Trial Outcomes & Findings for Oxytocin and Social Cognitive Skills Groups (NCT NCT02918864)
NCT ID: NCT02918864
Last Updated: 2024-04-05
Results Overview
The change from baseline in SBI is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. SBI is a composite score based on Soorya et al. (2015) which identified measures that comprise this metric. Scores from the Children's Communication Checklist-2 (CCC-2) Social Relations and Nonverbal Communication subscales and the Griffith Empathy Measure (GEM) were standardized as z-scores using the sample means and standard deviations at baseline. CCC-2 subscale scores and reversed GEM total scores were used so higher z-scores reflect more impairment across measures. The SBI outcome was subsequently derived by averaging the z-scores. At baseline, the sample average SBI z-score equals 0; higher individual scores indicate relatively more impairment in social behavior skills. Larger, negative slopes represent improvement.
COMPLETED
PHASE2
40 participants
Baseline and Week 12 (Endpoint)
2024-04-05
Participant Flow
Participant milestones
| Measure |
ION-ASD
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in cognitive behavioral intervention (CBI) strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
20
|
20
|
|
Overall Study
Endpoint (Week 12)
|
19
|
19
|
|
Overall Study
1-month Follow-up (Week 16)
|
17
|
18
|
|
Overall Study
3-month Follow-up (Week 24)
|
16
|
17
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
16
|
17
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
4
|
3
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
ION-ASD
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in cognitive behavioral intervention (CBI) strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
Withdrawal by Subject
|
1
|
1
|
|
Overall Study
Lost to Follow-up
|
3
|
2
|
Baseline Characteristics
Data was missing for one participant's VIQ
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
Total
n=40 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
|
20 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
20 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
40 Participants
n=40 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
|
0 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=40 Participants
|
|
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
|
0 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=40 Participants
|
|
Age, Continuous
|
9.30 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.13 • n=20 Participants
|
9.20 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.11 • n=20 Participants
|
9.25 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.10 • n=40 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
1 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
2 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
3 Participants
n=40 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
19 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
18 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
37 Participants
n=40 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
|
7 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
5 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
12 Participants
n=40 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
|
13 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
13 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
26 Participants
n=40 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
0 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
2 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
2 Participants
n=40 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
|
1 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=40 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
|
2 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
3 Participants
n=40 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
|
0 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=40 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
|
4 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
3 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
7 Participants
n=40 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
|
7 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
10 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
17 Participants
n=40 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
|
2 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
3 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
5 Participants
n=40 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
4 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
3 Participants
n=20 Participants
|
7 Participants
n=40 Participants
|
|
CCC-2 Nonverbal Communication
|
8.80 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.28 • n=20 Participants
|
8.75 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.26 • n=20 Participants
|
8.77 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.75 • n=40 Participants
|
|
CCC-2 Social Relations
|
8.30 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.80 • n=20 Participants
|
7.60 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.33 • n=20 Participants
|
7.95 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.13 • n=40 Participants
|
|
Griffith Empathy Measure
|
12.65 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 19.02 • n=20 Participants
|
22.05 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 20.20 • n=20 Participants
|
17.35 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 19.94 • n=40 Participants
|
|
RMET, % correct
|
63.57 percentage of correct items
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.96 • n=20 Participants
|
58.93 percentage of correct items
STANDARD_DEVIATION 19.82 • n=20 Participants
|
61.25 percentage of correct items
STANDARD_DEVIATION 17.49 • n=40 Participants
|
|
DANVA2, % correct
|
65.23 percentage of correct items
STANDARD_DEVIATION 16.32 • n=20 Participants
|
65.86 percentage of correct items
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.92 • n=20 Participants
|
65.55 percentage of correct items
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.11 • n=40 Participants
|
|
Verbal IQ
|
96.30 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 18.16 • n=20 Participants • Data was missing for one participant's VIQ
|
99.84 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 18.24 • n=19 Participants • Data was missing for one participant's VIQ
|
98.03 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 18.05 • n=39 Participants • Data was missing for one participant's VIQ
|
|
ADHD CASI-5 T-score
|
69.80 T-score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.24 • n=20 Participants
|
