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 We searched reference lists of trials and reviews; we also contacted experts and trialists to find unpublished studies.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: Clinicians’ and family members’ feelings and perceptions about a treatment may influence their judgments about its effectiveness.
Abstract: Clinicians’ and family members’ feelings and perceptions about a treatment may influence their judgments about its effectiveness
83 citations
TL;DR: No simple treatment algorithm can be produced at this time, and the level of available evidence based recommendations are in the weaker degrees of EBM classifications, but there is widespread agreement to stress that education and the addition of community support are the main means of treatment.
Abstract: Summary. Introduction. Due to the inexistence of an aetiology-based intervention for autistic spectrum disorders (ASD) families and professionals are exposed to diverse and sometimes conflictive recommendations when they have to decide the most adequate alternative for treatment. Aim. To elaborate treatment guidelines agreed by consensus at the ASD Study Group of the (National) Institute of Health Carlos III. Development. Information about treatment of ASD was searched and gathered through available evidence based medical (EBM) databases. The data generated was complemented with practice parameters published elsewhere, reports from prestigious international institutions, focus oriented searches in PubMed and, finally, the opinion and experience of a multidisciplinary Study Group with extensive experience in treating ASD in Spain. Most popular treatment methods were reviewed as well as the common elements to be considered in successful support programs. Conclusion. No simple treatment algorithm can be produced at this time, and the level of available evidence based recommendations are in the weaker degrees of EBM classifications. Nevertheless, there is widespread agreement to stress that education, with special incidence in the development of communication and social competence, with the addition of community support are the main means of treatment. They can be complemented, depending on individual needs, with medication, behavioural approaches and cognitivebehavioural therapy for associated psychological problems in persons with higher cognitive level. Support to families and community empowerment are essential elements for the quality of life of persons with ASD. [REV NEUROL 2006; 43: 425-38]
73 citations
TL;DR: High-quality, evidence-based resources are familiarized with that providers and families may use to ascertain current information about specific types of CAM, verify the content of biologically-based treatments, identify ongoing CAM research and obtain toolkits designed to help healthcare providers raise the topic of CAM usage and facilitate disclosure and discussion of CAM use with patients and their families.
73 citations
TL;DR: The meta-analysis suggested that high-dose methylphenidate had a significant and clinically relevant benefit on hyperactivity, as rated by teachers and parents and overall ASD, and overall quality of life.
Abstract: Children with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) frequently present with inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity, which are the cardinal symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The effectiveness of methylphenidate, a commonly used ADHD treatment, is therefore of interest in these children. To assess the effects of methylphenidate for symptoms of ADHD (inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity) and ASD (impairments in social interaction and communication, and repetitive, restricted or stereotypical behaviours) in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years with ASD. In November 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 11 other databases and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted study authors and pharmaceutical companies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effect of methylphenidate versus placebo on the core symptoms of ASD or ADHD-like symptoms, or both, in children aged 6 to 18 years who were diagnosed with ASD or pervasive developmental disorder. The primary outcome was clinical efficacy, defined as an improvement in ADHD-like symptoms (inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity) and in the core symptoms of ASD (impaired social interaction, impaired communication, and stereotypical behaviours), and overall ASD. Secondary outcomes examined were: rate of adverse events; caregiver well-being; need for institutionalisation, special schooling or therapy to achieve learning outcomes; and overall quality of life. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We combined outcome measures that used different psychometric scales, where clinically appropriate. We used a coefficient of 0.6 to calculate standard deviations and adjust for the studies' cross-over design. We considered a standardised mean difference (SMD) of 0.52 as the minimum clinically relevant inter-treatment difference. We applied the GRADE rating for strength of evidence for each outcome. The studies: we included four cross-over studies, with a total of 113 children aged 5 to 13 years, most of whom (83%) were boys. We included two studies with five-year-old children since we were unable to obtain the disaggregated data for those aged six years and above, and all other participants were in our target age range. All participants resided in the USA. The duration of treatment in the cross-over phase was one week for each dose of methylphenidate. Studies used a range of outcome scales, rated by parents, teachers or both; clinicians; or programme staff. We report parent-rated outcomes separately. Risk of bias: we considered three trials to be at high risk of bias due to selective reporting and all trials to be at unclear risk of bias for blinding of participants and assessors, due to the potential for recognising the side effects of methylphenidate. We judged all trials to be at low or unclear risk of bias for other items. Primary outcomes: the meta-analysis suggested that high-dose methylphenidate (0.43 mg/kg/dose to 0.60 mg/kg/dose) had a significant and clinically relevant benefit on hyperactivity, as rated by teachers (SMD -0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.13 to -0.43; 4 studies, 73 participants; P no data were available for the secondary outcomes of caregiver well-being; need for institutionalisation, special schooling options or therapy to achieve learning outcomes; or overall quality of life. No trials reported serious adverse events. The only adverse effect that was significantly more likely with treatment was reduced appetite as rated by parents (risk ratio 8.28, 95% CI 2.57 to 26.73; 2 studies, 74 participants; P We found that short-term use of methylphenidate might improve symptoms of hyperactivity and possibly inattention in children with ASD who are tolerant of the medication, although the low quality of evidence means that we cannot be certain of the true magnitude of any effect. There was no evidence that methylphenidate has a negative impact on the core symptoms of ASD, or that it improves social interaction, stereotypical behaviours, or overall ASD. The evidence for adverse events is of very low quality because trials were short and excluded children intolerant of methylphenidate in the test-dose phase. Future RCTs should consider extending the duration of treatment and follow-up. The minimum clinically important difference also needs to be confirmed in children with ASD using outcome scales validated for this population.
73 citations
TL;DR: Evidence from 7 randomized controlled trials supports a lack of effectiveness of secretin for the treatment of ASD symptoms including language and communication impairment, symptom severity, and cognitive and social skill deficits.
Abstract: CONTEXT: As many as 1 in every 110 children in the United States has an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Secretin is 1 of many medical treatments studied for treating the symptoms of ASDs, but there is currently no consensus regarding which interventions are most effective. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence regarding the use of secretin in children with ASDs who are aged 12 years and younger. METHODS: We searched the Medline, PsycINFO, and ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) databases from 2000 to May 2010 and reference lists of included articles. Two reviewers independently assessed each study against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently extracted data regarding participant and intervention characteristics, assessment techniques, and outcomes and assigned overall quality and strength-of-evidence ratings on the basis of predetermined criteria. RESULTS: Evidence from 7 randomized controlled trials supports a lack of effectiveness of secretin for the treatment of ASD symptoms including language and communication impairment, symptom severity, and cognitive and social skill deficits. No studies have resulted in significantly greater improvements in measures of language, cognition, or autistic symptoms when compared with placebo; study authors who reported improvement over time did so equally for both the intervention and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Secretin has been studied extensively in multiple randomized controlled trials, and there is clear evidence that it lacks benefit. The studies of secretin included in this review uniformly point to a lack of significant impact of secretin in the treatment of ASD symptoms. Given the high strength of evidence for a lack of effectiveness, secretin as a treatment approach for ASDs warrants no further study.
72 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....
[...]