Effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for managing ADHD symptoms in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review sought to provide evidence for the effectiveness of common pharmacological interventions used for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) population, considering studies attempting to find safe and effective drugs. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials describing the effectiveness and/or safety profile of pharmacological interventions for treating ASD and ADHD or ASD with ADHD symptoms using three bibliographic databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. We have chosen ADHD symptoms measured by any clinical scale as the primary outcome. As additional outcomes, we have used other symptoms of aberrant behavior measured by the aberrant behavior checklist, satisfaction with treatment, and peer satisfaction. RESULTS: Twenty-two publications met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review and eight for the meta-analysis. In our investigation, we found a few articles using clonidine, modafinil, and bupropion as interventions when compared to methylphenidate (MPH). Our meta-analysis showed that MPH had positive changes compared to placebo in symptoms such as hyperactivity, irritability, or inattention. However, no effect was found in stereotyped symptoms, and our data's quantitative analysis revealed a large effect of MPH-induced adverse effects on the dropout rate. On the other hand, atomoxetine initiation had positive effects when compared to placebo on symptoms of hyperactivity and inattention. We have found no effect of atomoxetine on stereotypes or irritability. Furthermore, atomoxetine did not influence side effects that caused dropouts from studies. CONCLUSION: Our results indicated that atomoxetine has a modest effect on hyperactivity and inattention symptoms, with a relatively benign profile of side effects. MPH appears to be effective in handling hyperactivity, inattention, and irritability symptoms. However, our results on atomoxetine revealed increased dropouts due to adverse effects when compared to MPH or placebo. Evidence for other substances such as guanfacine, clonidine, bupropion, or modafinil is either preliminary or nonexistent.

Immunoinflammatory and oxidative alterations in subjects with schizophrenia under clozapine: A meta-analysis.

Clozapine presents immunoregulatory properties not well understood. To address this issue, we performed this systematic review to evaluate the immune alterations induced by clozapine and its relationship with the drug's clinical response and compare it with other antipsychotics. Our systematic review has selected nineteen studies meeting the inclusion criteria, from which eleven were included in the meta-analysis, totalizing 689 subjects distributed over three different comparisons. The results revealed that clozapine treatment activates the compensatory immune-regulatory system (CIRS) (Hedges's g = +1.049; CI +0.62 - +1.47, p < 0.001) but has no effects on the immune-Inflammatory Response System (IRS) (Hedges's g= -0.27; CI -1.76 - +1.22, p = 0.71), M1 macrophage (Hedges's g= -0.32; CI -1.78 - +1.14, p = 0.65) and Th1 (Hedge's g = 0.86; CI -0.93 - +1.814, p = 0.07) profiles. Comparing clozapine-treated patients with other anti-psychotics-treated, plasma levels of interleukin (IL)-6 were greater in the clozapine group (Hedge's g = 0.75; CI 0.35 - 1.15, p<0.001). In addition, higher IL-6 plasma levels after four weeks of clozapine treatment were related to the development of clozapine-induced fever; however, IL-6 levels recovered to baseline in 6-10 weeks due to an unexplained compensatory mechanism. In conclusion, our results show that clozapine treatment causes a time-dependent mixed immune profile characterized by increased IL-6 levels and CIRS activation, which may contribute to this drug mechanism of action and adverse effects. Future studies must be designed to investigate the relationship between clozapine-induced immune alterations and symptom remission, treatment resistance, and adverse effects, given the importance of this drug for treating resistant schizophrenia.

IDH1-mutant primary intraventricular gliosarcoma: Case report and systematic review of a rare location and molecular profile.

BACKGROUND: Gliosarcoma (GS) is classified as an IDH-wild-type variant of glioblastoma (GBM). While GS is already an unusual presentation of GBM, IDH1-mutant cases are especially rare. We present an IDH1-mutant primary intraventricular GS case report and a systematic review of the molecular profile in GS correlating to the prognostic and pathogenesis of IDH1/2 mutations. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 44-years-old man presented with ongoing fatigue symptoms and a new-onset intense occipital headache. The patient complained of memory loss, dyscalculia, and concentration difficulties. An MRI revealed a bihemispheric intraventricular mass crossing the midline through the corpus callosum and infiltrating the trigone of the lateral ventricles, hypointense, and hyperintense on the T1- and T2-weighted image. We performed a microsurgical resection with a transparietal transsulcal approach; however, the contralateral mass was attached to vascular structures and we decided to reoperate the patient in another moment. The histopathological study showed a Grade IV tumor and the immunohistochemistry confirmed the diagnosis of GS. The patient presented progressive neurologic decline and died 45 days after the surgical approach. CONCLUSION: We did two systematic reviews studies from PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and SCOPUS databases, and included molecular and intraventricular studies of GS. We performed further meta-analysis using OpenMetaAnalyst™ software. We conducted a forest plot with the molecular profile of GS. When correlated IDH1 mutation versus tp53 mutation, we found an odds ratio (OR) of 0.018 (0.005-0.064) and P < 0.001. Moreover, we compared IDH1 mutation versus MGMT methylation (P = 0.006; OR = 0.138 [0.034-0.562]). The studies evaluating the molecular profile in GS prognostics are often extended from all GBMs despite specifics GBM variants (i.e., GS). We found a correlation between IDH1 mutation expression with tp53 and MGMT expression in GS, and future studies exploring this molecular profile in GS are strongly encouraged.