3 (QoL) scalescores compared with those receiving placebo, the95% CIs of the treatment differences includedzero"
Aripiprazole 10 mg/dayPlacebo411210.4 (15.4)10.6 (15.82)
QoL: Quality of Life
Tolerability/acceptability

Participants were less likely to be lost to follow‐up in theantipsychotic group than the placebo group (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 to0.71; I2 = 12%; 13 studies, 1004 participants;Analysis 1.18).

1.18. Analysis.

1.18

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 18:Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up

Apart from one study, all studies involved children and adolescents,and therefore, we could not conduct a subgroup analysis ofdifferences in tolerability based on age.

Neurohormones versus placebo

Primary outcomes
Challenging behaviours
Irritability

At short‐term follow‐up, there was some evidence thatneurohormones may have a minimal to no effect on irritability(SMD −0.18, 95% CI −0.37 to −0.00; I2 = 0%; 8studies, 466 participants; low‐certainty evidence;Analysis 2.1).

2.1. Analysis.

2.1

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 1: Irritability

There were no differences between types of neurohormones (P =0.54) or when male participants were compared to a mixedpopulation of male and female participants (P = 0.94). There wasinsufficient information to conduct subgroup analyses ofirritability by communication ability or cognitive ability.

We could not include data from three studies in the analysisbecause the data were skewed (Levy 2003;Squassante 2018;Unis 2002). Details can be found inTable 13.

9. Neurohormones versus placebo: irritabilityresults that could not be used in the meta‐analyses.
Study nameShort‐/medium‐/long‐term outcomesGroup 1 sample sizeGroup 2 sample sizeGroup 1 resultsMean (standarddeviation)Group 2 resultsMean (standarddeviation)Other dataNotes
Levy 2003Short‐term (single‐dose secretin (2 CU/kg))31310.01 (1.35)−0.18 (0.79)Skewed
Squassante2018Short‐term balovaptan 1.5 mg3223−1.99 (14.92)−2.85 (24.29)Skewed
Short‐term balovaptan 4 mg7722−1.64 (24.15)−1.07 (4.95)
Short‐term balovaptan 10 mg3922−3.42 (34.79)−2.99 (9.49)
Unis 2002Short‐term synthetic secretin (single infusionof 0.4 μg/kg)2315−1.3 (3.93)−1.5 (3.38)Skewed

Please refer toTable 2 for furtherinformation.

Self‐injury

There was no clear evidence of a difference in self‐injurybetween participants receiving neurohormones compared to thosereceiving placebo at endpoint (SMD −0.37, 95% CI −0.93 to 0.19;I2 = NA; 1 study, 50 participants;Analysis 2.2) and atthree‐month follow‐up (SMD −0.32, 95% CI −0.88 to 0.23;I2 = NA; 1 study, 50 participants;Analysis 2.2).

2.2. Analysis.

2.2

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 2: Self‐injury

We could not include data from one study in the analysis becausethe data were skewed (Guastella2015a). Details can be found inTable 14.

10. Neurohormones versus placebo: adverse effectsdata that could not be used in the meta‐analysis.
Name of studyShort‐/medium‐/long‐term outcomesGroup 1 sample sizeGroup 1 sample sizeGroup 1 resultsMean (standarddeviation)Group 2 resultsMean (standarddeviation)Other dataNotes
Sikich2013Short‐term oxytocin (max 24 IU children 3‐10years or max 32 IU children 11‐17 years) adverseeffects (metabolic)11130.64 (1.95)1.09 (1.14)Skewed
Adverse effects
Cardiovascular

There was no clear evidence of a difference between participantsreceiving neurohormones compared to those receiving placebo inthe likelihood of:

  • cardiac disorders (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 9.05;I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 456participants);

  • palpitations (RR 2.96, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.04;I2 = NA; 1 study, 290 participants);or

  • vascular disorders (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.57;I2 = NA; 1 study, 106 participantsAnalysis2.3).

2.3. Analysis.

2.3

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 3: Adverse effects:cardiovascular

Gastrointestinal

Only vomiting showed a difference between groups when oxytocinwas compared to a placebo (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.97;I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 409 participants,low‐certainty evidence;Analysis2.4).

2.4. Analysis.

2.4

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 4: Adverse effects:gastrointestinal

There was no clear evidence of differences between theneurohormone and placebo groups in any of the othergastrointestinal AEs:

  • abdominal pain or discomfort (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.17 to1.07; I2 = NA; 1 study, 290participants);

  • constipation (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.73; 3studies, 361 participants);

  • diarrhoea (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.28;I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 450participants);

  • dry mouth (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.88;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 350participants);

  • encopresis (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.25,I2 = NA; 1 study, 290participants);

  • gastrointestinal disorders (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.35 to4.49; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 166participants);

  • nausea (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.65; I2 =NA; 1 study, 60 participants);

  • salivary hypersecretion (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to2.99; I2 = 0%; 2 studies 319participants); and

  • stomatitis (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.11;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 321 participants,low‐certainty evidenceAnalysis2.4).

Immune system

Infections and infestations were not different between groups (RR2.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 4.93; I2 = NA; 1 study, 106participants;Analysis2.5).

2.5. Analysis.

2.5

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 5: Adverse effects: immunesystem

Metabolic

There was no clear evidence of a difference between neurohormoneand placebo groups in any of the metabolic AEs. Theseincluded:

  • decreased appetite (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.22;I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 409 participants;very low‐certainty evidence);

  • increased appetite (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.16;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 350participants);

  • metabolism and nutrition disorders (RR 0.50, 95% CI0.05 to 5.35; I2 = NA; 1 study, 106participants; very low‐certainty evidence);

  • thirst (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.67; I2 =15%; 2 studies, 319 participants);

  • weight gain (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.82;I2 = NA; 1 study, 290participants);

  • weight change (RR ‐0.45, 95% CI ‐1.76 to 0.86;I2 = NA; 1 study, 24 participants)or

  • weight loss (RR 1.97, 95% CI 0.69 to 5.63;I2 = NA; 1 study, 290 participants;Analysis2.6).

2.6. Analysis.

2.6

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 6: Adverse effects:metabolic (dichotomous)

We could not include one study in the analysis because the datawere skewed (Sikich2013). Details can be found inTable 14.

There was no clear evidence of a difference between neurohormonesand placebo groups in mean change in weight in kilograms (SMD−0.45; 95% CI −1.76 to 0.86; 1 study, 24 participants;Analysis 2.7).

2.7. Analysis.

2.7

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 7: Adverse effects:metabolic (continuous)

Musculoskeletal

There was no difference between participants receivingneurohormones and those receiving placebo in:

  • muscle spasms (RR 2.81, 95% CI 0.12 to 63.83;I2 = NA; 1 study, 29 participants; verylow‐certainty evidence);

  • musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (RR3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.02; I2 = NA; 1study, 106 participants); and

  • rhabdomyolysis (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.06 to 35.64;I2 = NA; 1 study, 220 participants);Analysis2.8.

2.8. Analysis.

2.8

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 8: Adverse effects:musculoskeletal

Neurological

Numerous neurological AEs were reported in studies comparingneurohormones to placebo. We found low‐certainty evidence thatneurohormones may decrease the risk of headaches (RR 0.58, 95%CI 0.38 to 0.89; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 689participants;Analysis2.9).

2.9. Analysis.

2.9

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 9: Adverse effects:neurological

The other neurological AEs showed no differences between thegroups and included:

  • absence seizures (RR 2.73, 95% CI 0.12 to 59.57; 1study, 19 participants);

  • agitation (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.94; I² = 0%; 3studies, 344 participants; low‐certaintyevidence);

  • aggression (dichotomous) (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.57 to1.44; I² = 9%; 3 studies, 356 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • decreased attention (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 8.84; 3studies, 108 participants);

  • dizziness (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.27; I² = 44%; 3studies, 369 participants; low‐certaintyevidence);

  • excessive talking (RR 2.81, 95% CI 0.12 to 63.83; 1study, 29 participants, low‐certainty evidence);

  • fatigue (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.65; I2= 0%; 3 studies, 120 participants; low‐certaintyevidence);

  • insomnia (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.04; I2= 0%; 6 studies, 477 participants; low‐certaintyevidence);

  • irritability (dichotomous) (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to1.10; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 655participants);

  • leg shaking (RR 2.73, 95% CI 0.12 to 59.57;I2 = NA; 1 study, 19 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • nervous system disorders (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.42 to6.62; I2 = NA; 1 study, 106participants);

  • oppositional behaviour (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.61;I2 = NA; 1 study, 25 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • restlessness (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 15.47; I² =51%; 2 studies, 319 participants; low‐certaintyevidence);

  • seizure (RR 2.81, 95% CI 0.12 to 63.83; I2= NA; 1 study 29 participants; low‐certaintyevidence);

  • sedation (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.27; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 350 participants; low‐certaintyevidence);

  • somnolence (RR 3.81, 95% CI 0.44 to 32.96;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 89 participants;low‐certainty evidence); or

  • tics (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.38; I2 =0%; 2 studies, 309 participants; low‐certaintyevidence;Analysis2.9).

As there were more than 10 studies in this analysis, we created afunnel plot for this outcome but found no evidence of asymmetry(Figure 8).

8.

8

log: logarithm;RR: risk ratio;SE:standard error;SMD: standardised meandifference

Neurohormone versus placebo (10 studies, 863participants;Analysis2.9)

Psychological

The psychological outcomes were not different between thosereceiving neurohormones and those receiving placebo. Theseincluded:

  • anxiety (RR 3.05, 95% CI 0.50 to 18.55; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 97 participants);

  • depression (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.68;I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 427participants);

  • panic attack (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.62;I2 = NA; 1 study, 19 participants);

  • psychiatric (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 34.61;I2 = NA; 1 study, 106 participants);and

  • self‐injury (dichotomous) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.11 to9.35; 2 studies, 118 participants; I2 =0%;Analysis2.10).

2.10. Analysis.

2.10

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 10: Adverse effects:psychological

Respiratory

There was no clear evidence of a difference between neurohormoneand placebo groups in respiratory symptoms. These included:

  • cold symptoms (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.65; ² = 0%;2 studies, 73 participants);

  • cough (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.25; I2 =0%; 5 studies, 430 participants;);

  • croup (RR 3.23, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.46; I2 =NA; 1 study, 25 participants);

  • epistaxis (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.31;I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 379participants);

  • nasal congestion (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.05;I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 468participants);

  • nasal irritation/runny nose (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.10 to2.92; I2 = NA; 1 study, 40participants);

  • nasopharyngitis (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.15 to 5.76;I2 = NA; 1 study, 29 participants);

  • respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders (RR0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.56; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 147participants);

  • sinusitis (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.60;I2 = NA; 1 study, 29 participants);

  • upper respiratory tract infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI0.35 to 3.47; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 273participants;Analysis 2.11).

2.11. Analysis.

2.11

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 11: Adverse effects:respiratory

Skin

There was no clear evidence of a difference in the neurohormonegroup compared to placebo in:

  • general/systemic disorders and administration siteconditions (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 34.61;I2 = NA; 1 study, 106 participants);or

  • rash (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.97; I2 =0%; 4 studies, 416 participants;Analysis2.12).

2.12. Analysis.

2.12

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 12: Adverse effects:skin

Urinary

There was no difference between the neurohormone group and theplacebo group in renal and urinary disorders (RR 3.00, 95% CI0.12 to 72.02; I2 = NA; 1 study, 106 participants).However, neurohormones (oxytocin) showed a reduced risk ofenuresis when compared to placebo (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.62;I2 = NA; 1 study, 290 participants;Analysis 2.13).

2.13. Analysis.

2.13

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 13: Adverse effects:urinary

Other adverse effects

There was no clear evidence of a difference in the neurohormonegroup compared to placebo in:

  • injury, poisoning, and procedural complications (RR3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.02; I2 = NA; 1study, 106 participants);

  • investigations (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.35;I2 = NA; 1 study, 106participants);

  • lymphadenopathy (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87;I2 = NA; 1 study, 60 participants);

  • neoplasms benign, malignant, and unspecified (RR3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.02; I2 = NA; 1study, 106 participants); or

  • increased troponin 1 (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.06 to 35.64;I2 = NA; 1 study, 220 participants,Analysis2.14).

2.14. Analysis.

2.14

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 14: Adverse effects:other

Please refer toTable 2 for furtherinformation.

Secondary outcomes
Quality of life

There was no clear evidence of a difference in quality of lifebetween neurohormone and placebo groups in the short term (SMD 0.70,95% CI −0.12 to 1.53; P = 0.001, I² = 81%; 4 studies, 191participants;Analysis2.15).

2.15. Analysis.

2.15

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 15: Quality of life

We were unable to include data from five studies because the datawere skewed (Bernaerts 2020;Jacob 2022;NCT01908205;NCT02940574;Squassante 2018). Details canbe found inTable 15

11. Neurohormones versus placebo: quality‐of‐liferesults that could not be used in the meta‐analyses.
Study nameShort‐/medium‐/long‐term outcomesGroup 1 sample sizeGroup 2 sample sizeResults Group 1Mean (standarddeviation)Results Group 2Mean (standarddeviation)Other dataNotes
Bernaerts2020Short‐term oxytocin (24 IU once daily)22171.77 (8.04)‐1.35 (6.74)Skewed
Jacob 2022Short‐term balovaptan (10 mg once daily)106928.0 (13.7)6.0 (11.6)Skewed
NCT01908205
(2013)Short‐term oxytocin (twice daily dose of max 24IUs)252914.2 (17.4)7.6 (21.3)Skewed
NCT02940574
(2016)Short‐term oxytocin (24 IU once daily)22171.14 (5.48)0.35 (4.53)Skewed
Squassante2018Short‐term balovaptan (1.5 mg)26222.0 (13.7)3.9 (13.0)Skewed
Short‐term balovaptan (4 mg)69226.2 (10.8)3.9 (13)
Short‐term balovaptan (10 mg)30239.8 (10.0)3.98 (13.0)
Tolerability/acceptability

There was no clear evidence of a difference in loss to follow‐upbetween neurohormone and placebo groups (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to1.40; I2 = 0%; 14 studies, 1312 participants;Analysis 2.16).

2.16. Analysis.

2.16

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 16:Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up

Outcomes not reported

No data were available for the outcome of aggression.

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications versus placebo

Primary outcomes
Challenging behaviours
Irritability

ADHD‐related medications may reduce irritability in the shortterm when compared to placebo (SMD −0.20, 95% CI −0.40 to −0.01;10 studies, 400 participants; P = 0.86, I2 = 0%;low‐certainty evidence;Analysis3.1). Please refer toTable 3 for further information.

3.1. Analysis.

3.1

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications vs placebo, Outcome 1:Irritability

There was no difference between groups when we compared stimulantto non‐stimulant ADHD‐related medication (P = 0.33), when wecompared children only to children and adults (P = 0.74) andwhen we compared male participants to a mixed male and femalesample (P = 0.58). There was insufficient information to conductsubgroup analyses of irritability by communication ability orcognitive ability.

Self‐injury

At short‐term follow‐up, there was no clear evidence thatADHD‐related medications have an effect on self‐injuriousbehaviour (SMD −0.62; 95% CI −1.63 to 0.39, I2 = NA;1 study, 16 participants, very low‐certainty evidence;Analysis 3.2). Please refertoTable 3 for furtherinformation.

3.2. Analysis.

3.2

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications vs placebo, Outcome 2: Self‐injury

There was only one study, so we could not conduct a subgroupanalysis.

Adverse effects
Cardiovascular

There was no clear evidence of a difference between groups inADHD‐related medications AEs (bradycardia and tachycardia) (RR0.64, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.54; 2 studies, 114 participants). Therewas no difference between the ADHD‐related medication andplacebo groups in the likelihood of:

  • bradycardia (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.37;I2 = NA; 1 study, 66 participants),or

  • tachycardia (RR 3.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 27.85;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 48 participants;Analysis3.3).

3.3. Analysis.

3.3

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications vs placebo, Outcome 3: Adverseeffects: cardiovascular

Gastrointestinal

When ADHD‐related medications were compared to placebo (Analysis 3.4) there was noclear evidence of a difference in the gastrointestinal sideeffects of:

3.4. Analysis.

3.4

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications vs placebo, Outcome 4: Adverseeffects: gastrointestinal

  • diarrhoea (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.40;I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 426participants);

  • stomach ache (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.10 to 6.06;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 86 participants;Analysis3.4); or

  • vomiting (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.25; I2= 0%; 4 studies, 347 participants).

However, ADHD‐related medications may increase the risk of:

  • constipation (RR 2.68, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.45;I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 220participants);

  • dry mouth (RR 5.92, 95% CI 1.86 to 18.81;I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 102participants);

  • nausea (RR 3.08, 95% CI 1.51 to 6.29; I2 =0%; 5 studies, 239 participants), and

  • stomach or abdominal discomfort (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.41to 3.63; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 504participants).

Immune system

There was no clear evidence of differences between groups on theimmune effects of:

  • fever (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.27; I2 =0%; 3 studies, 183 participants);

  • influenza (RR 7.14, 95% CI 0.38 to 134.69;I2 = NA; 1 study, 97 participants);

  • myalgia (RR 4.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 39.55; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 115 participants); or

  • weakness (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.35 to 29.10;I2 = NA; 1 study, 62 participants;Analysis3.5).

3.5. Analysis.

3.5

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications vs placebo, Outcome 5: Adverseeffects: immune system

Metabolic

ADHD‐related medications may increase the risk of decreasedappetite when compared to placebo (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.99;I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 511 participants;low‐certainty evidence;Analysis3.6).

3.6. Analysis.

3.6

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications vs placebo, Outcome 6: Adverseeffects: metabolic (dichotomous)

There were no clear differences between groups in:

  • increased appetite (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.34;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 121 participants;low‐certainty evidence); and

  • increased energy (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.95;I2 = NA; 1 study, 62 participants;Analysis3.6).

We were unable to include one study in the analysis because thedata were skewed (Jaselskis1992). Details can be found inTable 16.

12. ADHD versus placebo: adverse effects datathat could not be used in the meta‐analyses.
Study nameShort‐/medium‐/long‐term outcomesGroup 1 sample sizeGroup 2 sample sizeGroup 1 resultsMean (standarddeviation)Group 2 resultsMean (standarddeviation)Other dataNotes
Jaselskis1992Short‐term adverse effects (increasedthirst)
clonidine (0.15‐0.20 mg/day)
880.5 (0.8)0.3 (0.5)Skewed
Short‐term adverse effects (appetitechange)
clonidine (0.15‐0.20 mg/day)
881.6 (2.1)0.6 (0.7)
Short‐term adverse effects (sleepdisturbance)
clonidine (0.15‐0.20 mg/day)
881.6 (2.7)1.4 (2.3)
Short‐term adverse effects (depression)
clonidine (0.15‐0.20 mg/day)
881.4 (2.0)1.3 (1.4)
Neurological

Very uncertain evidence shows that ADHD‐related medicationscompared to placebo may increase:

  • drowsiness (RR 3.42, 95% CI 1.54 to 7.59;I2 = 20%; 4 studies, 186 participants;very low‐certainty evidence);

  • emotion/tearfulness (RR 6.32, 95% CI 2.47 to 16.18;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 128 participants;very low‐certainty evidence);

  • fatigue (RR 3.73, 95% CI 1.98 to 7.03; I2= 0%; 4 studies, 235 participants; verylow‐certainty evidence);

  • headache (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.44; I2= 0%; 8 studies, 383 participants; verylow‐certainty evidence);

  • insomnia (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.47; I2= 5%; 7 studies, 411 participants; verylow‐certainty evidence);

  • irritability (dichotomous) (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.25 to2.07; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 336participants; very low‐certainty evidence;Analysis3.7).

3.7. Analysis.

3.7

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications vs placebo, Outcome 7: Adverseeffects: neurological (dichotomous)

There was no clear evidence (all very low‐certainty evidence) ofdifferences between groups in:

  • agitation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.60;I2 = NA; 1 study, 128participants);

  • aggression (dichotomous) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to1.53; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 365participants);

  • dizziness (RR 2.17, 95% CI 0.63 to 7.53;I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 175participants);

  • hyperactivity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.06 to 7.20;I2 = 39%; 2 studies, 115participants);

  • increased motor activity (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.48 to7.47; I2 = NA; 1 study, 66participants);

  • motor tics (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.51 to 10.69;I2 = 20%; 3 studies, 118participants);

  • nightmares (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.38 to 5.75;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 122participants);

  • repetitive behaviour (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.39;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 128participants);

  • restlessness (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.06 to 40.44;I2 = 71%; 2 studies, 76participants);

  • sleep disturbance (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.31;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 84participants);

  • talking excessively (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.01,I2 = NA; 1 study, 62 participants);

  • waking (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.29 to 8.92, I2 =NA; 1 study, 62 participants); and

  • tremor (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 64.26; I2= NA; 1 study, 16 participants;Analysis3.7).

There was also no clear evidence of a difference in thecontinuous neurological AEs of:

  • drowsiness (SMD 4.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 9.05;I2 = NA; 1 study, 8 participants);and

  • decreased activity (SMD 2.00, 95% CI −2.66 to 6.66;I2 = NA; 1 study, 8 participants;Analysis3.8).

3.8. Analysis.

3.8

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications vs placebo, Outcome 8: Adverseeffects: neurological (continuous)

Psychological

ADHD‐related medications may increase the risk of depression inthe ADHD‐related medication group when compared to placeboalthough the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.12 to5.36; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 152 participants, verylow‐certainty evidence).

There was no clear evidence of differences between groups in:

  • anxiety (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.62; I2= 10%; 5 studies, 252 participants);

  • mood change (RR 13.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 216.39;I2 = NA; 1 study, 40 participants);

  • self‐injury (dichotomous) (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.78 to3.58; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 188 participants;moderate‐certainty evidence);

  • 'silly' behaviour (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.45;I2 = NA; 1 study, 62 participants);or

  • social withdrawal (RR 2.28, 95% CI 0.39 to 13.37; 2studies, 126 participants; I2 = 43%)Analysis3.9.

3.9. Analysis.

3.9

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications vs placebo, Outcome 9: Adverseeffects: psychological (dichotomous)

Respiratory

There was no clear evidence of a difference between groups incough (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.46; I2 = 0%; 2studies, 122 participants;Analysis 3.10).

3.10. Analysis.

3.10

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications vs placebo, Outcome 10: Adverseeffects: respiratory

Skin

There was no clear evidence of a difference in the likelihoodof:

  • rash (RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.79 to 6.16; I2 =14%; 3 studies, 102 participants); or

  • skin picking (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.23;I2 = NA; 1 study, 62 participants;Analysis3.11).

3.11. Analysis.

3.11

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications vs placebo, Outcome 11: Adverseeffects: skin

Urinary

Enuresis was not different between groups (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.19to 3.55; P = 0.65, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 122participants;Analysis3.12).

3.12. Analysis.

3.12

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications vs placebo, Outcome 12: Adverseeffects: urinary

Secondary outcomes
Quality of life

There was no clear evidence of a difference between groups in qualityof life (SMD 0.21. 95% CI −0.33 to 0.75; I2 = NA; 1study, 54 participants;Analysis3.13).

3.13. Analysis.

3.13

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications vs placebo, Outcome 13: Quality oflife

Tolerability/acceptability

Follow‐up was not different in the ADHD‐related and placebo groups(RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.69; I2 = 7%; 9 studies, 380participants;Analysis3.14).

3.14. Analysis.

3.14

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications vs placebo, Outcome 14:Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up

Outcomes not reported

No data were available for the outcomes of aggression,musculoskeletal AEs, or other AEs.

Antidepressants versus placebo

Primary outcomes
Challenging behaviours
Irritability

There was no clear evidence of a difference in irritability inthe short term when antidepressants were compared to placebo(SMD −0.06, 95% CI −0.30 to 0.18; I2 = 0%, 3 studies,267 participants; low‐certainty evidence;Analysis 4.1). There wereno clear differences between groups when we compared types ofantidepressants (P = 0.76), or when we compared maleparticipants to a mixed population of male and femaleparticipants (P = 0.67).

4.1. Analysis.

4.1

Comparison 4: Antidepressant vs placebo, Outcome 1: Irritability

We were unable to include data from five studies in the analysisbecause data were either not reported, reported without standarddeviation, reported as median and range, or were skewed (Carminati 2016;Gordon 1993;Hollander 2012;NCT00183339;Remington 2001). Detailsof these studies can be found inTable 17.

13. Antidepressant versus placebo: irritabilityresults that could not be used in the meta‐analyses.
Study name
Short‐/medium‐/ long‐term outcomes
Group 1Group 2Group 3Group 1 sample sizeGroup 2 sample sizeGroup 3 sample sizeGroup 1 results
Mean (standarddeviation)Group 2 results
Mean (standarddeviation)Group 3 results
Mean (standarddeviation)Notes
Carminati2016Short‐term irritabilityVenlafaxine (18.75 mg/day)PlaceboNA67NAMedian 10 (range 0‐40)Median 9 (range 5‐17)NAResults presented as median and range
Gordon1993Short‐term irritabiltyClomipromine mean dose 4.3 mg/kg/dayPlaceboNA2412NAABC‐I data not reportedABC‐I data not reportedNAData not reported
Hollander2012Short‐term IrritabilityFluoxetine (max 80 mg/day)PlaceboFluoxetine2215NANot reportedNot reportedNAIrritability was an outcome; however, it wasnot reported
NCT00183339Medium‐term irritabilityFluoxetine (max 20 mg/day)PlaceboNA810NAABC‐I
‐8.5 (10.6)
ABC‐I
‐0.7 (2.9)
NASkewed
Remington2001Short‐term irritabilityClompramine (max 150 mg/day)Haloperidol
(max 150 mg/day)
Placebo131310Mean 16Mean 1217.5Results presented graphically without SD
ABC‐I: Aberrant Behaviour Checklist ‐Irritability;SD: standard deviation
Aggression

We were unable to pool data from two studies because the datawere reported as a median and range or not reported fully (Carminati 2016;McDougle 1996). Details ofthe studies can be found inTable 18.

14. Antidepressant versus placebo: aggressionresults that could not be used in the meta‐analyses.
Study nameShort‐/ medium‐/ long‐term outcomesGroup 1Group 2Group 1 sample sizeGroup 2 sample sizeGroup 1 resultsGroup 2 resultsOther dataNotes
Carminati2016Short‐term aggressionVenlafaxine 18.75 mg/dayPlacebo67Median 3.5 (range 0‐18)Median 4 (range 1‐9)Only median and range provided
McDougle1996Short‐term aggressionFluvoxamine max 300 mg/dayPlacebo1515Not reported; only t scores and P valueNot reported; only t scores and P valueAs measured by total score on the BrownAggression Scale, fluvoxamine was superior toplacebo in reducing aggression (F = 4.57; d =3.84; P < 0.03).
Self‐injury

We were unable to include data from three studies in the analysisbecause the data were reported as median and range or the datawere skewed (Carminati2016;Mouti2014;King2009). Details can be found inTable 5.

Adverse effects
Cardiovascular

There was no clear evidence of a difference betweenantidepressants and placebo in the cardiovascular AEs of:

  • flushing (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.24 to 16.61;I2 = NA; 1 study 12 participants);or

  • tachycardia (RR 2.67, 95% CI 0.31 to 23.25;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 35 participants;Analysis4.2).

4.2. Analysis.

4.2

Comparison 4: Antidepressant vs placebo, Outcome 2: Adverse effects:cardiovascular

Gastrointestinal

Antidepressants were no more likely to be associated withgastrointestinal AEs than placebo. These included:

  • constipation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.09 to 10.03;I2 = 61%; 2 studies, 70participants);

  • diarrhoea (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.64;I2 = 81%; 4 studies, 409participants);

  • dry mouth (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.24 to 16.61;I2 = NA; 1 study, 12 participants);

  • gastrointestinal disturbance (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.97 to2.05; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 341participants);

  • nausea/abdominal pain (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.27;I² = 0%; 5 studies, 251 participants); and

  • vomiting (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.92; I2= 17%; 5 studies, 400 participants;Analysis4.3).

4.3. Analysis.

4.3

Comparison 4: Antidepressant vs placebo, Outcome 3: Adverse effects:gastrointestinal

Immune system

There were no differences between participants receivingantidepressants and those receiving placebo in:

  • allergies (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.88;I2 = NA; 1 study, 149participants);

  • cold, flu or other systemic infection (RR 1.24, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.87; I2 = NA; 1 study, 149participants); and

  • infections (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.56;I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 472 participants;Analysis4.4).

4.4. Analysis.

4.4

Comparison 4: Antidepressant vs placebo, Outcome 4: Adverse effect: immunesystem

Metabolic

There was no clear evidence of a difference betweenantidepressant and placebo groups for:

  • appetite disturbance (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.23;I2 = NA; 1 study, 165 participants;very low‐certainty evidence);

  • decreased appetite (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.69;I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 242 participants;very low‐certainty evidence);

  • increased appetite (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.38;I2 = NA; 1 study, 149 participants;very low‐certainty evidence); or

  • weight gain (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.08 to 27.39;I2 = 46%; 2 studies, 93 participants;very low‐certainty evidence;Analysis4.5).

4.5. Analysis.

4.5

Comparison 4: Antidepressant vs placebo, Outcome 5: Adverse effects:metabolic

There may be higher levels of decreased energy (RR 1.94, 95% CI1.13 to 3.33; P = 0.02; I2 = NA; 1 study, 149participants, very low‐certainty evidence) in the antidepressantgroup although the evidence is very uncertain.

Musculoskeletal

There was no clear evidence of a difference betweenantidepressants and placebo in the musculoskeletal AEs of:

  • motor disturbance (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.88;I2 = NA; 1 study, 165 participants;very low‐certainty evidence); or

  • neck pain (RR 2.09, 95% CI 0.09 to 48.04;I2 = NA; 1 study, 37 participants;Analysis4.6).

4.6. Analysis.

4.6

Comparison 4: Antidepressant vs placebo, Outcome 6: Adverse effect:musculoskeletal

Neurological

There was no clear evidence of a difference betweenantidepressant and placebo groups in most of the reportedneurological AEs (Analysis4.7). These included:

4.7. Analysis.

4.7

Comparison 4: Antidepressant vs placebo, Outcome 7: Adverse effects:neurological

  • activation syndrome (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.04;I2 = NA; 1 study, 159participants);

  • agitation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.75;I2 = 40%; 2 studies, 197 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • aggression or hostility (dichotomous) (RR 1.07, 95%CI 0.59 to 1.95; I2 = 42%; 3 studies, 225participants; low‐certainty evidence);

  • anger/irritability (dichotomous) (RR 1.31, 95% CI0.75 to 2.29; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 167participants; low‐certainty evidence);

  • autonomic disturbance (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.12;I2 = NA; 1 study, 165 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • central nervous system disturbance (RR 0.75, 95% CI0.33 to 1.72; I2 = NA; 1 study, 165participants; low‐certainty evidence);

  • diaphoresis (sweating) (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to69.09; I2 = NA; 1 study, 36 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • drowsiness/fatigue (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.41;I2 = 16%; 4 studies, 282 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • headache (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.07; I2= 0%; 3 studies, 244 participants; low‐certaintyevidence);

  • hyperactivity (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.47 to 7.82;I2 = 67%; 2 studies, 207 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • increased speech (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.66 to 6.62;I2 = NA; 1 study, 149 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • insomnia (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.63; I2= 18%; 7 studies, 449 participants; low‐certaintyevidence);

  • mood disturbance (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.31;I2 = NA; 1 study, 165 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • mood lability (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.74;I2 = 2%; 2 studies, 167 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • numbness (RR 2.09, 95% CI 0.09 to 48.04;I2 = NA; 1 study, 37 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • restlessness (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.82 to 4.57;I2 = NA; 1 study, 149 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • sedation (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.72; I2= 0%; 3 studies, 117 participants; low‐certaintyevidence);

  • sleep disturbance (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.92;I2 = 75%; 2 studies, 223 participants;low‐certainty evidence);

  • tremor (RR 2.56, 95% CI 0.57 to 11.60; I2= 0%; 3 studies, 85 participants; low‐certaintyevidence);

  • twitching (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.44 to 111.91;I2 = NA; 1 study, 12 participants;low‐certainty evidence); or

  • vertigo (RR 2.09, 95% CI 0.09 to 48.04; I2= NA; 1 study, 37 participants; low‐certaintyevidence).

There may be evidence of higher levels of decreased attention inthe antidepressant group (RR 4.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 16.11;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 207 participants;low‐certainty evidence;Analysis4.7).

As there were more than 10 studies in this analysis, we created afunnel plot for this outcome (Figure 9)but found no evidence of asymmetry.

9.

9

log: logarithm;RR: risk ratio;SE:standard error;SMD: standardised meandifference

Antidepressant versus placebo (4 studies, 243participants;Analysis4.7)

Psychological

There was no clear evidence of a difference betweenantidepressant and placebo groups in the likelihood of:

  • anorexia (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.53 to 4.74; I2= NA; 1 study, 39 participants; very low‐certaintyevidence);

  • anxiety/nervousness (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.18;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 188 participants;very low‐certainty evidence);

  • depression (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.14 to 13.72;I2 = NA; 1 study, 37 participants; verylow‐certainty evidence);

  • self‐injury (dichotomous) (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.09 to17.02; I2 = NA; 1 study, 18 participants,very low‐certainty evidence),

  • silliness (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.17;I2 = NA; 1 study, 149 participants);very low‐certainty evidence;

  • suicidal ideation (RR 2.09, 95% CI 0.09 to 48.04;I2 = NA; 1 study, 37 participants; verylow‐certainty evidence);

  • unstable mood (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.06;I2 = NA; 1 study, 149 participants;very low‐certainty evidence);

  • verbal aggression (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.34;I2 = NA; 1 study, 37 participants; verylow‐certainty evidence); or

  • vivid or bad dreams (RR 4.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 87.94;I2 = NA; 1 study, 37 participants; verylow‐certainty evidence).

There may be evidence in the antidepressant group of increasedrates of:

  • impulsive/intrusive behaviour (RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.11to 7.68; I2 = NA; 1 study, 149participants; very low‐certainty evidence); and

  • stereotypy (RR 8.33, 95% CI 1.07 to 64.95;I2 = NA; 1 study, 149 participants;very low‐certainty evidence;Analysis 4.8)

4.8. Analysis.

4.8

Comparison 4: Antidepressant vs placebo, Outcome 8: Adverse effects:psychological

although the evidence is very uncertain.

As there were more than 10 studies in this analysis, we created afunnel plot for this outcome but found no evidence of asymmetry(Figure 10).

10.

10

log: logarithm;RR: risk ratio;SE:standard error;SMD: standardised meandifference

Antidepressant versus placebo (4 studies, 243participants;Analysis4.8)

Respiratory

There was no clear evidence of a difference betweenantidepressant and placebo groups in:

  • overall respiratory effects (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.86 to5.55; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 314participants);

  • upper respiratory infection (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73 to1.31; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 216participants; or

  • cough (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.39; 1 study, 18participants;Analysis 4.9).

4.9. Analysis.

4.9

Comparison 4: Antidepressant vs placebo, Outcome 9: Adverse effects:respiratory

Skin

There was no clear evidence of a difference betweenantidepressant and placebo groups in the likelihood of rash orskin irritation (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.78; I2 =74%; 3 studies, 332 participants;Analysis 4.10).

4.10. Analysis.

4.10

Comparison 4: Antidepressant vs placebo, Outcome 10: Adverse effects:skin

Urinary

There was no clear evidence of a difference in:

  • enuresis (RR 3.13, 95% CI 0.81 to 12.06;I2 = NA; 1 study, 18 participants);

  • polyuria (RR 2.09, 95% CI 0.09 to 48.04;I2 = NA; 1 study, 37 participants);or

  • urinary tract infection (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.21 to1.73; I2 = NA; 1 study, 39 participants;Analysis4.11).

4.11. Analysis.

4.11

Comparison 4: Antidepressant vs placebo, Outcome 11: Adverse effects:urinary

Other adverse effects

There was no clear evidence of a difference in:

  • salty taste (RR 2.09, 95% CI 0.09 to 48.04;I2 = NA; 1 study, 37 participants);or

  • mild trembling (RR 2.09, 95% CI 0.09 to 48.04;I2 = NA; 1 study, 37 participants;Analysis4.12).

4.12. Analysis.

4.12

Comparison 4: Antidepressant vs placebo, Outcome 12: Adverse effects:other

Secondary outcomes
Tolerability/acceptability

Loss to follow‐up was not different in the antidepressant groupcompared to the placebo group (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.59;I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 564 participants;Analysis 4.13).

4.13. Analysis.

4.13

Comparison 4: Antidepressant vs placebo, Outcome 13:Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up

Outcomes not reported

No data were available for the outcome of quality of life.

Atypical versus typical antipsychotics

Challenging behaviours
Irritability

There was no clear evidence of differences in irritability atendpoint when atypical antipsychotics were compared to typicalantipsychotics (SMD −0.23, 95% CI −0.95 to 0.48; I2 = NA;1 study, 30 participants;Analysis5.1).

5.1. Analysis.

5.1

Comparison 5: Atypical vs typical antipsychotics, Outcome 1: Irritability

There were insufficient studies (1 study) to conduct subgroupanalyses.

Adverse effects
Cardiovascular

There was no clear evidence of a difference between groups intachycardia when atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine) were comparedto typical antipsychotics (haloperidol) (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to6.86; I2 = NA; 1 study 12 participants;Analysis 5.2).

5.2. Analysis.

5.2

Comparison 5: Atypical vs typical antipsychotics, Outcome 2: Adverse effects:cardiovascular (tachycardia)

Gastrointestinal

There was no clear evidence of differences in:

  • constipation (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.24 to 4.18; I2= NA; 1 study, 30 participants);

  • dry mouth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.08 to 12.56; I2 =NA; 1 study, 12 participants); or

  • nausea/vomiting (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.29 to 86.43;I2 = NA; 1 study, 12 participants;Analysis 5.3).

5.3. Analysis.

5.3

Comparison 5: Atypical vs typical antipsychotics, Outcome 3: Adverse effects:gastrointestinal

Metabolic

There was no difference between atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine)compared to typical antipsychotics (haloperidol) in:

  • weight gain (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.83; I2= NA; 1 study, 12 participants); and

  • weight loss (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 6.86; I2= NA; 1 study, 12 participants;Analysis 5.4).

5.4. Analysis.

5.4

Comparison 5: Atypical vs typical antipsychotics, Outcome 4: Adverse effects:metabolic (dichotomous)

There was also no change in weight (SMD 0.26 kg, 95% CI −1.54 to2.06; I2 = 83%; 2 studies, 42 participants;Analysis 5.5).

5.5. Analysis.

5.5

Comparison 5: Atypical vs typical antipsychotics, Outcome 5: Adverse effects:metabolic (continuous)

Neurological

There was no clear evidence of a difference between those receivingtypical and atypical antipsychotics in the neurological AEs:

  • ataxia (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 6.86; I2 = NA;1 study, 12 participants);

  • blunted effect (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.90;I2 = NA; 1 study, 30 participants);

  • insomnia (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.15 to 61.74; I2 =NA; 1 study, 12 participants);

  • rigidity (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 6.86; I2 =NA; 1 study, 12 participants); or

  • sedation (RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.76 to 8.19; I2 =NA; 1 study, 12 participants;Analysis 5.6).

5.6. Analysis.

5.6

Comparison 5: Atypical vs typical antipsychotics, Outcome 6: Adverse effects:neurological

Respiratory

There was no clear evidence of a difference between participantsreceiving typical (haloperidol) and atypical antipsychotics(risperidone) in the likelihood of respiratory tract infection (RR0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.80; 1 study, 30 participants;Analysis 5.7).

5.7. Analysis.

5.7

Comparison 5: Atypical vs typical antipsychotics, Outcome 7: Adverse effects:respiratory

Skin

There was no clear difference in rash between typical and atypicalantipsychotic groups (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 6.86; I2 =NA; 1 study, 12 participants;Analysis 5.8).

5.8. Analysis.

5.8

Comparison 5: Atypical vs typical antipsychotics, Outcome 8: Adverse effects:skin

Urinary

Enuresis was not different between groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.29 to3.48; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 42 participants;Analysis 5.9).

5.9. Analysis.

5.9

Comparison 5: Atypical vs typical antipsychotics, Outcome 9: Adverse effects:urinary

Secondary outcomes
Tolerability/acceptability

There was no clear evidence of a difference between groups infollow‐up (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.26 to 96.13; P = 0.29, I2 =0%; 2 studies, 42 participants;Analysis 5.10).

5.10. Analysis.

5.10

Comparison 5: Atypical vs typical antipsychotics, Outcome 10:Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up

Outcomes not reported

No data were available for the outcomes of aggression, self‐injuryand quality of life, or immune, musculoskeletal, psychological, orother AEs.

Atypical antipsychotics versus atypicalantipsychotics

Primary outcomes
Challenging behaviours
Irritability

Compared to risperidone, there was evidence of an increased riskof irritability in the aripiprazole group at endpoint (SMD 0.40,95% CI 0.02 to 0.78; P = 0.92, I2 = 0%; 2 studies,110 participants;Analysis6.1).

6.1. Analysis.

6.1

Comparison 6: Atypical vs atypical antipsychotics, Outcome 1:Irritability

There was insufficient information to conduct subgroup analysesof irritability by age, gender, communication ability, orcognitive ability.

Adverse effects
Cardiovascular

There was no clear evidence of a difference between differenttypes of atypical antipsychotics in the likelihood oftachycardia (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.04; I2 = 0%; 2studies, 120 participants;Analysis 6.2).

6.2. Analysis.

6.2

Comparison 6: Atypical vs atypical antipsychotics, Outcome 2: Adverseeffects: cardiovascular

Gastrointestinal

There was no clear evidence of differences between atypicalantipsychotics in any of the gastrointestinal side effects:

  • abdominal pain (RR 3.10, 95% CI 0.34 to 28.15; 1study, 59 participants);

  • constipation (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.91;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 120participants);

  • diarrhoea (RR 3.10, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.14; 1 study, 59participants);

  • drooling (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.37; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 120 participants);

  • dry mouth (RR 5.17, 95% CI 0.26 to 103.21; 1 study,59 participants);

  • nausea (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.40; 1 study, 59participants); and

  • vomiting (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.20 to 12.65;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 120 participants;Analysis6.3).

6.3. Analysis.

6.3

Comparison 6: Atypical vs atypical antipsychotics, Outcome 3: Adverseeffects: gastrointestinal

Metabolic

There was no clear evidence of a difference between groupsin:

  • decreased appetite (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 4.96;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 120 participants);and

  • increased appetite (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.47;I2 = 30%; 2 studies, 120participants).

However, there was a reduced risk of weight gain in thearipiprazole group when compared to risperidone (RR 0.37, 95% CI0.19 to 0.70; 1 study, 61 participants;Analysis 6.4).

6.4. Analysis.

6.4

Comparison 6: Atypical vs atypical antipsychotics, Outcome 4: Adverseeffects: metabolic

Musculoskeletal

There was no clear evidence of a difference between groups inmuscle rigidity (RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.12 to 68.66; 1 study, 61participants;Analysis6.5).

6.5. Analysis.

6.5

Comparison 6: Atypical vs atypical antipsychotics, Outcome 5: Adverseeffects: musculoskeletal

Neurological

There was no clear evidence of differences in neurological sideeffects including:

  • agitation (RR 4.84, 95% CI 0.24 to 96.89; 1 study, 61participants);

  • difficulty sleeping (RR 6.78, 95% CI 0.37 to 125.95;1 study, 61 participants);

  • dizziness (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.10 to 5.39;I2 = 15%; 2 studies, 120participants);

  • fatigue (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.75; 1 study, 59participants);

  • headache (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.78; 1 study, 61participants);

  • nausea (RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.12 to 68.66; 1 study, 61participants);

  • nervousness (RR 2.07, 95% CI 0.20 to 21.60; 1 study,59 participants);

  • restlessness (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.88;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 120participants);

  • sedation (RR 3.39, 95% CI 0.76 to 15.02; 1 study, 61participants);

  • somnolence (RR 8.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 155.27; 1 study,61 participants); or

  • tremor (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.28 to 8.62; 1 study, 59participants;Analysis 6.6).

6.6. Analysis.

6.6

Comparison 6: Atypical vs atypical antipsychotics, Outcome 6: Adverseeffects: neurological

Psychological

There was no clear evidence of a difference in depression whendifferent atypical antipsychotics were compared (RR 0.34, 95% CI0.01 to 8.13; 1 study, 59 participants;Analysis 6.7).

6.7. Analysis.

6.7

Comparison 6: Atypical vs atypical antipsychotics, Outcome 7: Adverseeffects: psychological

Skin

The likelihood of rash was not different when different atypicalantipsychotics were compared (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.77; 1study, 59 participants;Analysis6.8).

6.8. Analysis.

6.8

Comparison 6: Atypical vs atypical antipsychotics, Outcome 8: Adverseeffects: skin

Urinary

Enuresis did not differ between atypical antipsychotic groups (RR1.37, 95% CI 0.04 to 53.78; I2 = 68%; 2 studies, 120participants;Analysis6.9).

6.9. Analysis.

6.9

Comparison 6: Atypical vs atypical antipsychotics, Outcome 9: Adverseeffects: urinary

Secondary outcomes
Tolerability/acceptability

There was no clear evidence of a difference in loss to follow‐upbetween typical and atypical antipsychotic groups (MD 0.71, 95% CI0.36 to 1.37; 2 studies, 120 participants; P = 0.31, I2 =0%;Analysis 6.10).

6.10. Analysis.

6.10

Comparison 6: Atypical vs atypical antipsychotics, Outcome 10:Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up

Outcomes not reported

No data were available for the outcomes of aggression,self‐injury, and quality of life, or immune, respiratory, andother AEs.

Atypical antipsychotics versus antidementiamedications

Primary outcomes
Challenging behaviours
Irritability

There was no clear evidence of a difference in irritability atendpoint when atypical antipsychotics (risperidone) werecompared to antidementia medications (memantine) (SMD 0.46, 95%CI −0.27 to 1.19; 1 study, 30 participants;Analysis 7.1).

7.1. Analysis.

7.1

Comparison 7: Atypical antipsychotic vs antidementia, Outcome 1:Irritability

There were insufficient studies (1) to conduct subgroupanalyses.

Adverse effects
Neurological

There was no clear evidence of a difference in somnolence when wecompared atypical antipsychotics to antidementia medications (RR1.30, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.96; 1 study, 30 participants;Analysis 7.2)

7.2. Analysis.

7.2

Comparison 7: Atypical antipsychotic vs antidementia, Outcome 2: Adverseeffects: neurological

Secondary outcomes
Tolerability/acceptability

There was no clear evidence of a difference in loss to follow‐upbetween atypical antipsychotic and antidementia groups (RR 0.38, 95%CI 0.04 to 3.25; 1 study, 34 participants;Analysis 7.3).

7.3. Analysis.

7.3

Comparison 7: Atypical antipsychotic vs antidementia, Outcome 3:Tolerability

Outcomes not reported

No data were available for the outcomes of aggression,self‐injury, and quality of life, or cardiovascular,gastrointestinal, immune, metabolic, musculoskeletal,psychological, respiratory, skin, urinary, or other AEs.

Atypical antipsychotics versus antiparkinsonians

Primary outcomes
Challenging behaviours

None of the studies reported these outcomes.

Adverse effects
Gastrointestinal

There was no clear evidence of a difference in any of thegastrointestinal side effects when atypical antipsychotics(amulsipride) were compared to antiparkinsonians(bromocriptine):

  • diarrhoea (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 65.16; 1 study, 9participants);

  • increased salivation (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 65.16; 1study, 9 participants); or

  • vomiting (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.66; 1 study, 9participants;Analysis8.1).

8.1. Analysis.

8.1

Comparison 8: Atypical antipsychotic vs antiparkinsonian, Outcome 1: Adverseeffects: gastrointestinal

Metabolic

There was no clear evidence of a difference between those receivingatypical antipsychotics and antiparkinsonian medications indecreased appetite (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.44; 1 study, 9participants;Analysis8.2).

8.2. Analysis.

8.2

Comparison 8: Atypical antipsychotic vs antiparkinsonian, Outcome 2: Adverseeffects: metabolic

Neurological

There was no clear evidence of a difference between those receivingatypical antipsychotics and antiparkinsonian medications in any ofthe neurological side effects: agitation/ excitement (RR 1.50, 95%CI 0.32 to 6.94; 1 study, 9 participants); increased hyperactivity(RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 118.69; 1 study, 9 participants); insomnia(RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.48 to 8.31; 1 study, 9 participants); or sedation(RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.42; 1 study, 9 participants)Analysis 8.3.

8.3. Analysis.

8.3

Comparison 8: Atypical antipsychotic vs antiparkinsonian, Outcome 3: Adverseeffects: neurological

Secondary outcomes

None of the studies reported these outcomes.

Outcomes not reported

No data were available for the outcomes of irritability, aggression,self‐injury, quality of life, or tolerability/acceptability, andcardiovascular, immune, musculoskeletal, psychological, respiratory,skin, urinary, and other AEs.

Anticonvulsants versus placebo

Primary outcomes
Challenging behaviours
Irritability

There was no clear evidence of a difference in measures ofirritability at endpoint between participants receivinganticonvulsants and those receiving placebo (SMD −0.67, 95% CI−1.93 to 0.59; P = 0.30, I2 = 88%; 3 studies, 97participants;Analysis9.1).

9.1. Analysis.

9.1

Comparison 9: Anticonvulsant vs placebo, Outcome 1: Irritability

There was insufficient information to conduct subgroup analysesof irritability by age, gender, communication ability, orcognitive ability.

Aggression

There was no clear evidence of a difference in measures ofaggression at endpoint between participants receivinganticonvulsants and those receiving placebo (SMD −0.18, 95% CI−0.71 to 0.35; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 57 participants;Analysis 9.2).

9.2. Analysis.

9.2

Comparison 9: Anticonvulsant vs placebo, Outcome 2: Aggression

There was insufficient information to conduct subgroup analysesof aggression by age, gender, communication ability, orcognitive ability.

Adverse effects
Gastrointestinal

There was no clear evidence of a difference betweenanticonvulsants and placebo groups in:

  • abdominal pain (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.38 to 8.15; 1 study30 participants);

  • constipation (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.00; 1 study,30 participants);

  • diarrhoea (RR 3.50, 95% CI 0.44 to 27.75; 1 study, 30participants);

  • nausea (RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.80 to 6.72; I2 =0%; 2 studies, 70 participants); or

  • vomiting (RR 3.50, 95% CI 0.44 to 27.75; 1 study, 30participants;Analysis 9.3).

9.3. Analysis.

9.3

Comparison 9: Anticonvulsant vs placebo, Outcome 3: Adverse effects:gastrointestinal

Immune system

There was no difference between anticonvulsant and placebo groupsin:

  • chills (RR 2.63, 95% CI 0.31 to 22.46; 1 study, 30participants); or

  • fever (RR 3.50, 95% CI 0.44 to 27.75; 1 study, 30participants;Analysis 9.4).

9.4. Analysis.

9.4

Comparison 9: Anticonvulsant vs placebo, Outcome 4: Adverse effects: immunesystem

Metabolic

There were higher rates of decreased appetite in anticonvulsantgroups when compared to placebo groups (RR 5.45, 95% CI 1.02 to29.23; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 60 participants).

There was no clear evidence of a difference betweenanticonvulsant and placebo groups in:

  • increased appetite (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.05 to 18.14;I2 = 82%; 2 studies, 70participants);

  • weight gain (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.62;I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 77participants);

  • weight loss (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 65.90; 1 study,20 participants;Analysis 9.5); or

  • weight gain in kilograms (SMD 0.48 kg, 95% CI −0.77to 1.74; 1 study, 11 participants;Analysis9.6).

9.5. Analysis.

9.5

Comparison 9: Anticonvulsant vs placebo, Outcome 5: Adverse effects:metabolic (dichotomous)

9.6. Analysis.

9.6

Comparison 9: Anticonvulsant vs placebo, Outcome 6: Adverse effects:metabolic (continuous)

Neurological

There was no clear evidence of a difference betweenanticonvulsant and placebo groups in any of the neurologicalAEs:

  • aggression (dichotomous) (RR 2.29, 95% CI 0.37 to14.12; 2 studies, 48 participants);

  • agitation (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.21 to 6.70;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 47participants);

  • dizziness (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 32.72; 1 study, 40participants);

  • drowsiness (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.66; 1 study, 30participants);

  • echolalia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.45; 1 study, 28participants);

  • headache (RR 2.12, 95% CI 0.09 to 47.68; 1 study, 27participants);

  • hyperactivity (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 65.90; 1study, 20 participants);

  • hypersomnolence (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.78; 1study, 27 participants);

  • insomnia (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 6.56; I2= 25%; 4 studies, 115 participants);

  • lethargy (RR 6.18, 95% CI 0.35 to 110.11; 1 study, 30participants);

  • paresthesia (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.64 to 39.06; 1 study40 participants);

  • sedation (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.05, 1 study, 40participants);

  • self‐injurious behaviour (dichotomous) (RR 3.00, 95%CI 0.14 to 65.90; 1 study, 20 participants); or

  • somnolence (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 51.80; 1 study,20 participants;Analysis 9.7).

9.7. Analysis.

9.7

Comparison 9: Anticonvulsant vs placebo, Outcome 7: Adverse Effects:neurological

Psychological

There was no clear evidence of a difference in impulsivity whenanticonvulsants were compared to placebo (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14to 65.90; 1 study, 20 participants;Analysis 9.8).

9.8. Analysis.

9.8

Comparison 9: Anticonvulsant vs placebo, Outcome 8: Adverse effects:psychological

Skin

There was no difference in the risk of rash betweenanticonvulsant and placebo groups (RR 4.63, 95% CI 0.89 to24.13; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 57 participants;Analysis 9.9).

9.9. Analysis.

9.9

Comparison 9: Anticonvulsant vs placebo, Outcome 9: Adverse effects: skin

Urinary

Enuresis was not different between groups (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02to 7.32; 1 study, 20 participants;Analysis 9.10).

9.10. Analysis.

9.10

Comparison 9: Anticonvulsant vs placebo, Outcome 10: Adverse effects:urinary

Secondary outcomes
Tolerability/acceptability

There was no clear evidence of a difference in loss to follow‐upbetween anticonvulsants and placebo groups (RR 1.98, 95% CI 0.84 to4.66; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 167 participants;Analysis 9.11).

9.11. Analysis.

9.11

Comparison 9: Anticonvulsant vs placebo, Outcome 11:Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up

Outcomes not reported

No data were available for the outcomes of self‐injury or qualityof life, or cardiovascular, respiratory, musculoskeletal, andother AEs.

Antidepressants versus antidepressants

Primary outcomes
Challenging behaviours
Irritability

One study with 36 participants compared two antidepressants,clomipramine and desipramine, but did not report any data onirritability.

Aggression

One study with 36 participants compared two antidepressants,clomipramine and desipramine, but did not report any data onaggression.

Self‐injury

One study with 36 participants compared two antidepressants,clomipramine and desipramine, but did not report any data onself‐injury.

Adverse effects
Cardiovascular

There was no clear evidence of a difference in tachycardia in theone study with 36 participants that compared clomipramine withdesipramine (RR 2.60, 95% CI 0.13 to 50.25; 1 study, 24participants;Analysis10.1).

10.1. Analysis.

10.1

Comparison 10: Antidepressant vs antidepressant, Outcome 1: Adverse effects:cardiovascular

Gastrointestinal

There was no clear evidence of a difference in anygastrointestinal AEs when clomipramine was compared todesipramine. The effects that were reported were:

  • constipation (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.35 to 6.35; 1 study,36 participants);

  • dry mouth (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.12; 1 study, 36participants);

  • nausea/abdominal pain (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.10 to 9.96;1 study, 36 participants); and

  • vomiting (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.67; 1 study, 36participants;Analysis 10.2).

10.2. Analysis.

10.2

Comparison 10: Antidepressant vs antidepressant, Outcome 2: Adverse effects:gastrointestinal

Secondary outcomes
Quality of life

One study with 36 participants compared two antidepressants,clomipramine and desipramine, but did not report any data on qualityof life.

Tolerability/acceptability

One study with 36 participants compared two antidepressants,clomipramine and desipramine, but did not report any data on loss tofollow‐up.

Outcomes not reported

No data were available for the outcomes of irritability,aggression, or self‐injury, or immune, metabolic,musculoskeletal, neurological, psychological, respiratory, skin,urinary, and other AEs, or quality of life, andtolerability/acceptability.

Antidementia interventions versus placebo or othertreatment

Primary outcomes
Challenging behaviours
Irritability

There was no clear evidence of a difference in continuousirritability scores at endpoint when antidementia medicationswere compared to placebo (SMD −0.40, 95% CI −1.31 to 0.52;I2 = 83%; 3 studies, 140 participants;Analysis 11.1).

11.1. Analysis.

11.1

Comparison 11: Antidementia versus placebo, Outcome 1: Irritability(continuous)

There was also no clear evidence of a difference in partialresponse (≥ 25% reduction in irritability score; RR 1.38, 95% CI0.97 to 1.97; 1 study, 40 participants); or complete response (≥50% reduction in irritability score; RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.98 to2.61; 1 study, 40 participants); or dichotomous irritability (RR0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.66; 1 study, 317 participants;Analysis 11.2).

11.2. Analysis.

11.2

Comparison 11: Antidementia versus placebo, Outcome 2: Irritability(dichotomous)

There was no clear evidence of a difference between groups whenchildren were compared to adults (P = 0.40). There wasinsufficient information to conduct subgroup analyses ofirritability by gender, communication ability, or cognitiveability.

Aggression

There was no clear evidence of a difference in aggression atendpoint when antidementia medications were compared to placebo(SMD 0.54, 95% CI ‐0.05 to 1.13; 1 study, 50 participants;Analysis 11.3).

11.3. Analysis.

11.3

Comparison 11: Antidementia versus placebo, Outcome 3: Aggression

There were insufficient studies (1 study) to conduct a subgroupanalysis.

Adverse effects
Gastrointestinal

Gastrointestinal AEs were not increased in the group receivingantidementia medications. The reported gastrointestinal effectswere:

  • abdominal pain (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.50;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 83participants);

  • constipation (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.01;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 83participants);

  • diarrhoea (RR 2.87, 95% CI 0.12 to 66.75; 1 study, 43participants);

  • dry mouth (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.60; 1 study, 40participants);

  • gastroenteritis (RR 7.13, 95% CI 0.37 to 136.97; 1study, 317 participants);

  • nausea (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 9.71; 1 study, 40participants);

  • vomiting (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.67; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 438 participants;Analysis11.4).

11.4. Analysis.

11.4

Comparison 11: Antidementia versus placebo, Outcome 4: Adverse effects:gastrointestinal

Metabolic

There was no clear evidence of a difference in the effects ofantidementia medications on:

  • decreased appetite (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.24 to 4.07;I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 163 participants);or

  • increased appetite (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.43;I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 163 participants;Analysis11.5).

11.5. Analysis.

11.5

Comparison 11: Antidementia versus placebo, Outcome 5: Adverse events:metabolic

Musculoskeletal

There was no clear evidence of a difference in effects ofantidementia medications compared to placebo on musculoskeletalpain (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.42; 1 study, 43 participants;Analysis 11.6).

11.6. Analysis.

11.6

Comparison 11: Antidementia versus placebo, Outcome 6: Adverse effects:musculoskeletal pain

Neurological

Neurological AEs were not different between participantsreceiving antidementia medications and those receiving placebo.The neurological AEs that were reported included:

  • daytime drowsiness (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.77;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 80participants);

  • decreased energy (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.52, 1study, 23 participants);

  • dizziness (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.61;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 83participants);

  • fatigue (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.48 to 4.02; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 83 participants);

  • headache (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.75; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 438 participants);

  • hyperactivity (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.73;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 438participants);

  • insomnia (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.59; I2= 2%; 4 studies, 227 participants);

  • morning drowsiness (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.68; 1study, 40 participants);

  • sedation (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.98; I2= 5%; 2 studies, 83 participants);

  • tremor (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; 1 study, 40participants;Analysis 11.7).

11.7. Analysis.

11.7

Comparison 11: Antidementia versus placebo, Outcome 7: Adverse effects:neurological

Psychological

Psychological AEs were not different between participantsreceiving antidementia medications and those receiving placebo.The psychological AEs that were reported included:

  • agitation (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.45 to 8.05;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 438participants);

  • aggression (dichotomous) (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.42 to6.78; 1 study, 121 participants);

  • anger (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.85; 1 study, 23participants);

  • anxiety (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.03 to 5.61; I2= 67%; 3 studies, 478 participants);

  • emotional lability (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 17.51, 1study, 23 participants);

  • irritability (dichotomous) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.43 to1.76; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 461participants);

  • mood changes (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.96; 1 study,23 participants);

  • self‐injurious behaviour (dichotomous) (RR 2.77, 95%CI 0.12 to 61.65, 1 study, 23 participants;Analysis11.9).

11.9. Analysis.

11.9

Comparison 11: Antidementia versus placebo, Outcome 9: Adverse events:psychological

Respiratory

Respiratory AEs were not different between participants receivingantidementia medications and those receiving placebo. Therespiratory AEs that were reported included:

  • cough (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.34; I2 =0%; 2 studies, 438 participants); and

  • nasopharyngitis (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.08 to 4.35;I2 = 51%; 2 studies, 438 participants;Analysis11.10).

11.10. Analysis.

11.10

Comparison 11: Antidementia versus placebo, Outcome 10: Adverse events:respiratory

Skin

There was no difference between participants receivingantidementia medications and those receiving placebo in:

  • rash (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 20.33; 1 study, 40participants); and

  • skin irritation (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.40, 1study, 23 participants;Analysis11.11).

11.11. Analysis.

11.11

Comparison 11: Antidementia versus placebo, Outcome 11: Adverse effects:skin

Other adverse effects

Other AEs were not different between participants receivingantidementia medications and those receiving placebo. The otherAEs reported were:

  • pyrexia (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.41; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 438 participants); and

  • increased infections (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.35; 1study, 23 participants).

Secondary outcomes
Tolerability/acceptability

There was no clear evidence of a difference in loss to follow‐upbetween antidementia and placebo groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to1.09; P = 0.56, I² = 0%; 5 studies, 553 participants;Analysis 11.13).

11.13. Analysis.

11.13

Comparison 11: Antidementia versus placebo, Outcome 13:Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up

Outcomes not reported

No data were available for the outcomes of self‐injury, orcardiovascular, immune, and urinary AEs, or quality of life.

Antiparkinsonian medications versus placebo or othertreatment

Primary outcomes
Challenging behaviours
Irritability

There was a reduction in irritability at endpoint in the onestudy with 40 participants that compared antiparkinsonians(amantadine) with placebo and reported this outcome (SMD −0.75,95% CI −1.39 to −0.11; 1 study, 40 participants;Analysis 12.1).

12.1. Analysis.

12.1

Comparison 12: Antiparkinsonian vs placebo, Outcome 1: Irritability

There were insufficient studies (1 study) to conduct a subgroupanalysis.

Adverse effects
Gastrointestinal

One study with 40 participants reported gastrointestinal AEs.There was no difference between the antiparkinsonian and placebogroups. Gastrointestinal effects reported included:

  • abdominal pain (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.72; 1study, 40 participants);

  • constipation (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.92; 1 study,40 participants); and

  • drooling (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.72; 1 study, 40participants;Analysis 12.2).

12.2. Analysis.

12.2

Comparison 12: Antiparkinsonian vs placebo, Outcome 2: Adverse effects:gastrointestinal

Metabolic

There was no clear evidence of an effect of antiparkinsonianscompared with placebo on:

  • increased appetite (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.69 to 13.12; 1study, 40 participants); or

  • decreased appetite (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.94; 1study, 40 participants;Analysis12.3).

12.3. Analysis.

12.3

Comparison 12: Antiparkinsonian vs placebo, Outcome 3: Adverse effects:metabolic

Neurological

Across two studies that compared antiparkinsonians (amantadine)to placebo, there was no difference in neurological AEsincluding:

  • daytime drowsiness (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; 1study, 40 participants);

  • insomnia (RR 2.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 9.26; I2= 0%; 2 studies, 79 participants);

  • nervousness (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.94; 1 study,40 participants);

  • somnolence (RR 5.25, 95% CI 0.27 to 102.74; 1 study39 participants); and

  • tremor (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; 1 study, 40participants;Analysis 12.4).

12.4. Analysis.

12.4

Comparison 12: Antiparkinsonian vs placebo, Outcome 4: Adverse effects:neurological

Psychological

There was no evidence of a change in adverse behaviour(dichotomous) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.55; 1 study, 39participants) when antiparkinsonians were compared to placebo(Analysis 12.5).

12.5. Analysis.

12.5

Comparison 12: Antiparkinsonian vs placebo, Outcome 5: Adverse effects:psychological

Secondary outcomes
Tolerability/acceptability

There was no clear evidence of a difference in loss to follow‐upbetween antiparkinsonian and placebo groups (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to7.72, 1 study, 40 participants;Analysis 12.6).

12.6. Analysis.

12.6

Comparison 12: Antiparkinsonian vs placebo, Outcome 6:Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up

Outcomes not reported

No data were available for the outcomes of aggression, self‐injury,quality of life, and cardiovascular, immune, musculoskeletal,respiratory, skin, urinary, and other AEs.

Anxiolytic interventions versus placebo or othertreatment

Primary outcomes
Challenging behaviours
Irritability

There was no clear evidence of a difference in continuousmeasures of irritability at endpoint (SMD −0.20, 95% CI −0.88 to0.47; 1 study, 34 participants;Analysis 13.1), although dichotomous measures ofirritability (> 25% decrease in irritability score) showed areduction in irritability (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.22; 1study, 34 participants;Analysis13.2) when anxiolytics were compared to placebo.

13.1. Analysis.

13.1

Comparison 13: Anxiolytic versus placebo, Outcome 1: Irritabilty(continuous)

13.2. Analysis.

13.2

Comparison 13: Anxiolytic versus placebo, Outcome 2: Irritability(dichotomous)

There were insufficient studies (1 study) to conduct a subgroupanalysis.

Adverse effects
Gastrointestinal

There was no clear evidence of differences between anxiolyticsand placebo in any of the gastrointestinal AEs:

  • constipation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.67; 1 study,166 participants);

  • diarrhoea (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.61; 1 study, 166participants); or

  • vomiting (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.53; 1 study, 166participants;Analysis 13.3).

13.3. Analysis.

13.3

Comparison 13: Anxiolytic versus placebo, Outcome 3: Adverse effects:gastrointestinal

Immune system

There was no difference between anxiolytic and placebo groups inthe likelihood of:

  • nasopharyngitis (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.28; 1study, 166 participants); and

  • pyrexia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.37; 1 study, 166participants).

However, upper respiratory tract infection was reduced in theanxiolytic group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.91; 1 study, 166participants;Analysis13.4).

13.4. Analysis.

13.4

Comparison 13: Anxiolytic versus placebo, Outcome 4: Adverse effects: immuneSystem

Metabolic

There was no difference between anxiolytic and placebo groupsin:

  • decreased appetite (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.99; 1study, 166 participants); and

  • increased appetite (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.42;I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 200 participants;Analysis13.5).

13.5. Analysis.

13.5

Comparison 13: Anxiolytic versus placebo, Outcome 5: Adverse effects:metabolic

Neurological

Neurological AEs were not different between anxiolytics andplacebo groups in one study with 166 participants. Theseincluded:

  • hyperactivity (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.30);

  • increased aggression (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60 to1.38);

  • insomnia (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.78); irritability(RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.47);

  • irritability (dichotomous) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.48 to1.47); and

  • somnolence (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 4.97;Analysis13.6).

13.6. Analysis.

13.6

Comparison 13: Anxiolytic versus placebo, Outcome 6: Adverse effects:neurological

Psychological

Anxiety was not decreased in the anxiolytic group in one studywith 166 participants (RR 2.76, 95% CI 0.48 to 15.83;Analysis 13.7).

13.7. Analysis.

13.7

Comparison 13: Anxiolytic versus placebo, Outcome 7: Adverse effects:psychological

Respiratory

There was no difference between anxiolytic and placebo groups inone study with 166 participants in:

  • cough (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.26);

  • epistaxis (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.43);

  • nasal congestion (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.77);

  • rhinorrhea (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.88); and

  • sinus congestion (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.47;Analysis13.8).

13.8. Analysis.

13.8

Comparison 13: Anxiolytic versus placebo, Outcome 8: Adverse effects:respiratory system

Skin

There was no difference in rash between anxiolytic and placebogroups in one study with 166 participants (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.52to 2.73;Analysis13.9).

13.9. Analysis.

13.9

Comparison 13: Anxiolytic versus placebo, Outcome 9: Adverse effects:skin

Secondary outcomes
Tolerability/acceptability

There was no clear evidence of a difference in loss to follow‐upbetween anxiolytic and placebo groups (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.73;I² = 0%; 2 studies, 206 participants;Analysis 13.11).

13.11. Analysis.

13.11

Comparison 13: Anxiolytic versus placebo, Outcome 11:Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up

Outcomes not reported

No data were available for the outcomes of aggression,self‐injury, or quality of life, and cardiovascular,musculoskeletal, urinary, and other AEs.

Experimental interventions versus placebo or othertreatment

Primary outcomes
Challenging behaviours
Irritability

Studies compared a variety of interventions to placebo. As theycovered a range of different pharmacological classes, wecategorised them as experimental drugs. These interventionsincluded: celecoxib (NSAID); d‐cycloserine; dextromethorphan;mecamylamine; riluzole; pioglitazone; n‐acetylcysteine;Trichuris suis ova; tetrahydrobiopterin; lofexedine;naltrexone; minocycline; propentofylline; sulforaphane; folinicacid; carnosine; prednisolone (corticosteroid);dextromethorphan/quinidine; pregnenolone; baclofen;palmitoylethanolamide; bumetanide; resveratrol; arbaclofen;simvastatin; and nicotine.

There was some evidence that irritability was reduced at endpointin participants in the experimental intervention groups comparedto placebo (SMD −0.30, 95% CI −0.53 to −0.07; I² = 72%, 28studies, 1205 participants;Analysis 14.1). There were no differences betweengroups when we compared children to children and adults, andadults (P = 0.94), however, there was evidence of a differencebetween types of experimental interventions when we conducted asubgroup analysis of interventions by age group (children,children and adults, or adults; P < 0.00001). There wasinsufficient information to conduct subgroup analyses ofirritability by gender, communication ability, or cognitiveability.

14.1. Analysis.

14.1

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 1: Irritability

We were unable to include data from three studies because thedata were skewed (Arnold2012a;Hollander2020a;Minshawi2016). Details can be found inTable 19.

15. Experimental versus placebo: irritabilityresults that could not be used in the meta‐analyses.
Study nameShort‐/medium‐/long‐term outcomesGroup 1 sample sizeGroup 2 sample sizeGroup 1 resultsMean (standarddeviation)Group 2 resultsMean (standarddeviation)Other dataNotes
Arnold2012aShort‐term mecamylamine (max 5 mg/day)128−3.17 (8.76)−5.0 (10.78)"No significant differences were found for age,weight, sex, diagnosis, IQ, or entry scores forthe OACIS, RBS, ABC Irritability, ABCHyperactivity, ABC Lethargy/ Social Withdrawal,ABC Inappropriate Speech, ADI‐R QualitativeAbnormalities in Reciprocal Social Interaction orADI‐R Qualitative Abnormalities inCommunication"Skewed
Hollander2020aShort‐termTrichuris suis ova (a dose of2500Trichurissuis ova every 2 weeks)1010−4.0 (18.5)−0.14 (6.32)P = 0.0687, 95% CI −4.82 to 91.32Skewed
Minshawi2016Short‐term D‐cycloserine (50 mg onceweekly)3433−1.55 (6.11)−1.23 (6.09)"teacher‐rated ABC data was returned for 23.5 %of the DCS group, and 30.3 % of the placebo groupwith no significant difference noted for any ofthe ABC subscales (irritability p = 0.623, socialwithdrawal p = 0.845"Skewed
ABC: Aberrant Behaviour checklist;DCS: D‐cycloserine;OACIS: OhioAutism Clinical Impressions Scale;RBS:Repetitive Behaviour Scale
Self‐injury

There was no clear evidence of a difference in self‐injuriousbehaviour at endpoint between participants receiving any of theexperimental interventions compared to participants receivingplacebo:

  • bumetanide (SMD 0.20, 95% CI −0.21 to 0.60, P = 0.34;I² = 22%, 2 studies, 148 participants;

  • N‐acetyl cysteine (SMD 0.08, 95% CI −0.29 to 0.44; P= 0.69; I² = 5%, 2 studies, 127 participants);

  • Trichuris suis ova (SMD −0.30, 95% CI −1.55 to0.95; P = 0.64; 1 study, 10 participants;Analysis14.2).

14.2. Analysis.

14.2

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 2: Self‐injury

We were unable to include data from three studies in the analysisbecause the data were skewed (Dean 2019;Hardan2012;Hollander2020a). Details can be found inTable 20.

16. Experimental versus placebo: self‐injuriousbehaviour results that could not be used in themeta‐analysis.
Study nameShort‐/medium‐/long‐term outcomesGroup 1 sample sizeGroup 2 sample sizeGroup 1 resultsMean (standarddeviation)Group 2 resultsMean (standarddeviation)Other dataNotes
Dean 2019Short‐term self‐injurious behaviour
(N‐acetylcysteine 500 mg/day)
48502.2 (2.9)1.7 (2.6)"There were no differences between N‐acetylcysteine and placebo‐treated groups on any of theoutcome measures for either primary or secondaryendpoints. There was no significant difference inthe number and severity of adverse events betweengroups"Skewed
Hardan2012Short‐term self‐injurious behaviour(N‐acetylcysteine maz 900 mg/day 3 timesdaily)14152.2 (2.3)3.0 (3.6)"Compared with placebo, NAC resulted insignificant improvements on ABC irritabilitysubscale (F= 6.80; P <.001;d.= 0.96)"Skewed
Hollander2020aShort‐term self‐injurious behaviour(Trichuris suis ova, dose of 2500 ova every2 weeks)1010−0.37 (2.5)0.42 (2.31)"Trending improvements were observed inirritability using the overall percent change frombaseline to endpoint on the Aberrant BehaviorChecklist (ABC)–Irritability subscale"Skewed
NAC: N‐acetylcysteine

There was no clear evidence of a difference in self‐injurybetween groups when we compared interventions by age (childrenonly versus adults; P = 0.65). There was insufficientinformation to conduct subgroup analyses of self‐injury bygender, communication ability, or cognitive ability.

Adverse effects

The AEs from one study (Ghanizadeh2013), could not be included in the analysis because AEswere reported as a percentage of all participants who experienced anAE, rather than percentage by group. SeeTable 21.

17. Experimental versus placebo: adverse effects datathat could not be used in the meta‐analysis.
Study nameShort‐/medium‐/long‐term outcomesGroup 1Group 2Group 1 sample sizeGroup 2 sample sizeGroup 1 results
Mean (standarddeviation)Group 2 results
Mean (standarddeviation)Other dataNotes
Ghanizadeh2013Short‐term adverse effects (NAC 1200 mg/day,risperidone 2‐3 mg/day depending on weight). 20+AEs included fatigue, increased appetite,decreased appetite, diarrhoea, andconstipation.N‐acetylcysteine + risperidonePlacebo + risperidone1714   AEs were reported for each group althoughpercentage was out of total number ofparticipants, not participants for each group.
AE: adverse effect;NAC:N‐acetylcysteine
Gastrointestinal

There was some evidence of a difference between experimentalinterventions compared to placebo for thirst (RR 3.32, 95% CI1.10 to 10.01; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 224 participants;Analysis 14.3).

14.3. Analysis.

14.3

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 3: Adverse effects:gastrointestinal

There was no clear evidence of a difference in any of the othergastrointestinal AEs including:

  • abdominal pain (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.01; I² =0%; 14 studies, 734 participants);

  • change in bowel habits (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.05 to 3.26;I² = 25%; 2 studies, 54 participants);

  • constipation (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.16; I² = 0%;13 studies, 665 participants);

  • diarrhoea (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25; I² = 0%; 18studies, 982 participants);

  • drooling (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.79; 1 study, 11participants);

  • dry mouth (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.09; I² = 0%; 5studies, 173 participants);

  • dyspepsia (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.15; 1 study, 31participants);

  • encopresis (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.15; 1 study, 31participants);

  • flatulence (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.15 to 59.89; 1 study,10 participants);

  • increased salivation (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.58; 1study, 40 participants);

  • nausea (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.06; I² = 0%; 15studies, 768 participants); or

  • vomiting (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.98; I² = 0%; 13studies, 793 participants;Analysis14.3).

Immune system

There was no clear evidence of a difference between experimentaland placebo groups in:

  • fever (RR 2.94, 95% CI 0.46 to 18.53; I² = 0%; 2studies, 102 participants); or

  • influenza (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.15; 1 study, 31participants;Analysis 14.4).

14.4. Analysis.

14.4

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 4: Adverse effects:immune system

Metabolic

Participants receiving experimental interventions (bumetanide)compared to placebo were more likely to experience:

  • hypokalemia (RR 12.48, 95% CI 4.04 to 38.62,I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 331 participants);and

  • increased appetite (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.98,I2 = 0%; 14 studies, 676 participants;Analysis14.5).

14.5. Analysis.

14.5

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 5: Adverse effects:metabolic (dichotomous)

The other metabolic effects were no different to placebo:

  • decreased appetite (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.75; I²= 0%; 15 studies, 806 participants);

  • hypoglycaemia (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.68; I² =21%; 2 studies, 120 participants);

  • hyponatremia (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.31; 1 study,38 participants);

  • weight gain (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.77; I² = 0%; 2studies, 39 participants);

  • weight loss (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.39; I² = 0%; 4studies, 306 participants);

  • weight loss (0.12 kg to 0.67 kg) (RR 9.43, 95% CI0.65 to 137.77; 1 study, 11 participants); or

  • weight loss (0.45 kg to 2.19 kg) (RR 0.17, 95% CI0.01 to 2.92; 1 study, 11 participants;Analysis14.5);

  • weight change in kilograms (MD 0.13, 95% CI −0.24 to0.50; 1 study, 23 participants;Analysis14.6).

14.6. Analysis.

14.6

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 6: Adverse effects:metabolic (continuous)

Musculoskeletal

There was no clear evidence of a difference between any of theexperimental medications compared to placebo for anymusculoskeletal AEs including:

  • arthralgia (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 6.65; 1 study, 10participants);

  • difficulty walking (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.92; 1study, 40 participants);

  • impaired balance (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.08 to 33.75; 1study, 12 participants);

  • myalgia (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.04; I² = 0%; 2studies, 155 participants);

  • slow movement (RR 4.17, 95% CI 0.22 to 80.25; 1study, 31 participants);

  • stiffness (RR 2.03, 95% CI 0.41 to 10.15; I² = 0%; 2studies, 43 participants); or

  • weakness (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.89; I² = 0%; 3studies, 90 participants;Analysis14.7).

14.7. Analysis.

14.7

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 7: Adverse effects:musculoskeletal

Neurological

There was some evidence of an increased risk of drowsiness inparticipants receiving an experimental intervention compared toplacebo (RR 3.45, 95% CI 1.21 to 9.81, 5 studies, 298participants).

There was no clear evidence of a difference between any of theexperimental medications compared to placebo for any of theother neurological AEs including:

  • agitation/excitement (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.48;I² = 0%; 5 studies, 220 participants);

  • anxiety (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.57; I² = 0%; 3studies, 250 participants);

  • daytime drowsiness (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.28; I²= 0%; 6 studies, 172 participants);

  • dazed (RR 2.57, 95% CI 0.13 to 52.12; 1 study, 11participants);

  • difficulty concentrating (RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.42 to14.83; 1 study, 12 participants);

  • difficulty sleeping (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.50; I²= 0%; 6 studies, 326 participants);

  • dizziness (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.18; I² = 0%; 9studies, 441 participants);

  • fatigue (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.17; I² = 0%; 7studies, 338 participants);

  • headache (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; I² = 0%; 18studies, 943 participants);

  • hypoactivity (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.95; I² = 23%;3 studies, 28 participants);

  • increased aggression (dichotomous) (RR 0.78, 95% CI0.36 to 1.70; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 149participants);

  • increased hyperactivity (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to1.58; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 321 participants);

  • increased irritability (dichotomous) (RR 1.11, 95% CI0.71 to 1.72; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 177participants);

  • increased stereotypies (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.80;1 study, 41 participants);

  • insomnia (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.65; I² = 0%; 8studies, 488 participants);

  • migraine (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.15 to 59.89; 1 study, 10participants);

  • nervousness (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.47 to 7.37; I² = 51%;4 studies, 159 participants);

  • new onset seizures (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.78; 1study, 46 participants);

  • restlessness (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.82; I² = 0%;5 studies, 158 participants);

  • rocking (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.79; 1 study, 11participants);

  • sedation (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.42; I² = 0%; 13studies, 624 participants);

  • syncope (RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 25.94; 1 study, 89participants);

  • tremor (RR1.80, 95% CI 0.44 to 7.37; I² = 0%; 4studies, 140 participants); or

  • twitching (RR 3.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 31.04; I² = 0%; 2studies, 71 participants;Analysis14.8).

14.8. Analysis.

14.8

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 8: Adverse effects:neurological

Psychological

There was no clear evidence of a difference between any of theexperimental medications compared to placebo for anypsychological AEs including:

  • anorexia (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.40; 1 study, 20participants);

  • aggression (dichotomous) (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.37 to3.66; 1 study, 150 participants);

  • depression (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.00; I² = 0%; 3studies, 108 participants);

  • increased self‐injurious behaviour (RR 0.46, 95% CI0.11 to 1.84; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 105participants);

  • irritability (dichotomous) (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.36 to2.27; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 162 participants);

  • worsening of temper tantrums (dichotomous) (RR 1.88,95% CI 0.30 to 11.83; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 52participants);

  • mental symptoms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.45; 1study, 20 participants); and

  • repetitive behaviour (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.14; 1study, 46 participants;Analysis14.9).

14.9. Analysis.

14.9

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 9: Adverse effects:psychological

Respiratory

There was no clear evidence of a difference between any of theexperimental medications when compared to placebo for anyrespiratory AEs including:

  • aggravation of asthma (RR 3.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 77.35;1 study, 71 participants);

  • congestion/cold (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.68; I² =0%; 4 studies, 256 participants);

  • cough (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.49; I² = 0%; 3studies, 248 participants);

  • ear infection (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.19 to 18.60; 1study, 31 participants);

  • lung congestion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.68; 1study, 20 participants) ;

  • nasopharyngitis (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.79; 1study, 150 participants); or

  • respiratory AEs (RR 5.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 109.19; 1study, 71 participants;Analysis14.10).

14.10. Analysis.

14.10

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 10: Adverse effects:respiratory

Skin

There was no clear evidence of a difference between experimentaland placebo groups in:

  • hives (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.15; 1 study, 31participants);

  • itches (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.19; I² = 0%; 2studies, 62 participants);

  • rash (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.92; I² = 0%; 7studies, 440 participants);

  • skin lesion (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.70; I² = 0%; 2studies, 98 participants); or

  • overall skin AEs (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.30; 1study, 71 participants;Analysis14.11).

14.11. Analysis.

14.11

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 11: Adverse effects:skin

Urinary

There was no clear evidence of a difference between experimentaland placebo groups in:

  • diuresis (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.51; 1 study, 89participants);

  • enuresis (RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.82 to 8.87; I² = 0%; 3studies, 205 participants);

  • urinary retention (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.05 to 10.49; I²= 33%; 2 studies, 88 participants);

  • urinary tract infection (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to7.15; 1 study, 31 participants;Analysis14.12)

14.12. Analysis.

14.12

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 12: Adverse effects:urinary

Other adverse effects

There was no clear evidence of a difference between any of theexperimental medications compared to placebo for any other AEsincluding:

  • blurred vision (RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.11 to 56.98; 1study, 31 participants);

  • dilated pupils (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.05 to 9.19; 1study, 20 participants);

  • fever (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.88; 1 study, 150participants);

  • sweating (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.15 to 3.86; I² = 0%; 3studies, 129 participants)

  • conjunctivitis (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 6.65; 1study, 10 participants)Analysis14.13.

14.13. Analysis.

14.13

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 13: Adverse effects:other

Secondary outcomes
Tolerability/acceptability

There was no clear evidence of a difference in loss to follow‐upbetween experimental and placebo groups (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.89 to1.28; 30 studies, 1913 participants;Analysis 14.14).

14.14. Analysis.

14.14

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 14:Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up

Outcomes not reported

No data were available for the outcomes of aggression, quality oflife, and cardiovascular AEs.

Typical antipsychotics versus placebo

Primary outcomes
Challenging behaviours
Self‐injury

There was no clear evidence of a difference between haloperidoland placebo on levels of self‐injury in the short term (SMD−0.54, 95% CI −1.52 to 0.43; 1 study, 17 participants;Analysis 15.1).

15.1. Analysis.

15.1

Comparison 15: Typical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 1: Self‐injury

There were insufficient studies (1 study) to conduct a subgroupanalysis.

Adverse effects
Musculoskeletal

There was no clear evidence of a difference between haloperidoland placebo in risk of dystonia in the short term (RR 2.36, 95%CI 0.11 to 52.41; 1 study, 23 participants;Analysis 15.2).

15.2. Analysis.

15.2

Comparison 15: Typical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 2: Adverse effects:musculoskeletal

Neurological

There was no clear evidence of a difference between haloperidoland placebo groups in risk of fatigue (RR 8.64, 95% CI 0.53 to140.05; 1 study, 23 participants;Analysis 15.3).

15.3. Analysis.

15.3

Comparison 15: Typical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 3: Adverse effects:neurological

Psychological

There was some evidence of a reduction in risk of behaviourproblems in the haloperidol group compared to the placebo group(RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.73; 1 study, 23 participants;Analysis 15.4).

15.4. Analysis.

15.4

Comparison 15: Typical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 4: Adverse effects:psychological

Secondary outcomes
Tolerability/acceptability

There was no difference in loss to follow‐up when participantsreceiving haloperidol were compared to those receiving placebo (RR0.46, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 40participants;Analysis15.5).

15.5. Analysis.

15.5

Comparison 15: Typical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 5:Tolerability/acceptabiity: loss to follow‐up

Outcomes not reported

No data were available for the outcomes of irritability,aggression, quality of life, and cardiovascular,gastrointestinal, immune, metabolic, respiratory, skin, urinary,and other AEs.

Sensitivity analyses

Where we had sufficient data, we carried out sensitivity analyses onirritability data excluding studies at:

  • high risk of attrition bias;

  • high risk of other bias; and

  • with a sample size less than 50.

Atypical antipsychotics versus placebo
Aripiprazole

Ichikawa 2017 was at highrisk of other bias. We found evidence of an effect of aripiprazoleon irritability regardless of whether it was included inmeta‐analysis (SMD −0.90, 95% CI −1.52 to −0.29) or excluded (SMD−0.64, 95% CI −0.86 to −0.42).

There was also evidence of an effect on irritability whether weincludedNCT00468130 in theanalysis (SMD −0.90, 95% CI −1.52 to −0.29) or excluded it becauseit was at high risk of bias and had fewer than 50 participants (SMD−0.99, 95% CI −1.65 to −0.33).

Risperidone

Kent 2013 andTroost 2005 were both at highrisk of attrition bias andTroost2005 had multiple domains at high risk of bias. We foundevidence of an effect of risperidone when we included both studiesin meta‐analysis (SMD −1.11, 95% CI −1.47 to −0.76), when weexcludedKent 2013 from themeta‐analysis (SMD −1.17, 95% CI −1.62 to 0.72) and when we excludedTroost 2005 from themeta‐analysis SMD −1.00, 95% CI −1.23 to −0.76).

Shea 2004 had multipledomains at high risk of bias. We found evidence of an effect ofrisperidone on irritability whether it was excluded from themeta‐analysis or not (SMD −1.21, 95% CI −1.63 to −0.79).

Neurohormone versus placebo

The effect of neurohormone (oxytocin) on irritability compared withplacebo with all three included oxytocin studies in the meta‐analysiswas SMD −0.24 (95% CI −0.45 to −0.03). When we excludedSikich 2021 (due to high risk ofattrition bias) from the meta‐analysis, the effect was SMD −0.41 (95% CI−0.91 to 0.09), when we excludedMunesue 2016 andParker2017 (both because they included fewer than 50 participants)from the meta‐analysis, the effect was SMD −0.20 (95% CI −0.43 to 0.03),and when we excludedMunesue2016 only (because it was a cross‐over study), the effect wasSMD −0.21 (95% CI −0.43 to 0.01). This shows that, after removing therelevant studies, there was no longer any evidence of an effect ofoxytocin.

Discussion

Summary of main results

This large review included 15 major comparisons with data from 131 studies. Themajor drug classes that the included studies compared to placebo were typicaland atypical antipsychotics, ADHD‐related drugs, anticonvulsants, antidementiadrugs, antidepressants, antiparkinsonian drugs, anxiolytics, neurohormones, anda number of drugs that did not fall into any of these classes, which we groupedunder an 'experimental' category. Studies also compared atypical antipsychoticsto typical antipsychotics, antidementia drugs, and antiparkinsonian drugs. Theyalso compared three different types of antidepressants.

Antipsychotics

At short‐term follow‐up (up to 6 months), atypical antipsychotics comparedwith placebo probably reduce irritability (moderate‐certainty evidence) andmay also reduce self‐injury (low‐certainty evidence). However, there was noclear evidence of a difference in aggression between groups (verylow‐certainty evidence) in participants with ASD. Some AEs may be higher inparticipants who receive atypical antipsychotics. These include theneurological AEs of dizziness, fatigue, sedation, somnolence, and tremor(low‐certainty evidence), the metabolic AE of increased appetite(low‐certainty evidence), and the gastrointestinal AEs of abdominal pain,constipation, drooling, hypersalivation, and vomiting or nausea, but therewas no clear evidence of a difference between groups for any of the otherAEs.

Studies that investigated typical antipsychotics reported only self‐injury,with no clear evidence of a difference compared to placebo in the shortterm. Similarly, the two trials of typical antipsychotics versus placeboshowed no clear differences in reported musculoskeletal, neurological orpsychological AEs.

There was no clear evidence of a difference between typical and atypicalantipsychotics on behaviours of concern or AEs.

Neurohormones

Eight studies reported irritability (466 participants). There was minimal tono clear evidence of a difference in irritability in the short term whenneurohormones were compared to placebo (very low‐certainty evidence). Noneof the neurohormone studies reported aggression or self‐injury.

Neurohormones may reduce the risk of headaches (very low‐certainty evidence)but there were no clear differences between groups for any of the otherneurological AEs. Neurohormones may decrease the rates of vomiting(low‐certainty evidence), but there were no clear differences between groupsfor any other gastrointestinal AEs. There were no clear differences betweengroups for any metabolic or psychological AEs (low‐certainty evidence), ormusculoskeletal AEs (very low‐certainty evidence).

ADHD‐related medications

At short term follow‐up, ADHD‐related medications may reduce irritabilitywhen compared to placebo (low‐certainty evidence). There was no clearevidence of a difference in self‐injury between those receiving ADHD‐relatedmedications compared to a placebo (very low‐certainty evidence). No datawere reported for aggression.

We found very uncertain evidence that participants who receive ADHD‐relatedmedications have higher rates of AEs compared to those who receive placebo.ADHD‐related medications may increase rates of drowsiness,emotion/tearfulness, fatigue, headache, insomnia, and irritability (verylow‐certainty evidence) but there was no clear difference between groups forother neurological AEs: dizziness, motor tics, agitation, repetitivebehaviour, or restlessness. ADHD‐related medications may increase rates ofdepression (very low‐certainty evidence) but there were no clear differencesbetween groups for any of the other psychological AEs. ADHD‐relatedmedications may lead to higher rates of decreased appetite (verylow‐certainty evidence) but there were no clear differences between groupsfor the metabolic AEs of increased appetite or increased motor activity(very low‐certainty evidence). ADHD‐related medications may increase ratesof constipation, dry mouth, and stomach or abdominal discomfort, but therewere lower rates of diarrhoea in the ADHD‐related medication group comparedto placebo. None of the studies in this comparison reported musculoskeletalAEs.

Antidepressants

At short‐term follow‐up, there was no clear evidence of a difference inirritability between those receiving antidepressants and those receivingplacebo (low‐certainty evidence). Data for aggression and self‐injury wereeither not reported or could not be included in the analysis.

Antidepressants may lead to higher rates of decreased attention(low‐certainty evidence), but there was little to no difference betweengroups for the other neurological AEs. Antidepressants may increase rates ofimpulsive behaviour and stereotypy (very low‐certainty evidence) but therewere no clear differences between groups for any of the other psychologicalAEs (very low‐certainty evidence). Antidepressants may increase the rates ofdecreased energy (very low‐certainty evidence) but there were no cleardifferences between groups for any of the other metabolic AEs. There were noclear differences between groups for any musculoskeletal AEs (verylow‐certainty evidence).

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

The included studies in this review were conducted over approximately a 30‐yearperiod. Most of the studies were short term (less than 3 months) and as such itis unclear if these AEs and improvements would be observed beyond three months.Several antipsychotic studies did not report sedation as an AE when it is verylikely to have occurred. However, sedation is usually a short‐term AE and thereporting and awareness of long‐term effects of antipsychotic use is moreimportant considering the lack of long‐term studies and the risk of seriousmetabolic disorders such as diabetes mellitus and significant weight gainfollowing antipsychotic use.

Prior to theDSM‐5 2013, the DSM did notpermit a diagnosis of ADHD with an existing diagnosis of ASD or PDD‐NOS (Cortese 2012). The DSM‐5 has removed thiscriterion for an ADHD diagnosis (Antshel2013;Epstein 2013). As such,there is uncertainty whether improvements in behaviours of concern withADHD‐related medications in this review are due to improvements in concurrentADHD symptoms that previously may not have been diagnosed in participants withASD, rather than improvements in behaviours of concern associated with ASD.

Large studies have shown that people with ASD are at least two to three timesmore likely to have comorbid psychiatric conditions such as anxiety ordepression (Brooks 2021;Schendel 2016;Vohra 2017). As such, there is uncertaintywhether improvements in behaviours of concern observed with antipsychotics orother agents are due to improvements in undiagnosed or unreported psychiatricconditions rather than improvements in ASD‐related behaviours of concern.

The vast majority of the studies did not provide details such as severity of ASD,other diagnoses apart from ASD, or the presence of comorbid psychiatricconditions. Furthermore, only some of the studies reported baseline scores ofbehaviours of concern. Therefore, there are many varying factors andinconsistencies across both the population of interest and the included studies,and the heterogeneity creates a limitation in the synthesis of data.

There are also challenges associated with obtaining an accurate record of AEs inpeople with cognitive or communication limitations. Similarly, the outcome ofquality of life is often reported by the family member or caregivers rather thanself‐rated by the person with the disability. Although the studies often did notreport the severity of ASD, this may introduce bias.

A lack of studies involving adults emerged as a major theme in the includedtrials, with only 22 of 131 trials involving adults as the target population.This highlights the need for more studies involving adults to identify theeffectiveness and AEs associated with pharmacological intervention use amongstadults with ASD and behaviours of concern.

Quality of the evidence

Of the comparisons in the summary of findings tables, we downgraded the majorityof results by at least one level due to study limitations (refer toTable 1;Table 2;Table 3;Table 4 for furtherdetails). Approximately only 25% of included studies appropriately detailedtheir random sequence generation and allocation concealment processes. Theremaining studies in the review either provided insufficient information toallow us to make a judgement, or we judged them to be at high risk of bias dueto 'sequential assignment' methods. We judged approximately 50% of the studiesto be at either unclear or high risk of performance and detection bias. Inaddition, 25% to 30% of the studies were at high risk of attrition or reportingbias.

Despite the large number of included studies in this review, we downgraded manyof the outcomes by at least one level due to imprecision. This was becauseimportant outcomes were often only reported by a few studies, providing a smallevidence base of fewer than 200 participants. In addition, the 95% CIs of manyof the results were wide and included the possibility of both benefit andharm.

As the focus of this review was the effect of these interventions on the ASDpopulation regardless of age, we decided to downgrade some outcomes forindirectness if the only available evidence related to children, as theseresults may not be directly applicable to the population as a whole.

We downgraded many of the outcomes in this review due to inconsistency, based onthe high I² statistic values in many of the analyses. We explored reasons forthis heterogeneity via subgroup analyses, but the subjective nature of theseanalyses means we cannot be confident about their results, and therefore cannotattribute the high I² statistic values to these potential effect modifiers.

For many of the outcomes included in this review, it was not possible to create afunnel plot to assess publication bias due to an insufficient number of studies.When it was possible to construct these forest plots, there was no evidence ofasymmetry, and therefore no reason to downgrade for publication bias.

Potential biases in the review process

Although we made every attempt to adhere to the protocol (Livingstone 2015), there remains thepossibility of bias in this review process. The search was extensive, but thereis a chance that we did not identify important unpublished evidence. Many of theincluded studies were lacking important details, and although we contacted somestudy authors to ask for clarification on these issues, in most cases we did notreceive confirmation prior to publication. We judged many of the studies to beat unclear or high risk of bias, but we made the decision to pool together allevidence regardless of the results of the risk of bias assessment. If we hadchosen to restrict analyses to low risk of bias studies only, the evidence basewould be substantially smaller, but perhaps more certain. One aspect that we hadnot prepared for in our protocol was our choice of relevant 'adverse events'.Although we attempted to account for this post‐protocol, our ultimate choice ofwhich AEs to prioritise may have been biased.

There are a number of included studies involving one research group that wereconducted within a short period of time. We believe there are some conflicts ofinterests that have not been disclosed by the authors. It is also uncertainwhether different participants are involved in each study due to the consistencyof numbers reported and the same comparison used in all trials. We attempted tocontact the study authors regarding some of these issues, but we did not receiveany correspondence from the contact authors involved.

Agreements and disagreements with other studies orreviews

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review that has assessed theeffectiveness and AEs of multiple classes of drugs commonly prescribed forbehaviours of concern in people with ASD. Two previous systematic reviewsfocused on the atypical antipsychotics aripiprazole (Ching 2012), and risperidone (Jesner 2007), and two systematic reviewsfocused on antidepressants, namely tricyclic antidepressants (Hurwitz 2012), and SSRIs (Williams 2013), for children and adultswith ASDs.

Antipsychotics

Since the protocol for this review was published, seven systematic reviews ofthe effectiveness of antipsychotics in people with autism, predominantlychildren and adolescents, and reported behaviours of concern were published(D’Alò 2021;Fallah 2019;Fung 2016;Hirsch 2016;Maneeton 2018a;Maneeton 2018b;Mano‐Sousa 2021), in addition to thereview byJesner 2007. Theseincluded network meta‐analyses (Fallah2019), meta‐analyses and narrative syntheses. Five of thesesystematic reviews were on the effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics, onesystematic review was on multiple drug classes (Fung 2016), and the other review wason both typical and atypical antipsychotics (D’Alò 2021). All of these reviewsinvolved children and adolescents, and the outcomes included irritabilityusing the ABC‐I subscale (all reviews), aggression (Fung 2016), and AEs (all reviews).Across these reviews, as with our current review, there was evidence for theeffectiveness of aripiprazole and risperidone in reducing irritability.

However, as with this current review, there was evidence for AEs across arange of systematic reviews. This included an overall increase (Alfageh 2019;D’Alò 2021), but also increasedserious adverse events (D’Alò 2021),in children and adolescents with ASD.

Mean weight was also higher in trials of olanzapine, risperidone andaripiprazole (Fallah 2019;Fung 2016;Jesner 2007;Hirsch 2016;Maneeton 2018a;Mano‐Sousa 2021). Systematic reviewsalso found that haloperidol, risperidone, and aripiprazole were associatedwith somnolence or sedation (Fung2016;Hirsch 2016;Maneeton 2018a;Maneeton 2018b). Extrapyramidalsymptoms were also increased in the review byFung 2016; and hypersalivation in thereview byManeeton 2018b.

Neurohormones

We found that neurohormones may have a minimal to small effect on behavioursof concern (irritability). In the Cochrane Review of intravenous secretincompared to a placebo treatment in children or adults diagnosed with ASD,there was no effect of secretin in any of the three studies that reportedirritability (Williams 2012).

ADHD‐related medications

The current review found that there was low‐certainty evidence that overallADHD‐related medications decreased irritability. Findings from two previousreviews did not find evidence that ADHD medications had an effect onirritability. A narrative synthesis byGhanizadeh 2019 of clinical trials of stimulants in children andadolescents with both autism and ADHD, concluded inadequate evidence tosupport or refute their effect on irritability. While a Cochrane Review bySturman 2017 found thatmethylphenidate did change reports of irritability that were reported as AEsin children and adolescents with ASD.

Antidepressants

We found no clear differences between antidepressants and placebo inbehaviours of concern and this seems to be in line with previous evidencefrom trials of antidepressants.

In the Cochrane Review of SSRIs for ASD there was no evidence thatfenfluramine and fluoxetine had an effect, and only limited evidence thatcitalopram reduced irritability (Williams2013). In addition, citalopram and fenfluramine were associatedwith increased AEs.

A Cochrane Review of tricyclic antidepressants for ASD in children andadolescents also found no evidence that clomipramine or tianeptine improvedirritability, although clomipramine was associated with cardiac andneurological AEs, and tianeptine with sedation (Hurwitz 2012).

A more recent systematic review byDeb2021, found no evidence that citalopram, clomipramine,venlafaxine or the SSRI fluoxetine decreased behaviours of concern, thoughone of two trials of fluvoxamine reduced aggression.

Anticonvulsants

As with our findings, there is little evidence that anticonvulsants decreasebehaviours of concern. In a systematic review of anticonvulsants in childrenand adolescents byDavico 2018,there was limited evidence of valproate having an effect on irritability andaggression in a single trial at 12 but not eight weeks, and no evidence thatlevetiracetam had any effect. In the narrative review byBrondino 2016 there were mixedfindings with one of two trials finding no effect of valproate on aggressionand irritability, while the other reported that valproate reducedirritability. Similarly, one of the two trials in the systematic review byFung 2016 reported thatvalproate decreased irritability with no apparent effect in the othertrial.

The review of valproate use inBrondino2016 also reported mild side effects but no serious adverseevents were reported. The review byFung2016 also reported that valproate was associated with weightgain.

Antiparkinsonians

As with the current review, there was no evidence that antiparkinsoniansdecreased behaviours of concern compared with placebo. The systematic reviewbyFung 2016 found no evidence thatamantadine decreased irritability in the one small placebo‐controlled trial,and amantadine was also associated with somnolence and sedation.

Anxiolytics

A recent review showed contradictory findings for the effectiveness ofanxiolytics on behaviours of concern. In the systematic review byDeb 2021, only one of two trials ofbuspirone showed a decrease in irritability. No major adverse events werereported, with the most common adverse events being changes in appetite,drowsiness, and fatigue.

Experimental

Systematic reviews were identified for several individual drugs or drugclasses that we categorised as experimental for the purposes of this review.They were reviews of the GABA modulators acamprosate, arbaclofen,bumetanide, carnosine, flumazenil, riluzole and valproate in autism reviewedbyBrondino 2016 (the findings withvalproate are discussed under anticonvulsants); a review of riluzole byDe Boer 2019; and a review ofn‐acetylcysteine byLee 2021.

As with our findings, in the systematic review byBrondino 2016, the authors concludedthat there was insufficient evidence to suggest the use of the GABAmodulators in autism. Though a later review of riluzole byDe Boer 2019 found that riluzoledecreased irritability in one trial with no apparent effect in the othertrial.

In the meta‐analysis of N‐acetylcysteine byLee 2021, there was no effect across all four identified studiesin ASD, although mild AEs were reported. This was in line with our findingsin this review.

Authors' conclusions

Implications for practice.

Based on data from all identified trials, atypical antipsychotics(risperidone and aripiprazole) appear to reduce behaviours of concern inpeople with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) by approximately 34% andattention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)‐related medications byapproximately 32% in the short term. However, there was also evidencethat certain adverse effects (e.g. sedation and weight gain) may beassociated with their use. Consideration should be given to whetherprescribing and administration is warranted given the risk of adverseevents. There were inadequate data to draw conclusions about theireffectiveness in the medium or long term.

There was little to no evidence of an effect of anticonvulsants,antidepressants, anxiolytics, antidementia medications, antiparkinsonianmedications, neurohormones, or 'experimental' interventions onbehaviours of concern (irritability, aggression or self‐injury) in theshort term. In addition, there was little to no evidence of a differencein adverse effects between these intervention groups and placebo groups.There were inadequate data to draw conclusions about their effectivenessin the medium or long term.

Before considering medications to manage a person’s behaviour of concern,a comprehensive assessment to gain a functional understanding of theirbehaviours should be undertaken and non‐pharmacological interventionstrialled, which supports the National Institute for Health and CareExcellence (NICE) guidance on interventions for people with intellectualdisability and behaviours of concern (NICE 2015). In addition, clinicians should seek informedconsent to use medications to manage behaviour from the person, or theirsubstitute decision maker, and should discuss with them the risks andbenefits associated with these medications to ensure that they areclearly understood.

Implications for research.

Length of follow‐up emerged as a major theme in the included studies,with only 12 studies following up participants for more than threemonths, one of which followed up participants for more than six months.This highlights the need for studies of longer than six months' durationto identify the long‐term health effects of pharmacologicalinterventions in people with ASD.

Another major theme to emerge is the lack of studies involving adults;only 23 of 131 trials included adults as the target population. Thishighlights the need for more studies with adults to identify theeffectiveness and adverse effects associated with pharmacologicalintervention use amongst adults with ASD and behaviours of concern.

A total of 95 (72%) of the included studies across all comparisonsreported irritability as an outcome, whereas only four studies reportedaggression and only 13 studies reported self‐injurious behaviour. Thishighlights the need for more studies to measure 'behaviour of concern'outcomes. Further, only 10 studies reported the outcome of quality oflife. In addition, the consistent use of validated scales for each ofthese outcomes is important.

Adverse effects were reported by 110 (83%) of the studies, however, theinconsistency in reporting of adverse effects has highlighted the needfor the use of consistent and validated scales particularly in relationto adverse effects associated with antipsychotic use. Consistent use ofa validated adverse effect scale may lead to greater consistency inreporting and increase the relevance and usability of outcome data.

We downgraded certainty of evidence for most of the comparisons due tosmall sample sizes, as many of the studies included in this reviewinvolved fewer than 50 participants. Future studies should aim toinvolve at least 100 participants to increase the certainty of theevidence.

History

Protocol first published: Issue 7, 2015

Acknowledgements

  • We are very grateful for the invaluable support and advice provided to usby Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems.

  • We are very grateful for the advice provided to us by Deborah Caldwell onthe feasibility of doing a network meta‐analysis.

  • Editorial and peer‐reviewer contributions: the following people conductedthe editorial process for this article.

    • Sign‐off Editor (final editorial decision): Tari Turner, CochraneEditorial Board, Cochrane Australia

    • Managing Editor (selected peer reviewers, collated peer‐reviewercomments, provided editorial guidance to review authors, editedthe article): Samuel Hinsley, Cochrane Central EditorialService

    • Editorial Assistant (conducted editorial policy checks andsupported editorial team): Leticia Rodrigues, Cochrane CentralEditorial Service

    • Copy Editor (copy editing and production): Denise Mitchell,Senior Production Editor, Cochrane Central Executive Team

    • Peer‐reviewers (provided comments and recommended an editorialdecision): Benedetto Vitiello, M.D., University of Turin, Italy(clinical review), Robyn P. Thom, MD; Massachusetts GeneralHospital Lurie Center for Autism (clinical review), LaurenKetteridge, University of Warwick (consumer review), RosesParker, Cochrane Evidence Production and Methods Directorate,Central Editorial Service, (methods review), Jo Abbott, CochraneInformation Specialist (search review).

