Objective To investigate whether mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus can improve intellectual disability, autism, and other neuropsychological deficits in children with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC). Methods In this 12-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we attempted to enroll 60 children with TSC and IQ <80, learning disability, special schooling, or autism, aged 4–17 years, without intractable seizures to be assigned to receive everolimus or placebo. Everolimus was titrated to blood trough levels of 5–10 ng/mL. Primary outcome was full-scale IQ; secondary outcomes included autism, neuropsychological functioning, and behavioral problems. Results Thirty-two children with TSC were randomized. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no benefit of everolimus on full-scale IQ (treatment effect −5.6 IQ points, 95% confidence interval −12.3 to 1.0). No effect was found on secondary outcomes, including autism and neuropsychological functioning, and questionnaires examining behavioral problems, social functioning, communication skills, executive functioning, sleep, quality of life, and sensory processing. All patients had adverse events. Two patients on everolimus and 2 patients on placebo discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Conclusions Everolimus did not improve cognitive functioning, autism, or neuropsychological deficits in children with TSC. The use of everolimus in children with TSC with the aim of improving cognitive function and behavior should not be encouraged in this age group. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01730209. Classification of evidence This study provides Class I evidence that for children with TSC, everolimus does not improve intellectual disability, autism, behavioral problems, or other neuropsychological deficits.

Recent research has demonstrated that subclinical autistic traits of parents amplify the effects of deleterious mutations in the causation of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in their offspring. Here, we examined the extent to which two neurodevelopmental traits that are non-specific to ASD—inattention/hyperactivity and motor coordination—might contribute to ASD recurrence in siblings of ASD probands. Data from a quantitative trait study of 114 ASD probands and their brothers, 26% of whom also had ASD, were analyzed. Autistic trait severity was ascertained using the Social Responsiveness Scale-2, attention/hyperactivity problems using the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment, and motor coordination (in a subset of participants) using the Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire. Among siblings (affected and unaffected), both categorical recurrence of ASD (Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.53) and quantitative ASD trait burden (R 2 = 0.55) were predicted by sibling ADHD and motor coordination impairment scores, even though these traits, on average, were not elevated among the unaffected siblings. These findings in a clinical family cohort confirm observations from general population studies that inattention/hyperactivity and motor impairment—axes of behavioral development that are non-specific to ASD, and often appreciable before ASD is typically diagnosed—jointly account for over 50% of the variation in autistic impairment of siblings, whether ascertained quantitatively or categorically. This finding within a sibling design suggests that background ASD susceptibilities that are inherited but non-specific (“BASINS”) may contribute to additive genetic liability in the same manner that ASD-specific susceptibilities (such as parental subclinical ASD traits and deleterious mutations) engender ASD risk.

Objective: The etiology of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) remains unclear, due to genetic heterogeneity and heterogeneity in symptoms across individuals. This study compares ASD symptomatology between monogenetic syndromes with a high ASD prevalence, in order to reveal syndrome specific vulnerabilities and to clarify how genetic variations affect ASD symptom presentation.Methods: We assessed ASD symptom severity in children and young adults (aged 0-28 years) with Fragile X Syndrome (FXS, n = 60), Angelman Syndrome (AS, n = 91), Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1, n = 279) and Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC, n = 110), using the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule and Social Responsiveness Scale. Assessments were part of routine clinical care at the ENCORE expertise center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. First, we compared the syndrome groups on the ASD classification prevalence and ASD severity scores. Then, we compared individuals in our syndrome groups with an ASD classification to a non-syndromic ASD group (nsASD, n = 335), on both ASD severity scores and ASD symptom profiles. Severity scores were compared using MANCOVAs with IQ and gender as covariates.Results: Overall, ASD severity scores were highest for the FXS group and lowest for the NF1 group. Compared to nsASD, individuals with an ASD classification in our syndrome groups showed less problems on the instruments' social domains. We found a relative strength in the AS group on the social cognition, communication and motivation domains and a relative challenge in creativity; a relative strength of the NF1 group on the restricted interests and repetitive behavior scale; and a relative challenge in the FXS and TSC groups on the restricted interests and repetitive behavior domain.Conclusion: The syndrome-specific strengths and challenges we found provide a frame of reference to evaluate an individual's symptoms relative to the larger syndromic population and to guide treatment decisions. Our findings support the need for personalized care and a dimensional, symptom-based diagnostic approach, in contrast to a dichotomous ASD diagnosis used as a prerequisite for access to healthcare services. Similarities in ASD symptom profiles between AS and FXS, and between NF1 and TSC may reflect similarities in their neurobiology. Deep phenotyping studies are required to link neurobiological markers to ASD symptomatology.

