Pharmacological management of fragile X syndrome: a systematic review and narrative summary of the current evidence.

INTRODUCTION: Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is the most common inherited cause of Intellectual Disability. There is a broad phenotype that includes deficits in cognition and behavioral changes, alongside physical characteristics. Phenotype depends upon the level of mutation in the FMR1 (fragile X messenger ribonucleoprotein 1) gene. The molecular understanding of the impact of the FMR1 gene mutation provides an opportunity to target treatment not only at symptoms but also on a molecular level. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to provide an up-to-date narrative summary of the current evidence for pharmacological treatment in FXS. The review was restricted to randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trials. RESULTS: The outcomes from these studies are discussed and the level of evidence assessed against validated criteria. The initial search identified 2377 articles, of which 16 were included in the final analysis. CONCLUSION: Based on this review to date there is limited data to support any specific pharmacological treatments, although the data for cannabinoids are encouraging in those with FXS and in future developments in gene therapy may provide the answer to the search for precision medicine. Treatment must be person-centered and consider the combination of medical, genetic, cognitive, and emotional challenges.

The views of psychiatrists on proposed changes to the England and Wales Mental Health Act 1983 legislation for people with intellectual disability: A national study.

BACKGROUND: The Draft Mental Health Bill proposes removal of both intellectual disability and autism from Section 3 of the Mental Health Act for England and Wales (MHA). This would lead to people with intellectual disability (PwID) and/or autism could not be detained beyond 28 days, in the absence of diagnosed co-occurring mental illness. AIM: To obtain views of psychiatrists working with PwID in England and Wales regarding the proposed MHA changes. This study focusses specifically on the impact on PwID. METHODS: A cross-sectional online mixed methodology survey of Likert and free-text response questions was developed, to ascertain perceptions of proposed legislative changes to the MHA. A non-discriminatory exponential snowballing technique leading to non-probability sampling was used to disseminate the survey. Quantitative data was analysed using descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney and Fisher's exact tests. Thematic analysis was conducted on free text responses. RESULTS: A total of 82 psychiatrists (33%) from approximately 250 eligible completed the survey. Nearly two-thirds (64%) reported good awareness of the proposed changes, with over half (55%) reporting disagreement with the changes. Psychiatrists working in inpatient settings for PwID reported increased awareness of the changes, less agreement with the reforms, and increased expectations of the reforms having negative unintended consequences, compared to their peers working exclusively in the community. Consultants reported greater disagreement with the changes compared to their non-consultant peers. Qualitative analysis identified five main themes: impact on diagnosis and treatment, seeking alternative options, introducing inequities, resources, and meeting holistic care goals through the Care, Education and Treatment Reviews (CETR) process. CONCLUSION: Psychiatrists working with PwID report widespread disagreement with the proposed changes to the MHA for PwID, with greater levels of disagreement among those working in inpatient services. Caution with respect to the proposed changes, and monitoring of the impact of the changes if implemented, is advised.

Who cares? A scoping review on intellectual disability, epilepsy and social care.

PURPOSE: Nearly a quarter of people with Intellectual disability (PwID) have epilepsy. Many have seizures across their lifetime. In the UK supporting their epilepsy linked risks and needs, particularly in professional care settings and in the community, requires significant social care input. Therefore, the interface between social and health care services is important. This study aim is to identify key intersectional areas of social provision for PWID and epilepsy. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidance with suitable search terms. The search was completed in CINAHL, Embase, Psych INFO, SCIE, and Cochrane electronic databases by an information specialist. A quality assessment was completed for the included studies where appropriate. The included studies were analysed qualitatively to identify key themes and provide a narrative description of the evidence by two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 748 papers screened, 94 were retrieved. Thirteen articles met the inclusion criteria with a range of methodologies. A thematic analysis generated four key categories for significant social care involvement i.e., staff training and education; emergency seizure management; holistic approach to care; and nocturnal monitoring and supervision. CONCLUSIONS: PwID with epilepsy have support needs that require fulfilling by various aspects of special care provision, many within the social ambit. Inspite of evidence of these needs and recurrent calls to work jointly with social care providers this has not happened. There is limited research into social care role in epilepsy management in PwID which needs addressing.