Appendices

Appendix 1. Search strategies used

CENTRAL

#1 [mh "child development disorders, pervasive"]
#2 [mh ^"DevelopmentalDisabilities"]
#3 [mh ^"Neurodevelopmental disorders"]
#4(pervasive NEAR/3 child*)
#5 pervasive NEXT development* NEXTdisorder*
#6 (PDD or PDDs or PDD NEXT NOS or ASD or ASDs)
#7autis*
#8 asperger*
#9 kanner*
#10 childhood nextschizophrenia
#11 Rett*
#12 {OR #1‐#11}
#13 [mh ^"Drugtherapy"]
#14 ((pharma* or drug) NEAR/1 (intervention* or therap* ortreat*))
#15 pharmacotherap*
#16 [mh^Psychopharmacology]
#17 (psychopharmacol* or psycho nextpharmacol*)
#18 [mh ^"Off‐Label Use"]
#19 (off next label)
#20 (novel NEAR/1 (drug* or medication* or pharma* ortreatment*))
#21 (acetylcholinesterase or acetyl NEXTcholinesterase)
#22 [mh ^Amisulpride]
#23 (Analeptics or(Analeptic near agent*) or (Analeptic near drug*))
#24 [mh^"Anti‐Anxiety Agents"]
#25 (anxiolytic* or antianxiety NEXT agent* orantianxiety NEXT drug* or anti NEXT anxiety NEXT agent* or anti NEXT anxietyNEXT drug*)
#26 [mh Anticonvulsants]
#27 (Anticonvulsant* oranti next convulsant*)
#28 (antiepileptic* or anti nextepileptic*)
#29 [mh "Antidepressive Agents"]
#30 (antidepress*or anti NEXT depress*)
#31 [mh "Antipsychotic Agents"]
#32(antipsychotic* or anti next psychotic*)
#33 [mh "AntihypertensiveAgents"]
#34 [mh "Antiparkinson Agents"]
#35 (antiparkinson oranti next parkinson)
#36 [mh ^"Adrenergic UptakeInhibitors"]
#37 [mh ^"Atomoxetine Hydrochloride"]
#38 [mhBromocriptine]
#39 [mh Buspirone]
#40 [mh "Central NervousSystem Stimulants"]
#41 (CNS or central next nervous) nextStimulant*
#42 [mh "Cholinesterase Inhibitors"]
#43Cholinesterase next Inhibitor*
#44 [mh citalopram]
#45 [mhClomipramine]
#46 [mh Clonidine]
#47 [mh Fluoxetine]
#48[mh Fluvoxamine]
#49 [mh guanfacine]
#50 [mhHaloperidol]
#51 [mh Imipramine]
#52 [mhLevetiracetam]
#53 [mh "Lurasidone Hydrochloride"]
#54 [mhmemantine]
#55 [mh methylphenidate]
#56 [mhMilnacipran]
#57 mood next stabili*er*
#58 (neurohormone* orneuro NEXT hormone*)
#59 (NMDA NEAR/1 (antagonist* orreceptor*))
#60 [mh Nortriptyline]
#61 [mh oxytocin]
#62[mh Olanzapine]
#63 [mh "Paliperidone Palmitate"]
#64 [mhParoxetine]
#65 [mh "Quetiapine Fumarate"]
#66 [mhRisperidone]
#67 [mh Rivastigmine]
#68 [mh Secretin]
#69[mh "Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors"]
#70 [mh"Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors"]
#71 ((Serotonin NEAR/3 Uptake NEXTInhibitor*) or (Serotonin NEAR/3 reuptake NEXT Inhibitor*) or (SerotoninNEAR/3 re NEXT uptake NEXT Inhibitor*))
#72 (SSRI or SSRIs)
#73[mh Sertraline]
#74 Tetracyclic*
#75 [mh Topiramate]
#76Tricyclic*
#77 [mh "Venlafaxine Hydrochloride"]
#78 [mh"Valproic Acid"]
#79 (amantadine or amisulpride or aripiprazole oratomoxetine or bromocriptine or buspirone or Centedrin or Concerta orDaytrana or citalopram or clomipramine or clozapine or divalproex ordonepezil or Equasym or escitalopram or fluoxetine or fluvoxamine orgabapentin or guanfacine or Haloperidol or imipramine or iamotrigine orlamotrigine or levetiracetam or lurasidone or memantine or Metadate orMethylin or Methylphenidat* or milnacipran or mirtazapine or nortriptylineor olanzapine or oxytocin or paliperidone or paroxetine or Phenidylate orquetiapine or risperidone or Ritalin* or rivastigmine or secretin orSertraline or Tianeptine or Topiramate or Tsentedrin or valproate orVenlafaxine or Ziprasidone)
#80 {or #13‐#79}
#81 #12 and #80 inTrials

Ovid MEDLINE

1 exp child development disorders, pervasive/ 
2 DevelopmentalDisabilities/ 
3 Neurodevelopmental disorders/ 
4 pervasivedevelopment$ disorder$.tw,kf. 
5 (pervasive adj3child$).tw,kf.
6 (PDD or PDDs or PDD‐NOS or ASD or ASDs).tw,kf.
7 autis$.tw,kf. 
8 asperger$.tw,kf. 
9 kanner$.tw,kf.
10 childhood schizophrenia.tw,kf. 
11 Rett$.tw,kf. 
12or/1‐11
13 Drug Therapy/ 
14 ((pharma$ or drug) adj1(intervention$ or therap$ or treat$)).tw,kf. 
15pharmacotherap$.tw,kf. 
16 Psychopharmacology/
17(psychopharmacol$ or psycho‐pharmacol$).tw,kf. 
18 "Off‐Label Use"/
19 (off label or "off‐label").tw,kf.
20 (novel adj1 (drug$ ormedication$ or pharma$ or treatment$)).tw,kf. 
21(acetylcholinesterase or acetyl‐cholinesterase).mp. 
22 Amisulpride/
23 (Analeptics or (Analeptic adj agent$) or (Analeptic adjdrug$)).tw,kf. 
24 Anti‐Anxiety Agents/ 
25 (anxiolytic$ orantianxiety agent$ or antianxiety drug$ or anti anxiety agent$ or antianxiety drug$).tw,kf.
26 exp Anticonvulsants/ 
27(Anticonvulsant$ or anti‐convulsant$).mp. 
28 (antiepileptic$ oranti‐epileptic$).mp. 
29 exp Antidepressive Agents/ 
30(antidepress$ or anti‐depress$).mp.
31 exp Antipsychotic Agents/
32 (antipsychotic$ or anti‐psychotic$).mp. 
33 expAntihypertensive Agents/ 
34 exp Antiparkinson Agents/ 
35(antiparkinson or anti‐parkinson).mp.
36 Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors/
37 Atomoxetine Hydrochloride/ 
38 Bromocriptine/
39Buspirone/ 
40 Central Nervous System Stimulants/ 
41 CNSStimulant$.tw,kf.
42 Cholinesterase Inhibitors/
43Cholinesterase Inhibitor$.tw,kf. 
44 citalopram/ 
45Clomipramine/
46 Clonidine/ 
47 Fluoxetine/
48Fluvoxamine/
49 guanfacine/ 
50 Haloperidol/ 
51Imipramine/ 
52 Levetiracetam/ (2193)
53 LurasidoneHydrochloride/ 
54 memantine/ 
55 methylphenidate/ ordexmethylphenidate hydrochloride/
56 Milnacipran/ 
57 moodstabili#er$.mp. 
58 (neurohormone$ or neuro hormone$).tw,kf.
59(NMDA adj1 (antagonist$ or receptor$)).tw,kf.
60 Nortriptyline/
61 oxytocin/ 
62 Olanzapine/ 
63 Paliperidone Palmitate/
64 Paroxetine/ 
65 Quetiapine Fumarate/ 
66 Risperidone/
67 Rivastigmine/
68 Secretin/
69 "Serotonin andNoradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors"/ 
70 Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors/
71 ((Serotonin adj3 Uptake Inhibitor$) or (Serotonin adj3 reuptakeInhibitor$) or (Serotonin adj3 re‐uptake Inhibitor$)).tw,kf. 
72 (SSRIor SSRIs).tw,kf. 
73 Sertraline/ 
74 Tetracyclic$.tw,kf.
75 Topiramate/ 
76 Tricyclic$.tw,kf.
77 VenlafaxineHydrochloride/ 
78 Valproic Acid/ 
79 (amantadine or amisulprideor aripiprazole or atomoxetine or bromocriptine or buspirone or Centedrin orConcerta or Daytrana or citalopram or clomipramine or clozapine ordivalproex or donepezil or Equasym or escitalopram or fluoxetine orfluvoxamine or gabapentin or guanfacine or Haloperidol or imipramine oriamotrigine or lamotrigine or levetiracetam or lurasidone or memantine orMetadate or Methylin or Methylphenidat$ or milnacipran or mirtazapine ornortriptyline or olanzapine or oxytocin or paliperidone or paroxetine orPhenidylate or quetiapine or risperidone or Ritalin$ or rivastigmine orsecretin or Sertraline or Tianeptine or Topiramate or Tsentedrin orvalproate or Venlafaxine or Ziprasidone).mp. 
80 or/13‐79 
81 12and 80 
82 randomized controlled trial.pt. 
83 controlledclinical trial.pt. 
84 randomi#ed.ab. 
85 placebo$.ab. 
86drug therapy.fs. 
87 randomly.ab. 
88 trial.ab.
89groups.ab.
90 or/82‐89 
91 exp animals/ not humans.sh. 
9290 not 91
93 81 and 92

MEDLINE In‐Process and Other Non‐Indexed Citations

1 pervasive development$ disorder$.tw,kf. 
2 DevelopmentalDisabilit$.tw,kf. 
3 neurodevelopmental disorder$.tw,kf. 
4(pervasive adj3 child$).tw,kf. 
5 (PDD or PDDs or PDD‐NOS or ASD orASDs).tw,kf.
6 autis$.tw,kf. 
7 asperger$.tw,kf.
8kanner$.tw,kf. 
9 childhood schizophrenia.tw,kf. 
10Rett$.tw,kf. 
11 or/1‐10 
12 ((pharma$ or drug) adj1(intervention$ or therap$ or treat$)).tw,kf.
13 pharmacotherap$.tw,kf.
14 (psychopharmacol$ or psycho‐pharmacol$).tw,kf. 
15 (offlabel or "off‐label").tw,kf. 
16 (novel adj1 (drug$ or medication$ orpharma$ or treatment$)).tw,kf. 
17 (acetylcholinesterase oracetyl‐cholinesterase).tw,kf. 
18 (Analeptics or (Analeptic adjagent$) or (Analeptic adj drug$)).tw,kf. 
19 (anxiolytic$ orantianxiety agent$ or antianxiety drug$ or anti anxiety agent$ or antianxiety drug$).tw,kf. 
20 (Anticonvulsant$ or anti‐convulsant$).tw,kf.
21 (antiepileptic$ or anti‐epileptic$).tw,kf.
22 (antidepress$or anti‐depress$).tw,kf. 
23 (antipsychotic$ oranti‐psychotic$).tw,kf.
24 (antiparkinson or anti‐parkinson).tw,kf.
25 CNS Stimulant$.tw,kf. 
26 central nervous systemstimulant$.tw,kf. 
27 Cholinesterase Inhibitor$.tw,kf. 
28 moodstabili#er$.tw,kf. 
29 (neurohormone$ or neuro hormone$).tw,kf.
30 (NMDA adj1 (antagonist$ or receptor$)).tw,kf. 
31((Serotonin adj3 Uptake Inhibitor$) or (Serotonin adj3 reuptake Inhibitor$)or (Serotonin adj3 re‐uptake Inhibitor$)).tw,kf. 
32 (SSRI orSSRIs).tw,kf. 
33 Tricyclic$.tw,kf. 
34 (amantadine oramisulpride or aripiprazole or atomoxetine or bromocriptine or buspirone orCentedrin or Concerta or Daytrana or citalopram or clomipramine or clozapineor divalproex or donepezil or Equasym or escitalopram or fluoxetine orfluvoxamine or gabapentin or guanfacine or Haloperidol or imipramine oriamotrigine or lamotrigine or levetiracetam or lurasidone or memantine orMetadate or Methylin or Methylphenidat$ or milnacipran or mirtazapine ornortriptyline or olanzapine or oxytocin or paliperidone or paroxetine orPhenidylate or quetiapine or risperidone or Ritalin$ or rivastigmine orsecretin or Sertraline or Tianeptine or Topiramate or Tsentedrin orvalproate or Venlafaxine or Ziprasidone).tw,kf. 
35 or/12‐34 
3611 and 35 
37 (random$ or trial$ or control$ or group$ or placebo$ orblind$ or prospectiv$ or longitudinal$ or meta‐analys$ or systematicreview$).tw. 
38 36 and 37

MEDLINE EPub Ahead of Print

1 pervasive development$ disorder$.tw,kf. 
2 DevelopmentalDisabilit$.tw,kf. 
3 neurodevelopmental disorder$.tw,kf. 
4(pervasive adj3 child$).tw,kf. 
5 (PDD or PDDs or PDD‐NOS or ASD orASDs).tw,kf.
6 autis$.tw,kf. 
7 asperger$.tw,kf.
8kanner$.tw,kf. 
9 childhood schizophrenia.tw,kf. 
10Rett$.tw,kf. 
11 or/1‐10 
12 ((pharma$ or drug) adj1(intervention$ or therap$ or treat$)).tw,kf.
13 pharmacotherap$.tw,kf.
14 (psychopharmacol$ or psycho‐pharmacol$).tw,kf. 
15 (offlabel or "off‐label").tw,kf. 
16 (novel adj1 (drug$ or medication$ orpharma$ or treatment$)).tw,kf. 
17 (acetylcholinesterase oracetyl‐cholinesterase).tw,kf. 
18 (Analeptics or (Analeptic adjagent$) or (Analeptic adj drug$)).tw,kf. 
19 (anxiolytic$ orantianxiety agent$ or antianxiety drug$ or anti anxiety agent$ or antianxiety drug$).tw,kf. 
20 (Anticonvulsant$ or anti‐convulsant$).tw,kf.
21 (antiepileptic$ or anti‐epileptic$).tw,kf.
22 (antidepress$or anti‐depress$).tw,kf. 
23 (antipsychotic$ oranti‐psychotic$).tw,kf.
24 (antiparkinson or anti‐parkinson).tw,kf.
25 CNS Stimulant$.tw,kf. 
26 central nervous systemstimulant$.tw,kf. 
27 Cholinesterase Inhibitor$.tw,kf. 
28 moodstabili#er$.tw,kf. 
29 (neurohormone$ or neuro hormone$).tw,kf.
30 (NMDA adj1 (antagonist$ or receptor$)).tw,kf. 
31((Serotonin adj3 Uptake Inhibitor$) or (Serotonin adj3 reuptake Inhibitor$)or (Serotonin adj3 re‐uptake Inhibitor$)).tw,kf. 
32 (SSRI orSSRIs).tw,kf. 
33 Tricyclic$.tw,kf. 
34 (amantadine oramisulpride or aripiprazole or atomoxetine or bromocriptine or buspirone orCentedrin or Concerta or Daytrana or citalopram or clomipramine or clozapineor divalproex or donepezil or Equasym or escitalopram or fluoxetine orfluvoxamine or gabapentin or guanfacine or Haloperidol or imipramine oriamotrigine or lamotrigine or levetiracetam or lurasidone or memantine orMetadate or Methylin or Methylphenidat$ or milnacipran or mirtazapine ornortriptyline or olanzapine or oxytocin or paliperidone or paroxetine orPhenidylate or quetiapine or risperidone or Ritalin$ or rivastigmine orsecretin or Sertraline or Tianeptine or Topiramate or Tsentedrin orvalproate or Venlafaxine or Ziprasidone).tw,kf. 
35 or/12‐34 
3611 and 35 
37 (random$ or trial$ or control$ or group$ or placebo$ orblind$ or prospectiv$ or longitudinal$ or meta‐analys$ or systematicreview$).tw. 
38 36 and 37

Embase Ovid

1 exp autism/ 
2 developmental disorder/ 
3 pervasivedevelopment$ disorder$.tw. 
4 (PDD or PDDs or ASD or ASDs).tw.
5 autis$.tw. 
6 asperger$.tw.
7 kanner$.tw.
8childhood schizophreni$.tw. 
9 Rett$.tw. 
10 (pervasive adj3child$).tw. 
11 or/1‐10 
12 drug therapy/
13 ((pharma$ ordrug) adj1 (intervention$ or therap$ or treat$)).tw,kw. 
14pharmacotherap$.tw,kw.
15 psychopharmacology/ 
16(psychopharmacol$ or psycho‐pharmacol$).tw,kw. 
17 "off label druguse"/ 
18 (off label or "off‐label").tw,kw. 
19 (novel adj1(drug$ or medication$ or pharma$ or treatment$)).tw,kw. 
20(acetylcholinesterase or acetyl‐cholinesterase).mp. 
21amisulpride/
22 central stimulant agent/
23 (Analeptics or(Analeptic adj agent$) or (Analeptic adj drug$)).tw,kw. 
24 anxiolyticagent/ 
25 (anxiolytic$ or antianxiety agent$ or antianxiety drug$ oranti anxiety agent$ or anti anxiety drug$).tw,kw. 
26 anticonvulsiveagent/ 
27 (Anticonvulsant$ or anti‐convulsant$).mp.
28(antiepileptic$ or anti‐epileptic$).mp.
29 exp antidepressant agent/
30 (antidepress$ or anti‐depress$).mp. 
31 (antipsychotic$ oranti‐psychotic$).mp.
32 exp antihypertensive agent/ 
33 expantiparkinson agent/
34 (antiparkinson or anti‐parkinson).mp.
35adrenergic receptor affecting agent/ (
36 atomoxetine/ 
37bromocriptine/ 
38 buspirone/ 
39 central stimulant agent/
40 ((CNS or central nervous system) adj Stimulant$).tw,kw. 
41cholinesterase inhibitor/
42 Cholinesterase Inhibitor$.tw,kw.
43 citalopram/ 
44 clomipramine/ 
45 clonidine/ 
46fluoxetine/
47 fluvoxamine/ 
48 fluvoxamine maleate/ 
49guanfacine/ 
50 Haloperidol/ 
51 imipramine/ 
52levetiracetam/ 
53 lurasidone/
54 memantine/
55methylphenidate/
56 milnacipran/ 
57 mood stabilizer/ 
58mood stabili#er$.tw,kw.
59 neurohormone/
60 (neurohormone$ orneuro hormone$).tw,kw.
61 (NMDA adj1 (antagonist$ orreceptor$)).tw,kw.
62 nortriptyline/
63 neuroleptic agent/
64 oxytocin/ 
65 Olanzapine/ 
66 paliperidone/ 
67paroxetine/
68 quetiapine/
69 risperidone/ 
70rivastigmine/ 
71 secretin/
72 serotonin noradrenalin reuptakeinhibitor/
73 serotonin uptake inhibitor/ 
74 ((Serotonin adj3Uptake Inhibitor$) or (Serotonin adj3 reuptake Inhibitor$) or (Serotoninadj3 re‐uptake Inhibitor$)).tw,kw. 
75 (SSRI or SSRIs).tw,kw.
76 sertraline/ 
77 Tetracyclic$.tw,kw.
78 topiramate/
79 Tricyclic$.tw,kw. 
80 venlafaxine/ 
81 valproicacid/
82 (amantadine or amisulpride or aripiprazole or atomoxetine orbromocriptine or buspirone or Centedrin or Concerta or Daytrana orcitalopram or clomipramine or clozapine or divalproex or donepezil orEquasym or escitalopram or fluoxetine or fluvoxamine or gabapentin orguanfacine or Haloperidol or imipramine or iamotrigine or lamotrigine orlevetiracetam or lurasidone or memantine or Metadate or Methylin orMethylphenidat$ or milnacipran or mirtazapine or nortriptyline or olanzapineor oxytocin or paliperidone or paroxetine or Phenidylate or quetiapine orrisperidone or Ritalin$ or rivastigmine or secretin or Sertraline orTianeptine or Topiramate or Tsentedrin or valproate or Venlafaxine orZiprasidone).mp. 
83 or/12‐82 
84 11 and 83 
85 Randomizedcontrolled trial/
86 Controlled clinical study/ 
87random$.ti,ab. 
88 randomization/ 
89 intermethod comparison/
90 placebo.ti,ab. 
91 (compare or compared orcomparison).ti.
92 ((evaluated or evaluate or evaluating or assessedor assess) and (compare or compared or comparing or comparison)).ab.
93 (open adj label).ti,ab.
94 ((double or single or doubly orsingly) adj (blind or blinded or blindly)).ti,ab.
95 double blindprocedure/ 
96 parallel group$1.ti,ab. 
97 (crossover or crossover).ti,ab.
98 ((assign$ or match or matched or allocation) adj5(alternate or group$1 or intervention$1 or patient$1 or subject$1 orparticipant$1)).ti,ab. 
99 (assigned or allocated).ti,ab.
100(controlled adj7 (study or design or trial)).ti,ab. 
101 (volunteer orvolunteers).ti,ab. 
102 human experiment/ 
103trial.ti.
104 or/85‐103
105 (random$ adj sampl$ adj7 ("crosssection$" or questionnaire$1 or survey$ or database$1)).ti,ab. not(comparative study/ or controlled study/ or randomi?ed controlled.ti,ab. orrandomly assigned.ti,ab.) 
106 Cross‐sectional study/ not (randomizedcontrolled trial/ or controlled clinical study/ or controlled study/ orrandomi?ed controlled.ti,ab. or control group$1.ti,ab.) 
107 (((caseadj control$) and random$) not randomi?ed controlled).ti,ab. 
108(Systematic review not (trial or study)).ti. 
109 (nonrandom$ notrandom$).ti,ab. 
110 "Random field$".ti,ab.
111 (random clusteradj3 sampl$).ti,ab.
112 (review.ab. and review.pt.) not trial.ti.
113 "we searched".ab. and (review.ti. or review.pt.) 
114"update review".ab. 
115 (databases adj4 searched).ab. 
116 (rator rats or mouse or mice or swine or porcine or murine or sheep or lambs orpigs or piglets or rabbit or rabbits or cat or cats or dog or dogs or cattleor bovine or monkey or monkeys or trout or marmoset$1).ti. and animalexperiment/ 
117 Animal experiment/ not (human experiment/ or human/)
118 or/105‐117 
119 104 not 118 
120 84 and 119

CINAHL EBSCOhost

S1 (MH "Child Development Disorders, Pervasive+") 
S2 (MH "RettSyndrome") 
S3 (MH "Developmental Disabilities") 
S4 (MH "MentalDisorders Diagnosed in Childhood") 
S5 TI(autis* or asperger* orkanner* or "childhood schizophrenia" or Rett* or "pervasive development*disorder*" or PDD or PDDs or PDD‐NOS or ASD or ASDs) OR AB(autis* orasperger* or kanner* or "childhood schizophrenia" or Rett* or "pervasivedevelopment* disorder*" or PDD or PDDs or PDD‐NOS or ASD or ASDs) 
S6S1 OR S2 OR S3 OR S4 OR S5 
S7 (MH "Drug Therapy") 
S8TI((pharma* or drug) N1 (intervention* or therap* or treat*)) OR AB((pharma*or drug) N1 (intervention* or therap* or treat*))
S9TI(pharmacotherap* OR psychopharmacol* or psycho‐pharmacol*) ORAB(pharmacotherap* OR psychopharmacol* or psycho‐pharmacol*) 
S10 (MH"Psychopharmacology") 
S11 (MH "Drugs, Off‐Label") 
S12 TI("offlabel" or (novel N1 (drug* or medication* or pharma* or treatment*))) ORAB("off label" or (novel N1 (drug* or medication* or pharma* ortreatment*))) 
S13 TI(acetylcholinesterase or acetyl‐cholinesterase)OR AB(acetylcholinesterase or acetyl‐cholinesterase) 
S14 (MH"Antianxiety Agents") OR (MH "Anticonvulsants") OR (MH "AntidepressiveAgents+") OR (MH "Antipsychotic Agents+") OR (MH "Central Nervous SystemStimulants+") 
S15 (MH "Antihypertensive Agents+") 
S16 (MH"Antiparkinson Agents") 
S17 (MH "Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors") OR(MH "Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors") OR(MH "Cholinesterase Inhibitors")
S18 (MH "Atomoxetine") 
S19 (MH "Bromocriptine") 
S20 (MH"Buspirone") 
S21 (MH "Citalopram") 
S22 (MH "Clomipramine")
S23 (MH "Clonidine") 
S24 (MH "Fluoxetine") 
S25 (MH"Fluvoxamine Maleate") 
S26 (MH "Haloperidol") 
S27 (MH"Imipramine") 
S28 (MH "Memantine") 
S29 (MH "Methylphenidate")
S30 (MH "Milnacipran Hydrochloride") 
S31 (MH "Nortriptyline")
S32 (MH "Oxytocin") 
S33 (MH "Olanzapine") 
S34 (MH"Paliperidone") 
S35 (MH "Paroxetine") 
S36 (MH "Quetiapine")
S37 (MH "Risperidone") 
S38 (MH "Rivastigmine")
S39 (MH"Secretin") 
S40 (MH "Topiramate") 
S41 (MH "Venlafaxine")
S42 (MH "Valproic Acid") 
S43 (MH "Sertraline Hydrochloride")
S44 "(acetylcholinesterase or acetyl‐cholinesterase)" 
S45(Analeptics or ("Analeptic agent*") or ("Analeptic Drug*") )
S46(anxiolytic* or "antianxiety agent*" or "antianxiety drug*" or "anti anxietyagent*" or "anti anxiety drug*")
S47 (Anticonvulsant* or "anticonvulsant*") 
S48 (antiepileptic* or "anti epileptic*") 
S49(antiepileptic* or "anti epileptic*") 
S50 (antidepress* or "antidepress*") 
S51 (antipsychotic* or "anti psychotic*") 
S52(antiparkinson or "anti‐parkinson") 
S53 ("antiparkinson or"anti‐parkinson") 
S54 (CNS or "central nervous Stimulant*")
S55 "Cholinesterase Inhibitor*" 
S56 ("mood stabili*er*")
S57 neurohormone* or neuro‐hormone* 
S58 (NMDA N1 (antagonist*or receptor*)) 
S59 ((Serotonin N3 "Uptake Inhibitor*") or (SerotoninN3 "reuptake Inhibitor*") or ("Serotonin N3 "re‐uptake Inhibitor*"))
S60 (SSRI or SSRIs) 
S61 Tricyclic* 
S62 (amantadine oramisulpride or aripiprazole or atomoxetine or bromocriptine or buspirone orCentedrin or Concerta or Daytrana or citalopram or clomipramine or clozapineor divalproex or donepezil or Equasym or escitalopram or fluoxetine orfluvoxamine or gabapentin or guanfacine or Haloperidol or imipramine oriamotrigine or lamotrigine or levetiracetam or lurasidone or memantine orMetadate or Methylin or Methylphenidat* or milnacipran or mirtazapine ornortriptyline or olanzapine or oxytocin or paliperidone or paroxetine orPhenidylate or quetiapine or risperidone or Ritalin* or rivastigmine orsecretin or Sertraline or Tianeptine or Topiramate or Tsentedrin orvalproate or Venlafaxine or Ziprasidone) 
S63 S7 OR S8 OR S9 OR S10 ORS11 OR S12 OR S13 OR S14 OR S15 OR S16 OR S17 OR S18 OR S19 OR S20 OR S21 ORS22 OR S23 OR S24 OR S25 OR S26 OR S27 OR S28 OR S29 OR S30 OR S31 OR S32 ORS33 OR S34 OR S35 OR S36 OR S37 OR S38 OR S39 OR S40 OR S41 OR S42 OR S43 ORS44 OR S45 OR S46 OR S47 OR S48 OR S49 OR S50 OR S51 OR S52 OR S53 OR S54 ORS55 OR S56 OR S57 OR S58 OR S59 OR S60 OR S61 OR S62 
S64 S6 AND S63
S65 MH ("Randomized Controlled Trials") 
S66 (MH "Double‐BlindStudies") 
S67 (MH "Single‐Blind Studies") 
S68 (MH "RandomAssignment") 
S69 (MH "Pretest‐Posttest Design") 
S70 MH("Cluster Sample") 
S71 TI (randomised OR randomized) 
S72 AB(random*) 
S73 TI (trial) 
S74 (MH "Sample Size") AND AB(assigned OR allocated OR control) 
S75 MH (Placebos) 
S76 PT(Randomized Controlled Trial) 
S77 AB (control W5 group) 
S78 MH("Crossover Design") OR MH ("Comparative Studies") 
S79 AB (cluster W3RCT) 
S80 (MH "Animals+") 
S81 MH ("Animal Studies") 
S82TI (animal model*) 
S83 S80 OR S81 OR S82 
S84 MH ("Human")
S85 S83 NOT S84 
S86 S65 OR S66 OR S67 OR S68 OR S69 OR S70 ORS71 OR S72 OR S73 OR S74 OR S75 OR S76 OR S77 OR S78 OR S79 
S87 S86NOT S85 
S88 S64 AND S87

APA PsycInfo

1 exp autism spectrum disorders/ 
2 neurodevelopmental disorders/
3 Developmental disabilities/ 
4 pervasive development$disorder$.tw. 
5 (pervasive adj3 child$).tw. 
6 autis$.tw.
7 asperger$.tw.
8 (autis$ or ASD or ASDs).tw. 
9Rett$.tw. 
10 Kanner$.tw.
11 (PDD or PDDs or PDD‐NOS or ASD orASDs).tw. 
12 childhood schizophreni$.tw.
13 or/1‐12 
14Drug Therapy/ 
15 ((pharma$ or drug) adj1 (intervention$ or therap$ ortreat$)).tw. 
16 pharmacotherap$.tw. 
17psychopharmacology/
18 (psychopharmacol$ orpsycho‐pharmacol$).tw.
19 (off label or "off‐label").tw. 
20(novel adj1 (drug$ or medication$ or pharma$ or treatment$)).tw. 
21"prescribing (drugs)"/ 
22 exp Acetylcholinesterase/ or expAcetylcholine/ 
23 (acetylcholinesterase oracetyl‐cholinesterase).mp.
24 analeptic drugs/ 
25 (Analepticsor (Analeptic adj agent$) or (Analeptic adj drug$)).tw. 
26(anxiolytic$ or antianxiety agent$ or antianxiety drug$ or anti anxietyagent$ or anti anxiety drug$).tw. 
27 Tranquilizing Drugs/ orsedatives/ 
28 Anticonvulsive Drugs/ 
29 (Anticonvulsant$ oranti‐convulsant$).tw.
30 (antiepileptic$ oranti‐epileptic$).tw.
31 Antidepressant Drugs/ or tricyclicantidepressant drugs/
32 (antidepress$ or anti‐depress$).tw. 
33exp Neuroleptic Drugs/ 
34 (antipsychotic$ or anti‐psychotic$).tw.
35 antihypertensive drugs/
36 exp antihypertensive drugs/
37 exp antitremor drugs/
38 (antiparkinson oranti‐parkinson).tw. 
39 atomoxetine/ 
40 bromocriptine/
41buspirone/ 
42 Cns stimulating drugs/ 
43 ((Central NervousSystem or CNS) adj stimulant$).tw. 
44 cholinesterase inhibitors/
45 Cholinesterase Inhibitor$.tw.
46 citalopram/ 
47chlorimipramine/
48 clonidine/
49 fluoxetine/
50fluvoxamine/ 
51 haloperidol/ 
52 imipramine/
53methylphenidate/ 
54 mood stabilizers/
55 mood stabili#er$.tw.
56 (neurohormone$ or neuro hormone$).tw. 
57 (NMDA adj1(antagonist$ or receptor$)).tw. 
58 nortriptyline/ 
59 oxytocin/
60 olanzapine/ 
61 paroxetine/ 
62 quetiapine/
63risperidone/ 
64 exp Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors/ or exp SerotoninNorepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors/
65 neurotransmitter uptakeinhibitors/ 
66 ((Serotonin adj3 Uptake Inhibitor$) or (Serotonin adj3reuptake Inhibitor$) or (Serotonin adj3 re‐uptake Inhibitor$)).tw. 
67(SSRI or SSRIs).tw. 
68 Sertraline/
69 Tetracyclic$.tw.
70Venlafaxine/ 
71 Valproic Acid/
72 (amantadine or amisulpride oraripiprazole or atomoxetine or bromocriptine or buspirone or Centedrin orConcerta or Daytrana or citalopram or clomipramine or clozapine ordivalproex or donepezil or Equasym or escitalopram or fluoxetine orfluvoxamine or gabapentin or guanfacine or Haloperidol or imipramine oriamotrigine or lamotrigine or levetiracetam or lurasidone or memantine orMetadate or Methylin or Methylphenidat$ or milnacipran or mirtazapine ornortriptyline or olanzapine or oxytocin or paliperidone or paroxetine orPhenidylate or quetiapine or risperidone or Ritalin$ or rivastigmine orsecretin or Sertraline or Tianeptine or Topiramate or Tsentedrin orvalproate or Venlafaxine or Ziprasidone).mp. 
73 or/14‐72 
74 13and 73 
75 clinical trials/ 
76 longitudinal studies/ 
77exp program evaluation/ 
78 exp Treatment Effectiveness Evaluation/
79 random$.tw.
80 ((singl$ or doubl$ or trebl$ or tripl$) adj(blind$ or mask$)).tw. 
81 (crossover$ or "cross over$").tw. 
82trial$.tw. 
83 group$.ab. 
84 treatment effectivenessevaluation/
85 ((singl$ or doubl$ or tripl$ or trebl$) adj1 (blind$ ormask$)).tw. 
86 prospective.tw. (60764)
87factorial$.tw.
88 random$.tw. 
89 (assign$ orallocat$).ab.
90 control.ab. 
91 treatment as usual.ab.
92 placebo.ab. 
93 (crossover or cross‐over).tw.
94((effectiveness or evaluat$) adj3 (stud$ or research$)).tw. 
95or/75‐94 
96 74 and 95

ERIC EBSCOhost

S1 DE "Developmental Disabilities" 
S2 DE "Pervasive DevelopmentalDisorders" OR DE "Asperger Syndrome" OR DE "Autism" 
S3 (pervasivedevelopment* disorder* or PDD or PDDs) 
S4 (autis* or ASD or ASDs)
S5 Asperger* 
S6 Rett* 
S7 Kanner* 
S8 childhoodschizophren* 
S9 S1 OR S2 OR S3 OR S4 OR S5 OR S6 OR S7 OR S8
S10 DE "Pharmacology" 
S11 (anxiolytic* or "antianxiety agent*"or "antianxiety drug*" or "anti anxiety agent*" or "anti anxietydrug*")
S12 (Anticonvulsant* or "anti convulsant*") 
S13(antiepileptic* or "anti epileptic*") 
S14 (antidepress* or "antidepress*") 
S15 (antipsychotic* or "anti psychotic*") 
S16(antiparkinson or "anti‐parkinson") 
S17 (CNS or "central nervousStimulant*" )
S18 "Cholinesterase Inhibitor*" 
S19 ("moodstabili*er*") 
S20 neurohormone* or neuro‐hormone* 
S21 (NMDA N1(antagonist* or receptor*)) 
S22 ((Serotonin N3 "Uptake Inhibitor*")or (Serotonin N3 "reuptake Inhibitor*") or ("Serotonin N3 "re‐uptakeInhibitor*")) 
S23 (SSRI or SSRIs) 
S24 Tricyclic* 
S25(amantadine or amisulpride or aripiprazole or atomoxetine or bromocriptineor buspirone or Centedrin or Concerta or Daytrana or citalopram orclomipramine or clozapine or divalproex or donepezil or Equasym orescitalopram or fluoxetine or fluvoxamine or gabapentin or guanfacine orHaloperidol or imipramine or iamotrigine or lamotrigine or levetiracetam orlurasidone or memantine or Metadate or Methylin or Methylphenidat* ormilnacipran or mirtazapine or nortriptyline or olanzapine or oxytocin orpaliperidone or paroxetine or Phenidylate or quetiapine or risperidone orRitalin* or rivastigmine or secretin or Sertraline or Tianeptine orTopiramate or Tsentedrin or valproate or Venlafaxine or Ziprasidone)
S26 S10 OR S11 OR S12 OR S13 OR S14 OR S15 OR S16 OR S17 OR S18 ORS19 OR S20 OR S21 OR S22 OR S23 OR S24 OR S25 
S27 S9 AND S26
S28 DE "Randomized Controlled Trials" 
S29 RCT* 
S30*randomly or randomi*ed) N3 (allocated* or assign* or group* ) 
S31control group* or experimental group* 
S32 placebo* or "treatment asusual" or TAU 
S33 S28 OR S29 OR S30 OR S31 OR S32 
S34 S27 ANDS33

Epistemonikos

title:(( amantadine OR amisulpride OR aripiprazole OR atomoxetine ORbromocriptine OR buspirone OR Centedrin OR Concerta OR Daytrana ORcitalopram OR clomipramine OR clozapine OR divalproex OR donepezil OREquasym OR escitalopram OR fluoxetine OR fluvoxamine OR gabapentin ORguanfacine OR Haloperidol OR imipramine OR iamotrigine OR lamotrigine ORlevetiracetam OR lurasidone OR memantine OR Metadate OR Methylin ORMethylphenidat$ OR milnacipran OR mirtazapine OR nortriptyline OR olanzapineOR oxytocin OR paliperidone OR paroxetine OR Phenidylate OR quetiapine ORrisperidone OR Ritalin$ OR rivastigmine OR secretin OR Sertraline ORTianeptine OR Topiramate OR Tsentedrin OR valproate OR Venlafaxine ORZiprasidone)) OR abstract:(( amantadine OR amisulpride OR aripiprazole ORatomoxetine OR bromocriptine OR buspirone OR Centedrin OR Concerta ORDaytrana OR citalopram OR clomipramine OR clozapine OR divalproex ORdonepezil OR Equasym OR escitalopram OR fluoxetine OR fluvoxamine ORgabapentin OR guanfacine OR Haloperidol OR imipramine OR iamotrigine ORlamotrigine OR levetiracetam OR lurasidone OR memantine OR Metadate ORMethylin OR Methylphenidat$ OR milnacipran OR mirtazapine OR nortriptylineOR olanzapine OR oxytocin OR paliperidone OR paroxetine OR Phenidylate ORquetiapine OR risperidone OR Ritalin$ OR rivastigmine OR secretin ORSertraline OR Tianeptine OR Topiramate OR Tsentedrin OR valproate ORVenlafaxine OR Ziprasidone))) OR title:(drug* OR pharma* OR medic*) AND(title:(ASD OR autis* OR asperg* OR rett* OR pervasive OR PDD*) ORabstract:(ASD OR autis* OR asperg* OR rett* OR pervasive OR PDD*))

Science Citation Index‐ Expanded Web of Science,Clarivate

# 26 #25 AND #22 
# 25 #24 OR #23 
# 24 ab=(randomi*sed orrandomly or trial* or control* or RCT or placebo* or blind* or "treatment asusual" or TAU) 
# 23 ti=(random* or trial* or control* or RCT )
# 22 #21 AND #1 
# 21 #20 OR #19 OR #18 OR #17 OR #16 OR #15 OR#14 OR #13 OR #12 OR #11 OR #10 OR #9 OR #8 OR #7 OR #6 OR #5 OR #4 OR #3 OR#2 
# 20 ti=(amantadine or amisulpride or aripiprazole or atomoxetineor bromocriptine or buspirone or Centedrin or Concerta or Daytrana orcitalopram or clomipramine or clozapine or divalproex or donepezil orEquasym or escitalopram or fluoxetine or fluvoxamine or gabapentin orguanfacine or Haloperidol or imipramine or iamotrigine or lamotrigine orlevetiracetam or lurasidone or memantine or Metadate or Methylin orMethylphenidat* or milnacipran or mirtazapine or nortriptyline or olanzapineor oxytocin or paliperidone or paroxetine or Phenidylate or quetiapine orrisperidone or Ritalin* or rivastigmine or secretin or Sertraline orTianeptine or Topiramate or Tsentedrin or valproate or Venlafaxine orZiprasidone) OR ab=(amantadine or amisulpride or aripiprazole or atomoxetineor bromocriptine or buspirone or Centedrin or Concerta or Daytrana orcitalopram or clomipramine or clozapine or divalproex or donepezil orEquasym or escitalopram or fluoxetine or fluvoxamine or gabapentin orguanfacine or Haloperidol or imipramine or iamotrigine or lamotrigine orlevetiracetam or lurasidone or memantine or Metadate or Methylin orMethylphenidat* or milnacipran or mirtazapine or nortriptyline or olanzapineor oxytocin or paliperidone or paroxetine or Phenidylate or quetiapine orrisperidone or Ritalin* or rivastigmine or secretin or Sertraline orTianeptine or Topiramate or Tsentedrin or valproate or Venlafaxine orZiprasidone) 
# 19 ti=(Tricyclic*) or ab=(Tricyclic*) 
# 18ti=(SSRI or SSRIs) or ab=(SSRI or SSRIs) 
# 17 ti=((Serotonin Near/3"Uptake Inhibitor*") or (Serotonin Near/3 "reuptake Inhibitor*") or(Serotonin Near/3 "re‐uptake Inhibitor*") ) or ab=((Serotonin Near/3 "UptakeInhibitor*") or (Serotonin Near/3 "reuptake Inhibitor*") or (SerotoninNear/3 "re‐uptake Inhibitor*") ) 
# 16 ti=(NMDA Near/0 (antagonist* orreceptor*) ) or ab=(NMDA Near/0 (antagonist* or receptor*) ) 
# 15ti=(neurohormone* or "neuro hormone*") or ab=(neurohormone* or "neurohormone*") 
# 14 ti=("mood stabili*er*") or ab=("mood stabili*er*")
# 13 ti=("Cholinesterase Inhibitor*") or ab=("CholinesteraseInhibitor*") 
# 12 ti=("central nervous system stimulant*" or "CNSstimulant*") or ab=("central nervous system stimulant*" or "CNS stimulant*")
# 11 ti=(antiparkinson or "anti parkinson") or ab=(antiparkinson or"anti parkinson") 
# 10 ti=(antipsychotic* or "anti psychotic*") orab=(antipsychotic* or "anti psychotic*") 
# 9 ti=(antidepress* or"anti depress*") or ab=(antidepress* or "anti depress*") 
# 8ti=(Anticonvulsant* or "anti convulsant*") or ab=(Anticonvulsant* or "anticonvulsant*") 
# 7 ti=(anxiolytic* or "antianxiety agent*" or"antianxiety drug*" or "anti anxiety agent*" or "anti anxiety drug*") orab=(anxiolytic* or "antianxiety agent*" or "antianxiety drug*" or "antianxiety agent*" or "anti anxiety drug*") 
# 6 ti=(Analeptics or"Analeptic agent*" or "Analeptic drug*") or ab=(Analeptics or "Analepticagent*" or "Analeptic drug*") 
# 5 ti=(acetylcholinesterase or "acetylcholinesterase") or ab=(acetylcholinesterase or "acetyl cholinesterase")
# 4 ti=("off label" or (novel NEAR/0 (drug* or medication* or pharma*or treatment*) )) OR ab=("off label" or (novel NEAR/0 (drug* or medication*or pharma* or treatment*) )) 
# 3 TI=(pharmacotherap* orpsychopharmacol* or "psycho‐pharmacol*") or AB=(pharmacotherap* orpsychopharmacol* or "psycho‐pharmacol*") 
# 2 TI=((pharma* or drug)Near/1 (intervention* or therap* or treat*) ) or AB=((pharma* or drug)Near/1 (intervention* or therap* or treat*) ) 
# 1 ti=(autis* orasperg* or Rett* or kanner* or "childhood schizophrenia" or "pervasivedevelopment* disorder*" or PDD or PDDs or "PDD‐NOS" or ASD or ASDs) ORab=(autis* or asperg* or Rett* or kanner* or "childhood schizophrenia" or"pervasive development* disorder*" or PDD or PDDs or "PDD‐NOS" or ASD orASDs)

Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Science ), Web ofScience, Clarivate

# 26 #25 AND #22 
# 25 #24 OR #23 
# 24 ab=(randomi*sed orrandomly or trial* or control* or RCT or placebo* or blind* or "treatment asusual" or TAU) 
# 23 ti=(random* or trial* or control* or RCT )
# 22 #21 AND #1 
# 21 #20 OR #19 OR #18 OR #17 OR #16 OR #15 OR#14 OR #13 OR #12 OR #11 OR #10 OR #9 OR #8 OR #7 OR #6 OR #5 OR #4 OR #3 OR#2 
# 20 ti=(amantadine or amisulpride or aripiprazole or atomoxetineor bromocriptine or buspirone or Centedrin or Concerta or Daytrana orcitalopram or clomipramine or clozapine or divalproex or donepezil orEquasym or escitalopram or fluoxetine or fluvoxamine or gabapentin orguanfacine or Haloperidol or imipramine or iamotrigine or lamotrigine orlevetiracetam or lurasidone or memantine or Metadate or Methylin orMethylphenidat* or milnacipran or mirtazapine or nortriptyline or olanzapineor oxytocin or paliperidone or paroxetine or Phenidylate or quetiapine orrisperidone or Ritalin* or rivastigmine or secretin or Sertraline orTianeptine or Topiramate or Tsentedrin or valproate or Venlafaxine orZiprasidone) OR ab=(amantadine or amisulpride or aripiprazole or atomoxetineor bromocriptine or buspirone or Centedrin or Concerta or Daytrana orcitalopram or clomipramine or clozapine or divalproex or donepezil orEquasym or escitalopram or fluoxetine or fluvoxamine or gabapentin orguanfacine or Haloperidol or imipramine or iamotrigine or lamotrigine orlevetiracetam or lurasidone or memantine or Metadate or Methylin orMethylphenidat* or milnacipran or mirtazapine or nortriptyline or olanzapineor oxytocin or paliperidone or paroxetine or Phenidylate or quetiapine orrisperidone or Ritalin* or rivastigmine or secretin or Sertraline orTianeptine or Topiramate or Tsentedrin or valproate or Venlafaxine orZiprasidone) 
# 19 ti=(Tricyclic*) or ab=(Tricyclic*) 
# 18ti=(SSRI or SSRIs) or ab=(SSRI or SSRIs) 
# 17 ti=((Serotonin Near/3"Uptake Inhibitor*") or (Serotonin Near/3 "reuptake Inhibitor*") or(Serotonin Near/3 "re‐uptake Inhibitor*") ) or ab=((Serotonin Near/3 "UptakeInhibitor*") or (Serotonin Near/3 "reuptake Inhibitor*") or (SerotoninNear/3 "re‐uptake Inhibitor*") ) 
# 16 ti=(NMDA Near/0 (antagonist* orreceptor*) ) or ab=(NMDA Near/0 (antagonist* or receptor*) ) 
# 15ti=(neurohormone* or "neuro hormone*") or ab=(neurohormone* or "neurohormone*") 
# 14 ti=("mood stabili*er*") or ab=("mood stabili*er*")
# 13 ti=("Cholinesterase Inhibitor*") or ab=("CholinesteraseInhibitor*") 
# 12 ti=("central nervous system stimulant*" or "CNSstimulant*") or ab=("central nervous system stimulant*" or "CNS stimulant*")
# 11 ti=(antiparkinson or "anti parkinson") or ab=(antiparkinson or"anti parkinson") 
# 10 ti=(antipsychotic* or "anti psychotic*") orab=(antipsychotic* or "anti psychotic*") 
# 9 ti=(antidepress* or"anti depress*") or ab=(antidepress* or "anti depress*") 
# 8ti=(Anticonvulsant* or "anti convulsant*") or ab=(Anticonvulsant* or "anticonvulsant*") 
# 7 ti=(anxiolytic* or "antianxiety agent*" or"antianxiety drug*" or "anti anxiety agent*" or "anti anxiety drug*") orab=(anxiolytic* or "antianxiety agent*" or "antianxiety drug*" or "antianxiety agent*" or "anti anxiety drug*") 
# 6 ti=(Analeptics or"Analeptic agent*" or "Analeptic drug*") or ab=(Analeptics or "Analepticagent*" or "Analeptic drug*") 
# 5 ti=(acetylcholinesterase or "acetylcholinesterase") or ab=(acetylcholinesterase or "acetyl cholinesterase")
# 4 ti=("off label" or (novel NEAR/0 (drug* or medication* or pharma*or treatment*) )) OR ab=("off label" or (novel NEAR/0 (drug* or medication*or pharma* or treatment*) )) 
# 3 TI=(pharmacotherap* orpsychopharmacol* or "psycho‐pharmacol*") or AB=(pharmacotherap* orpsychopharmacol* or "psycho‐pharmacol*") 
# 2 TI=((pharma* or drug)Near/1 (intervention* or therap* or treat*) ) or AB=((pharma* or drug)Near/1 (intervention* or therap* or treat*) ) 
# 1 ti=(autis* orasperg* or Rett* or kanner* or "childhood schizophrenia" or "pervasivedevelopment* disorder*" or PDD or PDDs or "PDD‐NOS" or ASD or ASDs) ORab=(autis* or asperg* or Rett* or kanner* or "childhood schizophrenia" or"pervasive development* disorder*" or PDD or PDDs or "PDD‐NOS" or ASD orASDs)

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

ID Search
#1 [mh "child development disorders, pervasive"]
#2 [mh^"Developmental Disabilities"]
#3 [mh ^"Neurodevelopmentaldisorders"]
#4 (pervasive NEAR/3 child*):ti,ab,kw
#5 (pervasiveNEXT development* NEXT disorder*):ti,ab,kw
#6 (PDD or PDDs or PDD NEXTNOS or ASD or ASDs):ti,ab,kw
#7 autis*:ti,ab,kw
#8asperger*:ti,ab,kw
#9 kanner*:ti,ab,kw
#10 childhood nextschizophrenia:ti,ab,kw
#11 Rett*:ti,ab,kw
#12 {OR#1‐#11}
#13 [mh ^"Drug therapy"]
#14 ((pharma* or drug) NEAR/1(intervention* or therap* or treat*)):ti,ab,kw
#15pharmacotherap*:ti,ab,kw
#16 [mh ^Psychopharmacology]
#17(psychopharmacol* or psycho next pharmacol*):ti,ab,kw
#18 [mh^"Off‐Label Use"]
#19 (off next label ):ti,ab,kw
#20 (novelNEAR/1 (drug* or medication* or pharma* or treatment*)):ti,ab,kw
#21(acetylcholinesterase or acetyl NEXT cholinesterase):ti,ab,kw
#22 [mh^Amisulpride]
#23 (Analeptics or (Analeptic near agent*) or (Analepticnear drug*)):ti,ab,kw
#24 [mh ^"Anti‐Anxiety Agents"]
#25(anxiolytic* or antianxiety NEXT agent* or antianxiety NEXT drug* or antiNEXT anxiety NEXT agent* or anti NEXT anxiety NEXT drug*):ti,ab,kw
#26[mh Anticonvulsants]
#27 (Anticonvulsant* or anti nextconvulsant*):ti,ab,kw
#28 (antiepileptic* or anti nextepileptic*):ti,ab,kw
#29 [mh "Antidepressive Agents"]
#30(antidepress* or anti NEXT depress*)
#31 [mh "AntipsychoticAgents"]
#32 (antipsychotic* or anti nextpsychotic*):ti,ab,kw
#33 [mh "Antihypertensive Agents"]
#34 [mh"Antiparkinson Agents"]
#35 (antiparkinson or anti nextparkinson):ti,ab,kw
#36 [mh ^"Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors"]
#37[mh ^"Atomoxetine Hydrochloride"]
#38 [mh Bromocriptine]
#39 [mhBuspirone]
#40 [mh "Central Nervous System Stimulants"]
#41((CNS or central next nervous) next Stimulant*):ti,ab,kw
#42 [mh"Cholinesterase Inhibitors"]
#43 (Cholinesterase nextInhibitor*):ti,ab,kw
#44 [mh citalopram]
#45 [mhClomipramine]
#46 [mh Clonidine]
#47 [mh Fluoxetine]
#48[mh Fluvoxamine]
#49 [mh guanfacine]
#50 [mhHaloperidol]
#51 [mh Imipramine]
#52 [mhLevetiracetam]
#53 [mh "Lurasidone Hydrochloride"]
#54 [mhmemantine]
#55 [mh methylphenidate]
#56 [mhMilnacipran]
#57 (mood next stabili*er*):ti,ab,kw
#58(neurohormone* or neuro NEXT hormone*):ti,ab,kw
#59 (NMDA NEAR/1(antagonist* or receptor*)):ti,ab,kw
#60 [mh Nortriptyline]
#61[mh oxytocin]
#62 [mh Olanzapine]
#63 [mh "PaliperidonePalmitate"]
#64 [mh Paroxetine]
#65 [mh "QuetiapineFumarate"]
#66 [mh Risperidone]
#67 [mh Rivastigmine]
#68[mh Secretin]
#69 [mh "Serotonin and Noradrenaline ReuptakeInhibitors"]
#70 [mh "Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors"]
#71((Serotonin NEAR/3 Uptake NEXT Inhibitor*) or (Serotonin NEAR/3 reuptakeNEXT Inhibitor*) or (Serotonin NEAR/3 re NEXT uptake NEXTInhibitor*)):ti,ab,kw
#72 (SSRI or SSRIs):ti,ab,kw
#73 [mhSertraline]
#74 Tetracyclic*:ti,ab,kw
#75 [mhTopiramate]
#76 Tricyclic*:ti,ab,kw
#77 [mh "VenlafaxineHydrochloride"]
#78 [mh "Valproic Acid"]
#79 (amantadine oramisulpride or aripiprazole or atomoxetine or bromocriptine or buspirone orCentedrin or Concerta or Daytrana or citalopram or clomipramine or clozapineor divalproex or donepezil or Equasym or escitalopram or fluoxetine orfluvoxamine or gabapentin or guanfacine or Haloperidol or imipramine oriamotrigine or lamotrigine or levetiracetam or lurasidone or memantine orMetadate or Methylin or Methylphenidat* or milnacipran or mirtazapine ornortriptyline or olanzapine or oxytocin or paliperidone or paroxetine orPhenidylate or quetiapine or risperidone or Ritalin* or rivastigmine orsecretin or Sertraline or Tianeptine or Topiramate or Tsentedrin orvalproate or Venlafaxine or Ziprasidone):ti,ab,kw
#80 {or#13‐#79}
#81 #12 and #80 in Cochrane Reviews, Cochrane Protocols

LILACS (lilacs.bvsalud.org/en/)

(ti:((drug* OR pharma* OR medic*) AND (asd OR autis* OR asperg* OR rett* ORpervasive OR pdd*))) OR (( amantadine OR amisulpride OR aripiprazole ORatomoxetine OR bromocriptine OR buspirone OR centedrin OR concerta ORdaytrana OR citalopram OR clomipramine OR clozapine OR divalproex ORdonepezil OR equasym OR escitalopram OR fluoxetine OR fluvoxamine ORgabapentin OR guanfacine OR haloperidol OR imipramine OR iamotrigine ORlamotrigine OR levetiracetam OR lurasidone OR memantine OR metadate ORmethylin OR methylphenidat* OR milnacipran OR mirtazapine OR nortriptylineOR olanzapine OR oxytocin OR paliperidone OR paroxetine OR phenidylate ORquetiapine OR risperidone OR ritalin* OR rivastigmine OR secretin ORsertraline OR tianeptine OR topiramate OR tsentedrin OR valproate ORvenlafaxine OR ziprasidone) AND (asd OR autis* OR asperg* OR rett* ORpervasive OR pdd*)) AND ( db:("LILACS") ANDtype_of_study:("clinical_trials"))

Sociological Abstracts (Proquest)

(SU.EXACT("Medications") OR( Psychopharmacology OR Amantadine ORAnticonvulsants OR Antidepressive Agents OR Antipsychotic Agents ORAntihypertensive Agents OR Antiparkinson Agents OR Central Nervous SystemAgents OR Cholinesterase Inhibitors OR Citalopram OR Clomipramine ORClonidine OR Clozapine OR Fluoxetine OR Fluvoxamine OR Gabapentin ORGuanfacine OR Haloperidol OR Imipramine OR Memantine OR Nortriptyline ORParoxetine OR Risperidone OR Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors OR Sertraline) OR(pharmacotherap* OR Amantadine OR Aripiprazole OR Cholinesterase Inhibitor*OR Citalopram OR Citalopram OR Clomipramine OR Clonidine OR Clozapine ORDivalproex OR Donepezil OR Escitalopram OR Fluoxetine OR Fluvoxamine ORGabapentin OR Guanfacine OR Haloperidol OR Imipramine OR Lamotrigine ORMemantine OR Mirtazapine OR Nortriptyline OR Olanzapine OR Paliperidone ORParoxetine OR Quetiapine OR Risperidone OR Rivastigmine OR Serotonin ORSertraline OR Tetracyclic* OR Tianeptine OR Tricyclic* OR Venlafaxine ORZiprasidone) OR ((pharma* OR drug) NEAR/1 (intervention* OR therap* ORtreat*)) OR (psychopharmacol* OR psycho‐pharmacol*) OR (off label OR"off‐label") OR (novel NEAR/1 (drug* OR medication* OR pharma* ORtreatment*)) OR (Anticonvulsant* OR anti‐convulsant* OR antiepileptic* ORanti‐epileptic* OR antidepress* OR anti‐depress* OR antipsychotic* ORanti‐psychotic* OR antiparkinson OR anti‐parkinson OR acetylcholinesteraseOR acetyl‐cholinesterase) OR ("mood stabiliser" OR "mood stabilizer") OR(mood stabiliser) OR (mood stabilizer) OR (NMDA NEAR/1 (antagonist* ORreceptor*)) OR (NMDA NEAR/1 antagonist*) OR (SSRI OR SSRIs) ) AND((randomized controlled trial) OR (controlled clinical trial) OR (randomisedOR randomized) OR placebo* OR (drug therapy) OR ab(randomly) OR ab(trial) ORab(groups)) AND (su(child development disorders, pervasive) ORsu(Developmental Disabilities) OR (PDD OR PDDs OR PDD‐NOS OR ASD OR ASDs) OR(pervasive development* disorder*) OR (pervasive NEAR/3 child*) OR (autis*OR asperger* OR kanner* OR Rett*) OR (childhood schizophrenia))

ClinicalTrials.gov

Advanced search

53 Studies found for: Interventional Studies | Autism OR Autism SpectrumDisorder OR ASPERGER OR RETT OR PDD‐NOS OR PERVASIVE DEVELOPMENT DISORDER |amantadine OR amisulpride OR aripiprazole OR atomoxetine OR bromocriptine ORbuspirone OR Centedrin OR Concerta OR Daytrana OR citalopram OR clomipramineOR clozapine OR divalproex OR donepezil OR Equasym OR escitalopram ORfluoxetin

26 Studies found for: Interventional Studies | Autism OR Autism SpectrumDisorder OR ASPERGER OR RETT OR PDD‐NOS OR PERVASIVE DEVELOPMENT DISORDER |fluvoxamine OR gabapentin OR guanfacine OR Haloperidol OR imipramine ORiamotrigine OR lamotrigine OR levetiracetam OR lurasidone OR memantine ORMetadate OR Methylin OR Methylphenidate OR milnacipran OR mirtazapine ORnortriptyline

78 Studies found for: Interventional Studies | Autism OR Autism SpectrumDisorder OR ASPERGER OR RETT OR PDD‐NOS OR PERVASIVE DEVELOPMENT DISORDER |olanzapine OR oxytocin OR paliperidone OR paroxetine OR Phenidylate ORquetiapine OR risperidone OR Ritalin* OR rivastigmine OR secretin ORSertraline OR Tianeptine OR Topiramate OR Tsentedrin OR valproate ORVenlafaxine OR Ziprasidone

29 Studies found for: Interventional Studies | Autism OR Autism SpectrumDisorder OR ASPERGER OR RETT OR PDD‐NOS OR PERVASIVE DEVELOPMENT DISORDER |drug OR pharmacological OR medicine

WHO ICTRP

The WHO ICTRP site was affected by heavy search traffic in November 2020 dueto COVID, therefore an abbreviated form of the search was used.

BASIC SEARCH

autism AND amantadine OR autism AND amisulpride OR autism AND aripiprazole ORautism AND atomoxetine OR autism AND bromocriptine OR autism AND buspironeOR autism AND Centedrin OR autism AND Concerta OR autism AND Daytrana ORautism AND citalopram OR autism AND clomipramine OR autism AND clozapine ORautism AND divalproex OR autism AND donepezil OR autism AND Equasym ORautism AND escitalopram OR autism AND fluoxetin [49 RECORDS]

Autism AND fluvoxamine OR Autism AND gabapentin OR Autism AND guanfacine ORAutism AND Haloperidol OR Autism AND imipramine OR Autism AND iamotrigine ORAutism AND lamotrigine OR Autism AND levetiracetam OR Autism AND lurasidoneOR Autism AND memantine OR Autism AND Metadate OR Autism AND Methylin ORAutism AND Methylphenidate OR Autism AND milnacipran OR Autism ANDmirtazapine OR Autism AND nortriptyline [34 records]

Autism AND olanzapine OR Autism AND oxytocin OR Autism AND paliperidone ORAutism AND paroxetine OR Autism AND Phenidylate OR Autism AND quetiapine ORAutism AND risperidone OR Autism AND Ritalin OR Autism AND rivastigmine ORAutism AND secretin OR Autism AND Sertraline OR Autism AND Tianeptine ORAutism AND Topiramate OR Autism AND Tsentedrin OR Autism AND valproate ORAutism AND Venlafaxine OR Autism AND Ziprasidone [145 records]

Searching other resources

We contacted study authors when outcomes relevant to this review were eithernot reported fully or were reported using data not suitable for use insystematic reviews. Where contact details were no longer valid (such as anemail bouncing) we made further attempts to find up‐to‐date details of therelevant researchers. We tried to contact study authors at least twice torequest further information and noted if a reply had not been received. Werequested information regarding the following studies.

Study IDContact person
Asabadadi 2013Shahin Akhondzadeh
Belsito2001Karin Belsito
Chugani2016Diane Chugani
Ghaleiha 2013Shahin Akhondzadeh
Ghaleiha2015Shahin Akhondzadeh
Ghaleiha2016Shahin Akhondzadeh
Handen2000Benjamin Handen
Handen2005Benjamin Handen
Handen2008Benjamin Handen
Handen2011Benjamin Handen
Hollander2012Eric Hollander
Evdokia Anagnostou
Kern 2001aJanet Kern
Kern 2002Janet Kern
KIng 2001Bryan King
Mace 2001Nathan Blum
McDougle1996Christopher McDougle
Miral 2008Suha Miral
Mohammadi2013Shahin Akhondzadeh
Molloy2002Cynthia Molloy
Mouti 2014Molly O’Sullivan
Dinah Reddihough
Munesue2016Toshio Munesue
Nagaraj2006Ravishankar Nagaraj
Nikoo 2015Shahin Akhondzadeh
Noone 2014Rachel Noone
Novotny2004Eric Hollander
Posey 2005David Posey
Remington2001Gary Remington
Rezaei2010Shahin Akhondzadeh
Sandler1999Adrian Sandler
Wasserman2006Stacey Wasserman
Evdokia Anagnostou

Appendix 2. Original search strategy

Ovid MEDLINE search strategy

1 exp child development disorders, pervasive/

2 Developmental Disabilities/

3 pervasive development$ disorder$.tw.

4 (pervasive adj3 child$).tw.

5 (PDD or PDDs or PDD‐NOS or ASD or ASDs).tw.

6 autis$.tw.

7 asperger$.tw.

8 kanner$.tw.

9 childhood schizophrenia.tw.

10 Rett$.tw.

11 or/1‐10

12 Drug Therapy/

13 ((pharma$ or drug) adj1 (intervention$ or therap$ or treat$)).tw.

14 pharmacotherap$.tw.
15 Psychopharmacology/
16(psychopharmacol$ or psycho‐pharmacol$).tw.
17 “Off‐LabelUse”/
18 (off label or “off‐label”).tw.
19 (novel adj1 (drug$ ormedication$ or pharma$ or treatment$)).tw.
20 Amantadine/
21Amantadine.mp.
22 exp Anticonvulsants/
23 (Anticonvulsant$ oranti‐convulsant$).mp.
24 (antiepileptic$ oranti‐epileptic$).mp.
25 exp Antidepressive Agents/
26(antidepress$ or anti‐depress$).mp.
27 exp AntipsychoticAgents/
28 (antipsychotic$ or anti‐psychotic$).mp.
29 expAntihypertensive Agents/
30 exp Antiparkinson Agents/
31(antiparkinson or anti‐parkinson).mp.
32 Aripiprazole.mp.
33Central Nervous System Agents/
34 Cholinesterase Inhibitors/
35Cholinesterase Inhibitor$.mp.
36 (acetylcholinesterase oracetyl‐cholinesterase).mp.
37 citalopram/
38citalopram.mp.
39 Clomipramine/
40 Clomipramine.mp.
41Clonidine/
42 Clonidine.mp.
43 Clozapine/
44Clozapine.mp.
45 divalproex.mp.
46 donepezil.mp.
47Escitalopram.mp.
48 Fluoxetine/
49 Fluoxetine.mp.
50Fluvoxamine/
51 Fluvoxamine.mp.
52 gabapentin.mp.
53guanfacine/
54 guanfacine.mp.
55 Haloperidol/
56Haloperidol.mp.
57 Imipramine/
58 Imipramine.mp.
59lamotrigine.mp.
60 memantine/
61 memantine.mp.
62Mirtazapine.mp.
63 mood stabili#er$.mp.
64 (NMDA adj1(antagonist$ or receptor$)).mp.
65 Nortriptyline/
66Nortriptyline.mp.

67 Olanzapine.mp.
68 Paliperidone.mp.
69 Paroxetine/
70Paroxetine.mp.
71 Quetiapine.mp.
72 Risperidone/
73Risperidone.mp.
74 Rivastigmine.mp.
75 exp Serotonin UptakeInhibitors/
76 (SSRI or SSRIs).tw.
77 serotonin.mp.
78Sertraline/
79 Sertraline.mp.
80 Tetracyclic$.mp.
81Tianeptine.mp.
82 Tricyclic$.mp.
83 Venlafaxine.mp.
84Ziprasidone.mp.
85 or/12‐84
86 randomized controlledtrial.pt.
87 controlled clinical trial.pt.
88randomi#ed.ab.
89 placebo$.ab.
90 drug therapy.fs.
91randomly.ab.
92 trial.ab.
93 groups.ab.
94or/86‐93
95 exp animals/ not humans.sh.
96 94 not 95
97 11and 85 and 96

Appendix 3. Unused methods

We did not use the following methods for a range of reasons includinginsufficient details to conduct the planned subgroup analyses, thecharacteristics of included studies, and following advice from a statistician wedecided that a network meta‐analysis (NMA) was not feasible.

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of interventions

Had there been sufficient studies with direct comparisons of two or moreinterventions we would have primarily used these studies. However, themajority of studies compared one or more interventions to a placebo.

In the case of direct comparisons of two or more interventions, we wouldhave assessed the plausibility of transitivity, and made indirectcomparisons by including primary studies that compare relevantinterventions to either placebo treatment, wait‐list or no‐treatmentconditions, or an active common comparator. Transitivity requires theassumption that any patient that meets the inclusion criteria couldreasonably be randomised among any selection of eligibleinterventions.

Measures of treatment effect

Relative treatment effects

We would have presented results from the network meta‐analysis (NMA) assummary relative effect sizes (standardised mean difference (SMD) orodds ratio (OR)) for each possible pair of treatments.

Relative treatment ranking

We would have estimated the ranking probabilities for each treatment.This is the probability that each treatment is the first, second, third,etc. best in the network. We would have obtained a treatment hierarchyusing the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA;Chaimani 2013), and mean ranks.SUCRA can also be expressed as a percentage and interpreted as thepercentage of efficacy or safety of treatment that would be ranked firstwithout uncertainty.

Unit of analysis issues

Studies with multiple intervention groups were anticipated in this area. Hadwe performed an NMA, data from any relevant multi‐arm trial could have beenretained in their original form and entered into the model accordingly.

Dealing with missing data

Had continuous data been missing, we would have imputed data using a 'lastobservation carried forward' approach. Had cases been missing from the firstoutcome measure, we would have analysed only the available data.

Assessment of heterogeneity

We would have assessed the assumption of transitivity visually, by examiningthe distribution of potential effect modifiers extracted; for example,whether antidepressants were administered the same way in studies comparingantidepressants to placebo and in those comparing antidepressants toantipsychotics.

Assessment of reporting biases

Had we conducted an NMA, and had data been sufficient, we would have used thecomparison‐adjusted funnel plot technique (Chaimani 2013).

Data synthesis

Methods for indirect and mixed comparisons

Had direct and indirect comparisons appeared to be in agreement, and hadthe assessment of transitivity seemed reasonable, we would have combineddirect and indirect evidence to create mixed estimates of the relativeeffects of the different types of pharmacological interventions. Wewould have performed the NMA in STATA (Stata 2013), using the 'mvmeta' command (White 2012), and self‐programmedSTATA routines (Chaimani2013).

Assessment of statistical heterogeneity
Assumptions when estimating the heterogeneity

Had we conducted an NMA, we would have assumed a common estimate forheterogeneity variance across different comparisons.

Measures and tests for heterogeneity

The assessment of statistical heterogeneity in the NMA would havebeen based on the magnitude of the heterogeneity variance parameter(τ²) estimated from the NMA models. For dichotomous outcomes, themagnitude of the heterogeneity variance can then be compared withthe empirical distribution described by meta‐epidemiological studies(Savović 2012;Turner 2012).

Assessment of statistical inconsistency
Local approaches for evaluatinginconsistency

We would have used the loop‐specific approach to evaluate thepresence of inconsistency locally. This method separatelyevaluates consistency in each closed loop of the network, whereconsistency is defined as the difference between direct andindirect estimates for a specific comparison in that loop(inconsistency factor). Then, the magnitude of the inconsistencyfactors and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) can be used toinfer the presence of inconsistency in each loop. We would haveassumed a common heterogeneity estimate and presented theresults of this approach graphically in a forest plot using the'ifplot' command in STATA (Chaimani 2013).

Global approaches for evaluatinginconsistency

Had we conducted a NMA, we would have conducted the following:check the assumption of consistency in the entire network, byusing the ‘design‐by‐treatment’ model described by Higgins andcolleagues (Higgins2012). This method assesses different sources ofinconsistency that can occur when studies with different designs(e.g. two‐arm trials versus three‐arm trials) give differentresults as well as disagreement between direct and indirectevidence. Using this approach, we would have inferred thepresence of inconsistency from any source in the entire networkbased on a Chi² test. We would have performed thedesign‐by‐treatment model in STATA using the 'mvmeta'command.

Sensitivity analysis

Although we conducted some sensitivity analyses to assess whether thefindings of this review are robust to the decisions made in the process ofobtaining them, we could not perform some sensitivity analyses.Specifically, we could not conduct the following:

  • Reanalysis excluding studies according to study quality issues,including those with low sample size, high risk of bias, or highattrition and dropout rate

  • Reanalysis without imputing data for the missing participants

  • Reanalysis using a fixed‐effect model

Multiple treatment groups

If some studies had included more than one control group, each undergoingdifferent yet equally eligible forms of 'management as usual' we wouldhave combined the control groups to create a single pair‐wisecomparison. Had this strategy posed a problem for the investigation ofheterogeneity, we would have compared each group separately as part ofthe subgroup analyses.

Cluster‐randomised trials

We did not anticipate cluster‐randomised trials, in which allocation tothe intervention group has occurred by school, hospital or by communityas opposed to by individual, in this research area.

Had this review included cluster‐randomised trials we would haveconducted the following: in the event that we had identified relevantcluster‐randomised trials, it is likely that study authors would havecontrolled for a clustering effect when presenting their results. Whenthis information was unclear, we would contact study authors for furtherinformation. If the clustering effect was not controlled for, we wouldhave requested individual participant data to calculate an estimate ofthe intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC). If individualparticipant data were not available, we would have searched for externalestimates of the ICC from similar studies or available resources. If wecould not find an appropriate ICC from any available resources, we wouldhave sought statistical advice to obtain an estimate of the ICC and usedthis to reanalyse the trial data to obtain approximate correct analyses.We would then have entered these data into Review Manager Web software(RevMan Web 2021) to analyseeffect sizes and CIs using the generic inverse variance method (Higgins 2022b).

Data and analyses

Comparison 1. Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo.

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size
1.1 Irritability12973Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.90 [‐1.25, ‐0.55]
1.1.1 Aripiprazole vs placebo5492Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.90 [‐1.52, ‐0.29]
1.1.2 Risperidone vs placebo6333Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐1.11 [‐1.47, ‐0.76]
1.1.3 Lurasidone vs placebo1148Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.15 [‐0.50, 0.19]
1.2 Relapse256Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.30 [0.13, 0.68]
1.3 Improvement4470Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.08 [1.39, 3.12]
1.3.1 Risperidone vs placebo2167Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.37 [1.21, 9.43]
1.3.2 Ariprazole vs placebo2303Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.57 [1.09, 2.27]
1.4 Aggression1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
1.4.1 Risperidone vs placebo177Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.44 [‐0.89, 0.01]
1.5 Self‐injury130Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐1.43 [‐2.24, ‐0.61]
1.5.1 Risperidone vs placebo130Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐1.43 [‐2.24, ‐0.61]
1.6 Adverse effects:cardiovascular2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
1.6.1 Tachycardia2179Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)7.53 [1.40, 40.52]
1.7 Adverse effects:gastrointestinal11 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
1.7.1 Abdominal pain4400Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.70 [1.04, 7.07]
1.7.2 Constipation7596Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.36 [1.28, 4.34]
1.7.3 Diarrhoea5318Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.93 [0.46, 1.88]
1.7.4 Drooling2313Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)9.64 [1.29, 72.10]
1.7.5 Dyspepsia (indigestion)131Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.19 [0.14, 72.69]
1.7.6 Dry mouth2131Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.97 [0.75, 5.20]
1.7.7 Hypersalivation5449Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.15 [1.77, 9.71]
1.7.8 Nausea4531Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.47 [0.61, 3.56]
1.7.9 Stomach ache2166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.50 [0.19, 1.32]
1.7.10 Vomiting/nausea9920Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.79 [1.16, 2.74]
1.8 Adverse effects: immunesystem7 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
1.8.1 Cough3444Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.50 [0.67, 3.34]
1.8.2 Earache1100Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.52 [0.10, 2.71]
1.8.3 Flu‐like symptoms179Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.95 [0.38, 10.04]
1.8.4 Pyrexia5540Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.81 [0.85, 3.86]
1.8.5 Sore throat1100Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)5.20 [0.63, 42.96]
1.9 Adverse effects:metabolic (dichotomous)10 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
1.9.1 Decreased appetite4426Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.12 [0.84, 5.33]
1.9.2 Increased appetite8702Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.38 [1.69, 3.34]
1.9.3 Weight gain4470Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.30 [0.84, 6.30]
1.9.4 Thirst3382Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.51 [0.59, 3.87]
1.10 Adverse effects:metabolic (continuous)1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
1.10.1 Weight gain (kg)123Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.35 [0.73, 3.97]
1.11 Adverse effects:musculoskeletal2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
1.11.2 Dyskinesia1100Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.08 [0.55, 7.87]
1.11.3 Movement disorder182Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)5.50 [0.27, 111.14]
1.11.4 Rigidity1100Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)5.20 [0.63, 42.96]
1.12 Adverse effects:neurological11 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
1.12.1 Aggression4461Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.34 [0.12, 0.98]
1.12.2 Agitation/excitation297Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.46 [0.13, 1.62]
1.12.3 Apathy179Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)10.73 [0.61, 187.79]
1.12.4 Dizziness2139Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.19 [1.10, 16.00]
1.12.5 Drowsiness197Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.26 [0.95, 19.02]
1.12.6 Extrapyramidal disorder1216Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)7.83 [0.47, 130.01]
1.12.7 Fatigue8881Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.58 [1.68, 3.97]
1.12.8 Headache6597Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.17 [0.63, 2.15]
1.12.9 Hyperactivity3305Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.47 [0.13, 1.70]
1.12.10 Hypersomnia2282Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.67 [0.43, 16.52]
1.12.11 Insomnia7679Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.72 [0.50, 1.04]
1.12.12 Lethargy1216Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)6.58 [0.39, 110.35]
1.12.13 Presyncope1216Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.94 [0.04, 22.72]
1.12.14 Restlessness (akathisia)4531Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.99 [0.40, 2.43]
1.12.15 Sedation5366Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.98 [1.15, 7.73]
1.12.16 Somnolence9869Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.84 [3.18, 7.36]
1.12.17 Tremor5574Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)5.99 [1.87, 19.19]
1.13 Adverse effects:psychological4 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
1.13.1 Anxiety2139Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.34 [0.65, 2.76]
1.13.2 Depression279Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.86 [0.46, 32.60]
1.14 Adverse effects:respiratory8 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
1.14.1 Ear infection166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)5.62 [0.28, 112.84]
1.14.2 Epistaxis166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)5.62 [0.28, 112.84]
1.14.3 Nasal congestion2313Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.39 [0.52, 11.00]
1.14.4 Nasopharyngitis6702Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.26 [0.73, 2.17]
1.14.5 Pharyngolaryngeal pain1216Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.31 [0.06, 1.48]
1.14.6 Rhinitis179Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.68 [0.93, 7.71]
1.14.7 Upper respiratory tract infection6640Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.15 [1.08, 4.27]
1.15 Adverse effects:skin3 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
1.15.1 Bruise192Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.32 [0.03, 2.96]
1.15.2 Rash2228Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.79 [0.14, 4.62]
1.16 Adverse effects:urinary6 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
1.16.1 Enuresis6552Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.12 [0.67, 1.86]
1.17 Quality of life2 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
1.18Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up13 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
1.19 Subgroup analysis: age‐ irritability11938Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.87 [‐1.24, ‐0.50]
1.19.1 Adults only130Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.94 [‐1.70, ‐0.18]
1.19.2 Children only10908Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.87 [‐1.26, ‐0.47]
1.20 Subgroup analysis: age‐ aggression177Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐3.80 [‐7.61, 0.01]
1.20.1 Children only177Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐3.80 [‐7.61, 0.01]
1.21 Subgroup analysis:cognitive ability ‐ irritability10925Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.91 [‐1.29, ‐0.52]
1.21.1 Mixed IQ10925Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.91 [‐1.29, ‐0.52]

1.19. Analysis.

1.19

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 19: Subgroupanalysis: age ‐ irritability

1.20. Analysis.

1.20

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 20: Subgroupanalysis: age ‐ aggression

1.21. Analysis.

1.21

Comparison 1: Atypical antipsychotic vs placebo, Outcome 21: Subgroupanalysis: cognitive ability ‐ irritability

Comparison 2. Neurohormone versus placebo.

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size
2.1 Irritability8466Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.18 [‐0.37, ‐0.00]
2.1.1 Secretin369Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.02 [‐0.46, 0.49]
2.1.2 ACTH114Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.40 [‐0.66, 1.46]
2.1.3 Oxytocin3353Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.24 [‐0.45, ‐0.03]
2.1.4 Vasopressin130Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.29 [‐1.02, 0.43]
2.2 Self‐injury1100Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.35 [‐0.74, 0.05]
2.2.1 Endpoint150Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.37 [‐0.93, 0.19]
2.2.2 Three month follow‐up150Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.32 [‐0.88, 0.23]
2.3 Adverse effects:cardiovascular3 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
2.3.1 Cardiac disorders3456Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)1.45 [0.23, 9.05]
2.3.2 Vascular disorders1106Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)1.00 [0.06, 15.57]
2.3.3 Palpitations1290Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)2.96 [0.12, 72.04]
2.4 Adverse effects:gastrointestinal6 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
2.4.1 Abdominal pain or discomfort1290Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.42 [0.17, 1.07]
2.4.2 Constipation3361Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.89 [0.46, 1.73]
2.4.3 Diarrhoea5450Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.71 [0.39, 1.28]
2.4.4 Dry mouth2350Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.43 [0.06, 2.88]
2.4.5 Encopresis1290Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.74 [0.17, 3.25]
2.4.6 Gastrointestinal disorders2166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.25 [0.35, 4.49]
2.4.7 Nausea160Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.14 [0.01, 2.65]
2.4.8 Salivary hypersecretion2319Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.32 [0.03, 2.99]
2.4.9 Stomatitis2321Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.13 [0.02, 1.11]
2.4.10 Vomiting4409Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.45 [0.21, 0.97]
2.5 Adverse effects: immunesystem1 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
2.5.1 infections and infestations1106Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)2.00 [0.81, 4.93]
2.6 Adverse effects:metabolic (dichotomous)5 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
2.6.1 Decreased appetite4409Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.67 [0.37, 1.22]
2.6.2 Increased appetite2350Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.74 [0.96, 3.16]
2.6.3 Metabolism and nutrition disorders1106Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.50 [0.05, 5.35]
2.6.4 Thirst2319Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.42 [0.35, 5.67]
2.6.5 Weight gain1290Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.21 [0.52, 2.82]
2.6.6 Weight loss1290Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.97 [0.69, 5.63]
2.7 Adverse effects:metabolic (continuous)124Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.45 [‐1.76, 0.86]
2.7.1 Mean change in weight (kg)124Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.45 [‐1.76, 0.86]
2.8 Adverse effects:musculoskeletal3 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
2.8.1 Muscle spasms129Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.81 [0.12, 63.83]
2.8.2 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders1106Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.12, 72.02]
2.8.3 Rhabdomyolysis1220Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.47 [0.06, 35.64]
2.9 Adverse effects:neurological11 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
2.9.1 Absence seizures119Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.73 [0.12, 59.57]
2.9.2 Aggression3356Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.91 [0.57, 1.44]
2.9.3 Agitation3344Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.12 [0.65, 1.94]
2.9.4 Decreased attention3108Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.46 [0.24, 8.84]
2.9.5 Dizziness3369Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.65 [0.08, 5.27]
2.9.6 Dysphoria1290Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.33 [0.01, 8.00]
2.9.7 Excessive talking129Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.81 [0.12, 63.83]
2.9.8 Fatigue3120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.91 [0.50, 1.65]
2.9.9 Forgetfulness119Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.73 [0.12, 59.57]
2.9.10 Headache7689Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.58 [0.38, 0.89]
2.9.11 Insomnia6477Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.72 [0.50, 1.04]
2.9.12 Irritability6655Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.86 [0.68, 1.10]
2.9.13 Leg shaking119Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.73 [0.12, 59.57]
2.9.14 Nervous systems disorders1106Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.67 [0.42, 6.62]
2.9.15 Oppositional125Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.72 [0.14, 3.61]
2.9.16 Restlessness2319Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.64 [0.17, 15.47]
2.9.17 Seizure129Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.81 [0.12, 63.83]
2.9.18 Sedation2350Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.69 [0.87, 3.27]
2.9.19 Somnolence289Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.81 [0.44, 32.96]
2.9.20 Tics2309Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.63 [0.16, 2.38]
2.10 Adverse effects:psychological6 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
2.10.1 Anxiety297Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.05 [0.50, 18.55]
2.10.2 Depression4427Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.89 [0.29, 2.68]
2.10.3 Panic attack119Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.30 [0.01, 6.62]
2.10.4 Psychiatric1106Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.00 [0.46, 34.61]
2.10.5 Self‐injury2118Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.00 [0.11, 9.35]
2.11 Adverse effects:respiratory10 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
2.11.1 Cold symptoms273Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.65 [0.26, 1.65]
2.11.2 Cough5430Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.35 [0.81, 2.25]
2.11.3 Croup125Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.23 [0.14, 72.46]
2.11.4 Epistaxis3379Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.21 [0.63, 2.31]
2.11.5 Nasal congestion5468Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.79 [0.59, 1.05]
2.11.6 Nasal irritation/runny nose140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.55 [0.10, 2.92]
2.11.7 Nasopharyngitis129Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.93 [0.15, 5.76]
2.11.8 Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders2147Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.49 [0.09, 2.56]
2.11.9 Sinusitis129Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.47 [0.05, 4.60]
2.11.10 Upper respiratory tract infection2273Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.10 [0.35, 3.47]
2.12 Adverse effects:skin5 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
2.12.1 General/systemic disorders and administration siteconditions1106Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.00 [0.46, 34.61]
2.12.2 Skin rash4416Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.12 [0.63, 1.97]
2.12.3 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders1106Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)5.00 [0.25, 101.73]
2.13 Adverse effects:urinary2 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
2.13.1 Renal and urinary disorders1106Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.12, 72.02]
2.13.2 Enuresis1290Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)0.18 [0.06, 0.62]
2.14 Adverse effects:other3 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
2.14.1 Injury, poisoning, and procedural complications1106Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.12, 72.02]
2.14.2 Investigations1106Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)0.50 [0.05, 5.35]
2.14.3 Lymphadenopathy160Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)0.33 [0.01, 7.87]
2.14.4 Neoplasms: benign, malignant, and unspecified1106Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.12, 72.02]
2.14.5 Troponin I increased1220Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)1.47 [0.06, 35.64]
2.15 Quality of life4191Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.70 [‐0.12, 1.53]
2.15.1 Oxytocin237Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.24 [‐0.74, 1.21]
2.15.2 Vasopressin130Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.55 [‐0.19, 1.29]
2.15.3 Balovaptan1124Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.54 [1.14, 1.95]
2.16Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up141312Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.10 [0.87, 1.40]
2.17 Subgroup analyses:gender ‐ irritability10654Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.12 [‐0.28, 0.03]
2.17.1 Male and female participants8563Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.14 [‐0.30, 0.03]
2.17.2 Male participants only291Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.11 [‐0.76, 0.54]

2.17. Analysis.

2.17

Comparison 2: Neurohormone versus placebo, Outcome 17: Subgroup analyses:gender ‐ irritability

Comparison 3. ADHD‐related medications vs placebo.

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size
3.1 Irritability10400Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.20 [‐0.40, ‐0.01]
3.1.1 Irritability: non‐stimulant ADHD‐related drugs8342Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.16 [‐0.38, 0.05]
3.1.2 Irritability: stimulant ADHD‐related drugs258Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.45 [‐0.97, 0.08]
3.2 Self‐injury116Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.62 [‐1.63, 0.39]
3.3 Adverse effects:cardiovascular3114Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.64 [0.16, 2.54]
3.3.1 Bradycardia166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.36 [0.09, 1.37]
3.3.2 Tachycardia248Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.52 [0.44, 27.85]
3.4 Adverse effects:gastrointestinal9 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
3.4.1 Constipation5220Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.68 [1.61, 4.45]
3.4.2 Diarrhoea6426Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.81 [0.46, 1.40]
3.4.3 Dry mouth3102Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)5.92 [1.86, 18.81]
3.4.4 Nausea5239Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.08 [1.51, 6.29]
3.4.5 Stomachache286Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.58 [1.10, 6.06]
3.4.6 Stomach or abdominal discomfort6504Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.26 [1.41, 3.63]
3.4.7 Vomiting4347Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.35 [0.81, 2.25]
3.5 Adverse effects: immunesystem4 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
3.5.1 Fever3183Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.27 [0.06, 1.27]
3.5.2 Influenza197Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)7.14 [0.38, 134.69]
3.5.3 Myalgia2115Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.72 [0.56, 39.55]
3.5.4 Weakness162Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.20 [0.35, 29.10]
3.6 Adverse effects:metabolic (dichotomous)9 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
3.6.1 Decreased appetite9511Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.15 [1.55, 2.99]
3.6.2 Increased appetite2122Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.67 [0.14, 3.34]
3.6.3 Increased energy162Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.60 [0.65, 3.95]
3.7 Adverse effects:neurological (dichotomous)9 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
3.7.1 Aggression5365Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.95 [0.58, 1.53]
3.7.2 Agitation1128Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.95 [0.56, 1.60]
3.7.3 Dizziness3175Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.17 [0.63, 7.53]
3.7.4 Drowsiness4186Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.42 [1.54, 7.59]
3.7.5 Emotional / tearful2128Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)6.32 [2.47, 16.18]
3.7.6 Fatigue4235Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.73 [1.98, 7.03]
3.7.7 Headache8383Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.63 [1.09, 2.44]
3.7.8 Hyperactivity2115Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.68 [0.06, 7.20]
3.7.9 Increased motor activity166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.89 [0.48, 7.47]
3.7.10 Insomnia7411Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.58 [1.01, 2.47]
3.7.11 Irritability6336Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.61 [1.25, 2.07]
3.7.12 Motor tics3118Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.33 [0.51, 10.69]
3.7.13 Nightmares2122Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.48 [0.38, 5.75]
3.7.14 Repetitive behaviour2128Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.59 [0.74, 3.39]
3.7.15 Restless276Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.52 [0.06, 40.44]
3.7.16 Sleep disturbance284Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.12 [0.54, 2.31]
3.7.17 Talking excessively162Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.24 [0.06, 1.01]
3.7.18 Waking162Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.60 [0.29, 8.92]
3.7.19 Tremor116Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.14, 64.26]
3.8 Adverse effects:neurological (continuous)1 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
3.8.1 Drowsiness18Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.80 [0.55, 9.05]
3.8.2 Decreased activity18Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.00 [‐2.66, 6.66]
3.9 Adverse effects:psychological (dichotomous)5 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
3.9.1 Anxiety5252Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.39 [0.74, 2.62]
3.9.2 Depression3152Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.45 [1.12, 5.36]
3.9.3 Mood change140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)13.00 [0.78, 216.39]
3.9.4 Self‐injury3188Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.67 [0.78, 3.58]
3.9.5 Silly behaviour162Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.64 [0.17, 2.45]
3.9.6 Social withdrawal2126Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.28 [0.39, 13.37]
3.10 Adverse effects:respiratory2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
3.10.1 Cough2122Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.81 [0.26, 2.46]
3.11 Adverse effects:skin3 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
3.11.1 Rash3102Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.21 [0.79, 6.16]
3.11.2 Skin picking162Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.36 [0.04, 3.23]
3.12 Adverse effects:urinary2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
3.12.1 Enuresis2122Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.81 [0.19, 3.55]
3.13 Quality of life154Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.21 [‐0.33, 0.75]
3.14Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up9380Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.91 [0.50, 1.69]
3.14.1 ADHD‐related drugs: loss to follow‐up9380Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.91 [0.50, 1.69]
3.15 Subgroup analyses:gender ‐ irritability9291Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.25 [‐0.48, ‐0.01]
3.15.1 Male participants only217Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.52 [‐1.50, 0.47]
3.15.2 Male and female participants7274Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.23 [‐0.47, 0.01]
3.16 Subgroup analyses: age‐ irritability9293Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.25 [‐0.48, ‐0.02]
3.16.1 Adults and children19Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.48 [‐1.83, 0.87]
3.16.2 Children only8284Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.25 [‐0.48, ‐0.01]

3.15. Analysis.

3.15

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications vs placebo, Outcome 15: Subgroupanalyses: gender ‐ irritability

3.16. Analysis.

3.16

Comparison 3: ADHD‐related medications vs placebo, Outcome 16: Subgroupanalyses: age ‐ irritability

Comparison 4. Antidepressant vs placebo.

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size
4.1 Irritability3267Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.06 [‐0.30, 0.18]
4.1.1 SSRIs2255Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.05 [‐0.29, 0.20]
4.1.2 Dibenzoxazepine112Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.23 [‐1.37, 0.91]
4.2 Adverse effects:cardiovascular2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
4.2.1 Flushing112Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.00 [0.24, 16.61]
4.2.2 Tachycardia235Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.67 [0.31, 23.25]
4.3 Adverse effects:gastrointestinal10 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
4.3.1 Constipation270Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.95 [0.09, 10.03]
4.3.2 Diarrhoea4409Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.94 [0.33, 2.64]
4.3.3 Dry mouth112Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.00 [0.24, 16.61]
4.3.4 Gastrointestinal disturbance3341Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.41 [0.97, 2.05]
4.3.5 Nausea/abdominal pain5251Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.67 [0.85, 3.27]
4.3.6 Vomiting5400Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.49 [0.76, 2.92]
4.4 Adverse effect: immunesystem3 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
4.4.1 Allergies1149Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.42 [0.70, 2.88]
4.4.2 Cold, flu or other systemic infection1149Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.24 [0.82, 1.87]
4.4.3 Infections3472Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.15 [0.85, 1.56]
4.5 Adverse effects:metabolic7 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
4.5.1 Appetite disturbance1165Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.55 [0.14, 2.23]
4.5.2 Decreased appetite4242Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.35 [0.68, 2.69]
4.5.3 Decreased energy1149Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.94 [1.13, 3.33]
4.5.4 Increased appetite1149Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.91 [0.35, 2.38]
4.5.5 Weight gain293Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.47 [0.08, 27.39]
4.6 Adverse effect:musculoskeletal2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
4.6.1 Motor disturbance1165Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.31 [0.03, 2.88]
4.6.2 Neck pain137Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.09 [0.09, 48.04]
4.7 Adverse effects:neurological10 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
4.7.1 Activation syndrome1158Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.80 [0.31, 2.04]
4.7.2 Agitation2197Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.01 [0.59, 1.75]
4.7.3 Aggression or hostility3225Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.07 [0.59, 1.95]
4.7.4 Anger/irritability2167Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.31 [0.75, 2.29]
4.7.5 Autonomic disturbance1165Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.15 [0.32, 4.12]
4.7.6 CNS disturbance1165Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.75 [0.33, 1.72]
4.7.7 Decreased attention2207Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.16 [1.07, 16.11]
4.7.8 Diaphoresis (sweating)136Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.13, 69.09]
4.7.9 Drowsiness/fatigue4282Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.25 [0.65, 2.41]
4.7.10 Headache3244Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.53 [0.77, 3.07]
4.7.11 Hyperactivity2207Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.93 [0.47, 7.82]
4.7.12 Increased speech1149Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.08 [0.66, 6.62]
4.7.13 Insomnia7449Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.19 [0.87, 1.63]
4.7.14 Mood disturbance1165Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.32 [0.75, 2.31]
4.7.15 Mood lability2167Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.69 [0.27, 1.74]
4.7.16 Numbness137Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.09 [0.09, 48.04]
4.7.17 Restlessness1149Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.93 [0.82, 4.57]
4.7.18 Sedation3117Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.91 [0.77, 4.72]
4.7.19 Sleep disturbance2223Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.24 [0.31, 4.92]
4.7.20 Tremor385Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.56 [0.57, 11.60]
4.7.21 Twitching112Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)7.00 [0.44, 111.91]
4.7.22 Vertigo137Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.09 [0.09, 48.04]
4.8 Adverse effects:psychological4 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
4.8.1 Anorexia139Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.58 [0.53, 4.74]
4.8.2 Anxiety/nervousness2188Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.66 [0.37, 1.18]
4.8.3 Depression137Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.36 [0.14, 13.72]
4.8.4 Impulsive/intrusive behaviour1149Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.92 [1.11, 7.68]
4.8.5 Self‐injury118Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.25 [0.09, 17.02]
4.8.6 Silliness1149Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.94 [0.40, 2.17]
4.8.7 Stereotypy1149Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)8.33 [1.07, 64.95]
4.8.8 Suicidal ideation137Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.09 [0.09, 48.04]
4.8.9 Unstable mood1149Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.81 [0.32, 2.06]
4.8.10 Verbal aggression137Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.23 [0.01, 5.34]
4.8.11 Vivid or bad dreams137Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.87 [0.27, 87.94]
4.9 Adverse effects:respiratory5 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
4.9.1 Cough118Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.67 [0.52, 5.39]
4.9.2 Respiratory2314Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.19 [0.86, 5.55]
4.9.3 Upper respiratory infection (URI)2216Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.98 [0.73, 1.31]
4.10 Adverse effects:skin3 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
4.10.1 Rash or skin irritation3332Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.00 [0.36, 2.78]
4.11 Adverse effects:urinary3 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
4.11.1 Enuresis118Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.12 [0.81, 12.06]
4.11.2 Polyuria137Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.09 [0.09, 48.04]
4.11.3 Urinary tract infection (UTI)139Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.60 [0.21, 1.73]
4.12 Adverse effects:other1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
4.12.1 Salty taste137Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.09 [0.09, 48.04]
4.12.2 Trembling (mild)137Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.09 [0.09, 48.04]
4.13Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up7564Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.22 [0.93, 1.59]
4.14 Subgroup analyses:gender ‐ irritability3 Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
4.14.1 Male and female participants2255Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.44 [‐2.79, 1.90]
4.14.2 Male participants only112Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐1.50 [‐8.37, 5.37]
4.15 Serious adverseevents276Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.98 [0.11, 8.85]
4.15.1 Hospitalisation for dehydration158Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.45 [0.10, 57.85]
4.15.2 Severe diarrhoea118Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.41 [0.02, 8.84]

4.14. Analysis.

4.14

Comparison 4: Antidepressant vs placebo, Outcome 14: Subgroup analyses:gender ‐ irritability

4.15. Analysis.

4.15

Comparison 4: Antidepressant vs placebo, Outcome 15: Serious adverseevents

Comparison 5. Atypical vs typical antipsychotics.

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size
5.1 Irritability130Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.23 [‐0.95, 0.48]
5.2 Adverse effects:cardiovascular (tachycardia)112Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.33 [0.02, 6.86]
5.3 Adverse effects:gastrointestinal2 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
5.3.1 Constipation130Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)1.00 [0.24, 4.18]
5.3.2 Dry mouth112Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)1.00 [0.08, 12.56]
5.3.3 Nausea/vomiting112Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)5.00 [0.29, 86.43]
5.4 Adverse effects:metabolic (dichotomous)1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
5.4.1 Weight gain112Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.18 [0.76, 1.83]
5.4.2 Weight loss112Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.33 [0.02, 6.86]
5.5 Adverse effects:metabolic (continuous)2 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
5.5.1 Weight gain (kg)242Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.26 [‐1.54, 2.06]
5.6 Adverse effects:neurological2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
5.6.1 Ataxia112Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.33 [0.02, 6.86]
5.6.2 Blunted effect130Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.11 [0.01, 1.90]
5.6.3 Insomnia112Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.15, 61.74]
5.6.4 Rigidity112Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.33 [0.02, 6.86]
5.6.5 Sedation112Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.50 [0.76, 8.19]
5.7 Adverse effects:respiratory1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
5.7.1 Respiratory tract infection130Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.88 [0.43, 1.80]
5.8 Adverse effects:skin1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
5.8.1 Rash112Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.33 [0.02, 6.86]
5.9 Adverse effects:urinary2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
5.9.1 Enuresis242Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.00 [0.29, 3.48]
5.10Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up242Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)5.00 [0.26, 96.13]

Comparison 6. Atypical vs atypical antipsychotics.

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size
6.1 Irritability2110Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.40 [0.02, 0.78]
6.2 Adverse effects:cardiovascular2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
6.2.1 Tachycardia2120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.07 [0.16, 7.04]
6.3 Adverse effects:gastrointestinal2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
6.3.1 Abdominal pain159Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.10 [0.34, 28.15]
6.3.2 Constipation2120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.30 [0.34, 4.91]
6.3.3 Diarrhoea159Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.10 [0.13, 73.14]
6.3.4 Drooling2120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.72 [0.38, 1.37]
6.3.5 Dry mouth159Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)5.17 [0.26, 103.21]
6.3.6 Nausea159Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.52 [0.05, 5.40]
6.3.7 Vomiting2120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.61 [0.20, 12.65]
6.4 Adverse effects:metabolic2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
6.4.1 Decreased appetite2120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.67 [0.56, 4.96]
6.4.2 Increased appetite2120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.61 [0.15, 2.47]
6.4.3 Weight gain161Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.37 [0.19, 0.70]
6.5 Adverse effects:musculoskeletal1 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
6.5.1 Muscle rigidity161Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)2.91 [0.12, 68.66]
6.6 Adverse effects:neurological2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
6.6.1 Agitation161Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.84 [0.24, 96.89]
6.6.2 Difficulty sleeping161Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)6.78 [0.37, 125.95]
6.6.3 Dizziness2120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.73 [0.10, 5.39]
6.6.4 Fatigue159Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.03 [0.29, 3.75]
6.6.5 Headache161Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.97 [0.06, 14.78]
6.6.6 Nausea161Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.91 [0.12, 68.66]
6.6.7 Nervousness159Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.07 [0.20, 21.60]
6.6.8 Restlessness2120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.44 [0.07, 2.88]
6.6.9 Tremor159Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.55 [0.28, 8.62]
6.6.10 Sedation161Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.39 [0.76, 15.02]
6.6.11 Somnolence161Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)8.72 [0.49, 155.27]
6.7 Adverse effects:psychological1 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
6.7.1 Depression159Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)0.34 [0.01, 8.13]
6.8 Adverse effects:skin1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
6.8.1 Rash159Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.03 [0.07, 15.77]
6.9 Adverse effects:urinary2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
6.9.1 Enuresis2120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.37 [0.04, 53.78]
6.10Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only

Comparison 7. Atypical antipsychotic vs antidementia.

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size
7.1 Irritability130Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.46 [‐0.27, 1.19]
7.2 Adverse effects:neurological1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
7.2.1 Somnolence130Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.30 [0.86, 1.96]
7.3 Tolerability134Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.38 [0.04, 3.25]

Comparison 8. Atypical antipsychotic vs antiparkinsonian.

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size
8.1 Adverse effects:gastrointestinal1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
8.1.1 Diarrhoea118Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.14, 65.16]
8.1.2 Increased salivation118Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.14, 65.16]
8.1.3 Vomiting118Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.20 [0.01, 3.66]
8.2 Adverse effects:metabolic1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
8.2.1 Decreased appetite118Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.09 [0.01, 1.44]
8.3 Adverse effects:neurological1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
8.3.1 Agitation/excitement118Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.50 [0.32, 6.94]
8.3.2 Increased hyperactivity118Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)7.00 [0.41, 118.69]
8.3.3 Insomnia118Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.00 [0.48, 8.31]
8.3.4 Sedation118Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.14 [0.01, 2.42]

Comparison 9. Anticonvulsant vs placebo.

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size
9.1 Irritability397Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.67 [‐1.93, 0.59]
9.2 Aggression257Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.18 [‐0.71, 0.35]
9.3 Adverse effects:gastrointestinal2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
9.3.1 Abdominal pain130Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.75 [0.38, 8.15]
9.3.2 Constipation130Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.58 [0.11, 3.00]
9.3.3 Diarrhoea130Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.50 [0.44, 27.75]
9.3.4 Nausea270Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.32 [0.80, 6.72]
9.3.5 Vomiting130Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.50 [0.44, 27.75]
9.4 Adverse effects: immunesystem1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
9.4.1 Chills130Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.62 [0.31, 22.46]
9.4.2 Fever130Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.50 [0.44, 27.75]
9.5 Adverse effects:metabolic (dichotomous)4 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
9.5.1 Decreased appetite260Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)5.45 [1.02, 29.23]
9.5.2 Increased appetite270Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.99 [0.05, 18.14]
9.5.3 Weight gain377Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.48 [0.61, 3.62]
9.5.4 Weight loss120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.14, 65.90]
9.6 Adverse effects:metabolic (continuous)1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
9.6.1 Weight gain (kg)111Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.48 [‐0.77, 1.74]
9.7 Adverse Effects:neurological5 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
9.7.1 Aggression248Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.29 [0.37, 14.12]
9.7.2 Agitation247Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.20 [0.21, 6.70]
9.7.3 Dizziness140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.00 [0.49, 32.72]
9.7.4 Drowsiness130Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.88 [0.21, 3.66]
9.7.5 Echolalia128Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.00 [0.07, 14.45]
9.7.6 Headache127Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.12 [0.09, 47.68]
9.7.7 Hyperactivity120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.14, 65.90]
9.7.8 Hypersomnolence127Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.10 [0.01, 1.78]
9.7.9 Insomnia4115Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.69 [0.44, 6.56]
9.7.10 Lethargy130Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)6.18 [0.35, 110.11]
9.7.11 Paraesthesia140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)5.00 [0.64, 39.06]
9.7.12 Sedation140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.25 [0.03, 2.05]
9.7.13 Self‐injury120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.14, 65.90]
9.7.14 Somnolence140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)7.00 [0.95, 51.80]
9.8 Adverse effects:psychological1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
9.8.5 Impulsivity120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.14, 65.90]
9.9 Adverse effects:skin257Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.63 [0.89, 24.13]
9.9.1 Rash257Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.63 [0.89, 24.13]
9.10 Adverse effects:urinary1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
9.10.1 Enuresis120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.33 [0.02, 7.32]
9.11Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up6167Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.98 [0.84, 4.66]

Comparison 10. Antidepressant vs antidepressant.

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size
10.1 Adverse effects:cardiovascular1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
10.1.1 Tachycardia136Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.60 [0.13, 50.25]
10.2 Adverse effects:gastrointestinal1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
10.2.1 Constipation136Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.50 [0.35, 6.35]
10.2.2 Dry mouth136Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.50 [0.12, 2.12]
10.2.3 Nausea/abdominal pain136Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.00 [0.10, 9.96]
10.2.4 Vomiting136Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.56 [0.07, 35.67]

Comparison 11. Antidementia versus placebo.

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size
11.1 Irritability(continuous)3130Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.40 [‐1.31, 0.52]
11.2 Irritability(dichotomous)2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
11.2.1 Partial response (≥ 25% reduction in irritabilityscore)140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.38 [0.97, 1.97]
11.2.2 Complete response (≥ 50% reduction in irritabilityscore)140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.60 [0.98, 2.61]
11.2.3 Irritability1317Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.51 [0.16, 1.66]
11.3 Aggression150Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.54 [‐0.05, 1.13]
11.4 Adverse effects:gastrointestinal6 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
11.4.1 Abdominal pain283Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.97 [0.21, 4.50]
11.4.2 Constipation283Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.33 [0.04, 3.01]
11.4.3 Diarrhoea143Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.87 [0.12, 66.75]
11.4.4 Dry mouth140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.14 [0.01, 2.60]
11.4.5 Gastroenteritis1317Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)7.13 [0.37, 136.97]
11.4.6 Nausea140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.00 [0.41, 9.71]
11.4.7 Vomiting2438Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.54 [0.18, 1.67]
11.5 Adverse events:metabolic4 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
11.5.1 Decreased appetite4163Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)0.99 [0.24, 4.07]
11.5.2 Increased appetite4163Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)1.14 [0.54, 2.43]
11.6 Adverse effects:musculoskeletal pain1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
11.7 Adverse effects:neurological7 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
11.7.1 Daytime drowsiness280Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)0.85 [0.41, 1.77]
11.7.2 Dizziness283Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)0.99 [0.27, 3.61]
11.7.3 Fatigue283Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)1.39 [0.48, 4.02]
11.7.4 Headache2438Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)0.85 [0.26, 2.75]
11.7.5 Hyperactivity2438Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)0.35 [0.07, 1.73]
11.7.6 Insomnia4227Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)0.98 [0.37, 2.59]
11.7.7 Morning drowsiness140Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)1.38 [0.71, 2.68]
11.7.8 Sedation283Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)1.34 [0.30, 5.98]
11.7.9 Tremor140Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.13, 69.52]
11.7.10 Decreased energy123Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)0.37 [0.09, 1.52]
11.8 Adverse events:other3 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
11.8.1 Pyrexia2438Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.68 [0.19, 2.41]
11.8.2 Increased infections123Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.69 [0.35, 1.35]
11.9 Adverse events:psychological4 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
11.9.1 Agitation2438Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.89 [0.45, 8.05]
11.9.2 Aggression1121Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.69 [0.42, 6.78]
11.9.3 Anxiety3478Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.41 [0.03, 5.61]
11.9.4 Irritability3461Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.87 [0.43, 1.76]
11.9.5 Mood changes123Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.68 [0.95, 2.96]
11.9.6 Emotional lability123Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.83 [0.19, 17.51]
11.9.7 Anger123Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.31 [0.01, 6.85]
11.9.8 Self‐injury123Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.77 [0.12, 61.65]
11.10 Adverse events:respiratory2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
11.10.1 Cough2438Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.83 [0.63, 5.34]
11.10.2 Nasopharyngitis2438Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.61 [0.08, 4.35]
11.10.3 Upper respiratory tract infection1317Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)7.13 [0.37, 136.97]
11.11 Adverse effects:skin2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
11.11.1 Rash140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.00 [0.20, 20.33]
11.11.2 Skin irritation123Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.46 [0.15, 1.40]
11.12 Serious adverseevents1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
11.12.1 Affective disorder1121Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.05 [0.13, 73.40]
11.13Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up5553Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.95 [0.83, 1.09]
11.14 Subgroup analysis: age‐ irritability (continuous)4140Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.45 [‐1.24, 0.33]
11.14.1 Children only3130Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.40 [‐1.31, 0.52]
11.14.2 Adults only110Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.75 [‐2.06, 0.56]

11.8. Analysis.

11.8

Comparison 11: Antidementia versus placebo, Outcome 8: Adverse events:other

11.12. Analysis.

11.12

Comparison 11: Antidementia versus placebo, Outcome 12: Serious adverseevents

11.14. Analysis.

11.14

Comparison 11: Antidementia versus placebo, Outcome 14: Subgroup analysis:age ‐ irritability (continuous)

Comparison 12. Antiparkinsonian vs placebo.

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size
12.1 Irritability140Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.75 [‐1.39, ‐0.11]
12.2 Adverse effects:gastrointestinal1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
12.2.1 Abdominal pain140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.33 [0.01, 7.72]
12.2.2 Constipation140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.20 [0.01, 3.92]
12.2.3 Drooling140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.33 [0.01, 7.72]
12.3 Adverse effects:metabolic1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
12.3.1 Decreased appetite140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.11 [0.01, 1.94]
12.3.2 Increased appetite140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.69, 13.12]
12.4 Adverse effects:neurological2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
12.4.1 Daytime drowsiness140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.13, 69.52]
12.4.2 Insomnia279Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.26 [0.55, 9.26]
12.4.3 Nervousness140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.33 [0.04, 2.94]
12.4.4 Somnolence139Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)5.25 [0.27, 102.74]
12.4.5 Tremor140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.13, 69.52]
12.5 Adverse effects:psychological1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
12.5.2 Adverse behaviour139Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.53 [0.11, 2.55]
12.6Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.33 [0.01, 7.72]

Comparison 13. Anxiolytic versus placebo.

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size
13.1 Irritabilty(continuous)134Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.20 [‐0.88, 0.47]
13.1.1 Anxiolytics vs placebo134Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.20 [‐0.88, 0.47]
13.2 Irritability(dichotomous)1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
13.2.1 Response rate (> 25% decrease in irritabilityscore)134Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.83 [1.04, 3.22]
13.3 Adverse effects:gastrointestinal1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
13.3.1 Constipation1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.97 [0.35, 2.67]
13.3.2 Diarrhoea1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.04 [0.68, 1.61]
13.3.3 Vomiting1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.02 [0.68, 1.53]
13.4 Adverse effects: immuneSystem1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
13.4.1 Nasopharyngitis1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.87 [0.33, 2.28]
13.4.2 Pyrexia1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.00 [0.73, 1.37]
13.4.3 Upper respiratory tract infection1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.40 [0.18, 0.91]
13.5 Adverse effects:metabolic2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
13.5.1 Decreased appetite1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.11 [0.62, 1.99]
13.5.2 Increased appetite2200Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.50 [0.93, 2.42]
13.6 Adverse effects:neurological1 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
13.6.1 Hyperactivity1166Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)0.79 [0.47, 1.30]
13.6.2 Increased aggression1166Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)0.91 [0.60, 1.38]
13.6.3 Insomnia1166Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)1.26 [0.90, 1.78]
13.6.4 Irritability1166Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)0.84 [0.48, 1.47]
13.6.5 Somnolence1166Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)1.70 [0.58, 4.97]
13.7 Adverse effects:psychological1 Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
13.7.1 Anxiety1166Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)2.76 [0.48, 15.83]
13.8 Adverse effects:respiratory system1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
13.8.1 Cough1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.90 [0.64, 1.26]
13.8.2 Epistaxis1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.52 [0.19, 1.43]
13.8.3 Nasal congestion1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.80 [0.36, 1.77]
13.8.4 Rhinorrhoea1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.12 [0.66, 1.88]
13.8.5 Sinus congestion1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.90 [0.55, 1.47]
13.9 Adverse effects:skin1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
13.9.1 Rash1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.19 [0.52, 2.73]
13.10 Other adverseeffects1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
13.10.1 Ear infection1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.10 [0.50, 2.41]
13.10.2 Ear and labyrinth disorders1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.92 [0.51, 16.72]
13.10.3 Eye disorders1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.11 [0.72, 13.44]
13.10.4 Renal and urinary disorders1166Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.97 [0.41, 2.30]
13.11Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up2206Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.88 [0.45, 1.73]

13.10. Analysis.

13.10

Comparison 13: Anxiolytic versus placebo, Outcome 10: Other adverseeffects

Comparison 14. Experimental versus placebo.

