A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of single-dose intravenous secretin as treatment for children with autism. Lack of benefit of intravenous synthetic human secretin in the treatment of autism. Effect of secretin on children with autism: a randomized controlled trial. Lack of benefit of a single dose of synthetic human secretin in the treatment of autism and pervasive developmental disorder. Multiple doses of secretin in the treatment of autism: a controlled study. Multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of porcine secretin in autism. A double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study investigating the effect of porcine secretin in children with autism. Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of secretin: effects on aberrant behavior in children with autism. Children with autistic spectrum disorders. I: comparison of placebo and single dose of human synthetic secretin. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of porcine versus synthetic secretin for reducing symptoms of autism. Secretin and autism: a two-part clinical investigation. Repeated doses of porcine secretin in the treatment of autism: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Efficacy of porcine secretin in children with autism and pervasive developmental disorder.
To determine whether a single injection of intravenous secretin results in measurable improvements in socialization and/or communication skills in children with autism.
                Sixty subjects with autism were randomly selected and assigned to either treatment or placebo group. Subjects in the treatment group received 2.0 clinical units of secretin per kilogram of body weight as a single intravenous dose. Subjects in the placebo group received normal saline solution. Neurodevelopmental and behavioral assessments were performed for all subjects before injection and at 3 and 6 weeks after injection.
                Assessment of language skills and parents' behavioral assessments revealed no significant differences between the treatment and placebo groups. Raters' assessments of severity of autistic symptoms did not differ for the 2 groups at 6 weeks after injection. A marginally statistically significant improvement in autistic behaviors was seen in the treatment group at 3 weeks after injection (P =.051).
                A single dose of intravenous secretin does not appear to have significant effects on either parents' perception of autistic behaviors or language skills at 6 weeks after injection. Transient, marginally significant improvements in autistic behaviors may occur in some children. The objective of this study was to determine if an intravenous infusion of synthetic human secretin improves language and behavioral symptoms in children with autism. Forty-two children with the diagnosis of autism were randomized to one of two groups in this double-blind cross-over trial. One group received 2 IU/kg of intravenous synthetic human secretin at the first visit, followed by an equal volume of intravenous saline placebo at week 6. The other group received treatments in the reverse order. All children were evaluated at weeks 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 with standardized assessments of language, behavior, and autism symptomatology. There were no significant differences in the mean scores on any measure of language, behavior, or autism symptom severity after treatment with secretin compared to treatment with placebo. The results of this study do not support secretin as a treatment for autism. 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. Secretin is a peptide hormone that stimulates pancreatic secretion. After recent publicity about a child with autism whose condition markedly improved after a single dose of secretin, thousands of children with autistic disorders may have received secretin injections.
                We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a single intravenous dose of synthetic human secretin in 60 children (age, 3 to 14 years) with autism or pervasive developmental disorder. The children were randomly assigned to treatment with an intravenous infusion of synthetic human secretin (0.4 microg per kilogram of body weight) or saline placebo. We used standardized behavioral measures of the primary and secondary features of autism, including the Autism Behavior Checklist, to assess the degree of impairment at base line and over the course of a four-week period after treatment.
                Of the 60 children, 4 could not be evaluated - 2 received secretin outside the study, and 2 did not return for follow-up. Thus, 56 children (28 in each group) completed the study. As compared with placebo, secretin treatment was not associated with significant improvements in any of the outcome measures. Among the children in the secretin group, the mean total score on the Autism Behavior Checklist at base line was 59.0 (range of possible values, 0 to 158, with a larger value corresponding to greater impairment), and among those in the placebo group it was 63.2. The mean decreases in scores over the four-week period were 8.9 in the secretin group and 17.8 in the placebo group (mean difference, -8.9; 95 percent confidence interval, -19.4 to 1.6; P=0.11). None of the children had treatment-limiting adverse effects. After they were told the results, 69 percent of the parents of the children in this study said they remained interested in secretin as a treatment for their children.
                A single dose of synthetic human secretin is not an effective treatment for autism or pervasive developmental disorder. Dramatic effects on autistic behaviour after repeated injections of the gastrointestinal hormone secretin have been referred in a number of case reports. In the absence of curative and effective treatments for this disabling condition, this information has created new hope among parents. Although controlled studies on the effect of mainly one single dose have not documented any effect, many children still continue to receive secretin. Six children enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study in which each child was its own control. Human synthetic secretin, mean dose 3.4 clinical units, and placebo were administered intravenously in randomized order every 4th wk, on three occasions each. The measurement instruments were the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the aberrant behaviour checklist (ABC). Statistically significant differences were found for placebo in 3 out of 6 children and for secretin in one child, using parental ratings only (VAS scores). Differences were small and lacked clinical significance, which was in accordance with the overall impression of the parents and teachers and visual inspection of graphs. Conclusion: In this placebo-controlled study, multiple doses of secretin did not produce any symptomatic improvement. To examine the efficacy of intravenous porcine secretin for the treatment of autistic disorder.
                Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design. Fifty-six subjects with autistic disorder received either a secretin or placebo infusion at baseline and the other substance at week 4. Subjects were given the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and other pertinent developmental measures at baseline and at weeks 4 and 8 to assess drug effects.
