Williams syndrome is a neuro-developmental genetic disorder caused by gene deletion estimated to have a prevalence of 1 in 7,500 to 1 in 20,000 live births. Previous studies have identified anxiety as part of the behavioural phenotype of the syndrome
The authors of this US study set out to look at the effectiveness and adverse effects of antidepressant, anxiolytic (anti anxiety) and antipsychotic medications in individuals with Williams syndrome. They conducted a survey with 513 parents/caregivers to look at medication usage.
What they found was
- 24% of people had been prescribed an SSRI medication
- 12% had been prescribed another type of antidepressant or anxiolytic.
- 81% of respondents described the SSRI medications as either “Helpful” or “Somewhat Helpful”.
In the survey, respondents described paroxetine (anti-depressant) as the least helpful.
- 64% of respondents said that the non-SSRI antidepressants and anxiolytics were either “Helpful” or “Somewhat Helpful” in treating symptoms of anxiety.
- 10% reported taking an antipsychotic medication, with risperidone and quetiapine described as more helpful than aripiprazole.
Clearly these results rely on reports from parents and caregivers, but they do identify the scope of further studies of medication usage which could look at impact and self report.
Parent report of antidepressant, anxiolytic, and antipsychotic medication use in individuals with Williams syndrome: Effectiveness and adverse effects, Martens M et al., in Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32,, 6, 2106-2121
very interesting i am a Grandparent if a W.S. woman thankyou
I don’t quite get the premise of this study. Surely whether an anxiolytic or an antipsychotic is ‘helpful’ to someone with Williams syndrome is likely to be more related to whether they have a clearly established anxiety disorder or psychosis than the fact that they have Williams Syndrome. The researchers might as well have asked whether they found Amoxycillin more useful than Metronidazole – it would rather depend on what sort of infection they had. I wonder why the journal editors published such a misconceived piece of work?