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size
14.1 Irritability281205Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.30 [‐0.53, ‐0.07]
14.1.1 Arbaclofen1130Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.33 [‐0.68, 0.02]
14.1.2 Baclofen158Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.88 [0.34, 1.42]
14.1.3 Bumetanide2104Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.74 [‐1.84, 0.37]
14.1.4 Celecoxib140Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐1.27 [‐1.95, ‐0.58]
14.1.5 Dextromethorphan18Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.13 [‐1.52, 1.26]
14.1.6 Dextromethorphan/quinidine114Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.37 [‐1.43, 0.69]
14.1.7 Folinic acid155Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.63 [0.08, 1.17]
14.1.8 Lofexedine112Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.50 [‐1.66, 0.66]
14.1.9 L‐carnosine142Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.20 [‐0.41, 0.80]
14.1.10 Minocycline146Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.89 [0.28, 1.50]
14.1.11 N‐acetylcysteine4125Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.61 [‐1.16, ‐0.06]
14.1.12 Naltrexone140Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.18 [‐0.80, 0.44]
14.1.13 Nicotine18Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.72 [‐2.19, 0.75]
14.1.14 Pioglitazone140Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.77 [‐1.42, ‐0.13]
14.1.15 Palmitoylethanolamide162Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.49 [‐1.00, 0.01]
14.1.16 Prednisolone (steroid)126Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.19 [‐0.96, 0.58]
14.1.17 Pregnenolone159Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.55 [‐1.07, ‐0.03]
14.1.18 Propentofylline148Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.56 [‐0.01, 1.14]
14.1.19 Resveratol162Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.29 [‐0.79, 0.21]
14.1.20 Riluzole254Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.34 [‐1.10, 0.42]
14.1.21 Simvastatin166Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.88 [‐1.38, ‐0.37]
14.1.22 Sulforaphane160Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.86 [‐1.39, ‐0.33]
14.1.23 Tetrahydrobiopterin146Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.10 [‐0.68, 0.48]
14.2 Self‐injury5285Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.14 [‐0.09, 0.38]
14.2.1 Bumetanide2148Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.20 [‐0.21, 0.60]
14.2.2 N‐acetylcysteine2127Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.08 [‐0.29, 0.44]
14.2.3 Trichuris suris ova110Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.30 [‐1.55, 0.95]
14.3 Adverse effects:gastrointestinal32 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
14.3.1 Abdominal pain14734Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.38 [0.95, 2.01]
14.3.2 Change in bowel habits254Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.39 [0.05, 3.26]
14.3.3 Constipation13665Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.29 [0.77, 2.16]
14.3.4 Diarrhoea18982Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.83 [0.55, 1.25]
14.3.5 Drooling111Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.29 [0.01, 5.79]
14.3.6 Dry mouth5173Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.87 [0.37, 2.09]
14.3.7 Dyspepsia131Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.31 [0.01, 7.15]
14.3.8 Encopresis131Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.31 [0.01, 7.15]
14.3.9 Flatulance110Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.15, 59.89]
14.3.10 Increased salivation140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.00 [0.39, 2.58]
14.3.11 Nausea15768Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.36 [0.90, 2.06]
14.3.12 Thirst4224Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.32 [1.10, 10.01]
14.3.13 Vomiting13793Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.34 [0.91, 1.98]
14.4 Adverse effects: immunesystem2 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
14.4.1 Fever2102Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.94 [0.46, 18.53]
14.4.2 Influenza131Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.31 [0.01, 7.15]
14.5 Adverse effects:metabolic (dichotomous)27 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
14.5.1 Decreased appetite15806Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.62 [0.95, 2.75]
14.5.2 Hypoglycemia2120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.71 [0.09, 5.68]
14.5.3 Hypokalemia4331Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)12.48 [4.04, 38.62]
14.5.4 Hyponatremia138Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.13, 69.31]
14.5.5 Increased appetite14676Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.42 [1.02, 1.98]
14.5.6 Weight gain239Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.32 [0.04, 2.77]
14.5.7 Weight loss4306Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.49 [0.50, 4.39]
14.5.8 Weight loss (0.12‐0.67 kg)111Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)9.43 [0.65, 137.77]
14.5.9 Weight loss (0.45‐2.19 kg)111Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.17 [0.01, 2.92]
14.6 Adverse effects:metabolic (continuous)123Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.13 [‐0.24, 0.50]
14.6.1 Change in weight (kg)123Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.13 [‐0.24, 0.50]
14.7 Adverse effects:musculoskeletal8 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
14.7.1 Arthralgia110Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.33 [0.02, 6.65]
14.7.2 Difficulty walking140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.20 [0.01, 3.92]
14.7.3 Impaired balance112Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.67 [0.08, 33.75]
14.7.4 Myalgia2155Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.54 [0.79, 3.04]
14.7.5 Slow movement131Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)4.17 [0.22, 80.25]
14.7.6 Stiffness243Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.03 [0.41, 10.15]
14.7.7 Weakness390Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.63 [0.21, 1.89]
14.8 Adverse effects:neurological33 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
14.8.1 Agitation/excitement5220Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.76 [0.39, 1.48]
14.8.2 Anxiety3250Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.06 [0.44, 2.57]
14.8.3 Daytime drowsiness6172Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.57 [0.75, 3.28]
14.8.4 Dazed111Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.57 [0.13, 52.12]
14.8.5 Difficulty concentrating112Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.50 [0.42, 14.83]
14.8.6 Difficulty sleeping6326Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.81 [0.44, 1.50]
14.8.7 Dizziness9441Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.21 [0.67, 2.18]
14.8.8 Drowsiness5298Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.45 [1.21, 9.81]
14.8.9 Fatigue7338Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.23 [0.70, 2.17]
14.8.10 Headache18943Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.91 [0.66, 1.26]
14.8.11 Hypoactivity328Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.44 [0.07, 2.95]
14.8.12 Increased aggression4149Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.78 [0.36, 1.70]
14.8.13 Increased hyperactivity6321Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.75 [0.35, 1.58]
14.8.14 Increased irritability5177Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.11 [0.71, 1.72]
14.8.15 Increased stereotypies141Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.52 [0.10, 2.80]
14.8.16 Insomnia8488Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.04 [0.66, 1.65]
14.8.17 Migraine110Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.00 [0.15, 59.89]
14.8.18 Nervousness4159Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.86 [0.47, 7.37]
14.8.19 New onset seizures146Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.33 [0.01, 7.78]
14.8.20 Restlessness5158Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.22 [0.53, 2.82]
14.8.21 Rocking111Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.29 [0.01, 5.79]
14.8.22 Sedation13624Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.93 [0.61, 1.42]
14.8.23 Syncope189Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.80 [0.30, 25.94]
14.8.24 Tremor4140Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.80 [0.44, 7.37]
14.8.25 Twitching271Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.60 [0.42, 31.04]
14.9 Adverse effects:psychological10 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
14.9.1 Anorexia120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.53 [0.20, 1.40]
14.9.2 Aggression1150Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.17 [0.37, 3.66]
14.9.3 Depression3108Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.93 [0.62, 6.00]
14.9.4 Increased self‐injurious behaviour3105Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.46 [0.11, 1.84]
14.9.5 Irritability2162Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.91 [0.36, 2.27]
14.9.6 Mental symptoms120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.00 [0.41, 2.45]
14.9.7 Repetitive behaviour146Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.50 [0.05, 5.14]
14.9.8 Worsening of temper tantrums252Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.88 [0.30, 11.83]
14.10 Adverse effects:respiratory6 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
14.10.1 Aggravation of asthma171Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)3.26 [0.14, 77.35]
14.10.2 Congestion/cold4256Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.02 [0.62, 1.68]
14.10.3 Cough3248Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.16 [0.55, 2.49]
14.10.4 Ear infection131Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.88 [0.19, 18.60]
14.10.5 Lung congestion120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.00 [0.60, 1.68]
14.10.6 Nasopharyngitis1150Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.78 [0.22, 2.79]
14.10.7 Respiratory adverse effects171Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)5.43 [0.27, 109.19]
14.11 Adverse effects:skin12 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
14.11.1 Hives131Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.31 [0.01, 7.15]
14.11.2 Itches262Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.55 [0.07, 4.19]
14.11.3 Rash7440Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.76 [0.30, 1.92]
14.11.4 Skin adverse effects171Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.09 [0.16, 7.30]
14.11.5 Skin lesion298Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.66 [0.74, 3.70]
14.12 Adverse effects:urinary5 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
14.12.1 Diuresis189Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.93 [0.25, 3.51]
14.12.2 Enuresis3205Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.70 [0.82, 8.87]
14.12.3 Urinary retention288Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.74 [0.05, 10.49]
14.12.4 Urinary tract infection131Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.31 [0.01, 7.15]
14.13 Adverse effects:other7 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
14.13.1 Blurred vision131Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.50 [0.11, 56.98]
14.13.2 Dilated pupils120Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.67 [0.05, 9.19]
14.13.3 Fever1150Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.49 [0.13, 1.88]
14.13.4 Sweating3129Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.75 [0.15, 3.86]
14.13.5 Vision: conjunctivitis110Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.33 [0.02, 6.65]
14.14Tolerability/acceptability: loss to follow‐up301913Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)1.07 [0.89, 1.28]
14.15 Subgroup analyses: age‐ irritability (option 1)281242Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.21 [‐0.42, ‐0.00]
14.15.1 Children only231014Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.21 [‐0.46, 0.04]
14.15.2 Adults only384Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.26 [‐0.69, 0.17]
14.15.3 Children and adults2144Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.28 [‐0.61, 0.05]
14.16 Subgroup analyses: age‐ irritability (option 2)281179Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.20 [‐0.42, 0.01]
14.16.1 Celecoxib: children only140Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐1.27 [‐1.95, ‐0.58]
14.16.2 D‐cycloserine: children only167Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.05 [‐0.53, 0.43]
14.16.3 Dextromethorphan: children only18Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.13 [‐1.52, 1.26]
14.16.4 Mecamylamine: children only120Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.18 [‐0.71, 1.08]
14.16.5 Riluzole: children only140Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.63 [‐1.27, 0.00]
14.16.6 Riluzole: children and adults114Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.18 [‐0.87, 1.23]
14.16.7 Pioglitazone: children only140Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.77 [‐1.42, ‐0.13]
14.16.8 N‐acetylcysteine: children only4125Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.61 [‐1.16, ‐0.06]
14.16.9Trichuris suis ova: adults only110Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.25 [‐1.50, 1.00]
14.16.10 Tetrahydrobiopterin: children only146Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.10 [‐0.68, 0.48]
14.16.11 Lofexedine: children only112Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.50 [‐1.66, 0.66]
14.16.12 Naltrexone: adults only120Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.18 [‐1.05, 0.70]
14.16.13 Minocycline: children only146Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.89 [0.28, 1.50]
14.16.14 Propentofylline: children only148Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.56 [‐0.01, 1.14]
14.16.15 Sulforaphane: children only160Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.86 [‐1.39, ‐0.33]
14.16.16 Folinic acid: children only155Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.63 [0.08, 1.17]
14.16.17 L‐carnosine: children only142Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.20 [‐0.41, 0.80]
14.16.18 Prednisolone (steroid): children only126Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.19 [‐0.96, 0.58]
14.16.19 Dextromethorphan/quinidine: adults only114Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.37 [‐1.43, 0.69]
14.16.20 Pregnenolone: children only159Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.55 [‐1.07, ‐0.03]
14.16.21 Baclofen: children only158Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.88 [0.34, 1.42]
14.16.22 Palmitoylethanolamide: children only162Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.49 [‐1.00, 0.01]
14.16.23 Bumetanide: children only175Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.10 [‐0.55, 0.35]
14.16.24 Resveratol: children only162Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.29 [‐0.79, 0.21]
14.16.25 Arbaclofen: children and adults1130Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.33 [‐0.68, 0.02]
14.17 Subgroup analyses: age‐ self‐injury (option 1)3147Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.03 [‐0.30, 0.35]
14.17.1 Children only2127Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.08 [‐0.29, 0.44]
14.17.2 Adults only120Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.31 [‐1.20, 0.57]
14.18 Subgroup analyses: age‐ self‐injury (option 2)5285Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.14 [‐0.09, 0.38]
14.18.1 N‐acetylcysteine: children only198Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.18 [‐0.22, 0.58]
14.18.2 N‐acetylcysteine: children only129Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.26 [‐0.99, 0.48]
14.18.3Trichuris suis ova: adults only110Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)‐0.30 [‐1.55, 0.95]
14.18.4 Bumetanide: children only2148Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.20 [‐0.21, 0.60]

14.15. Analysis.

14.15

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 15: Subgroup analyses:age ‐ irritability (option 1)

14.16. Analysis.

14.16

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 16: Subgroup analyses:age ‐ irritability (option 2)

14.17. Analysis.

14.17

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 17: Subgroup analyses:age ‐ self‐injury (option 1)

14.18. Analysis.

14.18

Comparison 14: Experimental versus placebo, Outcome 18: Subgroup analyses:age ‐ self‐injury (option 2)

Comparison 15. Typical antipsychotic vs placebo.

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size
15.1 Self‐injury1 Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
15.2 Adverse effects:musculoskeletal1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
15.2.1 Dystonia123Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)2.36 [0.11, 52.41]
15.3 Adverse effects:neurological1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
15.3.2 Fatigue/lethargy123Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)8.64 [0.53, 140.05]
15.4 Adverse effects:psychological1 Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)Subtotals only
15.4.1 Behaviour problems123Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.34 [0.16, 0.73]
15.5Tolerability/acceptabiity: loss to follow‐up240Risk Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)0.46 [0.14, 1.49]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by studyID]

Akhondzadeh 2004.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of haloperidol + cyproheptadine versushaloperidol + placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children and adolescents aged 3 ‐11 years

  • outpatients of children's clinic

  • DSM‐4 clinical diagnosis of autism

  • presenting with a chief complaint of severelydisruptive symptoms related to ASD


Exclusion criteria:
  • previously received neuroleptics

  • any psychotropic drug treatment 6 months priorto recruitment

  • significant active medical problem


Location/setting: speciality clinic for children atRoozbeh Psychiatric teaching hospital, Tehran,Iran
Sample size: 40
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: 24 boys, 16 girls
Mean age: haloperidol + cyproheptadine = 6.4 years;haloperidol + placebo = 6.9 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I scores or other behaviours of concern:not reported
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: notreported
InterventionsIntervention (haloperidol + cyproheptadine) for 8weeks (20 participants): cyproheptadine was titratedup to 0.2 mg/kg/day; haloperidol was titrated up to0.05 mg/kg/day
Comparator (haloperidol + placebo) for 8 weeks (20participants): haloperidol was titrated up to 0.05mg/kg/day; placebo was not described
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: not reported
Timing of outcome assessment: baseline, 2, 4, 6 and 8weeks
NotesStudy start date: January 2002
Study end date: January 2003
Funding source: Tehran University of MedicalSciences
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskParticipants were randomised to receivecyproheptadine or placebo in a 1: 1 ratio using acomputer‐generated code.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskThe assignments were kept in sealed, opaque envelopesuntil the point of allocation.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Throughout the study, the person whoadministered the medications, the rater and thepatients were blind to assignments."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Throughout the study, the person whoadministered the medications, the rater and thepatients were blind to assignments."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll 40 randomised patients completed the trial. Noloss to follow up reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll primary outcomes appear to have beenreported.
Other biasHigh risk
  • Main author is also on the ethics committee atthe university funding the study

  • Main author is a peer‐reviewer for one of thejournals in which some of their studies arepublished

Akhondzadeh 2008.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of piracetam + risperidone versusplacebo + risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children aged 3‐11 years

  • DSM‐4 clinical diagnosis of autism and severelydisruptive symptoms relating to ASD

  • outpatients at a clinic for children at RoozbehPsychiatric Teaching Hospital


Exclusion criteria:
  • previously received neuroleptics or any otherpsychotropic drug treatment 6 months prior torecruitment

  • having significant active medical problems

  • severe or profound intellectual disability inwhom a diagnosis of autism could not be made


Location/setting: outpatient clinic of Roozbehpsychiatric hospital, Iran
Sample size: 40 (20 each group)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: 30 boys, 10 girls
Mean age: piracetam = 6.9 years; placebo = 6.75years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I scores or other behaviours of concern:not reported
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: piracetam: 8/20 hadtaken risperidone, 4/20 had taken haloperidol;placebo: 10/20 had taken risperidone, 3/20 had takenhaloperidol
InterventionsIntervention (piracetam + risperidone) for 10 weeks:piracetam dose was titrated up to 800 mg/day (200mg/day starting dosage with 200 mg increments every2 days). Risperidone was titrated up to 2 mg/day asfixed dose for children 10‐40 kg or 3 mg/day forchildren ≥ 41 kg.
Comparator (placebo + risperidone) for 10 weeks:risperidone was titrated up to 2 mg/day as fixeddose for children 10‐40 kg or 3 mg/day for children≥ 41 kg. Placebo was not described.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessment: baseline, 2, 4, 6, 8and 10 weeks
NotesStudy start date:January 2004
Study end date: January 2006
Funding source: grant from Tehran University ofMedical Sciences
Conflicts of interest: none reported
Trial registry ‐ none reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "Patients were randomised to receive piracetamor placebo in a 1:1 ratio using a computer‐generatedcode."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "The assignments were kept in sealed, opaqueenvelopes until the point of data analysis"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Throughout the study, the person whoadministered the medications, the rater and thepatients were blind to assignments."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Throughout the study, the person whoadministered the medications, the rater and thepatients were blind to assignments."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskAll participants were reported to have completed theentire study, however other details are vague suchas "about 18 patients were excluded from the study".Some detail is provided about this exclusion, "theywere receiving other psychotropic medications or hadother significant active medical problems such asepilepsy".
LTFU: no dropouts reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskEndpoint data were not reported despite the ABC beingthe primary outcome measure and apparently measured6 times throughout the study.
Other biasHigh risk
  • Main author is also on the ethics committee atthe university funding the study

  • Main author is a peer‐reviewer for one of thejournals in which some of their studies arepublished

Akhondzadeh 2010.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of pentoxifylline + risperidone versusplacebo + risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • diagnosis of autism confirmed by a childpsychiatrist based on behavioural observation ofthe child and semi‐structured interview with theparent

  • a score of ≥ 6 on the DSM‐4‐TR diagnosiscriteria for autism and clinical judgement

  • chief complaint of severely disruptive symptomsrelated to autistic disorder


Exclusion criteria:
  • concomitant schizophrenia or psychoticdisorders

  • history of drug or alcohol abuse, tardivedyskinesia, previously received neuroleptics orany psychotropic drug treatment 6 months prior torecruitment or had significant active medicalproblem

  • severe or profound intellectual disabilities inwhom a definitive diagnosis of autism could not bemade.


Location/setting: children's outpatient clinic ofRoozbeh Psychiatric Hospital, Tehran, Iran
Sample size: 40
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: 29 boys, 11 girls
Mean age: risperidone + pentoxifylline = 8.05 years;placebo = 7.37 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I scores or other behaviours of concern:risperidone + pentoxifylline = 16.67; risperidone +placebo = 16.06
Concomitant medications: 0%
History of previous medications: risperidone +pentoxifylline: 12/20 participants had previouslyreceived risperidone, 2/20 participants hadpreviously received haloperidol; risperidone +placebo: 13/20 participants had previously receivedrisperidone, 3/20 had previously receivedhaloperidol
InterventionsPentoxifylline + risperidone for 10 weeks (n = 20):pentoxifylline titrated up to 400 mg/day forchildren between 10 and 40 kg; or up to 600 mg forchildren weighing > 40 kg. The dose ofrisperidone was titrated up to 2 mg/day (0.5 mgstarting dosage with 0.5 mg increments in weeklydosage for the first 3 weeks) for children between10 and 40 kg and 3 mg/day for children weightingabove 40 kg.
Risperidone + placebo for 10 weeks (n = 20):risperidone was titrated up to 2 mg/day (0.5 mgstarting dosage with 0.5 mg increments in weeklydosage for the first 3 weeks) for children between10 and 40 kg and 3 mg/day for children weighing >40 kg.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes ‐ irritability, measured using theAbberant Behaviour Checklist and five subscales(Aman1985); AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessment: baseline, 2, 4, 6, 8and 10 weeks
NotesStudy start date: April 2007
Study end date: 2009
Funding source: Tehran University of MedicalSciences
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskParticipants were randomised to receivepentoxifylline or placebo in a 1:1 ratio using acomputer‐generated code.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskThe assignments were kept in sealed, opaque envelopesuntil the point of data analysis.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskThroughout the study, the person who administered themedications, the rater and the patients were blindto assignments.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskThroughout the study, the person who administered themedications, the rater and the patients were blindto assignments.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLTFU: none reported. All participants completed thetrial and there were no missing data.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskOutcomes match protocolhttp://www.irct.ir/trial/857
Other biasHigh risk
  • Main author is also on the ethics committee atthe university funding the study

  • Main author is a peer‐reviewer for one of thejournals in which some of their studies arepublished

Aman 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods12‐week parallel trial of memantine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • 6‐12 years with a diagnosis of ASD based onDSM‐4 criteria

  • a parent or caregiver able to provide reliableinformation about the child's condition


Exclusion criteria:
  • history of seizure disorders

  • prohibited medications (antianginal,antiarrhythmic, anticoagulant, antihypertensive,antineoplastic, diuretic, hypoglycaemic orhypolipidaemic agents) insulin; muscle relaxants;systemic antifungal agents or steroids; hormonesuppressants; or psychotropic drugs;

  • primary psychiatric diagnosis other thanASD


Location/setting: USA
Sample size: 121 randomised (61 memantine, 60placebo)
Reasons for withdrawals/ dropouts: memantine, 6discontinued (3 AEs, 2 LTFU, 1 withdrew consent);placebo: 11 discontinued (4 AEs, 1 insufficientresponse, 1 protocol violation, 3 withdrew consent,2 LTFU)
Gender: 80% and 87% male participants in thememantine and placebo groups, respectively
Mean age: not reported
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: not reported
Concomitant medications: not reported
Previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (memantine): once daily oraladministration of memantine extended release for 12weeks. Memantine = 3 mg and 6 mg capsules, doseranging 3‐18 mg/day in 4 weight groups
Comparator (placebo): once daily oral administrationof placebo for 12 weeks
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, weeks 2, 4,6, 8, 10 and 12
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
NotesStudy start date: April 2009
Study end date: February 2013
Funding: "This study was supported by funding fromForest Laboratories, LLC, (Jersey City, New Jersey),Allergan. The study sponsor was involved in thestudy design, data collection (via contractedclinical investigator sites), analysis andinterpretation of data, and the decision to presentthese results."
Conflicts of interest: involvement withpharmaceutical companies either in advisory roles,research grants from pharmaceutical companies, orbeing employed by study sponsor.
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "The randomization codes were generated andsecurely retained by the Statistical Programming andDrug Safety Surveillance Department at ForestResearch Institute, Inc"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "The randomization codes were generated andsecurely retained by the Statistical Programming andDrug Safety Surveillance Department at ForestResearch Institute, Inc"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow risk
  • Allocation: randomised

  • Intervention model: parallel assignment

  • Masking: quadruple (participant, care provider,investigator, outcomes assessor)

  • Primary purpose: treatment

Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow risk
  • Allocation: randomised

  • Intervention model: parallel assignment

  • Masking: quadruple (participant, care provider,investigator, outcomes assessor)

  • Primary purpose: treatment

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll participants were accounted for and an ITTanalysis was used
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskABC was listed as an outcome and measured atbaseline, weeks 6 and 12. None were reported
Other biasHigh riskPharma funded and involved in analysis etc

Anagnostou 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods6‐week parallel trial of oxytocin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • ASD diagnosis based on DSM‐4 criteria; "male orfemale outpatients 18 to 60 years of age who had aClinician Global Impression (CGI) – severity score≥4 (moderately ill), were on stable pharmacologicand nonpharmacologic treatments for at least 3months, had a normal physical examination, andwith full‐scale IQ >70."

  • "Sexually active women had to be on two barriermethods of contraception and no hormonal birthcontrol"


Exclusion criteria:
  • prematurity

  • primary axis 1 disorders such as bipolardisorder, psychosis, post‐traumatic stressdisorder, schizophrenia, or major depressivedisorder/anxiety disorder

  • history of significant neurological diseaseincluding, but not limited to, unstable epilepsydisorder, known genetic syndromes, or knownabnormal brain magnetic resonance imaging

  • history of malignancy or any significanthaematological, endocrine, cardiovascular(including any rhythm disorder), respiratory,renal, hepatic, or gastrointestinal disease

  • unable to tolerate venipuncture procedures


Location/setting: New York, USA
Sample size: 19 adults
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: oxytocin = 1discontinued at week 4 because of staring spells;placebo = 2 discontinued, 1 at week 4 due toincreased tics, and the other at baseline for nottolerating intranasal formulation
Gender: 16 male participants, 3 femaleparticipants
Mean age: 33.2 (SD 13.29)
IQ: oxytocin = 99; placebo = 118
Baseline ABC‐I or other behaviours of concern:quality of life: oxytocin = 47.8; placebo = 65.2
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin) for 6 weeks: oxytocin(Syntocinon; NOVARTIS) dosage was 24 IU (6intranasal spray puffs) twice‐daily for 6 weeks
Comparator (placebo) for 6 weeks: placebo was salinesolution in an identical bottle and label tooxytocin
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: QoL, measured using the WHOQOLemotional (WHO1998); tolerability
Timing of outcome assessment: AEs were recorded every2 weeks. QoL was measured twice during the 6‐weekstudy: at baseline and at conclusion of thestudy.
NotesStudy start date: June 2006
Study end date: April 2012
Funding: a hospital and an autism centre funded thestudy
Conflicts of interest: the primary author (EA) at thetime of the study was receiving funding for otherstudies relating to the same pharmacologicalintervention, the other authors were also receivingfunding for other clinical trials involving peoplewith ASD.
Trial registry ‐NCT00490802
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskA computer‐generated randomisation table was createdby the research pharmacist and used to randomiseparticipants.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskNo details provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNo details provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNo details provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll participants were anlaysed using an ITT anlaysisand baseline and endpoint QoL scores wererecorded.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe primary and secondary outcomes of interest wererecorded on clinicaltrials.gov and all results wereprovided.
Other biasUnclear riskNo information

Aran 2021.

Study characteristics
Methods12‐week cross‐over trial of cannabidiol versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male or female outpatients aged 5–21 yearsold

  • diagnosis of ASD according to DSM‐5

  • moderate or greater behavioral problems asmeasured by a CGI‐S score of ≥ 4 at screening

  • involvement of a parent or caregiver able toconsistently complete assessments throughout thestudy


Exclusion criteria:
  • lifetime history of psychotic disorder

  • current or former treatment withcannabinoids

  • a medical condition (such as heart, liver,renal or haematological disorder) that impacts theparticipant’s ability to participate in the studyor makes them predisposed to severe adverseevents

  • changes in pharmacological, educational, orbehavioiral treatments for 4 weeks prior torandomisation or planned changes in existinginterventions for the duration of the trial


Location/setting: Shaare Zedek Medical Center,Jerusalem, Israel
Sample size: pure cannabis (44), placebo (44)
Reasons for withdrawals/dropouts:
  • pure cannabinoids: n = 6 (2 before treatmentonset, 2 received license #, 1 had adverse events,1 due to ineffectiveness)

  • placebo: n = 6 (1 died (treatment unrelated), 2received license #, 2 sheltered living decision, 1had adverse events)


Gender: 80% male, 20% female
Mean age: 11.8 (SD4.1) years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale:
Concomitant medications: any medication 72%;antipsychotics 54%; SSRIs 15%; antiepileptics 12%;stimulants 12%; benzodiazepines 7%; alpha‐2 agonists4%
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (pure cannabinoids): 99% purecannabidiol (CBD) and 99% pure tetrahydrocannabinolin a 20:1 ratio at 1 mg/kg cannabidiol/d,up‐titrated until intolerance or to a maximum doseof 10 mg/kg CBD/d, divided to 3 daily doses, for 3months
Comparator (placebo): oral olive oil and flavors thatmimic in texture and flavour the cannabinoidsolution.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: 1 month, 2 months, and3 months (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: January 2017
Study end date: December 2018
Funding: the study was funded by BOL Pharma, Revadim,Israel and the National Institute for Psychobiologyin Israel (#203‐17‐18).
Conflicts of interest: details not provided
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskAllocation to treatment arm was based on arandomisation list. Randomisation scheme wasgenerated by BioStats Statistical ConsultingLtd.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskAllocation to treatment arm was based on arandomisation list. Randomisation scheme wasgenerated by BioStats Statistical ConsultingLtd.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskThe code key was kept by BioStats StatisticalConsulting Ltd. until study end. Neither theprincipal investigator nor any other team member orindividual had access to the codes until study end.No unblinding occurred during the study.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskThe code key was kept by BioStats StatisticalConsulting Ltd. until study end. Neither theprincipal investigator nor any other team member orindividual had access to the codes until study end.No unblinding occurred during the study.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow risk12% overall attrition, doesn't appear to be bias indropout reason
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskit appears that all outcomes listed on trial registryhave been reported
Other biasHigh riskThe study was funded by BOL Pharma, Revadim,Israel.

Arnold 2006.

Study characteristics
Methods6‐week cross‐over trial of atomoxetine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children/adolescents aged 5‐15 years

  • with mental age Q18 months

  • ASD and symptoms of ADHD ‐ met the first 4 of 5DSM‐4 criteria for ADHD: symptom count,impairment, chronicity, and pervasiveness acrosssettings (the fifth criterion would technicallyrule out ADHD by the presence of PDD)

  • parent‐rated symptom mean Q1.5 on either the 9inattentive or the 9 hyperactive‐impulsive ADHDsymptoms, rated 0‐3


Exclusion criteria: "cardiovascular disease,glaucoma, unstable seizure disorder, othersignificant physical illness, psychosis, severe mooddisorder, substance abuse, or pregnancy."
Location/setting: details not provided
Sample size: 16
Reasons for withdrawals/dropouts: 3 terminated early,1 each after the 3rd, 4th, and 5th weeks of thesecond condition (1 on atomoxetine, 2 on placebo).The last observation was carried forward to endpointfor anyone who discontinued the trial.
Gender: 12 male, 4 female
Mean age: 9.26 years (SD2.93)
IQ: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: ABC‐Irritability16.00 (intervention group); 14.18 (placebogroup)
Concomitant medications: 6 participants were takingpsychotropics during the trial (risperidone (3),aripiprazole (1), sertraline (1), divalproex (1),ziprasidone (1), and paroxetine (1).
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (atomoxetine) for 6 weeks: "Atomoxetinein six sizes from 2.5 to 40 mg were supplied by themanufacturer (Eli Lilly). They were administered insplit doses, morning and afternoon, starting at 0.25mg/kg/day and increased every 4 to 5 days byincrements of 0.3 to 0.4 mg/kg/day, unless limitingside effects or satisfactory clinical resultsoccurred first. The maximum daily dose was 1.4mg/kg/day, not to exceed 100 mg/day total. Forsubjects also taking a significant CYP2D6 inhibitor(such as antidepressants or neuroleptics), the doseincrements were 0.2 to 0.3 mg/kg/day and dose wascapped at 1.2 mg/kg/day."
Comparator (placebo) for 6 weeks: equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability (measured using theABC‐I subscale (Aman 1985), self‐injurious behaviour(measured using the Repetitive Behaviour Checklist(self‐injury subscale) (Bodfish 2000),AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 6(endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: details not provided
Study end date: details not provided
Funding: "The authors receive research funding fromLilly, Shire, Janssen, and PediaMed and are onspeakers_ bureaus of and/or consult for Shire,Novartis, Janssen, Sigma Tau, and ForestLaboratories."
Conflicts of interest: details not provided
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)High risk"randomization to order of conditions andstratification on autistic disorder versus other ASDdiagnoses"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)High risk"randomization to order of conditions andstratification on autistic disorder versus other ASDdiagnoses"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskApart from saying it was a double‐blinded study, nofurther details were provided.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskApart from saying it was a double‐blinded study, nofurther details were provided.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskNo info on 2 out of 3 of the dropouts
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskWithout a protocol it is difficult to know if alloutcomes were reported.
Other biasHigh riskMatched placebo and atomoxetine in 6 sizes from 2.5to 40 mg were supplied by the manufacturer (EliLilly) and Eli Lilly supported the study.

Arnold 2012a.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of mecamylamine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • met the DSM‐4 criteria for ASD or PDD‐NOS

  • IQ of > 36 or a mental age of > 18months


Exclusion criteria:
  • use of antipsychotic medications 3 months priorto baseline

  • psychoactive medications in the process ofadjustment, systemic corticoids, or unstableseizure disorder

  • began a major behavioural intervention within 2months prior to baseline or planned to during thetrial


Location/setting: not reported
Sample size: 20
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 2 in Interventiongroup dropped out after 4 weeks
Gender: treatment = 11 male participants, 1female participant; placebo = 6 male participants, 2= female participants
Mean age: mecamylamine = 6.76 (SD 2.24); placebo =8.36 (SD 2.83) years
IQ: an IQ of > 36 or mental age of > 18 months.Mean IQ mecamylamine group = 77.58, placebo mean IQ= 62.62
Baseline ABC‐I scores or other BoC scale:mecamylamine = 12.75, placebo = 12.88
Concomitant medications: medications were allowedexcept for antipsychotic medications in the 3 monthsprior to the study and medications for unstableseizure disorders
History of previous medications: notreported
InterventionsMecamylamine for 14 weeks (n = 12): fixed dosagesstarting at 0.5 mg/day oral mecamylamine increasingin week 6 to 2.5 mg/day for 2 weeks, and increasingagain to 5 mg/day for a further 6 weeks iftolerated
Placebo for 14 weeks (n = 8): matched placebostarting at 0.5 mg/day, increasing in week 6 to 2.5mg/day for 2 weeks, and increasing again to 5 mg/dayfor a further 6 weeks if tolerated
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured every 2 weeks using theAbberant Behaviour Checklist ‐ Irritabilitysubscale (Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and weeks 2,6, 8, 10, and 14
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: a grant from Autism Speaks
Conflicts of interest: Dr Arnold receives or hasrecently received research support or consultinghonoraria from Lilly, Shire, Curemark,Neuropharm,Noven, Organon, Seaside Therapeutics,Targacept, Biomarin, and Astra Zeneca. Dr Aman hasreceived consulting honoraria or research supportfrom Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Johnson andJohnson,Forrest, Novartis, and Supernus. Dr Anand,Ms Bates, Ms Farmer, Ms Hollway, Dr Hurt, Dr Li, DrRamadan, MsThompson, and Dr Williams have noaffiliations to report.
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLOCF was used for the 2 participants who did notcomplete the entire trial.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskABC data collected each fortnight not reported ‐ onlychange from baseline weeks 6, 8, 14
Other biasUnclear riskQuote: "Dr. Arnold receives or has received recentlyresearch support or consulting honoraria from Lilly,Shire, Curemark, Neuropharm, Noven, Organon, SeasideTherapeutics, Targacept, BioMarin, and AstraZeneca.Dr. Aman has received consulting honoraria orresearch support from Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Johnsonand Johnson, Forrest, Novartis and Supernus".

Asadabadi 2013.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel, placebo‐controlled trial of celecoxib +risperidone versus placebo + risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children aged 4‐12 years

  • met DSM‐4‐TR criteria for diagnosis of ASD

  • ABC‐C‐I score of ≥ 15


Exclusion criteria:
  • previously received neuroleptics or anypsychotropic drug treatment 6 months prior torecruitment

  • significant active medical problem

  • severe or profound intellectual disabilities inwhom a definitive diagnosis of autism could not bemade

  • any diagnosis of psychiatric disorder in Axis Iand II

  • any organic disorder


Location/setting: children's outpatient clinic atRoozbeh hospital, Tehran, Iran
Sample size: 40
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: nonereported
Gender: 25 boys, 15 girls
Mean age: celcoxib = 7.6 (1.7) years; placebo = 7.5(1.5) years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I scores or other BoC scale: celecoxib =17.3; placebo = 17.6
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: celecoxib +risperidone: 19/20 had previously taken risperidone,1/20 had taken haloperidol previously; placebo +risperidone: 18/20 had taken risperidone previously,2/20 had taken haloperidol previously
InterventionsIntervention (celecoxib + risperidone) for 10 weeks:celecoxib (100 mg capsules) titrated up to 200mg/day for children weighing < 30 kg and 300mg/day for > 30 kg. Risperidone (0.5 mg tablets)was titrated up to 2 mg/day (starting dose of 0.5 mgwith subsequent dose increase in 0.5 mg incrementsin the weekly dosage for the first 3 weeks) forchildren between 10 kg and 40 kg and 3 mg/day forchildren weighing above 40 kg
Comparator (placebo + risperidone) for 10 weeks:placebo not described. Risperidone (0.5 mg tablets)was titrated up to 2 mg/day (starting dose of 0.5 mgwith subsequent dose increase in 0.5 mg incrementsin the weekly dosage for the first 3 weeks) forchildren between 10 kg and 40 kg and 3 mg/day forchildren weighing above 40 kg
OutcomesPrimary outcomes
  • Irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985) at baseline and weeks 2, 4, 6 and10

  • AEs, recorded every 2 weeks


Secondary outcome: none reported
NotesStudy start date: November 2009
Study end date: January 2012
Funding source: grant from Tehran University ofMedical Sciences to Prof Shahin Akhondzadeh (grantNo:. 8144)
Conflict of interest: none reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "Randomized in a 1:1 ratio using acomputer‐generated code"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "The assignments were kept in sealed, opaqueenvelopes until data analysis". "Separate personswere responsible for random allocation andinterviewing the patients."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Throughout the study, the person whoadministered the medications, the rater, and thepatients and their parents were blind toassignments".
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Throughout the study, the person whoadministered the medications, the rater, and thepatients and their parents were blind toassignments".
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskNo LTFU reported. All children included in theanalysis.
Quote: "All patients completed the trial and therewere no missing data."
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe ABC was reported at baseline and weeks 2, 4, 6, 8and 10.
Other biasHigh riskStudy was reduced from 10 weeks to 8 weeks and
  • the contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study

  • the contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Ayatollahi 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods10‐week parallel trial of pregnenolone + risperidoneor placebo + risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: "drug‐naive 11‐ to 17‐year‐oldadolescents who had met the Diagnostic andStatistical Manual of Mental Disorders, FifthEdition' (DSM‐52013) who also display aggression,over‐reactivity or repetitive behaviours,ABC‐Irritability scores of at least 15 atscreening"
Exclusion criteria:
  • any medical condition or disorder apart frompsychiatric diagnosis or mild to moderateintellectual disability

  • in receipt of any antipsychotic medications inthe month prior to the trial

  • severe hepatic disease, allergy or intoleranceto risperidone

  • history of seizures or taking anticonvulsantmedications


Location/setting: psychiatric hospital in Iran
Sample size: 64 (32 to each group)
Reason for dropouts/withdrawals: 5; 2 withdrew frompregnenolone group due to withdrawing consent (priorto week 5), 3 from placebo group withdrew consentprior to week 5
Gender: placebo = 10/19 male participants,pregnenolone = 13/17 male participants
Mean age: 13.5 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scores: pregnenolone =23.23 (4.88), placebo = 23.24 (6.0)
Concomitant medications ‐ not reported
Previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention: pregnenolone 100 mg twice daily +risperidone 0.4 mg/day for those weighing 20‐45 kg,up to a maximum of 2.5 mg/day for 10 weeks.Participants weighing > 45 kg a maximum dose of3.5 mg/day of risperidone
Comparator: placebo capsules containing starch +risperidone 0.4 mg/day for those weighing 20‐45 kg,up to a maximum of 2.5 mg/day for 10 weeks.Participants weighing > 45 kg a maximum dose of3.5 mg/day of risperidone
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: ABC‐Irritability (Aman 1985);AEs
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
NotesStudy start date: August 2018
Study end date: January 2020
Funding: "This study was supported by a grant fromTehran University of Medical Sciences to S.A. (GrantNumber: 38138)."
Conflicts of interest: "The authors have no conflictsof interest to declare."
Trial registry ‐ IRCT20090117001556N112
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskUsing a computer‐generated code, patients wererandomly allocated to 2 treatment arms by thepermuted randomisation block method in a 1:1ratio.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskThe assigned group number for each participant waskept hidden in a sealed opaque envelope until dataanalysis.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskPregnenolone and matching placebo capsules wereidentical in terms of shape, colour, size, andsmell. All measures were under management of anindependent group not involved elsewhere in thestudy. Both participants and the research team wereblinded to the group assignments.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "All measures were under management of anindependent group not involved elsewhere in thestudy. Both participants and the research team wereblinded to the group assignments."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLow attrition, no other obvious issues with outcomedata reporting
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskCARS noted in registration but not reported
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Batebi 2021.

Study characteristics
Methods10‐week parallel trial of folinic acid + risperidoneversus placebo + risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 4‐12 years

  • symptoms compatible with the DSM‐5. Diagnosisand severity of ASD were also verified by aqualified child psychiatrist based on thebehavioural observations and semi‐structuredinterviews with the parents (ADI‐R)

  • medication‐free for at least 6 weeks beforeregistration


Exclusion criteria:
  • children with symptoms that were not severeenough to be considered for treatment withrisperidone

  • concurrent prominent psychiatric disorders(e.g. depression, mania, anxiety, and bipolardisorder)

  • pre‐existent medical or disease conditions suchas epileptic disorders and febrile seizures

  • severe intellectual disability (i.e. IQ <70)

  • tardive dyskinesia

  • history of antipsychotic or behavioural therapyduring the past 6 months prior to registration


Location/setting: outpatient children with ASDattending Roozbeh Hospital, Tehran, Iran
Sample size: 66
Reason for dropouts/withdrawals: folinic acid +risperidone: 5 withdrew consent prior to week 5;placebo + risperidone: 6 withdrew consent prior toweek 5 (all withdrew consent)
Mean age: folinic acid average age 8.36; placebogroup average age 7.52
Mean IQ: not reported
Gender: folinic acid 42.9% female, placebo group29.6% female
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scores: folinic acid22.82, placebo 22.67
Concomitant medications: folinic acid and risperidonewere initiated simultaneously. No other concomitantmedication was allowed for neither of the trialgroups.
Previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention: risperidone twice daily initiating at adose of 0.5 mg with a dose increase of 0.5 mg/week(for the first 3 weeks). The maximum risperidonedose for children < 20 kg was 1 mg/day, and forchildren 20 kg or heavier was 2 mg/day,respectively. Folinic acid (C20H23N7O7) dosage was 2mg/kg up to 50 mg/day for the entire course of thestudy. At the same time, the control group receivedplacebo capsules.
Comparator: placebo + risperidone (1‐3.5 mg/day) for10 weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability, measured using theABC‐Irritability subscale (Aman 1985);adverse events
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
NotesStudy start date: November 2018
Study end date: April 2019
Funding: "This study was funded by Tehran Universityof Medical Sciences and Health Services (Grantnumber 38898)."
Conflicts of interest: "The authors declare that theyhave no conflict of interest"
trial registry: IRCT20090117001556N114
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskUsing the Microsoft Office Excel software, a specificrandom code was allocated to each patient. Therandomisation and allocation were conducted usingblock randomisation (with blocks of size 4) by theprimary investigator of the study, who was notinvolved in the diagnosis and follow‐ups.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskThe allocations were kept in confidential and sealedopaque envelops and were exposed at the end of thetrial.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Separate individuals implementedrandomizations, drug administration, rating, dataentry, and statistical analysis. Moreover, patients,parents, and researchers were blinded to theallocations."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Separate individuals implementedrandomizations, drug administration, rating, dataentry, and statistical analysis. Moreover, patients,parents, and researchers were blinded to theallocations."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear risk17% dropout without actual reasons given (just says"consent withdrawal"), thus can't assess whetherreasons for incomplete data could be related tooutcome
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskThe 2 primary outcomes listed on the trials registrywere ABC and subscales, and CARS. CARS was notreported.
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Behmanesh 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods12‐week parallel study of propentofylline +risperidone versus placebo + risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 4‐11 years

  • DSM‐5 diagnosis of ASD

  • presence of aggression, irritability orself‐injurious behaviour


Exclusion criteria:
  • presence of any active medical problem

  • other psychiatric diagnosis except for mild tomoderate Intellectual disability

  • receiving any psychotropic medications exceptfor risperidone during past 2 weeks prior to thetrial

  • severe hepatic disease

  • history of allergy to risperidone andintolerance of it

  • history of seizure requiring change ofantiepileptic dose during the last month

  • seizure during the last 6 months


Location/setting: children attending RoozbehHospital, Iran
Sample size: 48 (24 in each group)
Mean age: 7 years
Mean IQ: not reported
Gender: 75% of all participants were boys
Baseline ABC‐I scores: intervention 25.79 (5.39);placebo 26.29 (4.70)
Reason for dropouts/withdrawals: 9 discontinued fromeach group. Propentofylline + risperidone: 5withdrew consent and 4 excluded due to "lack ofcollaboration of their parents". Placebo +risperidone: 6 withdrew consent, 3 excluded due to"lack of collaboration of their parents"
Concomitant medications: "no other concomitantintervention or medication was permitted neither forthe propentofylline nor the placebo group"
Previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (propentofylline + risperidone): 300 mgpropentofylline once daily in capsule form. Thedosage of propentofylline was increased to 600mg/day (300 mg twice daily) after week 2, and forthose heavier than 45 kg, the dose was increased to900 mg/day (300 mg thrice daily). Risperidone beganat a dose of 0.5 mg with a dose increase of 0.5 mgeach week for the first 3 weeks. The maximum dosefor participants < 20 kg was 1 mg/day and forparticipants ≥ 20 kg was 2 mg/day.
Comparator (placebo + risperidone): risperidone beganat a dose of 0.5 mg with a dose increase of 0.5 mgeach week for the first 3 weeks. The maximum dosefor participants < 20 kg was 1 mg/day and forparticipants ≥ 20 kg was 2 mg/day.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability (change from baseline)using the ABC‐I (Aman 1985); AEs
Secondary outcomes ‐ tolerability
NotesStudy start date: November 2018
Study end date: April 2019
Funding: this study was supported by a grant fromTehran University of Medical Sciences to Prof ShahinAkhondzadeh (grant number 3899).
Conflicts of interest: "The authors have no conflictof interest to disclose."
Trial registry: IRCT20090117001556N113
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskUsing the Microsoft Office Excel software, theparticipants of the study were randomly assignedinto 2 groups
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskThe assignments were retained in confidential andsealed opaque envelops and were unveiled at thestudy endpoint for statistical analysis
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskSeparate individuals were responsible forrandomisations, drug administration, rating, dataentry, and statistical analysis. The participantsresearch investigators, nurses, and interviewerswere all blinded to the treatment allocation.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskSeparate individuals were responsible forrandomisations, drug administration, rating, dataentry, and statistical analysis. The participants,research investigators, nurses, and interviewerswere all blinded to the treatment allocation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh risk27% dropout from each group /missing outcome data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskABC‐C and CARS prespecified outcomes, though trialendpoint timing different (10 weeks vs 12 weeks inprotocol)
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Belsito 2001.

Study characteristics
MethodsPlacebo‐controlled trial of lamotrigine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: "children 3‐11 years with aprimary diagnosis of autistic disorder, either withearly signs or following regression after a periodof normal development were enrolled."
Exclusion criteria included "children with autisticdisorder associated with comorbid medicaletiologies, such as Fragile X syndrome or metabolicdisorders"
Location/setting: John Hopkins medicalinstitutions
Sample size: 35
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: lamotrigine 5;placebo 2
Gender: 33 boys, 2 girls
Mean age: median age 5.8 (1.75)
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I scores or other BoC: not reported
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (lamotrigine) for 18 weeks: 0.5 mg/kglamotrigine twice daily titrated to a maximum of 5.0mg/kg twice daily over 12 weeks or placebo twicedaily
Comparator (placebo) for 18 weeks: "participantsreceived a placebo twice daily prepared inidentically appearing tablets (shape, size, color,and taste)"
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability, measured as change inABC‐ I subscale scores (Aman 1985);AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessment: baseline, 4, 8, 12 and18 weeks
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Funding source: Glaxo Wellcome
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry ‐ not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskQuote: "the blinded sequence by which each patientreceived lamotrigine or placebo was determined byrandomization at the end of baseline evaluations.Subjects were randomised via a computer‐generatedcluster method which made user‐selected blockassignments. Within each block, an equal number ofpatients received placebo or drug".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "Codes were accessible to the investigationaldrug pharmacists and to the appointed safetycommittee".
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNot described apart from, "Codes were accessible tothe investigational drug pharmacists and to theappointed safety committee."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNot described apart from, "Codes were accessible tothe investigational drug pharmacists and to theappointed safety committee."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh risk22% LTFU ‐ lamotrigine: 4 children (3 due toinsomnia, and 1 due to increased stereotypies; 2LTFU in placebo group: 1 increased stereotypies, and1 for increased echolalia
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskThe paper reports that outcome measures werecompleted at baseline, 4, 8, 12 and 18 weeks.Results were only presented graphically. Paperreports to measure changes in ABC‐I and othersubscales however "changes in irritability,lethargy, and hyperactivity were also insignificantbetween the groups" and only P values provided.
Other biasUnclear riskQuote: "The trial was supported byGlaxoWellcome".

Bernaerts 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods4‐week parallel trial of oxytocin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • diagnosis of ASD based on DSM‐4‐TR

  • male

  • aged 18‐35 years


Exclusion criteria: any neurological or geneticdisorder, or contraindication for MRI
Location/ setting: autism centre at the LeuvenUniversity Hospital, Belgium
Sample size: oxytocin 22; placebo 18
Reasons for dropouts/withdrawal: the reason was notprovided for the 1 participant from the placebogroup who was not included in the analysis.
Mean IQ: approx 103 for both groups
Mean age: 24.5 years
Gender: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: oxytocin: WHO QoL82.91 (14.04); placebo 85.24 (9.63)
Concomitant medications: 6/22 in oxytocin group wereon psychostimulants. Other medications includedantidepressants, aripiprazole, unspecifiedantipsychotics and carbamazepine (Tegretol). 2/18 inplacebo group were on psychostimulants. Othermedications included antidepressants, andrisperidone.
Previous medications ‐ not reported
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin): 4 weeks of intranasaloxytocin (24 IU), once daily in the morning
Comparator (placebo): nasal spray for 4 weeks, oncedaily in the morning
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and endpoint(4 weeks)
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: QoL (change from baseline)measured using the WHO QoL scale (WHO 1998)
NotesStudy start date: April 2015
Study end date: December 2016
Funding: this research was supported by the BrancoWeiss fellowship of the Society in Science ‐ ETHZurich and by grants from the Flanders Fund forScientific Research (FWO projects KAN 1506716N, KAN1521313N, G040112 & G079017N).
Conflicts of interest: S.B. is supported by a fund ofthe Marguerite‐Marie Delacroix foundation.
Trial registry: European Clinical Trial Registry(Eudract 2014‐000586‐45)
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskComputer‐generated randomised order
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails regarding allocation concealment notprovided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskExcept for the manager of randomisation, all researchstaff conducting the trial, participants, and theirparents and/or partners were blinded to treatmentallocation.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskExcept for the manager of randomisation, all researchstaff conducting the trial, participants, and theirparents and/or partners were blinded to treatmentallocation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskData were analysed using an ITT format with LOCF toreplace missing data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll primary and secondary outcomes listed on clinicalregistry were reported.
Other biasLow riskNo other obvious sources of bias identified

Buitelaar 1990.

Study characteristics
Methods4‐week crossover trial of adrenocorticotrophichormone (synthetic analog of ACTH 4‐9 (Org 2766))versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 5‐13 years

  • outpatients from the Department of ChildPsychiatry of the Utrecht University Hospital

  • met the DSM‐4 criteria for infantile autismfull syndrome, or for atypical PDD


Exclusion criteria: "patients who suffered from grossneurological disorders, and internal andendocrinological diseases were excluded".
Location/setting: child psychiatry outpatient clinicat Utrecht university hospital, The Netherlands
Sample size: 14
Number of withdrawals/ dropouts: none reported
Gender: 12 male, 2 female
Mean age: 8.5 years
IQ: Group 1 (Org 2766/ placebo): 65.3; Group 2(placebo/Org 2766): 62.3
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I scores or other BoC: parent‐ratedABC‐I: 9.4 (6.8)
Exclusion criteria included "having grossneurological disorders, and internal andendocrinological diseases; used psychotropic, or hadused anticonvulsive or related medications 3 monthsprior to or during the trial".
InterventionsAdrenocorticotrophic hormone (4‐9) for 4 weeks: Org2766 was given at 20 mg/day for 4 weeks, after a2‐week placebo period
Placebo for 4 weeks: equivalent placebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability, measured using theABC‐Irritability subscale (Aman 1985)
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessment: baseline, afterintervention phase and after placebo phase
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Funding source: not reported
Conflicts of interest: none reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskInsufficient details provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)High riskTablets of Org 2766 or identical matching placebotablets were provided by Organon International B.V.and labelled by the local pharmacy. Assignment totreatment order occurred at random
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskQuote: "During the trial the behavior of the childwas rated once every 2 weeks at home by the parentsor caretakers, and at school or day care unit byteacher or nurse".
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskAll children completed the trial however Quote:"because of intermittant physical illness one childcould not visit his day care unit for severalperiods of time. Behaviour checklist ratings fromteachers were dismissed for this child".
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe primary outcome measures were play observationsand the ABC (all subscales), which were all measuredand reported in full.
Other biasHigh riskTablets of Org 2766 and identical matching placebotablets were provided by Organon InternationalB.V.

Campbell 1987.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of fenfluramine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 2‐7 years

  • met the DSM‐III criteria for infantile autism,full syndrome

  • patients in Bellevue Hospital, Children'sPsychiatric inpatient service

  • free of psychoactive drugs for a minimum of 2weeks prior to the study


Exclusion criteria: "children who had a known causeof autism"
Location/setting: children's psychiatric inpatientservice, USA
Sample size: 11 (6 fenfluramine, 5 placebo)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: nonereported
Gender: 9 male, 2 female
Mean age: 4.48 (1.16) years
IQ: "adaptive developmental quotients ranged from34‐83”
Baseline ABC‐I scores or other BoC: not reported/applicable
Concomitant medications: 0%
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (fenfluramine) for 8 weeks: fenfluraminewas started at 1.0 mg/kg/day in 2 daily doses. Themaximum dose would not exceed 60 mg/day
Comparator (placebo) for 8 weeks: "for placebo, theoptimal doses ranged from 1.8‐3.3 mg/kg/day (mean =2.2); the maximum explored dose was 3.3mg/kg/day.’
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessment: baseline, week 4, week8
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Funding source: supported, in part, by USPHS grantMH‐32212 from the National Institute of MentalHealth
Conflicts of interest: none reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLow attrition
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskOnly selected items from the CGI and CPRS werereported. "None of the items on the CPRS nor theirsum produced a statistically significantinteraction. The effects of fenfluramine were thusindistinguishable from those of placebo".
Other biasUnclear riskNo group differences published

Campbell 1993.

Study characteristics
Methods3‐week parallel trial of naltrexone versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • hospitalised

  • aged 2‐7 years

  • diagnosed as having ASD infantile onset (before36 months of age) according to the DSM‐III‐Rcriteria


Exclusion criteria: “children with identifiablecauses of autism (eg. congenital rubella, inbornerrors of metabolism, etc.), tardive or withdrawaldyskinesia or those who had other associatedmovement disorders (eg. Tourette's syndrome,chorea), systemic disease (renal, vascular), historyof cardiac disease or nephrosis, seizure disorder orhistory of seizure disorder, history ofhyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism, concurrentadministration of any psychoactive medication,hypersensitivity to naltrexone, and opioiddependence”.
Location/setting: pediatric inpatient clinic,Bellevue Hospital Centre, USA
Sample size: 41 participants (naltrexone 23, placebo18)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 4 from naltrexonegroup "because error was made in labelling the bloodsamples for naltrexone levels."
Gender: 34 boys, 7 girls
Mean age: 4.9 years
IQ: naltrexone group mean adaptive developmentalquotient was 56.8; placebo group mean adaptivedevelopmental quotient was 44.9
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
Concomitant medications: 0%
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (naltrexone) for 3 weeks: naltrexonemaximum 1.0 mg/kg/day
Comparator (placebo) for 3 weeks: placeboequivalent
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessment: once/week an hour afterdrug administration
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Funding source: "supported in part by USPHS grantsMH‐32212 and MH‐18915 from the NIMH, the Hirschelland Deanna E. Levine Foundation, and the Marion O.and Maximilian E. Hoffman Foundation, Inc
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry: not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskThese ratings were done independently by 2 childpsychiatrists (CPRS; CGI) and a research nurse(Nurses' Global Impressions [NGIl and AggressionRating Scale) who were all blinded to the child'streatment condition. "The teacher, also blinded,rated the children in the classroom."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear risk45 children completed the study; the data of 4 werenot analysed because error was made in labeling theblood samples for naltrexone levels
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskSeveral scales were used to measure outcomes and allwere reported on, however only comparisons betweenbaseline and endpoint were given (as F values and Pvalues) and the aggression scale reported asabsent/mild etc
Other biasHigh riskQuote: "New York Health and Hospitals Corporation,I.E. du Pont de Nemours & Company for supplyingnaltrexone (Trexan) and matching placebo tablets andfor supporting in part the statistical analyses"

Carey 2002.

Study characteristics
Methods48‐week cross‐over trial of secretin versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 2‐8 years

  • met DSM‐4 criteria for diagnosis of autism orPDD

  • had not had a recent case of acutepancreatitis

  • had not previously received an infusion ofsecretin


Exclusion criteria: not reported
Location/setting: Developmental and BehavioralPediatrics Division at the Medical College of Ohio,USA
Sample size: 8 in total
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: not reported
Gender: 8 boys
Mean age: 5 years
IQ: "general developmental level based on parentreport on the Child Development Inventory rangedfrom 16 to 39 months".
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I secretin 24.5,placebo 15.5
Concurrent drug use: details not provided
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (single dose of secretin): single doseof 2 IU of secretin/kg of body weight
Comparator (single dose of placebo): equivalentsingle dose of placebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability, measured using theABC‐I subscale (Aman 1985); AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessment: ABC‐I: prior toinfusion and then weekly for 8 weeks
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Funding source: not reported
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskAll participants were randomised into 2 groups.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDouble‐blinded, however no further detailsprovided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskComplete parent and teacher data were obtained for 8of the total 21 project participants.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskProtocol was not provided so unclear if all outcomeswere reported
Other biasHigh riskParticipants were recruited from a list of childrenwhose parents contacted the Developmental andBehavioral Pediatrics Division at the MedicalCollege of Ohio to request a trial of secretin fortheir child.

Chez 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods8‐week cross‐over trial of dextromethorphan +quinidine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • 18–60 years of age

  • diagnosis of ASD based on DSM‐4‐TR criteria,developmental history, and autism diagnosticobservation scale (ADOS) or confirmed to have ASDduring childhood through similar methods.

  • demonstrated behavioural irritability or rapidmood changes that correlated with labile emotionalstate (frontal lobe type perseveration issues)

  • have a collateral informant who attended visitsand answered questionnaires pertaining toparticipants’ behaviour

  • no medication changes for 30 days or newmedications during the course of the study withthe exception of medications for non‐relatedconditions

  • Sexually active women of child‐bearingpotential were required to be on reliable form ofcontraception


Exclusion criteria:
  • "participants who had uncontrolled epilepsy (asdefined as having clinical convulsive episodeswithin the past 6 months) prior to the study orcardiovascular conditions including cardiac orstructural malformation heart fail‐ure, prolongedQT interval (>450 for males and >470 forfemales), history of torsades de pointes, or AV[atrioventricular] blocks were excluded".

  • "Other exclusion criteria included pregnancy,hepatitis, bone marrow depression,thrombocytopenia, lupus‐like syndrome, headinjuries, brain tumors; genetic disorders otherthan known genetic variants of autism, frontallobe brain structural abnormalities, known allergyto dextromethorphan or quinidine, concurrent orrecent (within 30 days) use of MAOIantidepressants, lamotrigine, felbamate or otherNMDA agonists or antagonists; and any clinicallysignificant physical or neurological conditionsthat could compromise the study or be detrimentalto the subject. Patients with ASD who also hadFragile X, Downs, or Rett Syndrome wereexcluded."


Location/ setting: single‐centre study in the USA
Sample size: 15 were randomised although 7 in eachgroup received at least 1 dose of intervention orplacebo.
Reasons for dropouts: 2 participants withdrew after17 weeks. Both had collateral informants who decidedto withdraw from the study due to behaviordeterioration.
Mean IQ: details not provided
Mean age: 21.92 (3.30) years
Gender: 3/14 were female
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: dextromethorphan +quinidine 17.42 (9.23); placebo 17.5 (11.74)
Concomitant medications: participants were notallowed to use MAOI antidepressants, lamotrigine,felbamate or other NMDA agonists or antagonists.
Previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention: participants received 20 mgdextromethorphan/10 mg quinidine in tablet form(Nuedexta) once daily for 7 days and then every 12 hfor the next 7 weeks.
Comparator: equivalent placebo for 8 weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: ABC‐Irritability (Aman 1985)
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: phase 1: baseline andweek 8 
Phase 2: baseline (after 4 weekwashout) and week 8
NotesStudy start date ‐ details not provided
Study end date ‐ details not provided
Funding: "This study was supported by an investigatorinitiated research Grant from Avanir Corporation(Grant No. 947135‐1107629)"
Conflicts of interest: "Dr. Michael Chez has been aspeaker for pediatric epilepsy issues for Eisai,Lundbeck, UCB, and Sunnovion for the past 2 years.No other authors have any conflicts ofinterest".
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskThe parents, neuropsychologists, clinical researchcoordinators (CRC), and investigators wereblinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskThe parents, neuropsychologists, clinical researchcoordinators (CRC), and investigators wereblinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLow attrition and all participants accounted for
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskWithout a clinical trial record or protocol, it isdifficult to know if all outcomes were reported.
Other biasHigh riskPharma funded ‐ Avanir Corporation

Chugani 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods24‐week parallel trial of 2.5 mg buspirone and 5.0 mgbuspirone versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • met DSM‐4 criteria for ASD

  • met the criteria in Autism DiagnosticInterview‐Revised (ADI‐R)

  • met the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule(ADOS) cut‐off scores using revised algorithms

  • age 2 to < 6 years, male and female


Exclusion criteria:
  • "presence or history of neurologic disorders,(abnormal EEG without seizures will not beexcluded), including seizure disorders,phenylketonuria, tuberous sclerosis complex, Rettsyndrome, Fragile X syndrome, Down syndrome, andtraumatic brain injury, and other medical orbehavioural problems that required medicationsthat are centrally active"

  • "Clinical or laboratory evidence of renal orhepatic disease (SGPT, GGT > 2 x normal value,and serum creatinine > 1.5 x normal value).'Receiving 'treatment with drugs known to alter theactivity of CYP3A4"

  • "Use of centrally acting drugs during the 6weeks prior or during the study. These drugsinclude but are not limited to neuroleptics,benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants andantidepressants. Shorter times may be considereddepending on the half life of the drug."

  • "Prior treatment for periods longer than twoweeks with buspirone or selective serotoninreuptake inhibitors. This includes herbalsubstances such as St John's Wort which havesimilar pharmacological actions."


Location/setting: “6 academic medical centres: WayneState University School of Medicine, Children'sHospital of Michigan; Case Western ReserveUniversity, Rainbow Babies Hospital; University ofTexas South Western; Cleveland Clinic Foundation;University of California Davis; an New YorkUniversity School of Medicine”. USA
Sample size: 166 (2.5 mg buspiraone n = 54; 5.0 mgbuspirone n = 55; placebo n = 57)
Number of withdrawals/ dropouts: "twenty‐fourparticipants (14%) discontinued the study during thetreatment phase (adverse event [n = 12, 6 in theplacebo group, 3 in the 2.5‐mg group, 3 in the5.0‐mg group], withdrew consent [n = 3], lost tofollow‐up [n = 3], started exclusionary medication[n = 2], clinical decision [n = 2], participantmoved [n = 1], time commitments [n = 1])."
Gender: 137 male, 29 female
Mean age: 4.4 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scores: RepetitiveBehaviour Scale (self‐injurious behaviour), 2.5 mgbuspirone 46.9 (3.5), 5.0 mg buspirone 31.5 (3.5),placebo 36.7 (3.5)
Concurrent medications: “participants who used astable dose of melatonin for sleep before entry intothe study were allowed to continue use during thestudy."
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsBuspirone 2.5 mg/day for 24 weeks: liquid, 2.5 mg in1 mL, once/day in the evening for the first week ofadministration and thereafter twice a day 12 h apartfor the entire study
Buspirone 5.0 mg/day for 24 weeks: buspirone liquid,5.0 mg in 1 mL, once/day in the evening for thefirst week of administration and thereafter twice aday 12 h apart for the entire study
Placebo for 24 weeks: “placebo liquid, in 1 mL,once/day in the evening for the first week ofadministration and thereafter twice a day 12 h apartfor the entire study”
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs; self‐injurious behaviour,measured with the Repetitive Behaviour Scale (Bodfish2000)
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: AEs were assessedtwice monthly. Self‐injurious behaviour was measuredat baseline, 24 weeks and 48 weeks.
NotesStudy start date: 14 July 2009
Study end date: 8 January 2013
Source of funding: supported by the NationalInstitute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskExact method not mentioned. Quote: "Within each site,participants were randomised in blocks for agegroups (2 to <4 years, and 4 to <6 years) totreatment groups of 2.5mg, 5mg, or placebo".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "all site personnel were blinded to treatmentduring both phases of treatment. A medical monitorat a different site not involved in the enrollmentof participants evaluated the adverse events"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskDetails not provided although an external personevaluated the adverse effects
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskOutcome data could not be obtained for 11 of 24participants who discontinued early because familiesdeclined to return for the final visit testing orwere lost to follow‐up, however an ITT analysis wasused.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe main outcome reported on clinicaltrials.gov was"To evaluate the effects of twice‐daily oralbuspirone on core features of autism in autisticchildren 2‐6 years measuring the change frombaseline in ADOS (Autism Diagnostic ObservationSchedule) Composite Total scores compared to placeboat 6 months". the ADOS total scores were reportedfor each intervention group.
Other biasUnclear riskWe contacted study authors for details on RepetitiveBehaviour Scale subscale 4 results but no reply

Dai 2021.

Study characteristics
Methods 
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: "The patients, aged from 3 to 6years old, were given the diagnosis of ASD accordingto the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders, Fifth Edition (DSM‐5) , by a team ofautism experts; Scores for Children Autism RatingScale (CARS) were more than 30; Signed InformedConsents were provided by parents."
Exclusion criteria: "Liver and kidney dysfunction;With a history of allergy to sulfa drugs; abnormalECG; chromosomal abnormality; suffering from nervoussystem diseases (such as epilepsy, schizophrenia,and so on); using the melatonin treatment for sleepdisorders or withdrawal less than three weeks."
Location/setting: Shanghai, China
Sample size: bumetanide 59; placebo 60 (119 intotal)
Reasons for withdrawals/dropouts: bumetanide 1dropped out due to non‐adherence; placebo 2 droppedout (1 due to hand and foot disease, the other "metthe criteria for withdrawal")
Gender: bumetanide group 51 male, 8 female; placebogroup 49 male, 11 female
Mean age: bumetanide group 4.03 years; placebo 4.22years
IQ: details not provided except that 75% in theintervention and 65% placebo groups had ASD plusintellectual or developmental disability
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: not an outcome
Concomitant medications: details not provided
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (bumetanide) for 3 months: bumetanidetablets, oral intake, 0.5 mg, twice daily,respectively at 8 am and 4 pm
Comparator (placebo) for 3 months: "placebo tablets,oral intake, 0.5 mg, twice daily, respectively at 8am and 4 pm"
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: self‐injurious behaviour, changefrom baseline; measured using the RepetitiveBehaviour Scale (Bodfish 2000)
Timing of outcome assessments: not clear
NotesStudy start date: May 2017
Study end date: July 2019
Funding: various grants
Conflicts of interest: details not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear risk"Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratioto receive 0.5 mg oral bumetanide or placebo twicedaily for 3 months by using a block randomizationscheme." "The generation of random allocationsequence and the preparation of trial medicationwere done by investigators in an externalconsultancy who do not participate in other aspectsof the study."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear risk"The study medication (bumetanide or placebo tablet)was provided in sequentially numbered envelopes"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow risk"The study medication (bumetanide or placebo tablet)was provided in sequentially numbered envelopes"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskStated that "Patients and their caregivers,investigators, experienced psychiatrists, and dataanalysts remained masked to the treatment allocationuntil the study database was locked"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear risk1 withdrew because "they met the criteria forwithdrawal"
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear risk2 of the outcomes on the trial registry have not beenreported.
Other biasHigh riskThe baseline Repetitive Behaviour Scale (self‐injury)scores were double that in the placebo group.

Danfors 2005.

Study characteristics
Methods6‐month cross‐over trial of tetrahydrobiopterinversus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • a diagnosis of ASD according to the DSM‐4

  • aged 3‐7 years

  • an age‐adjusted IQ score of ≥ 30 on GriffithsDevelopmental Scale

  • cerebrospinal fluid tetrahydrobiopterin < 30pmol/mL


Exclusion criteria:
  • no previous history of asthma or epilepsy

  • no previous pharmacological treatment againstASD

  • IQ < 30


Location/setting: outpatients from 4 differentdepartments of child and adolescent psychiatry inSweden
Sample size: 12 in total
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: "all 12 childrencompleted the tetrahydrobiopterin treatmentstudy".
Gender: 11 male, 1 female
Mean age: 5.3 years
IQ: 32‐93
Concurrent medications: participants could not havetaken pharmacological treatments for ASD prior to orduring the study.
History of previous medications: see above
InterventionsIntervention (tetrahydrobiopterin): individual dosesof tetrahydrobiopterin at 3 mg/kg of body weightwere prescribed in capsule form (in single‐dosepack) to be taken twice daily.
Comparator (placebo): twice‐daily capsules
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: adverse events
Secondary outcomes: none reported
NotesStudy start date: details not provided
Study end date: details not provided
Funding: "This research was supported by grants fromthe Subfemtomole Biorecognition Project, ICORP,Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST), TheSwedish Research Council (grant 8645) the SvenJerring Fund, Holmia insurance company, theGillbergska Foundation, the Samaritan Foundation,the Linnea and Josef Carlssons Foundation, and thechild‐neurology fund of Uppsala University"
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry: not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskThe local hospital pharmacy produced the capsules andperformed the randomisation of the patients
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskDouble‐blind; the assessors remained blindedthroughout the study.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskDouble‐blind; the assessors remained blindedthroughout the study.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskAEs were not provided for both groups despite beingrecorded every 3 months.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskDifficult to determine without a protocol
Other biasLow riskNone identified

Danforth 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods4‐week parallel trial of MDMA + psychotherapy versusplacebo + psychotherapy
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged ≥ 21 years

  • have at least two years of college education orthe equivalent

  • complete the autism diagnostic observationschedule ‐ 2 Module 4 (adult) by a designatedIndependent Rater (IR) who was researchreliability certified

  • have moderate to severe symptoms of socialanxiety with a combined Liebowitz Social AnxietyScale score of at least 60

  • able to safely discontinue any currentpsychotropic medications that could interfere withaction of the experimental drug.


Exclusion criteria: psychiatric exclusion criteriaincluded family history in first‐degree relatives ofschizophrenia or bipolar I disorder, or participantdiagnoses of active or past psychotic disorder,borderline personality disorder, dissociativeidentity disorder, eating disorder or activesuicidal ideation.
Setting: Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute inTorrance, CA, USA
Sample size: placebo (n = 4); MDMA (n = 8)
Reason for dropouts/withdrawals: from MDMA group, 1treatment discontinuation due to not meetinginclusion criteria
Current or previous medications: previous medicationsMDMA: antidepressants (5), anxiolytics (1),antipsychotics (1), stimulant (3), other (3).Placebo: antidepressants (2), antipsychotics (1),stimulant (1)
Mean age: placebo mean age 28.3 years, MDMA mean age32.8 years
Mean IQ: details not provided
Gender: MDMA 25% female, placebo all male
Baseline ABC‐Irritability scores: not an outcome
Concomitant medications ‐ not reported
Previous medications: previous medications: MDMAantidepressants (5), anxiolytics (1), antipsychotics(1), stimulant (3), other (3). Placeboantidepressants (2), antipsychotics (1), stimulant(1)
InterventionsIntervention (MDMA + psychotherapy): "after three 60‐to 90‐min non‐drug preparatory psychotherapysessions, participants received two blindedexperimental sessions with MDMA or placebo, spacedapproximately 1 month apart. Following eachexperimental session, three 60‐ to 90‐min non‐drugintegrative psychotherapy sessions occurred over 3weeks"
Comparator (placebo + psychotherapy): "after three60‐ to 90‐min non‐drug preparatory psychotherapysessions, participants received two blindedexperimental sessions with MDMA or placebo, spacedapproximately 1 month apart. Following eachexperimental session, three 60‐ to 90‐min non‐drugintegrative psychotherapy sessions occurred over 3weeks"
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: adverse events
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline,post‐intervention, and 6 months
NotesStudy start date: February 2014
Study end date: April 2017
Funding: "The trial was sponsored and funded by theMultidisciplinary Association for PsychedelicStudies (MAPS), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.MAPS Public Benefit Corporation (MPBC), wholly ownedby MAPS, was the trial organizer."
Conflicts of interest: in receipt of various grantsand some authors were eployed by the funder of thestudy.
Other: clinical trial registry ‐NCT02008396
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskNot stated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskNot stated
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Participants, therapists, and IR [IndependentRater] were blinded to drug assignment"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskAn independent rater (IR) administered the LeibowitzSocial Anxiety Scale (LSAS) at baseline, 1 day, 2weeks, and 4 weeks after each experimental sessionand readministered it before the blind was broken at6 months.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskITT analysis, only one dropout
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskSame primary outcomes on clinical trialregistration
Other biasHigh riskThe trial was sponsored and funded by theMultidisciplinary Association for PsychedelicStudies.

Dean 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods24‐week trial of N‐acetyl cysteine (NAC) versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: "diagnosis of Autistic Disorderaccording to DSM‐4‐TR (Diagnostic and StatisticalManual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, TextRevision) criteria (American PsychiatricAssociation, 2000) and were aged between 3 and 9years, inclusive".
Exclusion criteria: "had a known or suspectedclinically relevant systemic medical disorder orknown genetic or metabolic cause of developmentaldelay, such as fragile X or Rett syndrome; had aprior sensitivity or allergy to NAC were consideredlikely to be unable to comply with the treatmentprotocol, e.g., having a highly restricted dietleading to refusal to take NAC; hadparents/guardians who were non‐fluent in English;had a history of asthma or epilepsy, as these areequivocally influenced by NAC, or were alreadyreceiving any treatment containing NAC, glutathioneor their precursors".
Location/setting: Australia
Sample size: ITT sample was 98: NAC 48; placebo50
Reason for dropouts/withdrawals:
  • NAC: 6 withdrew between baseline and week 4 (2parents withdrew consent, 3 protocol violations,and 1 withdrew due to behavioural changes); 4withdrew between week 4 and week 12 (1 parentwithdrew consent, 1 protocol violation, 1 withdrewbecause of behavioural changes, and 1 withdrew forhealth reasons); 3 withdrew between week 12 andweek 24 (2 LTFU and 1 protocol violation)

  • Placebo: 6 withdrew between baseline and week 4(2 parents withdrew consent, 2 protocolviolations, 1 serious AE, 1 withdrew for healthreasons); 3 withdrew between between week 4 andweek 12 (1 parent withdrew consent, 1 protocolviolation, 1 LTFU); 4 LTFU between week 12 and24


Mean age: 6.4 years
Mean IQ: 73
Gender: 79 male, 19 female
Baseline ABC‐Irritability scores: RepetitiveBehaviour Scale (self‐injury) 2.2 (2.9) inintervention group, 1.7 (2.6) in placebo group
Current or previous medications: "children undergoingany pharmacological treatment for autistic disorderwere allowed to continue with that treatment, asusual". Not specified per group but outlined 26.5%on a psychotropic medication (most commonly;melatonin 12/2% and risperidone 5.1%). Othermedications included health supplements (mostcommonly fish oil 19.4%), anti‐allergy medication(total use 5.1%), skin medication (total use 4.1%)and 9.1% of children were on a range of othermedications (e.g. paracetamol).
InterventionsIntervention: fixed dose 500 mg once daily ofN‐acetyl cysteine
Comparator: equivalent placebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: self‐injurious behaviour, measuredwith the Repetitive Behaviour Scale (Bodfish 2000);AEs
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 4, 12and 24
NotesStudy start date: details not provided
Study end date: details not provided
Funding: "This work was supported by the SimonsFoundation Autism Research Initiative (SFARI) [Grant201473]. A pilot award and scholarship support forKristi‐Ann Villagonzalo was obtained from AustralianRotary Health. Michael Berk is supported by an NHMRCSenior Principal Research Fellowship (1059660)".
Conflicts of interest: "No potential conflict ofinterest was reported by the authors".
Trial registry: ACTRN12610000635066
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk"Participants were randomised sequentially intoeither the NAC or placebo groups using a computerprogram designed for clinical trial randomisation(randomization.com)". "An independent researcher,who had no contact with any participants,coordinated the computer‐generated randomisationcodes"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskParticipants, their parents/guardians, trial staffand the statistician were blind to treatment armallocation for the duration of the study.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskParticipants, their parents/guardians, trial staffand the statistician were blind to treatment armallocation for the duration of the study
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskLarge amount of attrition by 6 months (> 25% inboth groups). Not clear if AEs is for allparticipants or just those at 6 months'follow‐up
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskOutcomes have not been listed on the clinical trialsregistry and so it is difficult to know if alloutcomes have been reported.
Other biasUnclear riskThe study medication was gifted by BioMedica

DeVane 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods10‐week trial of aripiprazole versus risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 6‐17 years

  • weighing at least 15 kg

  • meet DSM‐4 criteria for ASD

  • ABC‐Irritability subscale score of > 18 atbaseline

  • mental age of at least 18 months

  • medication‐free or adequate washout period (2‐4weeks prior) of psychotropic medications


Exclusion criteria:
  • psychiatric disorder that is being treated withpsychotropic drugs

  • prior diagnosis or evidence of other disordersthat may interfere with assessment (e.g Fragile X,fetal alcohol syndrome)

  • prior use of aripiprazole or risperidone for> 2 weeks

  • seizure during the last 6 months

  • medical condition that may place theparticipant at increased risk of significantAEs

  • dependent on other substances excludingnicotine or caffeine

  • positive urine pregnancy test at baseline.


Location/setting: 3 academic medical centres and asingle private paediatric practice in the USA
Mean age: range 6‐15.1 years in aripiprazole group;6.3‐17.5 years in risperidone group
IQ: details not provided
Gender: 19% and 23% of aripiprazole and risperidonegroups were female.
Current or previous medications: aripiprazole, 4/31had previously taken the study drug (but not withinthe last 3 years), risperidone, 1/31 had previouslytaken the study drug (but not within the last 3years).
Baseline ABC‐Irritability scores: > 18 atbaseline
Sample size: 61 (31 aripiprazole; 30 risperidone)
Number analysed: aripiprazole 31, risperidone 30
Reason for dropouts: aripiprazole, 4 discontinued alldue to AEs, risperidone, 6 discontinued (3 due tomissed visits, 2 AEs, and 1 withdrew on physician'sadvice)
Timing of outcome assessments: "safety, physical, andpsychological assessment were recorded at clinicvisits that took place weekly or every 2 weeks".
InterventionsIntervention (risperidone): "children weighing 20‐45kg will receive an initial dose of 0.5 mg daily thatwill be increased to twice daily on day 4 (morningand bedtime). The dosage will be gradually increasedin 0.5 mg increments to a maximum dose of 2.5 mg perday (1.0 mg in the morning and 1.5 mg at bedtime) bythe fourth treatment week. A slightly accelerateddosage will be allowed for children who weigh morethan 45 kg for a maximum dosage of 3.5 mg /day"
Comparator (aripiprazole): starting dosage of 2.0mg/day. "The dosage will be allowed to increase to5.0 mg/day on day 4 and can be increased thereafterto a maximum dosage of 15 mg/day. The dosage willonly be increased in 5.0 mg intervals. No dosageadjustments will be allowed for either drug after 4weeks".
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: ABC‐Irritability (Aman 1985);AEs
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
NotesStudy start date: September 2011
Study end date: June 2015
Funding: "The study was funded by Grant No.R01HD62550 from the National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development, National Institutes ofHealth".
Conflicts of interest: "The authors have declared noconflicts of interest for this article".
Trial registry:NCT01333072
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskNo details given on how random sequence wasgenerated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskNo details given on allocation concealment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskAll research personnel blinded except for RA whoprepared meds and study pharmacist who checkedmeds
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskPhysicians (who conducted physical neurologicalevaluation) and caregiver (who completedquestionnaires) were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll participants were accounted for and included inthe analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskProtocol available at ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT01333072 Primary outcome was "Changes in theIrritability Subscale of the Larger ABC (AbberentBehavior Checklist) That Occur From Baseline to 10Weeks" but they've tested for P values at each weekas there was no statistically significant differenceat 10 weeks. This is reported misleadingly in theabstract Quote: "Improvement was greatest in therisperidone group at every assessment period"
Other biasLow riskNone identified

Dollfus 1992.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of amisulpride versusbromocriptine
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: "children 4‐13 years inclusivewho meet the DSM‐III diagnostic criteria forinfantile autism. Severity of autism according tothe Childhood Autism Rating Scale was at least 36indicating 'severely autistic'."
Exclusion criteria: details not provided
Location/setting: inpatients and outpatients atSalpetriere hospital, Paris
Sample size: 9 in total (cross‐over study).Amisulpride first group (5); bromocriptine firstgroup (4)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none in first phaseof cross‐over. Only one dropped out of the studyduring the second treatment phase (amisulpride) onweek 12 for reasons unrelated to the treatment
Gender: 4 girls, 5 boys
Mean age: 6.9 years
IQ: "the severity of the autistic syndrome did notallow IQ tests to be given. It may be presumed,therefore, that the children are likely to have beenseverely mentally retarded".
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not an outcome
Concurrent medications: "two of the nine children hadreceived neuroleptic treatment at the time ofselection. Therefore, a 45‐day neuroleptic washoutperiod was required". No neuroleptic or otherpsychotropic drugs were allowed during the trial,except benzodiazepine, niaprazine, or hydroxyzinefor severe sleep disorders, which 3 participantstook concurrently during the trial (1 participantniaprazine; 1 participant niaprazine andflunitrazepam‐hydroxyzine; 1 participanthydroxyzine)
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (amisulpride): 1.5 mg/kg/day for 4weeks
Comparator (bromocriptine): 0.15‐0.20 mg/kg/day for 4weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessment: baseline and then every2 weeks for 14 weeks
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: research protocol subsidised byMUSTELA Foundation (under the aegis of theFoundation of France)
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry: not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDouble‐blinding was used although specific detailsnot provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "The raters were blind to the treatment"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskOnly 9 participants were involved in the trial, withonly 1 person withdrawing from the trial during thesecond phase of the crossover trial. A LOCF was usedfor the analysis of this participant.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskThe BSE was reported fully at baseline and endpointfor both phases of the cross‐over, however the BSEis not relevant to the outcomes of interest.Non‐specific BSE measures include items onaggressiveness which not reported specifically,rather included as part of total score.
Other biasUnclear riskNo other sources identified but difficult to knowwithout a protocol or trial registry

Eslamzadeh 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods8‐week parallel trial of atomoxetine + risperidoneversus placebo + risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • meet the DSM‐5 for ASD

  • 6‐17 years of age


Exclusion criteria:
  • concomitant ADHD

  • other psychiatric disorders

  • any other medical conditions

  • use of any psychotropic apart fromrisperidone

  • IQ < 50


Location/setting: outpatient clinic of Ibnesinahospital, Iran
Mean IQ: details not provided
Mean age: 8.0 years
Gender: 6 female, 34 male
Sample size: 40‐20 each group
Number analysed: 20 in each group completed thetrial
Reasons for dropouts: 3 from atomoxetine groupdiscontinued due to withdrawing consent (1) and AEs(2) and 1 from placebo group did not start thetrial.
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: not reported
Timing of outcome assessments: "patients wereevaluated at baseline, 4 weeks and 8 weeks after theadministration of the drug".
Concomitant medications: apart from risperidone,participants could not be taking any otherpsychotropic drugs.
Previous medications ‐ not reported
InterventionsIntervention (atomoxetine + risperidone): atomoxetinewas given at 0.5 mg/kg/day at the start andincreasing every 5 days up to a maximum of 1.2mg/kg/day for 8 weeks. All participants werecurrently taking risperidone ranging from 1‐4mg/day
Comparator (placebo + risperidone): placebo plususual intake of risperidone for 8 weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
NotesStudy start date: August 2015
Study end date: September 2016
Funding: "This work was extracted from a residencythesis in the Mashhad University of Science. Therewas no organizational financial support".
Conflicts of interest: "There are no conflicts ofinterest".
Other: trial registry IRCT2016022826802N1
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskQuote: "double blind". No further detailsprovided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesHigh riskThe trial registry stated that investigators were notblinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskThe numbers that discontinued in the treatment groupdo not match what was analysed (i.e they report 3dropouts but 4 not included in the analysis).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe outcomes listed on the clinical registry werereported
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Fankhauser 1992.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of clonidine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 5‐33 years

  • DSM‐III‐R diagnosis of an autistic disorder

  • no medication use in the 2 weeks before thestudy


Exclusion criteria:
  • a history of schizophrenia or profoundintellectual disability

  • unstable medical condition requiringmedication

  • abnormal laboratory results


Location/setting: USA
Sample size: 9 in total (cross‐over)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 2 from clonidinegroup
Gender: all male
Mean age: 12.9 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: baseline RFRLRS(affectual responses: 1.02)
Concurrent medications: 0%
History of previous medications: 0%
InterventionsIntervention (clonidine): weekly patch deliveringapproximately 0.005 mg/kg /day for 4 weeks
Comparator (placebo): transdermal placebo patch for 4weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability, measured using theRFRLRS (Freeman1986)
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessment: baseline, 2 weeks, 4weeks
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: Boehringer IngelheimPharmaceuticals supplied the patches
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry: not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskNot stated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNot stated
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNot stated
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh risk2 of 9 participants were lost to follow‐up, 1 becauseof irritability and sedation while on clonidine
LTFU: 2 unexplained
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskAEs were not reported.
Other biasUnclear riskThis was highly divergent sample (5‐33 years) withlow sample numbers (9)

Findling 2014.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of aripiprazole versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria
  • Male or female children or adolescents with amental age of at least 24 months

  • 6‐17 years of age, inclusive, at the time ofthe baseline visit

  • Meets current diagnostic criteria of the DSM4‐TR for autistic disorder

  • Displays behaviors such as tantrums,aggression, self‐injurious behaviour, or acombination of these problems. An ABC subscalescore ≥ 18 AND a CGI‐S score ≥ 4 at the screeningand baseline visits


Exclusion criteria
  • Previous treatment with aripiprazole for atleast 3 weeks' duration at an adequate daily dose,without demonstrating a clinically meaningfulresponse

  • Lifetime diagnosis of psychiatric disorder suchas bipolar disorder, psychosis, or schizophrenia,or a current diagnosis of PDD‐NOS, Asperger'ssyndrome, Rett's syndrome, childhooddisintegrative disorder, or Fragile X syndrome

  • At significant risk for suicide

  • Unstable epilepsy or history of severe headtrauma or stroke

  • Other unstable medical conditions


Location/setting: child and adolescent psychiatry,Johns Hopkins Hospital, USA
Sample size: 85 (41 aripiprazole, 44 placebo)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 19 dropouts inaripiprazole group due to: withdrawal (5), LTFU (1),lack of efficacy (13); 25 dropouts in placebo groupdue to: adverse event (1), lack of efficacy (23),noncompliance (1)
Mean age: aripiprazole 10.1 years, placebo 10.8years
IQ: mental age of at least 24 months
Gender: aripiprazole male 30/41; placebo 38/44male
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported (onlychange from baseline)
Concurrent medications: "allowed antipsychotics apartfrom aripiprazole include antidepressants,benzodiazepines (for procedures only), stimulants,alpha‐agonists, mood stabilizers, and atomoxetine.Diphenhydramine for sleep or serious behaviurproblems, nonbenzodiazepine sleep aids for insomnia,and melotonin for insomnai were permitted".
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (aripiprazole):"Phase 1 (singleblind): Participants received an initial dose ofaripiprazole 2 mg daily, titered up to 5, 10, or 15mg once daily to optimize clinical benefit, for amaximum of 26 weeks. Phase 2 (randomised):Aripiprazole was continued at the (fixed) doseprescribed at the end of Phase 1, once daily for 16weeks. The dose (within the range of 2‐15 mg/day)could have been adjusted based on efficacy andtolerability".
Comparator (placebo): equivalent placebo for 16weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability (change frombaseline), measured using the ABC‐Irritabilitysubscale (Aman1985); AEs
Secondary outcomes: QoL, measured with the PedsQL
Timing of outcome assessment: ABC‐I and AEs wereassessed every 2 weeks and PedsQL every 4 weeks
NotesStudy start date: March 2011
Study end date: June 2012
Source of funding: Bristol‐Myers Squibb
Conflicts of interest: "Dr Findling receives or hasreceived research support from, acted as aconsultant to, received royalties from, and/orserved on a speaker’s bureau for Abbott, Addrenex,Alexza, American Psychiatric Press, AstraZeneca,Biovail, Bracket, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, DainipponSumitomo Pharma, Forest, GlaxoSmithKline, GuilfordPress, Johns Hopkins University Press, Johnson &Johnson, KemPharm, Lilly, Lundbeck, Merck, NationalInstitutes of Health, Neuropharm, Novartis, Noven,Organon, Otsuka, Pfizer, Physicians PostgraduatePress, Rhodes Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Sage,Sanofi‐Aventis, Schering‐Plough, SeasideTherapeutics, Sepracore, Shionogi, Shire, Solvay,Stanley Medical Research Institute, Sunovion,Supernus, Transcept, Validus, WebMD and Wyeth".
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided about sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided about allocation concealment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided about blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided about blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskPaper mentions the PedQoL and Caregiver StrainQuestionnaire that were administered every 4 weeksin the double‐blind phase. Neither outcome wasreported in the paper.
LTFU: aripiprazole 19/39 did not complete the trial(withdrawal (5); LTFU (1); Lack of efficacy(13))
Placebo: 25/43 did not complete thetrial (adverse event (1), poor/noncompliance (1),lack of efficacy (23))
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskQuote: "Safety assessments were made every 2 weeks inthe double blind phase". Relatively few AEs reportedfor double‐blind phase suggesting reportingbias.
Other biasHigh riskThere is an agreement between Principal Investigatorsand the Sponsor (or its agents) that restricts thePI's rights to discuss or publish trial resultsafter the trial is completed".

Ghaleiha 2013a.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of memantine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children aged 4‐12 years

  • meet the DSM‐4‐TR criteria for diagnosis ofautism

  • ABC‐C I subscale score of ≥ 12 at screening atbaseline


Exclusion criteria:
  • concomitant schizophrenia or psychoticdisorders

  • severe intellectual disabilities

  • active clinical seizures

  • history of drug or alcohol abuse or tardivedyskinesia

  • any antipsychotic drug treatments in theprevious 6 months

  • previously used memantine

  • any significant active medical problem


Location/setting: speciality clinic for autism in thechildren’s outpatient clinic, Iran
Sample size: 40 (20 memantine/risperidone; 20placebo/risperidone)
Number of withdrawals/ dropouts: none reported
Gender: memantine 11 boys, 9 girls; placebo 12 boys,8 girls
Mean age: memantine 7.42 years; placebo 7.97years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I memantine 18.25,placebo 17.65
Concurrent medications: 0% (participants had to bedrug‐treatment‐free in 6 months prior to trial)
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (memantine + risperidone) for 10 weeks:participants started on 5 mg (tablets) once daily,which was titrated up or down in 5 mg incrementseach week up to a maximum of 15 mg/day for children10‐40 kg and 20 mg/day for children > 40 kg.Risperidone was titrated up to 2 mg/day (starting at0.5 mg with dose increases of 0.5 mg incrementsweekly for the first 3 weeks) for children weighing10‐40 kg, titrated up to 3 mg/day for children >40 kg
Comparator (placebo + risperidone) for 10 weeks:placebo was identical to memantine in appearance,shape, size, colour and taste. Risperidone wastitrated up to 2 mg/day (starting at 0.5 mg withdose increases of 0.5 mg increments weekly for thefirst 3 weeks) for children weighing 10‐40 kg,titrated up to 3 mg/day for children > 40 kg
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability, measured using theABC‐Irritability subscale (Aman 1985);AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: ABC‐I was rated atbaseline, weeks 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10; AEs were recordedevery 2 weeks
NotesStudy start date: January 2009
Study end date: January 2011
Source of funding: Tehran University of MedicalSciences
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry ‐ IRCT1138901151556N10
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "patients were randomised to receive memantineor placebo in a 1:1 ratio using a computer‐generatedcode"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskQuote: "the assignments were kept in sealed, opaqueenvelopes until data analysis." But it is not clearhow they were allocated.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskThroughout the study the person who administered themedications, the rater and the patients were blindto assignments.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskThroughout the study, the person who administered themedications, the rater and the patients were blindto assignments.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskThere appeared to be no LTFU
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll data appear to have been reported
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Ghaleiha 2013b.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of riluzole + risperidone versusplacebo + risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: "male and female outpatients aged5‐12 years with a diagnosis of autistic disorderbased on the DSM‐4‐TR criteria and a score of >12on the ABC‐C irritability subscale who haddiscontinue other medication because of lack ofefficacy". Participants also had to be drug‐free forat least 6 weeks prior to study entry".
Exclusion criteria:
  • any significant medical problem e.g. hepaticdisease, seizure disorder

  • DSM‐4 axis I or II psychiatric disorder (basedon a structured diagnostic interview)

  • severe intellectual disabilities, which makesthe diagnosis of autism inconclusive

  • history of hypersensitivity to riluzole

  • drug or alcohol abuse

  • tardive dyskinesia

  • any psychotropic medication within 6 weeksprior to enrolment


Location/ Setting: autism speciality clinic in thechildren’s outpatient clinic of Roozbeh Hospital,Iran
Sample size: riluzole + risperidone 25; placebo +risperidone 24
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: riluzole +risperidone: 3 restlessness, 2 no improvement.Placebo + risperidone: 1 restlessness; 3 withdrewconsent
Gender: 17/20 male riluzole/risperidone group; 16/20male placebo/risperidone group
Mean age: riluzole + risperidone 8.4 years; placebo +risperidone 7.6 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I of ≥ 12
Concurrent medications: 0% on psychotropicmedications
History of previous medications: 16/20 and 18/20(riluzole and placebo group respectively)risperidone; Ritalin (methylphenidate) 6 and 7/20;biperiden 5 and 3/20; haloperidol 1 and 2/20;clonidine 2 and 3/20; fluoxetine 2 in both groups;levocarnitine 2 in riluzole group; valproic acid 1in both groups; lamatrogine 1 and 2/20; lithium 1 inriluzole group; perphanazine 1 in placebo group;ginseng 1 in riluzole group; desmopressin 1 inriluzole group; pentoxifylline 1 in placebogroup
InterventionsIntervention (riluzole + risperidone) for 10 weeks:riluzole (Rilutek; Sanofi‐Aventis) was titrated from25 mg/day to 50 mg/day for children weighing between10 kg and 40 kg or 100 mg/day for children weighing> 40 kg. Risperidone (Risperdal; JanssenPharmaceuticals) was titrated from 0.5 mg/day up to2 mg/day for children weighing up to 40 kg or 3mg/day for children weighing > 40 kg.
Comparator (placebo + risperidone) for 10 weeks:risperidone (Risperdal; Janssen Pharmaceuticals) wastitrated from 0.5 mg/day up to 2 mg/day for childrenweighing up to 40 kg or 3 mg/day for childrenweighing more than 40 kg.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability, measured using theABC‐Irritability subscale (Aman 1985);AEs
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 5, week10
NotesStudy start date: August 2011
Study end date: September 2012
Source of funding: supported by a grant from TehranUniversity of Medical Sciences to Prof ShahinAkhonzadeh (grant number 14037)
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "A computer‐generated code was used in orderto randomly assign the patients to the riluzole orplacebo group in a 1:1 ratio"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "The assignments were kept in sequentiallynumbered, sealed, opaque envelopes until the end ofthe study."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "The patients, their parents, and thephysicians who referred them were all blind to thetreatment assignments, as were the rater and theperson who administered the medications. Separatepersons were responsible for random allocation andrating of the patients"
Quote: "The placebowas identical in appearance (shape, size, color, andtaste) to riluzole and was dispensed by theinvestigational drug pharmacist."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: 'The patients, their parents, and thephysicians who referred them were all blind to thetreatment assignments, as were the rater and theperson who administered the medications. Separatepersons were responsible for random allocation andrating of the patients'.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskAll 40 participants who completed at least onepost‐baseline visit were included in the analysis. 9of 49 randomised participants did not attend apost‐baseline visit, 5 in the riluzole group and 4in the placebo group.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll outcomes were reported (ICRT checked)
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Ghaleiha 2014.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of galantamine + risperidone versusplacebo + risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • outpatients

  • aged 4‐12 years

  • met the criteria for diagnosis of autism(DSM‐4‐TR) (≥ 6 symptoms, as per DSM 4‐TR)

  • score of ≥ 12 on the ABC‐I


Exclusion criteria:
  • any other diagnosis of a psychiatric disorderon the DSM‐IV axis I or II, based on a structureddiagnostic interview.

  • severe intellectual disability

  • any unstable medical illness, hepatic disease,active epilepsy, genetic syndrome or otherclinically significant abnormality

  • history of tardive dyskinesia or previoushypersensitivity with the use of galantamine orrisperidone

  • use of psychotropic medication in the 6 weeksprior to enrolment in the stud


Location/setting: psychiatric academic hospitalaffiliated with Tehran University of MedicalSciences
Sample size: galantamine 25; placebo 23
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: galantamine (5)because of withdrawn consent; placebo (3) because ofwithdrawn consent
Gender: galantamine 17/20 male; placebo 18/20male
Mean age: galantamine 6.85 years; placebo 5.9years
IQ: galantamine 6 had mild intellectual disability, 2had moderate intellectual disability; placebo 5 hadmild intellectual disability, 4 had moderateintellectual disability
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I baseline of ≥12
Concurrent medications: none permitted
History of previous medications: galantamine 1 hadtaken valproic acid; placebo 1 sodium valproate, 1carbamazepine, 1 vigabatrin, 1 phenobarbital
InterventionsIntervention (galantamine + risperidone) for 10weeks: the initial dosage of galantamine was 2mg/day and increased weekly in increments of 2 mg iftolerated and clinically indicated. The maximum dosewas 12 mg/day for children weighing < 20 kg, 16mg/day for children weighing 20–30 kg, 20 mg/day forchildren weighting 30–40 kg and 24 mg/day forchildren weighing ≥ 40 kg. Risperidone: titrated upto 1 mg/day for children weighing < 20 kg, and 2mg/day for children weighing ≥ 20 kg
Comparator (placebo + risperidone) for 10 weeks:risperidone was titrated up to 1 mg/day for childrenweighing < 20 kg, and 2 mg/day for childrenweighing ≥ 20 kg. The equivalent placebo was alsoadministered.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I (Aman 1985)

  • response (partial or complete defined as aminimum 25% reduction and a minimum 50% reductionin ABC‐Irritability scores from baselinerespectively)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 5, week10
NotesStudy start date: April 2012
Study end date: January 2013
Source of funding: Tehran University of MedicalSciences (grant number 13216 to SA)
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry: IRCT201204081556N40
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "randomization codes were generated by excelsoftware by an independent person who was notinvolved elsewhere in the research project"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "assignments were kept insequentially‐numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes andwere opened sequentially, only after the participantdetails were written on the envelope"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "the patients, their parents and thephysicians who referred them were all blind to thetreatment assignments, so were the researchinvestigators and the person who administered themedications. Placebo capsules and their ingredientswere made to be identical to galantaminecapsules"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskThe research investigators were blinded to thetreatment assignments. Separate people wereresponsible for rating and random allocation of thepatients.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskData analysed for 20 participants completing in eachgroup
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll ABC domains reported
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Ghaleiha 2015.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of pioglitazone + risperidone versusplacebo + risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male and female

  • outpatients

  • aged 4–12 years

  • diagnosis of autism based on DSM‐4‐TR criteriaand confirmed by an expert child psychiatristbased on behavioural observations andsemi‐structured interviews with parents

  • a score of at least 12 on the ABC‐I

  • presenting with chief complaint of severelydisruptive symptoms related to autism

  • drug‐free for at least 6 weeks


Location/setting: autism speciality clinic of thechildren's outpatient clinic of Roozbeh PsychiatricHospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences,Iran
Sample size: 22 in each group.
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 2 in each groupwithdrew consent
Gender: treatment 15/20 male; placebo 17/20 male
Mean age: treatment group 6.95 years; placebo 6.2years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I 18.25; placebo19.00
Concurrent medications: not reported
History of previous medications: treatment group:risperidone 15/20 participants, Ritalin(methylphenidate) 4, valproic acid 2, lamotrigine 1.Placebo: risperidone 16/20, Ritalin(methylphenidate) 6, valproic acid 2, lamotrigine2
Exclusion criteria: any active medical condition,diagnosis of DSM‐IV axis I or II disorder, use ofany psychotropics in previous 6 weeks, history ofhepatic disease or seizure; having insulin‐dependentdiabetes, liver disease, or congestive heartfailure
Number randomised: pioglitazone 22; placebo 22
Number analysed: pioglitazone 20; placebo 20
InterventionsIntervention (pioglitazone + risperidone) for 10weeks: pioglitazone (Actos, Takeda/Eli Lilly) 30mg/day (15 mg twice/day) fixed dose.Risperidone(Risperdal; Janssen Pharmaceuticals,Belgium) initial dose 0.5 mg/day increased by 0.5 mgevery week to a maximum of 1 mg/day for participantsweighing < 20 kg and 2 mg/day for those who were≥ 20 kg
Comparator (placebo + risperidone) for 10 weeks:placebo tablets with identical appearance.Risperidone (Risperdal; Janssen Pharmaceuticals,Belgium) initial dose 0.5 mg/day increased by 0.5 mgevery week to a maximum of 1 mg/day for participantsweighing < 20 kg and 2 mg/day for those who were≥ 20 kg
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I (Aman 1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 5, week10
NotesStudy start date: March 2012
Study end date: February 2014
Source of funding: "This study was supported by agrant from Tehran University ofMedical Sciences toProf Shahin Akhondzadeh (grant number16043). Thefunding organization had no role in the design andconduct of the study; in the collection, analysis,and interpretation of the data; or in thepreparation, review, or approval of the manuscriptand the decision to submit the paper forpublication."
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry: IRCT201204081556N40
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "Randomisation codes were generated byMicrosoft Office excel software and each participantwas assigned to one specific code"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "Assignments were kept in confidential sealedopaque envelopes and were disclosed after the end ofthe study for statistical analysis"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskThe participants, parents and referring physicianswere totally blinded to the assignments.Additionally, responsible individuals foradministration of the medications, rating andstatistical analysis were also blinded to theassignments.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskThe participants, parents and referring physicianswere totally blinded to the assignments.Additionally, responsible individuals foradministration of the medications, rating andstatistical analysis were also blinded to theassignments.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskTwo of 22 were LTFU in both groups
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll data were reported.
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Ghaleiha 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods10‐week parallel study of minocycline + risperidoneversus placebo + risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 3‐12 years

  • diagnosis of ASD based on DSM‐4 criteria

  • ABC‐I score of at least 12 at baseline

  • presence of behavioural problems such asaggression


Exclusion criteria: "Children with concomitantpsychotic disorders, severe intellectual disabilitythat made the diagnosis inconclusive (based onclinical judgment and reviewing prior neurocognitivetesting and records), other DSM‐IV axis I or IIdisorders, seizure disorder, a history of alcohol ordrug abuse, tardive dyskinesia, administration ofantipsychotic medications within the past 6 months,as well as behavior therapy, and the presence of anysignificant active medical condition were excludedfrom the study".
Setting: psychiatric hospital
Dropouts/withdrawals: 2 participants in each groupwithdrew consent prior to week 5 (1st outcomemeasurement point)
Sample size: 50 (25 each group)
Mean age: 7.6 years
Gender: minocycline 17/23 male; placebo 18/23male
IQ: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I intervention group21.26 (4.82), comparator group 19.91 (7.20)
Concomitant medications: participants were notallowed to be taking antipsychoticsconcomitantly.
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (minocycline + risperidone): minocycline100 mg/day + tablet risperidone 1‐2 mg/day asintervention 10 weeks
Comparator (placebo + risperidone): risperidone 1‐2mg/day + capsule placebo as control for 10 weeks.The maximum target dose of risperidone was definedas 1 mg/day for children weighing < 20 kg and 2mg/day for those weighing ≥ 20 kg
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • ABC‐I (change from baseline) (Aman 1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
NotesStudy start date: March 2013
Study end date: March 2015
Funding: "This study was supported by a grant fromTehran University of Medical Sciences to Dr. ShahinAkhondzadeh (Grant No. 20288)". Also, "The authorsalso affirm that there was no source of funding"
Conflicts of interest: 'the authors do not have anyconflicts of interest"
Trial registry: IRCT201302201556N50
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskPatients were randomised to receive eitherminocycline or placebo in a 1:1 ratio using acomputer‐generated code.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskThe assignments were kept in sealed opaque envelopesuntil data analysis.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskThroughout the study, the person who administered themedications, the rater, the participants, andparents were blind to assignments. Independentpeople were responsible for treatment allocation andparticipant interviews.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskPlacebo was identical to the intervention medication(minocycline) in shape, size, colour, and taste andwas dispensed by the investigational drugpharmacist. Throughout the study, the person whoadministered the medications, the rater, theparticipants, and parents were blind to assignments.Independent people were responsible for treatmentallocation and participant interviews
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear risk2 participants in each group discontinued (8% eachgroup) and imputation was not used
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskOutcomes reported match protocol
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Ghanizadeh 2013.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of N‐acetylcysteine (NAC) +risperidone versus placebo + risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children and adolescent outpatients from childand adolescent psychiatry clinics

  • met DSM‐4 diagnostic criteria for ASD

  • aged 3.5‐16 years.

  • ll diagnostic interviews were conducted by anexpert child and adolescent psychiatrist.


Exclusion criteria:
  • the use of any concomitant medications

  • patients with psychotic disorders, unstablemedical conditions, evidence of active liverdisease, seizure disorder, unstable hypertensionor cardiac disease, unstable asthma, and kidneydisease


Location/setting: child and adolescent psychiatryclinics affiliated with Shiraz University of MedicalSciences
Sample size: 40 (20 to each group)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: NAC: lack of efficacy0, declined to return 3, severe sedation 1. Placebo:lack of efficacy 3, declined to return 4, severesedation 0
Gender: NAC 13/17 boys; placebo 12/14 boys
Mean age: NAC 8.8 years; placebo 7.9 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I NAC + risperidone13.2; placebo + risperidone 16.7
Concurrent medications: clonidine NAC (5), placebo(3); folic acid NAC (2), placebo 0; imipramine NAC(1), placebo (0); biperiden 1 each group;nortriptyline 1 (NAC group); topiramate NAC (0),placebo (2)
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (NAC + risperidone) for 8 weeks: 1200mg/day in twice‐daily doses. Risperidone started atthe dose of 0.5 mg/day, titrated up to 2 mg/dayduring 3 weeks for children weighing < 30 kg. Thedose for children > 30 kg was up to 3 mg/day.
Comparator (placebo + risperidone) for 8 weeks:placebo tablets were administered in the form ofeffervescent. The shape, size, taste, and colour ofNAC and placebo were identical. Risperidone startedat the dose of 0.5 mg/day, titrated up to 2 mg/dayduring 3 weeks for children weighing < 30 kg. Thedose for children > 30 kg was up to 3 mg/day.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I (Aman 1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, 4 weeks and8 weeks (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: 2011
Study end date: 2012
Source of funding: "This study was supported by agrant from Shiraz University of Medical Sciences(Grant No: 5545)."
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry: IRCT201106103930N6
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "patients were randomly allocated into one ofthe two groups using a random number generator"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskNot described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "The patients, parents, and independentassessor were blind to the allocation ofpatients"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "the independant assessor was blind to theallocation of patients"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskData analysed for 17/20 in NAC group and 14/20 inplacebo group
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskRelevant ABC domains reported
Other biasUnclear riskUnclear whether there were differences in the dose ofrisperidone between groups. 5 in the NAC group and 3in the placebo group also received clonidine. 2 inthe placebo group but none in the NAC group receivedtopiramate.