69.70 T-score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.56 • n=20 Participants
|
69.75 T-score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.97 • n=40 Participants
|
|
Social Responsiveness Scale-2 (SRS-2)
|
71.25 T-score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.09 • n=20 Participants
|
69.50 T-score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.43 • n=20 Participants
|
70.38 T-score
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.76 • n=40 Participants
|
|
Caregiver Strain Questionnaire-Global Strain (CGSQ)
|
2.52 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.79 • n=20 Participants
|
2.24 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.51 • n=20 Participants
|
2.38 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.67 • n=40 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 12 (Endpoint)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in SBI is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. SBI is a composite score based on Soorya et al. (2015) which identified measures that comprise this metric. Scores from the Children's Communication Checklist-2 (CCC-2) Social Relations and Nonverbal Communication subscales and the Griffith Empathy Measure (GEM) were standardized as z-scores using the sample means and standard deviations at baseline. CCC-2 subscale scores and reversed GEM total scores were used so higher z-scores reflect more impairment across measures. The SBI outcome was subsequently derived by averaging the z-scores. At baseline, the sample average SBI z-score equals 0; higher individual scores indicate relatively more impairment in social behavior skills. Larger, negative slopes represent improvement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Behavior Impairment (SBI) Composite
Estimated mean (baseline)
|
0.12 z-score
Standard Error 0.14
|
-0.14 z-score
Standard Error 0.14
|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Behavior Impairment (SBI) Composite
Estimated mean (week 12)
|
-0.26 z-score
Standard Error 0.14
|
-0.16 z-score
Standard Error 0.14
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 12 (Endpoint)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in SBI is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. SBI is a composite score based on Soorya et al. (2015) which identified measures that comprise this metric. Scores from the Children's Communication Checklist-2 (CCC-2) Social Relations and Nonverbal Communication subscales and the Griffith Empathy Measure (GEM) were standardized as z-scores using the sample means and standard deviations at baseline. CCC-2 subscale scores and reversed GEM total scores were used so higher z-scores reflect more impairment across measures. The SBI outcome was subsequently derived by averaging the z-scores. At baseline, the sample average SBI z-score equals 0; higher individual scores indicate relatively more impairment in social behavior skills. Larger, negative slopes represent improvement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Rate of Change From Baseline in Social Behavior Impairment (SBI) Composite
|
-0.03 scores/week
Standard Error 0.01
|
0.00 scores/week
Standard Error 0.01
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 16 (1-month follow-up)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in SBI is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. SBI is a composite score based on Soorya et al. (2015) which identified measures that comprise this metric. Scores from the Children's Communication Checklist-2 (CCC-2) Social Relations and Nonverbal Communication subscales and the Griffith Empathy Measure (GEM) were standardized as z-scores using the sample means and standard deviations at baseline. CCC-2 subscale scores and reversed GEM total scores were used so higher z-scores reflect more impairment across measures. The SBI outcome was subsequently derived by averaging the z-scores. At baseline, the sample average SBI z-score equals 0; higher individual scores indicate relatively more impairment in social behavior skills. Larger, negative slopes represent improvement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Behavior Impairment (SBI) Composite
Estimated mean (baseline)
|
0.11 z-score
Standard Error 0.13
|
-0.14 z-score
Standard Error 0.14
|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Behavior Impairment (SBI) Composite
Estimated mean (week 16)
|
-0.29 z-score
Standard Error 0.14
|
-0.14 z-score
Standard Error 0.14
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 16 (1-month follow-up)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in SBI is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. SBI is a composite score based on Soorya et al. (2015) which identified measures that comprise this metric. Scores from the Children's Communication Checklist-2 (CCC-2) Social Relations and Nonverbal Communication subscales and the Griffith Empathy Measure (GEM) were standardized as z-scores using the sample means and standard deviations at baseline. CCC-2 subscale scores and reversed GEM total scores were used so higher z-scores reflect more impairment across measures. The SBI outcome was subsequently derived by averaging the z-scores. At baseline, the sample average SBI z-score equals 0; higher individual scores indicate relatively more impairment in social behavior skills. Larger, negative slopes represent improvement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Rate of Change From Baseline in Social Behavior Impairment (SBI) Composite
|
-0.03 scores/week
Standard Error 0.01
|
0.00 scores/week
Standard Error 0.01
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 24 (3-month follow-up)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in SBI is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. SBI is a composite score based on Soorya et al. (2015) which identified measures that comprise this metric. Scores from the Children's Communication Checklist-2 (CCC-2) Social Relations and Nonverbal Communication subscales and the Griffith Empathy Measure (GEM) were standardized as z-scores using the sample means and standard deviations at baseline. CCC-2 subscale scores and reversed GEM total scores were used so higher z-scores reflect more impairment across measures. The SBI outcome was subsequently derived by averaging the z-scores. At baseline, the sample average SBI z-score equals 0; higher individual scores indicate relatively more impairment in social behavior skills. Larger, negative slopes represent improvement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Behavior Impairment (SBI) Composite
Estimated mean (baseline)
|
0.04 z-score
Standard Error 0.14
|
-0.16 z-score
Standard Error 0.14
