Intravenous secretin for autism spectrum disorders (ASD).
TL;DR: There is no evidence that single or multiple dose intravenous secretin is effective and as such currently it should not be recommended or administered as a treatment for ASD.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: In 1998 secretin, a gastrointestinal hormone, was suggested as an effective treatment for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) based on anecdotal evidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether intravenous secretin improves the core features of ASD, other aspects of behaviour or function such as self-injurious behaviour, and the quality of life of affected individuals and their carers. We also assessed whether secretin causes harm. This is an updated version of our review of this topic originally published in 2005. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2010 Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2010) , EMBASE (1980 to 2010 Week 2), PsycINFO (1806 to 2010 Week 2), CINAHL (1938 to January 2010), ERIC (1966 to January 2010), Sociological Abstracts (1952 to January 2010). Sociofile and HealthStar were searched in March 2005 when this review was first published, but were not available for this update. Records were limited to studies published since 1998 as this is when secretin was first proposed as a possible treatment for ASD. We searched reference lists of trials and reviews; we also contacted experts and trialists to find unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of intravenous secretin compared to a placebo treatment in children or adults diagnosed with ASD, where at least one standardised outcome measure was reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria but for two of these, conducted by Repligen, the only available multisite data were reported in press releases. All outcome data from the other 14 trials were continuous. Where trials used cross-over designs, we conducted analysis on results from the first treatment phase. Where mean change from baseline was reported, we used this in preference to post-treatment scores for meta-analyses or forest plots. Meta-analysis was able to be attempted for only one outcome (Childhood Autism Rating Scale). Insufficient data were available to conduct sensitivity or subgroup analyses to assess the impact of study quality, clinical differences in the intervention or clinically relevant differences between groups, such as age or presence of gastrointestinal symptoms. MAIN RESULTS: Over 900 children were recruited for the secretin trials. Twenty-five established standardised outcome measures were reported to assess core features of ASD, communication, behaviour, visuospatial skills, affect and adverse events. One standardised measure of global impression was also used. No more than four studies used any one outcome measure similarly. When duration from the start of the intervention to outcome assessment was known, outcomes were reported at between three and six weeks. Meta-analysis of data was not possible but there is now consistency of findings, with RCTs of the efficacy of secretin in autism not showing improvements for core features of ASD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that single or multiple dose intravenous secretin is effective and as such currently it should not be recommended or administered as a treatment for ASD. Further experimental assessment of secretin's effectiveness for ASD can only be justified if there is new high-quality and replicated scientific evidence that either finds that secretin has a role in neurotransmission in a way that could benefit all children with ASD or identifies important subgroups of children with ASD who could benefit from secretin because of a proven link between the action of secretin and the known cause of their ASD, or the type of problems they are experiencing.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper , the effects of memantine on the core symptoms of autism, including, but not limited to, social communication and stereotypical behaviours, were evaluated in three randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Abstract: Background Autism spectrum disorder (ASD; also known as autism) is a developmental disability that begins in childhood and is typically seen in around 1% to 2% of children. It is characterised by social communication difficulties and repetitive and restricted behaviours and routines that can have a negative impact on a child's quality of life, achievement at school, and social interactions with others. It has been hypothesised that memantine, which is traditionally used to treat dementia, may be effective in reducing the core symptoms of autism as well as some co‐occurring symptoms such as hyperactivity and language difficulties. If memantine is being used to treat the core symptoms of autism, it is important to review the evidence of its effectiveness. Objectives To assess the effects of memantine on the core symptoms of autism, including, but not limited to, social communication and stereotypical behaviours. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and three trials registers up to February 2022. We also checked reference lists of key studies and checked with experts in the field for any additional papers. We searched for retractions of the included studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Retraction Watch Database. No retractions or corrections were found. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any dose of memantine compared with placebo in autistic people. We also included RCTs in which only one group received memantine, but both groups received the same additional therapy (e.g. a behaviour intervention). Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were core autism symptoms and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were language, intelligence, memory, adaptive behaviour, hyperactivity, and irritability. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. Main results We included three RCTs (two double‐blind and one single‐blind) with 204 participants that examined the short‐term effect (immediately postintervention) of memantine in autistic people. Two studies took place in the USA and the other in Iran. All three studies focused on children and adolescents, with a mean age of 9.40 (standard deviation (SD) 2.26) years. Most participants were male (range across studies 73% to 87%). The diagnosis of ASD was based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition; 4th edition, text revision; or 5th edition). To confirm the diagnosis, one study used the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and the Autism Diagnostic Interview‐Revised (ADI‐R); one used ADOS, ADI‐R or the Autism Diagnostic Interview Screener; and one used the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale. Dosage of memantine was based on the child's weight and ranged from 3 mg to 15 mg per day. Comparisons Two studies examined memantine compared with placebo; in the other study, both groups had a behavioural intervention while only one group was given memantine. Risk of biasAll studies were rated at high risk of bias overall, as they were at high or unclear risk of bias across all but four domains in one study, and all but two domains in the other two studies. One study was funded by Forest Laboratories, LLC, (Jersey City, New Jersey), Allergan. The study sponsor was involved in the study design, data collection (via contracted clinical investigator sites), analysis and interpretation of data, and the decision to present these results. The other two studies reported no financial support or sponsorship; though in one of the two, the study medication was an in‐kind contribution from Forest Pharmaceuticals. Primary outcomesThere was no clear evidence of a difference between memantine and placebo with respect to severity of core symptoms of autism, although we are very uncertain about the evidence. The standardised mean difference in autism symptoms score in the intervention group versus the control group was –0.74 standard deviations (95% confidence interval (CI) −2.07 to 0.58; 2 studies, 181 participants; very low‐certainty evidence; medium effect size); lower scores indicate less severe autistic symptoms. Two studies (144 participants) recorded adverse effects that the authors deemed related to the study and found there may be no difference between memantine and placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.39; low‐certainty evidence). Secondary outcomesThere may be no difference between memantine and placebo on language (2 studies, 144 participants; low‐certainty evidence); memory or adaptive behaviour (1 study, 23 participants; both low‐certainty evidence); or hyperactivity or irritability (1 study, 121 participants; both low‐certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions It is unclear whether memantine is an effective treatment for autistic children. None of the three included trials reported on the effectiveness of memantine in adults. Further studies using rigorous designs, larger samples, longer follow‐up and clinically meaningful outcome measures that are important to autistic people and their families will strengthen our knowledge of the effects of memantine in autism.