Ghanizadeh 2015.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of buspirone + risperidone versusplacebo + risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 4‐17 years

  • DSM‐4 diagnosis of autism, a CGI‐Severity scoreof C4, range 0‐7 at baseline

  • able to swallow medication

  • if taking concomitant medications must maintainthem at a constant dose during the study


Exclusion criteria:
  • primary diagnosis of a psychotic disorder

  • active substance abuse or dependence

  • unstable medical condition, active liverdisease, an unstable hypertension or cardiacdisease, unstable asthma, kidney disease asdetermined by the investigator

  • allergic to medications

  • initiation of a new behavioral therapy


Location/setting: "child and adolescent psychiatryclinic affiliated with Shiraz University of MedicalSciences [Iran] clinics specializing in thetreatment of child and adolescent psychiatryproblems".
Sample size: 40 (20 in each group)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 16 completing trialin the busperone group; 18 in placebo group
Gender: buspirone 12/16 boys, placebo 15/18 boys
Mean age: buspirone 7.05 years, placebo 7.5 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I buspirone 25.7,placebo 24.7
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (buspirone + risperidone) for 8 weeks:buspirone was titrated to a maximum 10 mg/day giventwice daily for children weighing < 40 kg, and upto 20 mg/day for children weighing > 40 kg. Thedose of risperidone was up to 2 mg/day for childrenweighing < 40 kg and up to 3 mg/day for childrenweighing > 40 kg. The dosage was increased tothis target/maximum dose from week 1 to week 2, andmodified at any time in response to clinicalefficacy and AEs.
Comparator (placebo + risperidone) for 8 weeks: thedose of risperidone was up to 2 mg/day for childrenweighing < 40 kg and up to 3 mg/day for childrenweighing > 40 kg. The dosage was increased tothis target/maximum dose from week 1 to week 2, andmodified at any time in response to clinicalefficacy and AEs.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured with the ABC (Aman 1985)

  • response rate


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessment: baseline, week 4, week8
NotesStudy start date: 2012
Study end date: 2013
Source of funding: supported by a grant from ShirazUniversity of Medical Sciences to Professor AhmadGhanizadeh (grant no. 6978)
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry: IRCT201307303930N28
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "A random number list provided by a randomnumber generator was used for the allocation of thepatients into the groups".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskQuote: "both risperidone and placebo wereadministered in the form of similar tablets"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskReported to be double‐blinded however, the "physicianwho interviewed the patients and allocated thepatients into the groups was not blinded".
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskThe person who allocated the patients into the groupand the person who rated the outcome measure weredifferent.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskMentioned assessment at week 4 but these outcomeswere not reported
LTFU: 2 people did not respond to calls (1 in eachgroup). 1 person's symptoms of crying and isolationwere exacerbated (buspirone group)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskThe Iranian clinical trial registry does not includeresults (neither does the paper include week 4measures) and the trial was retrospectivelyregistered online.
Other biasHigh riskThe study authors retrospectively registered thetrial on the Iranian clinical trials website ‐ it isunknown whether 8 weeks was the original length ofthe trial or not.

Ghanizadeh 2014.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of aripiprazole versus risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children and adolescents with ASD (diagnosedaccording to DSM‐4‐TR and according to ADI‐R.

  • clinician rating of at least moderate severityof autistic symptoms (CGI‐S score of C4, range0‐7)


Exclusion criteria:
  • history of medically significant oruncontrolled medical conditions such ashypothyroidism, diabetes or cancer

  • history of drug or alcohol abuse

  • received risperidone or aripiprazole during thelast 2 weeks prior to enrolment in the study

  • received any additional behaviouralintervention


Location/setting: child psychiatry outpatient clinicaffiliated with Shiraz University of MedicalSciences, Iran
Sample size: 59 were randomised (29 aripiprazole, 30risperidone)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 3 children droppedout of aripiprazole group because of severity ofsymptoms (1), exacerbation of epilepsy (1) andsevere sedation (1). 3 children dropped out of therisperidone group due to lack of efficacy (1),refused to return (1), agitation and crying (1)
Gender: aripiprazole 25/29 male; risperidone 23/30male
Mean age: aripiprazole 9.6 years, risperidone 9.5years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I aripiprazole 26.2;risperidone 21.5
Concomitant medications: concurrent medications wereallowed apart from antipsychotics provided they werestable throughout the trial and commenced at leasttwo weeks prior to the trial.
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (aripiprazole) for 8 weeks: maximum doseof aripiprazole for children weighing < 40 kg wasup to 10 mg/day and up to 15 mg/day for children> 40 kg. The dose of aripiprazole was titratedover 2 weeks (1.25 mg/day starting dose); mean dailydose of 5.5 mg/day (approximately 0.163mg/kg/day)
Comparator (risperidone) for 8 weeks: maximum dosefor children weighing < 40 kg was 2 mg, and forthose > 40 kg was up to 3 mg/day. Risperidone wastitrated over 2 weeks (0.25 mg starting dose);risperidone mean daily dose 1.12 mg/day (or 0.033mg/kg/day)
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, 1 month and2 months (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: "grant (No: 3135) from ShirazUniversity of Medical Sciences to Professor AhmadGhanizadeh. MB is supported by the Simons AutismFoundation. MB has received Grant/Research Supportfrom the NIH, Cooperative Research Centre, SimonsAutism Foundation, Cancer Council of Victoria,Stanley Medical Research Foundation, MBF, NHMRC,Beyond Blue, Rotary Health, Geelong Medical ResearchFoundation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Organon, Novartis, Mayne Pharma andServier, has been a speaker for Astra Zeneca,Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxo SmithKline,Janssen Cilag, Lundbeck, Merck, Pfizer, SanofiSynthelabo, Servier, Solvay and Wyeth, and served asa consultant to Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb,Eli Lilly, Glaxo SmithKline, Janssen Cilag, LundbeckMerck and Servier, and is a co‐inventor of twoprovisional patents regarding the use of NAC andrelated compounds for psychiatric indications".
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry ‐ IRCT201110233930N15
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskNot described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskNot described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesHigh riskThe clinician who administered the medications wasnot blind to assignment and "about 7 of the parents(12%) of the parents were not blinded to the groupassignment because they could correctly guess thegroup allocation or requested to be not blinded toit".
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesHigh riskSome parents knew of their allocation andcontamination could have occurred.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll participants completed both the first and secondfollow‐up and an ITT analysis was used.
LTFU aripiprazole: severity of symptoms (1);exacerbation of epilepsy (1); and severe sedation(1)
LTFU risperidone: lack of efficacy (1);refused to return (1); agitation and crying (1)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskThe most common AEs associated with risperidone werenot reported (sedation and weight gain)
Other biasLow riskNone identified

Gordon 1993.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of clomipramine, desipramine, andplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • meet the DSM‐III‐R and ADI criteria for ASD

  • free of significant medical problems, includingseizures

  • free of psychotropic medications for at least 3months prior to the study


Exclusion criteria:
  • significant medical problems, includingseizures, by history, physical examination, andlaboratory examination

  • used psychoactive medications during the 3months prior to the study.


Location/setting: outpatient clinic, USA
Sample size: 24 in total (cross‐over)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 1 in clomipraminegroup and 1 other dropout although group was notspecified.
Gender: 15/24 male
Age range: 6‐18 years
IQ range: 30‐107
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention 1 (clomipramine) for 5 weeks: mean finaldose was 152 mg/day (SD 56), 4.3 mg/kg/day (SD 0.8).The initial dosage was 25 mg/day, and titrated to amaximum of 5 mg/kg per day or 250 mg/day usuallybetween weeks 2 and 3
Intervention 2 (desipramine) for 5 weeks: mean finaldose was 127 mg/day (SD 52). 4.0 mg/kg/day (SD 1.2).The initial dosage was 25 mg/day, titrated to amaximum of 5 mg/kg per day or 250 mg/day usuallybetween weeks 2 and 3
Comparator (placebo) for 5 weeks: equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessment: week 5 (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: not reported
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "randomisation was performed by the NationalInstitutes of Health pharmacy using a random‐numbertable".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails of blinding were not provided.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskLTFU: clomipramine/desipramine 2; 1 in theclomipramine/ desipramine group because of violentoutbursts and 1 because the group home administeredhis medicine to the wrong participant.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskOutcomes that were mentioned in the paper werereported. No protocol was available.
Other biasUnclear riskNo baseline comparisons were reported by group.

Guastella 2015a.

Study characteristics
Methods8‐week parallel trial of oxytocin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male adolescents 12‐18 years

  • confirmed diagnosis of ASD based on theDSM‐4‐TR


Exclusion criteria: "females, severe depressive orpsychotic symptoms, including suicidal thoughtsand/or actions, cardiovascular disease, kidneydisease, smoking more than 15 cigarettes a day,substance dependence, or sensitivity topreservatives (in particular, E 216, E 218, andchlorobutanol hemihydrate)".
Location/setting: autism clinic at the Brain &Mind Research Institute, University of Sydney,Australia
Sample size: oxytocin (26), placebo (24)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: placebo, 1, parentunwilling to attend follow‐up assessment, 2discontinued (1 parent withdrew, 1 AEs)
Gender: all male
Age range: oxytocin 13.85. placebo 14.00 years
IQ range: mean IQ oxytocin 80.04, placebo 93.14
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: self‐injurious behaviour(measured using the Repetitive Behaviour Scale(self‐injurious subscle), oxytocin baseline 1.96(2.27); placebo 3.13 (3.75)
Concurrent medications: adjunctive psychotropicmedication use (oxytocin = 9, placebo = 9) includedstimulants (35.7%), antipsychotics (28.6%),antidepressants (25%), mood stabilisers (7.1%), andbenzodiazepines (3.6%)
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin nasal spray): either 18 or 24IU, administered twice daily for 8 weeks
Comparator (placebo nasal spray): administered twicedaily for 8 weeks.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: self‐injurious behaviour measuredusing the Repetitive Behaviour Scale (Bodfish2000)
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timepoints ‐ baseline, endpoint and 3‐monthfollow‐up
NotesStudy start date: February 2009
Study end date: January 2012
Funding: "This study was funded by a National Healthand Medical Research Council Project Grant toauthors A.J.G., K.M.G., N.J.R., and S.L.E.(632625)"
Conflicts of interest: most authors were alsoreceiving funding for other trials.
Other: trial registry ACTRN12609000513213
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskNasal sprays were developed and randomised by acompounding chemist with an identical placebocontaining all ingredients except the activeoxytocin
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDouble‐blinded ‐ no further details provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow risk"Data were entered by research assistants blind todrug assignment"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLow dropout. Analysed in ITT format, although"last‐observations‐carried‐forward to replacemissing data" was used which is a dubiousmethod.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskSame primary outcome and measurement timepoints asclinical trial reg
Other biasLow riskNo other sources of bias identified

Hagerman 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods6‐month trial of sertraline versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • documentation of ASD as verified using bothDSM‐5 and ADOS‐2 criteria

  • age between 24 and 72 months

  • stable medications (including antiepileptics,antipsychotics, and clonidine) in the 2 monthsprior to enrolment

  • concurrent enrolment in at least 1 community orschool intervention for ASD


Exclusion criteria:
  • changes in concomitant medications andinterventions were discouraged unless medicallynecessary during the trial

  • current or past SSRI treatment

  • diagnosis of the fragile X syndrome fullmutation, or any other serious co‐morbid medicaldisorders affecting brain function and behaviour,including uncontrolled seizures


Location/setting: USA
Sample size: 58 (32 sertraline, 26 placebo)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: sertraline (8, 2 lostto follow‐up, 6 withdrew consent); placebo (5, 1lost to follow‐up, 4 withdrew consent)
Gender: details not provided
Average age (SD) : 4.3 (0.8) and 3.7 (1.1) years inthe sertraline and placebo groups
IQ range: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: N/A
Concurrent medications: sertraline (9.38%); placebo(7.69%)
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention: the study drug was administered orallyin liquid form (20 mg/mL), and dose was assignedbased on age at enrolment: participants under 4years received sertraline or placebo liquid in adose of 2.5 mg/day (0.125 mL) for the duration ofthe trial, and participants ≥ 4 years received 5.0mg/day (0.25 mL).
Comparator: placebo was administered orally in liquidform for 6 months.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
NotesStudy start date: April 2015
Study end date: July 2018
Funding: "This project was supported by the HealthResources and Services Administration (HRSA) of theU.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)under grant number R40MCH 27701".
Conflicts of interest: "RH has carried out treatmentstudies in fragile X syndrome and autism spectrumdisorder by Roche, Novartis, Neuren, Marinus,Alcobra, and Curemark and has also consulted withZynerba and Fulcrum. FT received funds fromAsuragen, Roche, and Zynerba. The remaining authorsdeclare that the research was conducted in theabsence of any commercial or financial relationshipsthat could be construed as a potential conflict ofinterest".
Trial registry:NCT02385799
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskQuote: "The UC Davis Investigational Drug Servicesindependently carried out randomization". Noinformation on sequence generation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "The UC Davis Investigational Drug Servicesindependently carried out randomization"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskApart from "double‐blinded" no further details wereprovided.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskApart from "double‐blinded" no further details wereprovided.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskDropout < 20% and reasons reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskSame primary outcomes as trial reg (MSEL expressivelanguage raw score and age equivalent combinedscore)
Other biasLow riskNo other sources of bias identified

Hajizadeh‐Zaker 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods10‐week trial of L‐carnosine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 3‐12 years

  • clinical diagnosis of autism based on the DSM‐5criteria

  • outpatients at a speciality clinic

  • ABC‐I score of at least 12


Exclusion criteria:
  • co‐occurring schizophrenia or psychoticdisorder

  • severe intellectual disability

  • history of seizures

  • presence of hepatic disease

  • history of alcohol or drug abuse

  • tardive dyskinesia

  • any significant medical condition


Location/setting: speciality clinic for autism in thechildren’s outpatient clinic (Iran)
Sample size: 50
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: risperidone +L‐carnosine (n = 4) 4 discontinued treatment(withdrew consent), risperidone + placebo (n = 4) 4discontinued treatment (withdrew consent)
Gender: 35 male, 7 female
Mean age: L‐carnosine + risperidone 8.24 (2.22),placebo + risperidone 7.90 (1.89)
Mean IQ: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I > 22.0 atbaseline
Concurrent medications: details not provided
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (L‐carnosine + risperidone): L‐carnosinewas administered in tablet form, 400 mg twice daily,+ tablet form of risperidone, 1‐3.5 mg/day, for 10weeks
Comparator (placebo + risperidone): risperidone wasadministered in tablet form, 1‐3.5 mg/day, plusplacebo in tablet form for 10 weeks.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
NotesStudy start date: December 2015
Study end date: November 2016
Funding: "This study was supported by a grant fromTehran University of Medical Sciences to Prof. S.A.(Grant No. 29571). This study was supported by agrant from Tehran University of Medical Sciences(Grant No. 29571)".
Conflicts of interest: "No competing financialinterests exist".
Other ‐ trial registry: IRCT201512081556N83
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskA computerised random number generator (allocationratio 1:1) was applied to generate randomisationcodes
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskSealed opaque envelopes were used to keep theassignments to mask the allocation throughout thestudy.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow risk"The children, parents, the physician who referredthe children, the physician who arranged themedications, the rater, and the statistician wereall blinded to the allocated treatment."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "The children, parents, the physician whoreferred the children, the physician who arrangedthe medications, the rater, and the statisticianwere all blinded to the allocated treatment."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear risk16% dropout in both groups.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskOutcome measures reported per protocol
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Handen 2005.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of secretin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children with autism

  • free of gastrointestinal disorders


Exclusion criteria:
  • included current or lifetime diagnosis ofbipolar disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffectivedisorder, and psychotic disorder, NOS

  • uncontrolled epilepsy or taking ≥ 2anticonvulsants

  • use of other psychotropic medications unlessthe medications have been stable for at least 1month prior to the start of the trial and remainedstable throughout the trial

  • any other significant medical conditions,gastrointestinal symptoms including diarrhoea andconstipation, or pancreatitis


Location/setting: research centre at the Children’sHospital of Pittsburgh
Sample size: 8 in total (cross‐over)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: 7 male, 1 female
Mean age: 7 years, 6 months
IQ: "IQs ranged from moderate mental retardation[intellectual disability] to gifted (with twosubjects functioning within the moderate range ofmental retardation, three within the mild range, onewith borderline intellectual functioning, one withaverage abilities and one functioning within thegifted range)".
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I 11.4
Concurrent medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (porcine secretin): 2 infusions ofporcine secretin at a dose of 2 IU/kg at the startof the secretin phase and 2 months later
Comparator (placebo): single 2 IU/kg dose ofplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I (Aman 1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessment: baseline, 1 month and 2months post‐infusion
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: "this research was supported by asmall grant to the authors from the General ClinicalResearch Center at Children's Hospital ofPittsburgh"
Conflicts of interest: none disclosed
Trial registry: not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskAllocated by hospital pharmacist
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNot described
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNot described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskNot clear how many participants were originallyrandomised to the study
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskThe primary outcomes mentioned at the start of thepaper are the ABC (and 5 subscales), the CGI, theDosage Record and Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale(DOTES), and the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (GARS).Adverse events were not recorded, although the other3 scales were recorded in full.
Other biasUnclear riskCross‐over study and all participants appear to havecompleted both phases of the study

Handen 2008.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of guanfacine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • diagnosis of intellectual disability (based onthe most recent school psychological assessment)and/or autism (ASD or pervasive developmentaldisorder)

  • diagnosed with ADHD or present with clinicallysignificant deficits in the areas of overactivityand inattention

  • scored ≥ 15 points on the CPRS/or TeacherHyperactivity Index


Exclusion criteria:
  • any known genetic disorders

  • continued current use of prescribed stimulantmedications


Location/setting: outpatient speciality clinicserving children with developmental disorders
Sample size: 11 in total
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 1 from placebo groupdue to non‐compliance
Gender: 10 male, 1 female
Mean age: 7.3 years
IQ: cognitive functioning ranged from severeintellectual disability to average IQ.
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: details not provided
Concomitant medications: Adderall (2), mirtazapine(1); risperidone, zolpidem, tartrate andcarbamazepine (1); nortriptyline (1); lamotrigine(1); methylphenidate (1); and bupropion andclonidine (1)
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (guanfacine): began on a maximum of 3.0mg/day titrated doses over a 19‐day period. After 8days on the highest dose, a 6‐day washout periodcommenced (1.5 mg/day for 3 days and 0 mg/kg per dayfor 3 days)
Comparator (placebo): equivalent placebo for 8days
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability, measured using theparent‐rated ABC‐I subscale (Aman 1985)
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline then at 4additional visits
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: not reported
Conflicts of interest: not reported
Trial registry: not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided, only that it is adouble‐blinded trial
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskQuote: "we did not have complete sets of parentand/or teacher data for some subjects (e.g., oneparent whose child was in the summer program wasunreliable in completing questionnaires; some trialsthat occurred across a school vacation resulted inincomplete teacher data). Our solution was to useparent data as our primary source when available andto use teacher data if parent data weremissing."
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskThe authors note that the ABC was measured atbaseline and an additional four visits. Neitherbaseline nor additional visit scores wererecorded.
Other biasHigh riskQuote: "no standardized instruments were used toassess autistic disorder and comorbid psychiatricdiagnoses" (among other limitations)

Handen 2011.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of donepezil versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children and adolescents aged 8‐17 years

  • IQ > 75

  • diagnosed with ASD using ADI‐R and ADOS

  • score at least one SD lower than the mean onthe Card Sorting test, verbal fluency, orExecutive Function tests


Exclusion criteria: not reported
Location/setting: not reported
Sample size: 34 (donepezil 18, placebo 16)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: "one subjectterminated due to an increase in aggression andirritability. Two other subjects were unable totolerate the 10mg/day dose and were maintained on a5mg/day dose".
Gender: details not provided
Mean age: treatment group 8 years 7 months, placebogroup 9 years 7 months
IQ: mean 96.8 (treatment group), 96.7 (placebogroup)
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: baseline CBCL(aggression) 9.72; RFRLRS (affectual responses i.e.irritability) 0.90
Concurrent medications: concurrent psychotropicmedications allowed provided the dose levels aremaintained during the trial. 5 participants weretaking SSRIs, 4 were taking stimulants and 2 weretaking atomoxetine.
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention ‐ donepezil max 5 mg/day for 4 weeksfollowed by donepezil maximum 10 mg/day for 4 weeksif tolerated. Participants began on 2.5 mg/dayincreasing to 5 mg/day after 1 week. After 4 weeksat 5 mg/day doses were increased to 7.5 mg/day for 1week, up to a maximum of 10 mg/day for the remainingfor 4 weeks (for 16/18 who could tolerate higherdoses).
Comparator (placebo) for 10 weeks: equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • aggression, measured using the CBCL (Achenbach2000)

  • irritability, measured using the RFRLRSAffectual Responses subscale (Freeman1986)


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: "followingrandomisation, subjects were seen for a total of 4clinic visits (following one week on 2.5mg/day,following four weeks on 5.0mg/day, one week on7.5mg/day, and four weeks at 10mg/day".
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: NIMH Grant 5R21 MH64941‐03 as wellas a gift by Pfizer and Eisai Pharmaceuticalcompanies
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry: not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskQuote: "The study pharmacist conducted therandomization for each subject"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskNot described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNot described though study authors stated the trialwas double‐blind
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNot described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLOCF analysis used for the one of 34 randomisedparticipants who did not complete the trial
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll outcome data appear to have been reported
Other biasHigh riskA gift was given by Pfizer and Eisai Pharmaceuticalcompanies (who also provided the medication andplacebo for this trial). The placebo group were oneyear older (9 years 7 months) compared to thedonepezil group (8 years 7 months). Baseline scoresfor aggression (9.72 vs 7.47) and irritability (0.90vs 0.80) were also higher for the donepezilgroup.

Handen 2015.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of atomoxetine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 5‐14 years

  • minimum mental age of 24 months

  • meet criteria for an ASD (autistic disorder,Asperger’s disorder, PDD‐NOS), based upon theADI‐R and expert clinical evaluation using aDSM‐4‐TR interview

  • exhibit significant symptoms of overactivityand/or inattention at both home and school, basedon a mean item score of at least 1.50 on theparent and teacher SNAP scales and a CGI–S scoreof ≥ 4

  • free of psychotropic medications for 2 weeksbefore randomisation (except stable doses ofmelatonin or low‐dose clonidine for sleep andanticonvulsant for seizure control)


Exclusion criteria:
  • Rett disorder, childhood disintegrativedisorder, diagnosis of schizophrenia or otherpsychotic disorder, bipolar disorder, currentdiagnosis of major depression orobsessive‐compulsive disorder

  • significant medical conditions or abnormalitieson routine laboratory tests or ECG

  • prior trial of atomoxetine for ≥ 4 weeks,within the last 2 years

  • regular usage of b‐adrenergic blocking agents,asthma medicine

  • prior involvement in a highly structured parenttraining programme


Location/setting: University of Pittsburgh MedicalCentre, Ohio State University, and University ofRochester, USA
Sample size: atomoxetine 32, placebo 32
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: inadequateimprovement (2 placebo group); behavioural AEsespecially irritability 2 atomoxetine group, 3placebo group; physical AE 2 placebo group; LTFU 1from each group; other LTFU/unknown 3 placebogroup
Gender: atomoxetine 26/32 boys; placebo 24/32boys
Mean age: atomoxetine 8.6 years; 8.2 yearsplacebo
IQ: atomoxetine group: 78.7; placebo group: 86.7
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I atomoxetine group:16.00; placebo group 16.97
Concomitant medications: “a single anticonvulsant forseizure control was allowed, provided that stabledoses and seizure‐free status had been 6 months ormore”.
History of previous medications: details notreported
InterventionsIntervention (atomoxetine) for 10 weeks: the initialdose was 0.3 mg/kg/day (rounded to the nearest 5 mg)with weekly escalations by 0.3 mg/kg/day, unlessthere were limiting side effects or no furtherimprovement, to a target dose of 1.2 mg/kg/day, butcould be increased to a maximum of 1.8 mg/kg/day.Mean final dose of atomoxetine was 1.38mg/kg/day.
Comparator (placebo) for 10 weeks:sugar pilladministered twice daily
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using parent‐reportedABC‐I subscale (Aman 1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessment: “study visits occurredweekly to assess medication response, to monitoradverse events (AEs), and to adjust doses. Finaldose adjustments were made at week 6, withsubsequent monitoring visits at weeks 8 and 10"
NotesStudy start date: October 2008
Study end date: April 2014
Source of funding: grants from the National Instituteof Mental Health to Ohio State University(5R01MH079080), University of Pittsburgh(5R01MH079082‐05), and University of Rochester (5R01MH083247), by Eli Lilly and Co, who providedatomoxetine and placebo, and by the University ofRochester CTSA (UL1 RR024160) and Ohio StateUniversity CTSA (UL1TR001070) from the NationalCenter for Research Resources and the NationalCenter for Advancing Translational Sciences of theNational Institutes of Health
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry:NCT00844753
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk"The study biostatistician generated therandomisation sequence using a computeralgorithm"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "a designated team member at each siteobtained the assignment for each participant via aWeb portal maintained by the data centre"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskQuote: "ATX [atomoxetine] assignment wasdouble‐blinded"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow risk"ATX [atomoxetine] assignment was double‐blinded".Independent evaluators blinded to treatmentassignment until completion of the study ratedparticipants on the CGI scale.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskHigh LTFU across groups 29/128 although data wereestimated from Missing At Random models andsensitivity tested using LOCF.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskProtocol and archived versions availableNCT00844753
Other biasUnclear riskMore than twice as many (72%) in special educationcompared to placebo group (34%)

Hardan 2012.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of N‐acetylcysteine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • outpatients

  • 3‐12 years

  • physically healthy male and female

  • diagnosis of autism based on the DSM‐4‐TRcriteria

  • CGI‐S rating of ≥ 4

  • stable concomitant medications and biomedicaltreatments for at least 2 weeks beforeenrolment

  • no planned changes in psychosocialinterventions during the trial


Exclusion criteria:
  • DSM‐4 diagnosis of schizophrenia,schizoaffective disorder or psychotic disorder nototherwise specified

  • prior adequate trial of N‐acetylcysteine

  • active medical conditions, unstable seizures orsignificant physical illness

  • pregnant or sexually active femaleparticipants

  • taking antioxidant agents and glutathioneprodrugs, except where they have been off thesecompounds for at least 4 weeks


Setting/location: autism clinic at StanfordUniversity, USA
Sample size: 33 (15 randomised to NAC and 18 toplacebo)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 2 from NAC group (1AE, 1 dislike taste); 6 from placebo group (3dislike the taste, 2 withdrawal, 1 LTFU)
Gender: 31 male, 2 female
Mean age: NAC group 7.0 years, placebo 7.2 years
IQ: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: NAC group ABC‐I 16.9,repetitive behaviour scale (Scales of IndependentBehaviour) 3.9; placebo group ABC‐I 14.8, RepetitiveBehaviour Scale (Scales of Independent Behaviour)3.4
Concomitant medications: "14 subjects were on atleast on psychotropic medication with three being onmore than one. The most commonly prescribed classesof medication were second generation antipsychoticsand SSRIs".
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (N‐Acetylcysteine) for 12 weeks: NAC wasinitiated at 900 mg/day for the first 4 weeks, then900 mg twice/day for 4 weeks, then 900 mg 3times/day for 4 weeks (or matching placebo)
Comparator (placebo) for 12 weeks: sugar pill
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I (Aman 1985)

  • self‐injurious behavior, measured with theRepetitive Behaviour Scale ‐ Scales of IndependentBehaviour (Bodfish 2000)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessment: baseline, 4, 8 and 12weeks
NotesStudy start date: March 2009
Study end date: September 2010
Source of funding: "grant from the Escher Family Fundat the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to AYH.Dr AY Hardan has received research support from thecompanies: Bristol‐Myers Squibb Company and ForestPharmaceuticals. Dr Frazier has received researchsupport from, acted as a consultant to, or receivedtravel support from Shire Development, Inc. andBristol‐Myers Squibb Company. Dr LA Herzenberg andDr R Tirouvanziam are listed as inventors on twopatents licensed by Bioadvantex, Inc, the supplierof the N‐acetylcysteine and placebo for this study,covering the use of N‐acetylcysteine in cysticfibrosis".
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry: not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskQuote: "randomisation was done by the Stanfordpharmacist using www.randomization.com, whichrandomises each subject by using the method ofrandomly permuted blocks"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "each participant received a supply of thecompound (NAC or placebo) labeled with a referencenumber"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Parents and investigators involved in thestudy were blinded to participant status". "Thestudy coordinator was not involved in randomisationand clinical ratings, received information about thegroup assignments and distribute the compound to theparents"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "investigators involved in the study wereblinded to participants' status"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskParticipants did not complete intervention afterrandomisation ‐ unclear if ITT analysis or otherapproach was used to account for these losses.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskWithout knowing what was in the trial protocol, it isdifficult to know if outcomes and measuresoriginally undertaken were reported
Other biasHigh riskPharmaceutical company provided both active treatmentand placebo for study. 2 study authors are inventorsof two patents listed with this same company.

Hardan 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods‐week trial of memantine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • had completed open‐label trial preceding thedouble‐blind trial, was classified as a'responder' ( The responder criterion was definedas having at least a 10‐point improvement(reduction in score) in the Social ResponsivenessScale (SRS) total raw score relative to the Visit1 total raw score in Study MEM‐MD‐91) during theopen‐label trial

  • children 6‐12 years of age

  • diagnosis of Asperger's or ASD based on DSM‐5criteria

  • IQ score ⩾50 on the Kaufman BriefIntelligenceTest, Version 2 (or other standardized IQtest),

  • ABC‐I score < 17


Exclusion criteria:
  • children with a concurrent medical conditionthat may confound the interpretation of studyresults

  • significant risk of suicidality

  • history of significant renal, hepatic,cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal,neurologic, endocrine, or other disorders


Setting/location: paediatric outpatient settings atmultiple study sites (92 sites in 15 countries)
Sample size: 158 and 160 randomised to memantine andplacebo groups respectively and 108 and 116completed the trial
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 8 (placebo 1 protocolviolation, 1 consent withdrawal; memantine reduceddose 1 did not meet eligibility criteria; memantinefull dose 1 did not meet eligibility criteria, 3protocol violation, 1 LTFU)
Gender: placebo 88.8% were male, memantine 84.1% weremale
Mean age: placebo mean age 8.9 years, memantine meanage 9.2 years
IQ: placebo mean IQ 93.3, memantine mean IQ 91.1
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
Concomitant medications: "83.8% of participants weretaking concomitant medications and supplements, mostcommonly (≥ 10.0%) melatonin (17.0%), multivitamin(15.9%), ibuprofen (11.4%), risperidone (10.6%), andparacetamol (10.3%)"
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (memantine): doses were based on weight;≥ 60 kg maximum 15 mg/day, 40‐59 kg maximum 9mg/day, 20‐39 kg maximum 6 mg/day, < 20 kgmaximum 3 mg/day. These doses were reduced to 6mg/day, 3 mg/day, 3 mg/day and 3 mg every other day,for each respective group.
Comparator (placebo): matching placebo for 12weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:

Secondary outcomes: tolerability
NotesStudy start date: May 2009
Study end date: August 2012
Funding: "Funding for these studies was provided byForest Research Institute (Jersey City, NJ), thesponsor at the time the studies were conducted."
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry:NCT00872898
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "Premier, Inc. provided Interactive WebResponse System (IWRS) services forrandomization."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDouble‐blind ‐ no further details provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDouble‐blind ‐ no further details provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLow dropout; an ITT analysis was used that includedall participants with at least 1 post‐baselineoutcome assessment.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskABC‐I (change from baseline) was mentioned as anoutcome in the paper, but it was not reported, only"At week 12, no clinically meaningful changes frombaseline were observed between treatment groups onthe additional efficacy variables, CGI‐I and CGI‐S,ABC‐C, or SRS [Social Responsiveness Scale]subscales and SRS total raw score."
Other biasHigh riskFunding for these studies was provided by ForestResearch Institute (Jersey City, NJ), the sponsor atthe time the studies were conducted. Writing supportwas funded by Allergan plc (formerly Forest ResearchInstitute; Madison, NJ). Two of the listed studyauthors were employed by the sponsor.

Harfterkamp 2014.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of atomoxetine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • 6‐17 years of age

  • IQ of at least 60

  • dual diagnosis of ASD (based on DSM‐4) andADHD


Exclusion criteria:
  • weight of < 20 kg

  • presence of psychosis, bipolar disorder, orsubstance abuse

  • a serious medical illness

  • history of seizures

  • ongoing use of psychoactive medications otherthan the study drug

  • intended start of a structured psychotherapy orinpatient treatment


Location/setting: 9 Dutch child and adolescentpsychiatry centres, 6 university centres,(Amsterdam, Groningen, Leiden, Maastricht, Nijmegen,and Utrecht), and 3 non‐university centres (TheHague, Hoorn, an Oosterhout).
Sample size: 48 in atomoxetine group, 49 in placebogroup
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: placebo group:protocol violation (2), physician decision (1).Atomoxetine group: AE (1), protocol violation (2),lack of efficacy (1), parent/ caregiver decision(1)
Gender: atomoxetine 42/48 male, placebo 41/49
Mean age: atomoxetine 9.9 years, placebo 10.0years
IQ: atomoxetine 91, placebo 94.6
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: atomoxetine ABC‐I 17.3,placebo ABC‐I 16.2
Concomitant medications: participants were notpermitted to be using psychoactive medications priorto study on an ongoing basis
History of previous medications: atomoxetine 18/48and placebo 18/49 had not received any priorpsychopharmacological treatment
InterventionsIntervention (atomoxetine) for 8 weeks: maximum of1.2 mg/kg/day daily dose. First week 0.5 mg/kg/day;2nd week 0.8 mg/kg/day; 1.2 mg/kg/day for 6weeks
Comparator (placebo) for 8 weeks: maximum of 1.2mg/kg/day daily dose. First week 0.5 mg/kg/day; 2ndweek 0.8 mg/kg/day; 1.2 mg/kg/day for 6 weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and 8 weeks(endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: October 2006
Study end date: March 2008
Source of funding: funded by Eli Lilly and company."Myriam Harfterkamp has accepted invitations forcongress travels from Eli Lilly and Eurocept. RuudB. Minderaa was advisor for Eli Lilly. Jan K.Buitelaar has been a consultant to/member ofadvisory board of, and/or speaker for Bristol‐MyerSquibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen Cilag BV, Medice,Organon/Shering Plough, Servier, Shire, and UnionChimique Belge (UCB). Gigi van de LooNeus hasreceived honoraria for a presentation from Eli Lillyand wasmember oftheadvisory boardforUCBPharma B.V.andShire. Rutger‐Jan van der Gaag has no financialdisclosures. Pieter J. Hoekstra has receivedhonoraria for presentations or advice from Desitin,Eli Lilly, and Shire".
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry:NCT00380692
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskNot reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails were not provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAn ITT analysis was used and all participants whoreceived at least 1 dose of the drugs were includedin the analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskResults reported on clinicaltrials.gov(NCT00380692)
Other biasHigh riskSponsor: Eli Lilly and Company Information providedby: Eli Lilly and Company

Hellings 2005.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of valproate versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 6‐20 years (mean age 9.46 +/‐ 2.46)

  • comorbid DSM‐4 Axis I diagnoses, exceptTourette’s Disorder

  • significant aggression to self, others, orproperty at least 3 times/week

  • presence of a PDD


Exclusion criteria:
  • previous adequate valproate trial for anyindication or clinical seizures within the pastyear

  • history of degenerative neurological changes ormetabolic disorders

  • Tourette’s Disorder

  • history of thrombocytopenia, hepatitis,pancreatitis, pregnancy, or polycystic ovariansyndrome;

  • concomitant psychotropic or antiseizuremedications


Location/setting: recruitment was through Universityof Kansas MR/Autism outpatient, USA
Sample size: 30 in total (16 to valproate, 14 toplacebo)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 13/16 valproateparticipants completed the trial, 12/14 in placebogroup completed the trial. 1 severely hyperactiveand 1 spreading skin rash dropped out on advice fromprincipal investigator and unblinded childpsychiatrist, remaining 3 dropped out due to"manifested dangerous aggression".
Gender: 20 boys, 10 girls
Mean age: 11.2 years
Mean IQ: 54
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I valproate 23.33,placebo 21.93; aggression valproate 10.05, placebo10.50.
Concomitant medications: psychotropic oranticonvulsant medications were not allowed to betaken concurrently.
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (valproate acid 20 mg/kg/day) for 8weeks: after an initial 1‐week placebo lead‐inphase, valproate liquid (250 mg/5 mL) was graduallyintroduced with an additional 250 mg added every 3rdday, replacing the equivalent amount of placeboliquid, to achieve a dosage of 20 mg/kg/day.
Comparator (placebo) for 8 weeks: placeboadministered in a liquid form resembling valproatefor 8 weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:

Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: weekly
NotesStudy start date: 1998
Study end date: 2003
Source of funding: "funding sources for this workwere the National Institute of Mental Health(1K08MH01561‐01), National Institute of Child Healthand Human Development (HD26927, HD02528), and AbbottPharmaceuticals, Abbott Park, Illinois (Unrestricted$5,000 grant)."
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry: not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskQuote: "an 8‐week trial of two parallel groups ofsubjects, randomised to liquid VPA or placebo by thestudy pharmacist."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "The investigators, parents, and teachers wereblinded regarding medication or PBO [placebo]status"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskQuote: "The investigators were blinded regardingmedication or PBO [placebo] status"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskAn ITT analysis was used however 1 participant is notaccounted for
LTFU: 1 in valproate group and 1 in placebo groupdiscontinued due to AEs, and 1 in valproate groupwithdrew due to non‐efficacy
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe ABC‐I was measured and reported at baseline andendpoint.
Other biasUnclear riskPotential bias with pharmaceutical company fundingbut "unrestricted" implies no involvement beyondfinancial. No significant differences in age,gender, current placement home, day placementschool, years in current placement, parentalmarriage status, and aggression as the worstpresenting symptom.

Hendouei 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods10‐week trial of resveratrol + risperidone versusplacebo + risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • DSM‐5 clinical diagnosis of ASD

  • children between the ages of 3 and 12 years

  • presence of behavioural problems such asaggression, overactivity or repetitive behaviours(indication of treatment with risperidone)

  • Both "male and female outpatients referred toour clinic from different parts of Iran withprobable autistic signs and symptoms".


Exclusion criteria:
  • presence of any active medical problem

  • other psychiatric diagnosis except for mild tomoderate intellectual disability

  • receiving any antipsychotic medications duringpast month prior to the trial

  • severe hepatic disease

  • history of allergy to risperidone andintolerance of it

  • history of seizure requiring change ofantiepileptic dose during the last month

  • seizure during the last 6 months


Location/setting: autism clinic in children'soutpatient clinic of Roozbeh Hospital (TehranUniversity of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran)
Sample size: resveratrol (35); placebo (35)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: resveratrol (4, 2ineligible to continue, 2 consent withdrawn);placebo (4, 4 consent withdrawn)
Gender: 50 male, 12 female
Mean age: resveratrol 7.8 (2.1); placebo: 8.1(1.9)
IQ: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I of > 22 atbaseline across both groups
Concomitant medications: apart from resveratrol andrisperidone no other concomitant medications wereallowed in either group.
History of previous medications: antipsychotics couldnot be taken in month prior to the study and anyanticonvulsant use could not have changed in monthprior to study
InterventionsIntervention (resveratrol + risperidone): both groupswere treated with risperidone twice daily, startingat a dose of 0.5 mg, with a dose increase of 0.5 mgper week (for the first 3 weeks). Resveratrol dosagewas 250 mg twice per day from the beginning of thestudy.
Comparator (placebo + risperidone): both groups weretreated with risperidone twice daily, starting at adose of 0.5 mg with a dose increase of 0.5 mg/week(for the first 3 weeks) plus placebo for 10weeks.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I (Aman 1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 5 andweek 10 (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: January 2018
Study end date: April 2019
Funding: "This study was supported by a grant fromTehran University of Medical Sciences to Prof.Shahin Akhondzadeh (Grant No: 36420)"
Conflicts of interest: "None of the authors in thisstudy had conflict of interest of any kind with theparties that might be involved."
Trial registry: IRCT20090117001556N104
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "Using the Microsoft Office Excel software,each patient was assigned to a specific randomcode."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskThe assignments were retained in confidential andsealed opaque envelops and were unveiled at thestudy endpoint for statistical analysis.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "all individuals involved in this study, suchas patients and researchers, were blinded to theassignments."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskSeparate individuals were responsible forrandomisations, drug administration, rating, dataentry and statistical analysis. Furthermore, allindividuals involved in this study, such as patientsand researchers, were blinded to theassignments.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLow attrition, and all participants were accountedfor
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskDoesn't report CARS (primary outcome on trial reg)and measurement time points different to trialreg
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Herscu 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods14‐week parallel trial of fluoxetine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • 5‐17 years of age

  • meets DSM‐4 criteria for ASD

  • CYBOCS‐PDD score of at least 10 atscreening


Exclusion criteria: "diagnosis of Asperger Syndromeor Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not OtherwiseSpecified, Rett Syndrome, Childhood DisintegrativeDisorder, Patients planning to commence cognitivebehaviour therapy during the period of the study orthose who have begun cognitive behaviour therapywithin 8 weeks prior to enrolment, or Patients whoare currently taking fluoxetine or who havepreviously taken it".
Location/setting: an autism network consisting of 18centres
Sample size: 158 (78 fluoxetine, 80 placebo)
Reason for dropouts/withdrawals: fluoxetine 22withdrawn (7 AEs, 6 withdrew consent, 1 sponsordecision, 2 lack of efficacy, 6 LTFU); placebo 15withdrawn (5 AEs, 7 withdrew consent, 2 lack ofefficacy, 1 LTFU).
Mean age: 9.0 years
Mean IQ: not reported
Gender: 13% and 16% of the fluoxetine and placebogroups respectively were female
Baseline ABC‐Irritability or other BoC: notreported
Concomitant medications: participants were notallowed to be taking psychotropic medications.
Previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (fluoxetine): all randomisedparticipants initiated treatment with 2 mg/dayfluoxetine, which could be titrated flexibly every 2weeks to 4 mg, 6 mg, 9 mg, 13 mg, and a maximum of18 mg/day.
Comparator (placebo): all randomised participantsinitiated treatment with 2 mg/day placebo, whichcould be titrated flexibly every 2 weeks to 4 mg, 6mg, 9 mg, 13 mg, and a maximum of 18 mg/day
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: weeks 2, 4, 8, 10, 12and 14 (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: September 2007
Study end date: January 2009
Funding: "This study was funded by Neuropharm Plc. incollaboration with the Autism Speaks Autism ClinicalTrials Network."
Conflicts of interest: various consulting with andfunding by pharmaceutical companies
Trial registry:NCT00515320
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskTreatment group was assigned centrally through theuse of an automated clinical trials database.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDouble‐blinded ‐ no further details provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskScoring was by a site clinician who was blind both todrug/placebo assignment and to AEs (which could havebiased the rater).
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskHigh dropout (23%); ITT analysis based on percentchange from baseline to endpoint (Week 14 or the**last assessment for those withdrawing**)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskSame primary outcome as clinical trial reg
Other biasHigh riskFunded by Neuropharm Plc.
One person dropped out due to "sponsor decision" towithdraw from treatment group

Hollander 2005.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of fluoxetine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 5‐17 years

  • meet the criteria for ASD (autism, Asperger's,or PDD‐NOS) according to the DSM‐4‐TR


Exclusion criteria:
  • responded well to previous interventions or hadonly mild global severity

  • other DSM‐4 psychotic disorders

  • history of seizures

  • any clinically significant medical illness


Location/setting: details not provided
Sample size: 44 children or adolescents
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: "three subjects weredropped due to noncompliance and one was droppedbecause of lack of efficacy, all prior to week4".
Gender: 30 boys, 9 girls
Mean age: 8.18 +/‐ 3.04
IQ: 63.7
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
Concomitant medications: none were allowed
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (fluoxetine) for 8 weeks: fluoxetine wasstarted at 2.5 mg/day for a week, then titratedbased on weight to a maximum dose of 0.8 mg/kg/day;0.3 mg/kg for week 2, 0.5 mg/kg/day for week 3, and0.8 mg/kg/day for weeks 4–8. Dose prescribed on day28 (end of week 4) was maintained for the remainderof the 8‐week phase unless indicated due to sideeffects, in which case the stable dose was lowered.This was followed by a 4‐week washout period beforecross‐over to placebo.
Comparator (placebo) for 8 weeks: the dosing schedulebegan at 2.5 mg/day of placebo once a day for 1week. The following 7 weeks followed a flexibletitration schedule up to a maximum of 0.8 mg/kg/day(0.3 mg/kg for week 2, 0.5 mg/kg/day for week 3, and0.8 mg/kg/day weeks 4‐8)
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and every 4weeks until week 20
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Funding: "this work was supported by Orphan ProductsDivision of the Food and Drug Administration Grant #FD‐R‐00152001‐03, NIH STAART Center of ExcellenceGrant #1U54MM066673‐01A1, NARSAD Young InvestigatorAward for Dr Novotny, and the Seaver Foundation.Lilly Research Laboratories provided liquidfluoxetine and matching placebo for the study"
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry:NCT00004486
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "subjects were monitored and assessed weeklyby the treating physician, who was blind totreatment condition, during the first 4 weeks ofeach fluoxetine/placebo phase of the study". "Inaddition, all CY‐BOCS and CGI‐AD outcome assessmentswere completed by an independent evaluator (IE) whodid not have access to side effect data and who wasblind to treatment condition, at baseline and every4 weeks throughout the study, until week 20 ortermination."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskAll participants were accounted for and an ITTanalysis was used on the 39 participants whocompleted the trial.
LTFU: 1 participant not included in the analysisbecause of "lost pharmacy records, which made itimpossible to be certain of the subject’srandomization condition" and three participants weredropped due to noncompliance and 1 was droppedbecause of lack of efficacy, all prior to week4.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskThe CY‐BOCS, CGI, the Vineland Adaptive BehaviorScale, Wechsler Preschool and Primary IntelligenceScale‐Revised (WPPSIR), Wechsler Intelligence Scalefor Children (WISC‐III) (ages 7–16) or the WechslerAdult Intelligence Scale‐Third Edition (WAIS‐III)(age 17). The CY‐BOCS was reported in full at weeks0, 4 and 8, however the CGI scores were onlyreported at endpoint.
Other biasUnclear risk"This work was supported by Orphan Products Divisionof the Food and Drug Administration Grant #FD‐R‐001520‐ 01‐03, NIH STAART Center of ExcellenceGrant #1U54MM066673‐01A1, NARSAD Young InvestigatorAward for Dr Novotny, and the Seaver Foundation.Lilly Research Laboratories provided liquidfluoxetine and matching placebo for the study. Weacknowledge Charles Cartwright MD, Katherine DelaneyPhD, and Sallie Jo Hadley MD for their clinicalcontributions to this study."

Hollander 2006a.

Study characteristics
Methods8‐week parallel study of divalproex sodium versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • meet DSM‐4 and ADI‐R criteria for an ASD

  • score as moderately ill on CGI‐AutisticDisorder (Guy1976)

  • not selected on the basis of levels ofrepetitive or aggressive behaviours on studymeasures


Exclusion criteria: "medical illnesses (with theexception of stable seizure disorder), past historyof psychotic disorders, and recent or current use ofdivalproex, terfenadine (Seldane), or astemizole(Hismanal). Subjects using any psychoactivemedication were allowed to participate in the trialonly if the dose remained stable for at least 3months prior to and during the trial".
Location/setting: "patients were recruited andscreened for the presence of ASDs at the Seaver andNew York Autism Center of Excellence" (USA)
Number and reason for discontinuing: "one subjectdropped out in week 5 due to lack of efficacy (onmedication) and 12 subjects completed thetrial".
Mean IQ: IQ scores for the majority of participantswere in the mild to moderate intellectual disabilityrange, with a mean IQ score of 60 (range =30–104)
Gender: details not provided
Mean age: 9.5 years (12 were children or adolescents(< 18 years), and 1 adult was aged 40)
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not an outcome
Concomitant medications: "only one participant was ona stable dose of risperidone prior to the study andcontinued throughout the 8 wk of the study. No otherparticipant was on concomitant medications."
Previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (divalproex sodium) for 8 weeks: startedwith 125 mg/day and was increased by 125 mg every 4days during the first 2 weeks of treatment. Therecommended divalproex serum level was 50–100 mg/mLby week 2, and the maximum dose was 30mg/kg/day.
Comparator (placebo) for 8 weeks: started with 125mg/day and was increased by 125 mg every 4 daysduring the first 2 weeks of treatment. Therecommended serum level was 50–100 mg/mL by week 2,and the maximum dose was 30 mg/kg/day.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, weeks 1, 2,3, 4, 6, and 8 (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: details not provided
Study end date: details not provided
Funding: "Funding was received from AbbottLaboratories as an investigator‐initiated study, theSeaver Foundation, and STAART Autism Center ofExcellence Grant no. 5 U54 MH06673‐02".
Conflicts of interest "Dr Hollander has served on anadvisory board of Abbott Laboratories."
Trial registry:NCT00211757
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskThe randomisation schedule had a goal of establishinga 2:1 ratio of patients in the active vs placebogroups
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskReported to be double‐blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskAn unblinded person reported serum divalproex levelsof < 50 mg/mL or > 100 mg/mL to theinvestigators so that the dose of study drug couldbe adjusted appropriately. In order to preserve thestudy blind, sham divalproex levels were reportedfor selected placebo participants.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskUnclear if > 13 were randomised and thus selectivereporting. 
Quote: "Twenty‐five subjects werescreened. Thirteen subjects were randomized, had atleast one post‐treatment outcome measure, and wereincluded in the intent‐to‐treat (ITT) group"
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskThe CGI and ABC were reported as outcomes on trialregistry however not reported in the paper. Theprimary outcome (CYBOCS) was reported graphicallyand using t‐scores.
Other biasLow riskNo other sources identified

Hollander 2006b.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of olanzapine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • age 6‐17 years

  • meet DSM‐5 and ADI‐R criteria with a rating ofat least moderate (≥ 4) on the CGI Scale

  • free of psychotropic medications for at least 4weeks prior to starting the study drug exceptstable dose (at least 3 months) of anticonvulsantsfor seizures or clonidine or chloral hydrate givenonly at bedtime for sleep

  • "children in an established programme for atleast 3 months prior to starting the trial andkept constant throughout the medication trialcould be included in the study".


Exclusion criteria:
  • responded well to prior pharmacologicaltreatment

  • psychotic disorders

  • history of any clinically significant medicalillness (with the exception of a stable seizuredisorder)


Location/setting: details not provided
Sample size: 11 in total, 6 olanzapine group, 5placebo
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: "one child droppedout right after randomization due to parentaldisagreement regarding study participation. Twoothers dropped out during the study because theirparents were noncompliant with their follow upappointments."
Gender: all were male in the olanzapine group,placebo 3/5 were male
Mean age: olanzapine 9.25 years, placebo 8.9years
IQ: 2 in olanzapine group had severe intellectualdisability, 5 participants had mild intellectualdisability (2 and 3 in placebo), 4 had normalcognitive function (2 in each group)
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not applicable
Concomitant medications: 0%
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (olanzapine) for 8 weeks: "in childrenweighing less than 40kg, the dosage started with2.5mg of olanzapine every other day; after 3 days,the dose increased to 2.5mg every day. In childrenweighing more than 40kg, the dose started at 2.5mgevery day and was increased to 5mg/day after 3 days/Thereafter, the dosage for both weight groups wasincreased in 5‐mg increments weekly to a maximum of20mgday"
Comparator (placebo) for 8 weeks: equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, weekly for1st 4 weeks then biweekly for last 4 weeks
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: "this study was supported by aninvestigator‐initiated research grant from LillyResearch Laboratories. Olanzapine and matchingplacebo were supplied by Lilly ResearchLaboratories"
Conflicts of interest: "Dr Hollander serves on theadvisory board of Abbott, Wyeth, Solvay, SomaxonPharmaceuticals and receives research grants fromLilly, Abbott, Pfizer, UCB‐Pharma, and OrthoMcNeilPharmaceuticals. All other authors have no financialrelationships to disclose".
Trial registry: not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided except for, quote: "Patientswere evaluated weekly for the first 4 weeks andbiweekly for the next 4 weeks in a double‐blindfashion by the treating psychiatrist."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskPaper reports that a secondary outcome is the OvertAggression Scale irritability and aggressionsubscales however scores are not reported (only Pvalues and z scores)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskAvailable data from this relatively small sample of11 participants (6 treatment and 5 control), we usedmixed regression analysis to assess differences inthe improvement ratings between the treatment andcontrol groups. This analysis did not eliminateparticipants, but instead estimated effects usingthe data available for each participant. The reasonsfor missing data were children who discontinued thestudy before 8 weeks and missed treatmentvisits.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskQuote: "The Overt Aggression Scale as listed as oneof the outcome measures", however, "we did not findany evidence for significant change on the CYBOCS,the OAS‐M [Overt Aggression Scale‐Modified]irritability measure, or the OAS‐M [Overt AggressionScale ‐ Modified] aggression measure".
Other biasHigh riskBoth active treatment and placebo supplied by thesame pharmaceutical company that financiallysupported the study

Hollander 2010.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of divalproex sodium versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: aged
  • 5‐17 years

  • outpatients

  • met the DSM‐4 criteria for ASD

  • CGI‐S score of at least 4

  • ABC‐I score of at least 18

  • Overt Aggression Scale‐Modified (OAS‐M) scoreof at least 13

  • seizure‐free for at least 6 months and on astable dose of anticonvulsants other thandivalproex sodium or related formulations

  • non‐medicated children with a history ofseizures and 6‐month seizure‐free, or with anabnormal EEG but no clinical seizures


Exclusion criteria:
  • pregnant or nursing mothers

  • sexually active women of childbearing potentialwho are not using adequate birth controlmeasures

  • overall adaptive behavior scores < 2 yearson the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Rating Scale

  • active or unstable epilepsy

  • any of the following past or present mentaldisorders: schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorderor organic mental disorders

  • serious suicidal risk

  • clinically significant or unstable medicalillness that would contraindicate participation inthe study, including hematopoietic orcardiovascular disease, pancreatitis, livertoxicity, and polycystic ovary syndrome

  • history of encephalitis, phenylketonuria,tuberous sclerosis, fragile X syndrome, anoxiaduring birth, pica, neurofibromatosis,hypomelanosis of Ito, hypothyroidism, Duchennemuscular dystrophy, and maternal rubella

  • history of the following:

    • gastrointestinal, liver, or kidney, or otherknown conditions which will presently interferepresently with the absorption, distribution,metabolism, or excretion of drugs

    • cerebrovascular disease or brain trauma

    • clinically significant unstable endocrinedisorder, such as hypo‐ or hyperthyroidism

    • recent history or presence of any form ofmalignancy

  • treatment within the previous 30 days with anydrug known to a well‐defined potential fortoxicity to a major organ

  • clinically significant abnormalities inlaboratory tests or physical exam

  • likely to require electroconvulsive therapy orany other psychotropic medication during thestudy, unless otherwise permitted

  • unable to tolerate taper from psychoactivemedication if necessary

  • history of hypersensitivity or severe sideeffects associated with the use of divalproexsodium, or an ineffective prior therapeutic trialof divalproex sodium (serum levels within range of50‐100 ug/mL for 6 weeks)

  • received any of the following interventionswithin the prescribed period before startingtreatment:

    • investigational drugs within the previous 30days

    • depot neuroleptic medication

    • psychotropic drugs not permitted for concurrentuse in the study within the previous 7 days

    • fluoxetine within the previous 5 weeks

  • any new alternative non‐medication treatments,such as diet, vitamins, and psychosocial therapy,begun within the previous 3 months

  • any organic or systemic disease or patients whorequire a therapeutic intervention, not otherwisespecified, which would confound the evaluation ofthe safety of the study medication

  • currently reside in a remote geographical areawho do not have regular access to transportationto the clinical facility


Location/setting: not mentioned
Sample size: 16 (intervention group), 11 (placebogroup)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: placebo group 1withdrawal; intervention group 1 withdrawal for lackof efficacy.
Gender: 23 male, 4 female
Mean age: 9.46 years
IQ: placebo 76.1, intervention 52.92. Overall mean IQ63.3
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I intervention group20.3, placebo 22
Concomitant medications: 0%
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (divalproex sodium) for 12 weeks:started at 125 mg/day for children weighing up to 40kg and titrated to a maximum of 250 mg twice/dayover 1 week. For children weighing ≥ 40 kg, thestarting dose was 250 mg/day and titrated to amaximum of 500 mg twice/day over 1 week.
Comparator (placebo) for 12 weeks: participantsreceived a placebo comparative to the study drugdivalproex sodium
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: AEs recorded atbaseline then weekly for 4 weeks then biweekly fornext 4 weeks
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: funded by NINDS R21 NS4 3979‐01, EHollander, PI. Grant no. M01‐RR00071 from theNational Centre for Research Resources (NCRR)
Conflicts of interest: "Eric Hollander receivedconsultation fees from Abbott, Neuropharm, Nastech,BMS, and Forest; received research grants fromAbbott, and UBS Pharma; and has intellectualproperty related to oxytocin and memantine and ASD.Evdokia Anagnostou received a consultation fee byInteGragen. The rest of the authors have nothing todisclose".
Trial registry: not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskThe children were randomised in a 1:1 fashion
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided except, quote: "all cliniciansinvolved in efficacy or safety assessments wereblinded to the randomisation condition", and"feedback on subjects randomised to placebo wasbased on a blocked schedule, so that all studyclinicians remained blinded to the condition ofrandomisation."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskNo direct mention of ITT methods to account for 3participants who didn't complete intervention,however implied in the total number analysed
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskFinal ABC‐I scores were not provided however were onthe clinicaltrials.gov website
Other biasHigh riskQuote: "adverse event monitoring took place everyweek for the first four weeks and every 2 weeksthereafter. Questions were focused on known sideeffects of divalproex sodium, followed by open‐endedquestions."

Hollander 2012.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of fluoxetine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • people between the ages of 18 and 60 years

  • met the DSM‐4 criteria for an ASD

  • CGI score of ≥ 4

  • medication‐free status


Exclusion criteria:
  • history of hypersensitivity or side effectswhile receiving fluoxetine treatment

  • abnormal electrocardiogram, laboratory test, orphysical examination findings

  • schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder,bipolar disorder, active seizure disorder, orsignificant hematopoietic or cardiovasculardisease


Location/setting: details not provided
Sample size: 37 (fluoxetine 22, placebo 15)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 2 dropouts did notcomply with study procedures, 1 discontinued becauseof relocation, and 1 discontinued because of poortolerability
Gender: 26 male, 11 female
Mean age: 34.31 years
IQ: 103.25
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not applicable
Concomitant medications: 0%
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (fluoxetine) for 12 weeks: dosagefollowed a fixed schedule, starting at 10 mg/day andincreasing, as tolerated, up to 80 mg/day; meanfinal dose 9.9 mg/day
Comparator (placebo) for 12 weeks: equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • AEs

  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(although not reported) (Aman 1985)


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: AEs were measuredbiweekly
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: "funded by Food and DrugAdministration orphan product g rant FD‐R‐0 0 2 0 26 ‐0 1 and supported by Studies to Advance AutismResearch and Treatment (STAART) Center of Excellencegrant 1U5 4 MH‐ 0 6 6 6 7 3 from NIMH, by the SeaverFoundation, and by the Mount Sinai General ClinicalResearch Center. Mount Sinai School of Medicinelicensed an orphan designation for fluoxetine inautism to Neuropharm, Ltd".
Conflicts of interest: "Dr Hollander has been aconsultant to Abbott, Forest, and Neuropharm in thepast. Dr Anagnostou has consulted without fees toNeuropharm, Novartis, and Proximagen. The otherauthors report no financial relationships withcommercial interests".
Trial registry ‐NCT00004486
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskNot described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskNot described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNot described
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNot described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskLoss to follow‐up by group not reported for alloutcomes
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskABC irritability data not reported
Other biasHigh riskHigher proportion of men (80%) in placebo groupcompared to fluoxetine group (64%); higherproportion who were white (86%) in the fluoxetinegroup compared to placebo group (53%); higherproportion had Asperger's (rather than ASD) (73%) inthe fluoxetine group compared to placebo group(53%). No other differences in age, IQ, and baselinescores

Hollander 2020a.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial ofTrichuris suis ova versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: "age 18‐35, inclusive, at thetime of consent, Outpatient, meet criteria for thediagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder according tothe DSM‐4‐TR, and supported by the ADOS or ADI‐R,have an IQ of 70 or greater, participants who aretaking other medications prior to enrollment had tobe on a stable dose of concomitant medication,including psychotropic, anticonvulsant, or sleep aidfor at least 3 months prior to baseline ratings.Other inclusion criteria included being judgedreliable for medication compliance and agree to keepappointments for study contacts and tests asoutlined in the protocol (both subjects andguardians) and have a personal or family history ofallergies".
Exclusion criteria
  • History of bipolar or other psychiatricdisorders (such as schizophrenia orschizoaffective disorders)

  • Previous diagnosis of Rett's Disorder orChildhood Disintegrative Disorder

  • Uncontrolled seizure disorders (defined asseizures within the past 6 months)

  • Pregnant or breastfeeding at screening or atany time during the study

  • Other chronic medical conditions

  • Treatment in the last 12 weeks withcyclosporine, methotrexate, infliximab orimmunomodulatory agents, treatment in the last 2weeks with antibiotics, antifungal orantiparasitic medications

  • history of previous treatment withTrichurissuis Ova (TSO)


Location/setting: autism programme at MontefioreMedical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine,USA
Sample size: 10 total (cross‐over)
Number of withdrawals/ dropouts: none reported
Gender: 9 male, 1 female
Mean age: 21.15 years
IQ: 87.89
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: parent‐rated ABC‐I12.5
Concomitant medications: details not provided
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (Trichuris suis ova) for 12weeks:Trichuris suis ova were administeredin vials prepared by Coronado Biosciences. Vialswere diluted with a commercial drink and given toparticipants orally to ingest. Participants receiveda dose of 2500 ova every 2 weeks for 12 weeks.
Comparator (placebo) for 12 weeks: placebo wasadministered on site every 2 weeks.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using theABC‐Irritability subscale (Aman 1985)

  • self‐injurious behaviour, measured using theRepetitive Behaviour Scale Revised (RBS‐R) ‐Self‐injurious subscale (Bodfish2000)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessment: baseline and every 2weeks for 12 weeks
NotesStudy start date: November 2012
Study end date: June 2014
Source of funding: funding provided by the SimonsFoundation. Drug/placebo and consulting provided byCoronado Biosciences: "Coronado Biosciences alsoprovided both TSO and the matching placebo".
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry:NCT01040221
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskOther than "double‐blinded", details not provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskNo dropouts were reported although only 9 wereanalysed for CGI scale
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskThe ABC was apparently measured at baseline, 2, 4, 6,8, 10, 12, 14, 16 weeks. Only pooled baseline andmean change from baseline to endpoint werereported
Other biasHigh riskNo study results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov forthis study even though it was completed July 2014.Active treatment prepared by pharmaceuticalcompany

Hollander 2020b.

Study characteristics
Methods24‐week parallel trial of balovaptan versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • boys and girls aged 5‐17 years who are fluentin English, meet the DSM‐5 criteria for ASD, CGIscore of at least 4 at screening, an IQ of atleast 70

  • "Language, hearing, and vision compatible withthe study measurements as judged by theInvestigator"

  • a parent or guardian who can accompany theparticipant to study visits and who is willing toprovide consent for the participant

  • female participants cannot be breast‐feedingduring the trial and must have a negativepregnancy test, and must use a contraceptivemethod from screening until 28 days following thetrial


Exclusion criteria
  • Start or change in psychosocial intervention(including investigational) within 4 weeks priorto screening

  • Unstable or uncontrolled psychiatric and/orneurological disorder including uncontrolledepilepsy (defined as a seizure within the past 6months)

  • unstable cardiovascular disease, history ofalcohol or substance abuse/dependence, orabnormality on ECG at screening

  • Concomitant medical conditions that affect thepulmonary, gastrointestinal, hepatic, renal,metabolic, or immune systems

  • Medications such as anticonvulsants wererequred to be at a stable dose for at least 4weeks prior to screening for the trial.


Location/setting: 44 sites across the USA
Sample size: 134
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: placebo, 26 droppedout (AEs (3); lack of efficacy (1); LTFU (3);physician decision (1); withdrawal by participant(18)). Balovaptan, unclear, groups are not clearlydefined.
Gender: 83% and 84% were male in theintervention and placebo groups respectively.
Mean age: approximately 12 years in both groups
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I scores or other BoC: not reported
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: notreported
InterventionsIntervention (balovaptan) for 24 weeks: participantsreceived age‐adjusted total daily oral doseapproximately equivalent to the adult dose of 10mg/day of balovaptan (RO5285119). Approximatetreatment duration was up to 24 weeks (up to 52additional weeks for those enroled in the open‐labelextension).
Comparator: participants received a matching placeboorally. Approximate treatment duration was up to 24weeks.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: none reported
Secondary outcomes: QoL (change from baseline)measured using the PedsQL (Varni 2001).Higher scores suggest a higher QoL
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, weeks 12 and24 (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: 2016
Study end date: 2020
Source of funding: F. Hoffmann‐La Roche Ltd(pharmaceutical company)
Conflicts of interest: various grants and othersupport from pharmaceutical companies
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided apart from "randomisedstudy"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided apart from "Masking: Double(Participant, Investigator)"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided apart from "Masking: Double(Participant, Investigator)"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskDifficult to understand participant flow
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskThe paper/presentation mentions the ABC‐Irritabilityhowever, it wasn't reported and was not listed onthe trial registry. Also, the study was "Terminated(The 24‐week analysis indicated no clinical orstatistical benefit for the primary endpoint for theoverall study population. No new safety concernsidentified.)"
Other biasHigh riskList of disclosures included payment by pharmacompany, for many of the study authors

Ichikawa 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods8‐week parallel trial of aripiprazole versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children and adolescents aged 6–17 years

  • diagnosis of autistic disorder (not ASD)defined by the DSM‐4‐TR criteria

  • behavioural problems such as irritability,agitation, self‐injurious behaviour, or acombination of these symptoms

  • CGI‐S score of ≥ 4 and an ABC Japanese Version(Ono 1996)score of ≥ 18 at screening and baseline


Exclusion criteria:
  • complications or histories of schizophrenia,other psychosis, and mood disorders includingbipolar disorder and major depression according tothe DSM‐4‐TR criteria (diagnosed by theinvestigator)

  • diagnosis of Rett disorder, childhooddisintegrative disorder, Asperger’s disorder, orPDD‐NOS according to the DSM‐4‐TR, or a diagnosisof fragile X syndrome

  • treatment resistance to antipsychoticmedication

  • significant risk of committing suicide

  • profound intellectual disability

  • previously used aripiprazole, received anyinvestigational drug within 30 days beforeproviding informed consent, or received anyconcomitant drug or therapy specified asprohibited in the study protocol


Location/setting: 50 sites in Japan
Sample size: 47 aripiprazole, 45 placebo
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 3 from placebodiscontinued, 1 due to AEs and 2 due to a physiciandecision
Gender: 75 male, 17 female
Mean age: approx 10 years
IQ: approximately 35% in both groups had mildintellectual disability, 15% had moderateintellectual disability, and 13% had severeintellectual disability
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: aripiprazole ABC‐I 27.1(7.2); placebo 26.8 (6.5)
Concomitant medications: concomitant psychotropicmedications were not permitted during the trial.
History of previous medications: not provided
InterventionsIntervention: aripiprazole was initiated at 1 mg/day,with a target dosage of 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, or 15mg/day
Placebo: equivalent placebo once daily for 8weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability (ABC Japanese Version IrritabilitySubscale Score) (Ono 1996)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
NotesStudy start date: June 2012
Study end date: June 2015
Funding: "This study was funded by OtsukaPharmaceutical Co, Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)"
Conflicts of interest: various authors receivedfunding and other support from pharmaceuticalcompanies.
Trial registry:NCT01617447
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskInsufficient information on method of generating thissequence
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "Clinicians were required to input informationregarding eligible patients on the Interactive WebResponse System (IWRS), and then the registrationcenter assigned a trial drug code to eachpatient"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDouble‐blind ‐ doesn't specify exactly who wasblind
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDouble‐blind ‐ doesn't specify exactly who wasblind
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAttrition was low and all participants were accountedfor.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe trial registry reports that the ABC‐Irritabilityand AEs were outcomes. Both of these were reportedin full.
Other biasHigh riskA pharmaceutical company funded the study and 2 ofthe study authors are employees of the pharmacompany.

Jacob 2022.

Study characteristics
Methods24‐week parallel trial of balovaptan versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • men and women at least 18 years of age who meetthe DSM‐5 criteria for an ASD diagnosis

  • an IQ of at least 70

  • women who are sexually active are oncontraception during the trial and for at least 28days after the trial

  • other permitted medications must be maintainedat a stable dose throughout the study


Exclusion criteria:
  • pregnant or breastfeeding women

  • any changes to medications in prior 6 weeks totrial, unstable or uncontrolled psychoticdisorders, substance use disorders within the past12 months, neurological disorders includingunstable epilepsy (seizures within the past 6months)

  • other significant medical conditions includinghypertension, peripheral neuropathy, syncope orcardiovascular disease; positive for Hepatitis Bor C or HIV; history of bleeding disorders orother disease or condition that "could interferewith, or treatment of which might interfere with,the conduct of the study, or what would, in theopinion of the investigator, pose an unacceptablerisk to the subject in this study".


Location/setting: 46 sites across 6 countries (theUSA, the UK, France, Italy, Spain, and Canada)
Sample size: 321 (balovaptan group 163; placebo group158)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts:
  • balovaptan group, 61 withdrew in total (1 priorto receiving the intervention, 39 studytermination by sponsor, 12 withdrawal byparticipant, 4 AEs, 1 lack of efficacy, 1 LTFU, 1other reasons, 1 physician decision, 1 protocoldeviation)

  • placebo group: 55 in total discontinued (33study termination by sponsor, 9 withdrawal byparticipant, 4 AEs, 1 lack of efficacy, 4 LTFU, 1non‐compliance with study drug, 3 otherreasons)


Gender: 64 females, 257 males
Mean age: 27.6 years
IQ: approx 105
Baseline ABC‐I scores or other BoC:
Concomitant medications: details not provided
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention: 10 mg of oral balovaptan once daily for24 weeks
Comparator: equivalent placebo for 24 weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: QoL, measured using the PedsQL,(Varni2001)
Timing of outcome assessments: AEs week 24(endpoint); QoL: baseline, week 12 and 24(endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: August 2018
Study end date: July 2020
Source of funding: Pharmaceutical company(Hoffmann‐La Roche)
Conflicts of interest:
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskParticipants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receivebalovaptan or placebo with an independentinteractive voice or web‐based response system(IxRS) using permuted blocks of four. Knowledge ofblock size was controlled to avoid randomisationpredictability. Sites enroling a participant enteredthe participant’s data in the IxRS, and the systemassigned the participant to a trial group accordingto the allocation sequence. The randomisationprovider was Signant Health; the sponsor did nothave access to the live allocation sequence whilethe study was ongoing.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskParticipants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receivebalovaptan or placebo with an independentinteractive voice or web‐based response system(IxRS) using permuted blocks of four. Knowledge ofblock size was controlled to avoid randomisationpredictability. Sites enroling a participant enteredthe participant’s data in the IxRS, and the systemassigned the participant to a trial group accordingto the allocation sequence. The randomisationprovider was Signant Health; the sponsor did nothave access to the live allocation sequence whilethe study was ongoing.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskApart from "Participants, study site personnel, andthe sponsor were masked to treatment assignment" nofurther details were provided.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskApart from "Participants, study site personnel, andthe sponsor were masked to treatment assignment" nofurther details were provided.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskOver half of all dropouts in both groups were"terminated by the sponsor".
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskIt appears that all outcomes listed on trial registrywere reported however, with the early termination itis unclear if other factors contributed to the studyterminating (especially with the involvement of thesponsor).
Other biasHigh riskThe funder of the study had a role in study design,data collection, data analysis, data interpretation,and writing of the report.

Jaselskis 1992.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of clonidine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 5‐11 years

  • diagnosed with ASD according to the DSM‐III‐Rcriteria

  • no history of medical or neurologicalillnesses

  • had inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivitythat was excessive for their developmentallevel

  • unresponsive or intolerant to or experiencedAEs with other psychopharmacological treatmentspreviously


Exclusion criteria:
  • any neurological or medical illnesses

  • use of medications in the month prior tostarting the study


Location/setting: outpatients clinic, USA
Sample size: 8 in total (cross‐over)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts:none reported
Gender: 8 male
Mean age: 8.1 years
IQ: 59
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: none reported
Concomitant medications: 0%
History of previous medications: medications were notallowed in the month prior to the study.
InterventionsIntervention (clonidine) for 6 weeks: clonidine wasprovided at 0.025 mg strength. Clonidine was taperedup over 2 weeks to a dose of 4‐10 ug/kg/day(0.15‐0.20 mg/day) in 3 doses per day.
Comparator (placebo) for 6 weeks: identical placebotablets were provided in a 0.025 mg strength.Placebo was tapered up over 2 weeks to a dose of4‐10 ug/kg per day (0.15‐0.20 mg/day) in 3 doses perday.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability, measured using theABC‐I subscale (Aman 1985)
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessment: ABC‐I rated weekly byteachers; AEs recorded weekly however notreported
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: "supported in part by the HarrisCenter for Developmental Studies (Chicago, IL) andNational Institute of Mental Health Child andAdolescent Mental Health Academic Award K07 MH00822(to E.C.)" … "Catapres and matched placebo tabletswere provided as a gift from Boehringer IngelheimPharmaceuticals Inc. (Ridgefield, CT)".
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry: not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided except for, quote: "The subjectswere randomly assigned by a non‐rating clinicianwhose only clinical contact with patients andparents occurred during the diagnostic phase andafter the completion of the study for eachpatient."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear risk"Tablets were placed in sealed envelopes designatedfor each day of the study"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "All raters (parents, teachers and clinicians)were blind to drug order until ratings werecompleted"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "all raters (parents, teachers, andclinicians) were blind to drug order until ratingswere completed"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskOnly 8 participants were analysed in the trial andindividual data were not recorded.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskNo baseline scores were recorded despite "threesessions that were done at baseline". "Clinicianratings were only made at the end of each treatmentperiod" and "none of the clinician ratings showedsignificant differences between placebo andclonidine" and "weekly teacher ratings included theAbberant Behaviour Checklist". Side effects weremonitored weekly however not reported.
Other biasHigh riskQuote: "clonidine and identical placebo tablets wereprovided...by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals,Inc"

Kent 2013.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of risperidone versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • DSM‐4 diagnosis of autistic disorder andparent‐rated ABC‐I subscores of at least 18

  • aged 5‐17 years (inclusive)

  • weighing at least 20 kg


Exclusion criteria:
  • previous or current DSM‐4 diagnosis ofpsychotic disorder or PDD

  • determined neurological disorders

  • moderate or severe extrapyramidal symptoms ortardive dyskinesia

  • past lack of response to risperidonetreatment

  • girls who were pregnant or breastfeeding


Setting: multicenter study including "16 clinical andinvestigative settings", USA
Sample size: 66 (risperidone 31, placebo 35)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: placebo 8 (AE 0, LTFU0, withdrew consent 1, insufficient response 6,medication noncompliance 1, other 0). Risperidone 6(AE 1, LTFU 1, withdrew consent 3, insufficientresponse 0, medication noncompliance 0, other 1)
Gender: placebo 31 male, 4 female; risperidone 28male, 3 female
Mean age: all were aged under 18 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I risperidone 28.0;placebo 28.9
Concomitant medications: participants were notallowed to be taking psychotropic medications for atleast 1 week before baseline. Anticholinergics andantihistamines for the treatment of emergentextrapyramidal symptoms were restricted to thelowest dose and for the shortest duration possible.Similarly, hypnotic or sedative medications(lorazepam, 0.25–2 mg; or diphenhydramine up to 50mg) were allowed if the patient had been stable on aparticular dose for at least 30 days before studystart. Antihistaminic drugs were the most commonlyused concomitant medication; a higher percentage ofparticipants in placebo (20%; n = 7) thanrisperidone group 3%, n = 1) were treated with thesedrugs.
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (risperidone) for 6 weeks: 1.25 mg/daychildren < 45 kg; or 1.75 mg/day children > 45kg
Comparator (placebo) for 6 weeks: placebo oralsolution for 6 weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • ABC‐I (change from baseline) and response rates(at least 25% improvement in ABC‐I scores)(Aman 1985)

  • Improvement in irritability (defined as aminimum 25% improvement in ABC‐Irritability scores(Aman1985) )

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessment: baseline and the 6weeks (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: December 2007
Study end date: March 2010
Source of funding: Johnson & JohnsonPharmaceutical Research & Development, LLC
Conflicts of interest: "Dr Aman was an investigatorfor this study and has received research support orbeen a consultant for Janssen Research &Development, LLC, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Pfizer,Forest Research, and Hoffman La Roche. Drs. Ness,Singh, Hough and Kent and Mr. Karcher are employeesof Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Drs Ningand Kushner were employed by Janssen Research &Development, LLC during the design and conduct ofthis study. Dr Ning is currently employed by PurduePharma and Dr Kushner is at CFG Health Systems, LLC.All authors met ICMJE criteria and all those whofulfilled those criteria are listed as authors".
Trial registry"NCT00576732
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "the randomisation was conducted by usingrandomly permuted blocks and was stratified bycentre and baseline weight"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "To maintain blinding, the study drugssupplied were identical in appearance and packed inidentical child‐resistant containers."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskQuote: "Patients, parents or primary caregivers, andthe site personnel were all blinded to treatmentassignment."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNot mentioned apart from "site personnel were allblinded"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh risk
  • ITT analysis used

  • Sedation not reported for high‐dose risperidone‐ only low‐dose.

  • LTFU:

    • placebo (8): lack of efficacy (6); withdrew(1); protocol violation (1)

    • risperidone low‐dose (5): adverse effects (1);withdrew (1); LTFU (1); other (2)

    • risperidone high‐dose (6): adverse effects (1);withdrew (3); LTFU (1); other (1)

Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskAll outcomes mentioned were reported however withouta trial protocol it is difficult to know if otheroutcomes were originally measured but not reported.Data were collected at 4 days, and weeks 1, 2, 4 and6, or at the time of early withdrawal but onlyendpoint data were reported.
Other biasUnclear riskParticipants were recruited from the investigators'practices There were no apparent differences in age,gender, race, BMI, diagnosis, symptoms or baselinescores.

Khalaj 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods10‐week parallel trial of palmitoylethanolamideversus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 4–12 years old

  • meet the DSM‐V criteria for diagnosis ofASD

  • irritability symptoms of at least moderateseverity, defined as scores ≥ 12 on the ABC‐Isubscale


Exclusion criteria:
  • children in whom severity of symptoms were notpronounced enough to be considered for treatmentwith risperidone

  • children with concomitant psychiatricdisorders, pre‐existing medical or diseaseconditions (particularly epilepsy or seizuredisorders)

  • severe intellectual disability

  • history of alcohol/drug abuse, tardivedyskinesia, or history of antipsychoticmedication

  • behaviour therapy in the 6 months prior to thetrial

  • children who had not received any othermedications in the 6 weeks before trialcommencement


Location/setting: 2 Children's Outpatient Clinics attertiary hospitals in Iran
Sample size: 70 (35 each group)
Number analysed: risperidone pluspalmitoylethanolamide (n = 31), risperidone plusplacebo (n = 31)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: risperidone pluspalmitoylethanolamide (n = 4), risperidone plusplacebo (n = 4). No reasons reported
Gender: 47 male, 15 female
Mean age: 6.84 (2.1); placebo 7.42 (2.35) years
IQ: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I intervention group21.97 (5.06); placebo 20.97 (6.8)
Concomitant medications: only children who weredrug‐free for at least 6 weeks before beginning ofthe study due to other reasons (discontinuation ofdrugs by their parents) were included.
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (palmitoylethanolamide + risperidone):participants in both groups similarly receivedrisperidone. It was started with an initial dose of0.5 mg and stepwise 0.5 mg weekly increases for thefirst 3 weeks were implemented. Maximum dose ofrisperidone was 1 mg/d for children weighing < 20kg and 2 mg/d for those with a body weight ≥ 20 kg.Additionally, individuals were administered 600 mgpalmitoylethanolamide twice daily for 10 weeks.
Comparator (placebo + risperidone): risperidone wasstarted with an initial dose of 0.5 mg and stepwise0.5 mg weekly increases for the first 3 weeks wereimplemented. Maximum dose of risperidone was 1 mg/dfor children weighing < 20 kg and 2 mg/d forthose with a body weight ≥ 20 kg. Additionally,individuals were administered 600 mg of placebotwice daily for 10 weeks.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability using the ABC‐Irritability (Aman 1985)

  • adverse events


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
NotesStudy start date: February 2017
Study end date: October 2017
Funding: this study was funded by Tehran Universityof Medical Sciences and Health Services (grantnumber 33135).
Conflicts of interest: "Authors declare no conflictof interest"
Trial registry: IRCT201702171556N96
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskUnclear if random number generator or quasi
Quote: "Randomization was performed by aradomization operator who was not otherwise involvedin this trial"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "Randomization was performed by a radomizationoperator who was not otherwise involved in thistrial." "Randomization codes were kept secure untildata curation was completed."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskDouble‐blind; participants and their parents wereblinded to group allocations.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskDouble‐blind ; participants and their parents wereblinded to group allocations. "Randomization codeswere kept secure until data curation wascompleted"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskReason for withdrawals not described
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskDifficult to know without a protocol
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

King 2001.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of amantadine hydrochloride versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 5‐19 years

  • diagnosis of ASD according to DSM‐4 and ICD‐10criteria

  • composite age equivalents > 18 months on theVineland Adaptive Behavior Scales

  • ABC‐I, ABC‐hyperactivity (subscale IV) ≥age‐adjusted 75th percentile

  • idiopathic autism


Exclusion criteria:
  • IQ (ratio, nonverbal) score < 35 as measuredon the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (Mullen,1995) or the Differential Ability Scale (Elliot,1990)

  • fragile X syndrome and tuberous sclerosiscomplex (both of which may predispose to autisticsymptoms)

  • receiving neuroleptic, anticonvulsant, orstimulant medication, or showed evidence for anyclinically important medical illness


Location/setting: 6 university medical centres,USA
Sample size: 19 amantadine hydrochloride, 20placebo
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: nonepost‐randomisation
Gender: amantadine: 15/19 male; placebo: 19/20male
Mean age: 7 years
IQ: > 35
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I amantadine 19.1;ABC‐I placebo 18.7
Concomitant medications: SSRIs ("provided the dosehad been stable for greater than 1 month prior toentry, and the dose did not change during the studyperiod") amantadine group: 4/19; placebo 6/20
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (amantadine hydrochloride) for 5 weeks:after a week‐long placebo baseline phase, amantadinehydrochloride was started at 2.5 mg/kg once/day forfirst week of active treatment. "For each of thethree remaining weeks of the treatment phase,amantadine hydrochloride as two doses of 0.25 mL/kg(i.e., 5 mg/kg per day)"
Comparator (placebo) for 5 weeks: "taste andcolor‐matched placebo was started as 0.25 mL/kg perday for a week during baseline phase. During thefirst week of the treatment phase, underdouble‐blind conditions, subjects received placeboat a single dose of 0.25 mL/kg per day. For each ofthe three remaining weeks, the subject was givenplacebo as two doses of 0.25 mL/kg (i.e., 0.5 mL/kgper day)".
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: screening, baselinestart of the week, baseline end of the week, visitsin weeks 2, 3, 4, 5
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: "funded by Cerebrus plc, Winnersh,UK"
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided except, "Treatment allocationwas randomized and supplied in a blind manner"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll participants were accounted for and included inthe analysis. The only participants who withdrewfrom the study did so before randomisation.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskABC‐I endpoint scores not reported
Other biasUnclear riskStudy was funded by Cerebus plc ‐ unclear parametersaround this funding. No significant differences inage, gender, weight, race, concomitant SSRI,CGI‐rated illness severity, ABC irritability andhyperactivity scores at baseline

King 2009.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of citalopram versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • meet the DSM‐4‐TR criteria for ASD, Asperger'sdisorder, or PDD

  • have an illness severity rating of at leastmoderate on the CGI‐S

  • score at least moderate on compulsivebehaviours


Exclusion criteria: details not provided
Location/setting: s6 academic medical centres in theUSA
Sample size: 149 (73 children were randomised tocitalopram and 76 to placebo)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: placebo: 13 withdrew(7 AEs, 1 protocol violation, 5 withdrew consent)Citalopram hydrobromide: 13 withdrew (1 serious AE,8 AEs, 2 protocol violations, 2 withdrewconsent)
Mean age: 9.4 years
Gender: 128/149 boys
IQ: 43% had nonverbal IQ > 70
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: citalopram ABC‐I 13.2;placebo 11.2; self‐injurious behaviour 2.8(citalopram); 2.6 (placebo)
Concomitant medications: psychotropic medication notallowed during the study. Only sleep medicationsallowed
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (citalopram hydrobromide) for 12 weeks:10 mg/5 mL. Mean maximum dose was 16.5 mg/day (± 6.5mg)
Comparator (placebo) for 12 weeks: equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • Irritability, measured using theABC‐Irritability subscale (Aman 1985)

  • self‐injurious behaviour, measured using theRepetitive Behavior Scale‐Self‐Injurious subscale(Bodfish2000)


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: AEs assessed atbi‐weekly visits; ABC‐I and self‐injury measured atbaseline and endpoint
NotesStudy start date: April 2004
Study end date: October 2006
Source of funding: all authors received salarycontributions from the National Institutes ofHealth, which supported this study.
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskParticipants were randomly assigned to citalopram orplacebo using permuted blocks with randomly varyingblock sizes stratified by site and by age (5‐11 vs12‐17 years)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskTwo masked clinicians met with participants duringeach scheduled evaluation
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskThe evaluating clinician monitored efficacy and wasblinded to AEs
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskLTFU citalopram: 13 withdrew, 1 due to serious AE; 8AEs; 2 protocol violations; 2 consent withdrawn
LTFU placebo: 13 withdrawn, 7 AEs; 1 protocolviolation; 5 consent withdrawn
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe trial protocol was recorded on Clinicaltrials.govand outcomes were reported in the paper.
Other biasHigh riskStudy authors all work with/for pharmaceuticalcompanies

Klaiman 2013.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of tetrahydrobiopterin versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • meet the DSM‐4‐TR diagnostic criteria for anASD

  • aged 3‐7 years of age at the start of thestudy

  • developmental quotient > 50 as assessed bythe Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scale

  • not taken any psychoactive medications otherthan supplements, anticonvulsants, melatonin, ordiphenhydramine for sleep or seizures within the 6months prior to enroling in the study


Exclusion criteria:
  • taken any psychoactive medications other thansupplements, anticonvulsants, melatonin, ordiphenhydramine for sleep or seizures within the 6months prior to enroling in the study


Location/setting: Children’s Health Council in PaloAlto, California, USA
Sample size: 46 (23 in both groups)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: tetrahydrobiopterin(BH4) AEs (2) and lack of efficacy (1), placebo lackof efficacy (1)
Gender: tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4) 20 male, 3 female,18 male, 5 female
Mean age: 5 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I BH4 11.1, placebo11.9
Concomitant medications: participants could not havebeen taking psychotropic drugs in 6 months prior totrial and not start any new medications during thetrial.
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (tetrahydrobiopterin) for 16 weeks:"individual doses of BH4 were prescribed in tabletform at 20mg/kg of body weight and taken once daily.The form of BH4 prescribed was given astetrahydrobiopterin dihydrochloride. "The mean doseof BH4 at endpoint was 385mg/day or 19mg/kg/day"
Comparator (placebo) for 16 weeks: matchingplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 8 andweek 16 (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: "study drugs and matching placebowere provided by BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc"
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry:NCT00850070
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "Group assignment was generated by arandomization program on Microsoft Excel"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskOne member of the research team (LH) was responsiblefor all randomisation; randomisation records werekept on a password‐protected computer in a lockedoffice.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskBH4 and placebo were supplied by the pharmacist asmatching pills in identical packaging."Participants, parents, and evaluators (GRE and CK)responsible for assessing the children all wereblind to assignment; they remained blind until thefinal participant completed the trial."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Participants, parents, and evaluators (GREand CK) responsible for assessing the children allwere blind to assignment; they remained blind untilthe final participant completed the trial."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll participants were included in the analysis and anITT analysis was used, including using LOCF. Alloutcomes were reported in full.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll measures were reported in full.
Other biasHigh riskThis research was funded by BioMarin Pharmaceutical,Inc. as an investigator‐initiated study(#CHC0901).

Le 2022.

Study characteristics
Methods6 week cross‐over trial of oxytocin versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 3‐8 years

  • meet the DSM‐5 criteria for ASD diagnosis

  • meet the ADOS‐2 criteria for ASD

  • not in receipt of any psychotropics in theprevious 3 months

  • parent or participant consent toparticipate


Exclusion criteria:
  • previous or current use of oxytocin

  • meet the DSM‐5 criteria for any mentaldisorders

  • "ASD accompanied with severe behaviouraldisorders"

  • any serious medical conditions, includingneurological, endocrine, cardiovascular, orgastrointestinal disorders

  • any chronic nasal disorders that impact theability to use nasal sprays

  • hearing or vision impairments

  • allergic to oxytocin


Location/setting: China
Sample size: 41 (21 oxytocin, 20 placebo)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none were lost tofollow‐up in the first phase of the cross‐overtrial
Gender: male (38), female (3)
Mean age: 5.0 years across both groups
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scores: not anoutcome
Concurrent medications: details not provided
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin) followed by placebo: oxytocinnasal spray 24 IU every 2nd day for 6 weeks,followed by a 2‐week wash‐out period before startingthe 2nd phase of the cross‐over trial
Comparator (placebo) followed by oxytocin: equivalentplacebo (24 IU) every 2nd day for 6 weeks, followedby a 2‐week wash‐out period before starting the 2ndphase of the cross‐over trial
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: not reported
Timing of outcome assessments: unclear
NotesSource of funding: University of Electronic Scienceand Technology of China, UESTC high‐level researchfostering project
Conflicts of interest: "The authors have no conflictsof interest to declare"
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk1:1 computer‐generated randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskIntranasal spay bottles for oxytocin or placebo wereidentical in appearance and labelling with eachhaving a unique code.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskIntranasal spray bottles were labelled anddistributed to carers by an individual not involvedin any other aspect of the trial who was responsiblefor finally unmasking the treatment details at theend of the trial.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskIntranasal spray bottles were labelled anddistributed to carers by an individual not involvedin any other aspect of the trial who was responsiblefor finally unmasking the treatment details at theend of the trial.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow risk1 of 21 LTFU in oxytocin group and 1 in 22 in placebogroup
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskThere were no serious AEs in either group but theonly other AE that was reported was urinationfrequency.
Other biasLow riskNo differences in age, gender, baseline scores ofautism subtype

Lemonnier 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods3‐month parallel trial of bumetanide versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children and adolescents aged 2–18 years

  • fulfil diagnosis criteria of Childhood Autism(F84.0) or Asperger's Syndrome (F84.5) accordingto ICD‐10; and ADOS G and ADI‐R

  • CARS total score 434 points

  • weight ≥ 11 kg


Exclusion criteria:
  • serious, unstable illnesses including,gastroenterological, respiratory, cardiovascular(QT interval lengthening), endocrinology,immunologic or hematologic disease; renal orhepatic dysfunction and neurological disorderssuch as seizures and microcephaly

  • psychotropic medications were not allowedduring the trial and had to be discontinued atleast 4 weeks before entering the trial


Location/setting: France; the patients were enroledin six French specialised centres (hospitals ofBrest, Limoges, Rouen, Nice, Lyon andMarseilles)
Mean IQ: details not provided
Mean age: 7.8 ± 4.1 (0.5 mg), 7.9 ± 4.6 (1.0 mg), 8.4± 4.6 (2.0 mg) and 8.8 ± 4.5 (placebo)
Gender: 78 male, 10 female
Sample size: 88
Reasons for dropouts: 0.5 mg ‐ no LTFU reported, 1.0mg ‐ 3 AEs and 1 LTFU, 2.0 mg ‐ 6 AEs, 3 LTFU;placebo ‐ 1 AE, 2 LTFU
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: not an outcome
Timing of outcome assessments: end of month 4
Concomitant medications: psychotropic medications(including antipsychotic, psychostimulant,antidepressant, anxiolytics, mood stabilisers andneuroleptic agents) had to be discontinued at least4 weeks before entering the trial
Previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (bumetanide) 0.5 mg, 1 mg or 2 mg twicedaily for 90 days
Comparator: equivalent placebo for 90 days
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
NotesStudy start date: January 2014
Study end date: March 2015
Funding: "The study was sponsored by Neurochlore, abiotech company dedicated to the development ofnovel therapies to autism and other developmentaldisorders'. 'Funding of the trial comes from aninvestment of Symmetry Capital, a grant fromFrance's Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR‐12‐RPIB‐0001‐01) and French Government loans".
Conflicts of interest: "Three of the authors arefounders and shareholders of the company funding thestudy. The remaining authors declare no conflicts ofinterest"
Trial registry:NCT01078714
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskComputer‐generated age‐stratified randomisationschedule prepared by Amatsi group used
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskNo information beyond "randomised"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDouble‐blinded ‐ no further details provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskEach patient was seen and assessed by two clinicianswho were unaware of the treatment assignment. Quote"Finally, the diuretic actions of bumetanide alsoimpact the blinding procedure. To reduce thisimpact, the psychiatrist was separated from thepediatrician who treated the children and was thusblinded to the treatment."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLTFU participants included in final analyses
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskProtocol not published
Other biasHigh riskQuote: "The study was sponsored by Neurochlore, abiotech company dedicated to the development ofnovel therapies to autism and other developmentaldisorders. EL, DR and YB‐A are founders andshareholders of the company"

Levy 2003.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of single‐dose secretin versussingle‐dose placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: diagnosis of ASD confirmed usingthe ADI‐R. No other inclusion criteria outlined
Exclusion criteria:
  • significant hearing or vision loss

  • other neurological disorders, e.g. cerebralpalsy, phenylketonuria, tuberous sclerosis,neurofibromatosis, seizure disorders;

  • genetic disorders

  • prematurity (< 32 weeks gestation)

  • diagnosis of coeliac disease or othergastrointestinal disease associated withmalabsorption

  • previous treatment with secretin

  • anaemia

  • lead poisoning


Location/setting: Children's Hospital ofPhiladelphia, USA
Sample size: 62 total (31 in each group)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 2 participantsdropped out post‐randomisation however reasons werenot provided
Gender: all participants were male
Mean age: secretin 6.4 years; placebo 5.9 years.
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other behaviours of concern: RFRLRS(subscale3) 0.74 (secretin), 0.64 (placebo).
Concomitant medications: 7/31 (secretin) were oneither prozac (1), Adderall (2), guanfacine (2),methylphenidate (2). Placebo: either prozac,guanfacine or risperidone with 1 child taking prozacand guanfacine
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (single‐dose secretin)with 6‐weekwashout before placebo (or vice versa): singleintravenous dose of human secretin (2 CU/kg).Initially, a test dose of 0.2 uh was given and if noreaction was noted after 1 min, the remaining doseof 2 CU/kg up to a maximum of 75 CU was injectedslowly over 1 min
Comparator (placebo): single intravenous dose ofsaline placebo (2 CU/kg)
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability, measured using theRFRLRS Affectual Responses subscale (Freeman 1986);adverse effects although data were not reported forboth groups and so could not be included.
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, 2 and 4weeks postinfusion
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: ChiRhoClin Corporation donated thehuman secretin used for the study. Otherwise,sponsorship was through research grants.
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry: not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "the 62 subjects were randomly assigned to twogroups using a computerised randomisationassignment"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails were not provided on how the placebo wasadministered.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskEach participant was separated from his or herparents during the infusion (since secretin maycause a transient skin rash—the presence of whichmay unblind the parent to the treatmentcondition).
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "All personnel involved in clinical andneurodevelopmental assessments were blinded tosubject's allocation"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear risk2 participants did not complete both phases of thetrial (1 in each group) however reasons were notprovided and information not given if an ITTanalysis was used or LOCF
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe outcome measures were the Global Behavior RatingScale, Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scale andthe Real Life Ritvo Behavior Scale. All outcomeswere reported at baseline and at the end of eachphase of the cross‐over trial.
Other biasUnclear risk"ChiRhoClin Corporation donated the human syntheticsecretin used for the study". Only a single dose ofsecretin was used

Lewis 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods3‐week cross‐over trial of nicotine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 18‐60 years

  • DSM‐5 or DSM‐4 diagnosis of autism orAsperger's syndrome or PDD‐NOS

  • parent‐reported symptoms of aggression,agitation or irritability

  • ABC‐I score of ≥ 16 at baseline

  • on stable medication without changes during thestudy

  • have a caregiver willing and able to completebehavioural scales

  • BMI of > 17.5 and < 47


Exclusion criteria:
  • current use of tobacco or nicotine products

  • previous allergies to transdermal patches

  • known cardiac abnormalities, or hypotension orhypertension


Location/ setting: Yale Child Study Center in NewHaven, CT, USA
Sample size: 8 in total
Reason for dropouts: 1 participant did not completethe first phase of the trial because of a protocolviolation.
Mean age: 21 years
Mean IQ: not reported
Gender: 7 male, 1 female
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: 25.0 (8.0)
Concomitant medications: divalproex (3), risperidone(4), desipramine (1), methylphenidate (1), clonidine(2), lamotrigine (1), buspirone (1), olanzapine (1),aripiprazole (1), fluoxetine (1), clonazepam (1),propranol (1), gabapentin (1)
Previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention: skin patches containing 7 mg ofnicotine were applied for 7 days with a washoutperiod of 7 days between each phase
Comparator: skin patches containing 7 mg of placebowere applied for 7 days
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: ABC‐I (Aman 1985)
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, completionof weeks 1 and 3
NotesStudy start date: May 2015
Study end date: November 2017
Funding: "This work was supported by Autism Speaksgrant #9699, National Institutes of Health grantsR01DA14241, R01MH077681, R25MH071584, T32MH019961,and T32MH14276, and the Yale Child Study CenterAssociates and the AACAP Pilot Award for GeneralPsychiatry Residents".
Conflicts of interest: "The authors declare noconflicts of interest".
Trial registry:NCT02552147
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskNo details on sequence generation beyond,"Randomization and preparation of patches wasperformed by the Yale Investigational DrugService."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskNo details on allocation concealment beyond"Randomization and preparation of patches wasperformed by the Yale Investigational DrugService"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNo details apart from double‐blind
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNo details apart from double‐blind
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskLarge % of people missing data for primaryoutcome
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskDoesn't report State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory,State‐Trait Anger Expression Inventory‐2 etc
Other biasUnclear riskEarly stoppage of trial before sample sizereached

Loebel 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods6‐week, double‐blind RCT, parallel trial oflurasidone (20 mg/day or 60 mg/day) versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 6‐17 years who met the DSM‐4‐TRcriteria for a diagnosis of AS

  • a score of ≥ 18 on the ABC‐I subscale and ascore of ≥ 4 (moderate‐or‐greater severity) on theCGI‐S


Exclusion criteria:
  • a current diagnosis of bipolar disorder,schizophrenia, major depressive disorder,Fragile‐X syndrome, or childhood disintegrativedisorder

  • confirmed genetic disorder associated withcognitive and/or behavioural disturbance orprofound intellectual disability

  • a history of seizures (unless seizure‐free andoff medication for 6 months or more)

  • use of any psychotropic medications


Location/setting: not reported
Sample size: 148 (lurasidone 60 mg/day 51, 20 mg/daylurasidone 48, placebo 49)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: placebo: lack ofefficacy (1), AEs (4), lost to follow‐up (1),withdrew consent (4); lurasidone 60 mg/day: lack ofefficacy (1), AEs (2), miscellaneous (1); lurasidone20 mg/day: AEs (2), lack of efficacy (1), lost tofollow‐up (2), withdrawal by participant (1)
Gender: placebo 40/49 male, lurasidone 60 mg/day43/51 male, lurasidone 20 mg/day 38/48 male
Mean age: placebo 11 years, lurasidone 20 mg/day 10.5years, lurasidone 60 mg/day 10.5 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: irritability, placebo29.0, lurasidone 60 mg/day 27.0
Concurrent medications: not reported
History of previous medications: any antipsychotic:placebo 19/49, lurasidone 20 mg/day 17/48,lurasidone 60 mg/day 16/51. Any psychostimulant:placebo 18/49, lurasidone 20 mg/day 11/48,lurasidone 60 mg/day 16/51. Any antidepressant:placebo 6/49, lurasidone 60 mg/day 5/51
InterventionsIntervention 1 (lurasidone 60 mg/day) for 6 weeks:study participants randomised to the 60mg/day arm received lurasidone 20 mg/day from days1–3, 40 mg/day from days 4–6, and 60 mg/day from day7 to week 6. If the participant was not able totolerate the 60 mg/day dose, a one‐time dosereduction to 40 mg/day was permitted (between days 8and 29); the 40 mg/day dose was then maintained forthe remainder of the study.
Intervention 2 (lurasidone 20 mg/day) for 6 weeks:mean of 0.476 mg/kg/day
Comparator (placebo) for 6 weeks: matchingplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured with the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: weekly
NotesStudy start date: August 2013
Study end date: November 2014
Source of funding: researchers were employed bySunovion Pharmaceuticals.
Conflicts of interest: "Drs Loebel, Goldman, Silva,Hernandez, Mankoski, and Deng are employees ofSunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. Dr Brams has been aspeaker, consultant, and served on advisory boardsfor Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp and Shire; and hasreceived grant‐research support from NovartisPharmaceuticals Corp, Shire, and Eli Lilly. DrFindling receives or has received research support,acted as a consultant and/or served on a speaker’sbureau for Alcobra, American Academy of Child &Adolescent Psychiatry, American Physician Institute,American Psychiatric Press, AstraZeneca, Bracket,Bristol‐Myers Squibb, CogCubed, Cognition Group,Coronado Biosciences, Dana Foundation, Elsevier,Forest, GlaxoSmithKline, Guilford Press, JohnsHopkins University Press Johnson and Johnson,Jubilant Clinsys, KemPharm, Lilly, Lundbeck, Merck,NIH, Neurim, Novartis, Noven, Otsuka, OxfordUniversity Press, Pfizer, Physicians PostgraduatePress, Purdue, Rhodes Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Sage,Shire, Sunovion, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, TransceptPharmaceuticals, Validus, and WebMD".
Trial registry:NCT01911442
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskRandomised via an interactive voice/web responsesystem
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDouble‐blinding although details not explicitlyprovided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDouble‐blinding although details not explicitlyprovided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskThe ITT population consisted of randomised studyparticipants who received at least 1 dose of studymedication and had at least 1 postbaseline efficacyassessment.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov andall outcomes were reported.
Other biasHigh risk"The sponsor was involved in the design, collection,and analysis of the data." "Drs. Loebel, Goldman,Silva, Hernandez, Mankoski, and Deng are employeesof Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc."

Luby 2006.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of risperidone versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 2.5‐6.0 years

  • previously diagnosed with DSM‐4 criteria forautism or PDD‐NOS (American PsychiatricAssociation 1994)


Exclusions:
  • other known significant central nervous system(CNS) disorders

  • significant medical problems or otherpsychiatric disorders requiringpharmacotherapy


Location/setting: "psychiatric outpatient clinic atWashington University School of Medicine", USA
Sample size: 23 (11 risperidone, 12 placebo)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 1 exclusion fromrisperidone group as the "child did not meet thethreshold for an ASD on the CARS or GARS [GilliamAutism Rating Scale] at baseline, despite havingbeen referred with a clinical diagnosis, and wasexcluded from analyses". 1 dropout from placebogroup due to parent report of severehyperactivity
Gender: risperidone 9/11 male, placebo 8/12 male
Mean age: risperidone 4.1 years, placebo 4 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not an outcome
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported.
InterventionsIntervention (risperidone) for 6 months: the majorityof participants started risperidone at 0.5 mg oncedaily; mean starting dose was 0.03 mg/kg/day. 81.8%of risperidone participants took 1 mg (0.5 mg twicedaily) after 4 weeks; 27.3% of risperidoneparticipants were dispensed total daily doses of 1.5mg after 8 weeks, whereas all others received totaldaily doses of 1 mg. The final risperidone mean dosewas 0.05 mg/kg/day and mean daily final dose was1.14 mg (SD 0.32).
Comparator (placebo) for 6 months:placeboparticipants were dispensed 0.5 mg daily doses. Meanfinal daily dose was 1.38 mg (0.57), which wascomparable to risperidone.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: at baseline visit,weekly visits during the 1st study month, biweeklyvisits during the 2nd month, followed by monthlyvisits for months 3–6
NotesStudy start date: November 1999
Study end date: November 2002
Source of funding: "this study was funded by JanssenPharmaceutica as an investigator initiated projectto Dr. Luby".
Conflicts of interest: none disclosed
Trial registry: not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskPatients were consecutively assigned by an unblindedchild psychiatrist (J.L) to risperidone or placebotreatment using a randomisation table obtained fromthe WUSM pharmacy and derived using a standardsoftware package
Allocation concealment (selection bias)High riskQuote: "Patients were consecutively assigned by anunblinded child psychiatrist"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Parents and raters who conducted allstandardized assessments were blind to treatmentgroup"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Parents and raters who conducted allstandardized assessments were blind to treatmentgroup"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll participants, apart from one who did not meet therequired baseline threshold for ASD on the CARS orGilliam Autism Rating Scale, were included in theanalysis.
LTFU: 1 participant withdrew from placebo group dueto staring spells. No other LTFU reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskAll children were previously diagnosed and referredby a clinician. "the treating psychiatrist (J.L) wasunblinded and conducted regular clinical assessmentsover the 6‐month period". The unblinded childpsychiatrist was also the lead investigator.
Other biasHigh riskAll children were previously diagnosed and referredby a clinician. "the treating psychiatrist (J.L) wasunblinded and conducted regular clinical assessmentsover the 6‐month period". The unblinded childpsychiatrist was also the lead investigator.