|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Behavior Impairment (SBI) Composite
Estimated mean (week 24)
|
-0.21 z-score
Standard Error 0.15
|
-0.08 z-score
Standard Error 0.15
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 24 (3-month follow-up)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in SBI is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. SBI is a composite score based on Soorya et al. (2015) which identified measures that comprise this metric. Scores from the Children's Communication Checklist-2 (CCC-2) Social Relations and Nonverbal Communication subscales and the Griffith Empathy Measure (GEM) were standardized as z-scores using the sample means and standard deviations at baseline. CCC-2 subscale scores and reversed GEM total scores were used so higher z-scores reflect more impairment across measures. The SBI outcome was subsequently derived by averaging the z-scores. At baseline, the sample average SBI z-score equals 0; higher individual scores indicate relatively more impairment in social behavior skills. Larger, negative slopes represent improvement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Rate of Change From Baseline in Social Behavior Impairment (SBI) Composite
|
-0.01 scores/week
Standard Error 0.01
|
0.00 scores/week
Standard Error 0.00
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 12 (Endpoint)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in SC is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. SC is a composite score, including the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) and the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy-2 (DANVA2), based on Soorya et al. (2015). RMET has 28 items rated correct/incorrect (total 0-28). DANVA2 contains 4 sets of 24 items rated correct/incorrect (total 0-96). Percent correct was calculated for each measure given the difference in denominators and to allow for administrative omissions. Percentages were standardized as z-scores using the sample means and standard deviations at baseline. The SC outcome was subsequently derived by averaging the z-scores. At baseline, the sample average SC z-score equals 0; higher individual scores reflect stronger skills on social cognitive tasks compared to lower scores. Larger, positive slopes indicate skill improvement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Cognition (SC) Composite
Estimated mean (baseline)
|
0.06 z-score
Standard Error 0.18
|
-0.08 z-score
Standard Error 0.18
|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Cognition (SC) Composite
Estimated mean (week 12)
|
0.37 z-score
Standard Error 0.18
|
0.16 z-score
Standard Error 0.19
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 12 (Endpoint)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in SC is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. SC is a composite score, including the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) and the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy-2 (DANVA2), based on Soorya et al. (2015). RMET has 28 items rated correct/incorrect (total 0-28). DANVA2 contains 4 sets of 24 items rated correct/incorrect (total 0-96). Percent correct was calculated for each measure given the difference in denominators and to allow for administrative omissions. Percentages were standardized as z-scores using the sample means and standard deviations at baseline. The SC outcome was subsequently derived by averaging the z-scores. At baseline, the sample average SC z-score equals 0; higher individual scores reflect stronger skills on social cognitive tasks compared to lower scores. Larger, positive slopes indicate skill improvement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Rate of Change From Baseline in Social Cognition (SC) Composite
|
0.03 scores/week
Standard Error 0.01
|
0.02 scores/week
Standard Error 0.01
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 16 (1-month follow-up)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in SC is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. SC is a composite score, including the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) and the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy-2 (DANVA2), based on Soorya et al. (2015). RMET has 28 items rated correct/incorrect (total 0-28). DANVA2 contains 4 sets of 24 items rated correct/incorrect (total 0-96). Percent correct was calculated for each measure given the difference in denominators and to allow for administrative omissions. Percentages were standardized as z-scores using the sample means and standard deviations at baseline. The SC outcome was subsequently derived by averaging the z-scores. At baseline, the sample average SC z-score equals 0; higher individual scores reflect stronger skills on social cognitive tasks compared to lower scores. Larger, positive slopes indicate skill improvement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Cognition (SC) Composite
Estimated mean (baseline)
|
0.06 z-score
Standard Error 0.18
|
-0.08 z-score
Standard Error 0.18
|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Cognition (SC) Composite
Estimated mean (week 16)
|
0.57 z-score
Standard Error 0.17
|
0.25 z-score
Standard Error 0.18
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 16 (1-month follow-up)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in SC is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. SC is a composite score, including the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) and the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy-2 (DANVA2), based on Soorya et al. (2015). RMET has 28 items rated correct/incorrect (total 0-28). DANVA2 contains 4 sets of 24 items rated correct/incorrect (total 0-96). Percent correct was calculated for each measure given the difference in denominators and to allow for administrative omissions. Percentages were standardized as z-scores using the sample means and standard deviations at baseline. The SC outcome was subsequently derived by averaging the z-scores. At baseline, the sample average SC z-score equals 0; higher individual scores reflect stronger skills on social cognitive tasks compared to lower scores. Larger, positive slopes indicate skill improvement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Rate of Change From Baseline in Social Cognition (SC) Composite
|
0.03 scores/week
Standard Error 0.01
|
0.02 scores/week
Standard Error 0.01