3 citations
06 Sep 2011
TL;DR: This Chapter is the second part of the two-part review and examines the evidence for efficacy and safety of a range of CAM products in autism.
Abstract: In Chapter 3 the rationale for a range of CAM products that are used in the management of autism was presented with the view to inform researchers and health care professionals about the theoretical or proven basis for a range of CAM products in autism. This Chapter is the second part of the two-part review and examines the evidence for efficacy and safety of a range of CAM products in autism. Each CAM product for which randomised controlled trials have been conducted has been assigned to a category of the Natural Standard Research Collaboration grading rationale for efficacy (Natural Standard Research Collaboration 2010). To determine safety of the range of CAM products investigated, all types of trials where specific a CAM product has been investigated in autism were examined.
3 citations
Cites background from "Intravenous secretin for autism spe..."
...An editorial update to this review in 2009 made no changes to the conclusions of the review (Williams et al. 2009)....
[...]
...8 Secretin No serious adverse events, such as anaphylaxis, were reported in the 14 trials included in the systematic review of intravenous secretin use in autism (Williams et al. 2009)....
[...]
TL;DR: Challenges in translational research in ASD are discussed and strategies for the bench and bedside to bridge the gap are discussed to achieve better benefits to patients.
Abstract: Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) represent a heterogeneous group of disorders defined by deficits in social interaction/communication and restricted interests, behaviors, or activities. Models of ASD, developed based on clinical data and observations, are used in basic science, the “bench,” to better understand the pathophysiology of ASD and provide therapeutic options for patients in the clinic, the “bedside.” Translational medicine creates a bridge between the bench and bedside that allows for clinical and basic science discoveries to challenge one another to improve the opportunities to bring novel therapies to patients. From the clinical side, biomarker work is expanding our understanding of possible mechanisms of ASD through measures of behavior, genetics, imaging modalities, and serum markers. These biomarkers could help to subclassify patients with ASD in order to better target treatments to a more homogeneous groups of patients most likely to respond to a candidate therapy. In turn, basic science has been responding to developments in clinical evaluation by improving bench models to mechanistically and phenotypically recapitulate the ASD phenotypes observed in clinic. While genetic models are identifying novel therapeutics targets at the bench, the clinical efforts are making progress by defining better outcome measures that are most representative of meaningful patient responses. In this review, we discuss some of these challenges in translational research in ASD and strategies for the bench and bedside to bridge the gap to achieve better benefits to patients.
2 citations
TL;DR: The literature regarding the role of endocrine-related factors and ASDs is sparse, somewhat preliminary, controversial, and inconclusive, and more research is needed in the future to shed more light on this topic.
2 citations
01 Apr 2014
TL;DR: Most individuals with ASD participate in alternative treatments, which are therapies intended to augment or supplant conventional remedies as discussed by the authors, such as elimination diets or nutritional supplements, and sensorimotor interventions such as swinging or brushing an individual's body.
Abstract: Most individuals with ASD participate in alternative treatments, which are therapies intended to augment or supplant conventional remedies. Popular alternative treatments for ASD include biomedical interventions such as elimination diets or nutritional supplements and sensorimotor interventions such as swinging or brushing an individual's body. Although little research is available on most of these treatments, some have been found to be unsafe or ineffective. Resources are available to facilitate open communication between practitioners and families about alternative treatments and to help families make informed decisions about them. Over time, efforts to increase access to and quality of conventional care may reduce the impetus for families to seek alternative treatments.
Keywords:
alternative;
autism;
complementary;
medicine;
therapies
2 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Funnel plots, plots of the trials' effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials.
Abstract: Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure
37,989 citations
TL;DR: It is concluded that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity, and one or both should be presented in publishedMeta-an analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity.
Abstract: The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity.
25,460 citations
Book•
23 Sep 2019TL;DR: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.
Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.
21,235 citations
Book•
01 Jun 1991
12,618 citations
"Intravenous secretin for autism spe..." refers background in this paper
...Behaviour scales (for example, the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach 1991)) 5....
[...]