A groundbreaking, large-scale quantitative examination of studies on complementary and alternative therapies for autism spectrum disorder has revealed a striking absence of robust proof supporting their effectiveness. Furthermore, the analysis highlighted a critical gap in safety evaluations, as numerous interventions have not undergone thorough testing for potential hazards.
This extensive investigation was spearheaded by experts from Paris Nanterre University, Paris Cité University, and the University of Southampton. The findings were detailed in a prestigious publication, Nature Human Behaviour. The team meticulously reviewed 248 meta-analyses, synthesizing data from 200 clinical trials that collectively encompassed over 10,000 participants, providing an unprecedented overview of the field.
Interventions Analyzed in the Review
The focus of this comprehensive study centered on complementary, alternative, and integrative medicines (CAIMs) commonly employed in autism management. In all, the researchers scrutinized 19 distinct categories of therapies. Among these were animal-assisted interventions, acupuncture sessions, various herbal remedies, music-based therapies, probiotic supplements, and Vitamin D enhancements, reflecting the diverse array of options pursued by families and individuals.
Complementing their rigorous analysis, the research group introduced an innovative online platform. This user-friendly resource empowers the general public to navigate and understand the scientific backing—or lack thereof—for various CAIMs with greater clarity and accessibility.
Reasons Behind the Popularity of These Therapies
Individuals on the autism spectrum frequently encounter significant hurdles in areas such as verbal and non-verbal communication, interpreting the perspectives or feelings of others, handling overwhelming sensory inputs, adapting to new surroundings, and curbing repetitive actions. Such challenges can profoundly disrupt everyday routines and diminish overall quality of life.
Consequently, alternative therapies have gained immense traction within the autism community. Research indicates that as many as 90 percent of people with autism have experimented with at least one form of CAIM during their lifetime, driven by a quest for supportive options.
Professor Richard Delorme, who leads the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Unit at Robert Debré Hospital in Paris, notes, “A substantial number of parents with autistic children, along with autistic adults themselves, gravitate toward complementary and alternative medicines in the hope of discovering aids that deliver benefits without harmful side effects.”
He adds a note of caution: “That said, it is imperative to scrutinize data from high-quality, randomized controlled trials before endorsing or recommending these approaches for widespread use.”
Methodology for Assessing the Research Landscape
In order to capture the broadest possible view of the accumulated research, the investigators employed an umbrella review methodology. This advanced technique aggregates insights from numerous meta-analyses, yielding a holistic evaluation of the evidence base.
Dr. Corentin Gosling, an Associate Professor at Paris Nanterre University and the study’s lead author, elaborates: “Instead of delving into isolated clinical trials, our approach involved synthesizing all pertinent meta-analyses, each representing a synthesis of multiple studies. This strategy enabled us to appraise the entirety of evidence pertaining to various treatments comprehensively.”
He continues, “Of equal importance, we crafted a complimentary, intuitive online platform that we are actively refining through ongoing testing. Our long-term vision is for this resource to assist autistic individuals and healthcare providers in collaboratively selecting the most suitable interventions based on solid evidence.”
Findings on Efficacy and Safety Concerns
While a handful of therapies exhibited preliminary indications of positive outcomes, the majority were supported only by fragile or subpar evidence, rendering any observed benefits questionable and unreliable. Safety emerged as another major red flag, with less than 50 percent of the interventions having been properly examined for factors like patient acceptability, tolerability, or the occurrence of adverse effects.
Professor Samuele Cortese, an NIHR Research Professor at the University of Southampton and one of the senior authors, underscores the pitfalls of selective evidence review: “Our work demonstrates that determining a therapy’s true efficacy requires more than glancing at a solitary study. One must weigh the full spectrum of available data and critically assess its quality. Relying on a single, poorly conducted study risks drawing erroneous conclusions that could mislead families and clinicians alike.”
Publication and Support Details
Entitled Complementary, alternative and integrative medicine for autism: an umbrella review and online platform, the full study appears in Nature Human Behaviour and can be accessed digitally. The accompanying online platform, ebiact-database.com, stands ready for public use. Funding for this vital research came from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR), ensuring its independence and rigor.