                For the primary efficacy analysis, change of ADOS social-communication total score from week 0 to week 4, no statistically significant difference was obtained between placebo (-0.8 +/- 2.9) and secretin groups (-0.6 +/- 1.4; t54 = 0.346, p < .73). The other measures showed no treatment effect for secretin compared with placebo.
                There was no evidence for efficacy of secretin in this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. A recent patient series reported the incidental findings of improved social and language skills in 3 children with autistic spectrum disorders after the administration of secretin, a peptide hormone. However, a subsequent study did not find evidence for a drug effect. Parents are seeking treatment with secretin despite the absence of empirical investigations demonstrating amelioration in autism symptomology. In order to more precisely measure the effects of secretin, this study investigated the effect of a single intravenous dose of porcine secretin on 12 autistic children through a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Children were assessed on objective language and on social, neuropsychological, and gastrointestinal measures to evaluate drug effects. The study was conducted over a 16-week trial. The results indicated that significant differences were not observed on the majority of the dependent variables. Statistically significant differences were observed on measures of positive affect and activity level following secretin infusion. In general, the autistic children did not demonstrate the improvements described in the initial retrospective report. Secretin has been proposed as a treatment alternative for autistic spectrum disorders, but empirical support is lacking. A double-blind placebo-controlled study examined the effect of a single dose of synthetic human secretin on aberrant behavior. Parent and teacher data from the Aberrant Behavior Checklist for eight male children were analyzed for reliable change in a clinical replication series. By parent and teacher report, the majority of change occurred either on the placebo trial or reflected deterioration subsequent to secretin infusion. Repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance results were similar. Results are consistent with other studies, suggesting that secretin may not be an effective treatment option. To examine the effect of a single dose of human synthetic secretin (HSS) on behaviour and communication in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) using an objective measure of communication and social reciprocity and standardised rating scales.
                Randomised, crossover, double blind, and placebo controlled trial of a single intravenous dose of human synthetic secretin (HSS) 2 CU/kg. The 62 subjects (3-8 years) were assigned to group 1 (saline placebo/HSS) or group 2 (HSS/saline placebo). Diagnosis was confirmed by ADI-R (Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised) algorithm. Severity of symptoms was rated using the CARS (Childhood Autism Rating Scale). Outcome measures included Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scale (CSBS), Ritvo Real-life Rating Scale, weekly Global Rating Scale (GBRS) by parents and teachers, and daily log of gastrointestinal symptoms. The communication subscale of the CSBS, specifying communication function, reciprocity, and social-affective signalling was videotaped and scored by a blinded, trained observer.
                Sixty one children completed the study. After randomisation, there were no significant differences in gender, race, age, and parent and teacher GBRS and Ritvo Scale between the two groups. Compared with placebo, secretin treatment was not associated with significant improvement of CSBS standard scores from baseline to 2 or 4 weeks post-infusion. Five children showed clinical improvement in standard scores: two after HSS and three after placebo. There were no significant changes in gastrointestinal symptoms after HSS or saline placebo.
                A single dose of intravenous human secretin is not effective in changing behaviour and communication in children with ASD when compared to placebo. To compare the effects of a single dose of biologic and synthetic porcine secretin to placebo on a variety of autism symptoms.
                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 microg/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.
                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.
                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. Recent anecdotal reports have touted the gastrointestinal (GI) hormone secretin as a treatment modality for autism, though there is little clinical evidence or literature to support its viability. We undertook a two-part clinical trial to investigate these claims. Fifty-six patients (49 boys, 7 girls, mean age = 6.4 years, SD = 2.7) enrolled in an open-label trial of secretin, during which they received one injection of the hormone (2 IU/kg). All subjects were evaluated by their parents at baseline and follow-up visits (3-6 weeks later, M = 3.7, SD = 1.4 weeks) with Childhood Autism Rating Scales (CARS). Thirty-four patients were labeled with Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, and 22 met diagnostic criteria for Autistic Disorder. Forty-five patients were concurrently on other drug treatments. At follow-up, some reported minimal but potentially significant improvements including changes in GI symptoms, expressive and/or receptive language function, and improved awareness and social interactions. No adverse effects were reported or observed. Subsequently, 17 of the most responsive patients from Study 1 began a double-blind trial that also included 8 newly enrolled patients. Patients in this second study were alternatively entered into one of two groups and received injections of secretin or placebo with crossover at 4 weeks. Patients from Study 1 entered into Study 2 at an average of 6.5 (SD = 0.8) weeks after beginning Study 1. Results of both inquiries indicate that although treatment with secretin was reported to cause transient changes in speech and behavior in some children, overall it produced few clinically meaningful changes when compared to children given placebo injections. 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.
                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.
                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.
                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. Secretin, a gastrointestinal (GI) hormone, was reported in a preliminary study to improve language and behavior in children with autism/pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) and chronic diarrhea. To determine the efficacy of secretin, we completed a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover (3 weeks) study in children with autism/PDD and various GI conditions using a single dose of intravenous porcine secretin. Children with chronic, active diarrhea showed a reduction in aberrant behaviors when treated with the secretin but not when treated with the placebo. Children with no GI problems are unaffected by either secretin or placebo. The improvement seen with secretin in children with autism/PDD and chronic diarrhea suggests that there may be a subtype of children with autism/PDD who respond to secretin.
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.