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 24 (3-month follow-up)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in SC is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. SC is a composite score, including the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) and the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy-2 (DANVA2), based on Soorya et al. (2015). RMET has 28 items rated correct/incorrect (total 0-28). DANVA2 contains 4 sets of 24 items rated correct/incorrect (total 0-96). Percent correct was calculated for each measure given the difference in denominators and to allow for administrative omissions. Percentages were standardized as z-scores using the sample means and standard deviations at baseline. The SC outcome was subsequently derived by averaging the z-scores. At baseline, the sample average SC z-score equals 0; higher individual scores reflect stronger skills on social cognitive tasks compared to lower scores. Larger, positive slopes indicate skill improvement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Cognition (SC) Composite
Estimated mean (baseline)
|
0.10 z-score
Standard Error 0.17
|
-0.08 z-score
Standard Error 0.17
|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Cognition (SC) Composite
Estimated mean (week 24)
|
0.63 z-score
Standard Error 0.17
|
0.37 z-score
Standard Error 0.17
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 24 (3-month follow-up)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in SC is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. SC is a composite score, including the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) and the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy-2 (DANVA2), based on Soorya et al. (2015). RMET has 28 items rated correct/incorrect (total 0-28). DANVA2 contains 4 sets of 24 items rated correct/incorrect (total 0-96). Percent correct was calculated for each measure given the difference in denominators and to allow for administrative omissions. Percentages were standardized as z-scores using the sample means and standard deviations at baseline. The SC outcome was subsequently derived by averaging the z-scores. At baseline, the sample average SC z-score equals 0; higher individual scores reflect stronger skills on social cognitive tasks compared to lower scores. Larger, positive slopes indicate skill improvement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Rate of Change From Baseline in Social Cognition (SC) Composite
|
0.02 scores/week
Standard Error 0.00
|
0.02 scores/week
Standard Error 0.00
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 12 (Endpoint)Population: If participants were missing CGI-I ratings at week 12 (Facilitated Play: n=2), the rating from the last available visit (i.e., week 6) was used. Participants with scores of 3 or 4, indicating no significant change, were not included in the responder analyses (ION-ASD: n=12; Facilitated Play: n=12). One participant (Facilitated Play) had no data to carry forward. Additionally, two participants dropped out of the study (ION-ASD: n=1; Facilitated Play: n=1) and were excluded from the analyses.
Global Functioning will be assessed using the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) Scale. A study physician followed standard CGI protocols to evaluate global improvement at each time point based on all available sources of information (e.g., caregiver interviews, behavior rating forms). The CGI-I employs a 7-point scale with the lowest score, 1, indicating the best outcome and the highest score, 7, indicating the worst outcome. Participants receiving scores of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) were considered responders. Participants receiving scores of 5 (minimally worse), 6 (much worse), or 7 (very much worse) were considered non-responders; note, no participant received a score worse than 5 which was used as the cut-off for non-responders. Participants receiving scores of 3 (minimally improved) or 4 (no change) were considered to show no significant change and omitted from the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=7 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=6 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Number of Responder and Non-responder Participants Based on CGI-I Scores at Week 12 (Endpoint)
Responder (scores 1-2)
|
7 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
|
Number of Responder and Non-responder Participants Based on CGI-I Scores at Week 12 (Endpoint)
Non-responder (score 5-7)
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 16 (1-month follow-up)Population: If participants were missing CGI-I ratings at week 16 (ION-ASD: n=1; Facilitated Play: n=5), the rating from the last available visit (i.e., 5 from week 12 and 1 from week 6) was used. Participants with scores of 3 or 4, indicating no significant change, were not included in the responder analyses (ION-ASD: n=10; Facilitated Play: n=12). Additionally, from baseline to week 16, five participants dropped out of the study (ION-ASD: n=3; Facilitated Play: n=2) and were excluded from the analyses.
Global Functioning will be assessed using the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) Scale. A study physician followed standard CGI protocols to evaluate global improvement at each time point based on all available sources of information (e.g., caregiver interviews, behavior rating forms). The CGI-I employs a 7-point scale with the lowest score, 1, indicating the best outcome and the highest score, 7, indicating the worst outcome. Participants receiving scores of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) were considered responders. Participants receiving scores of 5 (minimally worse), 6 (much worse), or 7 (very much worse) were considered non-responders; note, no participant received a score worse than 5 which was used as the cut-off for non-responders. Participants receiving scores of 3 (minimally improved) or 4 (no change) were considered to show no significant change and omitted from the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=7 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=6 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Number of Responder and Non-responder Participants Based on CGI-I Scores at Week 16 (1-month Follow-up)
Responder (score 1-2)
|
4 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Number of Responder and Non-responder Participants Based on CGI-I Scores at Week 16 (1-month Follow-up)
Non-responder (score 5-7)
|
3 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 24 (3-month follow-up)Population: If participants were missing CGI-I ratings at week 24 (ION-ASD: n=2), the rating from the last available visit (i.e., week 16) was used. Participants with scores of 3 or 4, indicating no significant change, were not included in the responder analyses (ION-ASD: n=6; Facilitated Play: n=11). Additionally, from baseline to week 24, seven participants dropped out of the study (ION-ASD: n=4; Facilitated Play: n=3) and were therefore excluded from the analyses.
Global Functioning will be assessed using the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) Scale. A study physician followed standard CGI protocols to evaluate global improvement at each time point based on all available sources of information (e.g., caregiver interviews, behavior rating forms). The CGI-I employs a 7-point scale with the lowest score, 1, indicating the best outcome and the highest score, 7, indicating the worst outcome. Participants receiving scores of 1 (very much improved) or 2 (much improved) were considered responders. Participants receiving scores of 5 (minimally worse), 6 (much worse), or 7 (very much worse) were considered non-responders; note, no participant received a score worse than 5 which was used as the cut-off for non-responders . Participants receiving scores of 3 (minimally improved) or 4 (no change) were considered to show no significant change and omitted from the analysis.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=10 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=6 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Number of Responder and Non-responder Participants Based on CGI-I Scores at Week 24 (3-month Follow-up)
Responder (score 1-2)
|
7 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Number of Responder and Non-responder Participants Based on CGI-I Scores at Week 24 (3-month Follow-up)
Non-responder (score 5-7)
|
3 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 12 (Endpoint)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS-2) is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. The SRS-2 is a caregiver reported measure of social behavior in the general population (3-18 yo) used to assess social functioning. The SRS-2 contains 65 items rated on a 4-point scale (1/not true to 4/almost always true). Scores are recoded 0-3 and totaled for a raw score. Raw scores are converted to T-scores based on age and sex. T-scores have a population mean of 50 with a standard deviation of 10. T-scores 60-65 indicate mild social impairment, 66-75 moderate deficits, and above 76 severe deficits strongly associated with autism. Higher SRS-2 T-scores indicate greater severity of social impairment. Larger, negative slopes reflect a greater reduction in severity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Functioning (SRS-2)
Estimated mean (baseline)
|
70.83 T-score
Standard Error 2.16
|
69.50 T-score
Standard Error 2.22
|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Functioning (SRS-2)
Estimated mean (week 12)
|
66.48 T-score
Standard Error 2.38
|
68.79 T-score
Standard Error 2.39
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 12 (Endpoint)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS-2) is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. The SRS-2 is a caregiver reported measure of social behavior in the general population (3-18 yo) used to assess social functioning. The SRS-2 contains 65 items rated on a 4-point scale (1/not true to 4/almost always true). Scores are recoded 0-3 and totaled for a raw score. Raw scores are converted to T-scores based on age and sex. T-scores have a population mean of 50 with a standard deviation of 10. T-scores 60-65 indicate mild social impairment, 66-75 moderate deficits, and above 76 severe deficits strongly associated with autism. Higher SRS-2 T-scores indicate greater severity of social impairment. Larger, negative slopes reflect a greater reduction in severity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Rate of Change From Baseline in Social Functioning (SRS-2)
|
-.36 scores/week
Standard Error 0.21
|
-.06 scores/week
Standard Error 0.21
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 16 (1-month follow-up)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS-2) is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. The SRS-2 is a caregiver reported measure of social behavior in the general population (3-18 yo) used to assess social functioning. The SRS-2 contains 65 items rated on a 4-point scale (1/not true to 4/almost always true). Scores are recoded 0-3 and totaled for a raw score. Raw scores are converted to T-scores based on age and sex. T-scores have a population mean of 50 with a standard deviation of 10. T-scores 60-65 indicate mild social impairment, 66-75 moderate deficits, and above 76 severe deficits strongly associated with autism. Higher SRS-2 T-scores indicate greater severity of social impairment. Larger, negative slopes reflect a greater reduction in severity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Functioning (SRS-2)
Estimated mean (baseline)
|
70.88 T-score
Standard Error 2.01
|
69.56 T-score
Standard Error 2.07
|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Functioning (SRS-2)
Estimated mean (week 16)
|
65.42 T-score
Standard Error 2.01
|
68.69 T-score
Standard Error 2.11
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 16 (1-month follow-up)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS-2) is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. The SRS-2 is a caregiver reported measure of social behavior in the general population (3-18 yo) used to assess social functioning. The SRS-2 contains 65 items rated on a 4-point scale (1/not true to 4/almost always true). Scores are recoded 0-3 and totaled for a raw score. Raw scores are converted to T-scores based on age and sex. T-scores have a population mean of 50 with a standard deviation of 10. T-scores 60-65 indicate mild social impairment, 66-75 moderate deficits, and above 76 severe deficits strongly associated with autism. Higher SRS-2 T-scores indicate greater severity of social impairment. Larger, negative slopes reflect a greater reduction in severity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Rate of Change From Baseline in Social Functioning (SRS-2)
|
-.34 scores/week
Standard Error 0.12
|
-0.05 scores/week
Standard Error 0.13
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 24 (3-month follow-up)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS-2) is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. The SRS-2 is a caregiver reported measure of social behavior in the general population (3-18 yo) used to assess social functioning. The SRS-2 contains 65 items rated on a 4-point scale (1/not true to 4/almost always true). Scores are recoded 0-3 and totaled for a raw score. Raw scores are converted to T-scores based on age and sex. T-scores have a population mean of 50 with a standard deviation of 10. T-scores 60-65 indicate mild social impairment, 66-75 moderate deficits, and above 76 severe deficits strongly associated with autism. Higher SRS-2 T-scores indicate greater severity of social impairment. Larger, negative slopes reflect a greater reduction in severity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Functioning (SRS-2)
Estimated mean (baseline)
|
69.42 T-score
Standard Error 1.96
|
69.13 T-score
Standard Error 2.00
|
|
Change From Baseline in Social Functioning (SRS-2)
Estimated mean (week 24)
|
67.84 T-score
Standard Error 2.05
|
69.74 T-score
Standard Error 2.11
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 24 (3-month follow-up)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS-2) is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. The SRS-2 is a caregiver reported measure of social behavior in the general population (3-18 yo) used to assess social functioning. The SRS-2 contains 65 items rated on a 4-point scale (1/not true to 4/almost always true). Scores are recoded 0-3 and totaled for a raw score. Raw scores are converted to T-scores based on age and sex. T-scores have a population mean of 50 with a standard deviation of 10. T-scores 60-65 indicate mild social impairment, 66-75 moderate deficits, and above 76 severe deficits strongly associated with autism. Higher SRS-2 T-scores indicate greater severity of social impairment. Larger, negative slopes reflect a greater reduction in severity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Rate of Change From Baseline in Social Functioning (SRS-2)
|
-.07 scores/week
Standard Error 0.09
|
0.03 scores/week
Standard Error 0.09
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 12 (Endpoint)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in the Caregiver Strain Questionnaire (CGSQ) is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. The CGSQ was used to assess quality of life. The CGSQ is a parent-rated questionnaire designed for parents of children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. It includes 21 items rated on a 5-point problem scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very much) rating subjective internal, subjective external, and objective strain. A global measure of strain can be calculated by averaging the scores together. Higher CGSQ scores indicate greater strain. Larger, negative slopes reflect a greater reduction in strain (i.e., improvement in score).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Quality of Life (CGSQ)
Estimated mean (baseline)
|
2.52 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.16
|
2.24 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.16
|
|
Change From Baseline in Quality of Life (CGSQ)
Estimated mean (week 12)
|
2.28 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.16
|
2.23 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.16
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 12 (Endpoint)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in the Caregiver Strain Questionnaire (CGSQ) is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. The CGSQ was used to assess quality of life. The CGSQ is a parent-rated questionnaire designed for parents of children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. It includes 21 items rated on a 5-point problem scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very much) rating subjective internal, subjective external, and objective strain. A global measure of strain can be calculated by averaging the scores together. Higher CGSQ scores indicate greater strain. Larger, negative slopes reflect a greater reduction in strain (i.e., improvement in score).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Rate of Change From Baseline in Quality of Life (CGSQ)
|
-0.02 units on a scale/week
Standard Error 0.02
|
0.00 units on a scale/week
Standard Error 0.02
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 16 (1-month follow-up)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in the Caregiver Strain Questionnaire (CGSQ) is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. The CGSQ was used to assess quality of life. The CGSQ is a parent-rated questionnaire designed for parents of children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. It includes 21 items rated on a 5-point problem scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very much) rating subjective internal, subjective external, and objective strain. A global measure of strain can be calculated by averaging the scores together. Higher CGSQ scores indicate greater strain. Larger, negative slopes reflect a greater reduction in strain (i.e., improvement in score).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Quality of Life (CGSQ)
Estimated mean (baseline)
|
2.52 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.15
|
2.25 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.15
|
|
Change From Baseline in Quality of Life (CGSQ)
Estimated mean (week 16)
|
2.19 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.15
|
2.15 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.15
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 16 (1-month follow-up)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in the Caregiver Strain Questionnaire (CGSQ) is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. The CGSQ was used to assess quality of life. The CGSQ is a parent-rated questionnaire designed for parents of children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. It includes 21 items rated on a 5-point problem scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very much) rating subjective internal, subjective external, and objective strain. A global measure of strain can be calculated by averaging the scores together. Higher CGSQ scores indicate greater strain. Larger, negative slopes reflect a greater reduction in strain (i.e., improvement in score).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Rate of Change From Baseline in Quality of Life (CGSQ)
|
-0.02 units on a scale/week
Standard Error 0.01
|
-0.01 units on a scale/week
Standard Error 0.01
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 24 (3-month follow-up)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in the Caregiver Strain Questionnaire (CGSQ) is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. The CGSQ was used to assess quality of life. The CGSQ is a parent-rated questionnaire designed for parents of children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. It includes 21 items rated on a 5-point problem scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very much) rating subjective internal, subjective external, and objective strain. A global measure of strain can be calculated by averaging the scores together. Higher CGSQ scores indicate greater strain. Larger, negative slopes reflect a greater reduction in strain (i.e., improvement in score).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Quality of Life (CGSQ)
Estimated mean (baseline)
|
2.50 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.15
|
2.22 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.15
|
|
Change From Baseline in Quality of Life (CGSQ)
Estimated mean (week 24)
|
2.11 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.16
|
2.22 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.16
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline and Week 24 (3-month follow-up)Population: All participants contributed to the intent to treat (ITT) model.
The change from baseline in the Caregiver Strain Questionnaire (CGSQ) is represented by the slope of each group. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in this rate of change or the group\*time interaction. The CGSQ was used to assess quality of life. The CGSQ is a parent-rated questionnaire designed for parents of children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. It includes 21 items rated on a 5-point problem scale (1 = not at all to 5 = very much) rating subjective internal, subjective external, and objective strain. A global measure of strain can be calculated by averaging the scores together. Higher CGSQ scores indicate greater strain. Larger, negative slopes reflect a greater reduction in strain (i.e., improvement in score).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 Participants
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 Participants
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Rate of Change From Baseline in Quality of Life (CGSQ)
|
-0.02 units on a scale/week
Standard Error 0.01
|
0.00 units on a scale/week
Standard Error 0.01
|
Adverse Events
ION-ASD
Facilitated Play
Serious adverse events
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 participants at risk
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 participants at risk
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Impulsivity
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Aggression
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Anxiety
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Irritable
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Mood lability
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
Other adverse events
| Measure |
ION-ASD
n=20 participants at risk
ION-ASD integrates targeted dosing of intranasal oxytocin and social cognitive skills group training curriculum, Seaver-NETT (Nonverbal communication, Emotion recognition, Theory of mind Training).
Oxytocin: This is an integrated pharmacological-behavioral intervention targeting social cognitive skills for school-aged children with ASD. Four doses of intranasal oxytocin (24 IUs/dose) will be delivered each week before weekly homework and group therapy sessions.
Social Cognitive Skills Training: Social cognitive skills training utilize cognitive behavioral strategies such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities to target impairments in nonverbal synchrony, emotional expression, and interpretation of intent. The NETT curriculum is manualized and anchored in CBI strategies, such as problem identification, affective education, performance feedback, and weekly homework activities. Parent education sessions run concurrently with child groups to help facilitate generalization.
|
Facilitated Play
n=20 participants at risk
The active comparison condition is a facilitated play therapy group.
