RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite unclear evidence to support the long-term use of antipsychotics to treat challenging (problem) behaviours in people with autism in the absence of a psychiatric disorder, this practice is common. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving antipsychotics for people with autism of all ages, irrespective of the outcomes assessed. We searched seven databases and hand-searched ten relevant journals. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full papers and extracted data using the Cochrane Handbook template. We conducted meta-analyses of outcomes and the rate of adverse events. RESULTS: We included 39 papers based on 21 primary RCTs that recruited 1482 people with autism. No RCT assessed any psychiatric disorder outcome, such as psychoses or bipolar disorder. A meta-analysis of ten placebo-controlled RCTs showed a significantly improved Aberrant Behaviour Checklist-Irritability score in the antipsychotic group with an effect size of -6.45 [95% confidence interval (CI) -8.13 to -4.77] (low certainty). Pooled Clinical Global Impression data on 11 placebo-controlled RCTs showed an overall effect size of 0.84 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.21) (moderate certainty). There was a significantly higher risk of overall adverse effects (p = 0.003) and also weight gain (p < 0.00001), sedation (p < 0.00001) and increased appetite (p = 0.001) in the antipsychotic group. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence for risperidone and preliminary evidence for aripiprazole to significantly improve scores on some outcome measures among children with autism but not adults or for any other antipsychotics. There is a definite increased risk of antipsychotic-related different adverse effects.
Asunto(s)
Antipsicóticos , Trastorno del Espectro Autista , Trastornos Psicóticos , Niño , Humanos , Antipsicóticos/efectos adversos , Aripiprazol/efectos adversos , Risperidona/efectos adversos , Trastornos Psicóticos/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastorno del Espectro Autista/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastorno del Espectro Autista/inducido químicamente , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Overprescribing of off-licence psychotropic medications, particularly antipsychotics, for challenging behaviours in people with intellectual disabilities without a psychiatric disorder is a significant public health concern. In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service England launched an initiative in 2016, 'STopping Over-Medication of People with learning disabilities, autism or both (STOMP)', to address this concern. STOMP is supposed to encourage psychiatrists in the United Kingdom and elsewhere to rationalise psychotropic medication use in people with intellectual disabilities. The current study aims to gather UK psychiatrists' views and experience of implementing the STOMP initiative. METHODS: An online questionnaire was sent to all UK psychiatrists working in the field of intellectual disabilities (estimated 225). Two open-ended questions allowed participants to write comments in response to these questions in the free text boxes. One question asked about the challenges psychiatrists faced locally to implement STOMP, and the other asked for examples of successes and positive experiences from the process. The free text data were analysed using a qualitative method with the help of the NVivo 12 plus software. RESULTS: Eighty-eight (estimated 39%) psychiatrists returned the completed questionnaire. The qualitative analysis of free-text data has shown variation within services in the experience and views of the psychiatrists. In areas with good support for STOMP implementation provided through adequate resources, psychiatrists reported satisfaction in the process with successful antipsychotic rationalisation, better local multi-disciplinary and multi-agency working, and increased awareness of STOMP issues among the stakeholders such as people with intellectual disabilities and their caregivers and multidisciplinary teams, and improved quality of life caused by reduced medication-related adverse events in people with intellectual disabilities. However, where resource utilisation is not optimum, psychiatrists seemed dissatisfied with the process with little success in medication rationalisation. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas some psychiatrists are successful and enthusiastic about rationalising antipsychotics, others still face barriers and challenges. Much work is needed to achieve a uniformly positive outcome throughout the United Kingdom.