Mace 2001.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of haloperidol versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • admitted to an inpatient unit for the treatmentof self‐injurious behaviour (SIB)

  • aged 4.5‐31.8 years

  • diagnosed with intellectual disabilities


Exclusion criteria:
  • acute medical illness contributing to the SIB[self‐injurious behaviour]

  • use of psychotropic medications during thetrial


Location/setting: inpatient unit in the USA
Sample size: 7 in total who had autism
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: 3 male, 4 female
Mean age: 11 years
IQ: details not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: self‐injurious behaviourper hour at baseline, haloperidol 125; placebo146.4
Concomitant medications: participants were notpermitted to take psychotropic medications duringthe trial.
History of previous medications: "participants weretaking zero to three psychotropic medications uponadmission to the inpatient unit. These medicationswere discontinued before completion of thefunctional analysis (except for Subjects 5 and 9),and individuals remained off these medicationsthroughout the remainder of the study."
InterventionsIntervention: (haloperidol) for minimum 34 days:"started at 0.025 mg/kg/day for peopleweighing below 20 kg or 0.5 mg/day for those above20 kg. The doses were titrated up to the maximum ofthe lower dose of 0.1 mg/kg/day or 4 mg/day, oruntil there was a 75% decrease in SIB or significantside effects to the medication. Individuals who didnot have a positive response to haloperidol wereweaned from the medication by decreasing the totaldaily dose by 0.25‐0.5 mg every 3‐5 days until theindividual was off the medication. Once thehaloperidol was stopped, a placebo was started anddata reported for the placebo condition werecollected after the individual was entirely offhaloperidol for at least 14 days".
Comparator (placebo) for minimum 34 days: matchingplacebo capsules
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • rate of self‐injurious behaviour, measured witha scale developed by the study authors forself‐injurius behaviour

  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: not reported
Trial registry: not reported
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: supported, in part, by a grantfrom the National Institute of Mental Health(MH50358‐8)
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow risk"All behaviour analysts, nurses, and inpatient unitstaff were blind to the medication assignments. Thephysician was aware of the medicationassignment"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "All behaviour analysts, nurses and inpatientunit staff were blind to the medicationassignments". "To keep staff blinded to thedifferent patterns of medication adjustment forbehavioural treatment versus medicationnon‐responders, the letters used to identify themedication could be changed by the physician even ifthe medication was not changed".
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskThe data for the 15 participants were recorded inregards to response to behavioural treatment (%change in SIB), max dose haloperidol (mg/day),response to haloperidol (% change in SIB) andresponse to placebo (% change in SIB). ABCIrritability baseline and endpoint data were notprovided for placebo despite being measuredweekly.
Other participants had placebo condition measuredafter 14 days off haloperidol; unclear whether therewas any ITT analysis for these missing data.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskABC baseline and endpoint data were not provided forplacebo at all.
Other biasLow riskNone identified

Mahdavinasab 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods10‐week parallel trial of baclofen versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 4–12 years

  • meet the DSM‐V criteria for diagnosis ofASD

  • have had irritability symptoms of at leastmoderate severity, defined as scores ≥ 12 on theABC‐I subscale


Exclusion criteria:
  • children who were not deemed of sufficientseverity to be treated with risperidone

  • children who had had concomitant psychiatricdisorders, (pre‐existing medical or diseaseconditions especially epilepsy or seizuredisorders)

  • severe intellectual disability

  • history of alcohol/drug abuse, tardivedyskinesia, or history of antipsychotic medicationor behavior therapy within the 6 months prior tothe trial trial


Location/setting: children’s outpatient clinic at atertiary hospital in Iran
Mean IQ: details not provided
Mean age: baclofen + risperidone 8.04 (SD = 2.33);placebo + risperidone 7.9 (SD = 2.0)
Gender: 46 male, 12 female
Sample size: baclofen (2); placebo (32).
Number analysed: baclofen (29); placebo (29)
Reasons for dropouts: baclofen (3), physician'schoice (1), refusal of further therapy (2); placebo(3), refusal of further therapy (3)
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: ABC‐I baclofen +risperidone 22.76 (8.56); placebo + risperidone22.62 (9.24)
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 5, week10
Concomitant medications: details not provided
Previous medications: excluded if history ofantipsychotic medication within the past 6 monthsbefore enrolment.
InterventionsBaclofen + risperidone: initial dose of 0.5 mg andstepwise 0.5 mg weekly increases for the first 3weeks + 0.6 mg kg; 1 baclofen 3 times/day
Risperidone: initial dose of 0.5 mg and stepwise 0.5mg weekly increases for the first 3 weeks +placebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:

Secondary outcomes: tolerability
NotesStudy start date: April 2016
Study end date: August 2018
Funding: "This study was supported by a grant fromTehran University of Medical Sciences to Prof.Shahin Akhondzadeh (Grant No: 32601)".
Conflicts of interest" "Authors declare no conflictof interest".
Trial registry: IRCT201701131556N95
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear risk"Randomization was performed by a randomizationoperator who was not otherwise involved in thistrial."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "Randomization codes were kept secure untildata curation was completed."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskDouble‐blind. "Randomization codes were kept secureuntil data curation was completed... Participantsand their parents were blinded to groupallocations."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDouble‐blind. "Randomization codes were kept secureuntil data curation was completed... No specificdetails about outcome assessors."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLow attrition and all participants were accountedfor
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskTrial reg lists additional primary outcome notreported: Childhood autism rating scale (CARS)
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Malek 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods12‐week parallel trial of prednisolone versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • clinical diagnosis of ASD according to DSM‐5criteria

  • children aged 3‐12 years

  • regressive subtype according to ADI‐R

  • presence of behavioral problems such asaggression, overactivity, or repetitive behaviors(indication of treatment with risperidone)


Exclusion criteria: from those diagnosed withregressive ASD,
  • children who did not have any indication forrisperidone therapy (i.e. overweight children;those with decreased white blood cell, bloodvolume, or blood pressure at baseline; those withheart, liver, or kidney problems)

  • presence of several medical problems (ie,uncontrolled epileptic activities, diabetesmellitus, peptic ulcer, gastrointestinal bleeding,hypertension, increased intracranial pressure, andcataract)

  • history or current diagnosis of concomitantpsychiatric disorder, tardive dyskinesia, anddiagnosis of neurologic syndromes accompanying byautistic characteristics (i.e. Fragile X syndrome,tuberous sclerosis, and mitochondrialdisorders)

  • history of allergy to risperidone orprednisolone

  • history of taking any antipsychotic medicationor behaviour therapy within the past 6 monthsbefore the start point of the trial.


Location/setting: paediatric outpatient clinic at ahospital in Iran
Sample size: prednisolone (n = 19); placebo (n =18)
Reasons for dropouts: prednisolone (n = 6) 6withdrawn consent; placebo (n = 5) 4 withdrawnconsent, 1 dropped out due to severeirritability
Mean IQ: details not provided
Mean age: prednisolone 5.81 ± 2.5; placebo.34 ±2.07
Gender: 25 male, 1 female
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: ABC‐I prednisolone30.15 (9.62); placebo 25.31 (10.46)
Timing of outcome assessments: end of week 12
Concomitant medications: participants could not havetaken any antipsychotic medication in past 6months.
Previous medications: details not outlined
InterventionsIntervention (prednisolone + risperidone) for 12weeks: initial dose of risperidone was 0.5 mg/dayduring the first week of study and stepwise 0.5 mgweekly increases to maximum dose of 1 mg/d or 2mg/day. Prednisolone given at 1 mg/kg/day
Comparator (placebo + risperidone) for 12 weeks:initial dose of risperidone was 0.5 mg/day duringthe first week of study and stepwise 0.5 mg weeklyincreases to maximum dose of 1 mg/day or 2 mg/day.Placebo was administered in placebo pills.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability measured using theABC‐I (Aman2017)
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, weeks 4, 8and 12 (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: January 2018
Study end date: February 2019
Funding: "This study was supported by a grant fromTehran University of Medical Sciences to Prof.Shahin Akhondzadeh (Grant Number: 36362)".
Conflicts of interest ‐ "The authors have noconflicts of interest to declare".
Trial registry ‐ IRCT20090117001556N102
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskPatients were randomly assigned to treatment groupsby the permuted randomisation block method in a 1:1ratio using a computer‐generated code.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low risk"The participants were kept ignorant of either thegroups to which they have been assigned.Prednisolone and placebo were identical inappearance"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesHigh riskSingle‐blind (only participants blinded)
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesHigh riskSingle‐blind (only participants blinded)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLow attrition and all participants were accountedfor
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll outcomes reported on clinical trials registrywere reported in full
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Malone 2001.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of olanzapine versus haloperidol
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children aged 5‐17 years (mean age 7.8 +/‐2.1)

  • primary diagnosis of PDD (DSM‐4 criteria)

  • at least moderate impairment on ≥ 2 of thefirst 28 items of the Children's PsychiatricRating Scale at baseline


Exclusion criteria: "major medical problems such ascardiac, liver, endocrine, or renal diseases, orseizure disorders or gross neurological deficit,treatment with concomitant psychotropic medication,or a history of previous treatment with haloperidolor olanzapine".
Location/setting: not reported
Sample size: 12
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: olanzapine 4/6 male both groups
Mean age: 7.8 years
IQ: 2/6 and 3/6 (olanzapine and haloperidol) hadsevere intellectual disability, 3 and 2 had moderateintellectual disability, 1 in haloperidol had mildintellectual disability, and 1 in olanzapine hadnormal cognitive functioning.
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not an outcome
Concomitant medications: psychotropic drug use duringtrial was not permitted
History of previous medications: 4 participants hadno history of prior psychotropic drug use
InterventionsIntervention (olanzapine) for 6 weeks: the startingdosage of olanzapine was 2.5 mg every other day forparticipants who weighed ≤ 40 kg and 2.5 mg/day forparticipants who weighed > 40 kg. In general,dosages could be increased in 2.5‐mg increments upto 5 mg a week, as needed. The maximum dosage forolanzapine permitted by the study protocol was 20mg/day.
Comparator (haloperidol) for 6 weeks: the startingdosage of haloperidol was 0.25 mg/day forparticipants who weighed ≤ 40 kg and 0.5 mg forparticipants who weighed > 40 kg. In general,dosages could be increased as clinically indicatedin 0.5‐mg increments up to 1 mg a week, as needed.The maximum dosage for haloperidol permitted by thestudy protocol was 5 mg/day. Mean daily dose 1.4mg/day (+/‐0.7)
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline andendpoint
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: supported, in part, by a grantfrom Lilly Research Laboratories(Investigator‐Initiated Study)
Conflicts of interest: none disclosed
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "Randomisation was performed by use of acomputer‐generated list"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow risk13 were originally enrolled in the study and 1withdrew consent before beginning study medication.12 were included in the analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe CGI and the Children's Psychiatric Rating Scalewere the primary outcomes and were reported for bothgroups.
Other biasLow riskTreatment groups did not differ significantly ondemographic variables such as age, race, gender,socioeconomic status, severity of illness, or levelof cognitive functioning.

Marcus 2009.

Study characteristics
Methods8‐week RCT, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial ofaripiprazole versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 6 ‐17 years

  • weigh at least 15 kg

  • meet DSM‐4‐TR criteria for autisticdisorder

  • demonstrated behaviours such as irritability,agitation, self‐injurious behaviour

  • CGI‐S score ≥ 4

  • ABC‐I subscale score of ≥ 18 at screening


Exclusion criteria:
  • current diagnosis of bipolar disorder,psychosis, schizophrenia or major depression,fragile X syndrome, or another disorder on theautism spectrum including PDD‐NOS, Asperger’sdisorder, Rett disorder, or childhooddisintegrative disorder

  • history of neuroleptic malignant syndrome

  • significant risk for committing suicide

  • seizure in the past year

  • history of severe head trauma or stroke

  • history or current evidence of unstable medicalconditions

  • clinically significant laboratory test resultor ECG

  • resistant to neuroleptic medication

  • allergy/hypersensitivity to aripiprazole


Location/setting: 35 independent research centres andresearch centres with a hospital affiliation
Sample size: 218 children in total; placebo (52); 5mg aripiprazole (53), 10 mg aripiprazole (59) and 15mg aripiprazole (54)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: placebo (14), 5 mgaripiprazole (17), 10 mg aripiprazole (10) and 15 mgaripiprazole (7)
Gender: placebo 48/52 male, 5 mg aripiprazole 47/53male, 10 mg aripiprazole 50/59 male and 15 mgaripiprazole 50/54 male
Mean age: placebo 10.2 years, 5 mg aripiprazole 9.0years, 10 mg aripiprazole 10.0 years and 15 mgaripiprazole 9.5 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: placebo 28.0, 5 mgaripiprazole 28.6, 10 mg aripiprazole 28.2 and 15 mgaripiprazole 28.9
Concurrent medications: "psychotropic medicationsincluding antipsychotics, antidepressants,anxiolytics, mood stabilisers and neuroleptics wereprohibited during the study".
History of previous medications: aripiprazole 5mg/day 24/52 had taken any nervous systemmedications, 9/52 had taken antipsychotics with 1 ofthose taking aripiprazole, 8/52 had takenanxiolytics, 8/52 had taken antidepressants, and3/52 had taken psychostimulants previously. Placebo:22/51 had taken any nervous system medications,11/51 had taken antipsychotic and 3 of those hadtaken aripiprazole previously, 8/51 had takenanxiolytics, 3/51 had taken antidepressants, and5/51 had taken psychostimulants
InterventionsAll participants randomised to aripiprazole startedon 2 mg/day for the 1st week, which was increased to5 mg/day for the 2nd week.
Aripiprazole 5 mg/day for 8 weeks: 5 mg tablet oncedaily for 8 weeks (mean 0.129 mg/kg/day)
Aripiprazole 10 mg/day for 8 weeks: weekly 5 mgincrements until 10 mg/day was reached. 10 mgtablets once daily for 8 weeks (mean 0.223mg/kg/day)
Aripiprazole 15 mg/day for 8 weeks: weekly 5 mgincrements until 15 mg/day was reached. 15 mg tabletonce daily for 8 weeks (mean 0.354 mg/kg/day)
Placebo for 8 weeks: equivalent placebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability (change from baseline), measuredwith the ABC‐Irritability subscale (Aman 1985)

  • AEs.


Secondary outcomes:
  • quality of life, measured using the PedsQLscale (WHO1998)

  • improvement (> 25% improvement from baselineto endpoint in ABC‐I and CGI (Guy 1976) scoreof 1 or 2 at endpoint)


Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, weeks 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6 and 8
NotesStudy start date: June 2006
Study end date: June 2008
Source of funding: "This study was supported byBristol‐Myers Squibb (Princeton, NJ) and OtsukaPharmaceutical Co, Ltd (Tokyo, Japan). Editorialsupport for the preparation of this article wasprovided by Ogilvy Healthworld MedicalEducation."
Conflicts of interest: "this study was supported byBristol‐Myers Squibb (Princeton, NJ) and OtsukaPharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan). Editorialsupport for the preparation of this article wasprovided by Ogilvy Healthworld Medical Education"."Drs Marcus, Owen, Kamen, and Manos are withBristol‐Myers Squibb; Drs McQuade and Carson arewith Otsuka Pharmaceutical Developmental andCommercialization and Dr Aman is with Ohio StateUniversity".
Trial registry" not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided, only that double‐blindingoccurred
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided, only that double‐blindingoccurred
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll participants were accounted for and detailsrecorded on www.clinicaltrials.gov
Analyses were based on LOCF.
LTFU 5 mg/day aripiprazole: AE (5), withdrew consent(2), LTFU (1), poor/ non‐compliance (1)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskResponse defined as a ≥ 25% reduction from baselineto endpoint in the ABC‐I Subscale score, and a CGI‐Iscore of 1 or 2 at endpoint was not reported
Other biasUnclear riskThe proportion of participants who were moderatelyill (compared to, markedly, severely and extremely)was 25% lower in the aripiprazole 10 mg/day groupcompared to the placebo group.

McCracken 2002.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of risperidone versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • age 5‐17 years

  • weight ≥ 15 kg

  • a mental age of ≥ 18 months

  • diagnosis of ASD according to the DSM‐4criteria with 1 or a combination of tantrums,aggression or self‐injurious behaviour

  • no seizures for at least 6 months prior to thetrial

  • withdrawn from ineffective psychotropicmedication for the treatment of aggression,tantrums, or self‐injurious behaviour 7‐28 daysprior to enrolment

  • free of all psychotropic drugs at least 2 weeksprior to randomisation (4 weeks for antipsychoticsand fluoxetine)

  • ABC‐I score of ≥ 18 at baseline


Exclusion criteria:
  • any serious medical disorders or otherpsychiatric disorders requiring medications

  • receiving psychotropic drugs that wereconsidered effective for the treatment ofaggression, tantrums or self‐injuriousbehaviour.


Location/setting: University of California at LosAngeles, Ohio State University, Indiana University,Yale University, and the Kennedy Krieger Instituteat Johns Hopkins University, USA
Sample size: 101: 49 risperidone group, 51placebo
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: risperidone 3/49;placebo 18/52 (risperidone: 3 lack of efficacy;placebo: severe headache and seizure (1); withdrawalof consent (1); LTFU (3); non‐compliance (1); lackof efficacy (12)).
Gender: 82 boys, 19 girls
Mean age: 8.6 years
IQ: 13/101 had profound intellectual disability,18/101 had severe intellectual disability, 18/101had a moderate intellectual disability, 25/101 had amild intellectual disability
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I risperidone 26.2,placebo 25.5
Concomitant medications: participants had to be freeof all psychotropic drugs at least 2 weeks prior torandomisation (4 weeks for antipsychotics andfluoxetine).
History of previous medications: antipsychotics5/101, SSRIs 16/101, stimulant 21/101,alpha‐2‐agonist 16/101
InterventionsRisperidone for 8 weeks: children who weigh 20‐45 kgcommenced on 0.5 mg at bedtime, increased to 0.5 mgtwice daily on day 4. The dose was graduallyincreased in 0.5 mg increments of 2.5 mg/day (1.0 mgin the morning and 1.5 mg at bedtime) by day 29.Children weighing > 45 kg had a maximum dose of1.5 mg in the morning and 2.0 mg at bedtime.Children weighing < 20 kg were given an initialdose of 0.25 mg/ day. Dose increases could bedelayed because of adverse effects or significantimprovement on lower doses. No dose increases afterday 29. Mean daily dose of 1.8 mg/day or maximumdaily dose of 2.5 mg/day children < 45 kg or 3.5mg/day children > 45 kg
Placebo for 8 weeks: placebo equivalent of 2.4 ± 0.6mg/day
OutcomesPrimary outcomes
  • Irritability (ABC‐I) (Aman 1985)

  • Improvement in irritability (defined as aminimum 25% improvement in ABC‐Irritabilityscores)

  • Relapse in Irritability (defined as a minimum25% increase, or deterioration in ABC‐Irritabilityscores)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: weekly for 8 weeks
NotesStudy start date: June 1999
Study end date: April 2001
Source of funding: "supported by contracts from theNational Institute of Mental Health (N01MH70009), toDr Scahill; N01MH70010 to Dr McCracken; N01MH70001to Dr McDougle ; and N01MH80011 to Dr Aman, GeneralClinical Research Centre grants from the NationalInstitute of Health (M01 RR00750 to IndianaUniversity; M01 RR00052 to Johns Hopkins University;M01 RR00034 to Ohio State University; and M01RR06022 to Yale University, and a grant from theKorczak Foundation to Dr Scahill".
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskInsufficient details
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskInsufficient details
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Each child was seen weekly by two clinicianswho were unaware of the treatment assignment."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Each child was seen weekly by two clinicianswho were unaware of the treatment assignment: aprimary clinician, who reviewed side effects andadjusted the dose of medication, and a clinicalevaluator, who assessed the response totreatment."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLTFU risperidone: treatment ineffective (3)
46 of original 49 in risperidone group completedtrial (3 withdrew "because the study was noteffective")
18 children in placebo group withdrew: severeheadaches and a seizure (1); withdrawal of consent(1); nonadherence (1); LTFU (3) and lack of efficacy(12)
4 were identified as having an ABC‐I that fell belowthe ABC‐I score of 18 and were included in theITTanalysis. Authors noted that zero participantswithdrew from study due to AEs.
An ITT analysis was used, and all participants wereincluded in the analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskSedation not reported as an AE
Other biasLow riskNo concerns

McDougle 1996.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of fluvoxamine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • ASD diagnosis based on DSM‐III and ICD‐10

  • "moderate" symptoms as defined by globalseverity of illness on CGI

  • psychotropic drug‐free for at least 6 weeksbefore the start of the trial


Exclusion criteria:
  • met DSM‐III‐R criteria for schizophrenia or hadpsychotic symptoms

  • abused illicit substances within the previous 6months

  • notable medical condition, including seizuredisorder

  • women with positive serum pregnancy testresults


Location/setting: a neuroscience research centre atthe Connecticut Mental Health Center, New Haven, andthe Adult Pervasive Developmental Disorders Clinicat the same neuroscience research centre, USA
Sample size: fluvoxamine 15; placebo 15
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: 27 men, 3 women
Mean age: 30.1 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: aggression (BrownAggression Scale;Brown 1979) fluvoxamine 9.3, placebo12.3
Concomitant medications: participants were requiredto be psychotropic drug‐free before the trial
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (fluvoxamine for 12 weeks): started at50 mg every night. "The dosage could then beincreased by 50 mg daily every 3 or 4 days to amaximum dosage of 300 mg/day, as tolerated, ifmaximal clinical response was not obtained. Thus,the maximum dosage of fluvoxamine was attainedwithin 3 weeks, and patients received this dose forat least 9 weeks." maximum 300 mg/day
Comparator (placebo for 12 weeks): equivalentplacebo, "lactose in identical‐looking tablets"
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • AEs

  • aggression (measured using the Brown AggressionScale (Brown1979))


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, 4, 8 and 12weeks
NotesStudy start date: September 1990
Study end date: December 1993
Source of funding: "this work was supported by aNational Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia andDepression Young Investigator Award (Dr McDougle),the State of Connecticut Department of Mental Healthand Addiction Services, The Korczak Foundation forAutism and Related Disorders, and grants MOIRR06022‐33, P50 MH30929‐18, HD 0300827, and POIMH25642from the National Institutes of Health,Bethesda, Md. Fluvoxamine and financial support wereprovided by Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Marietta,Ga".
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "The prescribing psychiatrist (C.J.M.), thenurse (S.T.N.) who performed the behavioral ratings,the patients, and all family and other members ofthe patients' treatment teams were unaware of drugassignment"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskQuote: "The prescribing psychiatrist (C.J.M.), thenurse (S.T.N.) who performed the behavioral ratings,the patients, and all family and other members ofthe patients' treatment teams were unaware of drugassignment.". Apart from that it was not describedhow the outcome assessors were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll participants were accounted for and included inthe analysis. 
Quote: "All patients whocomplete at least two weeks of drug treatment willbe included in the analysis. The final rating scoresof any patient who terminates the study prematurelywill be carried forward to the end of thestudy."
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll outcomes were reported.
Other biasUnclear riskNo significant differences were seen in age, sexdistribution, Autism Behavior Checklist scores, orfull‐scale IQ scores between the 2 groups.

McDougle 1998.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of risperidone versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • met DSM‐4 criteria for PDD NOS or autisticdisorder (autism)

  • aged 18‐43 years

  • at least a "moderate" rating of symptomsaccording to CGI Scale; "a Yale‐Brown ObsessiveCompulsive Scale (Y‐BOCS) compulsion (repetitivebehaviour) subscale score of greater than 10, aSelf‐injurious Behavior Questionnaire (SIB‐Q)(Gualtieri2002) score of 25 or greater, or aRitvo‐Freeman Real‐life Rating Scale overall scoreof 0.20 or greater".

  • "Had not taken any psychotropic drugs for atleast 4 weeks before the start of the trial".


Exclusion criteria:
  • met "criteria for other DSM‐4 Axis I or Axis IIdisorder other than mental retardation[intellectual disabilities]"

  • "met DSM‐4 criteria for schizophrenia or hadpsychotic symptoms or if a significant acutemedical condition was identified"

  • positive serum pregnancy test


Location/setting: all participants were evaluated andtreated within the outpatient (24) and inpatient (7)divisions of the neuroscience research centre at theConnecticut Mental Health Centre, New Haven, USA
Sample size: risperidone 15, placebo 16
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 7 withdrew: 3 fromrisperidone group (1 withdrew after 1 week due to"notable agitation"; 1 developed an "abnormal gait"after 4 weeks; and 1 withdrew "because of a lack ofsignificant improvement in symptoms"); 4 fromplacebo group withdrew: 2 with PDD and 2 with autismwithdrew "because of interfering agitation after 4weeks"
Gender: risperidone 13 male, 2 female; placebo 9male, 7 female
Mean age: 26.4 years
IQ: risperidone mean 55.5; placebo 52.9
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: irritability (using theRFRLRS subscale 3) risperidone 1.02, placebo 0.78;SIB (Self‐Injurious Behaviour Questionnaire)risperidone 47.8, placebo 24.2
Concomitant medications: participants could not havetaken any psychotropic drugs for at least 4 weeksbefore the start of the trial.
History of previous medications: 24 had receivedpsychotropic medications previously
InterventionsRisperidone for 12 weeks: risperidone was started at1 mg every night. The dosage was then increased by 1mg daily every 3‐4 days to a maximum dosage of 10mg/day. Patients received the maximum dose (based ontolerability) for at least 7 weeks. Mean dose of 2.9mg/day
Placebo for 12 weeks: placebo started at 1 mg everynight. The dosage was then increased by 1 mg dailyevery 3‐4 days to a maximum dosage of 10 mg/day.Patients received the maximum dose (based ontolerability) for at least 7 weeks.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the RFRLRS (Aman 1985)

  • self‐injurious behaviour, measured using theSelf‐Injurious Behaviour Questionnaire (Gualtieri2002)

  • adverse effects


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, weeks 4, 8and 12
NotesStudy start date: June 1994
Study end date: February 1997
Source of funding: grants MH‐30929 and HD‐03008 fromthe Public Health Service, Bethesda
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskPatients were randomly allocated according to acomputer‐generated list.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskRisperidone or placebo (lactose) inidentical‐appearing capsules
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskThe prescribing psychiatrist, the research nurseclinician who performed the behavioural ratings, thepatients, and all family and other members of thepatients’ treatment teams were unaware of the drugassignment (blind).
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskThe research nurse clinician who performed thebehavioural ratings...were unaware of the drugassignment (blind)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLOCF and ITT analysis used
LTFU: risperidone (3), AEs (agitation) (1); developedabnormal gait (1); lack of efficacy (1)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe measures were the CGI, the RFRLRS, Yale‐BrownObsessive Compulsive Scale and the Self‐InjuriousBehaviour Questionnaire. All scales were reported atboth baseline and endpoint for both risperidone andplacebo group. Sedation not reported as an AE
Other biasLow riskNo concerns

Minshawi 2016.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of D‐cycloserine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • diagnosis of ASD through administration of ofthe ADI‐R and clinical interview using the DSM‐4criteria for ASD, Asperger's disorder, orPDD‐NOS

  • Participants with ASD were required to have anIQ > 7 on the Stanford‐Binet 5th edition and acommunication standard score > 70 on theVineland Adaptive Behavior Scale 2nd edition.

  • Triad Social Skills Assessment (TSSA) score of≤ 70% on both parent questionnaire and childassessment

  • significant social impairment as measured by aT score of ≥ 60 on the Social Responsiveness Scale(SRS) and CGI‐S of at least four (moderatelyill).

  • required to remain on stable psychotropicmedication dosing targeting symptoms associatedwith ASD for a minimum of 2 weeks prior torandomisation


Exclusion criteria:
  • participants with diagnoses of Rett's disorderor childhood integrative disorder

  • anyone who has recently had a significantchange in their psychosocial interventions willnot be eligible until this intervention has beenstable for 90 days

  • participants exhibiting significant disruptive,aggressive, self‐injurious, or sexuallyinappropriate behaviour

  • the presence of current DSM‐4‐TR psychiatricdisorders that require alternative pharmacotherapyor different treatment such as psychoticdisorders, or major affective disorders

  • participants with significant cardiac, hepatic,or renal disease, uncontrolled epilepsy or seizuredisorders (seizures within the past 6 months)

  • pregnant women, or female patients ofchild‐bearing age who do not agree to take birthcontrol during the trial


Location/setting: "Indiana University School ofMedicine and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital MedicalCenter".
Sample size: D‐cycloserine 34; placebo 33
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: no dropoutspostrandomisation
Gender: D‐cycloserine 28/34 male; placebo 27/33male
Mean age: D‐cycloserine 8.4 years; placebo 8.3years
IQ: D‐cycloserine 92.4; placebo 87.3
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: treatment: ABC‐I 11.06;placebo 12.67
Concomitant medications: antipsychotics 8/34, 8/33placebo, alpha‐2 agonist 6/34, 8/33, stimulants14/34 and 11/33, sleep aids 9/34 and 7/33, moodstabilisers 1 and 2, glutamatergic modulators 1 inD‐cycloserine group, other 3 and 1
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsD‐cycloserine for 10 weeks: given at a 50 mg dose 30min prior to weekly group social skills trainingover 10 weeks
Placebo for 10 weeks: placebo pill (sugar pill)administered 30 min prior to each of the 10 socialskills training sessions
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 6 andweek 10 (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: March 2010
Study end date: January 2014
Source of funding: "funding for this study wasprovided by the United States Department of DefenseAward Number W81XWH‐09‐1‐0091."
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskChildren with ASD were randomised to receive 10 weeks(10 doses) of D‐cycloserine or placebo in a 1:1ratio
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNo details on parents and teachers completing ABCquestionnaire
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskNo dropouts were reported and all 67 were included inthe analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskBaseline and endpoint data reported for all outcomesmentioned
Other biasLow riskNo significant group differences, or pharmaceuticalcompany funding

Miral 2008.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of risperidone versus haloperidol
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • meet DSM‐4 criteria for ASD

  • age 8–18 years

  • have parents’ informed consent

  • agree to be followed‐up

  • antianalgesics, antipyretics, decongestants andantibiotics were allowed during the trial

  • participants with extrapyramidal symptoms coulduse anticholinergics, but prophylactic use wasdiscouraged


Exclusion criteria:
  • epilepsy

  • had a concomitant neuropsychiatric illness(such as ADHD, Tourette's syndrome etc), ordemonstrated a psychotic disorder or symptoms, orhad other PDDs

  • benzodiazapines and other sedatives were notallowed


Location/setting: Turkey
Sample size: 30 (15 in each group)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 2 in risperidonegroup excluded from final analysis from the week 12evaluation because of the lack of efficacy data
Gender: risperidone 11/15 male; haloperidol 13/15male
Mean age: risperidone 10 years, haloperidol 10.9years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: irritability (using theRFRLRS) risperidone 1.09, haloperidol 1.05
Concomitant medications: details not provided
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (risperidone) for 12 weeks: risperidonewas initiated at a dosage of 0.01 mg/kg/day and thedosage was increased to 0.04 mg/kg/day until the endof the 2nd week. If tolerated, then it was increasedto a maximum dosage of 0.08 mg/kg/day. Mean dailydose 2.6 mg/day or maximum 0.08 mg/kg; haloperidolmean dose 2.6 mg/day
Comparator (haloperidol) for 12 weeks: haloperidolwas initiated at a dosage of 0.01 mg/kg/day and thedosage was increased to 0.04 mg/kg/day until the endof the 2nd week. If tolerated, then it was increasedto a maximum dosage of 0.08 mg/kg/day.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the RFRLRS ‐Affectual Responses scale (Freeman1986)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, weeks 2, 4,8 and 12
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: "this research was supported inpart by Janssen and Cilag Drug company".
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesHigh riskBlinding not discussed
Quote: "two experiencedclinicians performed all of the measures"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskQuote: "two subjects who were being administeredrisperidone were excluded from our final analysisfrom the week 12 evaluation because of lack ofefficacy data"
LTFU: 2 in risperidone group were excluded fromanalysis due to lack of efficacy data
ITT analysis or LOCF not noted by study authors
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskRFRLRS subscores and weight were outlined for bothbaseline and endpoint, as well as other outcomesreported in the paper. However, the CGI baselinescores were not reported despite being a primaryoutcome measure.
Other biasUnclear riskThe research was supported in part by Janssen andCilag Drug Company.

Moazen‐Zadeh 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods10‐week parallel trial of simvastatin versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male and female

  • aged 4‐12 years

  • diagnosis of AD based on the DSM‐4‐TRcriteria

  • ABC‐I subscale score of at least 12


Exclusion criteria:
  • concomitant DSM‐4 axis I or II disorders

  • active medical conditions

  • severe intellectual disability making thediagnosis inconclusive based on prior records andclinical judgement

  • seizure disorders

  • history of alcohol/drug abuse

  • tardive dyskinesia, history of antipsychoticmedication or behaviour therapy within the past 6months before the trial.


Location/setting: speciality outpatient autism clinicat Roozbeh Psychiatry Hospital, Iran
Sample size: 35 in each group
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 2 from each group(simvastatin: 1 no longer met criteria, 1 withdrewconsent; placebo: 2 withdrew consent)
Gender: 53 male, 13 female
Mean age: simvastatin 7.06 years (2.33); placebo 7.61(2.74) years
IQ: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I simvastatin 20.97(5.37); placebo 19.97 (7.24)
Concomitant medications: children did not have ahistory of psychotropic drug use
History of previous medications: children did nothave a history of psychotropic drug use
InterventionsIntervention (simvastatin + risperidone): risperidone(Risperdal; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Belgium) plussimvastatin (Osveh, Iran) for 10 weeks. Risperidonestarting dose was 0.5 mg/day in 0.5 mg tablets, andin the absence of clinically significant AEs it wasincreased by 0.5 mg per week to the target dose of 1mg/day for children weighing < 20 kg and 2 mg/dayfor those weighing at least 20 kg. Simvastatin wasadministered in the form of a 20 mg tablet/day forchildren < 10 years of age and a 40 mg tablet perday for those at least 10 years of age.
Comparator (placebo + risperidone): risperidone(Risperdal; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Belgium) plusplacebo for 10 weeks. Risperidone starting dose was0.5 mg/day in 0.5 mg tablets, and in the absence ofclinically significant AEs it was increased by 0.5mg/week to the target dose of 1 mg/day for childrenweighing < 20 kg and 2 mg/day for those weighingat least 20 kg. Placebo was administered in the formof a 20 mg tablet/day for children < 10 years ofage and a 40 mg tablet per day for those at least 10years of age.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, weeks 5 and10 (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: February 2016
Study end date: December 2016
Funding: "This study was supported by a grant toProf. Shahin Akhondzadeh (Grant number 30327) fromTehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS)"
Conflicts of interest: "No competing financialinterests exist"
Trial registry: IRCT201602041556N86
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskComputerised random number generator
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskSealed opaque envelopes
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskSimvastatin and placebo tablets were identical inshape, size, texture, colour, and taste, and theywere dispensed in identical containers by aninvestigational drug pharmacist. 
Quote:"During the trial, the physicians, other healthcarepersonnel, participants, and parents were blinded totreatment assignments."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "During the trial, the physicians, otherhealthcare personnel, participants, andparents
were blinded to treatmentassignment"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskNo further statistical methods such as dataimputation or ITT analysis were conducted forparticipants who were lost to follow‐up or droppedout.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll outcomes on the trial registry were reported inthe paper.
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Mohammadi 2013.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of amantadine + risperidone versusplacebo + risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • outpatients aged 4‐12 years

  • diagnosis of autism based on DSM‐4, score of ≥12 ABC‐I subscale at screening/baseline,

  • "presenting with chief complaint of severelydisruptive symptoms related to autistic disorderso that risperidone was indicated as a medicalintervention".


Exclusion criteria:
  • other diagnoses on Axis I or II except forintellectual disability, severe intellectualdisability, which makes the diagnosis of autisminconclusive (based on clinical judgement of thechild psychiatrist)

  • any significant active medical problemincluding hepatic diseases as well as history ofseizure and allergy to amantadine orrisperidone

  • received any psychotropic medication within 6weeks before enrolment


Location/setting: a psychiatric academic hospitalaffiliated with Tehran University of MedicalSciences, Iran
Sample size: 40 (20 in each group)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 1 participant in therisperidone plus placebo group discontinued afterweek 5.
Gender: amantadine 16/20 boys; placebo 17/20 boys
Mean age: amantadine 6.4 years; placebo 7.1 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I amantadine group20; ABC‐I placebo 20.9
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsAmantadine + risperidone for 10 weeks: amantadine wasgiven twice a day at 100 mg/d for children < 30kg, and 150 mg/d for those ≥ 30 kg. Risperidone wasstarted at 0.5 mg/day, and titrated up to 2.0 mg/dayin a 0.5 mg/week rate if there were nocomplications.
Placebo + risperidone for 10 weeks: risperidone wasstarted at 0.5 mg/day, and titrated up to 2.0 mg/dayin a 0.5 mg/week rate if there were nocomplications. Placebo was identical in appearance(shape, size, colour, and taste) and dispensed byinvestigational drug pharmacist, alongsiderisperidone, which started at 0.5 mg/day, and wastitrated up to 2.0 mg/day in a 0.5 mg/week rate ifthere were no complications.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using theABC‐Irritability subscale (Aman 1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: not reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, 5 weeks, 10weeks (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: June 2011
Study end date: May 2012
Source of funding: supported by a grant from TehranUniversity of Medical Sciences (grant 10797)
Conflicts of interest: "no conflict of interestexists for any of the authors associated with themanuscript and there was no source ofextra‐institutional commercial funding".
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskRandomisation was accomplished using a computerisedrandom number generator in a 1:1 ratio and blocks of4
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "treatment allocation was concealed from thepatients and the rating psychiatrists usingsequentially numbered, opaque, sealed, and stapledenvelopes"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Separate persons were responsible for randomallocation and rating of the patients. The patients,the psychiatrists who referred them, the clinicianwho assessed the patients and prescribed the drugs,and the statistician were blind to theallocations."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "The patients, the psychiatrists who referredthem, the clinician who assessed the patients andprescribed the drugs, and the statistician wereblind to the allocations."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskAll analyses were based on the ITT sample and wereperformed using LOCF procedure on participants withat least 1 post‐baseline visit.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll outcomes reported in the trial protocol on theIranian Registry of Clinical trials were reported inthe paper.
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Montazmenesh 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods10‐week parallel trial of sulforaphane versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children aged 4–12 years

  • probable autistic signs and symptoms andmeeting the DSM‐5 criteria

  • 2 expert paediatric psychiatrists confirmed thediagnosis of ASD based on the children’sbehavioural examination and semi‐structuredinterviews with the caregivers


Exclusion criteria:
  • presentation at baseline not severe enough tobe considered for risperidone treatment

  • concurrent prominent psychiatric disorder

  • pre‐existing medical conditions (in particularepileptic disorders and febrile seizures)

  • intellectual disability (IQ < 70)

  • history of drug or alcohol abuse

  • history of tardive dyskinesia

  • history of taking antipsychotic medicationwithin 6 months prior to enrollment

  • drug‐free for less than 6 months


Location/setting: autism clinic in the children’soutpatient clinic of Roozbeh Hospital (Iran)
Sample size: sulforaphane group (34), placebo group(34)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: sulforaphane group(4), 4 discontinued intervention; placebo group (4),4 discontinued intervention
Mean age: sulforaphane 6.87 years (2.06), placebo7.67 (2.35)
Gender: 40 male, 20 female
IQ: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: sulforaphane ABC‐I 22.50(4.89); placebo 21.30 (6.13)
Concomitant medications: only children who had beendrug‐free for at least 6 months were included. Noother concomitant intervention or medication waspermitted during the trial
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsSulforaphane + risperidone: participants in bothgroups received risperidone in a similar manner. Thestarting daily dose of risperidone was 0.25 mg inchildren weighing < 20 kg and 0.5 mg in childrenweighing ≥ 20 kg. The dosage was increased stepwiseby 0.5 mg weekly up to a maximum dose of 1 mg forchildren weighing < 20 kg, 2.5 mg for thoseweighing 20–45 kg, and 3.5 mg for those weighing> 45 kg. Sulforaphane(1‐isothiocyanato‐4‐methylsulfinylbutane; ACER,Tehran, Iran) was prescribed at 50 μmol and 100 μmol(approximately 10 mg and 20 mg) per day for childrenweighing < 45 kg and 45–90 kg, respectively.
Placebo + risperidone: participants in both groupsreceived risperidone in a similar manner. Thestarting daily dose of risperidone was 0.25 mg inchildren weighing < 20 kg and 0.5 mg in childrenweighing ≥ 20 kg. The dosage was increased stepwiseby 0.5 mg weekly up to a maximum dose of 1 mg forchildren weighing < 20 kg, 2.5 mg for thoseweighing 20–45 kg, and 3.5 mg for those weighing> 45 kg. The placebo group received placebocapsule.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability measured using theABC‐Irritability (Aman 1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
NotesStudy start date: April 2018
Study end date: November 2019
Funding: "This study was funded by Tehran Universityof Medical Sciences and Health Services (Grantnumber 37048)"
Conflicts of interest: "The authors declare noconflict of interest"
Trial registry: IRCT20090117001556N107
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskAllocation of the treatment groups using blockrandomisation (with blocks of size 4)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskSealed opaque envelopes were unveiled at the studyend‐point for statistical analysis.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskSealed opaque envelopes were unveiled at the studyend‐point for statistical analysis. "Randomizations,drug administration, rating, data entry, andstatistical analysis were implemented by separateindividuals."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Randomizations, drug administration, rating,data entry, and statistical analysis wereimplemented by separate individuals. Placebocapsules were identical to sulforaphane based onshape, size, color, and taste."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow risk~12% attrition
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskCARS is a primary outcome in trial registration butnot in paper
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Mouti 2014.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel study of fluoxetine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 7.5‐18 years

  • met criteria for an ASD based on the DSM‐4 orthe ICD‐10 criteria

  • a score of ≥ 6 on the total score of the CYBOCSat the time of screening.


Exclusion criteria:
  • any psychotropic medication (including typicaland atypical anti‐psychotics, mood stabilisers,antidepressants, anti‐anxiolytics and stimulantmedication including atomoxetine, monoamineoxidase inhibitor or pimozide, and St John's wort)or any use of such medication in the 3 monthsprior to the commencement of the trial

  • concomitant administration of drugs thatinteract with the metabolism of fluoxetine (e.g.phenytoin and carbamazepine)

  • co‐morbid significant medical conditions (e.g.unstable seizure disorder, cardiac disease, liverfailure or renal failure)

  • female participants of childbearing potentialrequire a urine pregnancy test to excludepregnancy


Location/setting: 3 tertiary hospitals inAustralia
Sample size: 146 participants
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 31 in fluoxetine, 21in placebo dropped out or did not completetreatment.
Mean age: 11.2 years
Gender: 124 boys, 22 girls
IQ: 46/146 had an intellectual disability
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: fluoxetine ABC‐I 18.57;placebo 17.87
Concomitant medications: 62/146 were on concurrentmedications and a further 2 were receiving stimulantmedications
History of previous medications:details notprovided
InterventionsFluoxetine for 16 weeks: commenced at 4 or 8 mg/dayfor the first week depending on weight and thentitrated to a maximum of 20 mg/day for childrenweighing < 40 kg or 30 mg/day if ≥ 40 kg
Placebo for 16 weeks: equivalent placebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • self‐injurious behavior, measured using theRepetitive Behavior Scale (Bodfish2000)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: AEs assessed weeklyand other primary outcomes at baseline andendpoint
NotesStudy start date: November 2010
Study end date: August 2017
Source of funding: "Drs Reddihough and Lee and MsOrsini report receiving grants from NHMRC and theRoyal Children's Hospital Foundation during theconduct of the study. Dr Hazell reports that hisemployer has received payment from Shire forspeaker’s fees. Dr Whitehouse reports receivinggrants from NHMRC during the conduct of thestudy."
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Comment: Study authors were contacted for furtherinformation and they emailed a separate publishedpaper providing all the details (Reddinhough).
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "The randomization schedule was provided tothe clinical trials pharmacist at each site, whoarranged a sequential stock of trial medication foreach stratum, labeled with only the study number,strata, and instructions for use"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "This schedule remained confidentialthroughout the study. The independent statisticianretained a copy of the master randomization scheduleto check for any discrepancies. Participants andtheir families, clinicians, and the research teamassessing outcomes remained blind to therandomization schedule throughout the study."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "This schedule remained confidentialthroughout the study. The independent statisticianretained a copy of the master randomization scheduleto check for any discrepancies. Participants andtheir families, clinicians, and the research teamassessing outcomes remained blind to therandomization schedule throughout the study."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskA large number from each group withdrew from thetrial (31 fluoxetine and 21 placebo) and"Twenty‐five percent of the participants did notprovide data on the primary outcome (n = 21 and n =16 in the fluoxetine and placebo groups,respectively) however where outcome data wasreported at least once an ITT analysis was used.There was a chance baseline imbalance in some of thekey behavioral measures of ASDs, indicating that theplacebo group had a comparatively more severebehavioral phenotype than the fluoxetine group".
LTFU fluoxetine group: 31 discontinued (20 parent orcaregiver withdrew consent; 5 AEs; 2 cliniciandecisions to discontinue; 1 used other ineligibledrugs; and 3 others withdrew for personalreasons)
LTFU placebo group: 21 discontinued (12 parent orcaregiver withdrew; 4 AEs; 2 clinician decisions todiscontinue; 3 others withdrew for personalreasons)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskAll scales mentioned in the protocol were reported inthe final paper, however the subscales of theRepetitive Behaviour Scale were not reported, onlythe total score however, more information wasprovided by the study authors.
Other biasHigh riskQuote: "The active and placebo medication will beproduced by Richard Stenlake Chemists (BondiJunction, Australia)". "PH and MK have receivedpayment from Eli Lilly (the manufacturer offluoxetine) for participation in consultancies,advisory boards, speaker’s bureau, and the conductof clinical trials"

Munesue 2016.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of oxytocin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • ASD diagnosis based on DSM‐4 criteria

  • male or female outpatients aged 15‐45 years

  • CGI–S ≥ 4 (moderately ill)

  • on stable pharmacologic and nonpharmacologictreatments for at least 3 months

  • normal physical examination

  • full‐scale IQ > 70

  • sexually active women had to be on 2 barriermethods of contraception and no hormonal birthcontrol


Exclusion criteria:
  • prematurity

  • primary axis 1 disorders such as bipolardisorder, psychosis, post‐traumatic stressdisorder, schizophrenia, or major depressivedisorder/anxiety disorder

  • history of significant neurological diseaseincluding, but not limited to, unstable epilepsydisorder, known genetic syndromes, or knownabnormal brain magnetic resonance imaging, orhistory of malignancy or any significanthaematological, endocrine, cardiovascular(including any rhythm disorder), respiratory,renal, hepatic, or gastrointestinal disease

  • unable to tolerate venipuncture procedures


Location/setting: outpatient setting of theDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry ofKanazawa University Hospital in Kanazawa, Japan
Sample size: 29, 15 oxytocin‐placebo; 14placebo‐oxytocin
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: all participants were male
Mean age: range 15‐40 years
IQ: oxytocin first: 24.9; placebo first: 37.5
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I oxytocin first:11.9; placebo first: 17.4
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: 22 participants(75.9%) received psychotropic medications at stabledoses during the 3 weeks prior to randomisation.
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin) for 6 weeks: oxytocin dosagewas 8 IU twice‐daily for 6 weeks (16 IU perday).
Comparator (placebo) for 6 weeks: equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: WHOQOL (WHO 1998)
Timing of outcome assessments: every 2 weeks
NotesStudy start date: February 2012
Study end date: October 2013
Source of funding: "this work was supported by theStrategic Research Program for Brain Sciences fromthe Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science,and Technology, Japan (MEXT) and from the JapanAgency for Medical Research and Development and alsoby the Industry‐Academia Collaborative R&DPrograms [Center of Innovation (COI) Program] fromMEXT."
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry: UMIN000007250
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "a computer generated randomization table wascreated by the research pharmacist and used torandomise participants"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "All efficacy assessments were carried out byan independent evaluator who was blinded to bothside effects and group assignment"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll participants were analysed using an ITT analysisand baseline and endpoint QoL scores wererecorded.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe primary and secondary outcomes of interest wererecorded on clinicaltrials.gov and all results wereprovided.
Other biasUnclear riskNo significant differences in gender, race, age.Perhaps a slight difference in IQ ‐ oxytocin group99 (22) and placebo 118 (19) however, several studyauthors are connected to many pharmaceuticalcompanies

NCT00183339.

Study characteristics
Methods12‐month parallel trial of fluoxetine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: diagnosis of autism
Exclusion criteria:
  • diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome, RettSyndrome, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, orPDDNOS'

  • if SSRIs are not medically advisable, takingongoing medications (except for diphenhydramine,clonidine, or melatonin for sleep)

  • use of stimulants within the 5 days prior toenrolment

  • recent use of psychotropic medications in the14 days prior to commencing the trial

  • recent commencement of behavioural, dietary orother treatment for autism in the month prior tocommencing the trial


Location/setting: details not provided on clinicalregistry
Sample size: 18
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 4/8; 6/10 (reasonsnot provided)
Mean age: 44 months
Gender: details not provided
IQ: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: baseline ABC‐I notprovided
Concomitant medications: details not provided
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsFluoxetine: "between 2 mg per day and 20 mg per dayof liquid fluoxetine will be given in the morningusing a flexible dosing strategy, following a36‐week dose titration schedule"
Placebo: "between 0.5ml per day and 5ml per day ofliquid placebo will be given in the morning using aflexible dosing strategy, following a 36‐week dosetitration schedule"
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
NotesStudy start date: September 2005
Study end date: March 2014
Funding: details not provided
Conflicts of interest: details not provided
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided apart from, "Masking: quadruple(Participant, Care Provider, Investigator, OutcomesAssessor)"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided apart from, "Masking: quadruple(Participant, Care Provider, Investigator, OutcomesAssessor)"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskThis study primarily aimed to look at rate ofattrition and recruitment but doesn't provide dataon reason for dropout.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskPrimary outcome is rate of recruitment howeverwithout a protocol we can't be sure.
Other biasUnclear riskPaper has not been published as yet, so greaterdetails have not been provided.

NCT00198107.

Study characteristics
Methods48‐week parallel trial of aripiprazole versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 5‐17 years

  • weight ≥ 15 kg

  • meet the DSM‐4 criteria for autism

  • free of psychotropic medications for at least 2weeks prior to baseline

  • ABC‐I of at least 18 at baseline

  • CGI‐S score of at least 4

  • mental age of at least 18 months


Exclusion criteria:
  • Asperger's syndrome, Rett's disorder, childhooddisintegrative disorder, Fragile X, tuberoussclerosis, any other PDD, schizophrenia, psychoticdisorder, or bipolar disorder

  • any other significant medical condition such asheart, kidney, liver or lung disease, or seizuredisorders

  • pregnant

  • previous treatment with aripiprazole orhypersensitivity to aripiprazole


Location/setting: USA (Riley Hospital for Children,Christian Sarkine Autism Treatment Center, IndianaUniversity School of Medicine)
Sample size: 81 randomised, 40 aripiprazole, 41placebo
Mean IQ: details not provided
Mean age: details not provided
Gender: 4/38 female in aripiprazole group, 7/40female in placebo group
Reasons for dropouts: 6 from placebo groupdiscontinued, AE (1), lack of efficacy (2), LTFU(2), doctor decision (1); 3 from aripiprazole groupdiscontinued, AE (1), LTFU (1), withdrawal byparticipant (1)
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: details notprovided
Concomitant medications: details not provided
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (aripiprazole) for 8 weeks: participants≤ 49 kg will receive maximum dose of 10 mg/day ofaripiprazole over 8 weeks. Participants weighing ≥50 kg will receive a maximum dose of 15 mg/dayaripiprazole over 8 weeks.
Comparator (placebo) for 8 weeks: matching placebopill for 8 weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:

Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: ABC‐I measured inweeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: September 2005
Study end date: April 2019
Funding: details not provided
Conflicts of interest: details not provided
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskNot stated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskNot stated
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskOnly details provided were on the trials registry,"Masking: Quadruple (Participant, Care Provider,Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskOnly details provided were on the trials registry,"Masking: Quadruple (Participant, Care Provider,Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskDropout < 15%, reasons reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskNo information
Other biasUnclear riskNot stated

NCT00468130.

Study characteristics
Methods8‐week parallel trial of aripiprazole versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • meets DSM‐4 for ASD

  • is an outpatient

  • 5‐17 years of age

  • parents consent to participate in the trial


Exclusion criteria:
  • diagnosed with a psychotic disorder

  • history of prior treatment of aripiprazole ≥ 5mg/day

  • history of diabetes

  • significant medical conditions

  • at risk of self‐injury

  • pregnant or breastfeeding


Setting/location: the USA
Sample size: 15 in total
Number and reason for dropouts: 2 in each groupdropped out, 3 due to AEs and 1 withdrew
Mean age: 12.4 years
Gender: 2 female, 11 male
Mean IQ: details not provided
Previous or current medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (aripiprazole): participants weighing< 40 kg will receive a maximum of 10 mg/day ofaripiprazole, and a maximum of 20 mg/day forchildren ≥ 40 kg for 8 weeks
Comparator (placebo): equivalent placebo (sugarpills) for 8 weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: every second week
NotesSource of funding: University of Medicine andDentistry of New Jersey
Conflicts of interest: unclear
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskApart from, "Masking: Quadruple (Participant, CareProvider, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)", noother details provided.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskApart from "Masking: Quadruple (Participant, CareProvider, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)", noother details provided.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear risk8‐week data appear to be reported for allparticipants, but study authors note 2 dropouts dueto AEs in treatment group (i.e. nearly 30% dropout).Unclear if outcome data are really complete.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskProtocol is available and all prespecified outcomesof interest reported in the prespecified way
Other biasHigh riskThe baseline ABC‐I scores were twice that in theintervention group compared to placebo.

NCT00498173.

Study characteristics
Methods8‐week parallel trial of atomoxetine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • 5‐15 years of age

  • diagnosis of ASD

  • significant hyperactivity, inattention, orimpulsivity as determined by a score on aninvestigator‐administered ADHD Rating Scale(ADHDRS)‐Home Version that is at least 1.5standard deviations above the mean for age andsex

  • parent/caregiver's primary complaint about thechild is inattention, hyperactivity, and/orimpulsivity ("ADHD" symptoms)

  • symptoms present for 6 months prior to studyentry

  • psychotropic drug‐free for at least 2 weeksprior to starting study medication (or 5 weeks forfluoxetine (Prozac))


Exclusion criteria:
  • weighs < 15 kg

  • any another psychiatric disorder that mayrequire a different treatment, including psychoticdisorders, major affective disorders, obsessivecompulsive disorder, panic disorder, orsubstance‐related disorders

  • clinical diagnosis of Rett's disorder orchildhood disintegrative disorder

  • presence of extreme aggression orself‐injury

  • currently taking an effective psychotropicdrug

  • currently using other medications that may beunsafe to take with atomoxetine (e.g. potent CYP2D6 inhibitors, intravenous albuterol, monoamineoxidase inhibitors)

  • inability to swallow study medication

  • presence of a medical condition that would maketreatment with atomoxetine unsafe (e.g. unstablehypertension or cardiac disease, asthma requiringfrequent treatment with albuterol, narrow angleglaucoma, pregnancy, etc.)

  • mental age of < 18 months

  • previous adequate trial of atomoxetine

  • previous evidence of hypersensitivity or anallergic reaction to atomoxetine

  • clinically significant abnormalities inlaboratory measures indicating an undiagnosedmedical condition as determined by the studyphysician in discussion with the participant'sprimary care physician

  • clinically significant abnormalities on ECG asdetermined by a pediatric cardiologist

  • pregnant

  • initiation of a new psychosocial interventionwithin 90 days prior to starting study medication.Participants who have recently had a significantchange in their psychosocial interventions willnot be eligible until this intervention has beenstable for 90 days in order to avoid confoundingresults of the study. Stable interventions (e.g.speech and occupational therapy) will be allowedto continue during the course of the study. Minorchanges in ongoing treatment (e.g., missed therapysessions due to holiday/vacation planned break intherapy due to school holidays) will not beconsidered significant


Location/setting: details not described
Mean IQ: details not described
Mean age: atomoxetine 9.3 years, placebo 8.4years
Gender: 54 male, 6 female
Sample size: 60
Reasons for dropouts: no postbaseline ratings for 2people in atomoxetine group and 1 in placebogroup
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: PedsQL atomoxetine56.3 (18.8); placebo 60.5 (19.6)
Concomitant medications: atomoxetine (34.5%) weretaking concomitant medications; placebo 41.9% weretaking concomitant medications
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (atomoxetine) for 8 weeks: availabletablet strengths of atomoxetine: 5 mg, 10 mg, 25 mg,40 mg. Week 1, participant takes 0.5 mg/kg/day; week2, 0.8 mg/kg/day; week 3, 1.2 mg/kg/day. Potentialexists for dose increase at week 4 to 1.8 mg/kg/daybased on CGI improvement rating at week 4.
Comparator (placebo) for 8 weeks: participants willreceive blinded, matched placebo for 8 weeks. Dosagecan be increased over the first 4 weeks of studyparticipation and will then be held constant for theremainder of the 8‐week trial. Placebo tabletsdosages: 5 mg, 10 mg, 25 mg, 40 mg
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability using the ABC‐I (Aman 1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes:
  • acceptability/tolerability

  • QoL using PedsQL (WHO 1998)


Timing of outcome assessments: details notdescribed
NotesStudy start date: July 2007
Study end date: August 2017
Source of funding: details not provided
Conflicts of interest: details not provided
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)High riskQuote: "Sequential Assignment"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskOnly details provided were on the trial registry,"Masking: triple (participant, care provider,investigator)"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskOnly details provided were on the trial registry,"Masking: triple (participant, care provider,investigator)"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh risk3 participants were not included in the analysis alldue to "no post‐baseline ratings"
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskOnly relying on Clinical trials reg
Other biasUnclear riskDifficult to know without a published paper andprotocol

NCT01337687.

Study characteristics
Methods6‐week parallel trial of oxytocin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male or female

  • 18‐55 years

  • meet DSM‐4, ADOS, and ADI‐R standards for ASDor Asperger's Syndrome

  • have a high, normal or near normal IQ

  • speak and understand English fluently


Exclusion criteria:
  • born prior to 35 weeks' gestational age

  • any psychiatric diagnosis apart from autism

  • any neurological disorders

  • known MRI/structural lesion of the brain

  • pregnant

  • taking psychoactive medication

  • evidence or history of a significanthaematological, endocrine, cardiovascular,respiratory, renal, hepatic or gastrointestinaldisease

  • planning to initiate or change medicationsduring the trial

  • unable to tolerate blood sampling


Location/setting: Montefiore Medical Center, USA
Mean IQ: not reported
Mean age: 33.2 years
Gender: 16 male, 3 female
Sample size: 19 in total
Reasons for dropouts/withdrawals: none reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: not reported
Concomitant medications: details not provided
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin) for 6 weeks: administeredintranasally twice a day via 1 x 12 unit puff toeach nostril, totalling 48 IU a day
Comparator (saline) for 6 weeks: administeredintranasally twice a day via 1 puff per nostril,totalling 48 IU a day
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and 6 weeks(endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: April 2011
Study end date: February 2020
Funding: details not provided
Conflicts of interest: details not provided
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskOnly details provided were on the trial registry,"Masking: quadruple (participant, care provider,investigator, outcomes assessor)"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskOnly details provided were on the trial registry,"Masking: quadruple (participant, care provider,investigator, outcomes assessor)"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskNo dropout reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskNo peer‐reviewed paper
Other biasLow riskNo other sources of bias identified

NCT01624675.

Study characteristics
Methods8‐week parallel trial of risperidone versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • 5‐17 years of age

  • diagnosis of autism

  • CGI‐S score of ≥ 4 and an ABC‐I score of ≥18

  • mental age > 18 months

  • participants must have parent or caregiverwilling and able to observe and rate theirbehaviour

  • weigh ≥ 15 kg at time of screening


Exclusion criteria:
  • patients with current or previous psychoticdisorders, or "endocrine, metabolic, cardiac,hepatic, renal, or pulmonary disorder, orhypertension"

  • "Patients with known hypersensitivity torisperidone or paliperidone"


Location/setting: 18 study centres in Japan
Mean IQ: not reported
Mean age: not reported
Gender: not reported
Sample size 39: risperidone (21); placebo (18)
Reasons for dropouts/withdrawals: no dropoutsreported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: ABC‐I risperidone28.2 (6.36); placebo 27.5 (5.26)
Concomitant medications: not reported
Previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (risperidone) for 8 weeks: participantsweighing < 20 kg received risperidone 0.25 mg/dayup to day 4. On day 4, dose was titrated inincrements of 0.25 mg/day (up to a daily dose of 1.0mg) at the regular study visit thereafter until week8. Participants weighing ≥ 20 kg receivedrisperidone 0.5 mg/day up to day 4. On day 4, dosewas titrated in increments of 0.5 mg/day (up to adaily dose of 2.5 mg) at the regular visitthereafter until week 8. The maximum daily dose forparticipants weighing ≥ 45 kg was 3.0 mg.
Comparator (placebo) for 8 weeks: matchingplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:

Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: unclear
NotesStudy start date: June 2012
Study end date: October 2015
Funding: details not provided
Conflicts of interest: details not provided
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNo information beyond double‐blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNo information beyond double‐blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskData available for all participants
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll outcomes reported
Other biasLow riskOutcomes matched those on clinical trialsregistry

NCT01908205.

Study characteristics
Methods12‐week trial of oxytocin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • Male or female outpatients, 10‐17 years of ageinclusive

  • Meet DSM‐4, ADOS‐2 and ADI‐R 4 criteria forASD

  • CGI‐S score ≥ 4 (moderately ill) atscreening

  • Verbal and Performance scale IQ ≥ 70 (bothsubtests of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale ofIntelligence (WASI‐I or WASI‐II ≥ 70)

  • if already receiving stable concomitantmedications affecting behaviour, have continuousparticipation for 1 month prior to screening (6weeks for fluoxetine) ‐ no changes to existing ornew medication during the study

  • if already receiving stable non‐pharmacologiceducational, behavioral, and/or dietaryinterventions, have continuous participationduring the preceding 3 months prior to screening ‐no changes to existing or new medication duringthe study

  • normal physical examination and laboratory testresults at screening.

  • able to speak and understand English

  • participant or parents/legal guardian provideswritten informed consent


Exclusion criteria:
  • born prior to 35 weeks' gestational age

  • primary psychiatric diagnosis other thanASD

  • medical history of neurological disease,including, but not limited to, epilepsy/seizuredisorder (except simple febrile seizures),movement disorder, tuberous sclerosis, fragile X,and any other known genetic syndromes, or knownabnormal brain MRI/structural lesion

  • pregnant; if sexually active, female patientsnot on hormonal birth control or using at leasttwo types of non‐hormonal birth control

  • evidence or history of malignancy or anysignificant haematological, endocrine,cardiovascular (including any rhythm disorder),respiratory, renal, hepatic, or gastrointestinaldisease

  • one or more of the following: HIV, Hepatitis Bvirus, Hepatitis C virus, haemophilia (bleedingproblems, recent nose and brain injuries),abnormal blood pressure (hypotension orhypertension), drug abuse, immunity disorder orsevere depression

  • currently taking oxytocin or have takenintranasal oxytocin in the past with noresponse

  • sensitivity to oxytocin or any components ofits formulation

  • unable to tolerate venipuncture procedures forblood sampling

  • in foster care for whom the province/state isdefined as a legal guardian


Location/setting: Canada
Mean IQ: not stated
Mean age: all under 18 years
Gender: 47 male, 7 female
Sample size: 60
Reasons for dropouts/withdrawals: oxytocin 5, placebo1 (2 LTFU, 4 withdrew)
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: not an outcome
Concomitant medications: details not provided
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin) for 12 weeks: the proposeddosing schedule is 0.4 IU/kg oxytocin, taken twicedaily, for a maximum of 24 IUs per dose for 12weeks
Comparator (placebo) for 12 weeks: the proposeddosing schedule is 0.4 IU/kg, taken twice daily, fora maximum of 24 IUs per dose for 12 weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes:
  • QoL (measured using the PedsQL) (WHO 1998)

  • tolerability


Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and 12 weeks(endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: July 2013
Study end date: November 2020
Funding: details not provided
Conflicts of interest: details not provided
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskInsufficient information. Quote: "Allocation:Randomized\"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskInsufficient information. Quote: "Allocation:Randomized"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskOnly details provided were on the trials registry
Quote: "Masking: Quadruple (Participant, CareProvider, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskOnly details provided were on the trialsregistry
Quote: "Masking: Quadruple(Participant, Care Provider, Investigator, OutcomesAssessor)"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh risk2 LTFU, and 4 withdrew ‐ no further information
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskWithout a published paper or protocol it is difficultto know if all outcomes were reported
Other biasLow riskNo other sources of bias identified

NCT01972074.

Study characteristics
Methods12‐week trial of memantine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children aged 8‐17 years

  • diagnosis of ASD according to DSM‐5criteria,

  • at least moderate severity of socialimpairment, as measured by a total raw score of ≥85 on the parent/guardian‐completed SocialResponsiveness Scale, Second Edition (SRS‐2) and ascore of ≥ 4 on the clinician‐administered ASDCGI‐S scale


Exclusion criteria:
  • IQ ≤ 70

  • Current treatment with lamotrigine, amantadine,N‐acetylcysteine, or D‐cycloserine

  • Current treatment with a psychotropicmedication, not listed above, on a dose that hasnot been stable for at least 4 weeks prior tostudy baseline

  • Participants with a history of or a currentliver or kidney disease

  • Clinically unstable psychiatric conditions orjudged to be at serious suicidal risk

  • Serious, stable or unstable chronic diseasesuch as hepatic, renal, gastroenterological,respiratory, cardiovascular (including ischaemicheart disease), endocrinologic, neurologic,immunologic, or haneidematologic disease


Location/setting: Massachusetts General Hospital.USA
Mean IQ: details not provided
Mean age: details not provided
Gender: details not provided
Sample size: memantine, 22 randomised; placebo, 21randomised
Reasons for dropouts/withdrawals: memantine, 6 didnot complete (4 due to AEs, 1 lack of efficacy, and1 withdrawal by participant); placebo, 4 did notcomplete (1 due to AEs, 1 LTFU, 1 lack of efficacy,and 1 withdrawal by participant).
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: not an outcome
Concomitant medications: details not provided
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (memantine) for 12 weeks: given incapsule form twice daily. It will be administeredtwice daily for 12 weeks (including a 4‐weektitration phase to a maximum dose of 20 mg/day).Participants will undergo neuroimaging before andafter the 12‐week treatment phase.
Comparator (placebo) for 12 weeks: no activeingredients; given in capsule form twice daily. Itwill be administered twice daily for 12 weeks.Participants will undergo neuroimaging before andafter the 12‐week treatment phase.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: unclear
NotesStudy start date: October 2013
Study end date: September 2019
Funding: details not provided
Conflicts of interest: details not provided
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk"ASD subjects will be randomized to either activememantine or placebo in a 1:1 ratio after they havebeen determined to meet all eligibility criteria.Randomization lists stratified by gender andracial/ethnic minority status (minority vsCaucasian) will be generated by the statistician andpassed to the investigational pharmacy forassignment".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskOnly details provided were on the trialsregistry
Quote: "Masking: quadruple(participant, care provider, Investigator, outcomesassessor)"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskOnly details provided were on the trialsregistry
Quote: "Masking: quadruple(participant, care provider, Investigator, outcomesassessor)"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll randomised participants included in analyses
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskIt is difficult to know without a protocol
Other biasLow riskNo other sources identified

NCT02940574.

Study characteristics
Methods4‐week trial of oxytocin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • clinical diagnosis of ASD, Asperger's Syndromeor Autism

  • male

  • aged 18‐40 years


Exclusion criteria:
  • associated neuro(psycho)logical disorder (i.e.epilepsy, concussion, stroke), eyesight worse than+ or ‐ 7, Genetic syndrome, colour blindness

  • any contraindication to neuroimaging researchas assessed with the MRI screening list:pacemaker, implanted defibrillator, ear implant/acochlear implant, insulin or implanted pump, aneurostimulator or ventriculoperitoneal shunt, anymetallic object in the eyes (metallicfragments).


Location/setting: Belgium
Mean IQ: details not provided
Mean age: 18‐40 year olds
Gender: all participants were male.
Sample size: 40 (oxytocin 22, placebo 18)
Reasons for dropouts/withdrawals: 1 in oxytocin groupwithdrew from the study, 1 from placebo not includedin analysis due to "excessive in‐scanner headmotion"
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: not an outcome
Concomitant medications: details not provided
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin) for 4 weeks: single dose of24 IU oxytocin (Syntocinon) nasal spray (3 puffs of4 IU per nostril), followed by 4 weeks of a dailysingle dose (24 IU; 3 puffs of 4 IU per nostril) ofnasal spray.
Comparator (placebo) for 4 weeks: placebo(physiological water (solution of sodium chloride(NaCl) in water)) administered via nasal spray. Asingle dose (24 IU) of nasal spray (3 puffs of 4 IUper nostril), followed by 4 weeks of a daily singledose (24 IU; 3 puffs of 4 IU per nostril) of nasalspray.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes:
  • QoL, measured using the WHO‐QoL (WHO 1998)(higher scores indicate a more positiveresponse)

  • tolerability


Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and 4 weeks(endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: October 2016
Study end date: February 2020
Funding: details not provided
Conflicts of interest: details not provided
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskInsufficient detail: "allocation: randomized"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskInsufficient detail. Quote: "allocation:randomised"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskOnly details provided were on the trialsregistry
Quote: "masking: quadruple(participant, care provider, investigator, outcomesassessor)"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskOnly details provided were on the trials registry
Quote: "masking: quadruple (participant, careprovider, investigator, outcomes assessor)"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskQuote: "1 subject lost in Syntocinon group due tosubject withdrawal. 1 subject lost in placebo groupdue to low data quality (excessive in‐scanner headmotion)"
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskDifficult to know without a protocol
Other biasLow riskNo other apparent sources of bias

NCT03242772.

Study characteristics
Methods11‐week parallel trial of amphetamine plus parenttraining versus placebo plus parent training
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 3‐10 years

  • parent or legal guardian consents and iswilling to comply with all study procedures and isavailable for the duration of the study

  • diagnosed with both ASD and ADHD basedconsensus diagnosis informed by results of theADOS‐2, ADI‐R, and a Standardized ADHD DiagnosticInterview and the MINI psychiatric diagnosticinterview

  • in good general health as evidenced by medicalhistory and physical exam and review of safetylabs and ECG


Exclusion criteria:
  • recent use of prohibited psychoactivemedication in close proximity of baselineassessments

  • known allergic reactions to amphetamines

  • known history of or personal history of suddennon‐ischaemic cardiac death in a first or seconddegree family member (sibling, parent, aunt,uncle, cousin or grandparent) or significantcardiac abnormalities or disease

  • inability of the caregiver participating inP‐ESDM and responding to questionnaires tofluently speak English

  • presence of any psychiatric conditions orpsychiatric symptoms in addition to ASD andADHD


History of epilepsy or seizure disorder (except forhistory of simple febrile seizures or if the childis seizure free (regardless of seizure type) for thepast year)
Location/setting: Duke Center for Autism and BrainDevelopment, USA
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: amphetamine group 3dropped out (2. LTFU, 1 withdrew); placebo group 1dropped out due to "physician decision"
Gender: 12 male, 6 female
Mean age: intervention group 86.83 (SD20.80) months;placebo group 103.00 (18.88) months
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I scores or other BoC: not anoutcome
Concomitant medications:details not provided
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention:
  • amphetamine: administered in the morning.Treatment initiated at 1 tablet = 3.1 mg or 0 mgof mixed amphetamine. Doses flexibly titratedupward and "may be decreased or stopped at anytime."

  • Parent training: all participants receive 8weekly parent‐child therapy sessions. Sessionsdelivered by a therapist trained in parentcoaching and Early Start Denver Model principlesand strategies, and utilising a therapy manual(includes coaching for behaviour management andhandouts)


Comparator:
  • placebo: matched placebo tablets administeredin the morning and provided for 11 weeks. Tablets"titrated in the same way as the active drug andmay be stopped at any time."

  • Parent training: all participants receive 8weekly parent‐child therapy sessions. Sessionsdelivered by a therapist trained in parentcoaching and Early Start Denver Model principlesand strategies, and utilising a therapy manual(includes coaching for behaviour management andhandouts)

OutcomesPrimary outcomes: adverse effects
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: 11 weeks(endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: December 2018
Study end date: results submitted online December2021
Funding: Duke University
Conflicts of interest: details not provided
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskOnly information "Allocation: Randomized"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskOnly information "Allocation: Randomized"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNo information apart from, "Masking: Quadruple(Participant, Care Provider, Investigator, OutcomesAssessor)"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNo information apart from, "Masking: Quadruple(Participant, Care Provider, Investigator, OutcomesAssessor)"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskPrimary outcome data not reported. "This variablerequired behavioral coding of videotapedcaregiver‐child interactions collected at two timepoints. This coding were not conducted due to thefact that the study was terminated and time 2 datawere not collected for participants due to safetyconcerns related to Covid‐19."
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskPrimary outcome data not reported. "This variablerequired behavioral coding of videotapedcaregiver‐child interactions collected at two timepoints. This coding were not conducted due to thefact that the study was terminated and time 2 datawere not collected for participants due to safetyconcerns related to Covid‐19."
Other biasLow risk"Principal Investigators are NOT employed by theorganization sponsoring the study."
"There isNOT an agreement between Principal Investigators andthe Sponsor (or its agents) that restricts the PI'srights to discuss or publish trial results after thetrial is completed."

Niederhofer 2002.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of lofexidine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • met ICD‐10 criteria for ASD

  • no history of identified medical orneurological illnesses

  • off medications for at least 1 month before thestudy


Exclusion criteria: details not provided
Location/setting: Austria
Sample size: 12 in total (cross‐over)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: details notprovided
Gender: all participants were male.
Mean age: lofexidine group 7.3 years; placebo group9.2 years
Mean IQ: lofexidine 59; placebo 48
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: details not provided
Concomitant medications: participants had been offmedications for at least 1 month prior to thestudy.
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (lofexidine) for 13 weeks: lofexidinewas started at 0.4 mg/day, and tapered up over 2weeks to 0.8‐1.2 mg/day in 3 doses.
Comparator (placebo) for 13 weeks: identical placebotablets were given.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using theABC‐Irritability subscale (Aman 1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: ABC‐ I and AEsassessed weekly
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: not reported
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskQuote: "Tablets for each subject were placed insealed envelopes designated for each day of thestudy"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "All raters (parents, teachers, andclinicians) were blind to drug order until ratingswere completed"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNo details on how clinicians were blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskNo baseline data reported. Not clear how manyincluded in the analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskUnclear outcomes for 2 arms of active treatment (10mg and 20 mg doses)
Other biasUnclear riskFunding and author affiliations unknown

Niederhofer 2003.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of tianeptine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • met "ICD‐10 criteria for autistic disorder"

  • no history of identified medical orneurological illnesses

  • free of medication for at least 4 weeks (12weeks for a single subject who had been takingfenfluramine) before beginning the study


Exclusion criteria:
  • history of medical or neurologicalillnesses

  • taking regular medications in the month priorto the study


Sample size: 7 in tianeptine group, 6 placebo (13 intotal)
Reason for withdrawals/dropouts: "a thirteenthsubject entered the study but was dropped because ofnoncompliance with medication"
Location/setting: Italy
Mean age: 7.3 years
Gender: all participants were male.
Mean IQ: ranged from 35‐84
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: tianeptine ABC‐I 13.9;placebo 14.1
Concomitant medications: participants had been offmedication for at least 1 month before thestudy.
History of previous medications: "all these childrenhad been treated with either methylphenidate,neuroleptics or desipramine before entry into thestudy. In each case, these medications had eithernot been effective or caused intolerable sideeffects."
InterventionsIntervention (tianeptine) for 12 weeks: 37.5 mg/daydose for 12 weeks
Comparator (placebo) for 12 weeks: identical placebotablets
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: weekly ABC ratings andAEs
NotesStudy start date: 2002
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: not reported
Conflicts of interest: none disclosed
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskQuote: "subjects were randomly assigned by anonrating clinician to begin tianeptine orplacebo."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskAll raters were blind to drug order until ratingswere completed. However, the authors note of"possible unblinding of parents and teachers becauseof side effects"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskNo details about participation and dropouts
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskAdverse effects not reported. Without a trialprotocol it is difficult to know if any outcomeswere measured but not reported.
Other biasUnclear riskDetails not provided

Nikoo 2015.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of N‐acetylcysteine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children aged 4‐12 years of age

  • meet the diagnostic criteria for autismaccording to the DSM‐4‐TR

  • score > 6 in the DSM‐4 criteria

  • baseline ABC‐I subscale score of ≥ 12


Exclusion criteria:
  • history of psychotropic drug treatment within 6weeks of enrolment

  • tardive dyskinesia

  • known adverse reaction to N‐acetylcysteine orrisperidone

  • taking concomitant medications withglutamatergic effects (e.g. dextromethorphan,D‐cycloserine, amantadine, memantine, lamotrigine,riluzole)

  • other DSM‐IX axis I or II disorders

  • any significant active medical problem

  • severe intellectual disability that interferedwith diagnosis of autism

  • participation in any psychosocial interventionor concomitant drug during course of trial


Location/setting: Tehran, Iran
Sample size: 20 in N‐acetylcysteine + risperidone, 20placebo + risperidone (40 in total)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: no reported dropoutsafter first post‐baseline measurements
Gender: 33 male, 7 female
Mean age: 7.5 years (N‐acetylcysteine), 7.6 years(placebo)
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I NAC 21.2, placebo19.7
Concomitant medications: concomitant drug duringcourse of trial not allowed
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (N‐acetylcysteine) for 10 weeks:administered at 200 mg 3 times/day for childrenweighing < 20 kg. For children weighing ≥ 20 kg,N‐acetylcysteine was given at 300 mg 3times/day.
Risperidone was also started at 0.5 mg and titratedweekly by 0.5 mg to a maximum of 1.0 mg/day forchildren weighing < 20 kg. For children weighing≥ 20 kg, risperidone was given at the same startingdose and titration rate, but to a maximum of 2.0mg/day.
Comparator (placebo) for 10 weeks: equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 5, week10
NotesStudy start date: November 2011
Study end date: November 2013
Source of funding: "this study was supported by agrant from Tehran University of Medical Sciences toShahin Akhondzadeh, PhD, (grant no. 15155)."
Conflicts of interest: none disclosed
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskRandom allocation of the patients into 2 groups in a1:1 ratio with the help of computer‐generatedcodes
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "the assignments were kept in consecutivelynumbered, confidential, and sealed envelopes untilthe statistical analysis step"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided except double‐blinding used
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "during the study, separate persons held theresponsibility of randomisation and rating of thepatients. Resultant data were also entered in adatabase by a person not involved in other parts ofthe study"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAppears to have been no LTFU
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe trial was registered on http://irct.ir/trial/879and all outcomes reported in the protocol werereported.
Other biasHigh risk
  • The contact author is also on the ethicscommittee at the university funding the study.

  • The contact author is a peer‐reviewer for oneof the journals in which some of their studies arepublished.

Nikvarz 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods8‐week parallel trial of risperidone versusmemantine
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 4‐17 years

  • diagnosis of autism based on the DSM‐4‐TR

  • unsatisfactory response to previous drugs

  • participants with epilepsy allowed but only ifseizure‐free within the month prior to studystart.


Exclusion criteria:
  • currently receive drugs that satisfactorilytreat symptoms of autism

  • patients with epilepsy and one or more seizuresin the month prior to the study commencing

  • other neurological conditions

  • "a history of substance abuse, neurolepticmalignant syndrome, severe allergic reactions torisperidone or memantine, any cardiac disease,hematologic malignancy, acute kidney or liverfailure, consumed stimulant drugs"

  • pregnant


Setting/location: Roozbeh Psychiatric Hospital,Iran
Sample size: 34, memantine (18 participants),risperidone (16 participants)
Number of dropouts/withdrawals: 1 participant in therisperidone group did not complete the trial due toa change in psychiatrist. 3 participants in thememantine group did not complete the trial ‐ allreportedly due to a lack of therapeutic response infirst 2 weeks of trial.
Mean age: 6.7 years
IQ: details not provided
Gender: memantine 13/15 male; risperidone 10/15male
Baseline ABC‐I scores: 21.8
Concomitant medications: details not provided
Previous medications: risperidone: 2 in risperidonegroup and 4 in memantine group had previously takenrisperidone; aripiprazole: 2/15 in memantine groupand zero from risperidone group had previously takenaripiprazole.
InterventionsIntervention (memantine) for 8 weeks: started at aonce‐daily dose of 0.2 mg/kg/day then increased to0.3 mg/kg/day in the 2nd week and ultimately to 0.4mg/kg/day in the 3rd week. The maximum daily dose ofmemantine was 20 mg/day.
Comparator (risperidone) for 8 weeks: "Risperidonewas started at 0.02 mg/kg/day then increased to 0.04mg/kg/day at week 2" up to a maximum of"0.06mg/kg/day at the third week." The maximum dailydose of risperidone was 3mg/day.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:

Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 4 andweek 8 (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: April 2012
Study end date: March 2013
Funding: "This study was supported by TehranUniversity of Medical Sciences (TUMS) (Grant number:91‐01‐33‐16991)."
Conflicts of interest: "The authors declare noconflict of interest."
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskSample size was 30. Patients were randomly allocatedto receive risperidone or memantine based on simple,balanced, blocked randomisation.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskAlthough referred to as "simple balanced blockedrandomisation", no information on how allocation wasconcealed
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesHigh riskOpen‐label trial
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesHigh riskNo information beyond it being "open label", soassume unblinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskData not imputed for participants whodiscontinued
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskDifficult to know for certain without seeing studyprotocol
Other biasLow riskNo other sources of bias identified

Owen 2009.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of aripiprazole versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children and adolescents (aged 617 years)

  • met DSM‐4‐TR criteria for ASD

  • demonstrated behaviours such as tantrums,aggression, self‐injurious behaviour or acombination of these

  • weighed ≥ 15 kg

  • CGI‐S score > 4 and ABC‐I score of >18


Exclusion criteria:
  • current diagnosis of bipolar disorder,psychosis, schizophrenia or major depression;fragile X syndrome or a diagnosis of anotherdisorder on the autism spectrum including PDDNOS,Asperger syndrome, Rett syndrome, or childhooddisintegrative disorder


Location/setting: USA
Sample size: 98 participants were randomised(aripiprazole 47; placebo 51)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: placebo groupdiscontinued (15): lack of efficacy (6), AEs (3),withdrew consent (2), LTFU (4). Aripiprazole groupdiscontinued (8): lack of efficacy (1), AEs (5),withdrew consent (1), LTFU (1)
Gender: 44/51 and 42/47 were male
Mean age: placebo 8.8 years, aripiprazole 9.7years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: placebo ABC‐I 30.2;aripiprazole 29.6
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: 50% had previouslyreceived psychotropic medications. The most commonlyreceived medications were antipsychotic agents(placebo: 30.0%; aripiprazole: 17.0%),psychostimulant agents (placebo: 26.0%;aripiprazole: 17.0%), anxiolytic agents (placebo:16.0%; aripiprazole: 17.0%), and antidepressantagents (placebo: 10.0%; aripiprazole: 6.4%)
InterventionsIntervention (aripiprazole) for 8 weeks:approximately 7.5 mg/day or 0.172 mg/kg/day
Comparator (placebo) for 8 weeks: equivalent to 5,10, or 15 mg/day doses
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • Irritability (mean change from baseline),measured using the parent‐rated ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: QoL, measured using the PedsQL(WHO1998)
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, weeks 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, with telephone call in week 7
NotesStudy start date: June 2006
Study end date: February 2008
Source of funding: "Drs Owen, Corey‐Lisle, Manos, andMarcus are employees of Bristol‐Myers Squibb. Thisstudy was supported by Bristol‐ Myers Squibb(Princeton, NJ) and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd(Tokyo, Japan). Editorial support for thepreparation of this manuscript was provided byOgilvy Healthworld Medical Education; funding wasprovided by Bristol‐Myers Squibb."
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskComputer‐generated randomisation schedule prepared byBristol Myers Squibb using a permuted blockdesign
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskInvestigational sites accessed a call‐in interactivevoice response system. The system assigned amedication bottle number to each participant.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNot described
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNot described
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLOCF
LTFU aripiprazole: discontinued (8); lack of efficacy(1); AEs (5); withdrew consent (1); LTFU (1)
LTFU placebo: discontinued (15); lack of efficacy(6); AEs (3); withdrew consent (2); LTFU (4)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov andthe outcomes registered were reported
Other biasUnclear riskNo differences in age, gender, ethnicity, weight orbaseline scores but previous antipsychotic use (51%across groups) was not reported by group

Owley 2001.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of porcine secretin versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • met the criteria for ASD by both the ADI‐R andthe ADOS


Exclusion criteria:
  • any history of allergy to porcine products

  • significant medical illness (excluding autism)including nonfebrile seizures


Location/setting: University of Chicago, Universityof California‐Irvine, University of Utah, USA
Sample size: 56 in total (28 to secretin‐placebo, 28to placebo‐secretin)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: 48 boys, 8 girls
Mean age: 6.7 years
IQ: mental age ≥ 24 months
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I placebo‐secretiin10.1. secretin‐placebo 11.6
Concomitant medications: 14 participants were takinga total of 15 psychotropic medications (at stabledoses) during the study, including SSRIs (3),atypical neuroleptics (3), α‐adrenergic agonist (1),and psychostimulants (8)
History of previous medications: participants onstable doses of psychotropic medications wereincluded but they were asked not to change thedosages of these medications for the duration of thetrial.
InterventionsIntervention (secretin) for 4 weeks: secretin wasadministered at 2 CU/kg/day
Comparator (placebo) for 4 weeks: placebo (infusedsaline) that was indistinguishable from the activetreatment
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability, measured using theABC‐Irritability subscale (Aman 1985)
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and then atthe end of weeks 2, 4, 6 and 8
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: "this work was supported in partby the University of California at Davis MedicalInvestigation of Neurodevelopmental DisordersInstitute (WM, EHC, PAF). Additional support wasprovided by grants from the NIMH (R01 MH52223, K02MH01389, EC), the Jean Young and Walden W. ShawFoundation (BLL), and the Irving B. HarrisFoundation (BLL). This work was conducted as part ofthe NICHD/NIDCD Collaborative Network on theNeurobiology and Genetics of Autism."
Conflicts of interest: none disclosed
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskQuote: "Randomisation was done by the investigationalpharmacy at each site". Unclear as to the method andwhether the same method was used across allsites.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "All patients, their parents, all members ofthe assessment team were blind to drug assignmentsuntil all subjects at that site had completed thetrial."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskMembers of the assessment team were blind to drugassignments until all subjects at that site hadcompleted the trial.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll participants were accounted for and whereparticular assessments were missed, the number ofparticipants who were analysed were indicated inbrackets ().
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll outcomes reported at cross‐over endpoints
Other biasHigh riskOnly a single dose of secretin was used.

Parker 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods4‐week parallel trial of oxytocin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children aged 6‐12 years

  • met diagnostic criteria for ASD

  • medically healthy outpatients

  • IQ > 40 (as determined by the Stanford‐BinetIntelligence Scales, fifth edition)

  • CGI‐S rating of ≥ 4

  • had a care provider who could reliably bringthem to clinic visits, provide trustworthyratings, and interact with the participant on aregular basis

  • on stable medications for at least 4 weeks

  • no planned changes in psychosocialinterventions during the trial

  • willing to provide blood samples


Exclusion criteria:
  • prior or current use of oxytocin

  • DSM‐4‐TR or DSM‐5 diagnosis of schizophrenia,schizoaffective disorder, or psychoticdisorder

  • regular nasal obstruction or nosebleeds

  • active medical problems (unstable seizures orsignificant physical illness e.g. serious liver,renal, or cardiac pathology)

  • sensitivity to preservatives (e.g.chlorobutanol hemihydrate)

  • evidence of a genetic mutation known to causeASD (e.g., fragile X Syndrome)

  • significant hearing or vision impairments

  • habitual consumption of large volumes ofwater

  • pregnant, breastfeeding, or childbirth withinthe last 6 months

  • sexually active female participants not using areliable method of contraception


Location/setting: study was conducted in the Autismand Developmental Disabilities Clinic in theDivision of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry atStanford University, USA
Sample size: 32
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 2/16; 0/18 (1 LTFU, 1withdrew)
Gender: 27 male, 5 female
Mean age: 6‐12 years
IQ: approx 35‐90
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: baseline scores notreported
Concomitant medications: participants were allowed totake concurrent psychotropic medications providedthey do not interact with oxytocin, were on a stabledose before study entry and medication use did notdiffer between groups.
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin): twice‐daily each participantwill have 3 puffs per nostril of 4 IU/puff (24 IUtwice daily) for 4 weeks
Comparator (placebo): placebo nasal spray 3 puffs pernostril of 4 IU/puff (24 IU twice daily) for 4weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 4(endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: June 2012
Study end date: April 2016
Funding: "K.J.P. and A.Y.H. provided funding for theresearch"
Conflicts of interest: "The authors declare noconflict of interest"
Trial registry:NCT01624194
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk"Randomization was performed by an IDS pharmacistusing www.randomization.com, which allocates eachparticipant to an intervention by using the methodof randomly permuted blocks"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low risk"Randomization was performed by an IDS pharmacistusing www.randomization.com, which allocates eachparticipant to an intervention by using the methodof randomly permuted blocks"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskDouble‐blind. Quote: "the research team to remainblinded throughout the trial’s duration"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow risk"This practice allowed the research team to remainblinded throughout the trial’s duration... Atechnician blinded to treatment condition performedsample preparation and OXT quantification followingestablished procedures"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll participants were accounted for.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskSome outcomes from clinicaltrials.gov not reported inthe peer‐reviewed paper
Other biasLow riskNo other sources of bias identified

Parker 2019.

Study characteristics
Methods4‐week trial of vasopressin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • met diagnostic criteria for ASD

  • medically healthy outpatients

  • aged 6‐12.9 years

  • IQ ≥ 50 as determined by the Stanford Binet 5thEdition

  • CGI‐S scale rating of ≥ 4

  • care provider who can reliably bringparticipant to clinic visits, provides trustworthyratings, and interacts with the participant on aregular basis

  • stable concomitant medications for at least 4weeks

  • no planned changes in psychosocialinterventions during the trial

  • willing and able to provide blood samples andundergo ECGs


Exclusion criteria:
  • previous or current use of vasopressin

  • abnormal chemistry result

  • ECG abnormality as determined by the studypediatric cardiologist

  • DSM‐IV‐TR diagnosis of schizophrenia,schizoaffective disorder, or psychoticdisorder

  • regular nasal obstruction or nosebleeds

  • active medical problems: uncontrolled seizuresand physical illness (e.g. serious liver, renal,or cardiac pathology)

  • sensitivity to preservatives (e.g.chlorobutanol)

  • evidence of a genetic mutation known to causeASD (e.g., fragile X syndrome)

  • hearing or vision impairments

  • habitually drinks large volumes of water

  • pregnant, breastfeeding, or childbirth withinthe last 6 months

  • sexually active girls not using a reliablemethod of contraception; negative urine pregnancytest required for girls who'd startedmenstruating.


Location/setting: autism disorders clinic, USA
Sample size: 30
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: 25 male, 5 female
Mean age: 6‐12.9 years of age (outpatients)
IQ: approximately 77‐98
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: baseline ABC‐I 8.29(7.4); baseline QoL 64.53 (13.86)
Concomitant medications: details not provided
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (vasopressin nasal spray): 4 IU twicedaily of vasopressin during week 1 and 8 IU twicedaily of vasopressin during week 2. Participantsaged 6‐9.5 years then received 12 IU twice daily ofvasopressin during weeks 3 and 4, whereasparticipants aged 9.6‐12.9 years received 16 IUtwice daily of vasopressin during weeks 3 and 4.
Comparator (placebo nasal spray): matching placebofor 4 weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:

Secondary outcomes:
  • QoL, measured with parent‐rated PedsQL (WHO 1998)

  • tolerability


Timing of outcome assessments: ABC‐I and QoL weremeasured at baseline and week 4 (endpoint).Participants underwent weekly safety/tolerabilityassessments in the clinic to monitor for AEs.
NotesStudy start date: December 2013
Study end date: May 2017
Funding: various grants to the researchers
Conflicts of interest: financial compensation bypharmaceutical companies and other involvement withpharmaceutical companies
Trial registry:NCT01962870
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskRandomisation was performed by an unblindedinvestigator using a machine‐generated treatmentschedule, which allocated each participant to anintervention.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskResearch team, parents/legal guardians, and childparticipants remained blind throughout the trial'sduration.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskResearch team, parents/legal guardians, and childparticipants remained blind throughout the trial'sduration.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskThere were no dropouts reported and all were includedin the analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskPedsQL and ABC not reported in peer‐reviewed paper.The Overt Aggression Scale was mentioned as anoutcome but not reported.
Other biasLow riskNo other sources identified

Pearson 2013.

Study characteristics
Methods1‐week cross‐over trial of methylphenidate (3 doses)versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children who met DSM‐4‐TR criteria for an ASDon the ADI‐R and ADOS

  • significant symptoms of ADHD


Exclusion criteria:
  • serious neurological disorders (e.g. stroke,seizures)

  • Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, Tourettesyndrome, psychosis, and mood disorders


Location/ setting: University of Texas Medical Schoolat Houston, USA
Sample size: 24
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: details not provided
Mean age: 8.8 years (1.7)
IQ: 85.0 (16.8)
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
Concomitant medications: 7 children were stable onlong‐term (> 3 months) medications that theycontinued (at a constant dose) during the trial:risperidone (n = 3), aripiprazole (n = 1),sertraline (n = 1), bupropion (n = 1), and trazodone(n = 1).
History of previous medications: 13 children hadpreviously taken stimulant medication, which wasdiscontinued 1 week prior to entry into thetrial.
InterventionsIntervention (methylphenidate): each child received 1week each of the four MPH dosing regimens (placebo,low‐dose methylphenidate, medium‐dosemethylphenidate, and high‐dose methylphenidate). Thechildren received Ritalin long‐acting (LA;extended‐release methylphenidate) at breakfast andimmediate‐release methylphenidate in the afternoon,with dosing based on body weight. The meanimmediate‐release methylphenidate per doseequivalents of the Ritalin LA (given in the morning)were 0.21 mg/kg methylphenidate in the low‐dose,0.35 mg/kg in medium‐dose, and 0.48 mg/kg in thehigh‐dose. The immediate‐release methylphenidatedose (given in the afternoon) was approximately halfof each single‐dose equivalent of the morning’sRitalin LA.
Comparator: not described apart from "Participantswill take a placebo for 1 full week of therandomized drug trial. They will take one capsule inthe morning and one capsule in the afternoon."
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
NotesStudy start date: September 2005
Study end date: May 2013
Funding: "This study was funded by grant numberMH072263 from the National Institute of MentalHealth (NIMH)."
Conflicts of interest: "Dr. Pearson and Ms. Mansourhave received travel reimbursement and researchsupport from the Forest Research Institute andCuremark LLC."
Trial registry:NCT00178503
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskNot described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskNot described
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesHigh riskStudy personnel were unblinded to placebo.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesHigh riskStudy personnel were unblinded to placebo.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskReported no dropouts, however 5 of the 24 childrendiscontinued the afternoon immediate‐releasemethylphenidate dose because of behaviour concernsin late afternoon/evening ‐ unclear if ITT
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskPrimary outcome in trial reg not reported ‐ MeanContinuous Performance Test (CPT)‐Commission Errorsby Dose
Other biasLow riskNo other sources of bias identified

Posey 2005.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of methylphenidate versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children aged 5‐14 years

  • diagnosis of autistic disorder, Aspergerdisorder, or PDD‐NOS based on the criteria in theDSM‐4

  • interfering symptoms of hyperactivity and/orimpulsiveness present for at least 6 months andcommenced prior to 7 years of age

  • mental age of at least 18 months


Exclusion criteria:
  • concurrent psychotropic medications

  • other neuropsychiatric disorders that mightrequire alternative medical management

  • significant medical conditions such as heart orliver disease

  • seizures in the past 6 months

  • hypertension

  • treatment with methylphenidate hydrochloridewithin the past 2 years

  • history of severe adverse response tomethylphenidate


Location/setting: 5 centres, Indiana University(Indianapolis), the Kennedy Krieger Institute atJohn Hokins University (Baltimore), The Ohio StateUniversity (Columbus), the University of California(Los Angeles), Yale University (New Haven), USA
Sample size: 66
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 8 exited cross‐overphase, 7 due to AEs (3 from high dose, 3 medium doseand 1 low dose), 1 due to other reasons, withdrawingconsent prior to receiving treatment.
Gender: 59/66 male
Mean age: 7.5 years
IQ: mental age of at least 18 months
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I 16.5
Concomitant medications: no concurrent psychotropicmedications for at least 1‐3 weeks (1 week forstimulants and clonidine hydrochloride; 2 weeks forantidepressants except fluoxetine and citalopramhydrobromide; 3 weeks for fluoxetine, citalopramhydrobromide, or antipsychotics) prior to baselinevisit.
History of previous medications: not described
InterventionsIntervention (methylphenidate) for 4 weeks: dosagelevels were varied depending on the weight of thechild. The low‐dosage level approximate 0.125 mg/kgper dose. The medium‐dosage level approximate 0.250mg/kg per dose. The high‐dosage level approximate0.500 mg/kg per dose. Each participant received 1week placebo and 1 week each of 3 different doses inrandom order (except high dose never followedplacebo). Each dose was received 3 times daily (8am, 12 pm, 4 pm).
Comparator (placebo) for 4 weeks: equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐Isubscale; however, only baseline scoresreported

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: details notprovided
NotesStudy start date: November 2001
Study end date: September 2003
Source of funding: research supported by authors'contracts with National Institute of Mental Health,and grants with various universities, the GeneralClinical Research Centers, National Center forResearch Resources, National Institutes of Health,Bethesda, and by the Korczak Foundation,Amsterdam
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry:NCT00025779
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskRandomisation lists were generated centrally and wereheld by an investigational pharmacist at eachsite.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskClinicians, the patient, and the caregiver were blindto treatment assignment during this phase.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskThe rating clinician was also kept blinded to anyinformation about AEs or changes in vital signs orweight.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskConsistent with ITT principles, all of the data fromparticipants receiving 2 medium doses (owing to theinability to tolerate a high dose) were analysed. Nosignificant differences were found between these 2weeks of receiving the medium dose, so the data werecombined.
LTFU unclear as they did not report for interventionand placebo groups.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskABC‐I was reported in baseline scores however it wasnot reported in the endpoint scores (only ABChyperactivity).
Other biasLow riskNone identified

Quintana 1995.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of methylphenidate versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • participants recruited from the New York StatePsychiatric Institute outpatient clinic

  • DSM‐III‐R criteria for autistic criteria forASD

  • children off neuroleptics for a period of atleast 1 month or if their parents would agree tohave them off neuroleptics for 1 month prior tothe start of the study.


Exclusion criteria:
  • on methylphenidate at any time before entryinto the study

  • history of seizure disorder or other majorneurological or medical illness


Location/setting: USA
Sample size: 10
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: 6 boys, 4 girls
Mean age: 8.5 years
IQ: mean Developmental Quotient was 64.3
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I 11.8
Concomitant medications: participants were requiredto have been off neuroleptics for a period of atleast 1 month prior to the study.
History of previous medications: all the children hadbeen on neuroleptic medications (haloperidole etc)at some point in their lives but had not beenpreviously treated with methylphenidate
InterventionsIntervention (methylphenidate) for 2 weeks: startedat 10 mg/kg twice a day for the 1st week, then 20mg/kg twice a day in the 2nd week
Placebo for 2 weeks: equivalent placebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: unclear
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: not reported
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNo other comments apart from, "These investigators,the children, and the parents were blind to drug anddrug dose."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskNo details
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear risk10 total participants mentioned, without detail as todosage allocation, completion of study andindividual outcome measures
LTFU was not mentioned
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll outcomes measured were reported at baseline andendpoint. Published baseline and endpoint data onall outcome measures
Other biasUnclear riskNo mention of funding sources or conflicts ofinterest

Remington 2001.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of clomipramine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children and adults 10‐36 years

  • DSM‐4 diagnosis of autism

  • recommendation, based on initial assessment, ofpharmacotherapy

  • evidence that haloperidol or clomipramine hadnot been used previously or, if so, that anadequate therapeutic trial was not completed


Exclusion criteria: with the exception of"antiparkinsonian medication in the form ofbenztropine...no other psychotropic medications werepermitted during the study."
Location/setting: "recruited from the Autism andPervasive Developmental Disorder Clinic at theCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, ClarkeDivision, a teaching hospital associated with theUniversity of Toronto." (Canada)
Sample size: 36 (phase 1)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 5 withdrew fromplacebo group because of behaviour; 5 withdrew fromclomipramine group, 2 because of behaviour and AEs,and 3 because of AEs alone
Gender: 31/36 male
Mean age: 16.3 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I 19.0
Concomitant medications: 13/36 were taking othermedications such as trifluoperazine,methylphenidate, fluvoxamine or carbamazepine
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention 1 (clomipramine) for 7 weeks: 25 mg atbedtime for 2 days, 25 mg twice a day for 2 days, 25mg 3 times/day for 2 days, and 50 mg twice a day
Intervention 2 (haloperidol): 0.25 mg at bedtime for2 days, 0.25 mg twice a day for 2 days, 0.25 mg 3times/day for 2 days, and 0.5 mg twice a day
Comparator (placebo) for 7 weeks: placeboequivalent
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: not reported
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: grant from the Ontario MentalHealth Foundation
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry: not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskParticipants were randomly assigned to one of threetreatment groups as part of a Latin square design(clomipramine‐placebo‐haloperidol,placebo‐haloperidol‐clomipramine, andhaloperidol‐clomipramine‐placebo)
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskQuote: "Medications and placebo were packaged insimilar capsules to maintain the double‐blindcomponent"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLTFU clomipramine: 20 in total withdrew:
  • Trial one, 5 withdrew, 2 because of behaviourand AEs, and 3 because of AEs alone.

  • Trial 2: 9 withdrew from clomipramine group; 4due to behaviour, 1 due to AEs and behaviour, 4due to AEs alone

  • Trial 3: 6 withdrew from clomipramine group (3due to behaviour and 3 due to AEs)


LTFU haloperidol: 10 in total withdrew fromhaloperidol group.
  • Trial 1: 3 withdrew, 2 because of AEs and 1because of behaviour and AEs

  • Trial 2: 4 due to AEs, and 2 due tobehaviour

  • Trial 3: 1 due to behaviour and 2 due toAEs


LTFU placebo: 10 in total withdrew
  • Trial 1: 5 because of behaviour

  • Trial 2: 4 due to behaviour

  • Trial 3: 1 due to behaviour

Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskOutcomes including ABC subscales measured every 2weeks, however these results were not reported.
Other biasLow riskNo other sources identified

Research Units 2005.

Study characteristics
Methods8‐week discontinuation phase ofMcCracken 2002study
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • participants who showed a positive response torisperidone in the previous 8‐week controlledtrial (McCracken2002) and 4‐month open‐label trial.

  • Positive response defined as being a 25%reduction on the ABC‐I subscale and a rating ofmuch improved or very much improved on the CGIimprovement scale.


Exclusion criteria: no concomitant treatment withpsychotropic medication was allowed during any phaseof the study, except anticonvulsant treatment forseizure control if the child had been taking astable dose for 4 weeks and had been free ofseizures for 6 months.
Location/setting: the 5 clinical sites included theUniversity of California Los Angeles, Ohio StateUniversity, Indiana University, Yale University, andKennedy Krieger Institute (Johns HopkinsUniversity), USA
Sample size: 38 participants
Number analysed: 32 (16 from each group)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 2 not included in theanalyses however reasons were not provided
Gender: 81% were male in the original McCrackenstudy.
Mean age: 8.6 years
IQ: 73% of participants had a mild to profoundintellectual disabilities
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: following McCrackenstudy ABC‐I was 11.3
Concomitant medications: participants had to be freeof all psychotropic drugs at least 2 weeks prior torandomisation (4 weeks for antipsychotics andfluoxetine).
History of previous medications: details notreported
InterventionsRisperidone for 8 weeks: the maintenance risperidonedose was reduced by 25% each week until only placeboin the fourth week
Placebo for 8 weeks: equivalent placebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: relapse rates, measured in %
Secondary outcomes: none reported. Apart from relapserates, no other outcomes or new data wereprovided.
Timing of outcome assessments: all participants wereseen weekly for a total of 8 weeks in thediscontinuation phase.
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: "NIMH contracts to principalinvestigators Dr McCracken (grant N01 MH‐70010), DrScahill (N01 MH‐70009), Dr McDougle (N01 MH‐70001)and Dr Aman (N01 MH‐80011); NIH Division of ResearchResources General Clinical Research Center grants toIndiana University (M01 RR00750), Johns HopkinsUniversity (M01 RR‐00052), Ohio State University(M01 RR‐00034) and to Yale University (M01RR‐06022). Funding was also received by Dr Scahillfrom the Korczak Foundation and study medicationswere donated by Janssen Pharmaceutica."
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided about outcome assessors orclinicians
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "subjects were randomly assigned again, thistime either to continued risperidone at the samedose or to gradual placebo substitution, in adouble‐blind fashion"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskOnly relapse reported
Other biasUnclear riskDetails not provided

Rezaei 2010.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of topiramate + risperidone versusplacebo + risperidone
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 3‐12 years of age

  • a score of ≥ 6 on DSM‐4‐TR criteria fordiagnosis of autism

  • an ABC‐C Irritability subscale score of ≥ 12 atscreening and baseline


Exclusion criteria:
  • concomitant schizophrenia, psychotic disordersand epilepsy

  • history of drug or alcohol abuse

  • history of tardive dyskinesia

  • any significant medical condition

  • severe or profound intellectual disabilities inwhom a definitive diagnosis of autism could not bemade


Location/setting: paediatric outpatient clinic inIran
Sample size: 40 (20 to each group)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: 27 boys, 13 girls
Mean age: topiramate + risperidone: 8.17 years;placebo + risperidone: 7.85 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: topiramate +risperidone: 17.25; placebo + risperidone: 16.80
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsTopiramate + risperidone for 8 weeks: maximumtopiramate dose of 100 mg/day for children < 30kg or 3‐6 years of age. Maximum of 200 mg/day forchildren 7‐12 years or ≥ 30 kg. Maximum risperidonedose of 2 mg/day for children 10‐40 kg or 3 mg/dayfor children > 40 kg
Risperidone + placebo for 8 weeks: maximumrisperidone of 2 mg/day for children 10‐40 kg or 3mg/day for children > 40 kg
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessment: AEs recorded at weeks1, 2, 4, 6 and 8
NotesStudy start date: April 2008
Study end date: January 2010
Source of funding: grant from Tehran University ofMedical Sciences to Prof Shahin Akhondzadeh (GrantNo: 6550)
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskPatients were randomised to receive topiramate orplacebo in a 1:1 ratio using a computer‐generatedcode.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskThe assignments were kept in sealed, opaque envelopesuntil data analysis.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Throughout the study, the person whoadministered the medications, the rater and thepatients were blind to assignments"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Throughout the study, the person whoadministered the medications, the rater and thepatients were blind to assignments"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskQuote: "Patients will be randomly allocated totopiramate + risperidone (Group A) or placebo +risperidone (Group B) for a 10‐week, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled study" only 8‐weeks of the trialwas reported in the paper
LTFU: none reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskThe ABC and the 5 subscales were the primary outcomemeasure and were reported, however it is unexplainedwhy the Iranian clinical trials website and thepaper are different in terms of length of study."Timepoint weeks 2‐4‐6‐8‐10 after beginning oftrial".
Other biasHigh riskThe Iranian clinical trial website says thattimepoints are weeks 2‐4‐6‐8‐10 after beginning oftrial, however, week 10 is not recorded in the paperand neither is a 2‐week follow‐up period. "Patientswill be randomly allocated to topiramate +risperidone (Group A) or placebo + risperidone(Group B) for a 10‐week, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled study.
The contact author is also on the ethics committee atthe university funding the study and is apeer‐reviewer for one of the journals in which someof their studies are published.

Scahill 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods8‐week parallel trial of guanfacine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 5‐14 years

  • DSM‐4 diagnosis of ASD, asperger's syndrome, orPDD‐NOS

  • minimum score of 24 on the parent‐ratedABC‐hyperactivity subscale and CGI‐S score ofmoderate or greater

  • Anticonvulsant medication for seizures wasallowed if the dose was stable and the participanthad been seizure‐free for at least 6 months

  • IQ of 35 or mental age of ≥ 18 months


Exclusion criteria:
  • children taking a psychotropic treatment deemedineffective were required to be withdrawn from themedication for at least 1 week for stimulants orclonidine, 2 weeks for atomoxetine and mostantidepressants, and 3 weeks for fluoxetine,citalopram, and antipsychotics

  • a significant medical condition by history,physical examination, or laboratory testing

  • a positive pregnancy test

  • lifetime diagnosis of psychosis or bipolardisorder or current diagnosis of major depression,obsessive‐compulsive disorder, or substanceabuse


Setting/ location: University of California (LosAngeles), Emory University, Massachusets GeneralHospital, University of Washington at Seattle, andYale University, USA
Sample size: guanfacine 30; placebo 32
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 4 from guanfacinegroup (2 lack of efficacy, 2 AEs); 4 from placebogroup all due to lack of efficacy
Gender: 26/30 male in guanfacine group; 27/32 male inplacebo group
Mean age: 8.4 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: guanfacine ABC‐I 20.3;placebo 18.06
Concomitant medication: not reported
Previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (guanfacine) for 8 weeks: starting dosefor all children was 1 mg/day. Children < 25kgremained on 1 mg/day until day 14 and then increasedto 2 mg/day until day 28, and increased again to 3mg/day for the remaining 4 weeks. Children 25 kg ormore increased to 2 mg/day at day 7 up to a maximumof 4 mg/day by day 21 or 28 of the trial.
Comparator (placebo) for 8 weeks: placeboadministered for up to 8 weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • Irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessment: weekly for the first 4weeks, then week 6 and week 8
NotesStudy start date: December 2011
Study end date: March 2014
Source of funding: "supported by NIMH grants to Dr.Scahill (R01MH083707), Dr. McDougle (RO1MH83739),Dr.McCracken (RO1MH083747), and Dr. King(R01MH86927); by a Yale Clinical and TransitionalScience Award (UL1 RR024139) from the NIH NationalCenter for Research Resources; and by AtlantaClinical and Translational Science Institute, EmoryUniversity, which is supported by the NIH NationalCenter for Advancing Translational Sciences underaward UL1TR000454. Shire Pharmaceuticals providedactive extended‐release guanfacine and placebo."
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry:NCT01238575
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskQuote: "Using permeated blocks to conceal allocation,eligible subjects were randomly assigned within sitewithout stratification in a 1:1 ratio toextended‐release guanfacine or placebo for 8weeks."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow risk"Two blinded clinicians followed each subject: atreating clinician and an independentevaluator....To protect the blind, the independentevaluator did not discuss adverse effects ordosing".
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "The treatment mask was broken for subjectswho did not show a positive response. The blind wasbroken by the treating clinician, and treatmentstatus was not disclosed to independantevaluators"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskConsort diagram was provided outlining numbers ateach stage of the trial, including the numberanalysed and number that completed the trial. Allrandomly assigned participants were included in theITT analyses.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskAlthough the ABC‐hyperactivity was the primaryoutcome measure, other secondary measures such asthe CGI were not reported.
Other biasUnclear riskShire pharmaceuticals provided activeextended‐release guanfacine and placebo.

