Refine
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- ADHD (1)
- Brain (1)
- Course (1)
- Diagnosis (1)
- Genetics (1)
- Molecular neuroscience (1)
- Outcome (1)
- Predictive markers (1)
- Treatment (1)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
Adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are frequently prescribed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). However, there is limited evidence to support this practice. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the impact of SSRIs on brain function abnormalities in ASD. It has been suggested that some core symptoms in ASD are underpinned by deficits in executive functioning (EF). Hence, we investigated the role of the SSRI citalopram on EF networks in 19 right-handed adult males with ASD and 19 controls who did not differ in gender, age, IQ or handedness. We performed pharmacological functional magnetic resonance imaging to compare brain activity during two EF tasks (of response inhibition and sustained attention) after an acute dose of 20 mg citalopram or placebo using a randomised, double-blind, crossover design. Under placebo condition, individuals with ASD had abnormal brain activation in response inhibition regions, including inferior frontal, precentral and postcentral cortices and cerebellum. During sustained attention, individuals with ASD had abnormal brain activation in middle temporal cortex and (pre)cuneus. After citalopram administration, abnormal brain activation in inferior frontal cortex was ‘normalised’ and most of the other brain functional differences were ‘abolished’. Also, within ASD, the degree of responsivity in inferior frontal and postcentral cortices to SSRI challenge was related to plasma serotonin levels. These findings suggest that citalopram can ‘normalise’ atypical brain activation during EF in ASD. Future trials should investigate whether this shift in the biology of ASD is maintained after prolonged citalopram treatment, and if peripheral measures of serotonin predict treatment response.
Background: Misconceptions about ADHD stigmatize affected people, reduce credibility of providers, and prevent/delay treatment. To challenge misconceptions, we curated findings with strong evidence base. Methods: We reviewed studies with more than 2000 participants or meta-analyses from five or more studies or 2000 or more participants. We excluded meta-analyses that did not assess publication bias, except for meta-analyses of prevalence. For network meta-analyses we required comparison adjusted funnel plots. We excluded treatment studies with waiting-list or treatment as usual controls. From this literature, we extracted evidence-based assertions about the disorder. Results: We generated 208 empirically supported statements about ADHD. The status of the included statements as empirically supported is approved by 80 authors from 27 countries and 6 continents. The contents of the manuscript are endorsed by 366 people who have read this document and agree with its contents. Conclusions: Many findings in ADHD are supported by meta-analysis. These allow for firm statements about the nature, course, outcome causes, and treatments for disorders that are useful for reducing misconceptions and stigma.