Asunto(s)
Antipsicóticos , Discapacidad Intelectual , Psiquiatría , Humanos , Adulto , Antipsicóticos/uso terapéutico , Discapacidad Intelectual/tratamiento farmacológico , Discapacidad Intelectual/psicología , Calidad de Vida , Medicina Estatal , Reino Unido , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Análisis de DatosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Adults with intellectual disability are at higher risk of being administered psychotropic medications. The UK-developed SPECTROM (Short-term PsychoEducation for Carers To Reduce Over Medication of people with intellectual disabilities) training programme educates disability support workers on psychotropic medications and alternatives to these medications. METHOD: Interviews were conducted with 10 participants who took part in the pilot SPECTROM training programme to elicit their views on the programme and its appropriateness in an Australian context. RESULTS: The key theme was 'Need for a psychotropic medication practice framework'. Four sub-themes were Broad satisfaction with the SPECTROM training programme; Disability support workers acknowledging the limitations of their scope of practice; Empowering training through prescriptive and reflective methods and; Need for future mentoring from Multi-Disciplinary Team members in the application of new knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Participants felt that whilst they could improve their knowledge and attitudes surrounding psychotropic medication administration for behaviours of concern through SPECTROM training, a national practice framework is needed to execute its goals at scale.
Asunto(s)
Discapacidad Intelectual , Humanos , Adulto , Discapacidad Intelectual/tratamiento farmacológico , Australia , Psicotrópicos/uso terapéutico , Cuidadores , Práctica ProfesionalRESUMEN
A high proportion of people with intellectual disabilities (ID) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are prescribed psychotropic medications such as antipsychotics, antidepressants etc., outside their licensed indications, primarily for the management of behaviors that challenge (BtC) in the absence of a psychiatric disorder. Examples of BtC are aggression to people and property or self-injury. BtC could be challenging to manage and may cause the person with ID/ASD and their caregivers distress, breakdown of community placement leading to hospitalization, and restrictive practices such as restraint or inappropriate medication use. Caregivers play a pivotal role in the prescribing process. However, many family caregivers feel that they have not been fully involved in the shared decision-making process about the care planning of their relatives with ID/ASD. To address the public health concern regarding the overuse of off-license prescribing in people with ID/ASD, we have recently developed a training programme called SPECTROM (Short-term Psycho-Education for Carers To Reduce OverMedication of people with intellectual disabilities) for direct care staff who support people with ID/ASD within community settings. We used co-production and a modified Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD) method to develop SPECTROM, which involved a literature review, four focus groups and a co-design event day involving 26 stakeholders. Recommendations from the co-design event day were analyzed by a Programme Development Group (PDG) consisting of 21 stakeholders who made the final recommendations to the project team regarding the contents and the format of SPECTROM, which was finalized after receiving feedback from further 59 stakeholders. SPECTROM has web-based resources introduced through two core modules in face-to-face workshops/training. A small field test found SPECTROM was effective in improving staff's knowledge of psychotropic medications and attitude toward BtC and people with ID (p < 0.05). One of the 14 STOMP modules is "Effective liaison with family carers and advocates". In this paper, we have presented data from the co-design event day recommendations for this particular module. The group recommended ways to improve collaborative working and effective shared decision-making with family caregivers and people with ID/ASD.
RESUMEN
Experience Based Co-Design (EBCD) and co-production are interdisciplinary collaborative approaches to improve health care services by involving all stakeholders. These approaches capture the experiences of all stakeholders who come in contact with services and use experiences as evidence to promote and implement service changes. The use of psychotropic medications for behaviours that challenge (BtC) in people with intellectual disabilities (ID) is a complex issue because of its off-licence use and use in combination with other medications for physical and psychiatric co-morbidities, which leads to overmedication of people with ID. As support staff plays a pivotal role in the prescribing for people with ID, we have developed a staff training programme, SPECTROM, to help reduce overmedication. A project team developed SPECTROM under the guidance of a Programme Development Group (PDG) consisting of 21 stakeholders. The PDG analysed data from a literature review, four focus groups and a co-design event day involving 26 stakeholders. In this paper, we have presented data based on the findings from the co-design event day, primarily on the issue of support staff effectively liaising with professionals such as doctors, nurses, and other community learning disability team members. In-depth information and recommendations were proposed at the co-design event, which helped develop the draft SPECTROM. The draft was finalised after receiving feedback from 56 stakeholders. Co-production and a modified EBCD can be successfully used to create training interventions and improve health care services. More research should utilise co-production and EBCD and use service users' experiences to develop interventions and improve health care services.
