UA-45667900-1
Showing posts with label IVIG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IVIG. Show all posts

Wednesday, 8 May 2024

Immunotherapy from the desert

 



Today’s post revisits the idea of using immunotherapies to treat autism.

Some readers of this blog are already doing this and a significant percentage of those are using IVIG.

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is a pooled antibody, and a biological agent used to manage various immunodeficiency states and a plethora of other conditions, including autoimmune, infectious, and inflammatory states.

IVIG is not a precision therapy, it is more a case of when all else fails try IVIG.

In the United States it seems that many insurance companies will cover the cost of long-term IVIG therapy. In other countries the cost greatly limits the use of this therapy.

An interesting observation is that IVIG products can vary significantly in their potency, depending on where they are made. Several readers of this blog have noted this.

I attended the Autism Challenges and Solutions conference recently in Abu Dhabi. I did have a chat with Laila Alayadhi, a researcher and clinician from Saudi Arabia who has been publishing papers about autoimmunity in ASD for decades. She also published a series of studies that examined the potential of camel milk as a therapy. She examined both changes in biological markers of oxidative stress and inflammation as well as measures of autism severity.

Her most recent study is here:-

 

Comparative Study on the Ameliorating Effects of Camel Milkas a Dairy Product on Inflammatory Response in Autism Spectrum Disorders

The link between nutrition and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), as a neurodevelopmental disorder exhibiting impaired social interaction, repetitive behavior, and poor communication skills, has provided a hot point of research that might help use nutritional intervention strategies for managing ASD symptoms. This study examined the possible therapeutic potency of raw and boiled camel milk in reducing neuroinflammation in relation to behavioral characteristics. A blinded study was conducted on 64 children with autism (aged 2–12 years). Group I (n = 23) consisted of children who received raw camel milk; Group II (n = 27) comprised children who received boiled camel milk; and Group III (n = 14) comprised children who received cow milk as a placebo. Changes in plasma tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) as pro-inflammatory cytokine in relation to behavioral characteristics evaluated using the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS), Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS), and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms before and after 2 weeks of raw and boiled camel milk therapy. Significantly lower plasma levels of TNF-α were recorded after 2 weeks of camel milk consumption, accompanied by insignificant changes in CARS and significant improvements in SRS and GI symptoms. Alternatively, Group III demonstrated an insignificant TNF-α increase without changes in CARS, SRS, and GI symptoms. This study demonstrated the positive effects of both raw and boiled camel milk in reducing neuroinflammation in patients with ASD. The improvements in the SRS scores and GI symptoms are encouraging. Further trials exploring the potential benefits of camel milk consumption in patients with ASD are highly recommended.

 

 


Apparently camel milk tastes just fine, although Dr Alayadhi told us she had never tried it prior to her research. She has shown than both pasteurized and raw milk are equally effective. I did ask her about other types of milk like goat’s milk and she said they had tried other milks and that only camel milk has shown the immunomodulatory effect.  When asked how much you need to drink, the answer was three glasses a day.


The Dentist

I did chat to another Saudi professor, a pediatric dentist, who gave a presentation about treating children with ASD.  Having had some pretty bad experiences with getting dental treatment and then overcoming them, I did feel I had something in common with Ebtissam Murshid.  I did catch up with her later and shared details of the D-Termined program created by US dentist David Tesini. It is a video training program for dentists how to treat kids with autism. I have written about it previously in this blog. Tesini very much tries to make the visit to the dentist fun, with lots of distractions in his treatment room. Murshid purposefully has blank white walls, believing that autistic kids get upset by bright colors and patterns. Hopefully she watches Tesini’s videos.

Murshid has published a book to help parents prepare their children for their trip to the dentist and, like Tesini, had made a small trial to show that her method is effective.

Some dentists are naturally good at treating the most difficult kids, but most are not.  It is impossible to predict.

A really good dentist needs neither restraint, like a papoose board, or sedation. If general anesthetic is needed, then something is not being done right. Kids with severe autism can be treated with local anesthetic just like other kids, they just need to go through a familiarization training like Tesini/Murshid use.

 

Back to immunotherapy

I did have many conversations with Carmello Rizzo who is an Italian doctor interested in both diet and autoimmunity to treat autism. He is a feature at many autism conferences and is a great speaker. He was telling me about Enzyme Potentiated Desensitization (EPD), an overlooked way to treat allergy care.

