Francesca De Cagna, Laura Fusar-Poli, Stefano Damiani, Matteo Rocchetti, Gianluca Giovanna, Alessia Mori, Pierluigi Politi, Natascia Brondino. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci 2019;17:1-11. https://doi.org/10.9758/cpn.2019.17.1.1

The number of trials aimed at evaluating treatments for autism spectrum disorder has been increasing progressively. However, it is not clear which outcome measures should be used to assess their efficacy, especially for treatments which target core symptoms. The present review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview regarding the outcome measures used in clinical trials for people with autism spectrum disorder. We systematically searched the Web of Knowledge ^SM database between 1980 and 2016 to identify published controlled trials investigating the efficacy of interventions in autism spectrum disorder. We included 406 trials in the final database, from which a total of 327 outcome measures were identified. Only seven scales were used in more than 5% of the studies, among which only three measured core symptoms (Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, Childhood Autism Rating Scale, and Social Responsiveness Scale). Of note, 69% of the tools were used in the literature only once. Our systematic review has shown that the evaluation of efficacy in intervention trials for autism spectrum disorder relies on heterogeneous and often non-specific tools for this condition. The fragmentation of tools may significantly hamper the comparisons between studies and thus the discovery of effective treatments for autism spectrum disorder. Greater consensus regarding the choice of these measures should be reached.

Recently published large-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have questioned the efficacy of preventive interventions in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to include this new evidence and provide future directions for the field. We followed the PRISMA guidelines and a pre-registered protocol, with a literature search conducted from inception to November 2023. We included RCTs that collected data on psychosis transition (the primary outcome) in CHR-P. Secondary outcomes were symptoms severity and functioning. Investigated time points were 6,12,24,36, and +36 months. We used odd ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMD) as summary outcomes. Heterogeneity was estimated with the Higgins I². Twenty-four RCTs, involving 3236 CHR-P individuals, were included. Active interventions were Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), family-focused therapy, Integrated Psychological Therapy, antipsychotics, omega-3 fatty acids, CBT plus risperidone, minocycline, and other non-pharmacological approaches (cognitive remediation, sleep-targeted therapy, brain stimulation). Results showed no evidence that any of the investigated active interventions had a sustained and robust effect on any of the investigated outcomes in CHR-P, when compared to control interventions, including CBT on transition to psychosis at 12 months (9 RCTs; OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.39–1.06; I²: 21%; P = 0.08). These results highlight the need for novel treatment approaches in CHR-P. Future studies should consider the heterogeneity of this clinical population and prioritise stratification strategies and bespoke treatments.