Shea 2004.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of risperidone versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male and female outpatients aged 5‐12 years

  • a diagnosis of ASD or PDD according to theDSM‐4

  • "a total score of 30 or more on the ChildhoodAutism Rating Scale (CARS)".


Exclusion criteria:
  • schizophrenia

  • other psychotic disorders

  • clinically relevant non‐neurologic disease

  • clinically significant laboratoryabnormalities

  • seizure disorder for which participants werereceiving > 1 anticonvulsants

  • seizure in the last 3 months


Location/setting: 7 investigational sites inCanada
Sample size: 79 participants
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: risperidone (2total), "1 withdrew because of an adverse event (theresult of an accidental overdose on day 2) and 1withdrew because of insufficient response". Placebo(5 total) "1 withdrew because of an adverse event(an accidental medication overdose on day 16), 2withdrew because of insufficient response, and 2withdrew consent."
Gender: 29/40 boys (risperidone); 32/39 placebo
Mean age: 7.6 years (risperidone, 7.3 years(placebo)
IQ: 14 participants had IQ > 85; 10 had IQ 71‐84,20 had IQ 50‐70, and 22 had IQ 35‐49
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I 18.9 risperidone,21.2 placebo
Concurrent and previous medications: during thetrial, anticholinergics could be initiated to treatemergent extrapyramidal symptoms after theExtrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale (ESRS) had beencompleted. Prohibited medications includedantipsychotics other than the study medication,antidepressants, lithium, _2‐antagonists, clonidine,guanfacine, cholinesterase inhibitors,psychostimulants, and naltrexone. A singleanticonvulsant and/or medications for sleep oranxiety were permitted only in the case in which theparticipant was already taking them at a stable dosefor the 30 days before enrolment. Similarrestrictions were placed on the use of behaviourintervention therapy. Medications for pre‐existingorganic disorders were allowed provided that thedose and schedule of administration were kept asconstant as possible.
InterventionsIntervention (risperidone) for 8 weeks:"risperidone oral solution 1.0mg/mL wasadministered once daily in the morning at0.01mg/kg/day on treatment days 1 and 2 andincreased to 0.02mg/kg/day on day 3. The dose couldbe increased from day 8 by a maximal increment of0.02mg/kg/day. After that, the dose could beadjusted at the investigator's discretion at weeklyintervals by increments/ decrements not to exceed0.02mg/kg/day. The maximal allowable dosage was0.06mg/kg/day. (mean dose 0.06mg/day; mean1.48mg/day)"
Comparator (placebo) for 8 weeks: 1 mg/mL once dailyincreasing to 0.02 mg/kg/day
OutcomesPrimary outcomes
  • Irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • aggression, measured using the Nisonger ChildBehavior Rating Form‐Conduct Problem subscale

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, and weeks 1,2, 3, 5, 7 and 8
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: Janssen‐Ortho Inc, Canada, andJohnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research andDevelopment
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry: not reported
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskInadequate details
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskInadequate details
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskInsufficient details
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskInsufficient details
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskUsed an ITT analysis (participants who had receivedat least 1 dose of study medication)
LTFU: 2 in treatment group withdrew because of AE and1 withdrew due to insufficient response
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskSedation not reported as an AE
Other biasHigh riskStudy authors note that measurements were made 7times throughout the study however only baseline andendpoint data were reported.

Sikich 2013.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of oxytocin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • ASD diagnosis based on DSM‐4 criteria

  • male or female outpatients

  • aged 18‐60 years

  • CGI–S score ≥ 4 (moderately ill)

  • on stable pharmacologic and nonpharmacologictreatments for at least 3 months

  • normal physical examination

  • full‐scale IQ > 70

  • sexually active women had to be on two barriermethods of contraception and no hormonal birthcontrol


Exclusion criteria:
  • prematurity

  • primary axis 1 disorders such as bipolardisorder, psychosis, post‐traumatic stressdisorder, schizophrenia, or major depressivedisorder/ anxiety disorder

  • history of significant neurological diseaseincluding, but not limited to, unstable epilepsydisorder, known genetic syndromes, or knownabnormal brain magnetic resonance imaging, orhistory of malignancy or any significanthaematological, endocrine, cardiovascular(including any rhythm disorder), respiratory,renal, hepatic, or gastrointestinal disease

  • unable to tolerate venipuncture procedures


Location/setting: not stated
Sample size: 25 (12 in oxytocin/oxytocin sequence; 13in placebo/oxytocin)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 1 inoxytocin/oxytocin group due to AEs
Gender: oxytocin 12/12 were male; placebo 11/13 weremale
Mean age: oxytocin 10.6 years; placebo 10.0 years
IQ: oxytocin: 4/12 had IQ < 70; placebo 10/13 hadIQ < 70
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
Concurrent medications: details not provided
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin) for 6 weeks: oxytocin(Syntocinon; NOVARTIS) dosage was up to 32 IU (8intranasal spray puffs) twice‐daily for 6 weeks.Participants aged 3‐10 years titrated up to amaximum dose of 24 IU. Participants aged 11‐17 yearstitrated up to a maximum dose of 32 IU
Comparator (placebo) for 6 weeks: placebo nasalspray
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: not reported
NotesStudy start date: March 2011
Study end date: April 2013
Source of funding: University of North Carolina,Chapel Hill Autism Speaks, USA
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry:NCT01944046
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskQuote: "a computer generated randomization table wascreated by the research pharmacist and used torandomise participants"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "All efficacy assessments were carried out byan independent evaluator who was blinded to bothside effects and group assignment"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll participants were analysed using an ITT analysisand baseline and endpoint QoL scores wererecorded.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe primary and secondary outcomes of interest wererecorded on clinicaltrials.gov and all results wereprovided.
Other biasUnclear riskNo significant differences in gender, race, age.Perhaps a slight difference in IQ ‐ oxytocin group99 (22) and placebo 118 (19) however, several studyauthors are connected to many pharmaceuticalcompanies.

Sikich 2021.

Study characteristics
Methods24‐week parallel trial of oxytocin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 3 years‐17 years 11 months

  • diagnosed ASD, Asperger's syndrome, or PDD‐NOSusing DSM‐5‐TR criteria

  • clinical diagnosis of ASD confirmed using theADOS and ADI‐R; must be within 1 point of autismcriteria on both social and communication domainsof the ADI or meet autism criteria in one of theseADI domains and come within 2 points of autismcriteria in the other

  • guardian or participant able to provideinformed consent


Exclusion criteria:
  • Participants could not have received adiagnosis of the Rett syndrome or childhooddisintegrative disorder, deafness or blindness,active cardiovascular or renal disease, oruncontrolled epilepsy or be pregnant, lactating,or sexually active without contraception

  • Previous daily treatment with intranasaloxytocin for more than 30 days

  • Changes in neuropsychiatric medications werenot allowed within 1 month before randomisation;changes in nonmedication therapies for autismspectrum disorder were not allowed within 2 monthsbefore randomisation


Location/setting: USA
Sample size: oxytocin 146; placebo 144
Reasons for withdraws/dropouts: oxytocin 21 (AEs (5),clinical worsening (3), LTFU (3), participantwithdrew (2), physician decision (1), did not havebaseline ABC‐SW (2), did not have a postbaseline ABCSW (5)); placebo 19 (AEs (2), clinical worsening(2), LTFU (3), participant withdrew (4), physiciandecision (2), did not have a postbaseline ABC SW(6))
Gender: 242 male, 35 female
Mean age: approximately 10.5 years across bothgroups
IQ: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale (mean and SD):oxytocin ABC‐Irritability 10.9 (SD7.83); placebo12.6 (8.94)
Concomitant medications: participants must be onstable psychotropic medication in the month prior toand during the study. Anticonvulsants and stimulantswere allowed.
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin) for 24 weeks: "Eachinsufflation will deliver 8 IU or 24 IU of oxytocin.A maximum of 3 insufflations at a time will berequired. Dosing will be flexible between 8 IU/dayand 80 IU/day, typically in two divided dosesdelivered in the morning and in the afternoon. Doseswill typically increase by 8 IU twice daily (BID) atweek 2 and weeks 4 and 8 until achieving the targetdose of 24 IU BID at week 8. Subsequently doses maybe increased in 8 IU BID increments ONLY at eachvisit until a maximum dose of 40 IU BID isachieved.Each bottle's label will have its ownunique nonsequential randomly assigned number andnot a lot number to facilitate masking".
Comparator (placebo) for 24 weeks: "This nasal spraywill contain all of the ingredients that are in theactive oxytocin spray in the same quantities, exceptoxytocin will NOT be added to the solution. It willbe packaged using the same container system as theactive oxytocin nasal spray. Each bottle's labelwill have its own unique nonsequential randomlyassigned number and not a lot number to facilitatemasking. Dose titration will occur using exactly thesame criteria and procedures as for active studydrug."
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability (measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: endpoint (24weeks)
NotesStudy start date: August 2014
Study end date: June 2017
Funding: “Supported by a grant (U01HD073984) from theEunice Ken[1]nedy Shriver National Institute ofChild Health and Human Development through theAutism Centers of Excellence Program and theDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences atDuke University. The data and safety monitoringboard was funded by a grant (UL1TR002489) from theNational Center for Advancing TranslationalSciences.”
Conflicts of interest: details not provided
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskParticipants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio,by means of a centralised randomisation table
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskParticipants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio,by means of a centralised randomisation table
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskDouble‐blind; "the trial physician, who was unawareof the participant’s trial‐group assignment,completed a physical examination, systematicallyelicited a history of adverse events, verifiedconcomitant treatments, and, at visits after thebaseline visit, assessed current symptoms of autismspectrum disorder using the Clinical GlobalImpressions"
"Scale of Improvement. Parents or guardians completedthe Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC) and thePervasive Developmental Disorders BehaviorInventory–Screening Version (PDDBI‐SV) at eachvisit..."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskDouble‐blind; "the trial physician, who was unawareof the participant’s trial‐group assignment,completed a physical examination, systematicallyelicited a history of adverse events, verifiedconcomitant treatments, and, at visits after thebaseline visit, assessed current symptoms of autismspectrum disorder using the Clinical GlobalImpressions"
"Scale of Improvement. Parents or guardians completedthe Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC) and thePervasive Developmental Disorders BehaviorInventory–Screening Version (PDDBI‐SV) at eachvisit..."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskSeveral exclusions for "not having data" e.g. "2 Hadno baseline ABC‐mSW data"
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskAt least one of the outcomes on trials registry wasnot reported in the paper (CGI)
Other biasLow riskNothing else identified

Soorya 2021.

Study characteristics
Methods6‐month parallel trial of memantine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • verbal outpatients aged 6‐12 years

  • clinical diagnosis of PDD based on the DSM‐4criteria, or a diagnosis of ASD based on the DSM‐5criteria

  • required to have difficulty with motor skillsas per caregiver report during the psychiatricintake interview.

  • stable on all nonpharmacologic treatments for 3months before randomisation and stable on up to 2concomitant psychotropic medications 30 daysbefore randomisation

  • CGI‐S score of ≥ 4 (i.e. moderately ill)

  • ABC‐I subscale score of < 17


Exclusion criteria:
  • born prior to 35 weeks' gestational age

  • any primary psychiatric diagnosis other thanautism at screening

  • history of ADHD, bipolar disorder, psychosis,post‐traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia, ormajor depressive disorder

  • medical history of neurological disease,including, but not limited to, epilepsy/seizuredisorder (except simple febrile seizures),movement disorder, tuberous sclerosis, fragile X,and any other known genetic syndromes, or knownabnormal MRI/structural lesion of the brain

  • a medical condition that might interfere withthe conduct of the study, confound interpretationof the study results, or endanger their ownwell‐being

  • evidence or history of malignancy or anysignificant haematological, endocrine,cardiovascular (including any rhythm disorder),respiratory, renal, hepatic, or gastrointestinaldisease

  • planning to initiate or change pharmacologicalor nonpharmacologic interventions during thecourse of the study

  • on d‐cycloserine or riluzole

  • on agents that alkalinise the urine(acetazolamide, potassium citrate, and sodiumbicarbonate),

  • received treatment with memantine in the pastwith no response

  • history of hypersensitivity reaction todextromethorphan, amantadine, or any other NMDAreceptor antagonists

  • unable to tolerate venipuncture procedures forblood sampling

  • might not be suitable for the study in theInvestigator's opinion

  • weigh < 20 kg (to meet FDA approvals)

  • positive pregnancy test


Location/setting: 2 outpatient clinics in the USA
Sample size: 23 in total (memantine (12); placebo(11))
Reasons for withdrawals/dropouts: 5 in memantinegroup discontinued (AEs (1), time constraints (1),lack of efficacy (2), LTFU (1)); 3 in placebo groupdiscontinued (time constraints (1), AEs (2))
Gender: 20 male, 3 female
Mean age: approximately 9.5 years across bothgroups
IQ: approximately 77 across both groups
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: ABC‐I was < 17at baseline
Concomitant medications: "stable on up to twoconcomitant psychotropic medications 30 days beforerandomization"
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (memantine) for 6 months: "memantinewill be initiated at 3 mg. The dose will beincreased every week by 3 mg for a maximum of 12mgfor subjects weighing ≥ 60kg, 9mg for subjectsweighing ≥ 40 kg but <60 kg, and 6 mg forsubjects weighing ≥ 20 kg but < 40kg."
Comparator (placebo): equivalent placebo for 6months
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: every 2 weeks
NotesStudy start date: December 2011
Study end date: October 2015
Funding:"No funding was received for thisarticle."
Conflicts of interest: study medication was providedthrough an in‐kind contribution from ForestPharmaceuticals. Most of the study authors receivedconsultation fees or other support frompharmaceutical companies.
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskNo information on how the sequence wasgenerated.
Quote: "Participants (n = 23), ages6–12, were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to treatmentwith memantine or placebo by the study pharmacist atthe Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai(original coordinating site)."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskRandomisation process unclear, pharmacist may haveknown the next allocation
Quote: "Participants(n = 23), ages 6–12, were randomized at a 1:1 ratioto treatment with memantine or placebo by the studypharmacist at the Icahn School of Medicine at MountSinai "
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskAll participants and investigators were blind togroup assignment until the blind was broken by thestudy statistician at the end of the study.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskAll participants and investigators were blind togroup assignment until the blind was broken by thestudy statistician at the end of the study.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskLarge attrition from treatment group (near 50%),denominator unclear for outcomes reported
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAppears to match registry
Other biasHigh riskStudy medication was provided through an in‐kindcontribution from Forest Pharmaceuticals.

Sprengers 2021.

Study characteristics
Methods13‐week parallel trial of bumetanide versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 7‐15 years of age

  • clinical diagnosis of autism

  • IQ of at least 55


Exclusion criteria:
  • IQ < 55

  • psychoactive medication use < 8 weeks priorto screening visit (except chronic melatonintreatment)

  • start of any new therapy for developmentaldisorder problems (e.g. cognitive behavioraltherapy)

  • comorbid neurological disorders, chronic renaldisease, unstable serious illness

  • use of nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs

  • documented history of hyper‐sensitivityreaction to sulphonamide derivatives


Location/setting: a tertiary hospital in theNetherlands
Mean age: 10.5 years
Mean IQ: 101
Gender: bumetanide 68% male; placebo 69% male
Sample size: 47 randomised to bumetanide group, 45randomised to placebo group
Reasons for dropouts: 4 participants (2 from eachgroup) discontinued prior to collecting the firstoutcome data. "One participant in the placebo armstopped because of nonspecific somatic complaintsand another because of intractable resistance tovenipunctures. The two discontinued treatments inthe bumetanide arm were because of inability toadhere to potassium supplementation and one becauseof a school crisis requiring immediate psychiatricintervention."
Baseline ABC‐Irritability scores: bumetanide 14.3(8.2); placebo 14.5 (7.9)
Concomitant medications: details not provided
Previous medications: 30% had received stimulants and6% antipsychotics in the bumetanide group while 24%and 11% from the placebo group had receivedstimulants and antipsychotics respectively.
InterventionsIntervention (bumetanide) for 13 weeks: twice dailybumetanide liquid with a concentration of 0.5 mg/mLfor 91 days (13 weeks). The mean dose of bumetanidewas 0.0482 mg/kg/day.
Comparator (placebo) for 13 weeks: twice dailyplacebo liquid with a concentration of 0.5 mg/mL
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:

Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, day 4, day7, day 14, day 28, day 56, day 91 (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: June 2016
Study end date: December 2018
Funding: "The study was funded by the NetherlandsOrganisation for Health Research and Development(ZonMw; GGG ‐ #836041015)"
Conflicts of interest: some study authors receivedgrants for other studies.
Trial registry: details not provided
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskThe sequence was generated with restrictedrandomisation using permuted block design with blocksizes randomly varying from 2 to 4 to 6participants
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskUndistinguishable medication kits were numberedaccordingly by Neurochlore, the company who providedthe study medication, and were shipped to the localtrial pharmacy where a sealed copy of therandomisation sequence was stored for emergencyunmasking.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskParticipants, parents, healthcare providers, andoutcome assessors were masked for randomisation.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskTo secure masking of the outcome assessors forpossible (diuretic) side effects of bumetanide,medical checks and handling of AEs during thetreatment and wash‐out phase were performed by ateam at the paediatric nephrology department of thenearby Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital who were alsomasked for randomisation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskModified ITT with a high (relative) number of dubiousexclusions.
Quote: "Outcome measures of sixparticipants had to be excluded from analysis. Oneparticipant appeared to have started extensivedyslexia training during the medication phase. Theoutcomes of the other five participants wereexcluded because parents explicitly mentionedunreliable reporting on outcome measures due tostress of, for example, pending divorce lawsuits orconflicts to obtain access to health careprovisions."
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskPrespecified primary outcomes reported (SocialResponsiveness Scale‐2 at 91 days)
Other biasLow riskNo obvious other sources of bias

Squassante 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods12‐week parallel trial of balovaptan versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • men 18‐45 years of age

  • met the criteria for ASD based on both theDSM‐5 and ICD‐10

  • CGI‐S score ≥ 4, Social Responsiveness Scale‐2T score ≥ 66

  • IQ ≥ 70

  • language, hearing, and vision capabilitiescompatible with completion of study measurements,as judged by the investigator

  • have lived with or have had substantial periodsof contact with a caregiver willing and able toattend on‐site assessments, oversee participantcompliance, and report on participant status viacompletion of study assessments


Exclusion criteria:
  • alcohol and/or substance abuse/dependenceduring the last 12 months

  • significant risk for suicidal behaviour, in theopinion of the investigator

  • systolic blood pressure > 140 or < 90 mmHg, and diastolic blood pressure > 90 or <50 mm Hg; resting pulse rate > 90 or < 40beats per minute

  • use of prohibited medications (includingoxytocin and carbamazepine) or herbal remedieswithin 2 weeks prior to randomisation, or 5half‐lives (whichever is longer)

  • initiation of a new major change inpsychological intervention within 4 weeks prior torandomisation

  • participation in an investigational drug ordevice study within 60 days prior torandomisation


Location/setting: 26 sites across USA
Sample size: placebo (5), balovaptan 1.5 mg (32),balovaptan 4 mg (77), balovaptan 10 mg (39)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: missing postbaselineefficacy assessment placebo (3), balovaptan 1.5 mg(2), balovaptan 4 mg (4), balovaptan 10 mg (1)
Gender: all paticipants were male
Mean age: placebo 24.7 (6.3); balovaptan 1.5 mg 28.2(7.8); balovaptan 4.0 mg 24.5 (6.6); balovaptan 10mg 23.9 (5.0)
IQ: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: baseline scores notreported
Concomitant medications: "before enrollment andthroughout the study, 81 to 86% of participantsacross treatment groups were on concomitantpharmacological treatments, with the most commonbeing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (28 to35% across groups). Antipsychotic agents were takenby 15 to 28% of participants across treatmentgroups, and central nervous system stimulants weretaken by 13 to 26% of participants. There were noimbalances in the percentage of participants takingpsychotropic drugs across the treatment arms."
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (balovaptan) for 12 weeks: 1.5 mg, 4.0mg, or 10 mg: balovaptan or placebo was administeredorally daily for 12 weeks, with the first dose onday 1 after predose and baseline assessments, with a6‐ to 7‐week follow‐up period after the last dose.Study medication was provided as balovaptan 0.5‐,4‐, and 5‐mg hard capsules or matching placebocapsules.
Comparator (placebo) for 12 weeks: matchingplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability (change from baseline), measuredusing the ABC‐Irritability subscale (Aman 1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: QoL, measured using the PedsQL(WHO1998)
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and week 12(endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: February 2013
Study end date: February 2017
Funding: "Funding was provided by F. Hoffmann‐LaRoche Ltd. for the study and third‐party writingassistance, which was provided by Dinakar Sambandan,PhD, of Envision Pharma Group".
Conflicts of interest: the majority of the studyauthors were employees of the funder (F.Hoffmann‐LaRoche Ltd.).
Trial registry:NCT01793441
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskParticipants, site personnel, and the sponsor wereblinded to treatment assignments, with the exceptionof the individual responsible for pharmacokineticdata analysis and the internal monitoringcommittee/scientific oversight committee forspecified data reviews.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskParticipants, site personnel, and the sponsor wereblinded to treatment assignments, with the exceptionof the individual responsible for pharmacokineticdata analysis and the internal monitoringcommittee/scientific oversight committee forspecified data reviews.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskLow attrition
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskPercentage of participants with suicidality, asmeasured by the Columbia‐Suicide Severity RatingScale (C‐SSRS) was a primary outcome on trial reg(NCT01793441) but is not reported.
Doesn'treport PedsQL at baseline.
Other biasHigh riskPharma company funded the study and was involved inthe analysis. 'F. Hoffmann–La Roche AG, Basel,Switzerland provided support for the study andparticipated in the study design, conducted thestudy, undertook data collection, management, andinterpretation as well as preparation, review, andapproval of the manuscript. Funding was provided byF. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd. for the study andthird‐party writing assistance, which was providedby K. H. Condon of Envision Pharma Group'

Takamitsu 2015a.

Study characteristics
Methods6‐week cross‐over trial of oxytocin versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • diagnosis of ASD

  • male

  • full‐scale IQ (480)

  • aged 18–55 years


Exclusion criteria:
  • any history of allergic responses to oxytocin,seizures, traumatic brain injury with any knowncognitive consequences, loss of consciousness formore than 5 min, and substance abuse oraddiction.

  • current instability of comorbid psychiatricsymptoms and contraindications on MRI scanning


Location/setting: outpatient clinic of The Universityof Tokyo Hospital, Japan
Sample size: oxytocin‐placebo (10), placebo‐oxytocin(10)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: oxytocin‐placebo (1),placebo‐oxytocin (1) ‐ both due toself‐termination
Gender: all participants were male
Mean age: oxytocin‐placebo = 35.1, placebo‐oxytocin =29.3
IQ: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: oxytocin‐placebo QoL3.25 (0.65); placebo‐oxytocin 2.68 (0.82)
Concomitant medications: details not provided
History of previous medications: "moreover, acomparable effect size was also seen inpsychotropic‐free participants after excluding oneparticipant with continual medication ofserotonin‐norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for hisrecurrent major depression (d = 0.74)."
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin) for 6 weeks: the participantsreceived oxytocin (24 IU, Syntocinon‐Spray;Novartis) in the morning and afternoon over 6consecutive weeks (i.e. 48 IU/day).
Comparator (placebo) for 6 weeks: in the same way (24IU placebo Syntocinon‐Spray; Novartis) in themorning and afternoon over 6 consecutive weeks (i.e.48 IU/day).
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: none reported
Secondary outcomes: QoL (WHO‐QoL) (WHO 1998)
NotesStudy start date: March 2012
Study end date: April 2013
Funding: "A part of this study is a result of the‘Development of biomarker candidates for socialbehaviour’ project under the Strategic ResearchProgram for Brain Sciences by the MEXT (K.K. andH.Y.) and the Centre of Innovation Program fromJapan Science and Technology Agency (HY)".
Conflicts of interest: "The authors declare noconflict of interests".
Trial registry: UMIN000007122
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskComputer‐generated randomised order
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskQuote: "The manager completely covered the bottlelabels to keep drug types unknown to allparticipants, their families, experimenters,clinicians and assessors including ADOSadministrators and assessors"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskDetails not provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll participants were accounted for and included inthe analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskPrimary outcome measures reported per trial reg ‐https://rctportal.niph.go.jp/en/detail?trial_id=UMIN000007122
Other biasLow riskNo other sources of bias identified

Troost 2005.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel discontinuation trial of risperidone versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 5‐17 years

  • weighed at least 15 kg

  • mental age of at least 18 months

  • required to demonstrate clinically significanttantrums, aggression, self‐injurious behaviour, ora combination

  • ineffective medications were graduallywithdrawn in a 7‐28‐day wash‐out period. In thecase of comorbid ADHD, stimulants were allowed tobe continued, provided that no changes in doseduring the study would occur.


Exclusion criteria: on effective psychotropic drugtreatment for disruptive behaviour
Location/setting: "study participants were recruitedfrom Groningen and Utrecht University Child andAdolescent Psychiatry Centres", the Netherlands
Sample size: 24
Number of withdrawals/dropouts:
Gender: 22/24 were male
Mean age: risperidone 9 years; placebo 8 years
IQ: mental age of ≥ 18 months
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I risperidone 11.1,placebo 12.7
Concomitant medications: provided that no changes indose during the study would occur. Anticonvulsantsused for the treatment of a seizure disorder werepermitted if the dose had been stable for at least 4weeks and the patient was seizure‐free for at least6 months. 20/24 were not taking any medicationsconcurrently. 3 were on stimulants and 1 was onstimulants and anticonvulsants.
History of previous medications: 19/24 had notreceived any prior psychotropic drugs, 3 had been onstimulants, 1 on antipsychotics and 1 on a stimulantand anticonvulsant.
InterventionsIntervention (risperidone) for 8 weeks: risperidonemean daily dose of 1.8 mg/day or maximum daily doseof 2.5 mg (children weighing < 45 kg) or 3.5 mg(children ≥ 45 kg)
Comparator (placebo) for 8 weeks:"for theplacebo group, entry doses were reduce by 25% perweek for 3 consecutive weeks. After full placebosubstitution, the placebo group remained on placebofor 8 weeks."
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • rate of relapse (defined as 25% increase inABC‐I scores), measured in %


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: weekly during thediscontinuation phase
NotesStudy start date: details not reported
Study end date: details not reported
Source of funding: "Korczak Foundation" ‐ EBMHpublication
Conflicts of interest: "Dr. Buitelaar is a paidconsultant to or has received support from JanssenCilag BV, Abbott, VCB, Shire, Medice, and Eli Lilly;Dr. Minderaa is a paid consultant to Eli Lilly andJanssen Cilag BV; and Dr. Scahill is a paidconsultant to Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc.,Bristol‐Myers Squibb, and Pfizer."Study medicationswere donated by Janssen Cilag BV."
Trial registry: not reported.
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskThe randomisation sequence was generated by anoutside vendor and was stratified by investigationalsite.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskRisperidone and placebo were supplied by thepharmacist at each site as matching capsules inidentical packages.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskPatients, parents and evaluators all were unaware ofassignment to placebo or risperidone.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskPatients, parents and evaluators all were unaware ofassignment to placebo or risperidone.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskSedation was not reported as an AE. No LTFU reportedby the study authors.
ITT analysis: an ITT analysis was used for allparticipants enroled by using the LOCF for allmeasures.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskThe ABC‐I scores were reported in full for both theopen‐label and discontinuation phases of the trial.However, the CGI scores were only reported atbaseline.
Other biasHigh riskDr. Buitelaar is a paid consultant to or has receivedsupport from Janssen Cilag BV, Abbott, VCB, Shire,Medice, and Eli Lilly; Dr. Minderaa is a paidconsultant to Eli Lilly and Janssen Cilag BV; andDr. Scahill is a paid consultant to JanssenPharmaceutica Inc., Bristol‐Myers Squibb, andPfizer.
Only 8/24 with autism were in discontinuation phasedespite title mentioning ASD.
Baseline ABC‐I was relatively low.

Umbricht 2017.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over study of vasopressin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • men

  • aged 18–45 years

  • diagnosis of autistic disorder (DSM‐4‐TR)

  • IQ > 70

  • ABC‐I subscale score ≤ 13

  • existing medication regimens should be stablefor 4 weeks, with the intent to remain stablethroughout the study

  • a reliable caregiver, able and willing toprovide information regarding the participant’sbehaviour and symptoms


Exclusion criteria:
  • positive urine test for drugs of abuse oralcohol and/or substance abuse/dependence duringthe last 12 months

  • significant risk of suicidal behaviour

  • disruptive, aggressive or self‐injurious, orsexually inappropriate behaviour during the last 3months

  • uncontrolled or any unstable medical conditionother than ASD (e.g. diabetes) that mightinterfere with the study, or endanger theparticipant's well‐being

  • treatment with prohibited medications and notwilling to cease treatment for the minimum timeperiod before randomisation.


Location/setting: multicenter (3 sites, universitiesin the USA)
Sample size: first phase vasopressin followed byplacebo, 9 were randomised first phase; placebofollowed by RG7713, 10 were randomised. 1participant was excluded from the vasopressinanalysis.
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: all participants were male
Mean age: 23.4 years (5.1)
IQ: 100 (14.5)
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: intervention ABC‐I 3.0(3.9); placebo 3.0 (3.9)
Concomitant medications: prohibited medicationsincluded all medications except those for ongoingtreatment of symptoms of irritability, mooddisorders, anxiety and hypertension, andparacetamol/acetaminophen for treatment of AEs.CYP3A4 inhibitors and inducers, or P‐gp substratesmust not be taken ≤ 4 weeks before the study.
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsVasopressin‐placebo: sequence 1. Participantsreceived a single dose of 20 mg vasopressin duringtreatment visit 1 followed by placebo duringtreatment visit 2. "A single 20 mg dose ofvasopressin or placebo was administeredintravenously as a 2‐h infusion to each subject ontwo different days (treatment visits 1 and 2)separated by a 7–14‐ day washout period."
Placebo‐vasopressin: sequence 2. Participantsreceived a single dose of placebo followed byvasopressin.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes:
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and at theend of each phase of cross‐over study
NotesStudy start date: December 2011
Study end date: March 2013
Source of funding: the study was funded by apharmaceutical company (F. Hoffmann‐La Roche) andthe drug was also supplied by this company.
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry:NCT01474278
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear risk"Subjects were randomized to sequence 1 or 2 using arandomized treatment schedule that was developed bythe study sponsor for each site and incorporatedinto double‐blind (investigator and subject)treatment labelling"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow risk"Subjects were randomized to sequence 1 or 2 using arandomized treatment schedule that was developed bythe study sponsor for each site and incorporatedinto double‐blind (investigator and subject)treatment labeling."
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow risk"Subjects were randomized to sequence 1 or 2 using arandomized treatment schedule that was developed bythe study sponsor for each site and incorporatedinto double‐blind (investigator and subject)treatment labeling."
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskAll were included in the analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskABC‐I was reported at baseline but only total ABC wasreported at endpoint.
Other biasHigh riskThe study was funded by pharma companies and the drugwas also supplied by them.

Unis 2002.

Study characteristics
Methods4‐week parallel study of secretin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children aged 3‐12 years

  • DSM‐4 diagnosis of autism or PDD‐NOS

  • non‐verbal IQ of > 55


Exclusion criteria:
  • any other medical condition "for which autismwas considered symptomatic (for example Fragile X,or tuberous sclerosis)"

  • previously been in receipt of secretin

  • been on psychotropic drug treatments within thepast 6 months

  • children with any known pork allergies


Setting: not described
Sample size: 85
Number of dropouts: 4 participants discontinued, theinfusion was not given (2), decided against theinfusion (1), did not return for follow‐upassessment (1). Another child developed illness anda fever after infusion and did not complete thestudy.
Mean age: 6.5 years
Gender: details not provided
IQ: mean IQ of 55
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: scores were > 57 atbaseline
Concomitant medications: psychotropic medicationswere not permitted during the study or in the 6months prior to the study except for "occasionalsymptomatic use for sleep, etc"
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (secretin): single infusion of 0.4 ug/kgsynthetic secretin given intravenously over a2‐minute period, or single infusion of 2 CU/kgbiologic secretin given intravenously over a2‐minute period
Comparator (placebo): single infusion of placebointravenously over a 2‐minute period
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: ABC‐I (change from baseline) (Aman 1985)
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and week 4(endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: June 1999
Study end date: May 2000
Funding: "Unis, Munson, Abbott, and Dawson weresupported by a grant from the NICHD and the NIDCD(PO1HD34565). Dr. Rogers was supported by a grantfrom the NICHD (PO1HD35468). Drs. Rogers, Gabriels,and Goldson were also supported by ADD grant90dd041401 and MCH grant MCJ08941301. Dr. Goldsonwas also supported by a grant from the NCRR(MO1‐RR00069)".
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Trial registry:NCT00065962
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskQuote: "Children were then randomly assigned totreatment group"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskQuote: "Children were then randomly assigned totreatment group"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "parents, teachers and investigators were allblind to treatment (allocation)"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "parents, teachers and investigators were allblind to treatment (allocation)"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh risk5 participants were reported to have not completedthe study however only 77/85 results were reportedfor ABC‐I. Up to 40% missing data (see table 1) forteacher‐reported ABC‐I
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskOutcome measures included in trials registryreported
Other biasHigh riskAll participants were responders to secretin fromprevious open‐label trial

VanAndel 2022.

Study characteristics
Methods13‐week parallel trial of bumetanide versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • current ASD, ADHD (according to DSM‐4‐TR orDSM‐5 criteria), and/or epilepsy diagnosis

  • aged 5–15 years

  • IQ ≥ 55

  • diagnosis accompanied by altered sensoryreactivity, defined as a deviant score (> 1 SDdeviant) on the Sensory Profile for parents orteachers (SP‐NL or SP‐SC)

  • use of concomitant psychoactive andantiepileptic drugs (AED) was allowed, when beingtaken on an unadjusted dosage at least 2 monthsprior to baseline measures


Exclusion criteria:
  • renal or liver insufficiency

  • serious unstable illnesses (includinggastroenterological, respiratory, cardiovascular,endocrinologic, immunologic, haematologic disease,dehydration or hypotension, electrolytedisturbances)

  • treatment with nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatorydrugs, aminoglycosides, digitalis,antihypertensive agents, indomethacin, probenecid,acetazolamide, lithium, other diuretics,stimulants (like methylphenidate anddexamphetamine, due to it assumed diametricaleffects), and drugs known to have a nephrotoxicpotentia

  • children were allowed to receive care as usualwhen it was initiated minimally 2 months prior tobaseline measures


Location/setting: The Netherlands
Sample size: 38 (19 to each group)
Reasons for withdrawals/dropouts: 4 in each groupdropped out (bumetanide: discontinued treatment (3),excluded due to incomplete parent reports (1);placebo group discontinued treatment (2), excludeddue to incomplete or unreliable parent reports(2))
Gender: 22 male, 8 female
Mean age: bumetanide group 10.9 years, placebo group8.7 years
IQ: approx 99 in both groups
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: bumetanide group13.1, placebo group 17.1
Diagnoses: 22/30 participants had an ASD diagnosis,of whom 15 only had an ASD diagnosis (another 6 hadASD and ADHD, and 1 participant had ASD andepilepsy)
Concomitant medications: during the trial 68.4% inboth groups did not receive any other medications.Of those who were taking other medications 15.8% inbumetanide group and 5.3% in placebo group weretaking antipsychotics; 5.3% in placebo group weretaking a benzodiazepine in addition to anantipsychotic; 15.8% in the placebo group weretaking an anticonvulsant; 10.5% in the bumetanidegroup were taking an SSRI; and 5.3% in both groupswere taking an SSRI in addition to anantipsychotic.
Previous medications: 47.4% in both groups did nottake medications prior to the trial. Of those whotook medications 21.1% in bumetanide group and 10.5in placebo group were taking antipsychotics; 5.3% inthe placebo group were taking a benzodiazepine; 5.3%and 31.6% in the bumetanide and placebo groupsrespectively were taking an anticonvulsant; 10.5%and 5.3% in the bumetanide and placebo groupsrespectively were taking an SSRI; 31.6% and 26.3% inthe bumetanide and placebo groups respectively weretaking stimulants; 5.3% and 10.5% in the bumetanideand placebo groups respectively were taking an alphaadrenergic agonist.
InterventionsIntervention (bumetanide) for 13 weeks: maximum of 1mg bumetanide twice daily followed by a 28‐daywashout period
Comparator (placebo) for 13 weeks: equivalent placebotwice daily followed by a 28‐day washout period
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability (measured using the ABC‐Isubscale) (Aman1985)

  • AEs

  • self injurious behaviour (measured using theRepetitive Behaviour Scale self‐injury subscale)(Bodfish2000)


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: AEs were monitored ondays 4, 7, 14, 28, 56, 91, and 119; other outcomeswere measured at day 91 (endpoint) and day 119following washout
NotesStudy start date: June 2017
Study end date: June 2019
Funding: "This study was supported by a grant fromDutch Brain Foundation (Hersenstichting#HA2015‐01‐04)."
Conflicts of interest: HB (the contact author) hasreported being a shareholder of Aspect NeuroprofilesBV, which provides EEG‐analysis services forclinical trials. The remaining authors declare thatthe research was conducted in the absence of anycommercial or financial relationships that could beconstrued as a potential conflict of interest.
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk"Sequence generation, concealment, and treatmentallocation was overseen by a third‐party notinvolved in the study (i.e., Julius Center, aconsultant support agency for clinical research andtrials located in the UMC Utrecht). Restrictedrandomization was used with permuted block designrandomly varying between two, four, and sixparticipants. Treatment allocation was doneautomatically using minimization with a probabilityof 0.75 on the participant factors active epilepsy(y/n), IQ (55–75; 76–110; >110) and study center(UMC/Jonx)"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low risk"Sequence generation, concealment, and treatmentallocation was overseen by a third‐party notinvolved in the study"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskParticipants, parents, healthcare providers, andoutcome assessors were blinded for randomisation
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskParticipants, parents, healthcare providers, andoutcome assessors were blinded for randomisation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh risk> 25% dropout, "one participant was excluded fromanalyses as questionnaires were not reliable"
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskCan't find outcomes on either trial reg (EudraCTtrial registry (2016‐002875‐81) and Dutch trialregistry (NL6178)
Other biasLow riskFunder had no role in the design of the study andcollection, analysis, and interpretation of data andin writing the manuscript

Veenstra‐VanderWeele 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods12‐week parallel trial of arbaclofen versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • current diagnosis of ASD

  • CGI‐S score of moderate or higher at time ofscreening and baseline before randomisation

  • stable medications for at least 4 weeks priorto the study

  • seizure‐free for at least 6 months and be onanticonvulsants or seizure‐free for three yearswithout taking anticonvulsants

  • any non‐pharmacological interventions must havebeen continuing for at least 2 months prior to thestudy.


Exclusion criteria:
  • participants with other conditions includingdrug or alcohol abuse

  • plan to change interventions during thestudy

  • have taken other investigational drugs in thepast 30 days

  • unable to take oral medications

  • an allergy or intolerance to arbaclofen


Location/setting: 25 sites across USA
Sample size: 150 were randomised, arbaclofen 76,placebo 74
Mean age: 11.6 years (range 5‐21 years)
Mean IQ: IQ > 70 in approximately 50% ofparticipants
Gender: arbaclofen 63% were male; placebo 61% weremale
Baseline ABC‐I scores: arbaclofen group 17.2; placebo15.6
Reasons for dropouts: arbaclofen 15 discontinued(LTFU (1), AEs (8), protocol violation (1), withdrewconsent (4), other (1)). Placebo 5 discontinued (AE(2), withdrew consent (2), other (1))
Concomitant medications: arbaclofen 14 were onconcomitant psychoactive medication; placebo: 12were on concomitant psychoactive medication
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (arbaclofen) for 12 weeks: starting doseof arbaclofen was 5 mg twice daily increasing to 10mg twice daily up to a maximum dose of 10 mg 3 timesdaily for children < 12 years. Children ≥ 12years could have 15 mg 3 times daily
Comparator (placebo) for 12 weeks: matching placebotablets
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • ABC‐I (change from baseline) (Aman 1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and week 12(endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: May 2011
Study end date: September 2012
Funding: Seaside Therapeutics (pharmaceuticalcompany)
Conflicts of interest: various study authors receivedfunding from and consulted with pharmaceuticalcompanies.
Trial registry:NCT01288716
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low riskParticipants were randomised 1: 1 to eitherarbaclofen or placebo according to a centrallygenerated randomisation list, with stratification byage (5–11 or 12–21 years) and concomitant use ofpsychoactive medication.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Blinding was maintained by utilizingidentical tablets containing either STX209 orplacebo"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskApart from "Double‐blinded" details were notprovided.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskLarge dropout (20%) with many dropping out intreatment group due to AEs
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskSame primary outcome on trial reg
Other biasHigh riskFunded by Seaside Therapeutics and the team hasinterests in a range of pharma companies

Wasserman 2006.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of levetiracetam versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 5‐17 years (average age 8.72years)

  • diagnosis of autism according to DSM‐4criteria


Exclusion criteria:
  • responding well to previous interventions orhad only mild global severity

  • having DSM‐4 psychotic disorders, a history ofseizures, and any clinically significant medicalillness

  • free of any psychotropic medications for 4weeks before participation

  • no concomitant psychiatric medications orinitiation of new behavioral therapies was allowedduring the study


Location/ Setting: autism centre, USA
Sample size: 20 (10 in each group)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 1 from placebo groupdropped out due to increased hyperactivity and 1dropped out of levetiracetam group after having aseizure, and another due to lack of efficacy.
Gender: 8 male levetiracetam group, 9 male in placebogroup
Mean age: 8.72
IQ: 75.75
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reportedadequately
Concomitant medications: patients were free of anypsychotropic medications for 4 weeks beforeparticipation and no concomitant psychiatricmedications or initiation of new behavioraltherapies was allowed during the study.
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (levetiracetam) for 10 weeks: commencedat 125 mg/day up to maximum of 20‐30 mg/kg/day (meanmaximum dose 862.50 ± 279.19 mg/day)
Comparator (placebo) for 10 weeks: equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: ABC‐I (although not reported)
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: assessed weekly forfirst 4 weeks then bi‐weekly for next 6 weeks
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: supported by a grant from UCBPharma
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskQuote: "Levetiracetam and placebo were distributed inidentical forms" no further details
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided. Only that it wasdouble‐blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskPrimary outcomes were the CGI and the parent andteacher‐rated ABC subscales. Data were not supplied,only "there were no significant findings on ABCsubscale of irritability" (and Z score, SE, and Pvalue provided).
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskABC‐I baseline not reported, and endpoint figuresonly reported as standard score, rather than bygroup.
Other biasUnclear riskStudy supported by pharmaceutical company ‐ natureand extent of their involvement is unclear

Willemsen‐Swinkels 1995.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of naltrexone versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 18‐46 years

  • meet the DSM‐III‐R criteria for autisticdisorder

  • social impairment had to be more serious thancould be expected on the basis of the level ofintellectual disability


Exclusion criteria: details not provided
Location/setting: the Netherlands
Sample size: 33
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: one 28‐year old woman(with autism and self‐injurious behaviour)"manifested an acute and severe increase in SIB andacting out behavior. She had to be isolated forseveral weeks, and her condition improved onlygradually after naltrexone treatment was stopped andlithium treatment was instituted"
Gender: 27 men, 6 women
Mean age: 29 years
IQ: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not an outcome
Concomitant medications: details not provided
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (naltrexone) for 4 weeks:after 2weeks of placebo capsule taken once daily,naltrexone hydrochloride was given at 100 mg (mean1.61 (0.24) mg/kg) in 1 dose at the start of week 3.For the remainder of that week, the participantreceived a placebo capsule every morning. From week4, naltrexone was given at 50 mg per day for 4weeks. This was followed by a 4‐week washout periodthen cross‐over to continue on placebo.
Comparator (placebo) for 4 weeks: matching placebotablets
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: participants wereobserved twice at baseline, 6 and 24 h after thesingle‐dose administration, and after 2 and 4 weeksof daily treatment
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: Janusz Korczak Foundation,Huizen
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided apart from "double‐blindingused"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesHigh riskTreatment doses were changed for second cross‐overphase after review of outcome measures, implyingthat assessors or investigators knew which group wasbeing given naltrexone in first phase ‐ i.e. notblinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear risk1 participant didn't complete trial due to AEsdetailed ‐ data were excluded due to earlydiscontinuation (week 2 of 16)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)High riskSelf‐injurious behaviour was measured using theABC‐Stereotypies subscale. The authors mention that"it included three items on SIB". Incorrect. TheABC‐Stereotypies subscale does not.
Other biasHigh riskActive treatment was provided in part by employee ofpharmaceutical company. Nature of funding supportunclear. Participant details were not provided interms of age, gender, diagnosis, rate of SIB etc, inaddition to incorrectly claiming to have assessedSIB using the ABC

Willemsen‐Swinkels 1996.

Study characteristics
MethodsCross‐over trial of naltrexone versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children aged 3‐7 years

  • either outpatients of the Department of ChildPsychiatry of the Utrecht University or members ofthe Dutch Autism Association

  • met the DSM‐III‐R criteria for autisticdisorder


Exclusion criteria: details not provided
Location/ Setting: the Netherlands
Sample size: 20 total (23 originally randomised)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 2 children wereexcluded from analysis because "they had taken upthe habit of chewing the capsules", and 1participant dropped out after the first treatmentdue to parents withdrawing consent.
Gender: 16 male, 4 female
Mean age: 5.5 years
IQ: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: naltrexone ABC‐I 18.5,placebo 14
Concomitant medications: participants were free ofpsychotropic drugs for at least 6 weeks before thestudy. 1 participant with epilepsy was treated withcarbamazepine in a fixed dosage during the studyperiod. None of the participants had previously beentreated with psychotropic drugs.
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (single‐dose naltrexone) for 4 weeks:naltrexone was given at 40 mg (approximately 2mg/kg) in a single‐dose capsule. After 11 weeks,this group was given a placebo in a matched capsule.Long‐term daily dose study 1996: after a 2‐weekbaseline period, naltrexone was given at 20 mg perday (approximately 1 mg/kg) over 4 weeks, with theexception of 1 participant with the weight of 42 kgwho was given 40 mg per day over 4 weeks.
Comparator (placebo) for 4 weeks: matching placebotablet was given daily over 4 weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability, measured using theABC‐Irritability subscale (Aman 1985)
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: 2 weeks beforebaseline, baseline, day 1 and day 2 (for eachphase)
NotesStudy start date: details not reported
Study end date: details not reported
Source of funding: supported by Janusz KorczakFoundation. Du Pont Pharma supplied part of the drugrequired.
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskFurther details not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskFurther details not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh riskBaseline ABC‐I scores were significantly higher inthe naltrexone group compared to placebo.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskResults only graphically presented
Other biasHigh riskOnly single dosage used. Active treatment supplied inpart by pharmaceutical company. The nature offoundation support is unclear.

Wink 2016.

Study characteristics
MethodsParallel trial of N‐acetylcysteine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 4‐12 years

  • diagnosis of autistic disorder, Asperger'sdisorder, or PDD NOS

  • if taking concomitant psychotropic medicationsthe medication must be at a constant dose for 60days with no dose changes planned for the durationof the trial

  • able to swallow capsules


Exclusion criteria:
  • presence of any medical condition thatsignificantly increases risk or hampers assessment(e.g., unstable hypertension or cardiac disease,unstable asthma, kidney disease, unstable seizuredisorder, pregnancy or any other medical conditionas determined by the investigator)

  • weight < 15 kg

  • taking concomitant medications or supplementsknown for their glutamatergic effects (e.g.,dextromethorphan, D‐cycloserine, amantadine,memantine, lamotrigine, riluzole) or antioxidantproperties (high‐dose vitamin supplements, DMG,TMG, many alternative treatments) within 30 daysof the baseline visit with the exception ofshort‐term use of dextromethorphan as needed as acough suppressant. The use of this medicine mustbe stopped at least 7 days prior to the baselinevisit. Regular multivitamins will be allowed

  • taking daily acetaminophen (paracetmol) ornonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs within 30days of the baseline visit

  • profound intellectual disabilites as evidencedby a mental age < 18 months

  • taking concomitant medications with thepotential for pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamicdrug‐drug interactions (e.g., carbamazepine)within 30 days of the baseline visit

  • likely to experience significant changes intheir ongoing psychosocial or medical treatmentsfor autism over the course of the trial (e.g.,initiation of new behavioral therapy, initiationof new medication or alternative treatment [e.g.,chelation]). Minor changes in ongoing treatment(e.g., missed therapy sessions due toholiday/vacation; planned break in therapy due toschool holidays) will not be consideredsignificant

  • History of prior treatment withN‐acetylcysteine

  • hypersensitivity/allergy toN‐acetylcysteine

  • neurodevelopmental disorders such as Fragile XSyndrome, tuberous sclerosis, or otherneurological disorders known to be associated withautism or autistic features

  • Rett's disorder, childhood disintegrativedisorder, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, anotherpsychotic disorder, or substance abusedisorder


Location/setting: USA
Sample size: N‐acetylcysteine 13; placebo 12
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: N‐acetylcysteine 3 (2lLTFU, 1 AE); placebo 3 ( 2 LTFU, 1 AE)
Gender: 24/31 male
Mean age: N‐acetylcysteine 7.6 and 8.2 years
IQ: 86
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I N‐acetylcysteine17.0, placebo 18.3
Concomitant medications: 16/31 were taking othermedications. Participants taking concomitantpsychotropic medications, must be taking themedication at a constant dose for 60 days with nodose changes planned for the duration of thetrial.
History of previous medications: details notprovided
InterventionsIntervention (N‐acetylcysteine) for 12 weeks: startedat 300 mg/day for people weighing 15‐30 kg. Forpeople weighing > 30 kg, NAC was started at 600mg/day. This was titrated to the target dose of 60mg/kg/day in 3 divided doses and a maximum dose of4200 mg/day over the first 3 weeks, then remainedstable in the last 9 weeks of the study. Dosereductions due to AEs were permitted at anytime.
Comparator (placebo) for 12 weeks: equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using theABC‐Irritability subscale (Aman 1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, and weeks 4,8 and 12
NotesStudy start date: December 2006
Study end date: November 2009
Source of funding: "Dr. Wink’s current research issupported by the Simons Research Foundation, AutismSpeaks, Riovant Sciences Ltd, and Cures WithinReach. Dr. Wink has also served as a past consultantfor Otsuka. Dr. Erickson is a past consultant toAlcobra Pharmaceuticals, the Roche Group, andNovartis. Dr. Erickson holds non‐related IP held byCCHMC and Indiana University. Dr. Erickson receivesresearch grant support from the John Merck Fund,Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center,Autism Speaks, the National Fragile X Foundation,The Roche Group, Neuren Pharmaceuticals, and RiovantSciences Ltd. Dr. Adams, Dr. Wang, Dr. Klaunig, Dr.Plawecki, Dr. Posey, and Dr. McDougle report nopotential conflicts of interest. This study wasfunded by the Autism Speaks."
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk"Following screening and baseline measures,participants were randomised 1:1 via computer ‐ bythe investigational pharmacy".
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "all participants, guardians and investigatorsremained blind to study assignment"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "all participants guardians and investigatorsremained blind to study assignment"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesHigh risk6 participants from a total of 31 (19%) withdrew fromthe study after baseline and 25 participants wereincluded in the final analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll outcomes were reported at baseline and endpointin both the paper and clinical trials registry.
Other biasLow riskNone identified

Wink 2018.

Study characteristics
Methods5‐week cross‐over study of riluzole versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • 12‐25 years of age

  • diagnosis of ASD based on ADOS‐2 criteria

  • ABC‐I score of at least 18 at baseline

  • concomitant medications (including thosetargeting irritability) were required to be stablefor ≥ 5 half‐lives prior to baseline andthroughout the study

  • weighing at least 50 kg


Exclusion criteria: "participants prescribed > 2psychotropic drugs targeting irritability, takingmedications with known interactions with riluzole orprescribed concomitant glutamatergic or GABA (A)modulating drugs."
Location/setting: the USA
Mean IQ: details not reported
Mean age: 16.0 years
Gender: 6/7 were male
Sample size: 8 in total
Number analysed: 7 in total
Reasons for dropouts: "one participant withdrew dueto worsening aggressive behavior necessitatingadjustment of his concomitant psychotropicmedications after receiving five doses of studydrug."
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC scale: riluzole ABC‐I24.29 (6.2); placebo 25.71 (7.3)
Current or previous medications:
  • participant 1: benztropine, clonidine,haloperidol, melatonin, propranolol;

  • participant 2: chlorpromazine, guanfacineextended release, melatonin, naltrexone,olanzapine, sertraline, topiramate, zolpidem;

  • participant 3: amphetamine/dextroamphetamine,guanfacine, melatonin, olanzapine, quetiapine,trazodone;

  • participant 4: methylphenidate, quetiapine,sertraline, topiramate;

  • participant 5: melatonin, propranolol,quetiapine, risperidone, vistaril;

  • participant 6: buspirone, paliperidone;

  • participant 7: melatonin, naltrexone,risperidone, sertraline, trazodone

InterventionsIntervention (riluzole): initially dosed at 50mg/day. Dosing was then increased by 50 mg weekly toa maximum potential optimal dose of 200 mg/day (100mg twice daily) by week 4.
Comparator (placebo): initially dosed at 50 mg/day.Dosing was then increased by 50 mg weekly to amaximum potential optimal dose of 200 mg/day (100 mgtwice daily) by week 4
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:

Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: screening, baseline,weeks 3, 5, 7, and 12
NotesStudy start date: September 2013
Study end date: May 2015
Funding: "This study was funded by the Center forClinical and Translational Science and Training atthe University of Cincinnati via an InstitutionalClinical and Translational Science Award, NIH/NCRRGrant No. 8UL1TR000077‐04"
Conflicts of interest: "The authors declare that theyhave no interests that compete directly with thiswork, though LKW, CRT, RSC, EVP, and CAE do receiveresearch support from various sources for otherwork".
Trial registry:NCT02081027
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskQuote: "Participants were randomized by the CCHMCinvestigational pharmacy"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Participants, guardians, and investigatorsremained blind to study assignment throughout thestudy"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesLow riskQuote: "Participants, guardians, and investigatorsremained blind to study assignment throughout thestudy"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesLow riskThe 7 participants who completed the trial wereincluded in all the analyses.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskThe ABC‐I and CGI were the only outcomes listed onthe trials registry. They were reported in full.
Other biasLow riskNo other bias sources identified

Woodard 2007.

Study characteristics
Methods4‐week cross‐over trial of dextromethorphan versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • regular (at least weekly) problem behaviours(tantrums, self‐talk, aggression etc.) thatoccurred with regularity recorded by classroomstaff over a 2‐month pre‐study period

  • ≥ 16 (mean plus one standard deviation) oneither the parent or the teacher rating of theABC‐I subscale at the close of the baselinecondition


Exclusion criteria: details not provided
Location/setting: an educational treatment programmefor people with autism and related developmentaldisorders (USA)
Sample size: 8 in total (cross‐over).
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: 7 male, 1 female
Mean age: 13 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I of > 16
Concomitant medications: 3 were prescribed Risperdaland 1 participant received Depakote, Risperdal,Zoloft, and Seroquel.
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (dextromethorphan) for 4 weeks:each participant was administereddextromethorphan (Delsym) at the recommended dosageof 30 mg dextromethorphan, hydrobromide) every 12 hfor ages 6‐12, or 60 mg dextromethorphanhydrobromide every 12 h for ages 12 and over.
Comparator (placebo) for 4 weeks: each participantwas administered an identical volume of a similarsweetened syrup, packaged by a pharmacist in thesame brown bottles as the Delsym.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • rritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessment: baseline, week 4,endpoint (end of 2nd phase)
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: "this research was supported by agrant from Celltech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a grantfrom the John Trimble Fund of The Groden Center, andNICHD grant HD30615."
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Unclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskThere were only 8 participants and while individualendpoint data are provided for the ABC and eachsubscale, as well as the CGI, baseline data were notprovided at all.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Unclear riskThe primary outcome measures were the ABC (and 5subscales), the CGI‐S, and the Treatment EmergentSide Effects Scale. All three of these measures werereported at endpoint, however baseline scores werenot provided. Only that participants were requiredto have ≥ 16 on ABC‐I.
Other biasHigh riskThis research was supported by a grant from CelltechPharmaceuticals, Inc.

Yamasue 2020.

Study characteristics
Methods6‐week parallel trial of oxytocin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male

  • aged 18‐54 years

  • diagnosis of autism, Asperger's or PDD‐NOSbased on DSM‐4‐TR

  • verbal IQ > 85 and full IQ > 80 measuredusing the Wechsler Adult Intelligent Scale‐III


Exclusion criteria:
  • primary psychiatric diagnosis other than thoselisted in the inclusion criteria, mood or anxietydisorders

  • change in medication or psychotropics in themonth prior to the study

  • currently treated with > 2 psychotropics

  • currently receiving medication for ADHD

  • history of oxytocin treatment

  • hyper‐sensitive to oxytocin

  • history of seizures or traumatic brain injurywith loss of consciousness > 5 minutes

  • history of alcohol disorders, abuse oraddiction


Location/setting: The University of Tokyo Hospital,Nagoya University Hospital, Kanazawa University, andUniversity of Fukui Hospital in Japan
Sample size: 53 were randomised to oxytocin and 53 toplacebo groups
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 2 in oxytocin groupwere LTFU, 1 withdrew due to tumoural swelling ofbreast; 1 LTFU in placebo group due to worsening ofrepetitive behaviours
Gender: all participants were male
Mean age: 18‐54 years, mean age oxytocin 27.6 years,mean age placebo 26.3 years
IQ: details not provided
Baseline ABC‐I scores or other BoC: baseline scoresnot reported
Concomitant medications: "12 continued theirpsychotropic medications throughout the period (4antidepressants, 4 antipsychotics, 2 anticonvulsants(mood stabilizers), 2 hypnotics)".
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin): 24 IU (Syntocinon Spray;Novartis, Switzerland) in the morning and afternoonfor 6 consecutive weeks
Comparator (placebo): 24 IU in the morning andafternoon for 6 consecutive weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: tolerability
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and week 6(endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: January 2015
Study end date: March 2016
Funding: "the Strategic Research Program for BrainSciences from Japan Agency for Medical Research andDevelopment"
Conflicts of interest: "Neither the funder nor thesponsor, the Strategic Research Program for BrainSciences from Japan Agency for Medical Research andDevelopment, had any involvement in the datacollection, analyses, writing, or interpretation ofthe study. However, the sponsor participated in thediscussion regarding which sites should be includedin the trial and how to best interpret theresults"
Trial registry: JPRN‐UMIN000015264
Risk of bias
BiasAuthors' judgementSupport for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)Low risk"Participants were randomly assigned to receiveoxytocin or placebo at a one‐to‐one ratio using acomputer‐generated minimization design."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)Low risk"The registration, allocation, and data managementprocedures were defined separately... The followingprocedures were performed by the individual incharge of allocating and coding the test drug...confidentiality of the test drug allocation codetable until the end of the trial and until theinclusion of each participant was fixed Theregistration, allocation, and data managementprocedures were defined separately."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performancebias)
All outcomesUnclear riskDetails not provided
Blinding of outcome assessment (detectionbias)
All outcomesUnclear riskApart from "double blinded" no further details wereprovided.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
AlloutcomesUnclear riskNumber of dropouts described don't add up todifference in randomised/analysed (see fig 1)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)Low riskAll outcomes listed on trials registry were reportedin the paper or journal website.
Other biasHigh riskThe sponsor participated in the discussion regardingwhich sites should be included in the trial and howto best interpret the results

ABC: Aberrant Behaviour Checklist;ABC‐I: AberrantBehaviour Checklist Irritability subscale;ADHD:Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder;ADI‐R: AutismDiagnostic Interview‐Revised;ADOS‐2: Autism DiagnosticObservation Schedule, 2nd edition;AE: adverse effects;ASD: autism spectrum disorder;BoC: behavioursof concern;BSE: Behavioral Summarized Evaluation;CARS: Childhood Autism Rating scale;CBCL:Child Behaviour Checklist;CGI‐S: Clinical GlobalImpression Scale—Severity;CPRS: Conners' Parent RatingScale;CYBOCS‐PDD: Children's Yale‐Brown ObsessiveCompulsive Scale modified for pervasive developmental disorders;DSM‐4:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders(4th edition );DSM‐4 (TR):Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders(4th edition ‐ text revision);DSM‐5:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders(5th edition);ECG: electrocardiogram;EEG: electroencephalogram;ICD‐10:International Classification of Diseases‐10;IQ:intelligience quotient;ITT: intention‐to‐treat;IU: International Units;LOCF: lastobservation carried forward;LTFU: lost to follow‐up;MAOI: monoamine oxidase inhibitor;MDMA:3,4‐methylenedioxy‐methamphetamine;MRI: magneticresonance imaging;MSEL: Mullen Scales of Early Learning;NAC: N‐acetylcysteine;PedsQL: PediatricQuality of Life inventory;PDD‐NOS: pervasivedevelopmental disorder not otherwise specified;QoL:quality of life;RCT: randomised controlled trial;RFRLRS: Ritvo Freeman Real Life Rating Scale;SD: standard deviation;SNAP: Swanson, Nolanand Pelham;SSRI: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor;TSO:Trichuris suis ova;WHO: WorldHealth Organization;WHOQOL: World Health OrganizationQuality of Life scale

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by studyID]

StudyReason for exclusion
Althaus 2015Ineligible comparator
Aman 1997Non‐RCT
Aman 2009Ineligible comparator
Anderson1984Focus not on unwanted behaviours (irritability,aggression, self‐injury)
Anderson1989Focus not on unwanted behaviours (irritability,aggression, self‐injury)
Anderson1997Non‐RCT
Anderson2007Ineligible outcomes
Arman 2003Non‐RCT
Arnold 2012bIneligible comparator
August 1987Focused on core symptoms of ASD
Bachmann2013Non‐RCT
Barnard‐Brak2016Non‐RCT
Beeghly 1987Focused on core symptoms of ASD
Castellanos2019Foccused on core symptoms of ASD
Chez 2002Non‐pharmacological
Chez 2003Focused on core symptoms of ASD
Du 2015Focused on core symptoms of ASD
Duker 1991Focused on core symptoms of ASD
Dunn‐Geier2000Focused on core symptoms of ASD
Ekman 1989Focused on core symptoms of ASD
Fahmy 2013Focused on core symptoms of ASD
Fang 2018Non‐pharmacological intervention (e.g. herbaletc.)
Findling1997aNon‐pharmacological intervention (e.g. herbaletc.)
Groden 1987Non‐RCT
Guglielmo2013Non‐RCT
Handen 2013Did not focus on BoC
Hellings2006aNon‐RCT
Hellings2010Non‐RCT
Hellings2015Non‐RCT
Hess 2010Non‐RCT
Hollander2003Focus not on BoC
Hollander2006cDid not focus on people with ASD
Hollander2020cRetracted study
Horovitz2012Non‐RCT
Horrigan1997Non‐RCT
Hughes 2002Non‐RCT
Jacob 2020Terminated study
Jordan 2012Non‐RCT
JPRN‐UMIN0000072502012Terminated study
Jun 2000Focused on core symptoms of ASD
Kolmen 1995Focused on core symptoms of ASD
Kolmen 1997Non‐RCT
Krusch 2004Focus not on BoC
Leboyer 1993Non‐RCT
Lemonnier2012Focused on core symptoms of ASD
Leventhal1993Focus not on BoC (irritability, aggression,self‐injury)
Levine 1997Non‐RCT
Malone 2002Non‐RCT
Moharreri2017Focused on core symptoms of ASD
Nagaraj 2006Scales ineligible and AEs were not specified for eachgroup
NCT001981202005Focused on lethargy and improvement in CGI
NCT01078844Terminated study
Nickels 2008Non‐RCT
Niederhofer2007Non‐RCT
Posey 2004Focused on core symptoms of ASD
Preckel 2016Focused on core symptoms of ASD
Purdon 1994Non‐RCT
Radzivil2006Non‐RCT
Ratcliff‐Schaub2005Focus not on BoC (irritability, aggression,self‐injury)
Ritvo 1971Non‐RCT
Ritvo 1983Non‐RCT
Ritvo 1984Non‐RCT
Roberts 2001Focus not on BoC (irritability, aggression,self‐injury)
Scifo 1996Ineligible outcomes
Sponheim2002Focus not on BoC (irritability, aggression,self‐injury)
Steiner 1999Focus not on BoC (irritability, aggression,self‐injury)
Stubbs 1986Focus not on BoC (irritability, aggression,self‐injury)
Sugie 2003Non‐RCT
Sugiyama1998Ineligible outcomes and measures used were notspecific to BoC (e.g. CGI)
Tachibana2013Non‐RCT
Taylor 1993Did not focus on people with ASD
Tolbert 1993Ineligible outcomes
Troost 2006Non‐RCT
Volkmar 1983Non‐RCT
Volkmar 2009Ineligible study design
Wasserman2005Focus not on BoC
Wei 2011Non‐RCT
Witwer 2005Did not focus on BoC
Yarbrough1987Outcomes ‐ insufficient data reported
Yui 2012Focus not on BoC (irritability, aggression,self‐injury)
Zingarelli1992Non‐RCT

ABC‐I: Aberrant Behaviour Checklist (Irritabilitysubscale);AE: adverse effect;ASD: autismspectrum disorder;BoC: behaviours of concern;CGI: Clinical Global Impression;RCT:randomised controlled trial

Characteristics of studies awaiting classification [orderedby study ID]

Anagnostou 2018.

Methods12‐week trial of tideglusib versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: not specified apart from aged12‐18 years
Exclusion criteria: details not provided (conferenceposter)
Location/setting: not specified but assumed to beeither the USA or Canada
Number of participants randomly assigned: notspecified apart from 83 were randomised in a 1:1manner
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: not reported
Gender: not reported
Mean age: not reported
IQ: not reported
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (tideglusib): once‐daily oraladministration of tideglusib commenced at 400 mgincreasing to 1000 mg (1g)
Comparator (placebo): not described
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and 12 weeks(endpoint)
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • AEs

  • Repetitive Behaviour Scale‐Revised (not clearwhich subscales/outcomes measured)

NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Funding: not reported
Conflicts of interest: not reported

Buitelaar 1996.

MethodsParallel trial of ORG 2766, an ACTH‐(4–9) analogversus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • diagnosis of autistic disorder according to theDSM‐IIIR criteria

  • performance IQ of > 60 on the the WechslerIntelligence Scale for Children‐Revised

  • aged 7‐15 years


Exclusion criteria: taking concurrent psychotropicmedications
Location/setting: outpatient clinic of the Departmentof Child and Adolescent Psychiatry of the UtrechtUniversity Hospital, The Netherlands
Sample size: 50 (30 to ORG2766 group, 20 to placebogroup)
Number analysed: 30 ORG 2766; 20 placebo
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 2 on placebo and 1 onORG 2766 dropped out because of "an increase inanxiety, nervousness and irritability after they hadingested the tablets for 3 weeks, 4 days and 2 daysrespectively"
Gender: not reported
Mean age: "aged between 7 and 15 years"
IQ: "a performance IQ of more than 60".
Concurrent medications: participants could not havebeen on any concurrent psychotropic medications
History of previous medications: details notprovided
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: parent‐rated total ABCscore: ORG2766 responders 51.0 (18.5), ORG2766non‐responders 46.9 (29.5); placebo responders 42.3(16.4), placebo non‐responders 46.5 (22.5)
InterventionsIntervention: (ORG 2766) for 6 weeks: 40 mg/day ofORG 2766
Comparator: (placebo) for 6 weeks: 40 mg/day ofplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • BoC measured using the Teacher‐rated ABC (totalscore; only ABC total scores provided)

  • AEs (not reported)


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 2, 4,and 6 (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: not reported
Conflicts of interest: not reported

Campbell 1982a.

Methods4‐week trial haloperidol versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: meet the DSM criteria forautism
Exclusion criteria: not reported
Location/Setting: appears to be in the USA
Number of participants randomly assigned: 40 intotal
Number of withdrawals/dropouts:
Gender: not reported
Mean age: 4.7 years (range 2.3‐7.9 years)
IQ: not reported
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (haloperidol): mean 1.12 mg/day (0.5mg‐3.0 mg/day)
Comparator (placebo): equivalent placebo
OutcomesNo relevant outcomes reported (behaviours werestereotypies, fidgeting, hyperactivity, andwithdrawal)
NotesComment: insufficient information provided and scalesused were not relevant (CGI, Children's PsychiatricRating Scale)

Carminati 2016.

MethodsParallel trial of venlafaxine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • ICD‐10 diagnosis of intellectual disabilityfrom mild to profound (F7X.1) with PDD (F84.X)

  • crisis linked to irritability and agitation(ABC F1 score ≥ 18) and/orhyperactivity/noncompliance (ABC F4 score ≥15)

  • aged 18‐45 years


Exclusion criteria:
  • epilepsy or any indication againstsomatic–psychotropic treatments

  • pregnancy


Location/setting: University Hospitals of Geneva,Switzerland
Sample size: 14 in total, 13 analysed
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 3 participantswithdrew consent: 2 at day 14, 1 day 28 but wereincluded in analysis; 1 was not included in analysisdue to taking paroxetine during the study
Gender: 11/13 were male
Mean age: median age venlafaxine group: 22 years(range 18‐30); median age placebo group: 19 (range19‐32)
IQ: all participants had a mild, moderate or severeintellectual disability
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: ABC‐I median 18.0,self‐injurious behaviour median 8.5; aggressionmedian 5.5
Concomitant medications: psychotropic treatment wereprohibited during the trial
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (venlafaxine) for 8 weeks: 18.75 mg/dayof venlafaxine
Comparator (placebo) for 8 weeks: matchingplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I (Aman 1985)

  • self‐injurious behaviour, measured using theBehaviour Problem Inventory (BPI)‐Self‐InjuriousBehaviour subscale (Rojahn 2001)

  • Aggression, measured using the BehaviourProblem Inventory (BPI)‐Aggression/Destructionsubscale (Rojahn2001)


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcomes assessment: baseline, and weeks 2and 8
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: “the Unit of Mental Development ofthe Department of Mental Health and Psychiatry ofthe Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerlandand the Foundation Handicap Mental & Société(FHMS), Geneva, Switzerland, (N. CGR 73166PS‐Venlafaxine). The funding sources had no role instudy design; in the collection, analysis andinterpretation of data; in the writing of thereport; and in the decision to submit the articlefor publication."
Conflicts of interest: none declared

Gabis 2019.

Methods12‐week cross‐over trial of donepezil versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • clinical diagnosis of ASD or PDD‐NOS

  • aged 10‐18 years

  • parental consent provided to participate in thestudy


Exclusion criteria:
  • any infectious disease, chromosomalabnormalities, metabolic disorders, neurologicalconditions

  • "use of psychostimulants, anti‐depressants,neuroleptics or anti‐convulsive agents within thepast month"

  • brain damage; or significant head injury


Location/setting: Israel
Sample size: target of 84 participants
Number randomised: 60 in total (donepezil + choline(29) or placebo (31))
Number analysed: 48 (intervention (23), placebo(25))
Number and reason for dropouts: 14 were reported tohave dropped out ("Six subjects dropped out afterthe first assessment due to lack of compliance, andthree additional subjects subsequently failed toattend follow‐up for the second assessment. Threesubjects (one in the placebo group and two in thetreatment group) were excluded during treatment dueto side effects").
Gender: not reported
Mean age: not reported
IQ: not reported
Concomitant medications: not reported
Previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (donepezil + choline) for 12 weeks:maximum donepezil 5 mg/day taken once daily, choline250 mg/day (children up to 40 kg) or 500 mg/day(children 40 kg and over)
Comparator (placebo) for 12 weeks: equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, weeks 4, 8and 12 (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: March 2010
Study end date: December 2017
Source of funding: not reported
Conflicts of interest: not reported

Handen 2000.

MethodsCross‐over trial of 0.3 mg/kg methylphenidate, 0.6mg/kg methylphenidate or placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • while off all psychotropic medication

    • score of ≥ 30 on a parent‐completed CARS

    • diagnosis of autism or PDD‐NOS made by aboard‐certified child psychiatrist

    • score of ≥ 15 points on the Hyperactivity Indexof the Teacher Conners' Rating Scale


Exclusion criteria: not reported
Location/setting: participants were recruited fromeither special education programmes, a psychiatricinpatient unit, or intensive day‐treatmentprogramme.
Sample size: 13 in total (cross‐over)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 1 person was notincluded in the analysis; however, reasons were notprovided.
Gender: 10 male participants, 3 femaleparticipants
Mean age: median 7.4 years
IQ: 3 had severe/profound disability, 5 had moderateintellectual disability, 4 had mild intellectualdisability, 1 had average IQ
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention 1 (0.3 mg/kg methylphenidate for 7days): 0.3 mg/kg doses of methylphenidate rounded tothe nearest 2.5 mg was given 2‐3 times/day for 7consecutive days. Doses were given at breakfast and4 h later with lunch.
Intervention 2 (0.6 mg methylphenidate for 7 days):0.6 mg/kg doses of methylphenidate rounded to thenearest 2.5 mg was given 2‐3 times/day for 7consecutive days. Doses were given at breakfast and4 h later with lunch.
Comparator (placebo for 7 days): equivalentplacebo doses
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: not reported
Timing of outcome assessment: not reported
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: "This research was supported by agrant to the third author from the Fanny PushinRosenberg Research Foundation."
Conflicts of interest: none declared

IRCT2017041333406N1.

Methods12‐week parallel trial of donepezil versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 6‐17 years

  • diagnosis of ASD

  • no other psychiatric disorders or other medicalconditions

  • IQ > 50 based on the Weiland test

  • not taking any other psychotropics apart fromrisperidone


Exclusion criteria: "patients who have been treatedwith other psychotropic drugs and also patients withother psychiatric disorders"
Location/setting: Iran
Sample size: target sample size is 66
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: it is unknown if thetrial has been completed or not, as there isinsufficient information on the trial registry.
Gender: not reported
Mean age: not reported
IQ: > 50 based on the Weiland test
Concurrent medications: only risperidone wasallowed
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (donepezil + risperidone) for 12 weeks:maximum of 10 mg/day of donepezil taken twice daily;maximum of 2 mg/day of risperidone
Comparator (placebo + risperidone) for 12 weeks:placebo + maximum of 2 mg/day of risperidone
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 6, week12 (endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: September 2017
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: not reported
Conflicts of interest: not reported

IRCT20190714044199N1.

Methods10‐week parallel trial of N‐acetylcysteine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 3‐12 years

  • no serious medical conditions or psychiatricconditions

  • IQ > 50


Exclusion criteria:
  • taking any other antipsychotics apart fromrisperidone

  • history of allergic reactions to risperidone orn‐acetylcysteine


Location/setting: Iran
Number randomised: target sample size of 66
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: not reported
Gender: not reported
Mean age: not reported
IQ: > 50
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (N‐acetylcysteine + risperidone) for 10weeks: maximum of 600 mg/day + risperidone (maximumof 1.5 mg/day)
Comparator (placebo + risperidone) for 10 weeks:placebo + risperidone (maximum of 1.5 mg/day)
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 5, week10 (endpoint)
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: not reported
NotesStudy start date: November 2019
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: not reported
Conflicts of interest: not reported

JPRN‐JMA‐IIA00438.

Methods8‐week parallel trial of pyridoxamine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • boys and girls

  • at least 12 years old

  • parent, legal guardian or individual provideconsent to participate

  • minimum score of 18 on the Japanese version ofthe ABC (ABC‐J)


Exclusion criteria
  • known sensitivity to vitamin B6

  • diagnosed with schizophrenia, biploar, majordepressive disorder, or undergoing oral treatmentfor a mental disorder

  • severe liver or heart disease, or impairedrenal function; any gastrointestinal, respiratory,endocrine, blood, immune, or other disorders

  • epileptic seizures within the past 6 months

  • also taking B6, or other psychotropicmedications at the time of trial commencement

  • participating in other clinical trials


Target sample size: 78
InterventionsIntervention 1: high‐dose pyridoxamine plus 20 mgvitamin B1
Intervention 2: low‐dose pyridoxamine plus 20 mgvitamin B1
Comparator: placebo plus 2 0mg vitamin B1
OutcomesPrimary outcomes irritability, measured using theABC‐Japanese version
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, 4 and 8weeks
NotesContact name: Mitugu Uematsu
Contact details: not provided
Other clinical trial numbers: UMIN000035172;jRCT2021200001

Jung 2000.

Methods4‐week cross‐over trial of dimethylglycine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion and exclusion criteria: unclear, detailsnot provided
Location/setting: China
Sample size: 106 (unclear how many in each group)
Number of dropouts/withdrawals: 61 participants intotal "(At the end of the first 4 weeks 22 cases(21%) were lost. At the end of 10 weeks 61 cases(58%) were lost which was inadequate for analysis.Therefore we decided to use the data from the first4 weeks for our main analysis."
InterventionsPhase one
Intervention (dimethylglycine): participants receivedbetween 6.94 mg and 10.41 mg/kg body weight for 4weeks. This was followed by a 2‐week wash‐out periodbefore commencing placebo.
Comparator: equivalent placebo for 4 weeks. This wasfollowed by a 2‐week wash‐out period beforecommencing dimethylglycine.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • AEs

  • irritability (although unclear which scale wasused)


Secondary outcomes: it appears that none were reportdalthough it is difficult to know
Timing of outcome assessments: details notprovided
NotesContact person: details not provided
Contact details: details not provided

Jørgensen 2002.

MethodsWritten in Danish, and we have not found an abstractor full‐text copy in either Danish or English. Nofurther information on participants, interventionsor outcomes.
Participants 
Interventions 
Outcomes 
Notes 

Kern 2001a.

MethodsParallel trial N, N‐dimethylglycine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: diagnosis of autism and/or PDDaccording to DSM‐IV criteria
Exclusion criteria: not reported
Location/Setting: USA
Sample size: placebo 19, dimethylglycine 18
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 1 discontinued due tonegative behavioural effects in dimethylglycinegroup; 1 child discontinued due to damage to thetablets in the placebo group
Gender: not reported
Mean age: 3‐11 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
Concomitant medications: 7 children were onpsychoactive medication (clonidine, thioridazine,paroxetine, imipramine, methylphenidate andfluoxetine)
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (dimethylglycine) for 4 weeks: startedat 1 x 125 mg tablet/day for children weighing <40 lbs (approx 18 kg) for 4 weeks. The dosage was 2tablets (250 mg/day) for children weighing 41‐70 lbs(approx 18‐32 kg), 3 tablets (375 mg/day) for 71‐100lbs (approx 32‐45 kg), 4 tablets (500 mg/day) for101‐130 lbs (approx 45‐59 kg), and 5 tablets (725mg/day) for > 131 lbs (approx 59 kg).
Comparator (placebo) for 4 weeks: 1 x 125 mg tableteach morning for 4 weeks for children weighing <40 lbs (approx 18 kg), 2 tablets for 41‐70 lbs(approx 18‐32 kg), 3 tablets for 71‐100 lbs (approx32‐45 kg), 4 tablets for 101‐130 lbs (approx 45‐59kg), and five tablets for > 131 lbs (approx 59kg)
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability, measured using theABC‐I subscale (Aman 1985); however, it was not reportedfully (only t‐scores)
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: before treatment and 4weeks after treatment
NotesStudy start date: 1998
Study end date: 1999
Source of funding: supported by FoodScienceCorporation
Conflicts of interest: none declared

Kern 2002.

MethodsCross‐over trial of secretin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • confirmed diagnosis of autism and/or PDD‐NOS orPDD

  • aged 3‐10 years

  • no previous secretin exposure


Exclusion criteria:
  • chronic constipation

  • history of chronic diarrhoea (in remission)because these two groups did not clearly fall intothe proposed groups (no GI problems or chronicdiarrhea)


Location/setting: a neurology clinic at Children'sMedical Centre of Dallas, USA
Sample size: 19 children in total
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: 15 boys, 4 girls
Mean age: 6.3 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (secretin) for 3 weeks: "eachSecretin‐Ferring vial contained 75 CU porcinesecretin, 1mg L‐cysteine hydrochloride, and 20mgmannitol. The dose was 2 CUs/kg"
Comparator (placebo) for 3 weeks: placebo was sterilenormal saline and identical in appearance to theporcine secretin
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability, measured using theABCt‐I subscale (Aman 1985)
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and weeks 3and 6 (not reported)
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: not reported
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Comments: study authors divided participants intonormal GI and participants with chronic diarrhea.Outcome scores could not be used.

Li 2016.

Methods8‐week parallel trial of paliperidone versusaripiprazole
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: unknown (the only availabledetails are in the abstract)
Exclusion criteria: unknown
Location/setting: unknown, but assumed to beChina
Number randomised: 62 (31 to each group)
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: unknown (the onlyavailable details are in the abstract)
Gender: details not provided
Mean age: not known ‐ unable to find the full‐textpaper
IQ: not known ‐ unable to find the full‐textpaper
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: unknown
Concurrent medications: unknown
History of previous medications: unknown
InterventionsIntervention (paliperidone) for 8 weeks: details notreported
Comparator (aripiprazole) for 8 weeks: details notreported
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, weeks 4,6, 8(endpoint)
NotesStudy start date: details not reported
Study end date: details not reported
Source of funding: details not reported
Conflicts of interest: details not reported

Malone 2010.

MethodsParallel trial of olanzapine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male and female

  • aged 3‐12 years

  • autistic disorder according to DSM‐IVcriteria

  • a score of at least moderately impaired on theCGI‐S

  • clinical judgment that medication treatment forautism is indicated


Exclusion criteria:
  • Rett's disorder, childhood disintegrativedisorder, Asperger's disorder, and PDD, NOS.

  • psychotic disorder (DSM‐IV) (includingschizophreniform disorder and schizophrenia).

  • major depressive disorder (DSM‐IV).

  • bipolar disorder (DSM‐IV).

  • history of psychoactive drug in the previous 2weeks prior to phase 1

  • history of treatment with olanzapine for acumulative period of > 2 weeks prior toentering phase 1.

  • systemic diseases such as cardiac, renal,thyroid diseases, uncontrolled seizure disorder(seizure disorder that is not controlled byanti‐epileptic medication ‐ a child who is seizurefree for a period of 6 months on a stable dose ofantiepileptic drug would be consideredcontrolled), or diabetes mellitus

  • children with a known medical cause forautistic disorder

  • abnormal fasting blood glucose or history ofdiabetes

  • baseline body mass index (BMI) > the 90thpercentile for age and gender (CDC growth charts)(because of risk of weight gain)

  • baseline QTc > 450 msec


Location/setting: Drexel University, College ofMedicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Sample size: 33
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: none reported
Gender: 25 male participants, 8 femaleparticipants
Mean age: 6.58 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (olanzapine) for 6 weeks: olanzapinetablets given twice daily at a dosage of 2.5‐20mg/day for up to 12 weeks
Comparator (placebo) for 6 weeks: matching placebotreatment
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and week12
NotesStudy start date: May 2003
Study end date: September 2005
Source of funding: Food and Drug Administration(FD‐R‐002190), National Institute of Mental Health(MH073524). Placebo and drugs were provided by EliLilly
Conflicts of interest: none declared

Martsenkovsky 2016.

Methods16‐week parallel trial of memantine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: children 18−36 months old withASD (based on DSM‐IV criteria)
Exclusion criteria: not reported
Location/setting: not specifically mentioned butassumed to be in the Ukraine
Sample size: 76
Number of withdrawals/dropouts
Gender: not reported
Mean age: 18‐36 months of age
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: unknown
Concomitant medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (memantine) for 16 weeks: maximum of 15mg/day (mean daily dose of 7.5 mg/day for children18‐25 months, 10.3 mg/day for children 26‐36months)
Comparator (placebo) for 16 weeks: equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
ABC (subscales unknown or if the measure is theAberrant Behaviour Checklist or a different ABCscale)
NotesStudy start date: details not reported
Study end date: details not reported
Source of funding: details not reported
Conflicts of interest: details not reported
Comments: only F values provided

Miller 1979.

MethodsUnable to obtain abstract or full‐text. The paper iswritten in German and published in 1979. If weobtained at least an abstract we could have had ittranslated but it is not available (partly due tothe fact it was published over 40 years ago). Nofurther information on methods, participants,interventions (except Sulpiride) or outcomes
Participants 
InterventionsIntervention: Sulpiride
Comparator: unclear
Outcomes 
Notes 

Molloy 2002.

MethodsCross‐over trial of single dose secretin versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • 2–15 years of age

  • met the criteria for autism as outlined in theDSM‐IV following multidisciplinary evaluation,"Children not evaluated at our center wereaccepted into the sampling frame if documentationof diagnosis by a multidisciplinary team wassufficient as determined by a developmentalpediatrician (SS)."


Exclusion criteria: "had known chromosomal or othergenetic disorders, a structural abnormality onneuroimaging, had previously received secretin, hadacute or chronic pancreatic disease or a medicalcondition that might make participation in the studyunsafe".
Location/setting: Children's Hospital Medical Centre,Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Sample size: 60
Number analysed: secretin first: 19, placebo first:23
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 18 dropped out fromoriginal 60, although reasons for only 1 participantprovided (from placebo/secretin group) ‐ they didnot return for the final assessment.
Gender: 37/42 analysed were male participants
Mean age: 6.8 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
Concurrent medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (single dose secretin): a single dose of2 IU/kg of intravenous synthetic human secretin wasgiven at the first visit of the phase.
Comparator (single dose placebo): a single dose of 2IU/kg of placebo was given at first visit of thephase.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • parent‐rated ABC (not reported) (Aman 1985)

  • AEs (not reported)


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, and weeks 1,3, 6, 9 and 12
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: "supported by Grant #4 T73 MC00032‐10 awarded by the Maternal and Child HealthBureau, Health Resources and Service Administration,DHHS and by Grant #M01 RR‐08084, NIH. The humansynthetic secretin used in the study was supplied byChiRoClin (Silver Spring, MD) free of charge".
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Comment: author was contacted for information but noreply

Naruse 1982.

MethodsCross‐over trial of pimozide versus haloperidolversus placebo
Participants87 children (3‐16 years), 69 boys and 18 girls from12 hospitals; 34 with autistic disturbance, 27 withbehaviour disturbance caused by organic damage, 17with mental retardation, 5 with neurosis and 4 withpsychosis
Location/setting: 12 hospitals in Germany
Sample size: 87
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: not reported (unableto obtain full text)
Gender: 69 boys, 18 girls
Mean age: 3‐16 years
IQ: not reported
Concurrent medications: not reported
History of previous medications: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
InterventionsIntervention 1 (pimozide) for 8 weeks: the initialdose was pimozide 1 tablet (1 mg). The maximum dailydose was 9 tablets (pimozide 9 mg).
Intervention 2 (haloperidol) for 8 weeks: 1 tablet(0.75 mg). The maximum daily dose was 9 tablets(haloperidol 6.75 mg).
Comparator (placebo) for 8 weeks: equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: anger/aggression/injury andviolence to others
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: not reported
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: not reported
Conflicts of interest: not reported
Comment: not able to obtain the full text

Noone 2014.

MethodsParallel trial of milnacipran versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 18‐50 years

  • diagnosis of ASD according to DSM‐IV‐R

  • IQ > 70


Exclusion criteria:
  • pregnant

  • deemed by comprehensive psychiatric interviewto have a significant risk of suicide

  • "comorbid medical, neurological and psychiatricillnesses with the exception of ADHD and OCD wereexcluded"


Location/setting: USA
Sample size: 10 in total
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: not reported
Gender: not reported
Mean age: 19‐41 years
IQ: > 70
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
Concomitant medications: not reported, althoughcomorbid neurological, psychiatric and medicalcondition excluded except for ADHD or OCD
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (milnacipran) for 12 weeks: participantswere given a titrated dose of milnacipran increasingto a maximum of 100 mg a day over the 12‐week studyperiod. Dosing was based on a fixed schedule thatwas monitored using a side‐effect profile.
Comparator (placebo) for 12 weeks: participants weregiven placebo tablets at dosing corresponding to thefixed schedule between 12.5 mg and 100 mg.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: ABC‐I (Aman 1985) (notreported in paper or clinicaltrials.gov website)
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: twice‐weekly
NotesStudy start date: February 2011
Study end date: July 2014
Source of funding: "funded by an investigatorinitiated grant from Forest Pharmaceuticals,Inc"
Conflicts of interest: none declared

Novotny 2004.

MethodsParallel trial of single‐doseM‐chlorophenylpiperazine (m‐cpp) versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 18‐53 years old

  • met diagnostic criteria for ASD according tothe Autism Diagnostic Interview‐Research versionand the DSM‐IV


Exclusion criteria: "meeting criteria for current orpast psychotic disorders diagnosed by SCID – Axisdisorders; reporting a history of seizures ormedical illnesses"
Location/setting: USA
Sample size: oral m‐CPP 11, placebo 8
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: no LTFU reported
Gender: 10 male participants, 1 femaleparticipant
Mean age: 34.3 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
Concomitant medications: participants were requiredto be drug‐free for 2 weeks prior to study.
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (single dose of oral m‐CPP): 0.5 mg/kgat least 48 h apart from the placebo single dose,and after a drug‐free period of at least 2 weeks or6 weeks for those on fluoxetine, and a 72‐h lowmonoamine diet
Comparator (single‐dose placebo): equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: self‐injurious behaviours (notreported)
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and at 60,120, 180, 240 min (single dose)
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: "supported in part by grants fromthe Seaver Foundation, National Alliance forResearch on Schizophrenia and Depression, CureAutism Now, National Alliance for Autism Researchand grant 5 MO1 RR00071 for the Mount Sinai GeneralClinical Research Center from the National Centerfor Research Resources, National Institutes ofHealth.:
Conflicts of interest: none declared

Sandler 1999.

MethodsParallel trial of single‐dose secretin versussingle‐dose placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children 3‐14 years

  • diagnosis of autism or PDD

  • no previous secretin treatment

  • no diagnosis of pancreatitis, inflammatorybowel disease, or gastrinoma

  • written, voluntary informed consent forparticipation by a parent or legal guardian


Location/setting: Department of Psychiatry,University of North Carolina. Children were referredby the Treatment and Evaluation of Autism andCommunication Handicaps program of the Department ofPsychiatry at the University of North Carolina orwhose parents responded to notices about this studyplaced in the newsletter of an autism‐supportgroup.
Sample size: 60 children were randomised
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: 4 could not beevaluated (2 received secretin outside the study,and 2 did not return for follow‐up)
Gender: not reported
Mean age: secretin 7.6 years, placebo 7.4 years
IQ: secretin 65.6, placebo 60.1
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
Concomitant medications: secretin 8/30, placebo 11/30were taking psychotropic medications
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (single‐dose secretin): 0.4 ug per kg ofbody weight
Comparator (single‐dose placebo): saline placebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • severity of autistic symtoms, measured usingthe Autism Behaviour Checklist and the CGI

  • AEs, measured using the Treatment EmergentSymptoms Scale (not reported)


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, weeks 1, 2and 4 postinfusion
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: Thoms Health Services Foundationand by a Public Health Service grant (30615) fromthe National Institutes of Child Health and HumanDevelopment
Conflicts of interest: none declared
Comment: study author contacted twice for informationabout AEs but no reply

Stern 1990.

MethodsCross‐over trial of fenfluramine versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: "infantile autism with or withoutmental retardation [intellectual disability]"diagnosis based on DSM‐III, previously under thecare of paediatricians and paediatricneurologists
Exclusion criteria: chromosomal anomalies, includingthe fragile X chromosome
Location/setting: Adelaide Children's hospital,Australia
Sample size: 20 in total
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: "one child moved toanother state half way through the trial"
Gender: 14 boys, 6 girls
Mean age: 10 years
IQ: not reported
Baseline ABC‐I or other BoC: not reported
Concomitant medications: 15/20 were on nomedications, 3 were on anticonvulsants, 1 was onbenzodiazepine and 1 was on the contraceptivepill
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention (fenfluramine) for 5 months: "the doseof Fenfluramine was 1.5mg/kg/day given twice dailyfor a 5 month period". At the end of the period allchildren were given placebo for 2 months before thegroups crossed over for a second 5‐month period.
Comparator (placebo) for 5 months: All children weregiven placebo for a month to get used to the routineof taking tablets regularly. The children were thenrandomised to either fenfluramine or placebo for a5‐month period. At the end of the period allchildren were given placebo for 2 months before thegroups crossed over for a second 5‐month period.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs (weight change, measured inkgs)
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: not reported
NotesStudy start date: not reported
Study end date: not reported
Source of funding: "this study was supported by agrant from the Apex Foundation. The authors thank DrGrant Sutherland for the karyotypes and Mrs RobynClements for the manuscript preparation.Fenfluramine and placebo tablets were supplied byServier Laboratories (Australia) Pty, Ltd."
Conflicts of interest: none declared

Wink 2020.

Methods6 week cross‐over trial of ketamine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
Aged 12‐30 years old
* Weight of at least 50kg
*general good health as determined by physical exam,medical history, laboratory work up, and EKG,diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders 5th Edition diagnosis of autism spectrumdisorder (not associated with Fragile X Syndrome orother known genetic syndrome) as confirmed by theAutism Diagnostic Observation Schedule at screen orprevious (within last 5 years) if available; IQ ofat least 50 as confirmed via testing (Leiter‐3) atscreen or previous (within last 5 years, any validtesting acceptable); clinical GlobalImpressions‐Severity score of 4 (Moderately Ill);score of 10 on the Social Withdrawal subscale of theAberrant Behavior Checklist; stable dosing of allconcomitant psychotropic medications for fivehalf‐lives prior to screening visit and during thestudy; presence of parent/guardian or significantother or caregiver willing to serve as informant forbehavioral outcome measures"
Exclusion criteria: "Presence of co‐morbidschizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolardisorder with psychosis, bipolar disorder orpsychosis not otherwise specified; comorbiddiagnoses determined by psychiatrist clinicalinterview and use of Diagnostic and StatisticalManual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition diagnosticcriteria; history of drug or alcohol abuse; presenceof cardiac disease including coronary arterydisease, congestive heart failure, or uncontrolledhypertension per medical history (individuals with ≥2 blood pressure readings of ≥140/90 duringscreen/baseline will be excluded); airwayinstability, tracheal surgery, or tracheal stenosisper medical history; central nervous system massesor hydrocephalus per medical history; porphyria,thyroid disorder, or thyroid medication use permedical history; glaucoma or other cause ofincreased intraocular pressure per medical history;allergy to ketamine; current use of drugs withconcomitant modification of non‐competitiveN‐methyl‐D‐aspartate glutamate activity(acamprosate, amantadine, memantine, d‐cycloserineetc.); for female subjects of child bearingpotential, a positive pregnancy test; any majorchronic medical or chronic respiratory illnessconsidered to be uncontrolled by the PrincipalInvestigator; inability to tolerate study proceduresor study drug per the discretion of the PrincipalInvestigator."
Location/setting: "Cincinnati Children’s HospitalMedical Center (CCHMC)". USA
Sample size: 21 in total
Number analysed: 17
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: "Four subjectswithdrew from the study, one due to emesis followingfrst dose of study drug (ketamine), one due toseizure during the two‐week washout period (sevendays post‐ketamine; determined unrelated to studydrug), and two due to scheduling issues after Phase1 (one ketamine, one placebo)".
Gender: 19 male, 2 female
Mean age (SD): 9.48 (3.83)
Mean IQ (SD): 102.14 (23.62)
Concurrent medications:
History of previous medications: details not providedBaseline ABC‐I or other BoC: Mean ABC‐I (andstandard deviation) 10.05 (5.86)
InterventionsIntervention: 2 doses of intranasal ketamine (30 mgand 50 mg) provided 1 week apart followed by a2‐week washout period before starting phase 2 of thetrial Comparator: 2 equivalent doses of placebo(saline spray) provided 1 week apart followed by a2‐week washout period before starting phase 2 of thetrial.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcomes assessment: baseline andendpoint
NotesStudy start date: December 22, 2015
Study end date: May 7, 2018
Funding: "Funding for this project was provided byCures Within Reach and Roivant Sciences."
Conflicts of interest: "The authors report nocompeting financial interests related to the workdescribed".
Trial registry:NCT02611921

Yatawara 2016.

Methods14‐week cross‐over trial of oxytocin versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: "children aged between 3 and 8years of age who met the DSM‐IV‐TR (Diagnostic andStatistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition,Text Revision) criteria for Autistic Disorder,Asperger’s Disorder or Pervasive DevelopmentalDisorder‐Not Otherwise Specified (PDD‐NOS)."
Exclusion criteria: "Exclusion criteria includedknown sensitivity to preservatives in the nasalspray (in particular, E216, E218 and chlorobutanolhemihydrates)."
Location/setting: "The study was conducted at theBrain and Mind Centre (BMC), The University ofSydney (Australia)".
Number of participants: 39 were randomised, 17 tooxytocin (phase 1); 22 to placebo (phase 1).
Number of withdrawals/dropouts: phase 1, 2 wereexcluded from oxytocin group (adverse reaction (1),competing time commitments (1)); 5 in placebo wereexcluded (intolerance of nasal spray (2); adversereaction (1); competing time commitments (1);respiratory illness (1)). An additional person wasexcluded during phase 2 (oxytocin group).
Gender: 27 male, 4 female
Mean age (SD) in years: 6.2 (1.7)
Mean IQ (SD): non‐verbal IQ 83.6 (24.2)
Concomitant medications: atomoxetine (1); melatonin(1); anticonvulsant (2); risperidone (2); selectiveserotonin reuptake inhibitor (sertraline) (2)
History of previous medications: not reported
InterventionsIntervention: oxytocin nasal spray 12 IU twice daily(24 IU daily) for 5 weeks with a 4‐week wash‐outperiod before starting phase 2 of the trial.
Comparator (placebo): equivalent placebo nasal spraytwice‐daily for 5 weeks with a 4‐week wash‐outperiod before starting phase 2 of the trial.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: repetitive behaviour scale (notclear which subscales); adverse effects
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and endpointof each phase
NotesStudy start date: October 2010
Study end date:October 2012
Funding: "We acknowledge an National Health MedicalResearch Council Australian Fellowship (APP 511921)to IBH, an NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (APP1061922) to AJG and a generous donation by Mr GeoffStein toward the completion of this trial. Thesefunders had no role in the design and conduct of thestudy; collection, management, analysis andinterpretation of the data; preparation, review orapproval of the manuscript; and decision to submitthe manuscript for publication."
Conflicts of interest: "the authors declare noconflict of interest"

ABC: Aberrant Behaviour Checklist;AE: adverseeffect;BoC: behaviours of concern;CARS: ChildAutism Rating Scale;CDC: Centers for Disease Control;CGI: Clinical Global Impression;ICD‐10:International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision;IQ: intelligence quotient; LTFU: loss to follow‐up;M: median;PDD‐(NOS): pervasive developmentaldisorders (not otherwise specified);SD: standarddeviation

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by studyID]

ACTRN12617000441314.

Study nameA course of oxytocin to improve social communicationin young children with autism
Methods15‐week parallel trial of oxytocin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • boys and girls

  • aged 3‐12 years

  • meet the DSM‐5 criteria for ASD


Exclusion criteria: "known to be hypersensitive tothe preservatives in the nasal spray (E216, E218,and chlorobutanol hemihydrates). Participants withsevere nasal obstruction/blockage will be excludedas this is likely to reduce the efficacy of thenasal spray medication. Further, participants whosecaregivers report that they have a serious medicalcondition from one of the following categories willbe excluded (evidenced through medical examination):1. severely compromised cardiac function 2. severelycompromised hepatic function 3. severely compromisedrenal function".
Setting/location: Sydney and Perth (Australia)
Target sample size: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention: oxytocin basal spray 16 IU twice daily(32 IU in total) for 12 weeks
Comparator: equivalent placebo for 12 weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: 6 weeks and 12 weeks(endpoint)
Starting dateApril 2017
Contact informationContact name: Adam Guastella
Contact details: adam.guastella@sydney.edu.au.
NotesSource of funding: University of Sydney
Conflicts of interest

ChiCTR1800017720.

Study nameA random, double‐blind, placebo controlled trial foroxytocin nasal spray in the treatment for ASD socialdysfunction
MethodsParallel trial of oxytocin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • meet the DSM‐V criteria for ASD

  • aged 6‐12 years

  • not in receipt of any psychotropic drugs in theprevious 3 months

  • patient or parent consent to participate


Exclusion criteria:
  • other diagnosed mental disorders

  • neurological conditions

  • any other serious medical conditions, includingrenal, endocrine or gastrointestinal disorders

  • positive pregnancy test

  • people with chronic nasal disease who cannotuse nasal sprays

  • abnormal renal or liver function

  • allergic to oxytocin


Setting/location: unclear although assumed to be inChina
Sample size: unclear
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin): 12 IU morning and night
Comparator (placebo): equivalent placebo morning andnight
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • AEs

  • BoC measured using the Repetitive BehaviourScale (not sure which subscales) (Bodfish2000)


Secondary outcomes: unclear
Timing of outcome assessments: unclear
Starting dateRegistered in August 2018
Contact informationName: Xu Chen
E‐mail: yinuo0311@163.com
NotesSource of funding: Beijing Anding Hospital CapitalMedical University
Conflicts of interest: unclear

Crutel 2020.

Study nameBumetanide oral liquid formulation for the treatmentof children and adolescents with autism spectrumdisorder: design of two phase III studies (SIGNTrials)
Methods6‐month parallel trial of bumetanide versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: "a primary diagnosis of ASD asper DSM‐5 criteria, plus ASD criteria met on ADOS‐2and ADI‐R", aged 7‐17 years (study 1) or 2‐6 years(study 2), moderate to severe ASD according to CGIscore of at least 4, CARS2 total score of at least34
Exclusion criteria: "concomitant participation inanother study, or previous participation in a studyof another medicinal product for 3 months prior toenrollment; known monogenic syndrome (e.g. FragileX, Rett Syndrome); high suicide risk or psychiatricconditions considered likely to interfere with theconduct of the study; chronic hepatic disease, renaldysfunction or cardiac dysfunction; unstablepsychotherapy, behavioral, cognitive, orcognitive‐behavioral therapy; concomitantpsychotropic medication (exceptions: aripiprazoleand risperidone in study 1, which are permitted if astable dose is used between selection and inclusion,and up to Week 26; methylphenidate, atomoxetine, orguanfacine, which are permitted in both studies ifstabilized for at least 4 weeks prior to inclusionand not planned to be modifed or stopped up to Week26) or other contraindicated medication; andprevious treatment with bumetanide that was noteffective for the treatment of ASD symptoms"
Setting/ location: across 13 countries
Sample size: 170 per trial
InterventionsIntervention (bumetanide) for 6 months: oral solutionof 0.04 mL/kg twice daily for participants weighing< 25 kg; participants ≥ 25 kg will receive 0.5 mgtwice daily
Comparator (placebo) for 6 months: equivalentplacebo, twice daily depending on weight
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: QoL measured using the PediatricQuality of Life Inventory (Varni 2001) andthe WHOQoL (WHO1998).
Timing of outcome assessments: unclear
Starting dateUnclear
Contact informationSimon Kyaga
E‐mail: simon.kyaga@servier.com
NotesSource of funding: Servier (pharmaceuticalcompany)
Conflicts of interest: most study authors areemployees of the funder (pharmaceutical company)

CTRI/2021/12/038721.

Study nameComparison of the efficacy of oral risperidone andaripiprazole in children with autism spectrumdisorders (ASDs) aged 6‐18 years: a double blindrandomized controlled trial ‐ RAAT
Methods12‐week parallel trial of risperidone versusaripiprazole
ParticipantsInclusion criteria :
  • aged 6‐18 years

  • weight of at least 15 kg

  • meet DSM‐V criteria for of ASD

  • ABC‐Irritability subscale score of > 18

  • mental age of at least 18 months

  • if female, not sexually active

  • medication‐free or adequate washout period (2‐4weeks prior to enrolment) of psychoactive drugs(anticonvulsants permitted for seizure managementif dosage is stable for 4 weeks)

  • parent/guardian able to read and provideinformed consent


Exclusion criteria:
  • Prior diagnosis or evidence of genetic or otherdisorder that may interfere with assessments (e.g.Fragile X syndrome, Rett syndrome, history of verylow birth weight) assessed by personal and familyhistory, dysmorphology, and clinical judgement

  • prior use of risperidone or aripiprazole for> 2 weeks

  • seizure during the past 6 months

  • history or evidence of a medical condition thatwould expose them to an undue risk of asignificant AEt or interfere with assessmentsduring the trial including but not limited tohepatic, renal, respiratory, cardiovascular,endocrine, haematologic or immunologic disease asdetermined by the clinical judgement of theinvestigator

  • current suicidal or homicidal risk

  • dependent on other substances, except nicotineor caffeine.


Location/setting: India
Target sample size: 120 participants
InterventionsIntervention (risperidone in tablet form): 0.5 mg/daydaily for 12 weeks
Comparator (aripiprazole in tablet form): 2.5 mg/daydaily for 12 weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability subscale of autism behaviorchecklist (Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and endpoint(week 12)
Starting dateUnclear: was not recruiting as at February 2022
Contact informationContact person: Prateek Kumar Panda
Contact details: drprateekpanda@gmail.com
NotesSource of funding
Conflicts of interest

EUCTR2008‐003712‐36‐FR.

Study nameEtude de la réponse clinique et neurofonctionnelle àla fluoxétine dans l'autisme infantile
Methods20‐week parallel trial of fluoxetine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • diagnosis of ASD or PDD

  • 5‐13 years of age at baseline

  • IQ ≥ 45 3


Exclusion criteria:
  • neurological conditions

  • current treatment with antipsychotics,benzodiazepines, neuroleptics orthermoregulators

  • history of or an allergy to fluoxetine

  • IQ < 45


Location: France
Setting: unclear
Target sample size: unclear
InterventionsIntervention (fluoxetine) for 20 weeks, 20 mg/5mL
Comparator (placebo) for 20 weeks, equivalent oralsolution of placebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: BoC (total score of ABC)
Secondary outcomes: unclear
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and 20weeks
Starting dateRegistered November 2008
Contact informationContact name: not reported
Contact details: not reported
NotesSource of funding: Public Assistance ‐ Hopitaux DeParis (AP‐HP)
Conflicts of interest: unclear

EUCTR2010‐024202‐34‐DE.

Study nameEffect of oxytocin on therapy results of a groupbased social skill training in adolescents withautism spectrum disorder
MethodsParallel trial of oxytocin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male participants

  • aged 8‐18 years

  • diagnosis of ASD according to ICD‐10

  • native German speaker

  • no or stable psychopharmacotherapy

  • consent is provided to participate


Exclusion criteria:
  • IQ < 80

  • female

  • any psychiatric diagnoses

  • any serious medical condition

  • allergic or hypersensitive to oxytocin

  • lesions to the brain


Location/setting: Germany
Sample size: not known
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin): 40 IU oxytocin nasal spray(trial registry does not state the frequency)
Comparator (placebo): equivalent placebo nasalspray
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: unclear
Secondary outcomes: QoL (scale not reported)
Timing of outcome assessments: unclear
Starting dateRegistered December 2013
Contact informationContact name: Tanja Schad‐Hansjosten
E‐mail: tanja.schad@zi‐mannheim.de
NotesSource of funding: appears to be a pharmaceuticalcompany (Universitätsmedizin Göttingen,Georg‐August‐Universität, Klinik für Kinder‐ undJugendpsychiatrie/Psychotherapie)
Conflicts of interest: unclear

EUCTR2014‐003080‐‐38‐DE.