RESUMEN
Behaviours that challenge (BtC), such as aggression and self-injury, are manifested by many people with intellectual disabilities (ID). National and international guidelines recommend non-pharmacological psychosocial intervention before considering medication to address BtC. Support staff play a pivotal role in the prescription process. Using coproduction, we developed a training programme for support staff, called SPECTROM, to give them knowledge and empower them to question inappropriate prescriptions and ask for the discontinuation of medication if appropriate and instead look for ways to help people with ID when they are distressed without relying on medication. We have presented data from two focus groups that we conducted during the development of SPECTROM: one that included support staff, and another that had service managers and trainers. In these focus groups, we explored participants' views on the use of medication to address BtC with a particular emphasis on the causes of and alternatives to medication for BtC. Along with the participants' views, we have also presented how we have addressed these issues in the SPECTROM resources.
Asunto(s)
Discapacidad Intelectual , Conducta Autodestructiva , Agresión/psicología , Humanos , Discapacidad Intelectual/psicologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of psychotropic medications in people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), there is limited evidence to suggest that psychotropic medications including mood stabilisers are effective in individuals with ASD. AIMS: To carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness of mood stabilisers in people with ASD. METHOD: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, DARE, and ClinicalTrials.gov. In addition, we hand-searched 12 relevant journals. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias and Jadad scores to assess the quality of included RCTs. We carried out a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (four on valproate, two on levetiracetam, and one each on lamotrigine and topiramate) that included a total of 310 people with ASD, primarily children. Outcomes were based on core and associated ASD symptoms including irritability and aggression but not bipolar disorder. Only two small studies (25%) from the same group showed definite superiority over placebo and one over psychoeducation alone. Meta-analysis of pooled data on the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist-irritability, Clinical Global Impression Scale-improvement, and Overt Aggression Scale (OAS)/OAS-modified did not show any significant inter-group difference. The rates of adverse effects did not show any significant inter-group difference. CONCLUSIONS: Given the methodological flaws in the included studies and the contradictory findings, it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of mood stabilisers to treat either ASD core symptoms or associated behaviours. Robust large-scale RCTs are needed in the future to address this issue.PROSPERO registration: CRD42021255467 on 18 May 2021.
RESUMEN
People with intellectual disabilities (PwID) are at a higher risk of developing challenging behaviours (CB). Despite the poor evidence for the effectiveness of medications in managing CB, they are used widely among PwID (50-63%). The aims of our study were to develop a training programme, SPECTROM for support staff to help reduce overmedication in PwID and carry out field testing of SPECTROM including a process evaluation. We developed SPECTROM using the Experience-based co-design method that included four focus groups and a one-day co-design event. Twenty trainees received SPECTROM training. We used the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitudes Scale-Revised-Intellectual Disabilities (MAVAS-R-ID) and the Psychotropic knowledge questionnaire. A semi-structured interview and a feasibility questionnaire were used for process evaluation. SPECTROM website contains 14 modules, resources, and face-to-face training. MAVAS-R-ID scores showed change in staff attitude to 'medication management' domain was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Psychotropic knowledge questionnaire showed statistically significant post-training improvement in correct responses (p < 0.05). Process evaluation data showed that SPECTROM was acceptable, applicable, practical, and relevant to staff practice, and helped to improve self-reflection, knowledge, and support to PwID. SPECTROM is a useful training that helps to change the support staff's attitude toward CB and improve their knowledge of psychotropic medications.
Asunto(s)
Discapacidad Intelectual , Agresión , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Cuidadores , Humanos , Psicotrópicos/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
Challenging behaviour displayed by people with intellectual disabilities (ID) can be difficult to manage if caregivers do not understand the reasons for the behaviour. Identifying the contextual variables/triggers for the behaviour is likely to help undertake a functional analysis leading to a person-centred positive behaviour support plan. Currently, a limited number of checklists are available for trigger assessment and none were developed using an interview with the family caregivers. This article describes the development and contents of the comprehensive assessment of triggers for behaviours of concern scale (CATS). CATS was developed in two stages. Stage 1 used a 'bottom-up' approach, in which caregivers of adults with ID who show aggressive behaviour were interviewed to identify the triggers for aggression. In stage two, using a 'top-down' approach, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to gather items from existing trigger checklists. Trigger items from both stages were combined and the duplicates were removed. The final list in CATS consists of 333 contextual triggers categorised under five main domains and 12 subdomains. CATS can be used by caregivers to identify triggers or antecedents of challenging behaviour. Further work is needed to test its psychometric properties, utility, and acceptability.