EPD was invented in the 1960s by a British immunologist Dr Len McEwen, at St. Mary’s Hospital, Paddington. EPD is approved in the United Kingdom for the treatment of hay fever, food allergy and intolerance and environmental allergies.

It is an unlicensed product (i.e. not a drug), it is available only on a “named patient” basis.

EPD is not the same as allergy shots.

Allergy shots, also known as allergy immunotherapy, are injections used to treat allergies over a long period of time. They work by gradually desensitizing your body to the allergens that trigger your allergy symptoms.

Allergy shots typically involve two phases, buildup and maintenance.

It is an escalating dose immunotherapy, when you gradually increase the exposure level of the identified allergen.

The buildup phase lasts for 3 to 6 months. You receive shots 1 to 3 times a week. The doctor will gradually increase the amount of allergen in each shot to help your body build tolerance.

In the maintenance phase you need shots less frequently, usually about once a month. This phase can continue for 3 to 5 years or even longer depending on your progress.

I was never interested in allergy shots because there are so many injections needed.

I found EPD of interest because you take just two shots a year and the effect may potentially control the allergy after 2 or 3 years.

EPD is not expensive and I suppose that is why nobody wanted to invested the tens of millions of dollars to get approval by the FDA. It remains approved for use in the UK, which is ultra conservative when it comes to medicines.

Carmello Rizzo is offering EPD in Italy and elsewhere.

 

Gene therapy for autism?

I did go to a presentation with an interesting title:

Developing effective therapeutics for Autism Spectrum Disorder

It was not really what I was expecting. It was a young MIT researcher talking about the potential to develop gene therapies to replace mutated genes with a new ones. They are doing this in a model of autism caused by a mutated copy of the SHANK3 gene.

I called him Dr Viral Vector and did have a chat with him. The most interesting thing about his technology is that not only can he target a specific type of cell, but he can target a specific part of the brain, or indeed any part of the body.

At the moment they inject a virus carrying the new gene directly into the brain. That is not going to go down so well with human subjects. The next stage is to try injecting the virus into a vein.

I did talk about the two gene therapies for Rett syndrome now in human trials in my presentation. The ultimate problem is the likely $3 million cost. 

You can use gene therapy as an immunotherapy. 

 

Artemis

At the conference I was asked about a gene called DCLRE1C, it encodes the DCLRE1C protein, also known as Artemis.

 


Artémis (Diane), the huntress. Roman copy of a Greek statue, 2nd century. Galleria dei Candelabri

Source: By Jean-Pol GRANDMONT - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=18604889

 

The Artemis protein is named after the Greek goddess Artemis, who was associated with the hunt, wilderness, wild animals, childbirth, and protection. This connection likely comes from the crucial role Artemis plays in DNA repair, which is essential for maintaining the integrity of the genetic material, like a protector safeguarding the building blocks of life.

Complete loss of function in DCLRE1C typically causes severe combined immunodeficiency. This is called Artemis-deficient severe combined immunodeficiency (ART-SCID).

Fortunately many possible mutations only partially impair the function of the DCLRE1C gene. They can lead to a spectrum of conditions, including atypical SCID, Omenn syndrome, Hyper IgM syndrome, and even just antibody deficiency. These conditions may have milder symptoms compared to classic SCID.

IVIG is a beneficial therapy for immunodeficiency; but is very expensive and not curative.

Humans all have 2 copies of the DCLRE1C and it is theoretically possible to increase expression of the good copy. But that is another story.

 

A gene therapy already exists for full-on ART-SCID.

Lentiviral Gene Therapy for Artemis-Deficient SCID


Why not use it in less severe cases?

The problem is going to be money, both for a lifetime on IVIG or a “hopefully” one-off gene therapy.

One lady in the audience of my talk had herself taken an expensive gene therapy and was not impressed.

  

Other interesting presentations

Pierre Drapeau from McGill University spoke about trying to repurpose a cheap old drug, called Pimozide, to treat motor neuron disease /ALS.  This was interesting because the process is similar to repurposing a drug for autism.

Pimozide is an old antipsychotic drug and it seems to work in ALS through its effect on a type of calcium channel called the T-type. Yes, just as in much autism, calcium channels are misbehaving.

The drawback of Pimozide is that it also blocks dopamine receptors in the brain, which is good if you have Tourette’s, but if you have ALS you then get symptoms of Parkinson’s as a side effect.

The solution is to tinker with the molecule and find a version (an analog) that will do the business with the T channels without causing tremors.  It looks like, via trial and error, this is nearly solved.

