A monumental, large-scale scientific undertaking has rigorously examined the landscape of complementary and alternative treatments utilized for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), concluding that robust evidence supporting their effectiveness is largely absent. Furthermore, this extensive analysis highlights significant gaps in the evaluation of safety protocols, with numerous interventions failing to undergo thorough scrutiny for potential adverse effects.
This pivotal research endeavor was spearheaded by a collaborative team of academics hailing from prominent institutions including Paris Nanterre University, Paris Cité University, and the University of Southampton. Their findings, meticulously documented and published in the esteemed journal Nature Human Behaviour, represent the most expansive quantitative assessment to date of the research pertaining to non-conventional therapeutic approaches for autism. The review meticulously dissected 248 meta-analyses, which in turn aggregated data from an impressive 200 distinct clinical trials. Collectively, these trials encompassed the experiences and outcomes of over 10,000 individuals diagnosed with autism.
The scope of the investigation encompassed a broad spectrum of interventions categorized as complementary, alternative, and integrative medicines (CAIMs) employed in the management of autism. In total, the researchers delved into the evidence base for 19 different categories of interventions. This diverse array included modalities such as animal-assisted therapies, acupuncture, the use of herbal remedies, music therapy, the administration of probiotics, and Vitamin D supplementation, among others. Complementing this exhaustive analytical process, the research consortium also developed an accessible online platform. This digital resource is specifically designed to empower the public, including individuals with autism, their families, and healthcare professionals, to more readily navigate and comprehend the scientific evidence underpinning these various CAIMs.
The widespread adoption of these alternative treatments stems from the multifaceted challenges frequently encountered by individuals on the autism spectrum. These challenges can manifest in various ways, including difficulties with effective communication, navigating social interactions and understanding the perspectives of others, managing sensory sensitivities and experiences of overload, adapting to unfamiliar environments, and engaging in repetitive or stereotyped behaviors. Such complexities can profoundly impact an individual’s daily functioning, social integration, and overall quality of life. Consequently, there is a significant and understandable interest in exploring a wide range of therapeutic avenues that might offer relief or improvement. Research indicates that a substantial proportion of individuals with autism, reportedly up to 90 percent, have at some point in their lives engaged with at least one CAIM.
Professor Richard Delorme, who leads the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Unit at Robert Debré Hospital in Paris, observes that "Many parents of autistic children, as well as autistic adults, turn to complementary and alternative medicines hoping they may help without unwanted side effects." He further emphasizes the critical need for careful consideration, stating, "However, it is necessary to carefully consider evidence from rigorous randomized trials before concluding that these treatments should be tried." This sentiment underscores the inherent desire for effective and safe interventions, while also highlighting the imperative for evidence-based decision-making.
The methodological approach employed by the research team was an "umbrella review," a sophisticated research design that synthesizes the findings from multiple meta-analyses. This technique allows for a comprehensive, high-level overview of the existing research landscape, effectively consolidating the conclusions drawn from numerous individual studies. Dr. Corentin Gosling, an Associate Professor at Paris Nanterre University and the primary author of the study, elaborated on this approach: "Rather than looking at individual trials, we reviewed all the available meta-analyses, which are a compilation of many trials. This allowed us to evaluate the full body of evidence across different treatments." He added, "Importantly, we also developed a free and easy-to-use online platform, which we will continue to test. Ultimately, we hope this tool will support autistic people and practitioners in choosing together the best treatment." The intention behind the online platform is to foster informed discussions and shared decision-making between individuals seeking treatment and their healthcare providers.
The review’s findings indicate that while a modest number of interventions exhibited some preliminary indications of potential benefit, the overwhelming majority were supported by evidence characterized as weak or of low quality. This renders the reported effects unreliable and subject to significant uncertainty. A particularly concerning aspect highlighted by the researchers pertains to safety. The analysis revealed that fewer than half of the investigated treatments had undergone any formal assessment regarding their acceptability, tolerability, or the potential for adverse events. This lack of safety data is a critical concern, especially when considering interventions intended for vulnerable populations.
Professor Samuele Cortese, an NIHR Research Professor at the University of Southampton and a senior co-author of the study, stressed the importance of looking beyond single studies when evaluating treatment efficacy. He stated, "This study shows that when people want to know whether a treatment is effective, they shouldn’t just look at one single study. It’s essential to consider all the available evidence and how good that evidence is. Drawing conclusions from one low-quality study can be misleading." This statement encapsulates a fundamental principle of scientific evaluation: the strength of evidence is derived from the totality of reliable research, not from isolated findings. Misinterpreting or overemphasizing results from a single, potentially flawed study can lead to the adoption of ineffective or even harmful practices.
The detailed findings of this comprehensive investigation, titled Complementary, alternative and integrative medicine for autism: an umbrella review and online platform, are now publicly available in Nature Human Behaviour. The accompanying online platform, designed to facilitate public access to evidence-based information, can be accessed at https://ebiact-database.com. The research initiative was generously supported by funding from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR), a key French national research funding agency. This study represents a significant contribution to the evidence base for autism interventions, providing much-needed clarity on the efficacy and safety of a wide range of commonly explored treatments.
About the Author