Study nameGlutamatergic medication in the treatment ofobsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and autismspectrum disorder (ASD)
Methods12‐week parallel trial of memantine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 6‐17 years

  • IQ of at least 71

  • either a DSM‐5 diagnosis for ASD or OCD

  • CGI‐S score of at least 4

  • informed consent provided by parents

  • negative pregnancy test


Exclusion criteria:
  • IQ of < 71

  • weight < 20 kg at baseline

  • concomitant psychotropic medications are notpermitted during the trial

  • significant medical cnditions affecting thecardiovascular, endocrine or gastrointestinalsystems

  • allergy or hypersensitivity to memantine

  • pregnant or breastfeeding

  • failure to respond to an adequate dose ofmemantine previously


Setting/location: 4 centres across England, Germany,and the Netherlands
Sample size: target is 50 participants each group(100 in total), 50% with ASD, 50% with OCD
InterventionsIntervention (memantine + regular treatment) for 12weeks: 5‐15 mg/day, administered once daily
Comparator (placebo + regular treatment) for 12weeks: equivalent placebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC (Aman 1985)

  • self‐injurious behaviour, measured using theRepetitive Behaviour Scale (Bodfish2000)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: unclear
Timing of outcome assessments: unclear
Starting dateRegistered July 2014
Contact informationName: Alexander Häge
E‐mail: alexander.haege@zi‐mannheim.de
NotesSource of funding: "European Community'sSeventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007‐2013) undergrant agreement number 278948, TACTICS(Translational Adolescent and Childhood TherapeuticInterventions in Compulsive Syndromes)".
Conflicts of interest: unclear

IRCT20090117001556N124.

Study nameCilostazol as adjunctive treatment of autism: adouble blind and placebo controlled trial inchildren 5 to 11 years old
Methods10‐week parallel trial of cilostazol versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 5‐11

  • DSM‐V diagnosis of autism

  • minimum ABC‐I score of 12


Exclusion criteria:
  • any psychiatric disorder

  • history of allergies to cilostazol orrisperidone

  • any medical conditions such as seizuredisorders or heart conditions

  • receipt of psychotropic medicines in the 2weeks prior to the study

InterventionsIntervention (cilostazol + risperidone): 100 mgcilostazol morning and night plus risperidone 1‐3mg/day
Comparator (placebo + risperidone): 1‐3 mg/day ofrisperidone plus placebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability, measured using theABC‐I (Aman1985)
Secondary outcomes: unclear
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, week 5 and10 (endpoint)
Starting date30 May 2020
Contact informationContact name: S. Akhondzadeh
E‐mail: s.akhond@sina.tums.ac.ir
NotesSource of funding: Tehran University of MedicalSciences
Conflicts of interest: not reported

IRCT20200317046801N2.

Study nameEffect of ondansetron combination therapy withrisperidone in children with autism spectrumdisorder in a randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled clinical trial
Methods8‐week parallel trial of ondansetron versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children aged 5‐17 years

  • DSM‐V diagnosis of autism


Exclusion criteria:
  • any active medical condition

  • any psychiatric conditions

  • taking risperidone or other psychotropics inthe 2 weeks prior to the study

  • liver, heart, or kidney disease

  • allergy to ondansetron


Setting: Roozbeh Hospital, Tehran, Iran
Target sample size: 40
InterventionsIntervention: risperidone and ondansetron (05mg/kg/day for children > 40 kg) for 8 weeks
Comparator: risperidone and placebo for 8 weeks ‐ thedosage of risperidone is unclear.
Ondansetron: 05 mg/kg/day for children > 40 kg;placebo is 05 mg/kg/day for children > 40 kg
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: irritability, measured using theABC‐I (Aman1985)
Secondary outcomes: unclear
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, weeks 4 and8 (endpoint)
Starting date11 September 2020
Contact informationName: Rahim Badrfam
E‐mail: rbadrfam@gmail.com
NotesSource of funding: Tehran University of MedicalSciences
Conflicts of interest: unclear

ISRCTN15984604.

Study nameSertraline for anxiety in adults with a diagnosis ofautism
Methods14‐week parallel trial of sertraline versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria: "Aged ≥18 years and have adiagnosis of autism (including autism spectrumdisorder/condition or other variations, Aspergersyndrome, or pervasive developmental disorder);experience anxiety for which participants arewilling to try treatment with medication; able tocomplete online or paper‐based questionnaires aboutthings such as anxiety, other symptoms, andhealthcare usage; able to provide informed consentto take part".
Exclusion criteria: "currently taking medication(s)for depression and/or anxiety, or have taken them inthe past 8 weeks, or are using St John’s Wort; havea moderate or severe learning disability which meansthey may not be able to provide informed consentand/or understand and complete the studyquestionnaires; have/had other mental healthconditions such as bipolar disorder or psychosis;have epilepsy that is not well controlled; havecurrent problematic use of alcohol or illicit drugs;have allergies to sertraline or placebo; have/hadsevere liver problems, bleeding disorders, someheart problems; have swallowing difficulties or areunable to take medication in capsule form; takingpart in another clinical trial; or are pregnant,planning pregnancy during the study period, orbreastfeeding."
Location/setting: the UK and Australia
Target sample size: 306 participants
InterventionsIntervention (sertraline): the first 2 weeksparticipants will receive 25 mg of sertraline intablet form, increasing to 25 mg twice daily for thenext 4 weeks. Dose can be increased by 50 mg every 4weeks until the optimal dose is reached.
Comparator: the first 2 weeks participants willreceive 25 mg of placebo in tablet form, increasingto 25 mg twice daily for the next 4 weeks. Dose canbe increased by 50 mg every 4 weeks until theoptimal dose is reached.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: health‐related QoL measured usingEQ‐5D‐5L questionnaire
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, 12, 16, 24and 52 weeks
Starting dateOctober 2019
Contact informationContact name: Adam Taylor
Contact details:research‐governance@bristol.ac.uk
NotesSource of funding: National Institute for HealthResearch Health Technology Assessment programme(NIHR HTA) (UK) and the National Health and MedicalResearch Council (NHMRC) (Australia)
Conflicts of interest: details not reported

JPRN‐UMIN000017876.

Study nameEffects of long‐term administration of intranasaloxytocin in children with autism spectrumdisorder
Methods14‐week cross‐over trial of oxytocin versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male

  • aged 6‐10 years

  • diagnosis of ASD based on DSM‐5 criteria andfurther confirmed by ADOS

  • at Osaka university hospital

  • IQ 35‐75

  • parents provide written informed consent toparticipate


Exclusion criteria
  • female

  • co‐occurring cardiovascular or renaldisease

  • allergy to oxytocin

  • previously used oxytocin

  • doctors judged the trial to be inappropriatefor the patient.


Location/setting: Japan
Target sample size: 10 in total
InterventionsIntervention: intranasal oxytocin 24 IU twice daily,followed by a 1‐week wash‐out period before phase 2of the trial.
Comparator: equivalent intranasal placebo twicedaily, followed by a 1‐week wash‐out period beforephase 2 of the trial.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • ABC‐I subscale (Japanese version)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and endpointof phase
Starting dateFirst registered June 2015
Contact informationContact person: Masako Taniike
Contact details: masako@ped.med.osaka‐u.ac.jp
NotesSource of funding: sponsored by the United GraduateSchool of Child Development, OsakaUniversity
Conflicts of interest: details notprovided

NCT00198120.

Study nameSafety and effectiveness of D‐cycloserine in childrenwith autism
Methods8‐week parallel trial of D‐cycloserine versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • aged 3‐12 years

  • clinical diagnosis of autism based onDSM‐IV

  • ABC‐lethargy subscale of ≥ 13


Exclusion criteria:
  • severe or profound intellectual disability

  • weight < 11 kg

  • other neurodevelopmental disorders

  • any psychiatric disorders requiringtreatment

  • significant renal, hepatic, or cardiovasculardisorders


Setting/location: assumed to be in the USA
Sample size: target sample size is 80
InterventionsIntervention (D‐Cycloserine) for 8 weeks: maximum 1.7mg/kg/day
Comparator (placebo) for 8 weeks: equivalentplacebo
OutcomesNo relevant outcomes
Starting dateTrial registry last updated 2016
Contact informationName: Christopher J McDougle
Contact details: not provided
NotesSource of funding: Indiana University
Conflicts of interest: unclear

NCT01914939.

Study nameA randomized, controlled trial of intranasal oxytocinas an adjunct to behavioral therapy for autismspectrum disorder
Methods12‐week parallel trial of oxytocin versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male participants

  • aged 18‐40 years

  • normal or corrected vision

  • English‐speaking

  • able to attend sessions in Boston

  • no history of brain injury, genetic disorders,or motor development difficulties


Exclusion criteria:
  • substance dependency apart from caffeine andtobacco

  • serious medical conditions

  • current psychiatric disorders


Setting/location: Boston, USA
Sample size: target is 92 participants
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin) for 12 weeks: intranasalspray of oxytocin 24 IU (unclear how often)
Comparator (placebo) for 12 weeks: intranasalplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: QoL (measured using the Qualityof Life Enjoyment and SatisfactionQuestionnaire)
Timing of outcome assessments: unclear
Starting dateFirst registered in 2013
Contact informationName: John Gabrieli
Address: Massachusetts General Hospital/MIT
NotesSource of funding: Massachusetts General Hospital
Conflicts of interest: not reported

NCT01970345.

Study nameA pilot treatment study of insulin‐like growthfactor‐1 (IGF‐1) in autism spectrum disorder
Methods12‐week cross‐over trial of insulin‐like growthfactor‐1 (IGF‐1) versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • children aged 5‐12 years

  • meet the DSM‐5 criteria for ASD

  • language delay "(lack of fluent phrase speech)reflected by use of ADOS Module 1 or 2"

  • must be on stable medication in the 3 monthsprior to the trial


Exclusion criteria:
  • intolerance or allergy to IGF‐1

  • hepatic or renal insufficiency, intracranialhypertension, cardiomegaly/valvulopathy, orsignificant medical conditions deemed by theinvestigators to affect the safe administration ofIGF‐1


Setting/location: unknown, although assumed to be inthe USA
Number of participants: target is 10
InterventionsIntervention (insulin‐like growth factor‐1 (IGF‐1))for 12 weeks: initiated at 0.04 mg/kg twice daily byinjection, increasing to maximum of 0.12 mg/kg twicedaily
Comparator (placebo) for 12 weeks: equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: BoC (measured using the RepetitiveBehaviour Scale (Bodfish 2000) (subscales unknown))
Secondary outcomes: unclear
Timing of outcome assessments: unclear
Starting dateFirst registered in 2013 and expected to be completedin 2022
Contact informationName: Bonnie Lerman
E‐mail: bonnie.lerman@mssm.edu
NotesSource of funding: Icahn School of Medicine at MountSinai, Autism Science Foundation
Conflicts of interest: unclear

NCT03553875.

Study nameMemantine for the treatment of social deficits inyouth with disorders of impaired socialinteractions
Methods12‐week parallel trial of memantine hydrochlorideversus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male or female participants

  • aged 8‐18 years

  • DSM‐V diagnosis of ASD, and "at least moderateseverity of social impairment as measured by atotal raw score of ≥85 on theparent/guardian‐completed Social ResponsivenessScale‐Second Edition (SRS‐2)14 and a score of ≥4on the clinician‐administered Clinical GlobalImpression‐Severity scale (CGI‐S)17"


Exclusion criteria:
  • IQ < 70

  • currently taking lamatrogine, amantadine,N‐Acetycysteine, or D‐cycloserine

  • any other psychotropics that have not beenstable for past 4 weeks

  • co‐administration of drugs that compete withmemantine such as hydrochlorothiazide,triamterene, metformin, cimetidine, ranitidine,quinidine, and nicotine

  • pregnant or breastfeeding; history of orcurrent liver or kidney disease

  • serious medical conditions

  • known hypersensitivity to memantine


Location/setting: Massachusetts General Hospital,USA
Target sample size: 100 participants
InterventionsIntervention (memantine) for 12 weeks: maximum dailydose of 20 mg, administered twice daily for 12weeks
Comparator (placebo) for 12 weeks: equivalent placebopill twice daily
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: CGI‐Improvement Scale
Secondary outcomes: unclear
Timing of outcome assessments: not known
Starting dateFirst registered in November 2018
Contact informationName: Chloe Hutt Vater
E‐mail: chuttvater@mgh.harvard.edu
NotesSource of funding: Massachusetts General Hospital
Conflicts of interest: unclear

NCT03887676.

Study nameArbaclofen versus placebo in the treatment ofchildren and adolescents with ASD
Methods16‐week parallel trial of arbaclofen versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • males and female

  • aged 5‐17 years

  • outpatients

  • meet the DSM‐V criteria for ASD

  • on stable medications in the 6 weeks prior tothe study and during the study

  • ability to obtain written informed consent fromthe participant or a legal guardian or parent toparticipate in the study.


Exclusion criteria:
  • pregnant or sexually active female participantswho are on inadequate contraception

  • any serious medical condition including renal,cardiovascular, endocrine, or gastrointestinaldisorders

  • unstable epilepsy (defined as seizures withinthe past 6 months)

  • history of drug abuse

  • hypersensitivity to arbaclofen

  • unable to tolerate blood sampling

  • actively involved in another trial

  • regularly taking racaemic baclofen, vigabatrin,tiagabine, riluzole, clobazam or regularbenzodiazepine use ('as needed') use isallowed)

  • unable to take oral medications

  • inability to speak and understand Englishsufficiently enough to allow for the completion ofall study assessments


Setting/ location: Canada
Sample size: 90 participants
InterventionsIntervention: arbaclofen administered orally intablet form in the following doses 5 mg, 10 mg, 15mg and 20 mg for 16 weeks
Comparator: equivalent placebo for 16 weeks
OutcomesPrimary outcomes: AEs
Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: 16 weeks(endpoint)
Starting dateMarch 2019
Contact informationEvdokia Anagnostou
Contact details: not provided
NotesSource of funding: Holland Bloorview KidsRehabilitation Hospital; McMaster University;University of Western Ontario, Canada; Queen'sUniversity; Unity Health Toronto; University ofToronto
Conflicts of interest: details not provided

NCT04520685.

Study nameCASCADE: CAnnabidiol Study in Children with Autismspectrum DisordEr (CASCADE)
Methods12‐week cross‐over trial of cannabidiol versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male or female participants

  • 5‐17 years of age

  • documented diagnosis of ASD

  • participants taking psychotropic medicationsshould be on a stable dose and no more than 2medications in the 4 weeks prior to the study

  • people with epilepsy cannot take more than 2different anticonvulsants in the 3 months prior tothe study,

  • BMI of 12‐32

  • negative pregnancy test


Exclusion criteria:
  • pregnant or breastfeeding

  • history of hypersensitivities or allergies tocannibidiol

  • planned changes to pharmacological orbehavioural interventions

  • acute or progressive psychiatric conditions

  • history or treatment for substance abuse


Setting/location: University of Colorado, Denver
Sample size: target is 70 participants
InterventionsIntervention (cannabidiol) for 12 weeks then placebofor 15 weeks: "Each study period is 12 weeks anddose will be titrated up for 1 week at the beginningof a treatment period and titrated down for 1 weekat the end of a treatment period, with a two weekplacebo washout between periods for Arms 1 and 2.The titration dose will be 5mg/kg/day and thetreatment dose will be 10mg/kg/day"
Comparator (placebo) for 15 weeks then cannabidiolfor 12 weeks: participants will begin placebo inperiod 1 and receive cannabidiol in period 2 (sameas above)
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • ABC‐Irritability (Aman 1985), frombaseline to week 12

  • self‐injurious behaviour (measured using theRepetitive behaviour scale) (Bodfish2000)


Secondary outcomes: QoL (measured using the PedsQL ‐Core Scale) (Varni2001)
Timing of outcome assessments ‐ baseline, week 12(endpoint)
Starting dateFirst registered in August 2020
Contact informationName: Nana Welnick
E‐mail: CBDinAutismStudy@childrenscolorado.org
NotesSource of funding: University of Colorado, Denver
Conflicts of interest: unclear

NCT04725383.

Study nameAmitriptyline for repetitive behaviors in autismspectrum disorders
Methods12‐week parallel trial of amitripyline versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria
  • male and female

  • aged 6‐17 years

  • diagnosis of ASD

  • IQ > 35


Exclusion criteria:
  • an allergy to amitriptyline

  • absence of a reliable caregiver

  • previous neuroleptic malignant syndrome

  • seizures in the past 3 months

  • bipolar disorder

  • current or past psychosis

  • unstable medical illness

  • previous adequate treatment withamitriptyline

  • using other psychotropic medications apart frommelatonin for sleep or lorazepam 1 mg as needed upto once a day


Target sample size: 30 participants
Location/setting: USA
InterventionsIntervention: "Subjects will receive activeamitriptyline compounded into look‐alike capsules toresemble placebo capsules. Dosing will be astolerated, up to a maximum of 100mg/day or1.5mg/kg/day, for 12 weeks."
Comparator: "Subjects in this arm will receiveplacebo compounded into capsules that resemble thecompounded amitriptyline capsules, up to 4 capsulesa day, for 12 weeks."
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability (measured using the ABC‐I (Aman 1985)

  • self‐injurious behaviour (measured using theRepetitive Behaviour Scale) (Bodfish2000)


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and 12 weeks(endpoint)
Starting dateFirst registered January 2021
Contact informationJessica Hellings
Jessica.Hellings@tmcmed.org
NotesSource of funding: sponsored by the University ofMissouri, Kansas City
Conflicts of interest: details not provided

NCT04745026.

Study nameAn exploratory, phase 2, randomized, double‐blind,placebo‐controlled trial to investigate the safetyand efficacy of cannabidiol oral solution(GWP42003‐P; CBD‐OS) in children and adolescentswith autism spectrum disorder
Methods12‐week parallel trial of GWP42003‐P (cannabidiol)versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male and female

  • aged 6‐17 years

  • weight at least 12 kg

  • participants and their parent(s)/legalrepresentative are willing and able to giveinformed consent

  • diagnosis of ASD as per DSM‐5 criteria,confirmed by ADOS‐2 criteria (conducted within 2years at the trial site or at screening by aqualified assessor or ADI‐R if ADOS‐2 is notavailable

  • CGI‐S ≥ 4 (moderately ill) at screening andrandomisation

  • ABC‐I subscale score ≥ 15 at screening

  • IQ ≥ 70 at screening, or measured within 1 yearof screening, using Wechsler Abbreviated Scale ofIntelligence Scale Second Edition (WASI‐II)

  • all medications or interventions (includingpsychosocial interventions, dietary supplements,probiotics, speech therapy, etc.) for ASD‐relatedsymptoms must have been stable for 4 weeks priorto screening and randomisation, and thepatient/caregiver should be willing to maintain astable regimen throughout the trial

  • able to swallow the investigational medicinalproduct (IMP), provided as a liquid solution

  • participant and/or parent(s)/legalrepresentative willing to allow the responsibleauthorities to be notified of participation in thetrial, if necessary.


Exclusion criteria
  • Current diagnosis of bipolar disorder,psychosis, schizophrenia, schizoaffectivedisorder, or major depression (participants withdepression in remission may be included)

  • diagnosis other than ASD that dominates theclinical presentation (e.g. ADHD)

  • progressive neurological condition

  • seizures in the past 24 weeks

  • changes in anticonvulsive therapy within thelast 12 weeks

  • currently taking more than 2 anti‐epilepticdrugs

  • taking sirolimus, everolimus, temsirolimus, ortacrolimus; taking clobazam; taking omeprazole,lansoprazole, tolbutamide, or warfarin; takingrepaglinide, pioglitazone, rosiglitazone,montelukast, bupropion, or efavirenz; currentlyusing or has used recreational or medicinalcannabis, cannabinoid‐based medications (includingSativex®, or Epidiolex®) within the 12 weeks priorto screening and is unwilling to abstain for theduration of the trial

  • participant has any known or suspectedhypersensitivity to cannabinoids or any of theintervention drug's excipients, such as sesameoil

  • moderately impaired hepatic function atscreening, defined as serum alanineaminotransferase (ALT) or aspartateaminotransferase (AST) > 2 × upper limit ofnormal (ULN) or total bilirubin (TBL) > 2 ×ULN

  • participant is male and fertile (i.e. afterpuberty unless permanently sterile by bilateralorchidectomy) unless willing to ensure that theyuse male contraception (condom) or remain sexuallyabstinent during the trial and for 12 weeksthereafter

  • participant is female and of childbearingpotential (i.e., following menarche and untilbecoming postmenopausal for ≥ 12 consecutivemonths unless permanently sterile by hysterectomy,bilateral salpingectomy, or bilateraloophorectomy) unless willing to ensure that theyuse a highly effective method of birth control(e.g., hormonal contraception, intrauterinedevice/hormone‐releasing system, bilateral tubalocclusion, vasectomized partner, sexualabstinence) during the trial and for 12 weeksthereafter; female participant who is pregnant(positive pregnancy test), lactating or planningpregnancy during the course of the trial or within12 weeks thereafter

  • received an IMP within the 12 weeks prior tothe screening visit

  • brain surgery or traumatic brain injury within1 year of screening

  • any other significant disease or disorderwhich, in the opinion of the investigator, mayeither put the participant, other participants, orsite staff at risk because of participation in thetrial, may influence the result of the trial, ormay affect the participant's ability to take partin the trial

  • any abnormalities identified following aphysical examination of the participant that, inthe opinion of the investigator, would jeopardisethe safety of the participant if they took part inthe trial; any history of suicidal behaviour(lifelong) or any suicidal ideation of type 4 or 5on the Columbia‐Suicide Severity Rating Scale(C‐SSRS) in the last 4 weeks or at screening orrandomisation

  • donated blood during the past 12 weeks and isunwilling to abstain from donation of blood duringthe trial

  • any known or suspected history of alcohol orsubstance abuse or positive drugs of abuse test atscreening (not justified by a known concurrentmedication)

  • previously been randomised into this trial

  • participant has plans to travel outside theircountry of residence during the trial, unless theparticipant has confirmation that the IMP ispermitted in the destination country/state".


Setting/location: 7 sites in the USA, and 2 sites inboth Canada and the UK
Sample size: 160 participants
InterventionsIntervention GWP42003‐P (100 mg/mL cannabidiol (CBD)in sesame oil with anhydrous ethanol, ethanolsweetener [sucralose], and strawberry flavouring),administered twice a day (morning and evening)
Comparator: "Oral placebo to match GWP42003‐P oralsolution containing sesame oil with anhydrousethanol, sweetener (sucralose), strawberryflavoring, and beta carotene, administered twice aday (morning and evening)".
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • change from screening in ABC subscale scores(Aman1985)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline, endpoint
Starting dateMay 2021
Contact informationContact person: not provided
Contact details:ClinicalTrialDisclosure@JazzPharma.com;info@gwpharm.com (UK contact)
NotesSource of funding
Conflicts of interest

NCT04895215.

Study nameA three‐arm, parallel group, randomized,double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of theefficacy, safety, and tolerability of AB‐2004 in a13 to 17 year‐old autism spectrum disorderpopulation
Methods8‐week parallel trial of two doses of AB‐2004 versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • clinically diagnosed, documented ASD DSM‐5criteria

  • ABC‐I score ≥ 18 at the screening visit

  • CGI‐S scale score ≥ 4 at the screeningvisit


Exclusion criteria:
  • use of an oral, injected, or inhaled antibioticwithin 30 days prior to screening. Prophylacticoral antibiotic use of no more than 1 dose will bepermitted

  • current use of an oral controlled orextended‐release medication

  • have a comorbid major psychiatric condition(e.g. schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) atscreening that in the opinion of the Investigatormay interfere with the participant's ability tocomplete study procedures/comply with studyrequirements

  • current use of antipsychotics (eg, aripiprazoleor risperidone)


Setting/location: "13 sites in the U.S., and twosites in Australia/New Zealand combined."
Sample size: target sample size is 195
InterventionsIntervention: AB‐2004 (high‐dose) taken 3 timesdaily; or AB‐2004 (low‐dose) taken 3 times daily
Comparator: equivalent placebo taken 3 timesdaily
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • mean change in ABC‐I score (Aman 1985) frombaseline to endpoint

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and endpoint(week 8)
Starting dateAugust 2021
Contact informationName:Jeffrey Young
E‐mail: jeffrey@axialtx.com
NotesSource of funding: details not reported
Conflicts of interest: not reported

NCT05015439.

Study nameCannabidiol (CBD) in adults with ASD
Methods14‐week cross‐over trial of cannabiodiol versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male and female

  • aged ≥ 18 years

  • ASD based on DSM‐5 criteria

  • significant mood disorder, sleep disturbance,or exhibit agitation, aggression, or otheraberrant behaviour that is interfering withfunction and QoL, as determined by theirpsychiatric interview


Exclusion criteria: "history of alcohol or substanceuse disorder; positive urine tetrahydrocannabinolscreen at onset of study; positive urinetetrahydrocannabinol screen at onset of study;individuals with unstable liver disease; individualstaking medications where CBD interaction mightsignificantly alter drug levels, such asclobazam".
Setting/location: USA
Sample size: target sample size is 40
InterventionsIntervention (cannabidiol): 100 mg cannabidiol twicedaily in capsule form, increasing to 200 mg twicedaily by week 3. This is followed by a 2‐weekwash‐out period before starting phase 2 of thecross‐over.
Comparator (placebo): equivalent placebo for 6 weeks.This is followed by a 2‐week wash‐out period beforestarting phase 2 of the cross‐over.
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • change in aberrant behaviours as assessed bythe ABC (Aman1985)

  • adverse effects


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: baseline and six weeks(end of phase)
Starting dateEstimated start date: September 2022
Contact informationContact name: Elizabeth Wise
Contact details: ewise11@jhmi.edu
NotesSource of funding: Johns Hopkins University; CanopyGrowth Corporation
Conflicts of interest: details not provided

NCT05163717.

Study nameINP105 proof‐of‐concept study for the acute treatmentof agitation in adolescents with ASD (CALM 201)
MethodsCross‐over trial of single‐dose INP105 (olanzapine)versus placebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male and female

  • aged 12‐17 years

  • confirmed ASD diagnosis

  • admitted as an inpatient to a behavioral unitprior to informed consent

  • displays episodes of moderate to severeagitation


Exclusion criteria:
  • hypersensitivity to olanzapine

  • currently diagnosed with a genetic or othersyndromic form of neurodevelopmental disorder

  • seizure in the past 6 months

  • history of severe head trauma, stroke,endocrine disorder, or cardiovascular disease

  • history of hypotension

  • currently on a chronic dose of olanzapine, orcurrently taking ciprofloxacin, enoxacin,fluvoxamine, or carbamazepine


Location/setting: USA
Target sample size: 32 participants
Gender: details not provided
Mean age: details not provided
IQ: details not provided
Concomitant medications: details not provided
Previous medications: details not provided
InterventionsIntervention (olanzapine): a single dose of 5 mg ofolanzapine
Comparator (placebo): a single dose of equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability (measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • aggression (measured using the Overt AggressionScale)

  • AEs


Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: AEs measured up to 48h post‐dose; aggression and irritability measured 30minutes post‐dose.
Starting date 
Contact informationContact name: Stephen Shrewsbury
Contact details: sshrewsbury@impelpharma.com
NotesStudy start date: June 2022
Study end date: estimated to be January 2023
Source of funding: Impel NeuroPharma Inc.
Conflicts of interest: details not provided

NCT05182697.

Study nameSCI‐210 in the treatment of children and young adultswith autism evaluate the safety, tolerability andefficacy of SCI‐210 in children with autism spectrumdisorder (ASD)
MethodsCross‐over trial of palmitoylethanolamide versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male and female

  • aged 5‐18 years

  • diagnosis of ASD confirmed by the ADOS‐2 or theDSM‐5 criteria

  • moderate or greater behavioural problemsmeasured by a rating of moderate or higher (atleast 4) on the CGI‐S

  • parent or legal guardian who will provideconsent

  • must be "eligible for cannabis treatment asregulated by the Israeli Ministry of Health, asout lined in the Medical Cannabis unit circular onLicenses for cannabis use, Procedure number 106,version 5 dated Jan 2021".


Exclusion criteria:
  • children who already receive cannabis,antipsychotics or stimulants

  • heart, liver, renal, or blood disorders

  • history of seizure disorders or have had aseizure within the past 3 months

  • exposure to any other investigational agent inthe 30 days prior to the trial

  • current diagnosis of schizophrenia, majordepressive disorder, bipolar, psychosis or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

  • people who have had changes to othernon‐exclusionary psychotropic medications within 4weeks of starting the trial; allergic tocannabinoids

  • history of substance abuse

  • any other condition in the opinion of theinvestigator that places the participant atunacceptable risk if they participate


Setting/location: Israel
Sample size:
InterventionsIntervention: oral cannabidiol oil plus pills ofCannAmide (palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) 400 mg twicedaily
Comparator: active cannabidiol oil with twice‐dailyplacebo pills matched in appearance and taste toCannAmide active pill
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:

Secondary outcomes: none reported
Timing of outcome assessments: the ABC will bemeasured at baseline and weeks 4 and 8 of eachphase
Starting dateApproximately October 2022
Contact informationContact person: Gal Meiri
Contact details: not provided
Notes 

Parellada 2021.

Study nameArbaclofen in children and adolescents with ASD(AIMS2‐CT1)
Methods16‐week parallel trial of arbaclofen versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • outpatients

  • male and female

  • aged 5‐17 years with a diagnosis of ASD

  • if on psychotropic medications, must remainstable throughout the study

  • written informed consent to participate in thetrial


Exclusion criteria:
  • pregnant women

  • any serious medical conditions, includingunstable epilepsy

  • history of drug abuse

  • hypersensitivity or allergy to arbaclofen

  • enroled in a different intervention study

  • inability to take oral medication


Setting/location: France, Spain and the UK
Sample size: target sample size is 130
InterventionsIntervention (arbaclofen) for 16 weeks: maximum of 15mg 3 times daily for children aged 5‐11 years, and amaximum of 20 mg/day for children aged 12‐17years
Comparator (placebo for 16 weeks): equivalentplacebo
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐I subscale(Aman1985)

  • adverse effects


Secondary outcomes: health‐related QoL (unclear themeasure used)
Timing of outcome assessments: unclear
Starting dateSeptember 2019
Contact informationContact person: Inge Winter
Contact details:I.Winter@umcutrecht.nl
NotesSource of funding: "This project has received fundingfrom the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 JointUndertaking under the grant agreement No. 777394 forthe project AIMS‐2‐TRIALS. This Joint Undertakingreceives support from the European Union's Horizon2020 research and innovation program, EFPIA, AutismSpeaks, Autistica, and the Simons Foundation".
Conflicts of interest: various authors had aconsultancy or other working relationship withpharmaceutical companies
Trial registry ‐NCT03682978

UMIN000017876.

Study nameEffects of long‐term administration of intranasaloxytocin in children with autism spectrumdisorder
Methods4‐week cross‐over trial of oxytocin versusplacebo
ParticipantsInclusion criteria:
  • male participants

  • aged 6‐10 years

  • diagnosis of ASD based on the DSM‐V

  • IQ 35‐75

  • written informed consent provided by theparent/s


Exclusion criteria:
  • comorbid renal or cardiovascular disease

  • allergy to oxytocin

  • female

  • previous use of oxytocin


Setting/location: Japan
Sample size: target sample size is 10
InterventionsIntervention (oxytocin for 4 weeks followed byplacebo): 24 IU of oxytocin twice daily for 4 weeks,then 1‐week washout followed by 4 weeks ofplacebo
Comparator (placebo for 4 weeks followed byoxytocin): placebo for 4 weeks followed by 1‐weekwashout period then 4 weeks of 24 IU oxytocin twicedaily
OutcomesPrimary outcomes:
  • irritability, measured using the ABC‐J(Japanese version of ABC‐Irritability) (Aman 1985)

  • adverse effects


Secondary outcomes: unclear
Timing of outcome assessments: unclear
Starting dateRegistered in 2015
Contact informationName: Masako Taniike
E‐mail: masako@ped.med.osaka‐u.ac.jp
NotesSource of funding: unclear

ABC‐I: Aberrant Behaviour Checklist: Irritabilitysubscale;ADOS: Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule;AE: adverse effect;ASD: Autism SpectrumDisorder;BoC: behaviours of concern;DSM:IV:Diagnostic and statistical Manual of Mental disorders (4thedition);DSM‐V: Diagnostic and statistical Manual ofMental disorders (5th edition);ICD‐10: Internationalclassification of diseases (10th edition);IGF‐1:insulin‐like growth factor‐1;PedsQL: Pediatric Qualityof Life inventory;QoL: quality of life

Differences between protocol and review

Description of the intervention

The original classifications of medications for this review were to include:antidepressants, antipsychotics, cholinesterase inhibitors, mood stabilisers,and N‐methyl‐D‐aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists. However, because thesecategories were based on both function and pharmacological receptor activity, wemodified these categories based on function and, where possible, conductedsubgroup analyses based on pharmacological action. The major drug classes thatwere used, therefore, were typical and atypical antipsychotics, ADHD‐relateddrugs (both stimulant and non‐stimulant), anticonvulsants, antidementia drugs,antidepressants, antiparkinsonian drugs, anxiolytics, neurohormones, and anumber of drugs that did not fall into any of these classes that we groupedunder an experimental category.

Objectives

"To generate a clinically useful ranking of available pharmacologicalinterventions for BoC in autism, according to their safety, efficacy, andtolerability." After consultation with a statistician (who was not involved inthe review in any other way), it was decided that a network meta‐analysis wasnot feasible.

Unit of analysis issues

We originally planned to only include data from the first phase of cross‐overtrials in the analysis. We found that only a very small percentage of cross‐overtrials reported phase one data and as such, we decided to include data from allcross‐over trials provided the participants were randomised. This was due to thelarge number of studies that would have been excluded from the review had weonly included trials that reported phase data.

As the majority of cros‐sover studies did not differentiate data from first andsecond phases we undertook sensitivity analyses to identify whether inclusion ofthese data had a differential effect on meta‐analytic estimates.

Types of outcome measures

Due to the wide range of adverse effect data that we collected during thisreview, a post‐protocol decision was made to categorise available data into thefollowing groups; neurological, psychological, metabolic, musculoskeletal,cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, immune system, respiratory system, skin,urinary, and other.

We also decided to include improvement and relapse as outcomes because a fewstudy authors reported either at least a 25% decrease (improvement) or a 25%increase (relapse) in ABC‐Irritability scores. We included these outcomesbecause they are related to the primary outcome of irritability.

Summary of findings and assessment of the certainty of theevidence

During the course of this review, a very large number of different types of'adverse effects' were found to be reported by the included studies. To make thesummary of findings table more readable and useful, the clinical content expertson the review team were asked to prioritise the list of available adverseeffects, to decide which should be presented in the summary of findings table.The clinical experts were blinded to the type or availability of evidenceavailable for each type of adverse effect when they made this decision, toensure their choice was based on clinical importance and not data availability.As a result of this prioritisation exercise, the decision was made to present anarrative summary of the most important adverse effects in the four mostclinically important categories: neurological, psychological, metabolic, andmusculoskeletal.

Contributions of authors

  • Conception of the review: NL and authors of the protocol

  • Design of the review: NL and authors of the protocol

  • Co‐ordination of the review: NL, DG

  • Search and selection of studies for inclusion in review: DG, MI, MJ,NL

  • Collection of data for the review: DG, MI, MJ, NL

  • Assessment of the risk of bias, DG, MI, NL, MJ

  • Analysis of data: MI, NL, DG

  • Assessment of the certainty of the evidence: MI, DG, NL

  • Interpretation of data: MI, DG, NL

  • Writing of review: MI, DG, NL

  • Author of protocol and revising final draft: PH

  • All review authors contributed to the drafting and revising of the draftfor important intellectual content.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Queen’s University Belfast, UK

    Salary (Nuala Livingstone)

  • University of Melbourne, Australia

    Salary (Katrina Williams)

  • University of Bristol, UK

    Salary (Deborah M Caldwell)

  • Royal Children's Hospital, Australia

    Salary (Louise Baker)

  • NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, Australia

    Salary (Donna Gillies, Michelle Iffland and Mikaela Jorgensen)

External sources

  • Health and Social Care (HSC) Research & Development Division,Public Health Agency, Northern Ireland (NI), UK

    Cochrane Fellowship (Nuala Livingstone)

  • UK Medical Research Council, Other

    Population Health Scientist Fellowship award (G0902118) (Deborah MCaldwell)

Declarations of interest

Michelle Iffland is a Research Officer with the NDIS Quality and SafeguardsCommission, NSW. The NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission is committed to reducingand eliminating the use of restrictive practices in people with a disability.

Donna Gillies is the Director for Research and Practice Evidence with the NDISQuality and Safeguards Commission, Penrith, NSW. The NDIS Quality and SafeguardsCommission is committed to reducing and eliminating the use of restrictive practicesin people with a disability.

Nuala Livingstone is a Quality Assurance Editor with the Cochrane Evidence Productionand Methods Directorate, Central Editorial Service, and an Editor with CochraneDevelopmental, Psychosocial and Developmental Problems (DPLP); UK. Nuala Livingstonewas not involved in the editorial process for this article

Mikaela Jorgensen is the Assistant Director of Research with the NDIS Quality andSafeguards Commission, NSW, which is committed to the reduction and elimination ofrestrictive practices for people with disability.

Philip Hazell (PH) reports payments for lectures, for Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer andShire, and advisory boards for Lilly, Janssen and Shire related to thepharmacological management of child and adolescent mental disorders in general; paidto Sydney Local Health District; PH is a Consultant Psychiatrist for Sydney LocalHealth District, NSW, and an Editor with Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial andLearning Problems, UK. PH reports being involved in a study eligible for inclusionin this review:Multisite randomised control trail of fluoxetine for children andadolescents with autism; the study was funded by NHMRC and hosted by MurdochChildren's Research Institute, VIC. The researchers retained complete control overthe study design, methods, data analysis and reporting. PH was not involved inassessing the studies for eligibility, extracting data from the studies, orassessing the risk of bias or grading the certainty of the evidence; these methodswere completed by two independent review authors (DG, MI, MJ, NL).

New

References

References to studies included in thisreview

Akhondzadeh 2004 {published data only}

  1. Akhondzadeh S,Erfani S,Mohammadi MR,Tehrani-Doost M,Amini H,Gudarzi SS, et al.Cyproheptadine in the treatment of autistic disorder:a double‐blind placebo‐controlled trial.Journal of Clinical Pharmacy andTherapeutics 2004;29(2):145-50.[DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2004.00546.x] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Akhondzadeh 2008 {published data only}

  1. Akhondzadeh S,Tajdar H, Mohammadi M-R,Mohammadi M, Nouroozinejad G-H,Shabstari OL, et al. Adouble-blind placebo controlled trial of piracetam added torisperidone in patients with autistic disorder.Child Psychiatry and Human Development 2008;39(3):237-45.[DOI: 10.1007/s10578-007-0084-3] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Akhondzadeh 2010 {published data only}

  1. Akhondzadeh S,Fallah J, Mohammadi M-R,Imani R,Mohammadi M,Salehi B, et al.Double-blind placebo-controlled trial ofpentoxifylline added to risperidone: effects on aberrant behavior inchildren with autism. Progress inNeuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry 2010;34(1):32-6.[DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2009.09.012] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Aman 2017 {published data only}

  1. Aman MG,Findling RL,Hardan AY,Hendren RL,Melmed RD,Kehinde-Nelson OK, et al. Safetyand efficacy of memantine in children with autism: randomized,placebo-controlled study and open-label extension.Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2017;27(5):403-12.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2015.0146] [PMCID: PMC5510039] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT00872898. Study ofpharmacokinetics, safety, efficacy, and tolerability of memantine inchildren with autism [An open-label (part one) and arandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled (part two) study of thepharmacokinetics, safety, efficacy, and tolerability of memantine inpediatric patients with autism].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00872898(first received 31 March 2009).

Anagnostou 2012 {published data only}

  1. Anagnosou E,Soorya L,Chaplin W,Bartz J,Halpern D,Wasserman S, et al. Intranasaloxytocin versus placebo in the treatment of adults with autismspectrum disorders: a randomized controlled trial.Molecular Autism 2012;3(1):16.[DOI: 10.1186/2040-2392-3-16] [PMCID: PMC3539865] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT00490802. Intranasaloxytocin in the treatment of autism.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00490802(first received 25 June 2007).

Aran 2021 {published data only}

  1. Aran A,Harel M,Cassuto H,Polyansky K,Schnapp A,Wattad1 N, et al.Cannabinoid treatment for autism: a proof-of-conceptrandomized trial. MolecularAutism 2021;12(6):6-6.[DOI: 10.1186/s13229-021-00420-2] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT02956226. Cannabinoidsfor behavioral problems in children with ASD (CBA).(first received 2 November 2016).

Arnold 2006 {published data only}

  1. Arnold LE,Aman M,Cook AM,Witwer AN,Hall KL,Thompson S, et al.Atomoxetine for hyperactivity in autism spectrumdisorders: placebo-controlled crossover pilot trial.Journal of the American Academy of Child andAdolescent Psychiatry 2006;45(10):1196-205.[DOI: 10.1097/01.chi.0000231976.28719.2a] [PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Arnold 2012a {published data only}

  1. Arnold LE,Aman MG,Hollway J,Hurt E,Bates B,Li X, et al.Placebo-controlled pilot trial of mecamylamine fortreatment of autism spectrum disorders.Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2012;22(3):198-205.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2011.0056] [PMCID: PMC3417385] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT00773812.Placebo-controlled pilot trial of mecamylamine fortreatment of autism spectrum disorders [Neuronalnicotinic receptor modulation in the treatment of autism: a pilot trialof mecamylamine].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00773812(first received 16 October 2008).

Asadabadi 2013 {published data only}IRCT138711091556N2

  1. Akhondzadeh S,Asadabadi M. Risperidone pluscelecoxib in children with autistic disorder: a double-blind,randomized trial. British Journal ofClinical Pharmacology 2012;73(6):983-4.[DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04253.x] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Asadabadi M, Mohammadi M-R,Ghanizadeh A,Modabbernia A,Ashrafi M,Hassanzadeh E, et al. Celecoxibas adjunctive treatment to risperidone in children with autisticdisorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlledtrial.Psychopharmacology 2013;225(1):51-9.[DOI: 10.1007/s00213-012-2796-8] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. IRCT138711091556N2.Celecoxib and autism [A double-blindplacebo controlled trial of celecoxib added to risperidone in patientswith autistic disorder]. www.irct.ir/trial/852(first received 12 February 2009).

Ayatollahi 2020 {published data only}IRCT20090117001556N112

  1. Ayatollahi A,Bagheri S,Ashraf-Ganjouei A,Moradi K, Mohammadi M-R,Akhondzadeh S. Does pregnenoloneadjunct to risperidone ameliorate irritable behavior in adolescentswith autism spectrum disorder: a randomized, double-blind,placebo-controlled clinical trial? Clinical Neuropharmacology 2020;43(5):139-45.[DOI: 10.1097/WNF.0000000000000405] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. IRCT20090117001556N112.Efficacy of pregnenolon in treatment of irritabilityin teenagers with autism [Efficacy of pregnenolon intreatment of irritability in teeanagers with autism; a double blind andplacebo controlled triall].www.irct.ir/trial/32775 (first received 25July 2018).

Batebi 2021 {published data only}IRCT20090117001556N114

  1. Batebi N,Moghaddam HS,Hasanzadeh A,Fakour Y,Mohammadi MR,Akhondzadeh S. Folinic acid asadjunctive therapy in treatment of inappropriate speech in childrenwith autism: a double-blind and placebo-controlled randomizedtrial. Child Psychiatry & HumanDevelopment 2021;52(5):928-38.[DOI: 10.1007/s10578-020-01072-8] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. IRCT20090117001556N114.Folinic acid in the treatment of autism spectrumdisorder [Folinic acid add on therapy to risperidonein symptoms of children with autism: a randomized double-blindplacebo-controlled clinical trial].www.irct.ir/trial/35172 (first received 15November 2018).

Behmanesh 2019 {published data only}IRCT20090117001556N113

  1. Behmanesh H, Moghaddam HS, Mohammadi M-R,Akhondzadeh S. Risperidonecombination therapy with propentofylline for treatment ofirritability in autism spectrum disorders: a randomized,double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.Clinical Neuropharmacology 2019;42(6):189-96.[DOI: 10.1097/WNF.0000000000000368] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. IRCT20090117001556N113.Effect of propentofylline in children withautism [Effect of propentofylline add on therapy torisperidon in children with autism: a randomized double-blindplacebo-controlled clinical trial].www.irct.ir/trial/35171 (first received 15November 2018).

Belsito 2001 {published data only (unpublished sought but notused)}

  1. Belsito KM,Law PA,Kirk KS,Landa RJ,Zimmerman AW. Lamotriginetherapy for autistic disorder: a randomised, double-blind,placebo-controlled trial. Journal ofAutism and Developmental Disorders 2001;31(2):175-81.[DOI: 10.1023/A:1010799115457] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Belsito K,Kirk K,Landa R,Law P,Zimmerman A. Lamotriginetherapy for childhood autism: a randomized, double-blind,placebo-controlled trial.Neurology 1998;50(4):A85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Bernaerts 2020 {published data only}

  1. Bernaerts S,Boets B,Bosmans G,Steyaert J,Alaerts K. Behavioraleffects of multiple-dose oxytocin treatment in autism: a randomized,placebo-controlled trial with long-term follow-up.Molecular Autism 2020;11(1):6.[DOI: 10.1186/s13229-020-0313-1] [PMCID: PMC6964112] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bernaerts S,Dillen C,Steyaert J,Alaerts K. The effects offour weeks of intranasal oxytocinon social responsiveness andrepetitive and restricted behaviors in autism spectrum disorders: arandomized controlled trial. BiologicalPsychiatry 2020;81(10):S349-50.[ABSTRACT NO: 864][DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.02.589] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Eudract 2014-000586-45.Oxytocin-based pharmacotherapy for autism spectrumdisorders: Investigating the neural and behavioral effects of apromising intervention approach.https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2014-000586-45(first registered May 2014).

Buitelaar 1990 {published data only}

  1. Buitelaar JK, VanEngeland H, DeKogel KH, DeVries H, VanHooff JA, VanRee JM. The use ofadrenocorticotrophic hormone (4-9) analog ORG 2766 in autisticchildren: effects on the organization of behavior.Biological Psychiatry 1992;31(11):1119-29.[DOI: 10.1016/0006-3223(92)90156-T] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Buitelaar JK, VanEngeland H, VanRee JM, DeWied D. Behavioraleffects of Org 2766, a synthetic analog of the adrenocorticotrophichormone (4–9), in 14 outpatient autistic children.Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders 1990;20(4):467-78.[DOI: 10.1007/BF02216053][PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Campbell 1987 {published data only}

  1. Campbell M,Adams P,Small AM,Curren EL,Overall JE,Anderson LT, et al. Efficacyand safety of fenfluramine in autistic children.Journal of the American Academy of Child &Adolescent Psychiatry 1988;27(4):434-9.[DOI: 10.1097/00004583-198807000-00010] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Campbell 1993 {published data only}

  1. Campbell M,Anderson LT,Small AM,Adams P,Gonzalez NM,Ernst E. Naltrexone inautistic children: behavioral symptoms and attentionallearning. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 1993;32(6):1283-91.[DOI: 10.1097/00004583-199311000-00024] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Gonzalez NM,Campbell M,Small AM,Shay J,Bluhm LD,Adams PB, et al.Naltrexone plasma levels, clinical response and effecton weight in autistic children.Psychopharmacology Bulletin 1994;30(2):203-8.[PMID:] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Carey 2002 {published data only}

  1. Carey T,Ratcliff-Schaub K,Funk J,Weinle C,Myers M,Jenks J, et al.Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of secretin:effects on aberrant behavior in children with autism.Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders 2002;32(3):161-7.[DOI: 10.1023/A:1015493412224] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Chez 2020 {published data only}

  1. Chez M,Kile S,Lepage C,Parise C,Benabides B,Hankins A. A randomized,placebo-controlled, blinded, crossover, pilot study of the effectsof dextromethorphan/quinidine for the treatment of neurobehavioralsymptoms in adults with autism. Journalof Autism and Developmental Disorders 2020;50(5):1532-8.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-018-3703-x] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Chugani 2016 {published data only (unpublished sought but notused)}

  1. Chugani DC,Chugani HT,Wiznitzer M,Parikh S,Evans PA,Hansen RL, et al. Efficacyof low-dose buspirone for restricted and repetitive behavior inyoung children with autism spectrum disorder: a randomizedtrial. Journal ofPediatrics 2016;170:45-53.e1-4.[DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.11.033] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT00873509. Buspironein the treatment of 2-6 year old children with autistic disorder(B-ACE) [A randomized, placebo-controlled,double-masked clinical trial of buspirone in the treatment of 2- 6 yearold children with autistic disorder]. (first received 1 April 2009).

Dai 2021 {published data only}

  1. Dai Y,Zhang L,Yu J,Zhou X,He H,Ji Y, et al. Improvedsymptoms following bumetanide treatment in children aged 3-6 yearswith autism spectrum disorder: a randomized, double-blind,placebo-controlled trial. ScienceBulletin 2021;66(15):1591-8.[DOI: 10.1016/j.scib.2021.01.008] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT03156153. A study ofbumetanide for the treatment of autism spectrumdisorders. (first received 15 May2017).

Danfors 2005 {published data only}

  1. Danfors T, Von Knorring A-L,Hartvig P,Langstrom B, Moulder R,Stromberg B, et al.Tetrahydrobiopterin in the treatment of children withautistic disorder: a double-blind placebo-controlled crossoverstudy. Journal of ClinicalPsychopharmacology 2005;25(5):485-9.[DOI: 10.1097/01.jcp.0000177667.35016.e9] [PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Danforth 2018 {published data only}

  1. Danforth AL,Grob CS,Struble C,Feduccia AA,Walker N,Jerome L, et al. Reductionin social anxiety after MDMA-assisted psychotherapy with autisticadults: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilotstudy. Psychopharmaology 2018;235(11):3137-48.[DOI: 10.1007/s00213-018-5010-9] [PMCID: PMC6208958] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT02008396. Phase 2pilot safety study of MDMA-assisted therapy for socail anxiety inautistic adults. (first received 6 December 2013).

Dean 2019 {published dataonly}ACTRN12610000635066

  1. ACTRN12610000635066.Efficacy Of N-acetyl cysteine in autism: adouble-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial[Efficacy of n-acetyl cysteine on social skills, communication andbehaviour in autistic children: a double-blind, placebo-controlledrandomised trial].www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=320918(first received 3 August 2010).
  2. Dean OM,Gray K,Dodd S, Villagonzalo K-A,Brown E,Tonge B, et al. DoesN-acetylcysteine improve behaviour in children with autism?: amixed-methods analysis of the effects ofN-acetylcysteine. Journal ofIntellectual & Developmental Disability 2019;44(4):474-80.[DOI: 10.3109/13668250.2017.1413079] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dean OM,Gray KM, Villagonzalo K-A,Dodd S,Mohebbi M,Vick T, et al. Arandomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of a fixed doseof N-acetyl cysteine in children with autisticdisorder. Australian and New ZealandJournal of Psychiatry 2017;51(3):241-9.[DOI: 10.1177/0004867416652735] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

DeVane 2019 {published data only}

  1. DeVane CL,Charles JM,Abramson RK,Williams JE,Carpenter LA,Raven S, et al.Pharmacotherapy of autism spectrum disorder: resultsfrom the randomized BAART clinical trial.Pharmacotherapy 2019;39(6):626-35.[DOI: 10.1002/phar.2271][PMCID: PMC6555676] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT01333072. Biomarkersin autism of aripiprazole and risperidone treatment(BAART) [Biomarkers in autism of aripiprazole andrisperidone treatment].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01333072(first received 11 April 2011).

Dollfus 1992 {published data only}

  1. Dollfus S,Petit M,Menard JF,Lesieur P. Amisulprideversus bromocriptine in infantile autism: a controlled crossovercomparative study of two drugs with opposite effects on dopaminergicfunction. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 1992;22(1):47-60.[DOI: 10.1007/BF01046402][PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dollfus S,Petit P,Menard JF. Pharmacoclinicalstudy of an agonist and an antagonist of dopamine in early infantileautism. Neuropsychiatrie de l'Enfanceet de l'Adolescence 1992;40(5-6):300-309. [Google Scholar]

Eslamzadeh 2018 {published data only}IRCT2016022826802N1

  1. Eslamzadeh M,Hebrani P,Behdani F, Moghadam MD,Panaghi L,Mirzadeh M, et al. Assessmentthe efficacy of atomoxetine in autism spectrum disorders: arandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and BehavioralSciences 2018;12(2):e10596.[DOI: 10.5812/ijpbs.10596] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. IRCT2016022826802N1.Assessment the efficacy of atomoxetin(stramox) inautism spectrum disorders 6-17 years old.www.irct.ir/trial/22109 (first received 31August 2016).

Fankhauser 1992 {published data only}

  1. Fankhauser MP,Karamanchi VC,German ML,Yates A,Karamanchi SD. A double-blind,placebo-controlled study of the efficacy of transdermal clonidine inautism. Journal of ClinicalPsychiatry 1992;53(3):77-82.[PMID:] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Findling 2014 {published data only}

  1. Findling RL,Mankoski R,Timko K,Lears K,McCartney T,McQuade RD, et al. Arandomized controlled trial investigating the safety and efficacy ofaripiprazole in the long-term maintenance treatment of pediatricpatients with irritability associated with autisticdisorder. Journal of ClinicalPsychiatry 2014;75(1):22-30.[DOI: 10.4088/JCP.13m08500] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT01227668. Phase IVlong-term maintenance study of aripiprazole in the treatment ofirritability associated with autistic disorder.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01227668?term=NCT01227668&draw=2&rank=1(first received October 2010).

Ghaleiha 2013a {published data only}IRCT1138901151556N10

  1. Ghaleiha A,Asababadi M, Mohammadi M-R,Shahei M,Tabrizi M,Hajiaghaee R, et al. Memantineas adjunctive treatment to risperidone in children with autisticdisorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlledtrial. International Journal ofNeuropsychopharmacology 2013;16(4):783-9.[DOI: 10.1017/S1461145712000880] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. IRCT1138901151556N10. Adouble-blind placebo-controlled trial of memantine added torisperidone in patients with autistic disorder.https://www.irct.ir/trial/860 (firstreceived May 2010).

Ghaleiha 2013b {published data only}IRCT201107281556N27

  1. Ghaleiha A,Mohammadi E, Mohammadi M-R,Farokhnia M,Modabbernia A,Yekehtaz H, et al. Riluzoleas an adjunctive therapy to risperidone for the treatment ofirritability in children with autistic disorder: a double-blind,placebo-controlled, randomized trial.Pediatric Drugs 2013;15(6):505-14.[DOI: 10.1007/s40272-013-0036-2] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. IRCT201107281556N27.Riluzole in the treatment of autism[Riluzole added to risperidone in the treatment of autism: a doubleblind and placebo controlled trial].en.irct.ir/trial/877 (first received 30July 2011).

Ghaleiha 2014 {published data only}IRCT201204081556N40

  1. Ghaleiha A,Ghyasvand M, Mohammadi M-R,Farokhnia M,Yadegari N,Tabrizi M, et al.Galantamine efficacy and tolerability as anaugmentative therapy in autistic children: a randomized,double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Journal of Psychopharmacology 2014;28(7):677-85.[DOI: 10.1177/0269881113508830] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. IRCT201204081556N40.Galantamine in the treatment of autism[Galantamine added to risperidone in the treatment of autism: a doubleblind and placebo controlled trial].en.irct.ir/trial/890 (first received 14April 2012).

Ghaleiha 2015 {published data only}IRCT201202281556N37

  1. Ghaleiha A,Rasa SM,Nikoo M,Farokhnia M, Mohammadi M-R,Akhondzadeh S. A pilotdouble-blind placebo-controlled trial of pioglitazone as adjunctivetreatment to risperidone: effects on aberrant behavior in childrenwith autism. PsychiatryResearch 2015;229(1-2):181-7.[DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2015.07.043] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. IRCT201202281556N37.Pioglitazone in the treatment of autism[Pioglitazone added to risperidone in the treatment of autism: a doubleblind and placebo controlled trial].en.irct.ir/trial/887 (first received 1March 2012).

Ghaleiha 2016 {published data only}IRCT201302201556N50

  1. Ghaleiha A,Alikhani R, Kazemi M-R, Mohammadi M-R,Mohammadinejad P,Zeinoddini A, et al.Minocycline as adjunctive treatment to risperidone inchildren with autistic disorder: a randomized, double-blindplacebo-controlled trial. Journal ofChild and Adolescent Psychopharmacology 2016;26(9):784-91.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2015.0175] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. IRCT201302201556N50.Minocycline in the treatment of autism[Minocycline added to risperidone in the treatment of autism: a doubleblind and placebo controlled trial ].en.irct.ir/trial/900 (first received 21February 2013).

Ghanizadeh 2013 {published data only}IRCT201106103930N6

  1. Ghanizadeh A,Moghimi-Sarani E. A randomizeddouble blind placebo controlled clinical trial of N-acetylcysteineadded to risperidone for treating autistic disorders.BMC Psychiatry 2013;13:196.[DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-13-196] [PMCID: PMC3737121] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. IRCT201106103930N6.N-acetylcysteine augmentation with risperidone intreatment of autism in children [N-acetylcysteineaugmentation with rispridone in treatment of autism in children: adouble blind randomized placebo controlled clinical trial].www.irct.ir/trial/4085 (first received 8July 2011).

Ghanizadeh 2014 {published data only}IRCT201110233930N15

  1. Ghanizadeh A,Sahraeizadeh A,Berk M. A head-to-headcomparison of aripiprazole and risperidone for safety and treatingautistic disorders, a randomized double blind clinicaltrial. Child Psychiatry and HumanDevelopment 2014;45(2):185-92.[DOI: 10.1007/s10578-013-0390-x] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. IRCT201110233930N15.Aripiprazole versus risperidone for treatment ofautism.www.irct.ir/trial/4094 (first received 12December 2011).

Ghanizadeh 2015 {published data only}IRCT201307303930N28

  1. Ghanizadeh A,Ayoobzadehshirazi A. A randomizeddouble-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial of adjuvant buspironefor irritability in autism. PediatricNeurology 2015;52(1):77-81.[DOI: 10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2014.09.017] [PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. IRCT201307303930N28. Arandomized double blind placebo controlled clinical trial ofbuspirone for treating autism spectrum disorders.www.irct.ir/trial/4107 (first received 4April 2014).

Gordon 1993 {published data only}

  1. Gordon CT,Rapoport JL,Hamburger SD,State RC,Mannheim GB. Differentialresponse of seven subjects with autistic disorder to clomipramineand desipramine. American Journal ofPsychiatry 1992;149(3):363-6.[DOI: 10.1176/ajp.149.3.363] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Gordon CT,State RC,Nelson JE,Hamburger SD,Rapoport JL. A double-blindcomparison of clomipramine, desipramine, and placebo in thetreatment of autistic disorder.JAMA 1993;50(6):2441-7.[DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820180039004] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Guastella 2015a {published dataonly}ACTRN12609000513213

  1. ACTRN12609000513213. Acourse of oxytocin nasal spray (OT) to treat social problems inyouth with autism spectrum disorders [A double blindrandomised controlled trial of oxytocin nasal spray to treat socialproblems in autistic youth].www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=83655(first received 29 June 2009).
  2. Guastella AJ,Gray KM,Rinehart NJ,Alvares GA,Tonge BJ,Hickie IB, et al. Theeffects of a course of intranasal oxytocin on social behaviors inyouth diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders: a randomizedcontrolled trial. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry 2015;56(4):444-52.[DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12305][PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hagerman 2018 {published data only}

  1. Hagerman R,Potter L,Biag H,Scholze D,Schneider A,Rivera S, et al. Acontrolled trial of sertraline in children 2 to 6 with ASD withoutfragile X syndrome. Journal ofIntellectual Disability Research 2018;62(8):667-8.[DOI: 10.1111/jir.12512] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT02385799. A trial ofsertraline in young children with autism spectrum disorder(Sert2).https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02385799?term=NCT02385799&draw=2&rank=1(first received March 2015).
  3. Potter LA,Scholze DA,Biag HM,Schneider A,Chen Y,Nguyen DV, et al. Arandomized controlled trial of sertraline in young children withautism spectrum disorder. Frontiers inPsychiatry 2019;10:810.[DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00810] [PMCID: PMC6851992] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hajizadeh‐Zaker 2018 {published data only}IRCT201512081556N83

  1. Hajizadeh-Zaker R,Ghajar A,Mesgarpour B,Afarideh M, Mohammadi M-R, Akhondzadeh S.L-carnosine as an adjunctive therapy to risperidone inchildren with autistic disorder: a randomized, double-blind,placebo-controlled trial. Journal ofChild and Adolescent Psychopharmacology 2018;28(1):74-81.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2017.0026] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. IRCT201512081556N83. Lcarnosine in the treatment of autism [L carnosineadded to risperidone in the treatment of autism: a double blind andplacebo controlled trial].www.irct.ir/trial/932 (first received 9December 2015).

Handen 2005 {published data only}

  1. Handen BL,Hofkosh D. Secretin inchildren with autistic disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlledtrial. Journal of Developmental andPhysical Disabilities 2005;17(2):95-107.[DOI: 10.1007/s10882-005-3682-7] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Handen 2008 {published data only}

  1. Handen BL,Sahl R,Hardan AY. Guanfacine inchildren with autism and/or intellectualdisabilities. Journal of Developmental& Behavioral Pediatrics 2008;29(4):303-8.[DOI: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181739b9d] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Handen 2011 {published data only}

  1. Handen BL,Johnson CR,McAuliffe-Bellin S,Hardan A. Safety andefficacy of donepezil in children - behaviouralmeasures. International public healthjournal 2010;2(1):125-34. [Google Scholar]
  2. Handen BL,Johnson CR,Mcauliffe-Bellin S,Murray PJ,Hardan AY. Safety andefficacy of donepezil in children and adolescents with autism:neuropsychological measures. Journal ofChild and Adolescent Psychopharmacology 2011;21(1):43-50.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2010.0024] [PMCID: PMC3037196] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hardan A,Johnson C,Handen BL. Preliminaryfindings from a double-blind placebo=controlled study of donepezilin pervasive developmental disorders.Biological Psychiatry 2006;59(8):50S-50S. [Google Scholar]
  4. NCT00047697. DonepezilHCl and cognitive deficits in autism.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT00047697?term=NCT00047697&draw=2&rank=1(first received October 2002).

Handen 2015 {published data only}

  1. Arnold LE,Ober N,Aman MG,Handen B,Smith T,Pan X, et al. A 1.5-yearfollow-up of parent training and atomoxetine forattention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms andnoncompliant/disruptive behavior in autism.Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2018;28(5):322-30.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2017.0134] [PMCID: PMC5994674] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Handen BL,Aman MG,Arnold LE,Hyman SL,Tumuluru RV,Lecavalier L, et al.Atomoxetine, parent training, and their combination inchildren with autism spectrum disorder andattention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.Journal of the American Academy of Child &Adolescent Psychiatry 2015;54(11):905-15.[DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2015.08.013] [PMCID: PMC4625086][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Lecavalier L,Pan X,Smith T,Handen BL,Arnold LE,Silverman L, et al. Parentstress in a randomized clinical trial of atomoxetine and parenttraining for children with autism spectrum disorder.Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders 2018;48(4):980-7.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-017-3345-4] [PMCID: PMC6070148] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. NCT00844753.Atomoxetine, placebo and parent management training inautism (Strattera) [Atomoxetine, placebo and parentmanagement training in autism].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00844753(first received 16 February 2016).
  5. Smith T,Aman MG,Arnold LE,Silverman LB,Lecavalier L,Hollway J, et al.Atomoxetine and parent training for children withautism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a 24-weekextension study. Journal of theAmerican Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2016;55(10):868-76.e2.[DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2016.06.015] [PMCID: PMC5108566][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Tumuluru RV,Corbett-Dick P,Aman MG,Smith T,Arnold LE,Pan X, et al. Adverseevents of atomoxetine in a double-blind placebo-controlled study inchildren with autism. Journal of Childand Adolescent Psychopharmacology 2017;27(8):708-14.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2016.0187] [PMCID: PMC5651962] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hardan 2012 {published data only}

  1. Hardan A.Psychopharmacological treatment of anxiety symptoms inautism spectrum disorder. Journal ofthe American Academy of Child and AdolescentPsychiatry 2016;55(10):S325-6.[DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2016.07.369] [ABSTRACT NO:42.4] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Hardan AY,Fung LK,Libove RA,Obukhanych TV,Nair S,Herzenberg LA, et al. Arandomised controlled pilot trial of N-acetylcysteine in childrenwith autism. BiologicalPsychiatry 2012;71(11):956-61.[DOI: 10.1016//j.biopsych.2012.01.014] [PMCID: PMC4914359][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hardan 2019 {published data only}

  1. EUCTR 2012-001568-31. Adouble-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal study of thesafety and efficacy of memantine in pediatric patients with autism,Asperger’s disorder, or pervasive developmental disorder nototherwise specified (PDD-NOS) previously treated withmemantine.www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2012-001568-31/results(first posted November 2012).
  2. Hardan AY,Hendren RL,Aman MG,Robb A,Melmed RD,Andersen KA, et al. Efficacyand safety of memantine in children with autism spectrum disorder:results from three phase 2 multicenter studies.Autism 2019;23(8):2096-111.[DOI: 10.1177/1362361318824103] [PMCID: PMC6779018] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. NCT01592747. Withdrawalstudy of memantine in pediatric patients with autism, Asperger'sdisorder, or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwisespecified previously treated with memantine [Adouble-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal study of thesafety and efficacy of memantine in pediatric patients with autism,Asperger's disorder, or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwisespecified (pdd-nos) previously treated with memantine].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT01592747(first received 7 May 2012).

Harfterkamp 2014 {published data only}

  1. Harfterkamp M,Buitelaar JK,Minderaa RB, Van deLoo-Neus G, Van De Gaag R-J,Hoekstra PJ. Atomoxetine inautism spectrum disorder: no effects on social functioning; somebeneficial effects on stereotyped behaviours; inappropriate speechand fear of change. Journal of Childand Adolescent Psychopharmacology 2014;24(9):481-5.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2014.0026] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Harfterkamp M, Van DerMeer J. Randomizeddouble-blind study of atomoxetine vs. placebo followed by an openlabel extension period of treatment with atomoxetine for ADHDsymptoms in children with ASD. EuropeanChild and Adolescent Psychiatry 2013;22(2):S216-17.[DOI: 10.1007/s00787-013-0423-9] [ABSTRACT NO:PS-012] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Harfterkamp M, Van deLoo-Neus G,Minderaa RB, Van der Gaag R-J,Escobar R,Schacht A, et al. Arandomized double-blind study of atomoxetine versus placebo forattention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms in children withautism spectrum disorder. Journal ofthe American Academy of Child and AdolescentPsychiatry 2012;51(7):733-41.[DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2012.04.011] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. NCT00380692. Atomoxetineversus placebo for symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents with autism spectrumdisorder [A randomized, double-blind comparison ofatomoxetine hydrochloride and placebo for symptoms ofattention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescentswith autism spectrum disorder].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00380692(first received 26 September 2006).

Hellings 2005 {published data only}

  1. Hellings JA,Weckbaugh M,Nickel EJ,Cain SE,Zarcone JR,Reese RM, et al. Adouble-blind, placebo-controlled study of valproate for aggressionin youth with pervasive developmental disorders.Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2005;15(4):682-92.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2005.15.682] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hendouei 2019 {published data only}IRCT20090117001556N104

  1. Hendouei F,Moghaddam HS,Mohammadi MR,Taslimi N,Rezaei F,Akhondzadeh S. Resveratrol asadjunctive therapy in treatment of irritability in children withautism: a double‐blind and placebo‐controlled randomizedtrial. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy andTherapeutics 2020;45(2):324-34.[DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.13076][PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. IRCT20090117001556N104.Resveratrol in treatment of autism[Resveratrol add on therapy to risperidone in irritibility of childrenwith autism: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinicaltrial]. www.irct.ir/trial/28378 (first received25 December 2012).

Herscu 2020 {published data only}

  1. Herscu P,Handen BL,Arnold LE,Snape MF,Bregman JD,Ginsberg L, et al. The SOFIAStudy: negative multi‑center study of low dose fluoxetine onrepetitive behaviors in children and adolescents with autisticdisorder. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 2020;50(9):3233-44.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-019-04120-y] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT00515320. Study offluoxetine in autism (SOFIA) [Study of fluoxetine inautism: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group14-week study to investigate the effect of fluoxetine orally dissolvingtablet (odt) on repetitive behaviors in childhood and adolescentautistic disorder].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00515320(first received 13 August 2007).

Hollander 2005 {published data only}

  1. Hollander E,Swanson E,Anagnostou E,Phillips A,Chaplin W,Wasserman S. Liquid fluoxetineversus placebo for repetitive behaviors in childhoodautism. Progress in Neurotherapeuticsand Neuropsychopharmacology 2006;1(1):105-13.[DOI: 10.1017/S1748232105000108] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. HollanderE,Phillips A,Chaplin W,Zagursky K,Novotny S,Wasserman S, et al. A placebocontrolled crossover trial of liquid fluoxetine on repetitivebehaviours in childhood and adolescent autism.Neuropsychopharmacology 2005;30(3):582-9.[DOI: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300627] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. NCT00004486. Randomizedstudy of fluoxetine in children and adolescents withautism.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00004486(first received 19 October 1999).

Hollander 2006a {published data only}

  1. Hollander E,Soorya L,Wasserman S,Esposito K,Chaplin W,Anagnostou E. Divalproex sodiumvs placebo in the treatment of repetitive behaviours in autismspectrum disorder. InternationalJournal of Neuropsychopharmacology 2006;9(2):209-13.[DOI: 10.1017/S1461145705005791] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT00211757. Divalproexsodium versus placebo in childhood/adolescent autism.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT00211757?term=NCT00211757&draw=2&rank=1(first received September 2005).

Hollander 2006b {published data only}

  1. Hollander E,Wasserman S,Swanson EN,Chaplin W,Schapiro ML,Zagursky K, et al. Adouble-blind placebo-controlled pilot study of olanzapine inchildhood/adolescent pervasive developmentaldisorder. Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2006;16(5):541-8.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2006.16.541] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hollander 2010 {published data only}

  1. Anagnostou E,Soorya L,Swanson E,Rusoff J,Chaplin W,Wasserman S, et al. Divalproexsodium vs placebo for the treatment of child and adolescentautism. EuropeanNeuropsychopharmacology 2006;16:S74-5.[DOI: 10.1016/S0924-977X(06)80088-X] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Hollander E,Chaplin W,Soorya L,Wasserman S,Novotny S,Rusoff J, et al. Divalproexsodium vs placebo for the treatment of irritability in children andadolescents with autism spectrum disorders.Neuropsychopharmacology 2010;35(4):990-8.[DOI: 10.1038/npp.2009.202] [PMCID: PMC2846602] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hollander E,Soorya L,Wasserman S,Esposito K,Chaplin W,Anagnostou E. Divalproex sodiumvs placebo in the treatment of repetitive behaviours in autismspectrum disorder. InternationalJournal of Neuropsychopharmacology 2006;9(2):209-13.[DOI: 10.1017/S1461145705005791] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. NCT00211757. Divalproexsodium vs. placebo in childhood/adolescent autism.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00211757?term=NCT00211757&draw=1&rank=1(first received September 2005).

Hollander 2012 {published data only (unpublished sought butnot used)}

  1. Hollander E,Soorya L,Chaplin W,Anagnostou E,Taylor BP,Ferretti CJ, et al. Adouble-blind placebo-controlled trial of fluoxetine for repetitivebehaviors and global severity in adult autism spectrumdisorders. American Journal ofPsychiatry 2012;169(3):292-9.Erratum in: American Journal of Psychiatry. 2012May;169(5):540. [DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.10050764] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT00004486. Randomizedstudy of fluoxetine in children and adolescents withautism.https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00004486(first received 19 October 1999).

Hollander 2020a {published data only}

  1. Hollander E,Ferretti CJ,Taylor BP,Noone RH,Racine E. P.7.d.006Trichuris suis ova (TSO) as an immune-inflammatory treatment forrepetitive behaviors in autism spectrum disorders(ASD). EuropeanNeuropsychopharmacology 2014;24(2):S723.[DOI: 10.1016/S0924-977X(14)71165-4] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Hollander E,Uzunova G,Taylor BP,Noone R,Racine E,Doernberg E, et al. Randomizedcrossover feasibility trial of helminthic Trichuris suis ova versusplacebo for repetitive behaviors in adult autism spectrumdisorder. World Journal of BiologicalPsychiatry 2020;21(4):291-9.[DOI: 10.1080/15622975.2018.1523561] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hollander E,Ferretti C,Taylor B,Noone R,Kirsch J,Racine E. Trichuris suisova (TSO) as an immune inflammatory treatment for repetitivebehaviors in ASD.Neuropsychopharmacology 2013;38:S391-2.[DOI: 10.1038/npp.2013.280] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hollander E,Uzunova G,Taylor BP,Noone R,Racine E,Doernberg E, et al. Randomizedcrossover feasibility trial of helminthic Trichuris suis ova versusplacebo for repetitive behaviors in adult autism spectrumdisorder. World Journal of BiologicalPsychiatry 2020;21(4):291-9.[DOI: 10.1080/15622975.2018.1523561] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. NCT01040221. Trichurissuis ova in autism spectrum disorders (TSO)[Trichuris suis ova in autism spectrum disorders ].www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01040221(first received November 2012).
  6. Stark FS,Chavanne C,Lennon-Chrimes S,Diack C,Derks M,Smith J. Paediatric dosingof balovaptan for the treatment of the core symptoms of autismspectrum disorder: data from a Phase 2 study (aV1ation;NCT02901431). EuropeanNeuropsychopharmacology 2020;40:S82-S83.[DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.09.110] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Hollander 2020b {published data only}

  1. Hollander E,Jacob S,Jou R,McNamara N,Sikich L,Tobe R, et al. A phase 2randomized controlled trial (RCT) of balovaptan (BAL) in pediatricparticipants with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).Neuropsychopharmacology 2021;46:152.[DOI: 10.1038/s41386-021-01236-7] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Hollander E,Jacob S,Jou RJ,McNamara N,Sikich L,Tobe R, et al. Phase 2randomized controlled trial of balovaptan in pediatric participantswith autism spectrum disorder. Journalof the American Academy of Child and AdolescentPsychiatry 2020;59(10):S262-S263.[DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.458] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. NCT02901431. A study toinvestigate the efficacy and safety of balovaptan (RO5285119) inparticipants with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02901431?term=NCT02901431&draw=2&rank=1(first received 21 November 2016).

Ichikawa 2017 {published data only}

  1. Ichikawa H,Mikami K,Okada T, Yamashita Y,Ishizaki Y,Tomoda A, et al.Aripiprazole in the treatment of irritability inchildren and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder in Japan: arandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.Child Psychiatry & HumanDevelopment 2017;48(5):796-806.[DOI: 10.1007/s10578-016-0704-x] [PMCID: PMC5617873] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT01617447. A shorttreatment study of aripiprazole in pediatric patients with autisticdisorder [A short-term administration study ofaripiprazole in children and adolescents (age: 6 to 17 years) withautistic disorder].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01617447(first received 12 June 2012).

Jacob 2022 {published data only}

  1. Jacob S,Veenstra-VanderWeele J,Murphy D,McCracken J,Smith J,Sanders K, et al. Efficacyand safety of balovaptan for socialisation and communicationdifficulties in autistic adults in North America and Europe: a phase3, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.Lancet 2022;9(3):199-210.[DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00429-6] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Jacob S,Veenstra-VanderWeele J,Murphy D,McCracken J,Smith J,Sanders K, et al. Phasethree randomised controlled trial of balovaptan in adults withautism spectrum disorder. Journal ofthe American Academy of Child and AdolescentPsychiatry 2020;59(10):S163-S163.[DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.108] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. NCT03504917. A study ofbalovaptan in adults with autism spectrum disorder with a 2-yearopen-label extension.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03504917?term=NCT03504917&draw=2&rank=1(first received 8 August 2018).

Jaselskis 1992 {published data only}

  1. Jaselskis CA,Cook EH,Fletcher KE,Leventhal BL. Clonidinetreatment of hyperactive and impulsive children with autisticdisorder. Journal of ClinicalPsychopharmacology 1992;12(5):322-7.[PMID:] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kent 2013 {published data only}

  1. Kent JM,Kushner S,Ning X,Karcher K,Ness S,Aman M, et al.Risperidone dosing in children and adolescents withautistic disorder: a double-blind placebo-controlledstudy. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 2013;43(8):1773-83.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-012-1723-5] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT00576732. A study ofthe effectiveness and safety of two doses of risperidone in thetreatment of children and adolescents with autisticdisorder [Risperidone in the treatment of childrenand adolescents with autistic disorder: a double-blind,placebo-controlled study of efficacy and safety, followed by anopen-label extension study of safety].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00576732(first received 19 December 2007).

Khalaj 2018 {published data only}IRCT201702171556N96

  1. IRCT201702171556N96.Palmitoylethanolamide as adjunctive treatment ofautism: a double blind and placebo controlled trial.en.irct.ir/trial/945 (first received 20February 2017).
  2. Khalaj M,Saghazadeh A,Shirazi E, Shalbafan M-R,Alavi K,Shooshtari MH, et al.Palmitoylethanolamide as adjunctive therapy forautism: efficacy and safety results from a randomized controlledtrial. Journal of PsychiatricResearch 2018;103:104-11.[DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2018.04.022] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

King 2001 {published data only (unpublished sought but notused)}

  1. King BH,Wright DM,Handen BL,Sikich L,Zimmerman AW,Mcmahon W, et al.Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of amantadinehydrochloride in the treatment of children with autisticdisorder. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 2001;40(6):658-65.[DOI: 10.1097/00004583-200106000-00010] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

King 2009 {published data only}

  1. King BH,Hollander E,Sikich L,McCracken JT,Scahill L,Bregman JD, et al. Lack ofefficacy of citalopram in children with autism spectrum disordersand high levels of repetitive behavior: citalopram ineffective inchildren with autism. Archives ofGeneral Psychiatry 2009;66(6):583-90.[DOI: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.30] [PMCID:PMC4112556] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Myers SM. Citalopram noteffective for repetitive behavior in autistic spectumdisorders. Evidence-Based MentalHealth 2010;13(1):22.[DOI: 10.1136/ebmh.13.1.22] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. NCT00086645. Citalopramfor children with autism and repetitive behavior (STAART Study1) [Citalopram treatment in children with autismspectrum disorders and high levels of repetitive behavior].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00086645(first received 13 July 2004).
  4. Scahill L,McCracken JT,Bearss K,Robinson F,Hollander E,King B, et al. Design andsubject characteristics in the federally-funded citalopram trial inchildren with pervasive developmental disorders.Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders 2012;42(3):432-40.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-011-1251-8] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Klaiman 2013 {published data only}

  1. Klaiman C,Huffman L,Masaki L,Elliott GR.Tetrahydrobiopterin as a treatment for autism spectrumdisorders: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2013;13(5):320-8.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2012.0127] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT00850070.Sapropterin as a treatment for autisticdisorder.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT00850070?term=NCT00850070&draw=2&rank=1(first received February 2009).

Le 2022 {published data only}ChiCTR1900023774

  1. ChiCTR1900023774. Theeffects of chronic intranasal oxytocin combined with positive socialinteraction in the treatment of young children withautism.www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=39640(first received 11 June 2019).
  2. Le J,Zhang L,Zhao W,Zhi S,Lan C,Kou J, et al. Infrequentintranasal oxytocin followed by positive social interaction improvessymptoms in autistic children: a pilot randomized clinicaltrial. Psychotherapy andPsychosomatics 2022;91(5):335-47.[DOI: 10.1159/000524543][PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lemonnier 2017 {published data only}

  1. Lemonnier E,Villeneuve N,Sonie S,Rosier A,Roue M,Brosset P, et al. Effects ofbumetanide on neurobehavioral function in children and adolescentswith autism spectrum disorders.Translational Psychiatry 2017;7(3):e1056.[DOI: 10.1038/tp.2017.10][PMCID: PMC5416661] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT01078714. Efficiencyof bumetanide in autistic children (BUMEA).https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01078714?term=NCT01078714&draw=1&rank=1(first received March 2010).

Levy 2003 {published data only}

  1. Levy SE,Souders MC,Wray J,Jawad AF, GallagherPR Coplin J, et al. Childrenwith autistic spectrum disorders. I: comparison of placebo andsingle dose of human synthetic secretin.Archives of Disease in Childhood 2003;88(8):731-6.[DOI: 10.1136/adc.88.8.731] [PMCID: PMC1719589] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lewis 2018 {published data only}

  1. Lewis AS, VanSchalkwy GI,Lopez MO,Volkmar FR,Picciotto MR,Sukhodolsky DG. An exploratorytrial of transdermal nicotine for aggression and irritability inadults with autism spectrum disorder.Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders 2018;48(8):2748-57.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-018-3536-7] [PMCID: PMC6394231] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT02552147. Nicotiniccholinergic modulation as a novel treatment strategy for aggressionassociated with autism [Nicotinic cholinergicmodulation as a novel treatment strategy for aggression associated withautism].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02552147(first received 16 September 2015).

Loebel 2016 {published data only}

  1. Loebel A,Brams M,Goldman RS,Silva R,Hernandez D,Deng L, et al. Lurasidonefor the treatment of irritability associated with autisticdisorder. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 2016;46(4):1153-63.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-015-2628-x] [PMCID: PMC4786592] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT01911442. Lurasidonepediatric autism study.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT01911442?term=NCT01911442&draw=2&rank=1(first received July 2013).

Luby 2006 {published data only}

  1. Luby J,Mrakotsky C,Stalets MM,Belden A,Heffelfinger A,Williams M, et al.Risperidone in preschool children with autisticspectrum disorders: an investigation of safety andefficacy. Journal of Child andAdolescent Psychopharmacology 2006;16(5):575-87.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2006.16.575] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Mace 2001 {published data only (unpublished sought but notused)}

  1. Mace CF,Blum NJ,Sierp BJ,Delaney BA,Mauk JE. Differentialresponse of operant self-Injury to pharmacologic versus behavioraltreatment. Journal of Developmental& Behavioral Pediatrics 2001;22(2):85-91.[DOI: 10.1097/00004703-200104000-00001] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Mahdavinasab 2019 {published data only}IRCT201701131556N95

  1. IRCT201701131556N95.Baclofen in the treatment of autism[Baclofen as adjunctive treatment of autism: a double blind and placebocontrolled trial]. www.irct.ir/trial/944 (firstreceived 13 January 2017).
  2. Mahdavinasab S-M,Saghazadeh A,Motamed-Gorji N,Vaseghi S, Mohammadi M-R,Alichani R, et al. Baclofenas an adjuvant therapy for autism: a randomized, double-blind,placebo-controlled trial. EuropeanChild & Adolescent Psychiatry 2019;28(12):1619-28.[DOI: 10.1007/s00787-019-01333-5] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Malek 2020 {published data only}IRCT20090117001556N102

  1. IRCT20090117001556N102.Prednisolone in autism spectrumdisorders [Prednisolone in regressive autism spectrumdisorders: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial].www.irct.ir/trial/28026 (first received 9December 2017).
  2. Malek M,Ashraf-Ganjouei A,Moradi K,Bagheri S, Mohammadi M-R,Akhonzadeh S. Prednisolone asadjunctive treatment to risperidone in children with regressive typeof autism spectrum disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlledtrial. ClinicalNeuropharmacology 2020;43(2):39-45.[DOI: 10.1097/WNF.0000000000000382] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Malone 2001 {published data only}

  1. Malone RP,Cater J,Sheikh RM,Choudhury MS,Delaney MA. Olanzapineversus haloperidol in children with autistic disorder: an open pilotstudy. Journal of the American Academyof Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2001;40(8):887-94.[DOI: 10.1097/00004583-200108000-00009] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Marcus 2009 {published data only}

  1. Benton TD. Aripiprazole totreat irritability associated with autism: a placebo-controlled,fixed-dose trial. Current PsychiatricReports 2011;13(2):77-9.[DOI: 10.1007/s11920-010-0172-0] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Curran MP. Aripiprazole inthe treatment of irritability associated with autistic disorder inpaediatric patients: profile report.CNS Drugs 2011;25(9):801-2.[DOI: 10.2165/11208280-000000000-00000] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Lewis D,Couch D,Marcus R,Manos G,Mankoski R,Carson W, et al. Efficacyand safety of fixed-dose aripiprazole for the treatment ofirritability associated with autistic disorder in children andadolescents (6-17 years). Annals ofNeurology 2009;66:S110. [Google Scholar]
  4. Mankosky R,Stockton G,Manos G,Marler S,McQuade R,Forbes RA, et al.Aripiprazole treatment of irritability associated withautistic disorder and the relationship between prior antipsychoticexposure, adverse events, and weight change.Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2013;23(8):572-6.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2012.0075] [PMCID: PMC3804231] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Marcus RN,Owen R,Kamen L,Manos G,McQuade RD,Carson WH, et al. Aplacebo-controlled, fixed-dose aripiprazole in children andadolescents with irritability associated with autisticdisorder. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2009;48(11):1110-9.[DOI: 10.1097/CHI.0b013e3181b76658] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Varni JW,Handen BL,Corey-Lisle PK,Guo Z,Manos G,Ammerman DK, et al. Effect ofaripiprazole 2 to 15 mg/day on health-related quality of life in thetreatment of irritability associated with autistic disorder inchildren: a post-hoc analysis of two controlledtrials. ClinicalTherapeutics 2012;34(4):980-92.[DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2012.02.023] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

McCracken 2002 {published data only}

  1. Aman M,Rettiganti M,Nagaraja HN,Hollway JA,McCracken J,McDougle CJ, et al.Tolerability, safety, and benefits of risperidone inchildren and adolescents with autism: 21-month follow-up after8-week placebo-controlled trial.Journal of Child & AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2015;25(6):482-93.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2015.0005] [PMCID: PMC4545698] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aman MG,Arnold LE,McDougle CJ,Vitiello B,Scahill L,Davies MD, et al. Acute andlong-term safety and tolerability of risperidone in children withautism. Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2005;15(6):869-84.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2005.15.869] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Aman MG,Hollway JA,McDougle CJ,Scahill L,Tierney E,McCracken JT, et al. Cognitiveeffects of risperidone in children with autism and irritablebehavior. Journal of Child andAdolescent Psychopharmacology 2008;18(3):227-36.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2007.0133] [PMCID: PMC2935828] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnold LE,Aman MG,Martin A,Collier-Crespin A,Vitiello B,Tierney E, et al. Assessmentin multisite randomized clinical trials of patients with autisticdisorder: the Autism RUPP Network. Research Units on PediatricPsychopharmacology. Journal of Autismand Developmental Disorders 2000;30(2):99-111.[DOI: 10.1023/a:1005451304303] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Arnold LE,Farmer C,Kraemer HC,Davies M,Witwer A,Chuang S, et al.Moderators, mediators, and other predictors ofrisperidone response in children with autistic disorder andirritability. Journal of Child &Adolescent Psychopharmacology 2010;20(2):83-93.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2009.0022] [PMCID: PMC2865212] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Arnold LE,Vitiello B,McDougle C,Scahill L,Shah B,Gonzalez NM, et al.Parent-defined target symptoms respond to risperidonein RUPP autism study: customer approach to clinicaltrials. Journal of the American Academyof Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2003;42(12):1443-50.[DOI: 10.1097/00004583-200312000-00011] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Caicedo C,Williams SH. Risperidoneimproves behavior in children with autism.Journal of Family Practice 2002;51(11):915.[PMID:] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fombonne E. Risperidoneimproves restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped behaviour inautistic children and adolescents.Evidence-Based Mental Health 2006;9(1):6.[DOI: 10.1136/ebmh.9.1.6][PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Levine SZ,Kodesh A,Goldberg Y,Reichenberg A,Furukawa TA,Kolevzon A, et al. Initialseverity and efficacy of risperidone in autism: results from theRUPP trial. EuropeanPsychiatry 2016;32:16-20.[DOI: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.11.004] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. McCracken JT,McGough J,Shah B,Cronin P,Hong D,Aman MG, et al.Risperidone in children with autism and seriousbehavioural problems. New Englandjournal of medicine 2002;347(5):314-21.[DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa013171] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. McDougle C,Aman M,McCracken J,Scahill L,Tierney E,Vitiello B. A double-blindplacebo-controlled trial of risperidone in autisticdisorder. EuropeanNeuropsychopharmacology 2003;13:S327-8.[DOI: 10.1016/S0924-977X(03)92062-1] [POSTER NO:P.2.109] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. McDougle CJ,Scahill L,Aman MG,McCracken JT,Tierney E,Davies M, et al.Risperidone for the core symptom domains of autism:results from the study by the Autism Network of the Research Unitson Pediatric Psychopharmacology.American Journal of Psychiatry 2005;16(2):1142-8.[DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.6.1142] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. NCT00005014. Treatmentof autism in children and adolescents[Placebo-controlled study of risperidone for the treatment of childrenand adolescents with autism and negative behavioral symptoms].www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00005014(first received 3 April 2000).
  14. Research Units onPediatric Psychopharmacology Autism Network.Risperidone treatment of autistic disorder:longer-term benefits and blinded discontinuation after 6months. American Journal ofPsychiatry 2005;162(7):1361-9.[DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.7.1361] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Scahill L,Hallett V,Aman MG,McDougle CJ,Arnold LE,McCracken JT, et al. Briefreport: social disability in autism spectrum disorder: results fromResearch Units on Pediatric Psychopharmacology (RUPP) Autism Networktrials. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 2013;43(3):739-46.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-012-1689-3] [PMCID: PMC3886122] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Scahill L, Koenig,Carroll DH,Pachler M. Risperidoneapproved for the treatment of serious behavioral problems inchildren with autism. Journal of Child& Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing 2007;20(3):188-90.[DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6171.2007.00112.x] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Study of risperidonewith autistic children finds no detrimental cognitiveeffects. Brown University Child &Adolescent Psychopharmacology Update 2008;10(9):3.[DOI: 10.1002/cpu.20075] [DOI]
  18. Williams SK,Scahill L,Vitiello B,Aman MG,Arnold LE,McDougle CJ, et al.Risperidone and adaptive behavior in children withautism. Journal of the American Academyof Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 2006;45(4):431-9.[DOI: 10.1097/01.chi.0000196423.80717.32] [PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

McDougle 1996 {published data only (unpublished sought butnot used)}

  1. Huffman G. Fluvoxamine forthe treatment of autistic disorders in adults.American Family Physician 1997;55(4):1375-4. [Google Scholar]
  2. McDougle CJ,Naylor ST,Cohen DJ,Volkmar FR,Heninger GR,Price LH. A double-blind,placebo-controlled study of fluvoxamine in adults with autisticdisorder. Archives of GeneralPsychiatry 1996;53(11):1001-8.[DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.1996.01830110037005] [PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Vegso SJ. A double-blindplacebo-controlled study of fluvoxamine in treating the symptoms ofautism [Master's thesis]. New Haven(CT): Southern Connecticut StateUniversity, 1995. [Google Scholar]

McDougle 1998 {published data only}

  1. McDougle CJ,Holmes JP,Carlson DC,Pelton GH,Cohen DJ,Price LH. A double-blind,placebo-controlled study of risperidone in adults with autisticdisorder and other pervasive developmental disorders.Archives of General Psychiatry 1998;55(7):633-41.[DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.55.7.633] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Minshawi 2016 {published data only}

  1. Minshawi NF,Wink LK,Shaffer R,Plawecki MH,Posey DJ,Liu H, et al. Arandomized, placebo-controlled trial of D-cycloserine for theenhancement of social skills training in autism spectrumdisorders. MolecularAutism 2016;7(3):2.[DOI: 10.1186/s13229-015-0062-8] [PMCID: PMC4712595] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT01086475.D-cycloserine and social skills training in autismspectrum disorders.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01086475?term=NCT01086475&draw=1&rank=1(first received March 2010).
  3. Wink LK,Minshawi NF,Shaffer RC,Plawecki MH,Posey DJ,Horn PS, et al.D-cycloserine enhances durability of social skillstraining in autism spectrum disorder.Molecular Autism 2017;8:2. [DOI: 10.1186/s13229-017-0116-1] [PMCID: PMC5264460] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Miral 2008 {published data only (unpublished sought but notused)}

  1. Miral S,Gencer O,Inal-Emiroglu FN,Baykara B,Baykara A,Dirik E. Risperidoneversus haloperidol in children and adolescents with AD: arandomized, controlled, double-blind trial.European Child & AdolescentPsychiatry 2008;17(1):1-8.[DOI: 10.1007/s00787-007-0620-5] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Moazen‐Zadeh 2018 {published data only}

  1. IRCT201602041556N86.Simvastatin added to risperidone in the treatment ofautism: a double blind and placebo controlled trial.https://www.irct.ir/trial/935 (firstreceived February 2016).
  2. Moazen-Zadeh E,Shirzad F, Karkhaneh-Yousefi M-A,Khezri R, Mohammadi M-R, Akhondzadeh S. Simvastatin as anadjunctive therapy to risperidone in treatment of autism: arandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinicaltrial. Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2018;28(1):82-9.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2017.0055] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Mohammadi 2013 {published data only}IRCT201106101556N25

  1. IRCT201106101556N25.Amantadine in the treatment of autism[A double - blind placebo controlled traial of amantadine added torisperidone in patint with autistic disorder].www.irct.ir/trial/875 (first received 12June 2011).
  2. Mohammadi M-R,Yadegari N,Hassanzadeh E,Farokh M,Yekehtaz H,Mirshafiee O, et al.Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of risperidoneplus amantadine in children with autism: a 10-week randomizedstudy. ClinicalNeuropharmacology 2013;36(6):179-84.[DOI: 10.1097/WNF.0b013e3182a9339d] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Montazmenesh 2020 {published data only}IRCT20090117001556N107

  1. IRCT20090117001556N107.Sulforaphane as adjunctive treatment of irritabilityin children with autism spectrum disorder[Sulforaphane treatment of autism spectrum disorder: a double blindcontrolled trial]. www.irct.ir/trial/30363(first received 6 April 2018).
  2. Montazmenesh S,Amirimoghaddam-Yazdi Z,Moghaddam HS,Mohammadi MR,Akhondzadeh S. Sulforaphane asan adjunctive treatment for irritability in children with autismspectrum disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlledclinical trial. Psychiatry and ClinicalNeurosciences 2020;74(7):398-405.[DOI: 10.1111/pcn.13016][PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Mouti 2014 {published and unpublished data}

  1. Mouti A,Reddihough D,Marraffa C,Hazell P,Wray J,Lee KL, et al.Fluoxetine for autistic behaviors (FAB trial): studyprotocol for a randomized controlled trial in children andadolescents with autism.Trials 2014;15:230.[DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-230] [PMCID: PMC4067505] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Reddihough DS,Marraffa C,Mouti A,O'Sullivan M,Lee KJ,Orsini F, et al. Effect offluoxetine on obsessive-compulsive behaviours in children andadolescents with autism spectrum disorders: a randomized clinicaltrial. JAMA 2019;322(16):1561-9.[DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.14685] [PMCID: PMC6806436] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Munesue 2016 {published data only (unpublished sought but notused)}UMIN000007250

  1. Munesue T,Nakamura H,Kikuchi M,Miura Y,Takeuchi N,Anme T, et al. Oxytocinfor male subjects with autism spectrum disorder and comorbidintellectual disabilities: a randomized pilot study.Frontiers in Psychiatry 2016;7:2. [DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00002] [PMCID: PMC4720778] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. UMIN000007250. Arandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial ofoxytocin in patients with autism spectrum disorder.center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000008548(first received 9 February 2012).

NCT00183339 {published data only}

  1. NCT00183339. Earlyintervention with fluoxetine in autism [A randomized,placebo-controlled trial of fluoxetine in preschool children].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00183339(first received 16 September 2005).

NCT00198107 {published data only}

  1. NCT00198107. Evaluatingthe effectiveness of aripiprazole and D-cycloserine to treatsymptoms associated with autism [Novelpharmacological strategies in autism].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00198107(first received 20 September 2005).

NCT00468130 {published data only}

  1. NCT00468130. Efficacyof aripiprazole versus placebo in the reduction of aggressive andaberrant behavior in autistic children (Abilify)[Efficacy of aripiprazole versus placebo in the reduction of aggressiveand aberrant behavior in autistic children].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00468130(first received 2 May 2007).

NCT00498173 {published data only}

  1. NCT00498173.Effectiveness of atomoxetine in treating ADHD symptomsin children and adolescents with autism [Targetedpharmacologic interventions for autism: a double-blind,placebo-controlled trial of atomoxetine in children and adolescents withautism].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00498173(first received 9 July 2007).

NCT01337687 {published data only}

  1. NCT01337687. Intranasaloxytocin for the treatment of autism spectrum disorders(INOT) [Intranasal oxytocin for the treatment ofautism spectrum disorders].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01337687(first received 19 April 2011).

NCT01624675 {published data only}

  1. NCT01624675. A study toevaluate the efficacy and safety of risperidone (R064766) inchildren and adolescents with irritability associated with autisticdisorder [A double-blind, placebo-controlled study,followed by an open-label extension study evaluating the efficacy andsafety of risperidone (r064766) in children and adolescents withirritability associated with autistic disorder].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01624675(first received 21 June 2012).

NCT01908205 {published data only}

  1. NCT01908205. Intranasaloxytocin for the treatment of children and adolescents with autismspectrum disorders (ASD) (OXY-R) [Intranasal oxytocinfor the treatment of children and adolescents with autism].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01908205(first received 25 July 2013).

NCT01972074 {published data only}

  1. NCT01972074. Behavioraland neural response to memantine in adolescents with autism spectrumdisorder.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01972074(first received 30 October 2013).

NCT02940574 {published data only}

  1. NCT02940574. Neural andbehavioral effects of oxytocin in autism spectrumdisorders [Oxytocin-based pharmacotherapy for autismspectrum disorders: investigating the neural and behavioral effects of apromising intervention approach].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02940574(first received 21 October 2016).

NCT03242772 {published data only}

  1. Impact of combinedmedication and behavioral treatment for ASD &ADHD.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/NCT03242772?term=NCT03242772&draw=2&rank=1(first received 14 December 2018).

