A monumental undertaking in scientific inquiry has rigorously examined the landscape of complementary and alternative treatments purported to benefit individuals with autism spectrum disorder, concluding that a substantial body of evidence supporting their effectiveness remains largely absent. This extensive review, representing one of the most thorough quantitative analyses of its kind, further highlighted significant gaps in the evaluation of safety protocols for many of these interventions, indicating that potential risks have frequently been insufficiently investigated.
The research initiative, spearheaded by a collaborative team of academics from institutions including Paris Nanterre University, Paris Cité University, and the University of Southampton, culminated in findings published in the esteemed journal Nature Human Behaviour. The project’s scope was vast, encompassing the analysis of 248 distinct meta-analyses. These meta-analyses, in turn, aggregated data from an impressive 200 individual clinical trials, collectively involving the participation of over 10,000 individuals diagnosed with autism.
The focus of this investigation was specifically on what are broadly termed Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicines (CAIMs) as applied to the management of autism. The researchers meticulously assessed a diverse array of 19 different types of interventions. This broad spectrum included practices such as animal-assisted therapies, acupuncture, the administration of herbal remedies, music therapy sessions, the use of probiotics, and the supplementation of Vitamin D, among others.
Complementing the comprehensive analytical review, the research consortium also developed a novel online platform. This digital tool is designed to empower the public, including individuals with autism, their families, and healthcare providers, by facilitating a more accessible exploration of the scientific evidence underpinning various CAIMs. The aim is to demystify the research and provide a clearer picture of what is known, and perhaps more importantly, what remains unknown about these treatments.
The widespread adoption of alternative treatment modalities for autism stems from the complex and varied challenges that individuals on the spectrum may encounter. These can include difficulties in social communication and interaction, understanding nuanced social cues, managing sensory sensitivities which can lead to overload, adapting to unfamiliar environments, and engaging in characteristic repetitive behaviors or routines. Such challenges can profoundly impact an individual’s daily functioning, independence, and overall quality of life, leading many to seek out a range of supportive strategies.
Consequently, the interest in exploring treatments beyond conventional medical approaches is a pervasive phenomenon within the autism community. Research has indicated that a remarkably high proportion of individuals with autism, with some studies suggesting figures as high as 90 percent, have at some point in their lives experimented with at least one form of CAIM. This statistic underscores the significant unmet needs and the proactive pursuit of potential solutions by individuals and their caregivers.
Professor Richard Delorme, who leads the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Unit at Robert Debré Hospital in Paris, commented on this trend, stating, "Many parents of autistic children, as well as autistic adults themselves, often turn to complementary and alternative medicines with the hope that these approaches may offer benefits without the burden of unwanted side effects." He further emphasized the critical need for a discerning approach, adding, "However, it is absolutely necessary to carefully scrutinize evidence derived from rigorous, well-designed randomized trials before making any definitive conclusions about the advisability of pursuing these treatments."
To achieve a holistic understanding of the existing research landscape, the investigative team employed an "umbrella review" methodology. This sophisticated research design involves synthesizing the findings from multiple meta-analyses, thereby providing a broad, overarching perspective on the totality of evidence available for a given topic. This approach allows for a more robust and comprehensive assessment than could be obtained from examining individual studies in isolation.
Dr. Corentin Gosling, an Associate Professor at Paris Nanterre University and the lead author of the study, elaborated on the methodological rigor. "Instead of focusing on individual studies," Dr. Gosling explained, "our approach involved reviewing all the available meta-analyses, which themselves represent a compilation of numerous individual trials. This comprehensive review allowed us to assess the full weight of evidence across the spectrum of different treatments under consideration." He also highlighted the development of the online platform, noting, "Crucially, we also developed a free and user-friendly online platform, which we intend to continue refining and testing. Our ultimate aspiration for this tool is to provide valuable support to autistic individuals and healthcare practitioners, enabling them to collaboratively identify the most appropriate and beneficial treatment pathways."
The review’s findings revealed that while a small subset of CAIMs demonstrated some preliminary indications of potential benefit, the vast majority were supported by evidence characterized as weak or of low quality. This inherent weakness in the evidentiary basis renders the reported positive effects unreliable and subject to considerable doubt. A particularly concerning aspect of the review was the inadequate attention paid to safety considerations. The researchers noted that fewer than half of the examined treatments had undergone any formal assessment for their acceptability, tolerability, or potential for adverse events among users.
Professor Samuele Cortese, a NIHR Research Professor at the University of Southampton and a co-senior author on the publication, underscored the paramount importance of looking beyond single studies when evaluating treatment efficacy. "This comprehensive study clearly demonstrates that when individuals seek to ascertain the effectiveness of a particular treatment, they should not rely solely on the findings of one isolated study," Professor Cortese stated. "It is imperative to consider the entire body of available evidence and critically evaluate the quality of that evidence. Drawing definitive conclusions based on a single, low-quality study can be profoundly misleading and potentially harmful."
The seminal study, titled Complementary, alternative and integrative medicine for autism: an umbrella review and online platform, has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Human Behaviour and is accessible online. The associated online platform, intended to serve as a resource for evidence-based information, can be accessed at the following web address: https://ebiact-database.com. This research endeavor received financial backing from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR), a French national research agency dedicated to supporting scientific innovation and discovery.
About the Author
