Search

Background Since autism was first described, major difficulties in social interaction have been a defining feature of individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Social skills groups are a common intervention for individuals with ASD. Although a frequently recommended practice, the few studies that have addressed the efficacy of social skills groups have shown mixed results. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of social skills groups for improving social competence, social communication, and quality of life for people with ASD who are six to 21 years of age. Search methods We searched the following databases in December 2011: CENTRAL (2011 Issue 4), MEDLINE (1948 to November Week 3, 2011), EMBASE (1980 to Week 50, 2011), PsycINFO (1887 to December Week 2, 2011), CINAHL (1937 to current), ERIC (1966 to current), Sociological Abstracts (1952 to current), OCLC WorldCat (12 December 2011), Social Science Citation Index (1970 to 16 December 2011), and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (20 December 2011). We also searched the reference lists of published papers. Selection criteria Randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing treatment (social skills groups) with a control group who were not receiving the treatment for participants aged six to 21 years with ASD. The control group could be no intervention, wait list, or treatment as usual. Outcomes sought were standardized measures of social competence, social communication, quality of life, emotion recognition, and any other specific behaviors. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected and appraised studies for inclusion and assessed the risk of bias in each included study. All outcome data were continuous and standardized mean difference effect sizes (ES) with small sample correction were calculated. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis where possible. Main results We included five RCTs evaluating the effects of social skills groups in 196 participants with ASD aged 6 to 21 years old. The results show there is some evidence that social skills groups improve overall social competence (ES = 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.78, P = 0.003) and friendship quality (ES = 0.41, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.81, P = 0.04) for this population. No differences were found between treatment and control groups in relation to emotional recognition (ES = 0.34, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.88, P = 0.21) assessed in two studies or social communication as related to the understanding of idioms (ES = 0.05, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.72, P = 0.89), which was assessed in only one study. Two additional quality of life outcomes were evaluated, with results of single studies suggesting decreases in loneliness (ES = -0.66, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.17) but no effect on child or parental depression. No adverse events were reported. Given the nature of the intervention and the selected outcome measures, the risk of performance and detection bias are high. There is limited generalizability from the studies as they were all conducted in the US; they focused mainly on children aged 7 to 12, and the participants were all of average or above average intelligence. Authors' conclusions There is some evidence that social skills groups can improve social competence for some children and adolescents with ASD. More research is needed to draw more robust conclusions, especially with respect to improvements in quality of life. Plain Language Summary Social skills groups for people aged 6 to 21 years with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) Social deficits remain one of the most difficult areas for individuals with autism spectrum disorders, especially for those with average or above average cognitive skills. An intervention often used to treat social deficits for these individuals is social skills groups. This review synthesized the results of five randomized controlled trials of social skills groups including 196 individuals with autism spectrum disorders (aged 6 to 21 years). We found individuals receiving treatment showed some indications of improved social competence and better friendships when compared with those not receiving treatment. Participants receiving treatment also showed indications of less loneliness. The ability to recognize different emotions was measured in two studies and there was no evidence that it was improved by taking part in a social skills group. Social communication as it relates to idiomatic expressions was only reported in one study and no significant differences between treatment and control group were found. Nor was there evidence of a beneficial effect of social skills groups on parental or child depression. No adverse effects were reported in the studies. Limitations of this review include a small number of studies and participants, and a high risk of bias due to parents knowing whether their child was in the intervention group or not. The studies focused mainly on children with ASD aged 7 to 12 with average or above average intelligence, and they were all carried out in the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Treatment guidelines for asthma recommend inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as first-line therapy for children with persistent asthma. Although ICS treatment is generally considered safe in children, the potential systemic adverse effects related to regular use of these drugs have been and continue to be a matter of concern, especially the effects on linear growth. Objectives To assess the impact of ICS on the linear growth of children with persistent asthma and to explore potential effect modifiers such as characteristics of available treatments (molecule, dose, length of exposure, inhalation device) and of treated children (age, disease severity, compliance with treatment). Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO; we handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' clinical trial databases to look for potential relevant unpublished studies. The literature search was conducted in January 2014. Selection criteria Parallel-group randomised controlled trials comparing daily use of ICS, delivered by any type of inhalation device for at least three months, versus placebo or non-steroidal drugs in children up to 18 years of age with persistent asthma. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We conducted meta-analyses using the Cochrane statistical package RevMan 5.2 and Stata version 11.0. We used the random-effects model for meta-analyses. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs as the metrics for treatment effects. A negative value for MD indicates that ICS have suppressive effects on linear growth compared with controls. We performed a priori planned subgroup analyses to explore potential effect modifiers, such as ICS molecule, daily dose, inhalation device and age of the treated child. Main results We included 25 trials involving 8471 (5128 ICS-treated and 3343 control) children with mild to moderate persistent asthma. Six molecules (beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, ciclesonide, flunisolide, fluticasone propionate and mometasone furoate) given at low or medium daily doses were used during a period of three months to four to six years. Most trials were blinded and over half of the trials had drop out rates of over 20%. Compared with placebo or non-steroidal drugs, ICS produced a statistically significant reduction in linear growth velocity (14 trials with 5717 participants, MD -0.48 cm/y, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.30, moderate quality evidence) and in the change from baseline in height (15 trials with 3275 participants; MD -0.61 cm/y, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.38, moderate quality evidence) during a one-year treatment period. Subgroup analysis showed a statistically significant group difference between six molecules in the mean reduction of linear growth velocity during one-year treatment (Chi2 = 26.1, degrees of freedom (df) = 5, P value < 0.0001). The group difference persisted even when analysis was restricted to the trials using doses equivalent to 200 μg/d hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone. Subgroup analyses did not show a statistically significant impact of daily dose (low vs medium), inhalation device or participant age on the magnitude of ICS-induced suppression of linear growth velocity during a one-year treatment period. However, head-to-head comparisons are needed to assess the effects of different drug molecules, dose, inhalation device or patient age. No statistically significant difference in linear growth velocity was found between participants treated with ICS and controls during the second year of treatment (five trials with 3174 participants; MD -0.19 cm/y, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.11, P value 0.22). Of two trials that reported linear growth velocity in the third year of treatment, one trial involving 667 participants showed similar growth velocity between the budesonide and placebo groups (5.34 cm/y vs 5.34 cm/y), and another trial involving 1974 participants showed lower growth velocity in the budesonide group compared with the placebo group (MD -0.33 cm/y, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.14, P value 0.0005). Among four trials reporting data on linear growth after treatment cessation, three did not describe statistically significant catch-up growth in the ICS group two to four months after treatment cessation. One trial showed accelerated linear growth velocity in the fluticasone group at 12 months after treatment cessation, but there remained a statistically significant difference of 0.7 cm in height between the fluticasone and placebo groups at the end of the three-year trial. One trial with follow-up into adulthood showed that participants of prepubertal age treated with budesonide 400 μg/d for a mean duration of 4.3 years had a mean reduction of 1.20 cm (95% CI -1.90 to -0.50) in adult height compared with those treated with placebo. Authors' conclusions Regular use of ICS at low or medium daily doses is associated with a mean reduction of 0.48 cm/y in linear growth velocity and a 0.61-cm change from baseline in height during a one-year treatment period in children with mild to moderate persistent asthma. The effect size of ICS on linear growth velocity appears to be associated more strongly with the ICS molecule than with the device or dose (low to medium dose range). ICS-induced growth suppression seems to be maximal during the first year of therapy and less pronounced in subsequent years of treatment. However, additional studies are needed to better characterise the molecule dependency of growth suppression, particularly with newer molecules (mometasone, ciclesonide), to specify the respective role of molecule, daily dose, inhalation device and patient age on the effect size of ICS, and to define the growth suppression effect of ICS treatment over a period of several years in children with persistent asthma. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY Do inhaled corticosteroids reduce growth in children with persistent asthma? Review question: We reviewed the evidence on whether inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) could affect growth in children with persistent asthma, that is, a more severe asthma that requires regular use of medications for control of symptoms. Background: Treatment guidelines for asthma recommend ICS as first-line therapy for children with persistent asthma. Although ICS treatment is generally considered safe in children, parents and physicians always remain concerned about the potential negative effect of ICS on growth. Search date: We searched trials published until January 2014. Study characteristics: We included in this review trials comparing daily use of corticosteroids, delivered by any type of inhalation device for at least three months, versus placebo or non-steroidal drugs in children up to 18 years of age with persistent asthma. Key results: Twenty-five trials involving 8471 children with mild to moderate persistent asthma (5128 treated with ICS and 3343 treated with placebo or non-steroidal drugs) were included in this review. Eighty percent of these trials were conducted in more than two different centres and were called multi-centre studies; five were international multi-centre studies conducted in high-income and low-income countries across Africa, Asia-Pacifica, Europe and the Americas. Sixty-eight percent were financially supported by pharmaceutical companies. Meta-analysis (a statistical technique that combines the results of several studies and provides a high level of evidence) suggests that children treated daily with ICS may grow approximately half a centimeter per year less than those not treated with these medications during the first year of treatment. The magnitude of ICS-related growth reduction may depend on the type of drug. Growth reduction seems to be maximal during the first year of therapy and less pronounced in subsequent years of treatment. Evidence provided by this review allows us to conclude that daily use of ICS can cause a small reduction in height in children up to 18 years of age with persistent asthma; this effect seems minor compared with the known benefit of these medications for asthma control. Quality of evidence: Eleven of 25 trials did not report how they guaranteed that participants had an equal chance of receiving ICS or placebo or non-steroidal drugs. All but six trials did not report how researchers were kept unaware of the treatment assignment list. However, this methodological limitation may not significantly affect the quality of evidence because the results remained almost unchanged when we excluded these trials from the analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the first-line treatment for children with persistent asthma. Their potential for growth suppression remains a matter of concern for parents and physicians. Objectives To assess whether increasing the dose of ICS is associated with slower linear growth, weight gain and skeletal maturation in children with asthma. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) and the ClinicalTrials.gov website up to March 2014. Selection criteria Studies were eligible if they were parallel-group randomised trials evaluating the impact of different doses of the same ICS using the same device in both groups for a minimum of three months in children one to 17 years of age with persistent asthma. Data collection and analysis Two review authors ascertained methodological quality independently using the Cochrane Risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was linear growth velocity. Secondary outcomes included change over time in growth velocity, height, weight, body mass index and skeletal maturation. Main results Among 22 eligible trials, 17 group comparisons were derived from 10 trials (3394 children with mild to moderate asthma), measured growth and contributed data to the meta-analysis. Trials used ICS (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone or mometasone) as monotherapy or as combination therapy with a long-acting beta2-agonist and generally compared low (50 to 100 μg) versus low to medium (200 μg) doses of hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)-beclomethasone equivalent over 12 to 52 weeks. In the four comparisons reporting linear growth over 12 months, a significant group difference was observed, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group of 5.74 cm/y compared with 5.94 cm/y on lower-dose ICS (N = 728 school-aged children; mean difference (MD)0.20 cm/y, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.39; high-quality evidence): No statistically significant heterogeneity was noted between trials contributing data. The ICS molecules (ciclesonide, fluticasone, mometasone) used in these four comparisons did not significantly influence the magnitude of effect (X2 = 2.19 (2 df), P value 0.33). Subgroup analyses on age, baseline severity of airway obstruction, ICS dose and concomitant use of non-steroidal antiasthmatic drugs were not performed because of similarity across trials or inadequate reporting. A statistically significant group difference was noted in unadjusted change in height from zero to three months (nine comparisons; N = 944 children; MD 0.15, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.02; moderate-quality evidence) in favour of a higher ICS dose. No statistically significant group differences in change in height were observed at other time points, nor were such differences in weight, bone mass index and skeletal maturation reported with low quality of evidence due to imprecision. Authors' conclusions In prepubescent school-aged children with mild to moderate persistent asthma, a small but statistically significant group difference in growth velocity was observed between low doses of ICS and low to medium doses of HFA-beclomethasone equivalent, favouring the use of low-dose ICS. No apparent difference in the magnitude of effect was associated with three molecules reporting one-year growth velocity, namely, mometasone, ciclesonide and fluticasone. In view of prevailing parents' and physicians' concerns about the growth suppressive effect of ICS, lack of or incomplete reporting of growth velocity in more than 86% (19/22) of eligible paediatric trials, including those using beclomethasone and budesonide, is a matter of concern. All future paediatric trials comparing different doses of ICS with or without placebo should systematically document growth. Findings support use of the minimal effective ICS dose in children with asthma. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY Does altering the dose of inhaled corticosteroids make a difference in growth among children with asthma? Background Asthma guidelines recommend inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as the first choice of treatment for children with persistent asthma that is not well controlled when only a reliever inhaler is used to treat symptoms. Steroids work by reducing inflammation in the lungs and are known to control underlying symptoms of asthma. However, parents and physicians remain concerned about the potential negative effect of ICS on growth. Review question Does altering the dose of inhaled corticosteroids make a difference in the growth of children with asthma? What evidence did we find? We studied whether a difference could be seen in the growth of children with persistent asthma who were using different doses of the same ICS molecule and the same delivery device. We found 22 eligible trials, but only 10 of them measured growth or other measures of interest. Overall, 3394 children included in the review combined 17 group comparisons (i.e. 17 groups of children with mild to moderate asthma using a particular dose and type of steroid in 10 trials). Trials used different ICS molecules (beclomethasone, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone or mometasone) either on their own or in combination with a long-acting beta2-agonist (a drug used to open up the airways) and generally compared low doses of corticosteroids (50 to 100 μg) with low to medium (200 μg) doses of corticosteroids (converted in μg HFA-beclomethasone equivalent) over 12 to 52 weeks. Results We found a small but statistically significant group difference in growth over 12 months between these different doses clearly favouring the lower dose of ICS. The type of corticosteroid among newer molecules (ciclesonide, fluticasone, mometasone) did not seem to influence the impact on growth over one year. Differences in corticosteroid doses did not seem to affect the change in height, the gain in weight, the gain in bone mass index and the maturation of bones. Quality of the evidence This review is based on a small number of trials that reported data and were conducted on children with mild to moderate asthma. Only 10 of 22 studies measured the few outcomes of interest for this review, and only four comparisons reported growth over 12 months. Our confidence in the quality of evidence is high for this outcome, however it is low to moderate for several other outcomes, depending on the number of trials reporting these outcomes. Moreover, a few outcomes were reported only by a single trial; as these findings have not been confirmed by other trials, we downgraded the evidence for these outcomes to low quality. An insufficient number of trials have compared the effect of a larger difference in dose, for example, between a high dose and a low dose of ICS and of other popular molecules such as budesonide and beclomethasone over a year or longer of treatment. Conclusions We report an evidence-based ICS dose-dependent reduction in growth velocity in prepubescent school-aged children with mild to moderate persistent asthma. The choice of ICS molecule (mometasone, ciclesonide or fluticasone) was not found to affect the level of growth velocity response over a year. The effect of corticosteroids on growth was not consistently reported: among 22 eligible trials, only four comparisons reported the effects of corticosteroids on growth over one year. In view of parents' and clinicians' concerns, lack of or incomplete reporting of growth is a matter of concern given the importance of the topic. We recommend that growth be systematically reported in all trials involving children taking ICS for three months or longer. Until further data comparing low versus high ICS dose and trials of longer duration are available, we recommend that the minimal effective ICS dose be used in all children with asthma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Young children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) have impairments in the areas of communication and social interaction and often display repetitive or non-compliant behaviour. This early pattern of difficulties is a challenge for parents. Therefore, approaches that help parents develop strategies for interaction and management of behaviour are an obvious route for early intervention in ASD. This review updates a Cochrane review first published in 2002 but is based on a new protocol. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of parent-mediated early interventions in terms of the benefits for both children with ASD and their parents and to explore some potential moderators of treatment effect. Search methods We searched a range of psychological, educational and biomedical databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and ERIC in August 2012. As this is an update of a previous review, we limited the search to the period following the original searches in 2002. Bibliographies and reference lists of key articles were searched, field experts were contacted and key journals were handsearched. Selection criteria We included only randomised controlled trials of early intervention for children with ASD. The interventions in the experimental condition were mediated by parents; the control conditions included no treatment, treatment as usual, waiting list, alternative child-centred intervention not mediated by parents, or alternative parent-mediated intervention of hypothesised lesser effect than the experimental condition. Data collection and analysis Two review authors (HM and IPO) independently screened articles identified in the search and decided which articles should be retrieved