Asunto(s)
Agresión , Discapacidad Intelectual , Cuidadores , Humanos , PsicometríaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Although widely used, the current evidence for the efficacy of antidepressant and anti-anxiety medications for people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is limited and conflicting. AIMS: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of these medications in people with ASD. METHOD: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Library, Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, DARE and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we hand-searched 11 relevant journals. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Jadad score to assess the quality of each included study. We carried out a meta-analysis using a random effects model. RESULTS: We included 15 randomised controlled trials (13 on antidepressants and two on anti-anxiety medications) for a total of 958 people with ASD. Data showed contradictory findings among the studies, with larger studies mostly showing a non-significant difference in outcomes between the treatment and the placebo groups. Meta-analysis of pooled Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale and Clinical Global Impression Scale data from nine studies (60%) did not show any statistically significant inter-group difference on either of the outcome measures. The adverse effects reported were mild and, in most studies, their rates did not show any significant inter-group difference. CONCLUSIONS: Given the methodological flaws in the most included studies and contradictory findings, it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of either antidepressant or anti-anxiety medications to treat either ASD core symptoms or associated behaviours. Robust, large-scale, randomised controlled trials are needed to address this issue.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Psychiatric disorders, such as depression and anxiety, are commonly associated with epilepsy in the general population, but the relationship between psychiatric disorders and epilepsy among adults with intellectual disabilities is unclear. AIMS: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether epilepsy is associated with an increased rate of psychiatric disorders in adults with intellectual disabilities. METHOD: We included literature published between 1985 and 2020 from four databases, and hand-searched six relevant journals. We assessed risk of bias by using SIGN 50 and the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Several meta-analyses were carried out. RESULTS: We included 29 papers involving data on 9594 adults with intellectual disabilities, 3180 of whom had epilepsy and 6414 did not. Of the 11 controlled studies that compared the overall rate of psychiatric disorders between the epilepsy and non-epilepsy groups, seven did not show any significant inter-group difference. Meta-analysis was possible on pooled data from seven controlled studies, which did not show any significant inter-group difference in the overall rate of psychiatric disorders. The rates of psychotic disorders, depressive disorders and anxiety disorders were significantly higher in the non-epilepsy control groups compared with the epilepsy group, with effect sizes of 0.29, 0.47 and 0.58, respectively. Epilepsy-related factors did not show any definite association with psychiatric disorders. CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to pool data from such heterogeneous studies and draw any definitive conclusion because most studies lacked an appropriately matched control group, which will be required for future studies.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Various parent training interventions have been shown to have some effect on the symptoms of children with autism. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analyses to assess effectiveness of parental training for children with autism on their symptoms and parental stress. METHODS: Four electronic databases, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched until March 2020 for relevant literature. Two reviewers independently screened bibliographies using an eligibility checklist and extracted data using a structured proforma. We have also carried out meta-analyses when data were available for pooling. RESULTS: Seventeen papers from 15 studies were included for data analysis. Fifteen papers showed a positive treatment effect when compared with the control group, although not always significant. Meta-analysis based on pooled data from only two studies in each respective intervention, showed small to moderate treatment effects for three interventions, DIR/Floortime, Pivotal Response and Parent focused training respectively. CONCLUSIONS: As in previous systematic reviews there was a mild to moderate treatment effects of three specific types of interventions respectively. However, it was difficult to draw any definitive conclusion about the effectiveness and generalisability of any intervention because of the wide variation in the interventions, control groups, outcome measures, small sample size, small number of studies in meta-analysis, overlap between the intervention and control procedures used in the included studies. There is an urgent need for experts in various international centres to jointly standardise a parent training intervention for children with autism and carry out a large scale RCT to assess its clinical and economic effectiveness. Research Registry Unique Identifying Number: reviewregistry915.
