There is a growing body of scientific evidence that the health of the microbiome (the trillions of microbes that inhabit the human host) plays an important role in maintaining the health of the host and that disruptions in the microbiome may play a role in certain disease processes. An increasing number of research studies have provided evidence that the composition of the gut (enteric) microbiome (GM) in at least a subset of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) deviates from what is usually observed in typically developing individuals. There are several lines of research that suggest that specific changes in the GM could be causative or highly associated with driving core and associated ASD symptoms, pathology, and comorbidities which include gastrointestinal symptoms, although it is also a possibility that these changes, in whole or in part, could be a consequence of underlying pathophysiological features associated with ASD. However, if the GM truly plays a causative role in ASD, then the manipulation of the GM could potentially be leveraged as a therapeutic approach to improve ASD symptoms and/or comorbidities, including gastrointestinal symptoms.
One approach to investigating this possibility in greater detail includes a highly controlled clinical trial in which the GM is systematically manipulated to determine its significance in individuals with ASD. To outline the important issues that would be required to design such a study, a group of clinicians, research scientists, and parents of children with ASD participated in an interdisciplinary daylong workshop as an extension of the 1st International Symposium on the Microbiome in Health and Disease with a Special Focus on Autism (www.microbiome-autism.com). The group considered several aspects of designing clinical studies, including clinical trial design, treatments that could potentially be used in a clinical trial, appropriate ASD participants for the clinical trial, behavioral and cognitive assessments, important biomarkers, safety concerns, and ethical considerations. Overall, the group not only felt that this was a promising area of research for the ASD population and a promising avenue for potential treatment but also felt that further basic and translational research was needed to clarify the clinical utility of such treatments and to elucidate possible mechanisms responsible for a clinical response, so that new treatments and approaches may be discovered and/or fostered in the future.
Background: Despite the high prevalence of seizure, epilepsy and abnormal electroencephalograms in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), there is little information regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments for seizures in the ASD population. In order to determine the effectiveness of traditional and non-traditional treatments for improving seizures and influencing other clinical factor relevant to ASD, we developed a comprehensive on-line seizure survey.
Methods: Announcements (by email and websites) by ASD support groups asked parents of children with ASD to complete the on-line surveys. Survey responders choose one of two surveys to complete: a survey about treatments for individuals with ASD and clinical or subclinical seizures or abnormal electroencephalograms, or a control survey for individuals with ASD without clinical or subclinical seizures or abnormal electroencephalograms. Survey responders rated the perceived effect of traditional antiepileptic drug (AED), non-AED seizure treatments and non-traditional ASD treatments on seizures and other clinical factors (sleep, communication, behavior, attention and mood), and listed up to three treatment side effects.
Results: Responses were obtained concerning 733 children with seizures and 290 controls. In general, AEDs were perceived to improve seizures but worsened other clinical factors for children with clinical seizure. Valproic acid, lamotrigine, levetiracetam and ethosuximide were perceived to improve seizures the most and worsen other clinical factors the least out of all AEDs in children with clinical seizures. Traditional non-AED seizure and non-traditional treatments, as a group, were perceived to improve other clinical factors and seizures but the perceived improvement in seizures was significantly less than that reported for AEDs. Certain traditional non-AED treatments, particularly the ketogenic diet, were perceived to improve both seizures and other clinical factors. For ASD individuals with reported subclinical seizures, other clinical factors were reported to be worsened by AEDs and improved by non-AED traditional seizure and non-traditional treatments. The rate of side effects was reportedly higher for AEDs compared to traditional non-AED treatments.
Conclusion: Although this survey-based method only provides information regarding parental perceptions of effectiveness, this information may be helpful for selecting seizure treatments in individuals with ASD.
Methods: The Eye to Eye mentorship program assessed involved mentors and mentees who completed 12 in-person art sessions out of the normal 20 in-person sessions. The first main assessment was the BLD (Breger Learning Difference) Feedback Survey addressing one’s experience in the Eye to Eye program and which were completed at the end of the mentorship program and filled out by mentors, mentees, and mentees parents (one parent for each mentee). A total of 12 mentors, 6 mentees, and 6 mentee parents were included in the feedback survey final analysis. The second main assessments were the pre and post Behavior Assessment System for Child, Third Edition (BASC-3) provided to mentors, mentees, and mentees parents (one parent for each mentee). A total of 10 mentors, 5 mentees, and 5 mentee parents were included in pre and post BASC-3 final analysis. Fall 2019 (pre) and Spring 2020 (post) optional interviews involved 5 mentors and 3 mentees who showed interest and were comfortable participating with additional release forms.
Results: The program was generally positively rated in the feedback survey by mentors, mentees, and mentee parents. The highest responses for mentors, mentees, and mentee parents all incorporated average ratings of 4.0 or higher (out of 5.0) for perceived understanding of socio-emotional skills after Eye to Eye, experience in Eye to Eye, how having a mentor or mentee made them feel, and perceived change in self-awareness. All three groups reported fairly high ratings of improved self-awareness of 4.0/5.0 or above. No negative ratings were provided by any participants and the lowest response was no change. The BASC-3 evaluation found statistically significant improvement in mentors’ anxiety and atypicality and mentees’ sense of inadequacy.
Discussion: The Eye to Eye program was popular and well-rated despite only involving 12 in- person one-hour art sessions. The mentors, mentees, and mentee parents felt positive about the Eye to Eye program when answering the feedback survey. Some suggestions are made on how to improve this program to better enhance someone with learning differences future ability to succeed. Future research is needed to assess the true impact due to the COVID-19 epidemic and other limitations.
The experiments in this study observed a correlation between the growth rate of uninfected cultures and the decay rate of infected cultures, meaning that temperatures that cultures that displayed a higher growth rate for uninfected M. vaginatus would die faster when infected with the predatory bacterium. Infected cultures that were incubated at temperatures 4 and 10 °C did not display death and this could have been due to lower activity of M. vaginatus at lower temperatures or the inability for the predatory bacterium to attack at lower temperatures.