in full. For each included study, two review authors (IPO and EH) extracted and recorded data, using a piloted data collection form. Two review authors (IPO and HM) assessed the risk of bias in each study. We performed data synthesis and analysis using The Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager 5.1 software. Main results The review includes 17 studies from six countries (USA, UK, Australia, Canada, Thailand and China), which recruited 919 children with ASD. Not all 17 studies could be compared directly or combined in meta-analyses due to differences in the theoretical basis underpinning interventions, the duration and intensity of interventions, and the outcome measurement tools used. Data from subsets of 10 studies that evaluated interventions to enhance parent interaction style and thereby facilitate children's communication were included in meta-analyses. The largest meta-analysis combined data from 316 participants in six studies and the smallest combined data from 55 participants in two studies. Findings from the remaining seven studies were reported narratively. High risk of bias was evident in the studies in relation to allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data; blinding of participants was not possible. Overall, we did not find statistical evidence of gains from parent-mediated approaches in most of the primary outcomes assessed (most aspects of language and communication - whether directly assessed or reported; frequency of child initiations in observed parent-child interaction; child adaptive behaviour; parents' stress), with findings largely inconclusive and inconsistent across studies. However, the evidence for positive change in patterns of parent-child interaction was strong and statistically significant (shared attention: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.41; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.68, P value < 0.05; parent synchrony: SMD 0.90; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.23, P value < 0.05). Furthermore, there is some evidence suggestive of improvement in child language comprehension, reported by parents (vocabulary comprehension: mean difference (MD 36.26; 95% CI 1.31 to 71.20, P value < 0.05). In addition, there was evidence suggesting a reduction in the severity of children's autism characteristics (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.08, P value < 0.05). However, this evidence of change in children's skills and difficulties as a consequence of parent-mediated intervention is uncertain, with small effect sizes and wide CIs, and the conclusions are likely to change with future publication of high-quality RCTs. Authors' conclusions The review finds some evidence for the effectiveness of parent-mediated interventions, most particularly in proximal indicators within parent-child interaction, but also in more distal indicators of child language comprehension and reduction in autism severity. Evidence of whether such interventions may reduce parent stress is inconclusive. The review reinforces the need for attention to be given to early intervention service models that enable parents to contribute skilfully to the treatment of their child with autism. However, practitioners supporting parent-mediated intervention require to monitor levels of parent stress. The ability to draw conclusions from studies would be improved by researchers adopting a common set of outcome measures as the quality of the current evidence is low. Plain Language Summary Early intervention delivered by parents for young children with autism spectrum disorders Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) affect more than 1% of children and is usually evident in behaviour before the age of three years. A child with ASD lacks understanding of how to interact with another person, may not have developed language or understand other people's communication, and may insist on routines and repetitive behaviours. This early pattern of difficulties is a challenge for parents. Therefore, helping parents to develop strategies for interaction and management of behaviour is an obvious route for early intervention. The present review brings up to date one published in 2003, which found only two well-designed studies. This review, based on a new protocol, includes 17 randomised controlled trials, most published since 2010, in which interventions delivered by parents were compared with no treatment or local services, or alternative child-centred intervention such as nursery attendance, or another parent-delivered intervention that differed in some way from the main condition. We were able to combine outcome information and so increase confidence in the results. All the studies were rated on the quality of their evidence, which was then taken into account in judging how firmly conclusions could be drawn. The studies varied in the content of what parents were trained to do, and over what length of time parents had contact with professionals. Parents received training either individually with their child or in groups with other parents. In the majority of the studies, the interventions aimed to help parents be more observant and responsive during interactions with their child in order to help their child develop communication skills. In summary, the review finds sufficient evidence that the ways in which parents interacted with their children did change as intended. The review also suggests improvement in child outcomes such as understanding of language and severity of autism characteristics as a result of interventions delivered by parents. However, important outcomes such as other aspects of children's language, children's adaptive skills and parent stress did not show change. The evidence is not yet strong for any outcome and would benefit from researchers measuring effects in the same ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]