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 We searched reference lists of trials and reviews; we also contacted experts and trialists to find unpublished studies.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: Important issues, such as management of associated medical problems, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic intervention for challenging behaviors or coexisting mental health conditions, and use of complementary and alternative medical treatments, are also addressed.
Abstract: Pediatricians have an important role not only in early recognition and evaluation of autism spectrum disorders but also in chronic management of these disorders. The primary goals of treatment are to maximize the child's ultimate functional independence and quality of life by minimizing the core autism spectrum disorder features, facilitating development and learning, promoting socialization, reducing maladaptive behaviors, and educating and supporting families. To assist pediatricians in educating families and guiding them toward empirically supported interventions for their children, this report reviews the educational strategies and associated therapies that are the primary treatments for children with autism spectrum disorders. Optimization of health care is likely to have a positive effect on habilitative progress, functional outcome, and quality of life; therefore, important issues, such as management of associated medical problems, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic intervention for challenging behaviors or coexisting mental health conditions, and use of complementary and alternative medical treatments, are also addressed.
1,010 citations
TL;DR: Early, sustained intervention and the use of multiple treatment modalities are indicated in patients with an autism spectrum disorder.
Abstract: Autism spectrum disorder is characterized by patterns of delay and deviance in the development of social, communicative, and cognitive skills that arise in the first years of life. Although frequently associated with intellectual disability, this condition is distinctive in its course, impact, and treatment. Autism spectrum disorder has a wide range of syndrome expression and its management presents particular challenges for clinicians. Individuals with an autism spectrum disorder can present for clinical care at any point in development. The multiple developmental and behavioral problems associated with this condition necessitate multidisciplinary care, coordination of services, and advocacy for individuals and their families. Early, sustained intervention and the use of multiple treatment modalities are indicated. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 2014;53(2):237–257. Key Words: autism, Practice Parameters, guidelines, developmental disorders, pervasive developmental disorders
677 citations
TL;DR: Evidence for the effectiveness of EIBI for some, but not all, preschool children with autism is provided, with some evidence that initial IQ (but not age) was related to progress.
Abstract: Recent reviews highlight limitations in the evidence base for early interventions for children with autism. We conducted a systematic review of controlled studies of early intensive behavioral interventions (EIBI) for young children with autism. Eleven studies met inclusion criteria (including two randomized controlled trials). At group level, EIBI resulted in improved outcomes (primarily measured by IQ) compared to comparison groups. At an individual level, however, there was considerable variability in outcome, with some evidence that initial IQ (but not age) was related to progress. This review provides evidence for the effectiveness of EIBI for some, but not all, preschool children with autism.
495 citations
TL;DR: In this study, 128 meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews, containing data on at least 1 adult and 1 pediatric randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a binary primary efficacy outcome, were reviewed and it was found that in all except 1 case, the 95% confidence intervals could not exclude a relative difference in treatment efficacy between adults and children of >20%.
Abstract: * Abbreviations:
RCT — : randomized controlled trial
SSRI — : selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor
It has long been an axiom in clinical pediatrics that “children are not just little adults.” It has also been recognized that there are many changes from birth through childhood and the adolescent years. However, the full implications of pediatric age groupings for health care and research are still not adequately understood. There is still much to be discovered about children’s biological and psychological development and how these processes affect the effectiveness and efficacy of interventions. Trial design that accounts for age differences and promotes consistency in reporting of age-related data is essential to ensure the validity and clinical usefulness of pediatric trial data.
A recent study highlighted variable treatment efficacy in children versus adults. In this study, 128 meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews, containing data on at least 1 adult and 1 pediatric randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a binary primary efficacy outcome, were reviewed.1 The authors found that in all except 1 case, the 95% confidence intervals could not exclude a relative difference in treatment efficacy between adults and children of >20%; in two-thirds of these cases, the relative difference in observed point estimates was >50%. The study also highlighted the paucity of RCTs in pediatrics; the median number of children per meta-analysis was 2.5 times smaller than the number of adults.
Children and adults seem to have distinctive responses to treatments. For example, administration of phenobarbitones is useful for adults with cerebral malaria and is associated with decreased convulsions. However, in children, this drug is associated with increased 6-month mortality. Similarly, corticosteroids may offer survival benefit for adults with bacterial meningitis but not for children with the same condition. In acute traumatic brain injury, corticosteroids did not decrease mortality in adults, but there was a trend for increased mortality in children.1 In asthma, long-acting β2-agonists decreased …
Address correspondence to Martin Offringa, MD, PhD, Senior Scientist and Program Head, Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1X8. E-mail: martin.offringa{at}sickkids.ca
356 citations
TL;DR: As constipation and feeding issues/food selectivity often have a behavioral etiology, data suggest that a neurobehavioral rather than a primary organic gastrointestinal etiology may account for the higher incidence of these gastrointestinal symptoms in children with autism.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine whether children with autism have an increased incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms compared with matched control subjects in a population-based sample. DESIGN/METHODS: In a previous study including all of the residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, aged RESULTS: Subjects were followed to median ages of 18.2 (case subjects) and 18.7 (control subjects) years. Significant differences between autism case and control subjects were identified in the cumulative incidence of constipation (33.9% vs 17.6%) and feeding issues/food selectivity (24.5% vs 16.1). No significant associations were found between autism case status and overall incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms or any other gastrointestinal symptom category. CONCLUSIONS: As constipation and feeding issues/food selectivity often have a behavioral etiology, data suggest that a neurobehavioral rather than a primary organic gastrointestinal etiology may account for the higher incidence of these gastrointestinal symptoms in children with autism.