Niederhofer 2002 {published data only}

  1. Niederhofer H,Staffen W,Mair A. Lofexidine Inhyperactive and impulsive children with autisticdisorder. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 2002;41(12):1396-7.[DOI: 10.1097/00004583-200212000-00010] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Niederhofer 2003 {published data only}

  1. Niederhofer H,Staffen W,Mair A. Tianeptine: anovel strategy of psychopharmacological treatment of children withautistic disorder. HumanPsychopharmacology 2003;18(5):389-93.[DOI: 10.1002/hup.491] [PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Nikoo 2015 {published data only}IRCT201110281556N29

  1. IRCT201110281556N29.N-acetylcysteine in the treatment ofautism [N-acetyl cysteine added to risperidone in thetreatment of autism: a double blind and placebo controlled trial].en.irct.ir/trial/879 (first received 29October 2011).
  2. Nikoo M,Radnia H,Farokhnia M, Mohammadi M-R,Akhondzadeh S. N-acetylcysteineas an adjunctive therapy to risperidone for treatment ofirritability in autism: a randomized, double-blind,placebo-controlled clinical trial of efficacy andsafety. ClinicalNeuropharmacology 2015;38(1):11-7.[DOI: 10.1097/WNF.0000000000000063] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Nikvarz 2017 {published data only}IRCT201204037202N5

  1. IRCT201204037202N5.Comparing efficacy and side effects of memantine andrisperidone in treating autistic patients.www.irct.ir/trial/7627 (first received 20June 2012).
  2. Nikvarz N,Alaghband-Rad J,Tehrani-Doost M,Alimadadi A,Ghaeli P. Comparingefficacy and side effects of memantine vs risperidone in thetreatment of autistic disorder.Pharmacopsychiatry 2017;50(1):19-25.[DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-108449] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Owen 2009 {published data only}EUCTR2016‐005111‐40

  1. EUCTR2016-005111-40.Study of aripiprazole in the treatment of seriousbehavioral problems in children and adolescents with autisticdisorder (AD) [A multicenter, double-blind,randomized, placebo-controlled, flexible-dosed parallel-group study ofaripiprazole flexibly dosed in thetreatment of children and adolescentswith autistic disorder].www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2016-005111-40/results (first received 7 April 2017).
  2. Lewis D,Couch D,Marcus R,Manos G,Mankoski R,Carson W, et al. Efficacyand safety of flexibly-dosed aripiprazole for the treatment ofirritability associated with autistic disorder in children andadolescents (6-17 years). Annals ofNeurology 2009;66:S110-1.[DOI: 10.1002/ana.21853] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Lewis D,Owen R,Couch D. Efficacy andsafety of aripiprazole for the treatment of irritability associatedwith autistic disorder in children and adolescents (6-17 years):results from two 8-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlledtrials. Neurology 2009;72(11 (Supp3)):A428. [ABSTRACT NO:S50.005] [Google Scholar]
  4. Mankoski R,Stockton G,Manos G,Marlor S,McQuade R,Forbes RA, et al.Aripiprazole treatment of irritability associated withautistic disorder and the relationship between prior antipsychoticexposure, adverse events, and weight change.Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2013;23(8):572-6.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2012.0075] [PMCID: PMC3804231] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. NCT00365859. Study ofaripiprazole in the treatment of serious behavioral problems inchildren and adolescents with autistic disorder (AD)[A 52-week, open-label, multicenter study of the safety and tolerabilityof aripiprazole flexibly dosed in the treatment of children andadolescents with autistic disorder].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00365859(first received 18 August 2006).
  6. Owen R,Sikich L,Marcus RN,Corey-Lisle P,Manos G,McQuade RD, et al.Aripiprazole in the treatment of irritability inchildren and adolescent with autistic disorder.Pediatrics 2009;124(6):1533-40.[DOI: 10.1542/peds.2008-3782] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Robb AS,Andersson C,Bellocchio EE,Manos G,Rojas-Fernandez C,Mathew S, et al. Safety andtolerability of aripiprazole in the treatment of irritabilityassociated with autistic disorder in pediatric subjects (6-17 yearsold): results from a pooled analysis of 2 studies.Primary Care Companion for CNSDisorders 2011;13(1):PCC.10m01008.[DOI: 10.4088/PCC.10m01008gry] [PMCID: PMC3121213] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Varni JW,Handen BL,Corey-Lisle PK,Guo Z,Manos G,Ammerman DK, et al. Theeffect of aripiprazole 2 to 15mg/day on health-related quality oflife in the treatment of irritability associated with autisticdisorder in children: a post-hoc analysis of two controlledtrials. ClinicalTherapeutics 2012;34(4):980-92.[DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2012.02.023] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Owley 2001 {published data only}

  1. Owley T,Macmahon W,Cook EH,Laulhere T,South M,Mays LZ, et al.Multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial ofporcine secretin in autism. Journal ofthe American Academy of Child and AdolescentPsychiatry 2001;40(11):1293-9.[DOI: 10.1097/00004583-200111000-00009] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Parker 2017 {published data only}

  1. NCT01624194. Intranasaloxytocin treatment for social deficits in children withautism [Double-blind, randomized, placebo controlledtrial of intranasal oxytocin treatment for social deficits in childrenwith autism].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01624194(first received 20 June 2012).
  2. Parker KJ,Oztan O,Libove RA,Sumiyoshi RD,Jackson LP,Karhson DS, et al.Intranasal oxytocin treatment for social deficits andbiomarkers of response in children with autism.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of theUnited States of America 2017;114(30):8119‐24.[DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1705521114] [PMCID: PMC5544319] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Parker 2019 {published data only}

  1. NCT01962870. The roleof vasopressin in the social deficits of autism[Randomized placebo-controlled trial of vasopressin treatment for socialdeficits in children with autism].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01962870(first receceived 14 October 2013).
  2. Parker KJ,Oztan O,Libove RA,Mohsin N,Karhson DS,Sumiyoshi RD, et al. Arandomized placebo-controlled pilot trial shows that intranasalvasopressin improves social deficits in children withautism. Science TranslationalMedicine 2019;11(491):eaau7356.[DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aau7356] [PMCID: PMC6716148][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Pearson 2013 {published data only}

  1. NCT00178503.Methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivitydisorder and autism in children [ADHD symptoms inautism: cognition, behavior, treatment].www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00178503(first received 15 September 2005).
  2. Pearson DA,Santos CW,Aman MG,Arnold LE,Casat CD,Mansour R, et al. Effects ofextended release methylphenidate treatment on ratings ofattention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and associatedbehavior in children with autism spectrum disorders and ADHDsymptoms. Journal of Child andAdolescent Psychopharmacology 2013;23(5):337-51.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2012.0096] [PMCID: PMC3689935] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Posey 2005 {published data only (unpublished sought but notused)}

  1. NCT00025779.Methylphenidate in children and adolescents withpervasive developmental disorders [Methylphenidatefor hyperactivity and impulsiveness in children and adolescents withpervasive developmental disorders].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00025779(first received 24 October 2001).
  2. Research Units onPediatric Psychopharmacology (RUPP) Autism Network.Randomized, controlled, crossover trial ofmethylphenidate in pervasive developmental disorders withhyperactivity. Archives of GeneralPsychiatry 2005;62(11):1266-74.[DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.11.1266] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Scahill L,Bearss K,Sarhangian R,McDougle CJ,Arnold LE,Aman MG, et al. Using apatient-centered outcome measure to test methylphenidate versusplacebo in children with autism spectrum disorder.Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2017;27(2):125-31.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2016.0107] [PMCID: PMC5367913] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Quintana 1995 {published data only}

  1. Quintana H,Birmaher B,Stedge D,Lennon S,Freed J,Bridge J, et al. Use ofmethylphenidate in the treatment of children with autisticdisorder. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 1995;25(3):283-94.[DOI: 10.1007/BF02179289][PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Remington 2001 {published data only (unpublished sought butnot used)}

  1. Remington G,Sloman L,Konstantareas M,Parker K,Gow R. Clomipramineversus haloperidol in the treatment of autistic disorder: adouble-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study.Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 2001;21(4):440-4.[DOI: 10.1097/00004714-200108000-00012] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Sloman L,Remington G,Konstantareas M,Parker K. Haloperidolversus clomipramine in autistic disorder. In:151st Annual Meeting of the American PsychiatricAssociation; 1998 May 30 to June 4; Toronto (ON),Canada. Vol. 17. 1998.[PRESENTATION NO:17]

Research Units 2005 {published data only}

  1. Research Units onPediatric Psychopharmacology Autism Network.Risperidone treatment for autistic disorder:longer-term benefits and blinded discontinuation after 6months. American Journal ofPsychiatry 2005;162(7):1361-9.[DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.7.1361] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Rezaei 2010 {published data only}IRCT138901141556N9

  1. IRCT138901141556N9.Topiramate in the treatment of autism[Tpoiramate added to risperidone in patint with autistic disorder: adouble-blind placebo controlled trial].www.irct.ir/trial/859 (first received 29April 2010).
  2. Rezaei V, Mohammadi M-R,Ghanizadeh A,Sahraian A,Tabrizi M, Rezazadeh S-A, et al.Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of risperidoneplus topiramate in children with autistic disorder.Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and BiologicalPsychiatry 2010;34(7):1269-72.[DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2010.07.005] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Scahill 2015 {published data only}

  1. MunozMartinez V, NuevoFernandez L, MellaDominguez L, MataSaenz B, AsensioAguerri L. Guanfacine as analternative for autism spectrum disorder with hyperactivitysymptoms. EuropeanNeuropsychopharmacology 2017;27(4):S607.[DOI: 10.1016/S0924-977X(17)31154-9] [POSTER NO:P.1.c.006] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT01238575. Guanfacinefor the treatment of hyperactivity in pervasive developmentaldisorder.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01238575(first received 10 November 2010).
  3. Politte LC,Scahill L,Figueroa J,McCracken JT,King B,McDougle CJ. A randomized,placebo-controlled trial of extended-release guanfacine in childrenwith autism spectrum disorder and ADHD symptoms: an analysis ofsecondary outcome measures.Neuropsychopharmacology 2018;43(8):1772-8.[DOI: 10.1038/s41386-018-0039-3] [PMCID: PMC6006142] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Scahill L,McCracken JT,King BH,Rockhill C,Shah B,Politte L, et al.Extended-release guanfacine for hyperactivity inchildren with autism spectrum disorder.American Journal of Psychiatry 2015;172(12):1197-206.[DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15010055] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Shea 2004 {published data only}

  1. Light M,Dunbar E,Shea S. P2.104 Efficacyand safety of risperidone in the treatment of children with autisticand other pervasive developmental disorders (PDD): a randomized,double-blind, placebo controlled trial.European Neuropsychopharmacology 2004;14(Suppl3):S278. [DOI: 10.1016/S0924-977X(04)80324-9] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Light M,Dunbar F,Shea M. Efficacy andsafety of risperidone in the treatment of children with autistic andother pervasive developmental disorders (PDD): a randomized,double-blind, placebo controlled trial.International Journal ofNeuropsychopharmacology 2004;7:S275.[DOI: 10.1016/S0924-977X(04)80324-9] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Pandina GJ,Bossie CA,Youssef E,Zhu Y,Dunbar F. Risperidoneimproves behavioural symptoms in children with autism in arandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders 2007;37(2):367-73.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-006-0234-7] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Shea S,Turgay A,Carroll A,Schulz M,Orlik H,Smith I, et al.Risperidone in the treatment of disruptive behavioralsymptoms in children with autistic and other pervasive developmentaldisorders. Pediatrics 2004;114(5):e634-41.[DOI: 10.1542/peds.2003-0264-F] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Sikich 2013 {published data only}

  1. NCT01944046. Study ofoxytocin in autism to improve reciprocal social behaviours(SOARS-B) [Phase II study of oxytocin in autism toimprove reciprocal social behaviors].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01944046(first received 17 September 2013).
  2. Sikich L,Alderman C,Hazzard L,Bethea T,Gregory S,Johnson J. Pilot study ofsustained oxytocin treatment in children and adolescents withautistic disorder. BiologicalPsychiatry 2013;73(9):145S. [Google Scholar]

Sikich 2021 {published data only}

  1. NCT01944046. Study ofOxytocin in Autism to Improve Reciprocal Social Behaviors(SOARS-B).clinicaltrails.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01944046?term=NCT01944046&draw=2&rank=1(first received 1 August 2014).
  2. Sikich L,Kolevzon A,King B,McDougle C,Sanders K, Kim S-J, et al.Intranasal oxytocin in children and adolescents withautism spectrum disorder. New EnglandJournal of Medicine 2021;385(16):1462-73.[DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2103583] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Spanos M,Bethea T,Alderman C,Johnson J,Chandrasekhar T,Sikich L. Randomized,placebo-controlled trial with open-label extension of intranasaloxytocin for autism spectrum disorder.Journal of the American Academy of Child andAdolescent Psychiatry 2021;60(10):S162.[DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2021.09.087] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Soorya 2021 {published data only}

  1. NCT01372449. Amulti-site double-blind placebo-controlled trial of memantine versusplacebo in children with autism (MEM).clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01372449?term=NCT01372449&draw=1&rank=1(first received December 2011).
  2. Soorya L,Fogg L,Ocampo E,Printen M,Youngkin S,Halpern D, et al.Neurocognitive outcomes from memantine: a pilot,double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in children with autismspectrum disorder. Journal of Child andAdolescent Psychopharmacology 2021;31(7):475-84.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2021.0010] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Sprengers 2021 {published data only}

  1. Sprengers J, VanAndel D,Zuithoff N,Keijzer-Veen M,Scheepers F,Lilien M, et al. Bumetanideversus placebo for core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder at 91days (BAMBI): a single-centre, double-blinded, patient-randomized,placebo-controlled, phase-2-trial.European Neuropsychopharmacology 2020;40:S80-S81.[DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.09.108] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Sprengers JJ, VanAndel DM,Zuithoff NP,Keijzer-Veen MG,Schulp AJ,Scheepers FE, et al.Bumetanide for core symptoms of autism spectrumdisorder (BAMBI): a single center, double-blinded,participant-randomized, placebo-controlled, phase-2 superioritytrial. Journal of the American Academyof Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2021;60(7):865-76.[DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.07.888] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Squassante 2018 {published data only}

  1. NCT01793441. A study ofRG7314 to investigate efficacy and safety in individuals with autismspectrum disorders (ASD) [A multi-center, randomized,double-blind, 12-week, parallel group, placebo-controlled proof ofconcept study to investigate the efficacy and safety of rg7314 inindividuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD)].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01793441(first received 15 February 2013).
  2. Squassante L,Bolognani F,Smith J,Murtagh L,Fontoura P,Khwaja O, et al. Effects ofbalovaptan on health-related quality of life of adult men with ASD:results from a phase 2 randomized double-blind placebo controlledstudy (Vanilla). Journal of theAmerican Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2018;57(10):S231.[DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2018.09.308] [PRESENTATION NO:5.13] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Takamitsu 2015a {published data only}UMIN000007122

  1. UMIN000007122. Arandomized, double-blind and cross-over trial to examine effects ofcontinuous administration of intranasal oxytocin on socialdysfunction in subjects with autism spectrumdisorders.center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000008388(first received 1 February 2012).
  2. Watanabe T,Kuroda M,Kuwabara H,Aoki Y,Iwashiro N,Tatsunobu N, et al. Clinicaland neural effects of six-week administration of oxytocin on coresymptoms of autism.Brain 2015;138(11):3400-12.[DOI: 10.1093/brain/awv249] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Troost 2005 {published data only}

  1. Malone RP. Discontinuingrisperidone results in relapse in children with autism spectrumdisorders. Evidence-Based MentalHealth 2006;9(2):56.[DOI: 10.1136/ebmh.9.2.56] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Troost PW,Althaus M,Lahuis BE,Buitelaar JK,Minderaa RB,Hoekstra PJ.Neuropsychological effect of risperidone in childrenwith pervasive developmental disorders: a blinded discontinuationstudy. Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2006;16(5):561-73.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2006.16.561] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Troost PW,Lahuis BE, Steenhuis M-P,Ketelaars CE,Buitelaar JK, VanEngeland H, et al. Long-termeffects of risperidone in children with autism spectrum disorders: aplacebo discontinuation study. Journalof the American Academy of Child and AdolescentPsychiatry 2005;44(11):1137-44.[DOI: 10.1097/01.chi.0000177055.11229.76] [PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Umbricht 2017 {published data only}

  1. NCT01474278. A study ofRO5028442 in adult male high-functioning autisticpatients.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01474278?term=NCT01474278&draw=2&rank=1(first registered December 2011).
  2. Umbricht D, Del ValleRubido M,Hollander E,McCracken JT,Shic F,Scahill L, et al. A singledose, randomized, controlled proof-of-mechanism study of a novelvasopressin 1a receptor antagonist (RG7713) in high-functioningadults with autism spectrum disorder.Neuropsychopharmacology 2017;42(9):1914-23.[DOI: 10.1038/npp.2016.232] [PMCID: PMC5520775] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Unis 2002 {published data only}

  1. NCT00065962. Secretinfor the treatment of autism [Multisite controlledsecretin trial in autism].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00065962(first received 5 August 2003).
  2. Unis AS,Munson JA,Rogers SJ,Goldson E,Osterling J,Gabriels R, et al. Arandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of porcine versussynthetic secretin for reducing symptoms of autism.Journal of the American Academy of Child andAdolescent Psychiatry 2002;41(11):1315-21.[DOI: 10.1097/00004583-200211000-00012] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

VanAndel 2022 {published data only}

  1. VanAndel D,Sprengers J,Keijzer-Veen M,Schulp A,Lillien M,Scheepers F, et al. Bumetanidefor irritability in children with sensory processing problems acrossneurodevelopmental disorders: a pilot randomized controlledtrial. Frontiers inPsychiatry 2022;13:780281.[DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.780281] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Veenstra‐VanderWeele 2017 {published data only}

  1. NCT01288716. Study ofarbaclofen for the treatment of social withdrawal in subjects withautism spectrum disorders.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01288716?term=NCT01288716&draw=2&rank=1(first received February 2011).
  2. Veenstra-VanderWeele J,Cook EH,King BH,Zarevics P,Cherubini M,Walton-Bowen K, et al. Arbaclofenin children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: arandomized, controlled, phase 2 trial.Neuropsychopharmacology 2017;42(7):1390-8.[DOI: 10.1038/npp.2016.237] [PMCID: PMC5436109] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wasserman 2006 {published data only (unpublished sought butnot used)}

  1. Wasserman S,Iyengar R,Chaplin WF,Watner D,Waldoks SE,Anagnostou E, et al.Levetiracetam versus placebo in childhood andadolescent autism: a double-blind placebo-controlledstudy. International ClinicalPsychopharmacology 2006;21(6):363-7.[DOI: 10.1097/01.yic.0000224787.13782.0f] [PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Willemsen‐Swinkels 1995 {published data only}

  1. Willemsen-Swinkels SH,Buitelaar JK,Nijhof GJ, VanEngeland H. Failure ofnaltrexone hydrochloride to reduce self-injurious and autisticbehaviour in mentally retarded adults. Double-blindplacebo-controlled studies. Archives ofGeneral Psychiatry 1995;52(9):766-73.[DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.1995.03950210060011] [PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Willemsen‐Swinkels 1996 {published data only}

  1. Willemsen-Swinkels SH,Buitelaar JK, VanEngeland H. The effects ofchronic naltrexone treatment in young autistic children: adouble-blind placebo-controlled crossover study.Biological Psychiatry 1996;39(12):1023-31.[DOI: 10.1016/0006-3223(95)00297-9] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wink 2016 {published data only}

  1. NCT00453180. A study oforal N-acetylcysteine in children with autism spectrumdisorders.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00453180?term=NCT00453180&draw=2&rank=1(first received March 2007).
  2. Wink LK,Adams R,Wang Z,Klaunig JE,Plawecki MH,Posey DJ, et al. Arandomized placebo-controlled pilot study of N-acetylcysteine inyouth with autism spectrum disorder.Molecular Autism 2016;7:26. [DOI: 10.1186/s13229-016-0088-6] [PMCID: PMC4839099] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wink 2018 {published data only}

  1. NCT02081027. Pilotstudy of riluzole for drug-refractory irritability in autismspectrum disorders.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02081027?term=NCT02081027&draw=2&rank=1(first received March 2014). [DOI] [PubMed]
  2. Wink LK,Adams R,Horn PS,Tessier CR,Bantel AP,Hong M, et al. Arandomized placebo-controlled cross-over pilot study of riluzole fordrug-refractory irritability in autism spectrumdisorder. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 2018;48(9):3051-60.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-018-3562-5] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Woodard 2007 {published data only}

  1. Woodard C,Groden J,Goodwin M,Bodfish J. A placebodouble-blind pilot study of dextromethorphan for problematicbehaviors in children with autism.Autism 2007;11(1):29-41.[DOI: 10.1177/1362361307070989] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Yamasue 2020 {published data only}

  1. JPRN‐UMIN000015264. Amulticenter, parallel group, placebo-controlled, double blind,confirmatory trial of intranasal oxytocin in participants withautism spectrum disorders.https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=JPRN-UMIN000015264 (first received March 2019).
  2. Yamasue H,Okada T,Munesue T,Kuroda M,Fujioka T,Uno Y, et al. Effect ofintranasal oxytocin on the core social symptoms of autism spectrumdisorder: a randomized clinical trial.Molecular Psychiatry 2020;25(8):1849-58.[DOI: 10.1038/s41380-018-0097-2] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

References to studies excluded from thisreview

Althaus 2015 {published data only}

  1. Althaus M,Groen Y,Wijers A,Noltes H,Tucha O,Hoekstra P. Oxytocin enhancesorienting to social information in a selective group ofhigh-functioning male adults with autism spectrumdisorder.Neuropsychologia 2015;79:53-69.[DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.10.025] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Aman 1997 {published data only}

  1. Aman M, VanBourgondien M,Osborne P, Sarphare G. Side effectsassociated with psychoactive medication in individuals withautism. Journal of Autism &Developmental Disorders 1997;27(3):342-4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Aman 2009 {published data only}

  1. Aman M,McDougle C, Scahill L,Handen B,Arnold L,Johnson C. Medication andparent training in children with pervasive developmental disordersand serious behavior problems: results from a randomized clinicaltrial. Journal of the American Academyof Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2009;48(12):1143-54.[ISSN:0890-8567] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Anderson 1984 {published data only}

  1. Anderson L,Campbell M,Grega D. Haloperidol inthe treatment of infantile autism: Effects on learning andbehavioral symptoms. American Journalof Psychiatry 1984;141(10):1195-202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Anderson 1989 {published data only}

  1. Anderson L,Campbell M,Adams P,Small A,Perry R,Shell J. The effects ofhaloperidol on discrimination learning and behavioral symptoms inautistic children. Journal of Autismand Developmental Disorders 1989;19(2):227-39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Anderson 1997 {published data only}

  1. Anderson S,Hanson R,Malecha M,Oftelie A,Erickson C,Clark J. The effectivenessof naltrexone in treating task attending, aggression, self-injuryand stereotypic mannerisms of six young males with autism orpervasive developmental disorders.Journal of Developmental and PhysicalDisabilities 1997;9(3):211-42. [Google Scholar]

Anderson 2007 {published data only}

  1. Anderson G,Scahill L,McCracken J,Aman M,Tierney E,Arnold L. Effects of short-and long-term risperidone treatment on prolactin levels in childrenwith autism. BiologicalPsychiatry 2007;61(4):515-50.[DOI: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Arman 2003 {published data only}

  1. Arman A,Yazgan Y,Berkem M,Campbell M. The effects ofrisperidone on behaviors seen in children with pervasivedevelopmental disorder and mental retardation in an educationalsetting. Bulletin of ClinicalPsychopharmacology 2003;13(4):174-8. [Google Scholar]

Arnold 2012b {published data only}

  1. Arnold L,Aman M,Li X,Butter E,Humphries K,Scahill L. Research Units ofPediatric Psychopharmacology (RUPP) autism network randomizedclinical trial of parent training and medication: one-yearfollow-up. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2012;51(11):1173-84.[DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2012.08.028] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

August 1987 {published data only}

  1. August G,Raz N,Baird T. Fenfluramineresponse in high and low functioning autisticchildren. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 1985;26(3):342-6.[DOI: 10.1097/00004583-198705000-00011] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Bachmann 2013 {published data only}

  1. Bachmann C,Manthey T,Kamp-Becker I,Glaeske G,Hoffmann F.Psychopharmacological treatment in children andadolescents with autism spectrum disorders inGermany. Research in DevelopmentalDisabilities 2013;34(9):2551-63.[DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.05.028] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Barnard‐Brak 2016 {published data only}

  1. Barnard-Brak L,Davis T,Schmidt M,Richman D. Effectsassociated with on- and off-label stimulant treatment of core autismand ADHD symptoms exhibited by children with autism spectrumdisorder. Developmentalneurorehabilitation 2016;19(1):46-53.[DOI: ] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Beeghly 1987 {published data only}

  1. Beeghly J,Kuperma S,Perry P,Wright G,Tsai L. Fenfluraminetreatment of autism: relationship of treatment response to bloodlevels of fenfluramine and norfenfluramine.Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders 1987;17(4):541-8.[DOI: 10.1007/BF01486969] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Castellanos 2019 {published data only}

  1. Castellanos F. Aplacebo-controlled double-blind trial of cannabinoids in childrenand adolescents with autism spectrum disorder.Neuropsychopharmacology 2019;44(1):61-2.[DOI: 10.1038/s41386-019-0544-z] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Chez 2002 {published data only}

  1. Chez M,Buchanan C,Aimonovitch M,Becker M,Schaefer K,Black C. Double-blind,placebo-controlled study of L-carnosine supplementation in childrenwith autistic spectrum disorders.Journal of Child Neurology 2002;17(11):833-7.[DOI: 10.1177/08830738020170111501] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Chez 2003 {published data only}

  1. Chez M,Buchanan T,Becker M,Jessler J,Aimonovitch M,Mrazek S. Donepezilhydrochloride: a double-blind study in autisticchildren. Journal of PediatricNeurology 2003;1(2):83-8.[DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1557175] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Du 2015 {published data only}

  1. Du L,Shan L,Wang B,Li H,Xu Z,Staal W. A pilot study onthe combination of applied behavior analysis and bumetanidetreatment for children with autism.Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2015;25(7):585-8.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2015.0045] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Duker 1991 {published data only}

  1. Duker P,Welles K,Seys D,Rensen H,Vis A,Berg G. Brief report:effects of fenfluramine on communicative, stereotypic, andinappropriate behaviors of autistic-type mentally handicappedindividuals. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 1991;21(3):355-63.[DOI: 10.1007/BF02207332] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Dunn‐Geier 2000 {published data only}

  1. Dunn-Geier J,Ho H,Auersperg E,Doyle D,Eaves L,Matsuba C. Effect ofsecretin on children with autism: a randomized controlledtrial. Developmental Medicine and ChildNeurology 2000;42(12):796-802.[DOI: 10.1017/S0012162200001481] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ekman 1989 {published data only}

  1. Ekman G,Miranda-Linne F,Gillberg C,Garle M,Wetterberg L. Fenfluraminetreatment of twenty children with autism.Journal of Autism & DevelopmentalDisorders 1989;19(4):511-32.[DOI: 10.1007/BF02212855][PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Fahmy 2013 {published data only}

  1. Fahmy S,El-Hamamsy M,Zaki O,Badary O. L-carnitinesupplementation improves the behavioral symptoms in autisticchildren. Research in Autism SpectrumDisorders 2013;7(1):159-66.[DOI: 10.1016/j.rasd.2012.07.006] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Fang 2018 {published data only}

  1. Fang L,Jiang X,Huang Y,Sun Y,Xie Y,Wang L. Efficacy ofvitamin D combined with ω-3 fatty acid in treatment of children withautism spectrum disorder.Pharmaceutical Care and Research 2018;18(5):347-50.[DOI: 10.5428/pcar20180508] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Findling 1997a {published data only}

  1. Findling R,Maxwell K,Scotese-Wojtila L,Huang J,Yamashita T,Wiznitzer M. High-dosepyridoxine and magnesium administration in children with autisticdisorder: an absence of salutary effects in a double-blind,placebo-controlled study. Journal ofAutism and Developmental Disorders 1997;27(4):467-78.[DOI: 10.1023/A:1025861522935] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Groden 1987 {published data only}

  1. Groden G,Groden J, Dondey, M,Zane T,Pueschel S. Effects offenfluramine on the behavior of autistic individuals.Research in Developmental Disabilities 1987;8(2):203-11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Guglielmo 2013 {published data only}

  1. Guglielmo R,Ioime L,Grandinetti P,Janiri L. Managingdisruptive and compulsive behaviors in adult with autistic disorderwith gabapentin. Journal of ClinicalPsychopharmacology 2013;33(2):273-4.[DOI: 10.1097/JCP.0b013e318285680c] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Handen 2013 {published data only}

  1. Handen B,Johnson C,Butter E,Lecavalier L,Scahill L,Aman M. Use of a directobservational measure in a trial of risperidone and parent trainingin children with pervasive developmental disorders.Journal of Developmental & PhysicalDisabilities 2013;25(3):355-71.[DOI: 10.1007/s10882-012-9316-y] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hellings 2006a {published data only}

  1. Hellings JA,Zarcone JR,Crandall K,Wallace D,Schroeder SR. Weight gain in acontrolled study of risperidone in children, adolescents and adultswith mental retardation and autism.Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2001;11(3):228-38.[DOI: 10.1089/10445460152595559] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Hellings JA,Zarcone JR,Reese RM,Valdovinos MG,Marquis JG,Fleming KK, et al. Acrossover study of risperidone in children, adolescents and adultswith mental retardation. Journal ofAutism and Developmental Disorders 2006;36(3):401-11.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-006-0078-1] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Napolitano D. The effects ofrisperidone on the self-injury, aggression, and stereotypy ofpersons with developmental disabilities: observer agreement usingdirect observations and the aberrant behavior checklis during adouble-blind placebo-controlled clinical.Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: TheSciences and Engineering 2001;61(8-B):4384.[ISBN:978-0-599-91735-4]
  4. Zarcone JR,Hellings JA,Crandell K,Reese RM,Marquis J,Fleming K, et al. Effects ofrisperidone on aberrant behavior of persons with developmentaldisabilities: I. A double blind crossover study using multiplemeasures. American Journal of MentalRetardation 2001;106(6):525-38.[DOI: ][PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hellings 2010 {published data only}

  1. Hellings J,Cardona A,Schroeder S,Aman M,Buitelaar J,Findling R. Long-term safetyand adverse events of risperidone in children, adolescents, andadults with pervasive developmental disorders.Journal of Mental Health Research in IntellectualDisabilities 2010;3(3):132-44. [Google Scholar]

Hellings 2015 {published data only}

  1. Hellings J,Reid G,Cain S,Zhou X,Barth F,Aman M. Loxapine add-onfor adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorders andirritability. Journal of Child &Adolescent Psychopharmacology 2015;25(2):150-9.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2014.0003] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hess 2010 {published data only}

  1. Hess J,Matson J,Neal D,Mahan S,Fodstad J,Bamburg J. A comparison ofpsychotropic drug side effect profiles in adults diagnosed withintellectual disabilities and autism spectrumdisorders. Journal of Mental HealthResearch in Intellectual Disabilities 2010;3(2):85-96.[DOI: 10.1080/19315861003690588] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Hollander 2003 {published data only}

  1. Hollander E,Novotny S,Hanratty M,Yaffe R,DeCaria C,Aronowitz B. Oxytocin infusionreduces repetitive behaviors in adults with autistic and Asperger'sdisorders.Neuropsychopharmacology 2003;28(1):193-8.[DOI: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300021] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hollander 2006c {published data only}

  1. Hollander E,Wasserman S,Swanson E,Chaplin W,Schapiro M,Zagursky K. A double-blindplacebo-controlled pilot study of olanzapine in childhood/adolescentpervasive developmental disorder.Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology October2006;16(5):541-8.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2006.16.541] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hollander 2020c {published data only}

  1. Hollander E,Jacob S,Jou R,McNamara N,Sikich L,Tobe R. A phase 2randomized controlled trial of balovaptan in pediatric participantswith autism spectrum disorder. Journalof the American Academy of Child and AdolescentPsychiatry 2020;59(10):S262-S263.[DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.458] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Horovitz 2012 {published data only}

  1. Horovitz M,Matson J,Barker A. The relationshipbetween symptoms of autism spectrum disorders and psychotropicmedication use in infants and toddlers.Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 2013;6(4):1406-11.[DOI: 10.1016/j.rasd.2011.05.013] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Horrigan 1997 {published data only}

  1. Horrigan J,Barnhill L. Risperidone andexplosive aggressive autism. Journal ofAutism & Developmental Disorders 1997;27(3):313-23.[DOI: 10.1023/A:1025854532079] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hughes 2002 {published data only}

  1. Hughes D,Cunningham M,Libretto S. Risperidone inchildren and adolescents with autistic disorder and aggressivebehaviour. British Journal ofDevelopmental Disabilities 2002;48(95):113-22.[DOI: 10.1179/096979502799104229] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Jacob 2020 {published data only}

  1. Jacob S,Veenstra-VanderWeele J,Murphy D,McCracken J,Smith J. Phase 3randomized controlled trial of balovaptan in adults with autismspectrum disorder. Journal of theAmerican Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2020;59(10):S163-S164.[DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.108] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Jordan 2012 {published data only}

  1. Jordan I,Robertson D,Catani M,Craig M,Murphy D. Aripiprazole inthe treatment of challenging behaviour in adults with autismspectrum disorder.Psychopharmacology 2012;223(3):357-60.[DOI: 10.1007/s00213-012-2723-z] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

JPRN‐UMIN000007250 2012 {published data only}

  1. JPRN-UMIN000007250. Arandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial ofoxytocin in patients with autism spectrum disorder.http://www.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=JPRN-UMIN000007250 2012. [http://www.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=JPRN-UMIN000007250]

Jun 2000 {published data only}

  1. Jun S-S, Kao C-H, Lee Y-C.Double blind crossover study of secretin/secrepantreatment for children with autistic symptoms.Tzu Chi Medical Journal 2000;12(3):173-81. [Google Scholar]

Kolmen 1995 {published data only}

  1. Kolmen B,Feldman H,Handen B,Janosky J. Naltrexone inyoung autistic children: a double-blind, placebo-controlledcrossover study. Journal of theAmerican Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 1995;34(2):223-31.[DOI: 10.1097/00004583-199502000-00018] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kolmen 1997 {published data only}

  1. Kolmen B,Feldman H,Handen B,Janosky J. Naltrexone inyoung autistic children: replication study and learningmeasures. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 1997;36(11):1570-8.[DOI: 10.1016/S0890-8567(09)66567-9] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Krusch 2004 {published data only}

  1. Krusch D. Effects ofrepeated secretin administration on a subset of children withpervasive developmental disorder.Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: TheSciences and Engineering 2004;65(2-B):1032.[ISBN:9780496695942] [Google Scholar]

Leboyer 1993 {published data only}

  1. Leboyer M,Bouvard M,Recasens J,Plumet M,Waller P,Tabuteau F. Opioid hypothesisin infantile autism? Therapeutic trials withnaltrexone [Une hypothese opiacee dans l'autismeinfantile? Essais therapeutiques avec la naltrexone].Encephale 1993;19:95-102. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lemonnier 2012 {published data only}

  1. Lemonnier E,Degrez C,Phelep M,Tyzio R,Josse R,Grandgeorge M. A randomisedcontrolled trial of bumetanide in the treatment of autism inchildren. TranslationalPsychiatry 2012;2:e202.[DOI: 10.1038/tp.2012.124] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Leventhal 1993 {published data only}

  1. Leventhal B,Cook E,Morford M,Ravitz A,Heller W,Freedman D. Clinical andneurochemical effects of fenfluramine in children withautism. Journal of Neuropsychiatry andClinical Neurosciences 1993;5(3):307-15.[DOI: 10.1176/jnp.5.3.307] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Levine 1997 {published data only}

  1. Levine J,Aviram A,Holan A,Ring A,Barak A,Belmaker R. Inositoltreatment of autism. Journal of NeuralTransmission 1997;104(2-3):307-10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Malone 2002 {published data only}

  1. Malone R,Maislin G,Choudhrey M, Gifford.Risperidone treatment in children and adolescents withautism: short- and long-term safety andeffectiveness. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 2002;41(2):140-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Moharreri 2017 {published data only}

  1. IRCT201108155280N5. Acomparative study on the effectiveness of risperidone versusrisperidone plus naltrexone in treatment of autistic spectrumdisorder in children with 6-12 years old.www.irct.ir/trial/5631 (first received 10February 2013).
  2. Moharreri F,Abdollahian E,Hosseini SA,Mirzadeh M. Comparative studyon the effect of risperidone and its combination with naltrexone inpediatric patients with autistic spectrum disorders: a clinicaltrial study. International Journal ofPediatrics 2017;5(12):6375-82.[DOI: 10.22038/ijp.2017.18557.1516] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Nagaraj 2006 {published data only (unpublished sought but notused)}

  1. Nagaraj R,Singhi P,Malhi P. Risperidone inchildren with autism: randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blindstudy. Journal of ChildNeurology 2006;21(6):450-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

NCT00198120 2005 {published data only}

  1. NCT00198120. Safety andeffectiveness of D-Cycloserine in children withautism.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00198120?term=NCT00198120&draw=2&rank=1(first received February 2004).

NCT01078844 {published data only}

  1. NCT01078844. Memantinein adult autism spectrum disorder.https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01078844 (notpublished - terminated) (first received 1 March 2010).

Nickels 2008 {published data only}

  1. Nickels K,Katusic S,Colligan R,Weaver A,Voigt R,Barbaresi W. Stimulantmedication treatment of target behaviors in children with autism: apopulation-based study. Journal ofDevelopmental & Behavioral Pediatrics 2008;29(2):75-81.[DOI: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e31815f24f7] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Niederhofer 2007 {published data only}

  1. Niederhofer H. Glutamateantagonists seem to be slightly effective in psychopharmacologictreatment of autism. Journal ofClinical Psychopharmacology 2007;27(3):317-8.[DOI: 10.1097/01.jcp.0000270082.30500.69] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Posey 2004 {published data only}

  1. Posey D,Kem D,Swiezy N,Sweeten T,Wiegand R,McDougle C. A pilot study ofD-cycloserine in subjects with autistic disorder.The American journal of psychiatry 2004;161(11):2115-7.[DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.161.11.2115] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Preckel 2016 {published data only}

  1. DRKS00008952.Oxytocin-induced enhancement of Social Skills Trainingin Adolescents with ASD.http://www.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=DRKS000089522015 2015.
  2. Mayer A,Preckel K,Ihle K,Piecha F, Junghanns K,Reiche S. No support foroxytocin modulation of reward-related brain function in autism:evidence from a randomized controlled trial.https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.19.21253900v1 2021. [DOI: 10.1101/2021.03.19.21253900] [DOI]
  3. Preckel K,Kanske P,Singer T,Paulus F,Krach S. Clinical trial ofmodulatory effects of oxytocin treatment on higher-order socialcognition in autism spectrum disorder: a randomized,placebo-controlled, double-blind and crossover trial.BMC Psychiatry 2016;16(1):329-39.[DOI: 10.1186/s12888-016-1036-x] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Purdon 1994 {published data only}

  1. Purdon S,Lit W,Labelle A,Jones B. Risperidone inthe Treatment of Pervasive Developmental Disorder.Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 1994;39(7):400-05. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Radzivil 2006 {published data only}

  1. Radzivil M,Bashina V. An effect oflong-term cerebrolysin therapy in combination with neuroleptics onbehavioral and cognitive disturbances in endogenous childhoodautism. Zhurnal Nevrologii iPsikhiatrii Imen 2006;106(2):21-5.[PMID:] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ratcliff‐Schaub 2005 {published data only}

  1. Ratcliff-Schaub K,Carey T,Reeves G,Rogers M. Randomizedcontrolled trial of transdermal secretin on behavior of childrenwith autism. the international journalof research and practice 2005;9(3):256-65.[PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ritvo 1971 {published data only}

  1. Ritvo E,Yuwiler A,Geller E,Kales E,Rashkis S, Schicor, A.Effects of L-dopa in autism.Journal of Autism & ChildhoodSchizophrenia 1971;1(2):190-205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ritvo 1983 {published data only}

  1. Ritvo E,Freeman B,Geller E,Yuwiler A. Effects offenfluramine on 14 outpatients with the syndrome ofautism. Journal of the American Academyof Child Psychiatry 1983;22(6):549-58.[DOI: 10.1097/00004583-198311000-00006] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ritvo 1984 {published data only}

  1. Ritvo E,Freeman B, Yuwiler, A,Geller E,Yokota A,Schroth P. Study offenfluramine in outpatients with the syndrome ofautism. The Journal ofpediatrics 1984;105(5):823-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Roberts 2001 {published data only}

  1. Roberts W,Weaver L,Brian J,Bryson S,Emelianova S,Griffiths A. Repeated doses ofporcine secretin in the treatment of autism: a randomized,placebo-controlled trial.Pediatrics 2001;107(5):E71.[DOI: 10.1542/peds.107.5.e71] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Scifo 1996 {published data only}

  1. Scifo R,Batticane N,Quattropani N,Spoto G. A double-blindtrial with naltrexone in autism. BrainDysfunction 1991;4(6):301-7. [Google Scholar]
  2. Scifo R,Cioni M,Nicolosi A,Batticane N,Tirolo C,Testa N. Opioid-immuneinteractions in autism: behavioural and immunological assessmentduring a double-blind treatment with naltrexone.Annali dell'Istituto superiore disanità 1996;32(3):351-9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Sponheim 2002 {published data only}

  1. Sponheim E,Oftedal G,Helverschou S. Multiple doses ofsecretin in the treatment of autism: a controlledstudy. Acta paediatrica 2002;91(5):540-5.[DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2002.tb03274.x] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Steiner 1999 {published data only}

  1. Steiner M,Babcock S,Steinberg S,Stewart D,Carter D,Berger C. Fluoxetine'sefficacy in improving physical symptoms associated with pdd: resultsfrom a multisite, randomized, placebo-controlledtrial. Proceedings of the 152nd annualmeeting of the American Psychiatric Association 1999:15-20. [Google Scholar]

Stubbs 1986 {published data only}

  1. Stubbs E,Budden S,Jackson R,Terdal L,Ritvo E. Effects offenfluramine on eight outpatients with the syndrome ofautism. Developmental medicine andchild neurology 1986;28(2):229-35.[DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1986.tb03859.x] [PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Sugie 2003 {published data only}

  1. Sugie Y,Sugie H,Fukuda T,Ito M,Ohzeki T. Studies on theadverse effects of fluvoxamine treatment in children with autisticdisorder: correlation with genetic polymorphism in serotonin relatedgenes. No to Hattatsu [Brain &Development] 2003;35(3):233-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Sugiyama 1998 {published data only (unpublished sought butnot used)}

  1. Sugiyama N,Sugie H,Igarashi Y,Ito M,Fukuda T. Low-dose levodopatherapy of autistic disorder: evaluation of clinicaleffectiveness. No to Hattatsu [Brainand Development] 1998;30(1):51-5.[ISSN:0029-0831] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Tachibana 2013 {published data only}

  1. Tachibana M,Kagitani-Shimono K,Mohri I,Yamamoto T,Sanefuji W,Nakamura A. Long-termadministration of intranasal oxytocin is a safe and promisingtherapy for early adolescent boys with autism spectrumdisorders. Journal of Child andAdolescent Psychopharmacology 2013;23(2):123-7.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2012.0048] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Taylor 1993 {published data only}

  1. Taylor D,Sandman C,Touchette P,Hetrick W,Barron J. Naltrexoneimproves learning and attention in self-injurious individuals withdevelopmental disabilities.Pharmacotherapy 1993;5(1):29-42.[DOI: 10.1007/BF01046596] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Tolbert 1993 {published data only}

  1. Tolbert L,Haigler T,Waits M,Dennis T. Fluoxetine inautism. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 1993;23(1):193-9.[DOI: 10.1007/BF01066428][PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Troost 2006 {published data only}

  1. Troost P,Steenhuis M,Tuynman-Qua H,Kalverdijk L,Buitelaar J,Minderaa R. Atomoxetine forattention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms in children withpervasive developmental disorders: a pilot study.Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology October2006;16(5):611-19.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2006.16.611] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Volkmar 1983 {published data only}

  1. Volkmar F,Paul R,Cohen D,Shaywitz B. Irritability inautistic children treated with fenfluramine.New England Journal of Medicine 1983;309(3):187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Volkmar 2009 {published data only}

  1. Volkmar F. Citalopramtreatment in children with autism spectrum disorders and high levelsof repetitive behavior. Archives ofGeneral Psychiatry 2009;66(6):581-2.[DOI: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.42] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wasserman 2005 {published data only}

  1. Wasserman S. Divalproex sodiumvs. placebo in the treatment of repetitive behaviors and thetreatment of activation associated with fluoxetine in autismspectrum disorder. BiologicalPsychiatry 2005;57(8):166S-167S.[DOI: 10.1017/S1461145705005791] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wei 2011 {published data only}

  1. Wei B,Huang F,Qin X,Liang Q. Treatment ofbehavioral disorders by risperidone in children withautism. Zhongguo Dangdai ErkeZazhi 2011;13(3):216-8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Witwer 2005 {published data only}

  1. Witwer A,Lecavalier L. Treatmentincidence and patterns in children and adolescents with autismspectrum disorders. Journal of Child& Adolescent Psychopharmacology 2005;15(4):671-81.[PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Yarbrough 1987 {published data only}

  1. Yarbrough E,Santat U,Perel I,Webster C,Lombardi R. Effects offenfluramine on autistic individuals residing in a statedevelopmental centre. Journal of autismand developmental disorders 1987;17(3):303-14.[DOI: 10.1007/BF01487062] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Yui 2012 {published data only}

  1. Yui K. Usefulpharmacologic treatment in impaired social interaction in autismspectrum disorders. Seishin ShinkeigakuZasshi - Psychiatria et Neurologia Japonica 2012;114(8):934-40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Zingarelli 1992 {published data only}

  1. Zingarelli G,Ellman G,Hom A,Wymore M. Clinical effectsof naltrexone on autistic behavior.American Journal on Mental Retardation 1992;97(1):57-63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

References to studies awaiting assessment

Anagnostou 2018 {published data only}

  1. Anagnostou E,Bennett TA,Thorpe K,Nicolson R. A phase 2randomized, placebo-controlled trial of tideglusib, an orallyadministered GSK-3 beta inhibitor, in the treatment of adolescentswith ASD. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2018;57(10):S232.[DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2018.09.311] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Buitelaar 1996 {published data only}

  1. Buitelaar JK,Dekker ME, VanRee JM, VanEngeland H. A controlledtrial with ORG 2766, an ACTH-(4-9) analog, in 50 relatively ablechildren with autism. EuropeanNeuropsychopharmacology 1996;6(1):13-9.[DOI: 10.1016/0924-977x(95)00049-u] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Campbell 1982a {published data only}

  1. Campbell M,Anderson L,Cohen I. Haloperidol inautistic children: effects on learning, behavior, and abnormalinvoluntary movements.Psychopharmacology Bulletin 1982;18(1):110-11. [Google Scholar]

Carminati 2016 {published data only}

  1. Carminati GG,Gerber F,Darbellay B,Kosel MM,Deriaz N,Chabert J, et al. Usingvenlafaxine to treat behavioral disorders in patients with autismspectrum disorder. Progress inNeuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry 2016;65:85-95.[DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2015.09.002] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Gabis 2019 {published data only}

  1. Gabis LV,Ben-Hur R,Shefer S,Jokel A,Shalom DB. Improvement oflanguage in children with autism with combined donepezil and cholinetreatment. Journal of MolecularNeuroscience 2019;69(2):224-34.[DOI: 10.1007/s12031-019-01351-7] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT01098383. Treatmentwith acetyl-choline esterase inhibitors in children with autismspectrum disorders [Treatment with acetyl-cholineesterase inhibitors in children with autism ].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01098383(first received 2 April 2010).

Handen 2000 {published data only}

  1. Handen BL,Johnson CR,Lubetsky M. Efficacy ofmethylphenidate among children with autism and symptoms ofattention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders 2000;30(3):245-55.[DOI: 10.1023/A:1005548619694] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

IRCT2017041333406N1 {published data only}IRCT2017041333406N1

  1. IRCT2017041333406N1.The efficacy of augmentation donepezil to risperidonin treatment of autism spectrum disorders [Assessmentthe efficacy of augmentation donepezil to risperidon in treatment ofautism spectrum disorders].www.irct.ir/trial/25769 (first received 20September 2017).

IRCT20190714044199N1 {published data only}IRCT20190714044199N1

  1. IRCT20190714044199N1.Efficacy of N-acetyl cysteine in patients with autismspectrum disorder [Evaluating the efficacy of addingN-acetyl cysteine to risperidone treatment regimen in patients withautism spectrum disorder]. www.irct.ir/trial/41209 (first received 10 November 2019).

JPRN‐JMA‐IIA00438 {published data only}

  1. JPRN-JMA-IIA00438. Theefficacy and safety of pyridoxamine in patients with autism spectrumdisorder; exploratory physician-led Phase 2 trial.ww.trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?trialID=JPRN-JMA-IIA00438(first received March 2020).

Jung 2000 {published data only}

  1. Jung S,Lee Y. A double blindstudy of dimethylglycine treatment in children withautism. A double blind study ofdimethylglycine treatment in children with autism 2000;12(2):111-21. [Google Scholar]

Jørgensen 2002 {published data only}

  1. Jørgensen M,Thomsen PH,Henriksen JH. Secretintreatment of autism? Ugeskrift for Laeger 2002;164(12):1676.[PMID:] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kern 2001a {published data only (unpublished sought but notused)}

  1. Kern JK,Miller VS,Cauller L,Kendall R,Mehta J,Dodd M. Effectiveness ofN,N-Dimethylglycine in autism and pervasive developmentaldisorder. Journal of ChildNeurology 2000;16(3):169-73.[DOI: 10.2310/7010.2001.17515] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kern 2002 {published data only}

  1. Kern JK, VanMiller S,Evans PA,Travedi MH. Efficacy ofporcine secretin in children with autism and pervasive developmentaldisorder. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 2002;32(3):153-60.[DOI: 10.1023/A:1015441428154] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Li 2016 {published data only}

  1. Li Y-C,Ma J, Xu H-M, Yang G-Y, Zhang J-C.Efficacy and safety of paliperidone and aripiprazolein the treatment of autism. ChineseJournal of New Drugs 2016;25(16):1893-7. [Google Scholar]

Malone 2010 {published data only}

  1. Malone R,West S,Ghaffari M,Delaney M,Hardison H. Metabolic effectsof olanzapine in children with autistic disorder.Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2010;20(6):531-2.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2010.2064] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. NCT00057408. Acontrolled sudy of olanzapine in children withautism.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00057408(first received 2 April 2003).

Martsenkovsky 2016 {published data only}

  1. Martsenkovsky I,Martsenkovska I. The safety andefficacy of memantine hydrochloride versus placebo for childrenunder 3 years old with autism spectrum disorders.European Neuropsychopharmacology 2016;26(2):S729.[DOI: 10.1016/S0924-977X(16)31879-X] [EISSN: 1873-786][ABSTRACT NO: P.7.d.002] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Miller 1979 {published data only}

  1. Miller B,Wallis H. Mode of action ofsulpiride in autistic children. A double blind study.Münchener Medizinische Wochenschrift 1979;121(19):667-9.[PMID:] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Molloy 2002 {published data only (unpublished sought but notused)}

  1. Molloy CA,Manning-Courtney P,Swayne S,Bean J,Brown JM,Murray DS, et al. Lack ofbenefit of intravenous synthetic human secretin in the treatment ofautism. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 2002;32(6):545-51.[DOI: 10.1023/A:1021202930206] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Naruse 1982 {published data only}

  1. Hyoka R. A multi centereddouble blind trial of pimozide (Orap), haloperidol and placebo forabnormal behavior in children using crossover design.Clinical Evaluation 1980;8(3):629-73. [Google Scholar]
  2. Naruse H,Nagahata M,Nakane Y,Shirahashi K,Takesada M,Yamazaki K. A multi-centerdouble-blind trial of pimozide (Orap), haloperidol and placebo inchildren with behavioral disorders, using crossoverdesign. ActaPaedopsychiatrica 1982;48(4):173-84.[PMID:] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Noone 2014 {published data only}

  1. Noone R,Ferretti C,Taylor B,Racine E,Hollander E. Milnacipran vsplacebo in adult autism spectrum disorder: impact onhyperactivity.Neuropsychopharmacology 2014;39:S291-S472.[DOI: 10.1038/npp.2014.281] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Novotny 2004 {published data only (unpublished sought but notused)}

  1. Novotny S,Hollander E,Phillips A,Allen A,Wasserman S,Iyengar R. Increasedrepetitive behaviours and prolactin responsivity to oralm-chlorophenylpiperazine in adults with autism spectrumdisorders. International Journal ofNeuropsychopharmacology 2004;7(3):249-54.[DOI: 10.1017/S146114570400433X] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Sandler 1999 {published data only (unpublished sought but notused)}

  1. Sandler AD,Sutton KA,DeWesse J,Girardi MA,Sheppard V,Bodfish JW. Lack of benefitof a single dose of synthetic human secretin in the treatment ofautism and pervasive developmental disorder.New England Journal of Medicine 1999;341(24):1801-6.[DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199912093412404] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Stern 1990 {published data only (unpublished sought but notused)}

  1. Stern LM,Walker MK,Sawyer MG,Oades RD,Badcock NR,Spence JG. A controlledcrossover trial of fenfluramine in autism.Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry 1990;31(4):569-85.[DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1990.tb00798.x] [PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wink 2020 {published data only}

  1. NCT02611921. Study ofintranasal ketamine for social impairment in autism spectrumdisorder. Search of:NCT02611921 - ListResults - ClinicalTrials.gov First received January2021.
  2. Wink L, Reisinger, DL,Horn P,Shaffer R, O'Brien K,Schmitt L. Brief Report:intranasal Ketamine in Adolescents and Young Adults with AutismSpectrum Disorder—Initial Results of a Randomized, Controlled,Crossover, Pilot Study. Journal ofAutism and Developmental Disorders 2020;51(4):1392-99.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-020-04542-z] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Yatawara 2016 {published data only}

  1. Yatawara C,Einfeld S,Hickie I,Davenport T,Guastella A. The effect ofoxytocin nasal spray on social interaction deficits observed inyoung children with autism: a randomized clinical crossovertrial. MolecularPsychiatry September2016;21(9):1225-31.[DOI: 10.1038/mp.2015.162] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

References to ongoing studies

ACTRN12617000441314 {published data only}

  1. ACTRN12617000441314.The feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging in anon-selective comprehensive clinical trial in pediatric autismspectrum disorder.australianclinicaltrials.gov.au/anzctr/trial/ACTRN12617000441314(first received in 2017).

ChiCTR1800017720 {published data only}

  1. ChiCTR1800017720. Arandom, double-blind, placebo controlled trial for oxytocin nasalspray in the treatment for ASD social dysfunction.www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=29953(first received 10 August 2018).

Crutel 2020 {published data only}

  1. Crutel V,Lambert E, Penelaud P-F,Albarran Severo C,Fuentes J,Rosier A, et al. Bumetanideoral liquid formulation for the treatment of children andadolescents with autism spectrum disorder: design of two phase IIIstudies (SIGN Trials). Journal ofAutism and Developmental Disorders 2020;51(8):2959-72.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-020-04709-8] [PMCID: PMC8254707][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

CTRI/2021/12/038721 {published data only}

  1. CTRI/2021/12/038721.Comparison of the efficacy of oral risperidone andaripiprazole in children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) aged6-18 years: a double blind randomized controlled trial -RAAT.www.trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=CTRI/2021/12/038721(first received December 2021).

EUCTR2008‐003712‐36‐FR {published data only}

  1. EUCTR2008-003712-36-FR.Study of the clinical and neurofunctional response tofluoxetine in childhood autism (FAIR) [Etude de laréponse clinique et neurofonctionnelle à la fluoxétine dans l'autismeinfantile (FAIR)].www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2008-003712-36/FR(first received 19 June 2008).

EUCTR2010‐024202‐34‐DE {published data only}EUCTR2010‐024202‐34‐DE

  1. EUCTR2010-024202-34-DE.Group-therapy, autism and oxytocin - an investigationwith the question "Does oxytocin (OT) enhance therapy effects inautism?" [Effekt von oxytocin auf den therapieerfolgeines sozialen kompetenztrainings bei jugendlichen mitautismus-spektrum-störung (Effect of oxytocin on therapy results of agroup based social skill training in adolescents with autism spectrumdisorder)].www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2010-024202-34/DE (first received 9 December 2013).

EUCTR2014‐003080‐‐38‐DE {published data only}EUCTR2014‐003080‐‐38‐DE

  1. Häge A,Banaschewski T,Buitelaar JK,Dijkhuizen RM,Franke B,Lythgoe DJ, et al.Glutamatergic medication in the treatment of obsessivecompulsive disorder (OCD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) – studyprotocol for a randomised controlled trial.Trials 2016;17(1):141.[DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1266-8] [PMCID: PMC4794817] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

IRCT20090117001556N124 {published data only}IRCT20090117001556N124

  1. IRCT20090117001556N124.Cilostazol in the treatment of autism[Cilostazol as adjunctive treatment of autism: a double blind andplacebo controlled trial in children 5 to 11 years old cilostazol in thetreatment of autism]. www.irct.ir/trial/48108(first received 16 May 2020).

IRCT20200317046801N2 {published data only}IRCT20200317046801N2

  1. IRCT20200317046801N2.The effect of ondansetron on autism[Effect of ondansetron combination therapy with risperidone in childrenwith autism spectrum disorder in a randomized, double-blind,placebo-controlled clinical trialThe effect of ondansetron on autism].www.irct.ir/trial/46589 (first received 13April 2020).

ISRCTN15984604 {published data only}

  1. ACTRN12621000801819.Sertraline for anxiety in adults with a diagnosis ofautism (STRATA) a randomised controlled trial.Australianclinicaltrials.gov.au/anzctr/trial/ACTRN12621000801819(first received 9 February 2022).
  2. ISRCTN15984604.Sertraline for anxiety in adults with a diagnosis ofautism.www.isrtcn.com/ISRTCN15984604.

JPRN‐UMIN000017876 {published data only}

  1. UMIN000017876. Effectsof long-term administration of intranasal oxytocin in children withautism spectrum disorder.https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000020712(first registered June 2015).

NCT00198120 {published data only}

  1. NCT00198120. Safety andeffectiveness of D-cycloserine in children withautism [A randomized controlled trial ofD-cycloserine in autism].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00198120(first received 20 September 2005).

NCT01914939 {published data only}

  1. NCT01914939. Arandomized, controlled trial of intranasal oxytocin as an adjunct tobehavioral therapy for autism spectrum disorder.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01914939(first received 2 August 2013).

NCT01970345 {published data only}

  1. NCT01970345. A pilottreatment study of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) in autismspectrum disorder.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01970345(first received 28 October 2013).

NCT03553875 {published data only}

  1. NCT03553875. Memantinefor the treatment of social deficits in youth with disorders ofimpaired social interactions [Memantine for thetreatment of social deficits in youth with disorders of impaired socialinteractions: a randomized controlled trial].clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT03553875 (firstreceived 12 June 2018).

NCT03887676 {published data only}

  1. NCT03887676. Arbaclofenvs. Placebo in the Treatment of Children and Adolescents WithASD.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03887676?term=NCT03887676%draw=2&rank=1(first received 18 March 2019).

NCT04520685 {published data only}

  1. NCT04520685. CASCADE:CAnnabidiol Study in Children with Autism SpectrumDisordEr [CAnnabidiol Study in Children With AutismSpectrum DisordEr (CASCADE): a double-blind, placebo-controlled study toinvestigate efficacy and safety of cannabidiol in children andadolescents with autism].clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04520685(first received 20 August 2020).

NCT04725383 {published data only}

  1. NCT04725383.Amitriptyline for repetitive behaviors in autismspectrum disorders.www.clinicaltrails.gov/ct2/showNCT04725383?term=NCT04725383&draw=2&rank=1(first received 1 July 2023).

NCT04745026 {published data only}

  1. EUCTR2020-002819-21. Anexploratory, Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlledtrial to investigate the safety and efficacy of cannabidiol oralsolution (GWP42003-P; CBD-OS) in children and adolescents withautism spectrum disorder.clinicaltrialregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-002819-21/DE(first received April 2021).
  2. NCT04745026. Trial toinvestigate the safety and efficacy of cannabidiol oral solution(GWP42003-P; CBD-OS) in children and adolescents with autismspectrum disorder.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04745026?term=NCT04745026&draw=2&rank=1(first received February 2021).

NCT04895215 {published data only}

  1. NCT04895215. AB-2004 inTreatment of adolescents with irritability associated with autismspectrum sisorder (ASD). AB-2004 inTreatment of adolescents with irritability associated with autismspectrum disorder (ASD) - full text view -ClinicalTrials.gov (first received May 2021).

NCT05015439 {published data only}

  1. NCT05015439.Cannabidiol (CBD) in adults With ASD.Cannabidiol (CBD) in adults With ASD - full text view -ClinicalTrials.gov (first received August 2021).

NCT05163717 {published data only}

  1. NCT05163717. INP105proof-of-concept study for the acute treatment of agitation inadolescents with ASD (CALM 201).www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05163717(first received 20 December 2021).

NCT05182697 {published data only}

  1. NCT05182697. SCI-210 inthe treatment of children and young adults with autism evaluate thesafety, tolerability and efficacy of SCI-210 in children with autismspectrum disorder (ASD).www.clinicaltrials.govct/show/NCT05182697?term=NCT05182697&draw=2&rank=1(first received January 2022).

Parellada 2021 {published data only}

  1. NCT03682978. Arbaclofenin children and adolescents with ASD (AIMS2-CT1).clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03682978?term=NCT03682978&draw=2&rank=1(first received 25 March 2019).
  2. Parellada M,Cáceres AS,Palmer M,Delorme R,Jones EJ,Parr JR, et al. A phaseII randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of theefficacy, safety and tolerability of arbaclofen administered for thetreatment of social function in children and adolescents with autismspectrum disorders - study protocol forAIMS-2-TRIALS-CT1. Frontiers inPsychiatry 2021;12:701729.[DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.701729] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

UMIN000017876 {published data only}UMIN000017876

  1. UMIN000017876. Effectsof long-term administration of intranasal oxytocin in children withautism spectrum disorder.upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000020712(first received 19 June 2015).

Additional references

Achenbach 2000

  1. Achenbach TM,Rescorla L. Manual for the ASEBApreschool forms and profiles. Burlington,Vermont: University of Vermont,Research Center for Children, 2000. [Google Scholar]

Alfageh 2019

  1. Alfageh BH,Wang Z,Mongkhon P,Besag FM,Alhawassi TM,Brauer R, et al. Safety andtolerability of antipsychotic medication in individuals with autismspectrum disorder: a systematic review andmeta-analysis. PediatricDrugs 2019;21(3):153-67.[DOI: 10.1007/s40272-019-00333-x] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Alvarez‐Jiménez 2008

  1. Alvarez-Jiménez M,González-Blanch C,Crerco-Facorro B,Hetrick S,Rodríguez-Sánchez JM,Pérez-Iglesias R, et al.Antipsychotic-induced weight gain in chronic andfirst-episode psychotic disorders: a systematic criticalreappraisal. CNS Drugs 2008;22(7):547-62.[DOI: 10.2165/00023210-200822070-00002] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Aman 1985

  1. Aman M, G,Singh NN,Stewart AW, Field CJ. TheAberrant Behavior Checklist: a behavior rating scale for theassessment of treatment effects.American Journal of Mental Deficiency 1985;89(5):485-91.[PMID: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Aman 1996

  1. Aman MG,Tasse MJ,Rojahn J,Hammer D. The NisongerCBRG: a child behavior rating form for children with developmentaldisabilities. Research in DevelopmentalDisabilities 1996;17(1):41-57.[DOI: 10.1016/0891-4222(95)00039-9] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Andari 2010

  1. Andari E, Duhamel J-R,Zalla T,Herbrecht E,Leboyer M,Sirigu A. Promoting socialbehaviour with oxytocin in high-functioning autism spectrumdisorders. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America 2010;107(9):4389-94.[DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0910249107] [PMCID: PMC2840168] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Anderson 1987

  1. Anderson GM,Freedman DX,Cohen DJ,Volkmar FR,Hoder EL,McPhedran P. Whole bloodserotonin in autistic and normal subjects.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and allieddisciplines 1987;28(6):885-900. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Antshel 2013

  1. Antshel KM,Zhang-James Y,Faraone SV. The comorbidityof ADHD and autism spectrum disorder.Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics 2013;13(10):1117-28.[DOI: 10.1586/14737175.2013.840417] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Aronson 2016

  1. Aronson JK.Buspirone. In:Aronson JK, editors(s).Meyler's Side Effects of Drugs: The InternationalEncyclopedia of Adverse Drug Reactions and Interactions.16th edition.Amsterdam:Elsevier, 2016:1096-99.[DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53717-1.00423-6] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Arora 2018

  1. Arora NK,Nair MK,Gulati S,Deshmukh V,Mohapatra A,Mishra D, et al.Neurodevelopmental disorders in children aged 2-9years: population-based burden estimates across five regions inIndia. PloS Medicine 2018;15(7):e1002615-e.[DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002615] [PMCID: PMC6057634][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Autism Spectrum Australia 2023

  1. Autism Spectrum Australia.How do we describe autism? https://www.autismspectrum.org.au/blog/how-do-we-describe-autism.

Autistic Self Advocacy Network 2023

  1. Identity-firstlanguage.https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/identity-first-language/.

Bak 2014

  1. Bak M,Fransen A,Janssen J, VanOs J,Drukker M. Almost allantipsychotics result in weight gain: ameta-analysis. PloS One 2014;9(4):e94112.[DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094112] [PMCID: PMC3998960][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Banas 2020

  1. Banas K,Sawchuk B. Clonidine as atreatment of behavioural disturbances in autism spectrum disorder: asystematic literature review. Journalof the Canadian Academy of Child and AdolescentPsychiatry 2020;29(2):110-20.[PMCID: PMC7213918] [PMID: ] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Banko 2011

  1. Banko JL, TrotterJ,Weeber EJ. Insights intosynaptic function from mouse models of human cognitivedisorders. FutureNeurology 2011;6(1):113-25.[DOI: 10.2217/fnl.10.80] [PMCID: PMC4114080] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Baron‐Cohen 2008

  1. Baron-Cohen S. Autism and AspergerSyndrome. New York:Oxford University Press, 2008. [Google Scholar]

Benarous 2019

  1. Benarous X,Consoli A,Cohen D,Renaud J,Lahaye H, Guilé J-M.Suicidal behaviors and irritability in children andadolescents:a systematic review of the nature and mechanisms of theassociation. European Child andAdolescent Psychiatry October2018;28(5):667-83.[DOI: 10.1007/s00787-018-1234-9] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Bitsika 2016

  1. Bitsika V,Sharpley CF. Which aspects ofchallenging behaviour are associated with anxiety across two agegroups of young males with an autism spectrumdisorder? Journal of Developmental and PhysicalDisabilities 2016;28(5):685-701.[DOI: 10.1007/s10882-016-9502-4] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Bodfish 2000

  1. Bodfish JW,Symons FS,Parker DE,Lewis MH. Varieties ofrepetitive behavior in autism: comparisons to mentalretardation. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 2000;30(3):237-43.[DOI: 10.1023/A:1005596502855] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Branford 2019

  1. Branford D,Gerrard D,Saleem N,Shaw C,Webster A. Stoppingover-medication of people with intellectual disability, autism orboth (STOMP) in England part 1 – history and background ofSTOMP. Advances in Mental Health andIntellectual Disabilities 2019;13(1):31-40.[DOI: 10.1108/AMHID-02-2018-0004] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Brondino 2016

  1. Brondino N,Fusar-Poli L,Panisi C,Damiani S,Barale F,Politi P. Pharmacologicalmodulation of GABA function in autism spectrum disorders: asystematic review of human studies.Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders 2016;46(3):825-39.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-015-2619-y] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Brooks 2021

  1. Brooks J,Bronskill S,Fu L,Saxena F,Arneja J,Pinzaru V, et al.Identifying children and youth with autism spectrumdisorder in electronic medical records: examining health systemutilisation and comorbidities. AutismResearch 2021;14(2):400-410.[DOI: 10.1002/aur.2419] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Brown 1979

  1. Brown GL,Goodwin FK,Ballenger JC,Goyer PF,Major LF. Aggression inhumans correlates with cerebrospinal fluid aminemetabolites. PsychiatryResearch 1979;1(2):131-9.[DOI: 10.1016/0165-1781(79)90053-2] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Caye 2019

  1. Caye A,Swanson JM,Coghill D, Rohde LA.Treatment strategies for ADHD: an evidence-based guideto select optimal treatment. MolecularPsychiatry 2019;24(3):390–408.[DOI: 10.1038/s41380-018-0116-3] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ceranoglu 2019

  1. Ceranoglu TA,Wozniak J,Fried R,Galdo M,Hoskova B, DeLeonFong M, et al. Aretrospective chart review of buspirone for the treatment of anxietyin psychiatrically referred youth with high-functioning autismspectrum disorder. Journal of Child andAdolescent Psychopharmacology 2019;29(1):28-33.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2018.0021] [PMCID: PMC6354602] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Chaddad 2017

  1. Chaddad A,Desrosiers C,Hassan L,Tanougast C. Hippocampus andamygdala radiomic biomarkers for the study of autism spectrumdisorder. BMCNeuroscience 2017;18(1):52.[DOI: 10.1186/s12868-017-0373-0] [PMCID: PMC6389224] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Chaimani 2013

  1. Chaimani A,Higgins JP,Mavridis D,Spyridonos P,Salanti G. Graphical toolsfor network meta-analysis in STATA.PLoS One 2013;8(10):e76654.[DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076654] [PMCID: PMC3789683][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Chang 2021

  1. Chang C-H, Liu C-Y, Chen S-J, TsaiH-C. Effect of N‑Methyl‑D‑Aspartate receptor enhancingagents on cognition in dementia: an exploratory systematic reviewand meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials.Scientific Reports 2021;11(1):22996-22996.[DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-02040-5] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Chez 2003

  1. Chez MG,Buchanon TM,Becker M,Kessler J,Aimonovitch MC,Mrazek SR. Donepezilhydrochloride: a double-blind study in autisticchildren. Journal of PediatricNeurology 2003;1(2):83-8.[DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1557175] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Chez 2004

  1. Chez MG,Hung PC,Chin K,Memon S,Kirschner S. Memantineexperience in children and adolescents with autistic spectrumdisorders. Annals ofNeurology 2004;56(Suppl8):S109. [DOI: 10.1002/ana.20263] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Ching 2012

  1. Ching H,Pringsheim T. Aripiprazole forautism spectrum disorders (ASD).Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 5. Art. No:CD009043. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009043.pub2] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cleaton 2018

  1. Cleaton MA,Kirby A. Why do we find itso hard to calculate the burden of neurodevelopmentaldisorders? Journal of Childhood and DevelopmentalDisorders 2018;4(3):10-20.[DOI: 10.4172/2472-1786.100073] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Cohen 1988

  1. Cohen J. Statistical PowerAnalysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2ndedition. Hillsdale (NJ):Erlbaum, 1988. [ISBN: 0-8058-0283-5] [Google Scholar]

Cortes‐Altamirano 2016

  1. Cortes-Altamirano JL,Olmes-Hernández A,Bonilla-Jaime H,Bandala C,González-Maciel A,Alfaro-Rodríguez A. Levetiracetam asan antiepileptic, neuroprotective, and hyperalgesicdrug. Neurology India 2016;64(6):1266-75.[DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.193801] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cortese 2012

  1. Cortese S,Castelnau P,Morcillo C,Roux S,Bonnet-Brilhault F. Psychostimulantsfor ADHD-like symptoms in individuals with autism spectrumdisorders. Expert Review ofNeurotherapeutics 2012;12(4):461-73.[DOI: 10.1586/ern.12.23] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Coury 2012

  1. Coury DL,Anagnostou E,Manning-Courtney P,Reynolds A,Cole L,McCoy R, et al. Use ofpsychotropic medication in children and adolescents with autismspectrum disorders.Pediatrics 2012;130(Suppl2):S69-76. [DOI:10.1542/peds.2012-0900D] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Craig 2015

  1. Craig F,Lamanna AL,Margari F,Matera E,Simone M,Margari L. Overlap betweenautism spectrum disorders and attention deficit hyperactivitydisorder: searching for distinctive/common clinicalfeatures. 20158;3:328-37.[DOI: 10.1002/aur.1449] [PMCID: PMC4654237] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Crocco 2017

  1. Crocco EA,Jaramillo S,Cruz-Ortiz C,Camfield K. Pharmacologicalmanagement of anxiety disorders in the elderly.Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry 2017;4(1):33-46.[DOI: 10.1007/s40501-017-0102-4] [PMCID: PMC5609714] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cvejic 2018

  1. Cvejic RC,Arnold SR, Foley K-R, Troller Jn.Neuropsychiatric profile and psychotropic medicationuse in adults with autism spectrum disorder: results from theAustralian Longitudinal Study of Adults with Autism.BJPsych Open 2018;4(6):461-6.[DOI: 10.1192/bjo.2018.64] [PMCID: PMC6235990] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Davico 2018

  1. Davico C,Canavese C,Vittorini R,Gandione M,Vitiello B. Anticonvulsantsfor psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents: a systematicreview of their efficacy. Frontiers inPsychiatry 2018;9:270. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00270] [PMCID: PMC6024111] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

De Boer 2019

  1. DeBoer JN,Vingerhoets C,Hirdes M,McAlonan GM,Amelsvoort TV,Zinkstok JR. Efficacy andtolerability of riluzole in psychiatric disorders: a systematicreview and preliminary meta-analysis.Psychiatry Research 2019;278:294-302.[DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.06.020] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Deb 2009

  1. Deb S,Kwok H,Bertelli M,Salvador-Carulla L,Bradley E,Torr J, et al.International guide to prescribing psychotropicmedication for the management of problem behaviours in adults withintellectual disabilities. WorldPsychiatry 2009;8(3):181-6.[DOI: 10.1002/j.2051-5545.2009.tb00248.x] [PMCID:PMC2758582] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Deb 2015

  1. Deb S,Unwin G,Deb T. Characteristicsand the trajectory of psychotropic medication use in general andantipsychotics in particular among adults with an intellectualdisability who exhibit aggressive behaviour.Journal of Intellectual DisabilityResearch 2015;59(1):11-25.[DOI: 10.1111/jir.12119] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Deb 2021

  1. Deb S,Roy M,Lee R,Majid M,Limbu B,Santambrogio J, et al. Randomisedcontrolled trials of antidepressant and anti-anxiety medications forpeople with autism spectrum disorder: systematic review andmeta-analysis. BJPsychOpen 2021;7(6):e179.[DOI: 10.1192/bjo.2021.1003] [PMCID: PMC8503912] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Deeks 2022

  1. Deeks JJ,Higgins JP, Altman DG editor(s).Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertakingmeta-analyses. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, LiT, Page MJ, Welch VA editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for SystematicReviews of Interventions Version 6.3 (updated February 2022).Cochrane, 2022. Available fromwww.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

DeLorenzo 2005

  1. DeLorenzo RJ,Sun DA,Deshpande LS. Cellularmechanisms underlying acquired epilepsy: the calcium hypothesis ofthe induction and maintainance of epilepsy.Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2005;105(3):229-66.[DOI: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2004.10.004] [PMCID: PMC2819430][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

DiCarlo 2019

  1. DiCarlo GE,Aguilar JI,Matthies HJ,Harrison FE,Bundschuh KE,West A, et al.Autism-linked dopamine transporter mutation altersstriatal dopamine neurotransmission and dopamine dependentbehaviors. Journal of ClinicalInvestigation 2019;129(8):3407-19.[DOI: 10.1172/JCI127411] [PMCID: PMC6668686] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Dinnissen 2020

  1. Dinnissen M, Dietrich A, Van derMolen JH,Verhallen AM,Buiteveld Y,Jongejan S. Prescribingantipsychotics in child and adolescent psychiatry - guidelineadherence. European Child andAdolescent Psychiatry 2020;29(12):1717-27.[DOI: 10.1007/s00787-020-01488-6] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

DSM‐4 1994

  1. American PsychiatricAssociation. DSM-4. Diagnostic andStatistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4thedition. Arlington (VA):American Psychiatric Association,1994. [Google Scholar]

DSM‐4‐TR 2000

  1. American PsychiatricAssociation. Diagnostic and StatisticalManual of Mental Disorders. 4-TRedition. Arlington (VA):American Psychiatric Association,2000. [Google Scholar]

DSM‐5 2013

  1. American PsychiatricAssociation. DSM-5. Diagnostic andStatistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5thedition. Arlington (VA):American Psychiatric Association,2013. [Google Scholar]

D’Alò 2021

  1. D’Alò GL, DeCrescenzo F,Amato L,Cruciani F,Davoli M,Fulceri F, et al. Impact ofantipsychotics in children and adolescents with autism spectrumdisorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2021;19(1):33.[DOI: 10.1186/s12955-021-01669-0] [PMCID: PMC7831175][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Elsabbagh 2012

  1. Elsabbagh M,Divan G, Koh Y-J,Kim YS,Kauchali S,Marcín C, et al. Globalprevalence of autism and other pervasive developmentaldisorders. AutismResearch 2012;5(3):160-79.[DOI: 10.1002/aur.239] [PMCID: PMC3763210] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Emerson 1995

  1. Emerson E,Bromley J. The form andfunction of challenging behaviours.Journal of Intellectual DisabilityResearch 1995;39(5):388-98.[DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.1995.tb00543.x] [PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Emerson 2001

  1. Emerson E,Kiernan C,Alborz A,Reeves D,Mason H,Swarbrick R, et al. Theprevalence of challenging behaviours: a total populationstudy. Research in DevelopmentalDisabilities 2001;22(1):77-93.[DOI: 10.1016/S0891-4222(00)00061-5] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Epstein 2013

  1. Epstein JN,Loren RE. Changes in thedefinition of ADHD in DSM-5: subtle but important.Neuropsychiatry 2013;3(5):455-8.[DOI: 10.2217/npy.13.59] [PMCID: PMC3955126] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Erickson 2007

  1. Erickson CA,Posey DJ,Stigler KA,Mullett J,Katschke AR,McDougle CJ. A retrospectivestudy of memantine in children and adolescents with pervasivedevelopmental disorders.Psychopharmacology 2007;191(1):141-7.[DOI: 10.1007/s00213-006-0518-9] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Esbensen 2009

  1. Esbensen AJ,Greenberg JS,Seltzer MM,Aman MG. A longitudinalinvestigation of psychotropic and non-psychotropic medication useamong adolescents and adults with autism spectrumdisorders. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 2009;39(9):1339-49.[PMCID: PMC2829244] [PMID: 10.1007/s10803-009-0750-3] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Fallah 2019

  1. Fallah MS,Shaikh MR,Neupane B,Rusiecki D,Bennett TA,Beyene J. Atypicalantipsychotics for irritability in pediatric autism: a systematicreview and network meta-analysis.Journal of Child and AdolescentPsychopharmacology 2019;29(3):168-80.[DOI: 10.1089/cap.2018.0115] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Fitzpatrick 2016

  1. Fitzpatrick SE,Srivorakiat L,Wink LK,Pedapati EV,Erickson CA. Aggression inautism spectrum disorder: presentation and treatmentoptions. Neuropsychiatric Disease andTreatment 2016;12:1525-38.[DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S84585] [PMCID: PMC4922773] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Freeman 1986

  1. Freeman BJ,Ritvo ER,Yokota A,Ritvo A. A scale forrating symptoms of patients with the syndrome of autism in real lifesettings. Journal of the Americanacademy of child psychiatry 1986;25(1):130-6.[DOI: 10.1016/S0002-7138(09)60610-5] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Froehlich 2013

  1. Froehlich TE,Delgado SV,Anixt JS. Psychostimulantand non-stimulant agents address the symptoms of ADHD substantialevidence shows. CurrentPsychiatry 2013;12(12):21-9.[ISSN: 1537-8276] [URL:www.mdedge.com/psychiatry/article/78793/neurology/expanding-medication-options-pediatric-adhd] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Fung 2016

  1. Fung LK,Mahajan R,Nozzolillo A,Bernal P,Krasner A,Jo B, et al.Pharmacologic treatment of severe irritability andproblem behaviors in autism: a systematic review andmeta-analysis.Pediatrics 2016;137(Suppl2):S124-5. [DOI:10.1542/peds.2015-2851K] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Geiger 2011

  1. Geiger WJ,Nievera CC,Musil B,Goldstein JT. Managingseizures: achieving control while minimizing risk.Journal of Family Practice 2011;60(8):464-72.[PMID: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ghanizadeh 2013

  1. Ghanizadeh A. Atomoxetine fortreating ADHD symptoms in autism: a systematicreview. Journal of AttentionDisorders 2013;17(8):635-40.[DOI: 10.1177/1087054712443154] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ghanizadeh 2019

  1. Ghanizadeh A,Molla M,Olanga GJ. The effect ofstimulants on irritability in autism comorbid with ADHD: asystematic review. NeuropsychiatricDisease and Treatment 2019;15:1547-55.[DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S194022] [PMCID: PMC6559223] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Gibbard 2018

  1. Gibbard CR,Ren J,Skuse DH,Clayden JD,Clark CA. Structuralconnectivity of the amygdala in young adults with autism spectrumdisorder. Human BrainMapping 2018;39(3):1270-82.[DOI: 10.1002/hbm.23915] [PMCID: PMC5838552] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Giovannitti 2015

  1. Giovannitti JA Jr,Thoms SM,Crawford JJ. Alpha-2adrenergic receptor agonists: a review of current clinicalapplications. AnesthesiaProgress 2015;62(1):31-9.[DOI: 10.2344/0003-3006-62.1.31] [PMCID: PMC4389556] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Glover 2015

  1. Glover G,Williams R,Branford D,Avery R,Chauhan U,Hoghton M. Prescribing ofpsychotropic drugs to people with learning disabilities and/orautism by general practitioners in England.Public Health England 2015.

Gottschalk 2017

  1. Gottschalk MG,Domschke K. Oxytocin andanxiety disorders. In:Hurelmann R,Grinevich V, editors(s).Behavioral Pharmacology of Neuropeptides:Oxytocin. Cham:Springer International Publishing,2017:467-98.[DOI: 10.1007/7854_2017_25] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

GRADEpro GDT [Computer program]

  1. GRADEpro. 3.2 forWindows. Brozek J,Oxman A,Schünemann H, Version accessed 27 April 2022.Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by EvidencePrime). Available at gradepro.org.

Green 2010

  1. Green JJ,Hollander E. Autism andoxytocin: new developments in translational approaches totherapeutics.Neurotherapeutics 2010;7(3):250-7.[DOI: 10.1016/j.nurt.2010.05.006] [PMCID: PMC5084228][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Gualtieri 2002

  1. Gualtieri CT. Psychopharmacologyof brain injured and mentally retarded patients.Philadelphia: LippincottWilliams and Wilkins, 2002. [Google Scholar]

Guglielmo 2013

  1. Guglielmo R,Ioime L,Grandinetti P,Janiri L. Managingdisruptive and compulsive behaviors in adult with autistic disorderwith gabapentin. Journal of ClinicalPsychopharmacology 2013;33(2):273-4.[DOI: 10.1097/JCP.0b013e318285680c] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Guy 1976

  1. Guy W (editor). ECDEUAssessment Manual for Psychopharmacology.Rockville, MD, U.S.:Department of Health, Education, andWelfare, 1976. [Google Scholar]

Handen 2008

  1. Handen BL,Sahl R,Hardan AY. Guanfacine inchildren with autism and/or intellectualdisabilities. Journal of Developmental andBehavioral Pediatrics 2008;29(4):303–8.[DOI: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181739b9d] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hanson 2013

  1. Hanson E,Cerban BM,Slater CM,Caccamo LM,Bacic J,Chan E. Brief report:prevalence of attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder amongindividuals with an autism spectrum disorder.Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders 2013;43(6):1459-64.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-012-1677-7] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Henderson 2020

  1. Henderson A,Kinnear D,Fleming M,Stanley B,Greenlaw N,Young-Southward G, et al.Antipsychotic and antidepressant prescribing for 704297 children and young people with and without intellectualdisabilities: record linkage study.Brtish Journal of Psychiatry 2020;218(1):58-62.[DOI: 10.1192/bjp.2020.232] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Higgins 2003

  1. Higgins JP,Thompson SG,Deeks JJ,Altman DG. Measuringinconsistency in meta-analyses.BMJ 2003;327:557-60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Higgins 2011

  1. Higgins JP,Altman DG, Sterne JA editor(s).Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies.In: Higgins JP, Green S editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for SystematicReviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). TheCochrane Collaboration, 2011.https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v5.1/.

Higgins 2012

  1. Higgins JP,Jackson D,Barrett JK,Lu G,Ades AE,White IR. Consistency andinconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models formulti-arm studies. Research SynthesisMethods 2012;3(2):98–110.[DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1044] [PMCID: PMC4433772] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Higgins 2022a

  1. Higgins JP,Li T, Deeks JJ editor(s).Chapter 6: Choosing effect measures and computingestimates of effect. In: Higgins JP Thomas J, Chandler J, CumpstonM, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA editor(s). Cochrane Handbook forSystematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3 (updated February2022). Cochrane, 2022. Available fromwww.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

Higgins 2022b

  1. Higgins JP,Eldridge S, Li T editor(s).Chapter 23: Including variants on randomized trials.In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ,Welch VA editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews ofInterventions Version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane,2022. Available fromtraining.cochrane.org/handbook.

Hill 2014

  1. Hill AP,Zuckerman KE,Hagen AD,Kriz DJ,Duvall SW, VanSanten J, et al. Aggressivebehaviour problems in children with autism spectrum disorders:prevalence and correlates in a large clinical sample.Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 2014;8(9):1121-33.[DOI: 10.1016/j.rasd.2014.05.006] [PMCID: PMC4160737][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hirsch 2016

  1. Hirsch LE,Pringsheim T. Aripiprazole forautism spectrum disorders (ASD).Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 6. Art. No:CD009043. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009043.pub3] [PMCID: PMC7120220][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hollander 2001

  1. Hollander E,Dolgoff-Kaspar R,Cartwright C,Rawitt R,Novotny S. An open trial ofdivalproex sodium in autism spectrum disorders.Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2001;62(7):530-4.[DOI: 10.4088/jcp.v62n07a05] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hollocks 2019

  1. Hollocks MJ,Lerh JW,Magiati I,Meiser-Stedman R,Brugha TS. Anxiety anddepression in adults with autism spectrum disorder: a systematicreview and meta-analysis. PsychologicalMedicine 2019;49(4):559-72.[DOI: 10.1017/S0033291718002283] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Holt 2019

  1. Holt RI. Associationbetween antipsychotic medication use and diabetes.Current Diabetes Reports 2019;19(10):96.[DOI: 10.1007/s11892-019-1220-8] [PMCID: PMC6718373] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Houghton 2017

  1. Houghton R,Ong RC,Bolognani F. Psychiatriccomorbidities and use of psychotropic medications in people withautism spectrum disorder in the United States.Autism Research 2017;10(12):2037-47.[DOI: 10.1002/aur.1848] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Howes 2018

  1. Howes OD,Rogdaki M,Findon JL,Wiches RH,Charman T,King BH, et al. Autismspectrum disorder: consensus guidelines on assessment, treatment andresearch from the British Association forPsychopharmacology. Journal ofPsychopharmacology 2018;32(1):3-29.[DOI: 10.1177/0269881117741766] [PMCID: PMC5805024] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Howland 2015

  1. Howland RH. Buspirone: backto the future. Journal of PsychosocialNursing and Mental Health Services 2015;53(11):21-4.[DOI: 10.3928/02793695-20151022-01] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hsia 2014

  1. Hsia Y,Wong AY,Murphy DG,Simonoff E,Buitelaar JK,Wong IC.Psychopharmacological prescriptions for people withautism spectrum disorder (ASD): a multinationalstudy. Psychopharmacology 2014;231(6):999-1009.[DOI: 10.1007/s00213-013-3263-x] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Hurwitz 2012

  1. Hurwitz R,Blackmore R,Hazell P,Williams K,Woolfenden S. Tricyclicantidepressants for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in children andadolescents. Cochrane Database ofSystematic Reviews 2012, Issue 3. Art. No:CD008372. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008372.pub2] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Huss 2016

  1. Huss M,Chen W,Ludolph AG. Guanfacineextended release: a new pharmacological treatment option inEurope. Clinical DrugInvestigation 2016;36(1):1-25.[DOI: 10.1007/s40261-015-0336-0] [PMCID: PMC4706844] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

ICD‐10 2004

  1. World HealthOrganization. ICD-10: InternationalClassification of Diseases for Mortality and MorbidityStatistics. 10th edition.Geneva: World HealthOrganization, 2004. [Google Scholar]

Janak 2012

  1. Janak P, ScottBowers M,Corbit L. Compound stimuluspresentation and the norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor atomoxetineenhance long-term extinction of cocaine-seekingbehavior.Neuropsychopharmacology 2012;37(4):975-85.[DOI: 10.1038/npp.2011.281] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Jesner 2007

  1. Jesner OS,Aref-Adib M,Coren E. Risperidone forautism spectrum disorder. CochraneDatabase of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 1. Art. No:CD005040. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005040.pub2] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

John 2021

  1. John S,Jaeggi AV. Oxytocin levelstend to be lower in autistic children: a meta-analysis of 31studies. Autism 2021;25(8):2152-61.[DOI: 10.1177/13623613211034375] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Johnco 2015

  1. Johnco C,Storch EA. Anxiety in youthwith autism spectrum disorders implications fortreatment. Expert Review ofNeurotherapeutics 2015;15(11):1343-52.[DOI: 10.1586/14737175.2015.1111762] [PMCID: PMC4886863][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kanne 2011

  1. Kanne SM,Mazurek MO. Aggression inchildren and adolescents with ASD: prevalence and riskfactors. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 2011;41(7):926-37.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-010-1118-4] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

King 2001

  1. King BH,Wright DM,Handen BL,Sikich L,Zimmerman AW,McMahon W, et al.Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of amantadinehydrochloride in the treatment of children with autisticdisorder. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2001;40(6):658–65.[DOI: 10.1097/00004583-200106000-00010] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Koritsas 2015

  1. Koritsas S,Iacono T. Predictors ofchallenging behaviour in adults with intellectualdisability. Advances in Mental Healthand Intllectual Disabilities 2015;9(6):312-26.[DOI: 10.1108/AMHID-06-2015-0029] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Krishnaswami 2011

  1. Krishnaswami S,McPheeters ML,Veenstra-Vanderweele J. A systematicreview of secretin for children with autism spectrumdisorders. Pediatrics 2011;127(5):e1322-5.[DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-0428] [PMCID: PMC3387870] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Kusmaker 2018

  1. Kusmaker S,Karmaker CK,Yan B,O'Brien TJ,Mathuganapathy R,Palaniswarmi M. Onset detectionof epileptic seizures from acceloerometry signal. In:40th Annual Internal Conference of the IEEE Engineeringin Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC); 2018 Jul 18-12; Honolulu(HI), USA. 2018:1-4.[DOI: 10.1109/EMBC.2018.8513669] [DOI] [PubMed]

Lake 2017

  1. Lake JK,Denton D,Lunsky Y,Shui AM,Veenstra-VanderWheele J,Anagnostou E. Medicalconditions and demographic, service and clinical factors associatedwith atypical antipsychotic medication use among children with anautism spectrum disorder. Journal ofAutism and Developmental Disorders 2017;47(5):1391-402.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-017-3058-8] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lee 2021

  1. Lee T-M, Lee K-M, Lee C-Y, Lee H-C,Tam K-W, Loh E-W. Effectiveness of N-acetylcysteine inautism spectrum disorders: a meta-analysis of randomized controlledtrials. Australian and New ZealandJournal of Psychiatry 2021;55(2):196-206.[DOI: 10.1177/0004867420952540] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Loomes 2017

  1. Loomes R,Hull L,Mandy WP. What is themale-to-female ratio in autism spectrum disorder? A systematicreview and meta-analysis. Journal ofthe American Academy of Child and AdolescentPsychiatry 2017;56(6):466-74.[DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2017.03.013] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lord 1994

  1. Lord C,Rutter M, LeCouteur A. Autism DiagnosticInterview Revised: a revised version of a diagnostic interview forcaregivers of individuals with possible pervasive developmentaldisorders. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 1994;24(5):659-85.[DOI: 10.1007/BF021172145] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lord 2000

  1. Lord C,Risi S,Lambrecht L, Cook EH Jr,Leventhal BL,DiLavore PC. AutismDiagnostic Interview Revised: a revised version of a diagnosticinterview for caregivers of individuals with possible pervasivedevelopmental disorders. Journal ofAutism and Developmental Disorders 2000;30(3):205-23.[PMID: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lord 2018

  1. Lord C,Elsabbagh M,Baird G,Veenstra-Vanderweele J. Autism SpectrumDisorder. Lancet 2018;392(10146):508-20.[DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31129-2] [PMCID: PMC7398158][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Loy 2017

  1. Loy JH,Merry SN,Hetrick AE,Stasiak K. Atypicalantipsychotics for disruptive behaviour disorders in children andyouths. Cochrane Database of SystematicReviews 2017, Issue 8. Art. No:CD008559. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008559.pub3] [PMCID: PMC6483473][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Madden 2017

  1. Madden JM,Lakoma MD,Lynch FL,Rusinak D,Owen-Smith AA,Coleman KJ, et al.Psychotropic medication use among insured childrenwith autism spectrum disorder. Journalof Autism and Developmental Disorders 2017;47(1):144-54.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-016-2946-7] [PMCID: PMC5328123] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Maneeton 2018a

  1. Maneeton N,Maneeton B,Putthisri S,Suttajit S,Likhitsathian S, Srisurapanont M.Aripiprazole in acute treatment of children andadolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review andmeta-analysis. Neuropsychiatric Diseaseand Treatment 2018;14:3063-72.[PMCID: PMC6237245] [PMID: 10.2147/NDT.S174622] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Maneeton 2018b

  1. Maneeton N,Maneeton B,Putthisri S,Woottiluk P,Narkpongphun A,Srisurapanont M. Risperidone forchildren and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematicreview. Neuropsychiatric Disease andTreatment 2018;14:1811-20.[DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S151802] [PMCID: PMC6045903] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Mano‐Sousa 2021

  1. Mano-Sousa BJ,Pedrosa AM,Alves BC,Galduróz JC,Belo VS,Chaves VE, et al. Effectsof risperidone in autistic children and young adults: a systematicreview and meta-analysis. CurrentNeuropharmacology 2021;19(4):538-52.[DOI: 10.2174/1570159X18666200529151741] [PMCID:PMC8206457] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Marinho 2018

  1. Marinho V,Oliveira T,Rocha K,Robeiro J,Magalhães F,Bento T, et al. Thedopaminergic system dynamic in the time perception: a review of theevidence. International Journal ofNeuroscience 2018;128(3):262-82.[DOI: 10.1080/00207454.2017.1385614] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Matos 2022

  1. Matos MB,Bara TS,Cordiero ML. Autism spectrumdisorder diagnoses: a comparison of countries with different incomelevels. ClinicalEpidemiology December2022;14:959-69.[DOI: 10.2147/CLEP.S373186] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Matson 2009

  1. Matson JL,Boisjoli JA. Restraintprocedures and challenging behaviours in intellectual disability: ananalysis of causative factors. Journalof Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2009;22(2):111-7.[DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2008.00477.x] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

May 2017

  1. May T,Sciberras E,Brignell A,Williams K. Autism spectrumdisorder: updated prevalence and comparison of two birth cohorts ina nationally representative Australian sample.BMJ Open 2017;7(5):e015549.[DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015549] [PMCID: PMC5623420][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

May 2020

  1. May T,Brignell A,Williams K. Autism spectrumdisorder prevalence in children aged 12-13 years from theLongitudinal Study of Australian Children.Autism Research 2020;13(5):821-7.[DOI: 10.1002/aur.2286] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

McQueen 2002

  1. McQueen JM,Heck AM. Secretin for thetreatment of autism. Annals ofPharmacotherapy 2002;36(2):305-11.[DOI: 10.1345/aph.19113] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

McTiernan 2011

  1. McTiernan A,Leader G,Healy O,Mannion A. Analysis of riskfactors and early predictors of challenging behavior for childrenwith autism spectrum disorder. Researchin Autism Spectrum Disorders 2011;5(3):1215-22.[DOI: 10.1016/j.rasd.2011.01.009] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Mechler 2022

  1. Mechler K,Banaschewski T,Hohmann S,Häge A. Evidence-basedpharmacological treatment options for ADHD in children andadolescents. Pharmacology &therapeutics 2022;230:107940. [DOI:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2021.107940] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Mikami 2019

  1. Mikami AY,Miller M,Lerner MD. Socialfunctioning in youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorderand autism spectrum disorder: transdiagnostic commonalities anddifferences. Clinical PsychologyReview 2019;68:54-70.[DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2018.12.005] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ming 2008

  1. Ming X,Gordon E,Kang N,Wagner GC. Use of clonidinein children with autism spectrum disorders.Brain & Development 2008;30(7):454–60.[DOI: 10.1016/j.braindev.2007.12.007] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Moerkerke 2021

  1. Moerkerke M,Peeters M, DeVries L,Daniels N,Steyaert J,Alaerts K, et al. Endogenousoxytocin levels in autism—a meta-analysis.Brain Sciences 2021;11(11):1545.[DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11111545] [PMCID: PMC8615844] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Moher 2009

  1. Moher D,Liberati A,Tetzlaff J,Altman DG, for the PRISMAGroup. Preferred reporting items forsystematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMAstatement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535. [DOI:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Murray 2014

  1. Murray ML,Hsia Y,Glaser K,Simonoff E,Murphy DG,Asherson PJ, et al.Pharmacological treatments prescribed to people withautism spectrum disorder (ASD) in primary healthcare. Psychopharmacology 2014;231(6):1011-21.[DOI: 10.1007/s00213-013-3140-7] [PMCID: PMC3932167] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Müller 2012

  1. Müller T. Drug therapy inpatients with Parkinson’s disease.Translational Neurodegeneration 2012;1(1):10.[DOI: 10.1186/2047-9158-1-10] [PMCID: PMC3514092] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Nadeau 2011

  1. Nadeau J,Sulkowski ML,Ung D,Wood JJ,Lewin AB,Murphy TK, et al. Treatmentof comorbid anxiety and autism spectrum disorders.Neuropsychiatry 2011;1(6):567-78.[DOI: 10.2217/npy.11.62] [PMCID: PMC3809000] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Nakamura 2010

  1. Nakamura K,Sekine Y,Ouchi Y,Tsujii M,Yoshikawa E,Futatsubashi M, et al. Brainserotonin and dopamine transporter bindings in adults withhigh-functioning autism. Archives ofGeneral Psychiatry 2010;67(1):59-68.[DOI: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.137] [PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

National Autistic Society 2023

  1. National AutisticSociety. How to talk and write aboutautism.https://www.autism.org.uk/what-we-do/help-and-support/how-to-talk-about-autism.

NICE 2015

  1. National Institute forHealth and Care Excellence. Challengingbehaviour and learning disabilities: prevention and interventionsfor people with learning disabilities whose behaviour challenges.NICE guideline (NG11); May 2015.Available atwww.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng11. [PubMed]

Olivares 2012

  1. Olivares D,Deshpande VK,Shi K,Lahiri DK,Greig NH,Rogers JT. N-MethylD-Aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists and memantine treatment forAlzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, and Parkinson'sdisease. Current AlzheimerResearch 2012;9(6):746-58.[DOI: 10.2174/156720512801322564] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ono 1996

  1. Ono Y. Factor validityand reliability for the Aberrant Behavior Checklist-Community in aJapanese population with mental retardation.Research in Developmental Disabilities 1996;17(4):303-09.[DOI: 10.1016/0891-4222(96)00015-7] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ooi 2017

  1. Ooi YP, Weng S-J,Kossowsky J,Gerger H,Sung M. Oxytocin andautism spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis ofrandomized controlled trials.Pharmacopsychiatry 2017;50(1):5-13.[DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-109400] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Osland 2018

  1. Osland ST,Steeves TD,Pringsheim T. Pharmacologicaltreatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) inchildren with comorbid tic disorders.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 6. Art. No:CD007990. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007990.pub3] [PMCID: PMC6513283][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Park 2022

  1. Park J-E, Leem Y-H, Park J-S, KimD-Y, Kang J-L, Kim H-S. Anti-inflammatory andneuroprotective mechanisms of GTS-21, an α7 nicotinic acetylcholinereceptor agonist, in neuroinflammation and Parkinson’s disease mousemodels. International Journal ofMolecular Sciences 2022;23(8):4420.[DOI: 10.3390/ijms23084420] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Patra 2019

  1. Patra S,Nebhinani N,Viswanathan A,Kirubakaran R. Atomoxetine forattention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescentswith autism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Autism Research 2019;12(4):542-52.[DOI: 10.1002/aur.2059] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Peiris 2022

  1. Peiris H,Wickramarachchi DS,Samarasinghe P,Vance P,Dahanayake D,Kulasekara V. Diagnosing autismin low-income countries: clinical record-based analysis in SriLanka. Autism Research 2022;15(7):1358-67.[DOI: 10.1002/aur.2765] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Perez 2012

  1. Perez M,Carlson G,Ziviani J,Cuskelly M. Contribution ofoccupational therapists in positive behavioursupport. Australian Occupational TherapyJournal 2012;59(6):428-36.[DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1630.2012.01036.x] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Poisbeau 2018

  1. Poisbeau P,Gazzo G,Calvel L. Anxiolyticstargeting GABAA receptors: insights onetifoxine. World Journal of BiologicalPsychiatry 2018;19(Suppl1):S36-S45.[DOI: 10.1080/15622975.2018.1468030] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Posey 2001

  1. Posey DJ,McDougle CJ.Pharmacotherapeutic management ofautism. Expert Opinion onPharmacotherapy 2001;2(4):587-600.[DOI: 10.1517/14656566.2.4.587] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Previc 2007

  1. Previc FH. Prenatalinfluences on brain dopamine and their relevance to the risingincidence of autism. MedicalHypotheses 2007;68(1):46-60.[DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2006.06.041] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Proix 2018

  1. Proix T,Jirsa VK,Bartolomei F,Guye M, Truccolo W. Predicting thespatiotemporal diversity of seizure propagation and termination inhuman focal epilepsy. NatureCommunications 2018;9(1):1088.[DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-02973-y] [PMCID: PMC5852068][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Qi 2020

  1. Qi X-R,Zhang L. The potentialrole of gut peptide hormones in autism spectrumdisorder. Frontiers in CellularNeuroscience 2020;14:73. [DOI:10.3389/fncel.2020.00073] [PMCID: PMC7136424] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ramcharan 2009

  1. Ramcharan P,Nankervis K,Strong M,Robertson A. Experiences ofrestrictive practices: a view from people with disabilities andfamily carers. A final research report to the office of the SeniorPractitioner; May 2009. Available atvgls.sdp.sirsidynix.net.au/client/search/asset/1297931.

Rasmussen 2019

  1. Rasmussen L,Pratt N,Roughead E,Moffat A. Prevalence ofpsychotropic medicine use in Australian children with autismspectrum disorder: a drug utilization study based on childrenenrolled in the longitudinal study of Australianchildren. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 2019;49(1):227-35.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-018-3718-3] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RevMan Web 2021 [Computer program]

  1. Review Manager Web(RevMan Web). Version 3.13.0. The CochraneCollaboration, 2021.Available at revman.cochrane.org.

Ricci 2013

  1. Ricci S,Businaro R,Ippoliti F, LoVasco VR,Massoni F,Onofri E, et al. Alteredcytokine and BDNF levels in autism spectrum disorder.Neurotoxicity Research 2013;24(4):491-501.[DOI: 10.1007/s12640-013-9393-4] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ringer 2020

  1. Ringer N,Wilder J,Scheja M,Gustavsson A. Managing childrenwith challenging behaviours. Parents' meaning-making processes inrelation to their children's ADHD diagnosis.International journal of disability, development andeducation 2020;67(4):376-92.[DOI: 10.1080/1034912X.2019.1596228] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Ritchie 2020

  1. Ritchie H.Neurodevelopmental disorders.www.ourworldindata.org/neurodevelopmental-disorders(accessed 27th April 2022).

Rojahn 2001

  1. Rojahn J,Matson J,Lott D,Esbensen AJ,Smalls Y. The behaviourproblems inventory - an instrument for the assessment ofself-injury, stereotyped behaviour, and aggression/destruction inindividuals with developmental disabilities.Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders 2001;31(6):577-88.[DOI: 10.1023/A:1013299028321] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Rojas 2014

  1. Rojas DC. The role ofglutamate and its receptors in autism and the use of glutamatereceptor antagonists in treatment.Journal of Neural Transmission 2014;121(8):891-905.[DOI: 10.1007/s00702-014-1216-0] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Rosello 2018

  1. Rosello B,Berenguer C,Baixauli I,Colomer C,Miranda A. ADHD symptoms andlearning behaviors in children with ASD without intellectualdisability. A mediation analysis of executivefunctions. PloS one 2018;13(11):e0207286.[DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207286] [PMCID: PMC6241124][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Sabri 2008

  1. Sabri O,Kendziorra K,Wolf H, Gertz H-J,Brust P. Acetylcholinereceptors in dementia and mild cognitive impairment.European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and MolecularImaging 2008;35(Suppl1):30-45. [DOI:10.1007/s00259-007-0701-1] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Savović 2012

  1. Savović J,Jones H,Altman D,Harris R,Jűni P,Pildal J, et al. Influenceof reported study design characteristics on intervention effectestimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis ofmeta-epidemiological studies. HealthTechnology Assessment 2012;16(35):1-82.[DOI: 10.3310/hta16350] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Schendel 2016

  1. Schendel DA,Overgaard M,Christensen J,Jorgensen M,Vestergaard M, Parner ET.Association of psychiatric and neurologic comorbiditywith mortality among persons with autism spectrum disorder in aDanish population. JAMAPediatrics 2016;170(3):243-50.[DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3935] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Schmitt 2005

  1. Schmitt R,Gazalle FK,Lima MS,Cunha A,Souza J,Kapczinski F. The efficacy ofantidepressants for generalized anxiety disorder: a systematicreview and meta-analysis. RevistaBrasileira de Psiquiatria 2005;27(1):18-24.[DOI: 10.1590/S1516-44462005000100007] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Schopler 2009

  1. Schopler E, VanBourgondien ME,Wellman J,Love S. Childhood AutismRating Scale-second edition (CARS2): Manual.Childhood Autism Rating Scale, Second Edition (CARS-2) |Pearson Clinical Australia & New Zealand 2009.

Schünemann 2013

  1. Schünemann H,Brożek J,Guyatt G,Oxman A, editor(s).Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and thestrength of recommendations using the GRADE approach (updatedOctober 2013). GRADE Working Group, 2013.Available fromhttps://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html.

Schünemann 2022

  1. Schünemann HJ,Higgins JP,Vist GE,Glasziou P,Akl EA,Skoetz N, et al. Completing‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of theevidence. In: Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T,Page MJ, Welch VA editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for SystematicReviews of Interventions Version 6.3 (updated February 2022).Cochrane, 2022. Available fromtraining.cochrane.org/handbook.

Seida 2009

  1. Seida JK,Ospina MB,Karkhaneh M,Hartling L,Smith V,Clark B. Systematicreviews of psychosocial interventions for autism: an umbrellareview. Developmental Medicine andChild Neurology 2009;51(2):95-104.[DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03211.x] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Sengupta 2017

  1. Sengupta K,Lobo L,Krishnamurthy V. Educational andbehavioral interventions in management of autism spectrumdisorder. Indian Journal ofPediatrics 2017;84(1):61-7.[DOI: 10.1007/s12098-015-1967-0] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Sheehan 2015

  1. Sheehan R,Hassiotis A,Walters K,Osborn D,Strydom A,Horsfall L. Mental illness,challenging behaviour, and psychotropic drug prescribing in peoplewith intellectual disability: UK population based cohortstudy. BMJ 2015;351:h4326. [DOI:10.1136/bmj.h4326] [PMCID: PMC4556752] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Shojaie 2020

  1. Shojaie F. Quantumcomputations of interactions of most reactive tricyclicantidepressant drug with carbon nanotube, serotonin, andnorepinephrin. ChemicalMethodologies 2020;4(4):447-66.[DOI: 10.33945/SAMI/CHEMM.2020.4.7] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

SIGN 2016

  1. Scottish IntercollegiateGuidelines Network. SIGN145. Assessment,diagnosis and interventions for autism spectrum disorders: anational clinical guideline; June 2016.Available atwww.sign.ac.uk/assets/sign145.pdf.

Simon 2015

  1. Simon G. ACP Journal Club:new use of atypical antipsychotics was linked to acute kidney injuryand all-cause mortality at 90 days.Annals of Internal Medicine 2015;162(4):JC12.[DOI: 10.7326/ACPJC-2015-162-4-012] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Smith 2014

  1. Smith LE,Greenberg JS,Mailick MR. The familycontext of autism spectrum disorders: influence on the behavioralphenotype and quality of life. Childand Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 2014;23(1):143-55.[DOI: 10.1016/j.chc.2013.08.006] [PMCID: PMC3891371] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Soke 2016

  1. Soke GN,Rosenberg SA,Hamman RF,Fingerlin T,Robinson C,Carpenter L, et al. Briefreport: prevalence of self-injurious behaviors among children withautism spectrum disorder—a population-based study.Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders 2016;46(11):3607-14.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-016-2879-1] [PMCID: PMC5392775] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Sokolova 2017

  1. Sokolova E,Oerlemans AM,Rommelse NN,Groot P,Hartman CA,Glennon JC, et al. A causaland mediation analysis of the comorbidity between attention deficithyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder(ASD). Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 2017;47(6):1595-604.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-017-3083-7] [PMCID: PMC5432632] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Stata 2013 [Computer program]

  1. Stata.Version 13. College Station, TX, USA: StataCorp, 2013. Available atwww.stata.com.

Sturman 2017

  1. Sturman N,Deckx L, VanDriel ML. Methylphenidatefor children and adolescents with autism spectrumdisorder. Cochrane Database ofSystematic Reviews 2017, Issue 11. Art. No:CD011144. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011144.pub2] [PMCID: PMC6486133][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Tanaka 2018

  1. Tanaka A,Furubayashi T,Arai M,Inoue D,Kimura S,Kiriyama A, et al. Deliveryof oxytocin to the brain for the treatment of autism spectrumdisorder by nasal application.Molecular Pharmaceutics 2018;15(3):1105-11.[DOI: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.7b00991] [PMID:] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Tantam 2012

  1. Tantam D. Autism SpectrumDisorders through the Life Span.Philadelphia (PA):Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2012. [Google Scholar]

Taylor 2018

  1. Taylor JH,Schulte NA,French JA,Toews ML. Bindingcharacteristics of two oxytocin variants and vasopressin at oxytocinreceptors from four primate species with different social behaviourpatterns. Journal of Pharmacology andExperimental Therapeutics 2018;367(1):101-7.[DOI: 10.1124/jpet.118.250852] [PMCID: PMC7250472] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Toohey 2017

  1. Toohey MJ,DiGiuseppe R. Defining andmeasuring irritability: construct clarification anddifferentiation. Clinical PsychologyReview 2017;53:93-108.[DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.01.009] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Trifirò 2009

  1. Trifirò G,Spina E, Gambassi G. Useof antipsychotics in elderly patients with dementia: do atypical andconventional agents have a similar safety profile? Pharmacological Research 2009;59(1):1-12.[DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2008.09.017] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Tsouris 2013

  1. Tsouris JA, Kim S-Y,Brown WT,Pettinger J,Cohen IL. Prevalence ofpsychotropic drug use in adults with intellectual disability:positive and negative findings from a large scalestudy. Journal of Autism andDevelopmental Disorders 2013;43(3):719-31.[DOI: 10.1007/s10803-012-1617-6] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Turner 2012

  1. Turner RM,Davey J,Clarke MJ,Thompson SG,Higgins JP. Predicting theextent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data fromthe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.International Journal of Epidemiology 2012;41(3):818-27.[DOI: 10.1093/ije/dys041] [PMCID: PMC3396310] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Turowetz 2015

  1. Turowetz J,Maynard DW. Categoryattribution as a device for diagnosis: fitting children to theautism spectrum. Sociology of Health& Illness 2015;38(4):610-26.[DOI: 10.1111/1467-9566.12382] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Tyrer 2006

  1. Tyrer F,McGrother CW,Thorp CF,Donaldson M,Bhaumik S,Watson JM, et al. Physicalaggression towards others in adults with learning disabilities:prevalence and associated factors.Journal of Intellectual DisabilityResearch 2006;50(4):295-304.[DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00774.x] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Ulke 2019

  1. Ulke C,Rullmann M,Huang J,Ludhardt J, Becker G-A,Patt M, et al. Adultattention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is associated with reducednorepinephrine transporter availability in right attention networks:a (S,S)-O-[11C]methylreboxetine positron emissiontomography study. TranslationalPsychiatry 2019;9(1):301.[DOI: 10.1038/s41398-019-0619-y] [PMCID: PMC6858438] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Vallés 2021

  1. Vallés AS,Barrantes FJ. Dysregulation ofneuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptor - cholesterol crosstalk inautism spectrum disorder. Frontiers inMolecular Neuroscience 2021;14:744597. [DOI:10.3389/fnmol.2021.744597] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Van Steensel 2011

  1. VanSteensel FJ,Bögels SM,Perrin S. Anxiety disordersin children and adolescents with autistic spectrum disorders: ameta-analysis. Clinical Child andFamily Psychology Review 2011;14(3):302-17.[DOI: 10.1007/s10567-011-0097-0] [PMCID: PMC3162631] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Varni 1999

  1. Varni JW,Seid M,Rode CA. The PedsQL -measurement model for the pediatric quality of lifeinventory. Medical care 1999;37(2):126-39.[DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199902000-00003] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Varni 2001

  1. Varni JW. The PedsQLmeasurement model for the pediatric quality of lifeinventory.https://www.pedsql.org/index.html (lastaccessed 3rd May 2022). [DOI] [PubMed]

Veenstra‐VanderWeele 2012

  1. Veenstra-VanderWeele J,Blakely RD. Networking inautism: leveraging genetic, biomarker, and model system findings inthe search for new treatments.Neuropsychopharmacology 2012;37(1):196-212.[DOI: 10.1038/npp.2011.185] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Verrotti 2010

  1. Verrotti A,Coppola G,Parisi P,Mohn A,Chiarelli F. Bone and calciummetabolism and antiepileptic drugs.Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 2010;112(1):1-10.[DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2009.10.011] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Vohra 2017

  1. Vohra R,Madhaven S,Sambamoorthi U. Comorbidityprevalence, healthcare utilization, and expenditures of Medicaidenrolled adults with autism spectrum disorders.Autism 2017;21(8):995-1009.[DOI: 10.1177/1362361316665222] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wassenaar 2013

  1. Wassenaar M, VanHeijl I,Leijten FS, Van derLinden P, Uijl SG,Egberts AC, et al. Treatmentof epilepsy in daily clinical practice: have outcomes improved overthe past 10 years?. Journal ofNeurology 2013;260(11):2736-43.[DOI: 10.1007/s00415-013-7058-0] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Weitlauf 2014

  1. Weitlauf AS,McPheeters ML,Peters B,Sathe N,Travis R,Aiello R, et al. Therapies forChildren with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Behavioral InterventionsUpdate. Rockville (MD):Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality(US), 2014.[BOOKSHELF ID: NBK241444] [PMID: ] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Welch 2004

  1. Welch MG,Keune JD,Welch-Horan TB,Anwar N,Anwar M,Ludwig RJ, et al. Secretin:hypothalamic distribution and hypothesized neuroregulatory role inautism. Cellular and MolecularNeurobiology 2004;24(2):219-41.[DOI: 10.1023/B:CEMN.0000018618.59015.a2] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

White 2012

  1. White IR,Barrett JK,Jackson D,Higgins JP. Consistency andinconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation usingmultivariate meta-regression. ResearchSynthesis Methods 2012;3(2):111-25.[DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1045] [PMCID: PMC4433771] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

WHO 1998

  1. World HealthOrganization. WHO Quality of Life usermanual.file:///U:/Downloads/WHO_HIS_HSI_Rev.2012.03_eng%20(1).pdf 1998.

Wilczyński 2019

  1. Wilczyński KM,Zasada I,Siwiec A,Janas-Kozik M. Differences onoxytocin and vasopressin levels in individuals suffering from theautism spectrum disorders vs general population – a systematicreview. Neuropsychiatric Disease andTreatment 2019;15:2613-20.[DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S207580] [PMCID: PMC6750159] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Williams 2012

  1. Williams K,Wray JA,Wheeler DM. Intravenoussecretin for autism spectrum disorders (ASD).Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 4. Art. No:CD003495. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003495.pub3] [PMCID: PMC7154585][PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Williams 2013

  1. Williams K,Brignell A,Randall M,Silove N,Hazell P. Selectiveserotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for autism spectrum disorders(ASD). Cochrane Database of SystematicReviews 2013, Issue 8. Art. No:CD004677. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004677.pub3] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wlodarczyk 2012

  1. Wlodarczyk BJ,Palacios AM,George TM,Finnell RH. Antiepilepticdrugs and pregnancy outcomes. AmericanJournal of Medical Genetics. Part A 2012;158A(8):2071-90.[DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.35438] [PMCID: PMC3402584] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Wu 2012

  1. Wu J,Xiao H,Sun H,Zou L, Zhu L-Q. Role ofdopamine receptors in ADHD: a systematicmeta-analysis. MolecularNeurobiology 2012;45(3):605-20.[DOI: 10.1007/s12035-012-8278-5] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Yamasue 2017

  1. Yamasue H,Domes G. Oxytocin andautism spectrum disorders. In:Hurlemann R,Grinevich V, editors(s).Behavioral Pharmacology of Neuropeptides:Oxytocin. Cham:Springer International Publishing,2017:449-65.[DOI: 10.1007/7854_2017_24] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Yoon 2020

  1. Yoon S,Kim YK. The role of theoxytocin system in anxiety disorders. In:Kim YK, editors(s). AnxietyDisorders: Rethinking and Understanding Recent Discoveries. Advancesin Experimental Medicine and Biology. Vol.1191. Singapore:Springer, 2020:103-20.[DOI: 10.1007/978-981-32-9705-07] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Young 2002

  1. Young SN,Leyton M. The role ofserotonin in human mood and social interaction: insight from alteredtryptophan levels. Pharmacology,Biochemistry and Behavior 2002;71(4):857-65.[DOI: 10.1016/s0091-3057(01)00670-0] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Yudofsky 2003

  1. Yudofsky SC,Silver JM,Jackson W,Endicott J,Williams D. The OvertAggression Scale for the objective rating of verbal and physicalaggression. American Journal ofPsychiatry 2003;143(1):35-9.[DOI: 10.1176/ajp.143.1.35] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Zaboski 2018

  1. Zaboski BA,Storch EA. Comorbid autismspectrum disorder and anxiety disorders: a briefreview. Future Neurology 2018;13(1):31-7.[DOI: 10.2217/fnl-2017-0030] [PMCID: PMC5772195] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Zeidan 2022

  1. Zeidan J,Fombonne E,Scorah J,Ibrahim A,Durkin MS, Saxena S. Globalprevalence of autism: a sysyematic review update.Autism Research February2022;15(5):778-90.[DOI: 10.1002/aur.2696] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Zivkovic 2019

  1. Zivkovic S,Koh CH,Kaza N,Jackson CA. Antipsychoticdrug use and risk of stroke and myocardial infarction: a systematicreview and meta-analysis. BMCPsychiatry 2019;19(1):189-203.[DOI: 10.1186/s12888-019-2177-5] [PMCID: PMC6585081] [PMID:] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Żmudzka 2018

  1. Żmudzka E,Sałaciak K,Sapa J,Pytka K. Serotoninreceptors in depression and anxiety: insights from animalstudies. Life Sciences 2018;210:106-24.[DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2018.08.050] [PMID: ] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

References to other published versions of thisreview

Livingstone 2015

  1. Livingstone N,Macdonald G,Williams K,Caldwell DM,Baker LB,Hazell P. Pharmacologicalintervention for irritability, aggression, and self‐injury in AutismSpectrum Disorders (ASD). CochraneDatabase of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 7. Art. No:CD011769. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011769] [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews are provided here courtesy ofWiley

ACTIONS

RESOURCES


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp