RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Distinct patterns of cognitive outcome in young children with autism spectrum disorder receiving the Early Start Denver Model
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.04.05.21254908
DO 10.1101/2021.04.05.21254908
A1 Michel, Godel
A1 François, Robain
A1 Nada, Kojovic
A1 Martina, Franchini
A1 Hilary, Wood de Wilde
A1 Marie, Schaer
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/10/2021.04.05.21254908.abstract
AB Evidence-based, early intervention significantly improves developmental outcome in young children with autism. Nonetheless, there is high interindividual heterogeneity in developmental trajectories during the therapy. It is established that starting intervention as early as possible results in better developmental outcomes. But except for younger age at start, there is no clear consensus about behavioral characteristics that could provide a reliable individual prediction of a child’s developmental outcome after receiving an early intervention. In this study, we analyze developmental trajectories of preschoolers with autism who received 2 years of intervention using the Early Start Denver Model (ESDM) approach in Geneva, Switzerland in an individual setting (n = 55, aged 28.7 ± 5.1 months with a range of 15 – 42). Our aim was to identify early predictors of response to treatment. We applied a cluster analysis to distinguish between 3 groups based on their cognitive level at intake, and rates of cognitive change over the course of treatment. The first group of children only had a mild cognitive delay at intake and nearly no cognitive delay by the end of treatment (Higher Cognitive at baseline: HC). The children in the two other groups all presented with severe cognitive delay at baseline. However, they had two very different patterns of response to treatment. The majority significantly improved developmental scores over the course of treatment (Optimal Responders: OptR) whereas a minority of children showed little to no improvement (Minimal Responders: MinR). Further analyses showed that children who ended up having an optimal two-year treatment outcome (OptR) were characterized by higher adaptive functioning at baseline combined with rapid developmental improvement during the first 6 months of intervention. Inversely, less significant progress by the sixth month of intervention was associated with a less optimal response to treatment (MinR).Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research was supported by the Swiss National Foundation Synapsy Grant Number 51NF40 – 185897 and the Swiss National Foundation for Scientific Research Grant Number 323630–191227 to M.G., and #163859 and #190084 to M.S. And by the Fondation Pole Autisme (https://www.pole-autisme.ch). The funders were not involved in this study and had no role other than to provide financial support.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Informed consent was obtained from the parents of all participants included in the study. Swissethics - Commission d éthique Suisse relative à la recherche sur l être humain approved this study (Protocole 12-163/Psy 12-014), referred under the number PB_2016-01880 and accepted on september the 25th, 2012.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe datasets generated in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.