Alternative Medicine for Autism: A Major Study Finds Weak Evidence and Safety Gaps

A comprehensive scientific review has found that most popular alternative treatments for autism lack reliable evidence of effectiveness, with many never properly evaluated for safety risks. The study, led by researchers from Paris Nanterre University, Paris Cité University, and the University of Southampton, analyzed 248 meta-analyses covering 200 clinical trials involving more than 10,000 participants.

What Alternative Treatments Were Put to the Test?

The researchers examined 19 different types of complementary, alternative and integrative medicines (CAIMs) commonly used for autism treatment. These approaches are incredibly popular—studies suggest up to 90% of autistic individuals report having tried at least one alternative treatment at some point in their lives.

• Animal-Assisted Therapies: Including therapy dogs and other animal interactions designed to improve social skills
• Acupuncture: Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) technique involving needle insertion at specific body points
• Herbal Medicine: Plant-based remedies and natural compounds used in various traditional healing systems
• Music Therapy: Structured musical activities aimed at improving communication and behavioral symptoms
• Probiotics: Beneficial bacteria supplements intended to support gut health and potentially reduce autism symptoms
• Vitamin D Supplementation: High-dose vitamin supplements based on theories linking deficiency to autism severity

"Many parents of autistic children, as well as autistic adults, turn to complementary and alternative medicines hoping they may help without unwanted side effects," said Professor Richard Delorme, Head of the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Unit at Robert Debré Hospital in Paris. "However, it is necessary to carefully consider evidence from rigorous randomized trials before concluding that these treatments should be tried."

Why Do So Many Families Turn to Alternative Treatments?

Autistic people may experience challenges with communication, understanding others' thoughts or emotions, managing sensory overload, coping with unfamiliar environments, and engaging in repetitive behaviors. These difficulties can significantly affect daily life and overall wellbeing, driving widespread interest in alternative approaches that promise gentler solutions.

The appeal of holistic and integrative medicine approaches often lies in their promise of treating the whole person rather than just symptoms. Many families are drawn to naturopathy, ayurveda, and other traditional healing systems that emphasize natural remedies over pharmaceutical interventions.

What Did the Evidence Actually Show?

The research team conducted what's called an "umbrella review"—a method that combines findings from multiple meta-analyses to provide a comprehensive big-picture assessment. Dr. Corentin Gosling, Associate Professor at Paris Nanterre University and first author of the study, explained their approach: "Rather than looking at individual trials, we reviewed all the available meta-analyses, which are a compilation of many trials. This allowed us to evaluate the full body of evidence across different treatments."

The results were sobering. Although a small number of treatments showed signs of potential benefit, most were backed by weak or low-quality evidence, making any reported effects unreliable. Even more concerning, fewer than half of the treatments had been properly assessed for acceptability, tolerability, or adverse events—critical safety measures that should be standard for any medical intervention.

Professor Samuele Cortese, NIHR Research Professor at the University of Southampton and co-senior author, emphasized the importance of looking beyond individual studies: "This study shows that when people want to know whether a treatment is effective, they shouldn't just look at one single study. It's essential to consider all the available evidence and how good that evidence is. Drawing conclusions from one low-quality study can be misleading."

To help families and practitioners navigate this complex landscape, the research team developed a free online platform at ebiact-database.com that allows users to explore the scientific evidence behind different alternative treatments more easily. This tool represents a significant step toward making evidence-based decisions more accessible to those considering complementary approaches to autism care.