264 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: No significant effects of secretin on children with autism were observed at the 3-week follow-up between the groups and there was no significant difference in the proportion of individuals who improved by > or = 6 points on the language measure at follow- up.
Abstract: To determine the effect of intravenous porcine secretin on autistic behaviours in children aged 2 to 7 years, the effects of secretin on (1) performance on a standardized language measure, and (2) autistic behaviours, as rated by parents and child development professionals was examined. Employing a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design, 95 participants were assigned to one of two groups and administered a single dose of either secretin or placebo. A follow-up assessment was conducted 3 weeks after the injection. No significant differences in language or autistic behaviour measures were observed at the 3-week follow-up between the groups. Also, there was no significant difference in the proportion of individuals who improved by > or = 6 points on the language measure at follow-up. This study showed no significant effects of secretin on children with autism. Our results are consistent with a systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of secretin in children with autism.
76 citations
TL;DR: No evidence that either biologic or synthetic secretin provided amelioration of symptoms beyond placebo was observed, and this held true when children with and without gastrointestinal problems were examined separately.
Abstract: Objective: To compare the effects of a single dose of biologic and synthetic porcine secretin to placebo on a variety of autism symptoms. Method: Eighty-five children with autism without other medical conditions and not taking other psychotropic medications participated (ages between 3 and 12 years, mean IQ = 55). Children were grouped into trios matched by age and communication level and then randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: biologic secretin (2 CU/kg), synthetic secretin (0.4 μg/kg), and placebo. Measures collected 1 week before and 4 weeks after infusion included autism symptoms, language skills, and problem behaviors, gathered from parents, teachers, and investigators, who were all blind to treatment. Two-factor, repeated-measures analyses of variance (3 treatment levels by 2 repeated measures, pre- and postinfusion) were used to examine efficacy. Results: Direct observation measures did not show change over time related to secretin. Parent reports showed an overall reduction of symptom severity for all treatment groups, including the placebo group. One teacher-report measure showed decreases in autism symptoms in the placebo and synthetic secretin groups. Conclusions: No evidence that either biologic or synthetic secretin provided amelioration of symptoms beyond placebo was observed. This held true when children with and without gastrointestinal problems were examined separately.
75 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
TL;DR: There is no evidence that single or multiple dose intravenous secretin is effective and as such it should not currently be recommended or administered as a treatment for autism.
Abstract: BACKGROUND
Secretin is a gastro-intestinal hormone which has been presented as an effective treatment for autism based on anecdotal evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if intravenous secretin:1. improves the core features of autism (social interaction, communication and behaviour problems); 2. improves the non-core aspects of behaviour or function such as self injurious behaviour;3. improves the quality of life of affected individuals and their carers; 4. has short term and long term effects on outcome; 5. causes harm.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Results of electronic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, HealthStar and Sociofile (1998 - March 2005) were independently examined by two authors. Reference lists of trials and reviews were searched; experts and trialists were contacted to find unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of intravenous secretin comparing secretin with a placebo treatment in children or adults diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders, where at least one standardised outcome measure was reported.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria. All outcome data were continuous. Where trials used cross-over designs, analysis was conducted on results from first treatment phase, allowing combined analysis with parallel design trials. Where standardised assessment tools generated scores as outcome measures, comparisons were made between means of these scores. Where baseline means were reported, differences between treatment and control were determined to assess possible bias. Where mean change from baseline was reported, this was used in preference to post-treatment scores for meta-analyses or forest plots. As meta-analysis was possible for only one outcome (Childhood Autism Rating Scale), it was impossible to use sensitivity or subgroup analyses to assess 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
Twenty-five established standardised outcome measures were reported to assess core features of autism, communication, behaviour, visio-spatial skills, affect and adverse events within fourteen included studies. No more than four studies used any one outcome measure similarly. Outcomes were reported between three and six weeks. RCTs of efficacy of secretin in autism have not shown improvements for core features of autism.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence that single or multiple dose intravenous secretin is effective and as such it should not currently be recommended or administered as a treatment for autism. Further experimental assessment of secretin's effectiveness for autism can only be justified if methodological problems of existing research can be overcome.
71 citations
TL;DR: No evidence is provided for the efficacy of repeated doses of porcine secretin in the treatment of children with autism, and the possible relationship between relief of biological symptoms and enhanced skill performance is discussed.
Abstract: Background and Objectives. Anecdotal reports on the efficacy of secretin in autism raised great hopes for the treatment of children with this disorder. Initial single-dose, randomized, controlled trials failed to demonstrate any therapeutic effects of secretin. The present study is the first to test the outcome of repeated doses and to examine whether there is a subgroup of children who are more likely to achieve positive effects. Method. Sixty-four children with autism (ages 2–7 years; 55 boys and 9 girls) with a range of intelligence quotient and verbal ability were randomly assigned, in a double-blind manner, to secretin or placebo groups. Children received 2 doses of placebo or porcine secretin, 6 weeks apart. Assessments were performed at baseline and 3 weeks after each injection using several outcome measures. Results. There were no group differences on formal measures of language, cognition, or autistic symptomatology. Subgroupings based on cognitive level, the presence or absence of diarrhea, or a history of regression failed to show any significant therapeutic effects of secretin. Conclusion. No evidence is provided for the efficacy of repeated doses of porcine secretin in the treatment of children with autism. The possible relationship between relief of biological symptoms and enhanced skill performance is discussed.
71 citations