Asunto(s)
Trastorno del Espectro Autista , Trastorno del Espectro Autista/terapia , Niño , Humanos , PadresRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A high proportion of adults with intellectual disabilities are prescribed off-licence antipsychotics in the absence of a psychiatric illness. The National Health Service in England launched an initiative in 2016, 'Stopping over-medication of people with a learning disability [intellectual disability], autism or both' (STOMP), to address this major public health concern. AIMS: To gain understanding from UK psychiatrists working with adults with intellectual disabilities on the successes and challenges of withdrawing antipsychotics for challenging behaviours. METHOD: An online questionnaire was sent to all UK psychiatrists working in the field of intellectual disability (estimated 225). RESULTS: Half of the 88 respondents stated that they started withdrawing antipsychotics over 5 years ago and 52.3% stated that they are less likely to initiate an antipsychotic since the launch of STOMP. However, since then, 46.6% are prescribing other classes of psychotropic medication instead of antipsychotics for challenging behaviours, most frequently the antidepressants. Complete antipsychotic discontinuation in over 50% of patients treated with antipsychotics was achieved by only 4.5% of respondents (n = 4); 11.4% reported deterioration in challenging behaviours in over 50% of patients on withdrawal and the same proportion (11.4%) reported no deterioration. Only 32% of respondents made the diagnosis of psychiatric illness in all their patients themselves. Family and paid carers' concern, lack of multi-agency and multidisciplinary input and unavailability of non-medical psychosocial intervention are key reported factors hampering the withdrawal attempt. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need to develop national guidelines to provide a framework for systematic psychotropic drug reviews and withdrawal where possible.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews showed no significant association between epilepsy and challenging behaviours in adults with intellectual disabilities. AIMS: To identify whether there is an association between epilepsy and challenging behaviour in adults with intellectual disabilities by carrying out a systematic review of published data. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020178092. METHOD: We searched five databases and hand-searched six journals. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full articles using a standardised eligibility checklist. Several meta-analyses were carried out. RESULTS: The narrative analysis of data from 34 included articles (14 168 adults with intellectual disabilities, 4781 of whom also had epilepsy) showed no significant association between epilepsy and challenging behaviour. Meta-analysis was possible on data from 16 controlled studies. This showed no significant intergroup difference but after sensitivity analysis meta-analysis of 10 studies showed a significantly higher rate of overall challenging behaviour in the epilepsy group (effect size: 0.16) compared with the non-epilepsy group. Aggression and self-injurious behaviour both showed a statistically significant higher rate in the epilepsy group, with very small effect sizes (0.16 and 0.28 respectively). No significant intergroup difference was observed in the rate of stereotypy. CONCLUSIONS: The findings are contradictory and must be interpreted with caution because of the difficulty in pooling data from varied studies, which is likely to introduce confounding. Where significant differences were found, effect sizes are small and may not be clinically significant, and there are major methodological flaws in the included studies, which should be addressed in future large-scale properly controlled studies.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Psychotropic medications that are primarily licenced for the treatment of psychiatric disorders are used widely (32%-85%) among people with intellectual disabilities (ID) often for the management of problem (challenging) behaviour in the absence of a psychiatric disorder. Care staff play a pivotal role in the prescribing process. Currently, no staff training programme exists to address the issue of overprescribing of psychotropic medication in people with ID, thus highlighting an urgent need for developing a psychoeducational programme (PEP) specifically designed to address this issue. We propose to develop a PEP for care staff using the methodology described in the UK Medical Research Council guide for complex interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The development of the PEP will involve (1) gathering information on available relevant training programmes, (2) running four focus groups with care staff and other professionals to establish the content and format of the PEP, and (3) organising a co-design event involving all relevant stakeholders to discuss the format of the PEP. A core project team will develop the PEP under guidance from the PEP Development Group which will consist of 10-12 relevant stakeholder representatives. Feedback from selected stakeholders on a draft PEP will allow us to refine the PEP before implementation. The PEP will have web-based modules supplemented by face to face training sessions. When the final draft is ready, we will field test the PEP on six to eight care staff from community care homes for people with ID. After completing the field test, we will run a focus group involving participants in the PEP to get feedback on the PEP. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for this study was waived by the UK Health Regulatory Authority as the study does not collect any patient related information and only include care staff outside the UK NHS. This will be the first ever such universally freely available PEP supported by training manual and slides.