Scholarlink

Background <p>Autism early intervention meta-analyses have yielded important insights into questions such as ‘<i>what works</i>’ and ‘<i>for what</i>’ outcomes. However, because these studies primarily rely on study-level summary statistics, they may be limited with regard to more individualized insights. Mega-analyses utilizing individual participant data (IPD-MA) may be useful for these more individualized questions.</p> Methods <p>We conducted an IPD-MA on the Autism Early Intervention Research (AEIR) consortium dataset, comprising <i>n</i> = 582 autistic children (<i>n</i> = 121 female) across 11 datasets collected in clinical and community settings in the USA, Switzerland, Italy, Israel, and Australia. Children received between 3 and 27 months of early intervention (age at start 13–60 months) of varying intensity. Of these datasets, one originates from a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Another 7 datasets are paired up into 5 separate controlled-group design studies, while the remaining 3 datasets come from uncontrolled pre–post design studies. Early Start Denver Model (ESDM; <i>n</i> = 281, 62 female) was compared against non-ESDM treatment-as-usual/community approaches (<i>n</i> = 301, 59 female) (e.g., speech and occupational therapy, applied behavioral analysis, pivotal response training). Outcome variables were Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL) age-equivalent scores, Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS) standardized scores, and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) calibrated severity scores.</p> Results <p>Predictors such as sex and cumulative intervention intensity were largely not associated with change in outcomes. Age at intervention start and pre-intervention developmental quotient (DQ) were strong moderators across all outcomes. Earlier age at intervention start predicted more positive outcomes, while higher pre-intervention DQ predicted accelerated growth on VABS motor and MSEL outcome measures. Interventions were similar in their effects on MSEL and VABS outcomes. However, for ADOS outcomes, ESDM resulted in significantly declining trajectories over time, with the sharpest decline for high pre-intervention DQ individuals. In contrast, ADOS trajectories in non-ESDM diverge in opposite directionalities (i.e. increases or decreases) depending on individual’s pre-intervention DQ.</p> Limitations <p>Data for the IDP-MA was contributed on a voluntary basis and only 1 study was contributed from an RCT. Therefore, the findings may be prone to self-selection bias that may limit generalizability. Inferences from the intervention type comparison (ESDM versus non-ESDM) may be limited due to the heterogeneous approaches lumped together in the non-ESDM category. Larger sample sizes are required for finer-grained comparisons of different intervention types.</p> Conclusions <p>Age at intervention start and pre-intervention DQ are key individualized predictors and the latter can interact with intervention type to moderate early intervention response.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Predicting early intervention outcomes in autism via individual participant data mega-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月4日

查看全文
  • Veronica Mandelli,
  • Elena Maria Busuoli,
  • Michel Godel,
  • Nada Kojovic,
  • Yana Sinai-Gavrilov,
  • Tali Gev,
  • Annarita Contaldo,
  • Eric Courchesne,
  • Karen Pierce,
  • Ofer Golan,
  • Antonio Narzisi,
  • Filippo Muratori,
  • Costanza Colombi,
  • Sally J. Rogers,
  • Giacomo Vivanti,
  • Marie Schaer,
  • Liliana Ruta,
  • Michael V. Lombardo

摘要

Background

Autism early intervention meta-analyses have yielded important insights into questions such as ‘what works’ and ‘for what’ outcomes. However, because these studies primarily rely on study-level summary statistics, they may be limited with regard to more individualized insights. Mega-analyses utilizing individual participant data (IPD-MA) may be useful for these more individualized questions.

Methods

We conducted an IPD-MA on the Autism Early Intervention Research (AEIR) consortium dataset, comprising n = 582 autistic children (n = 121 female) across 11 datasets collected in clinical and community settings in the USA, Switzerland, Italy, Israel, and Australia. Children received between 3 and 27 months of early intervention (age at start 13–60 months) of varying intensity. Of these datasets, one originates from a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Another 7 datasets are paired up into 5 separate controlled-group design studies, while the remaining 3 datasets come from uncontrolled pre–post design studies. Early Start Denver Model (ESDM; n = 281, 62 female) was compared against non-ESDM treatment-as-usual/community approaches (n = 301, 59 female) (e.g., speech and occupational therapy, applied behavioral analysis, pivotal response training). Outcome variables were Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL) age-equivalent scores, Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (VABS) standardized scores, and Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) calibrated severity scores.

Results

Predictors such as sex and cumulative intervention intensity were largely not associated with change in outcomes. Age at intervention start and pre-intervention developmental quotient (DQ) were strong moderators across all outcomes. Earlier age at intervention start predicted more positive outcomes, while higher pre-intervention DQ predicted accelerated growth on VABS motor and MSEL outcome measures. Interventions were similar in their effects on MSEL and VABS outcomes. However, for ADOS outcomes, ESDM resulted in significantly declining trajectories over time, with the sharpest decline for high pre-intervention DQ individuals. In contrast, ADOS trajectories in non-ESDM diverge in opposite directionalities (i.e. increases or decreases) depending on individual’s pre-intervention DQ.

Limitations

Data for the IDP-MA was contributed on a voluntary basis and only 1 study was contributed from an RCT. Therefore, the findings may be prone to self-selection bias that may limit generalizability. Inferences from the intervention type comparison (ESDM versus non-ESDM) may be limited due to the heterogeneous approaches lumped together in the non-ESDM category. Larger sample sizes are required for finer-grained comparisons of different intervention types.

Conclusions

Age at intervention start and pre-intervention DQ are key individualized predictors and the latter can interact with intervention type to moderate early intervention response.