Facilitated Play Therapy: The facilitated play therapy group is a manualized treatment designed to tailor play to the interests and abilities of group members. Therapists use general therapeutics strategies such as reflective functioning statements to foster communication with therapists as well as between peers. Standard educational practices for children with ASD such as visual supports, schedules, and short-directed statements are also used. The concurrent parent group is supportive in nature.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Immune system disorders
Allergic reaction
|
10.0%
2/20 • Number of events 2 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Ear and labyrinth disorders
Ear pain
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
15.0%
3/20 • Number of events 5 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Eye disorders
Visual change
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Abdominal pain
|
20.0%
4/20 • Number of events 5 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
25.0%
5/20 • Number of events 7 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Change in appetite
|
35.0%
7/20 • Number of events 10 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
60.0%
12/20 • Number of events 14 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Constipation
|
30.0%
6/20 • Number of events 9 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
25.0%
5/20 • Number of events 6 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Cramping
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Diarrhea
|
25.0%
5/20 • Number of events 6 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
15.0%
3/20 • Number of events 3 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Indigestion
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Large and frequent stools
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Loose stools
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Nausea/vomitting
|
10.0%
2/20 • Number of events 2 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
20.0%
4/20 • Number of events 5 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
General disorders
Change in sleep
|
35.0%
7/20 • Number of events 7 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
40.0%
8/20 • Number of events 13 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
General disorders
Change in speech
|
15.0%
3/20 • Number of events 3 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
15.0%
3/20 • Number of events 3 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Fever
|
20.0%
4/20 • Number of events 4 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
25.0%
5/20 • Number of events 6 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Infection
|
15.0%
3/20 • Number of events 3 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
20.0%
4/20 • Number of events 7 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Loss of tooth
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Toothache
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
10.0%
2/20 • Number of events 2 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Back pain
|
15.0%
3/20 • Number of events 3 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Joint pain
|
10.0%
2/20 • Number of events 2 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Muscle ache
|
10.0%
2/20 • Number of events 2 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
25.0%
5/20 • Number of events 5 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Clumsy
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Dizziness
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
15.0%
3/20 • Number of events 3 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Fatigue
|
15.0%
3/20 • Number of events 4 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
10.0%
2/20 • Number of events 2 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Headache
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Hyperactivity/Impulsivity
|
30.0%
6/20 • Number of events 8 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
45.0%
9/20 • Number of events 11 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Staring episode
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Abnormal thoughts
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Aggression
|
40.0%
8/20 • Number of events 10 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
35.0%
7/20 • Number of events 9 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Anxiety
|
35.0%
7/20 • Number of events 10 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
50.0%
10/20 • Number of events 14 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Confused
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Depression
|
20.0%
4/20 • Number of events 6 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
20.0%
4/20 • Number of events 5 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Irritable
|
80.0%
16/20 • Number of events 24 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
65.0%
13/20 • Number of events 24 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Mood lability
|
50.0%
10/20 • Number of events 16 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
35.0%
7/20 • Number of events 9 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Poor Concentration
|
40.0%
8/20 • Number of events 8 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
35.0%
7/20 • Number of events 10 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Nose picking
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 2 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Pulling on lip skin
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Repetitive behavior/speech
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Sassy - talking back
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Self-injurious behavior
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
15.0%
3/20 • Number of events 3 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Fingernail picking
|
30.0%
6/20 • Number of events 6 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
45.0%
9/20 • Number of events 11 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Hair pulling
|
10.0%
2/20 • Number of events 2 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Skin picking
|
10.0%
2/20 • Number of events 2 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
15.0%
3/20 • Number of events 3 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Stereotypic movement
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Suicidal thoughts
|
15.0%
3/20 • Number of events 3 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Tearful
|
40.0%
8/20 • Number of events 8 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Tics
|
25.0%
5/20 • Number of events 10 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Renal and urinary disorders
Enuresis
|
10.0%
2/20 • Number of events 2 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
15.0%
3/20 • Number of events 3 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Renal and urinary disorders
Polydipsia, polyuria
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Clearing throat
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Cough
|
15.0%
3/20 • Number of events 6 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
30.0%
6/20 • Number of events 8 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Epistaxis
|
15.0%
3/20 • Number of events 3 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
15.0%
3/20 • Number of events 3 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Runny nose
|
35.0%
7/20 • Number of events 8 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
30.0%
6/20 • Number of events 10 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Shortness of breath
|
10.0%
2/20 • Number of events 5 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
25.0%
5/20 • Number of events 7 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Sore throat
|
20.0%
4/20 • Number of events 5 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
20.0%
4/20 • Number of events 5 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Wheezing
|
10.0%
2/20 • Number of events 3 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
10.0%
2/20 • Number of events 3 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Eczema
|
35.0%
7/20 • Number of events 9 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
20.0%
4/20 • Number of events 6 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Rash
|
30.0%
6/20 • Number of events 7 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
20.0%
4/20 • Number of events 6 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Flu
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Low self esteem
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Odynophagia
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Itching
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Social circumstances
Social withdrawal
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Poor concentration
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Increase in flatulence
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Upper respiratory infection
|
0.00%
0/20 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
10.0%
2/20 • Number of events 2 • 24 weeks
Systematic assessment of adverse events (AEs) occurred via trained clinician administration of a safety questionnaire (Adverse Event Form) to caregivers typically every other week beginning at week 1. AEs reported by caregivers' calls outside these visits were recorded as non-systematic. Note all severe AEs were for a single participant in the control (Facilitated Play) group. No AEs were rated as related to study drug.
|
Additional Information
Dr. Latha Valluripalli Soorya
Rush University Medical Center
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place