Study Finds Lack of Strong Evidence Supporting Alternative Treatments for Autism

A comprehensive review of research into complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments for autism indicates a lack of robust evidence to support their effectiveness, with safety assessments often absent. Conducted by researchers from Paris Nanterre University, Paris Cité University, and the University of Southampton, this umbrella review analyzed 248 meta-analyses, including over 200 clinical trials involving more than 10,000 participants. Their focus was to assess both the efficacy and safety of 19 different CAIMs, such as animal-assisted interventions, acupuncture, herbal medicine, music therapy, probiotics, and Vitamin D.

Autistic individuals frequently experience communication difficulties, sensory overload, anxiety in unfamiliar environments, and repetitive behaviors, all of which can diminish quality of life. Consequently, up to 90% of autistic people have tried some form of CAM during their lifetime, often driven by hopes of benefits with minimal side effects. According to Professor Richard Delorme, many parents and adults with autism turn to these treatments in the hope of help, yet he emphasizes the importance of relying on evidence from rigorous randomized trials before recommending such approaches.

The study also introduced an online platform designed to compile and present evidence on various CAIMs, simplifying informed decision-making. Results revealed that while some treatments appeared promising, the overall evidence was weak or of poor quality, and most lacked proper safety evaluations—less than half had documented assessments of tolerability or adverse effects. Professor Samuele Cortese highlighted that conclusions should not be drawn from a single or weak study, stressing the necessity of considering the full scope of available, high-quality evidence.

This review underscores the critical need for thorough research and cautious interpretation when exploring alternative treatments for autism. Ultimately, it advises practitioners and families to prioritize evidence-based options, stressing that many CAMs lack sufficient support and safety data, making their use uncertain at best. The findings call for continued, rigorous scientific inquiry to identify truly effective and safe interventions for autistic individuals.

Source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-08-strong-evidence-alternative-autism-treatments.html