Studying Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) heterogeneity in biologically homogeneous samples may increase our knowledge of ASD etiology. Fragile X syndrome (FXS), Angelman syndrome (AS), Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC), and Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) are monogenic disorders with high a prevalence of ASD symptomatology. This study aimed to identify ASD symptom profiles in a large group of children and adolescents (0;9–28 years) with FXS, AS, TSC, and NF1. Data on ASD symptomatology (Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale (ADOS-2) & Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS-2)) were collected from children and adolescents with FXS ( n = 54), AS ( n = 93), TSC ( n = 112), and NF1 ( n = 278). To identify groups of individuals with similar ASD profiles, we performed two latent profile analyses. We identified a four-profile model based on the ADOS-2, with a (1) ‘Non-spectrum symptom profile’, (2) ‘Social Affect symptom profile’, (3)‘Restricted/Repetitive Behaviors symptom profile’, and (4)‘ASD symptom profile’. We also identified a four-profile model based on the SRS, with a (1)‘Non-clinical symptom profile’, (2)‘Mild symptom profile’, (3)‘Moderate symptom profile’, and (4)‘Severe symptom profile’. Although each syndrome group exhibited varying degrees of severity, they also displayed heterogeneity in the profiles in which they were classified. We found distinct ASD symptom profiles in a population consisting of children and adolescents with FXS, AS, TSC, and NF1. Our study highlights the importance of a personalized approach to the identification and management of ASD symptoms in rare genetic syndromes. Future studies should aim to include more domains of functioning and investigate the stability of latent profiles over time.

Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC) is characterized by a high prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Little is known about the relation between cortical dysplasia and ASD severity in TSC. We assessed ASD severity (using the Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale), tuber and radial migration line (RML) count and location, and cognitive functioning in 52 children with TSC and performed regression and mediation analyses. Tuber and RML count were strongly positively related to ASD severity. However, when correcting for cognitive functioning, the majority of associations became insignificant and only total tuber count remained associated to the severity of restricted/repetitive behaviors. Occipital RML count remained associated with overall ASD severity, and social communication/interaction deficit severity specifically. This study shows the important explanatory role of cognitive functioning in the association between cortical dysplasia and ASD severity, and the relevance of separately studying the two ASD subdomains.

Aim: To find proof‐of‐principle evidence for short‐term treatment with lamotrigine to improve cognitive functioning of adolescents with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1).Method: This was a double‐blind, parallel‐group, randomized, placebo‐controlled clinical trial (the NF1‐EXCEL trial: Examining the Cognitive and Electrophysiological benefit of Lamotrigine in Neurofibromatosis type 1; Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02256124), with the aim of enrolling 60 adolescents with NF1 aged 12 to 17 years 6 months. The short‐term study intervention was 200 mg of lamotrigine taken orally for 26 weeks. The primary outcome was performance IQ tested with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition, complemented with secondary outcomes for visuospatial learning efficacy, visual perception, visual sustained attention, fine motor coordination, attention‐deficit/hyperactivity problems, and executive functioning.Results: We screened 402 adolescents with NF1, of whom 31 (eight females) entered the study. Complete‐case analysis showed no effect of lamotrigine on either performance IQ (−0.23, 95% CI −6.90 to 6.44) or most secondary outcomes. Visual sustained attention showed a trend towards better performance in the lamotrigine group (−0.81, 95% CI −1.67 to 0.04).Interpretation: Lamotrigine did not improve cognitive functioning in adolescents with NF1. The small treatment effects make it unlikely that a larger sample size could have changed this conclusion.