1. Baret L, Godard B. {{Opinions and intentions of parents of an autistic child toward genetic research results: two typical profiles}}. {Eur J Hum Genet};2011 (Jun 15)
Returning results to research participants is increasingly acknowledged in research ethics guidelines. But few research teams actually do it or provide mechanisms for offering it as an option. We explored the perspective of parents of an autistic child participating in genetic research. In all, 388 questionnaires were sent to 194 parents; 158 questionnaires were completed (89 mothers and 69 fathers), giving a response rate of 41%. 97% of respondents (n=153) fully expressed a strong desire to receive research results, either general or individual ones. The survey solicited parents’ opinions as to what means could be put in place to return research results. The majority held the research team responsible for returning individual results (79.7%, n=126). They indicated that it should occur at the completion of the research project (69%, n=109), by mail (75.3%, n=119). Over three quarters felt the Ministry of Health should cover the associated costs (77.8%, n=123). If the communication of individual findings, whether positive or negative, were to be possible, these would allow some respondents ‘to be prepared for the future’ (37%, n=57), without necessarily having practical benefits (21%, n=32), but at least bringing them ‘relief or understanding’ (14%, n=21). Moreover, parents were clear about the difference between research and clinical settings. This study underlines the importance of broadening the discussion about the communication of research results, especially individual ones. We believe that the integration of different perspectives – those of researchers, clinicians, ethics committees and participants – will enrich the debate and offer enlightenment for future ethical guidelines.European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication, 15 June 2011; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2011.106.
2. Sansa G, Carlson C, Doyle W, Weiner HL, Bluvstein J, Barr W, Devinsky O. {{Medically refractory epilepsy in autism}}. {Epilepsia};2011 (Jun);52(6):1071-1075.
Purpose: Epilepsy and electroencephalographic abnormalities are frequent in idiopathic autism, but there is little information regarding treatment-resistant epilepsy (TRE) in this group. We sought to define the clinical and electrophysiologic characteristics and treatment outcomes in these patients. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed clinical and laboratory data of patients with idiopathic autism evaluated at NYU Epilepsy Center during a 20-year period. Key Findings: One hundred twenty-seven patients had idiopathic autism and at least one epileptic seizure; 33.9% had TRE and 27.5% were seizure free. The remaining 38.6% of patients had infrequent seizures or insufficient data to categorize. Patients with TRE had a significantly earlier onset of seizures than seizure-free patients, and a trend for more developmental regression and motor and language delays. Three patients had surgical resection (two had limited improvement and one had no improvement) and one had an anterior callosotomy (no improvement). Vagus nerve stimulator (VNS) implantation provided limited improvement (2 patients) and no improvement (7). Significance: This study found that TRE is common in idiopathic autism and more common with early age of seizure onset. Relatively few patients underwent surgical resection due to multifocal partial epilepsy, comorbid generalized epilepsy, or limited impact of ongoing partial seizures given other problems related to autism. Our small sample suggests that surgical and VNS outcomes in this group are less favorable than in other TRE populations.
