Evidence Hub

Navigating agitation in neurodevelopmental disorders: A comparative study of pharmacotherapies via network meta-analysis in children and adults with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disabilities

Bahji A, Forth E, Nasar A, Waqas A, Hawken ER, Ayub M

Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England), 2025

2,503 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Importance: Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability often experience persistent challenges related to aggressive behaviour and agitation, highlighting the critical need for evidence-based pharmacological interventions among other strategies. Despite previous network meta-analyses (NMAs), the rapidly evolving landscape of treatment options necessitates ongoing and updated assessments.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of various pharmacotherapies in managing agitation in children and adults with ASD or intellectual disabilities (ID).

Methods: Employing a systematic review and network meta-analysis methodology, we conducted an exhaustive search across multiple databases for double-blind, randomized controlled trials focusing on pharmacotherapies targeting agitation in these neurodevelopmental disorders. Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines, our assessment of study quality utilized the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool to ensure methodological rigour and accuracy in data synthesis. Primary outcomes encompassed measures of reduced agitation, as indicated by treatment response on standardized agitation scales, alongside dropout rates, providing a comprehensive overview of treatment efficacy and tolerability.

Results: Our analysis included data from 38 eligible trials, involving 2503 participants across both pediatric and adult populations. Key pharmacological interventions, such…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,503 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free