Complementary Medicines and Autism Research
In 2006, two pharmacy honours students under the supervision of Drs Susan Semple and Manya Angley conducted research into the use of complementary medicines and autism. Forty Autism SA families participated in the study which involved caregivers responding to a semi-structured interview. A literature review was also conducted. The results are outlined below. A booklet to guide caregivers and health care professional in the selection of complementary medicines in the management of autism is currently in being prepared by the Autism Research Group at the University of South Australia.
Complementary medicines and autism:
What is being used and is
there any evidence?
M. Angley, C. Hewton, F. Paterson,
S. Semple. Quality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, Sansom
Institute, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South
Australia
Background
Complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) are widely
used in autism as pharmacological treatments offered by mainstream medicine
are limited and often associated with significant adverse effects.
Aims
1. To systematically review the literature to
determine the rationale, safety and efficacy of a range of CAMs used
in autism,
2. to identify factors influencing caregivers’ decisions to implement and maintain particular interventions. Specifically, the following interventions were investigated: olive leaf extract, vitamins A, B, C and E, dimethylglycine (DMG), calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, zinc, essential fatty acids, melatonin, colostrum, secretin, probiotics, chelating agents, glutathione, glutamine and digestive enzymes.
Methods
Standardised searches were conducted in a
range of databases to identify relevant articles. Study quality and
evidence for efficacy were assessed using standardised scoring systems.
A general review was conducted to establish whether there was any scientific
rationale for using the products. A list of adverse effects reported
with use of each CAM was also compiled. Caregivers (n=40) of children
with autism were also surveyed using a semi-structured questionnaire
to determine source of recommendation, behaviours being targeted, reasons
for use and perceptions of efficacy.
Results
For the majority of interventions, evidence
for use in autism was rated as being either unclear or conflicting.
Most interventions were associated with only mild adverse effects,
although there was a lack of long-term safety data. Doctors were the
most common source of recommendation, yet the majority of interviewees
were unaware of reasons why the intervention was being used.
Conclusion
Health care professionals and caregivers
need to be informed that the use of CAMs in autism is not risk-free and
often lacks sound clinical evidence.