The whole process has already been going on for many years, it will take many more.

Life expectancy with ALS is only 2-5 years and they struggle to find test subjects in Canada. It looks like they may do trials in China.

 

An eye opener

A presentation with a very hard to digest title was also an eye opener. You can take a picture of the cornea in your eye and accurately diagnose all kinds of disorders. They started with peripheral neuropathy in diabetics and most recently moved on to people with autism. Using artificial intelligence (AI) they can now make a diagnosis just based on the nerve loss they observe in the cornea. They also can potentially measure the effect of therapies by the regeneration of those nerve fibers.  This is really clever. When Rayaz Malik started down this path, all the neurologists thought he was mad. Many years later and corneal confocal microscopy is widely used around the world, but not yet for autism diagnosis.

Antonio Persico is a well known autism clinician, he appeared virtually. He was mainly talking about antipsychotics. I had expected rather more. 

 

Conclusion

Immunotherapy addresses one of the four problem areas in autism. There cannot be a one size fits all approach, but you can certainly try camel milk. Addressing food allergy and intolerance is relatively straightforward and you do not need any fancy expensive genetic testing, as Carmello Rizzo pointed out.

There are people for whom genetic testing and/or a spinal tap opens the door to a precise diagnosis and hopefully treatment. That proved to be an unexpected controversial issue in my presentation.

My talk at the conference was all about using personalized medicine to treat autism. The organizer of the event reads this blog and knows that I am rather an outsider, since I am more in treating autism than just researching it.

I had a two and a half hour time slot and I made sure to use it all. 

Advances in Personalized Medicine to Treat Autism

I should mention that I also had some long conversations with Paul Shattock, who pretty much founded the gluten and casein free diet years ago, back at the University of Sunderland. If you are interested in the history of autism, he is a great person to talk to. He is nearly 80 years old, but still has a sharp sense of humour. He has stumbled into more than his fair share of controversies. In Abu Dhabi his opinions and observations were widely shared by other speakers. One younger American speaker thought his views were dangerous; had he taken the time to talk to Paul, he would have found them pretty well thought out. I did ask Paul what has happened to his old friend Andew Wakefield – apparently making another film.

 



 

Wednesday, 8 July 2020

Immune modulatory treatments for autism spectrum disorder


Need a wizard, or your local doctor?

I was intrigued to come across a recent paper on immune modulatory treatments for autism by a couple of doctors from Massachusetts General Hospital for Children.  The lead author has interests in:

·      Autism spectrum disorders
·      Psychopharmacology
·      Developmental Disabilities
·      Williams syndrome
·      Angelman syndrome
·      Down syndrome

Apparently, he is an internationally-recognized expert in the neurobiology and neuropsychopharmacology of childhood-onset neuropsychiatric disorders including autistic disorder.  Sounds promising, hopefully we will learn something new.

The paper is actually a review of existing drugs, with immunomodulatory properties, that have already been suggested to be repurposed for autism. The abstract was not very insightful, so I have highlighted the final conclusions and listed the drugs, by category, that they thought should be investigated further.

All the drugs have already been covered in this blog and have already been researched in autism.

One important point raised in the conclusion relates to when the drugs are used.  Autism is a progressive condition early in life and there are so-called “critical periods” when the developing brain is highly vulnerable.

For example, Pentoxifylline has been found to be most effective in very young children.  This does not mean do not give it to a teenager with autism, it just means the sooner you treat autism the better the result will be.  This is entirely logical.

Some very clever drugs clearly do not work if given too late, for example Rapamycin analogs used in people with TSC-type autism.

Multiple Critical Periods for Rapamycin Treatment to Correct Structural Defects in Tsc-1-Suppressed Brain

Importantly, each of these developmental abnormalities that are caused by enhanced mTOR pathway has a specific window of opportunity to respond to rapamycin. Namely, dyslamination must be corrected during neurogenesis, and postnatal rapamycin treatment will not correct the cortical malformation. Similarly, exuberant branching of basal dendrites is rectifiable only during the first 2 weeks postnatally while an increase in spine density responds to rapamycin treatment thereafter.  

Back to today’s paper.


The identification of immune dysregulation in at least a subtype ASD has led to the hypothesis that immune modulatory treatments may be effective in treating the core and associated symptoms of ASD. In this article, we discussed how currently FDA-approved medications for ASD have immune modulatory properties.

“Risperidone also inhibited the expression of inflammatory signaling proteins, myelin basic protein isoform 3 (MBP1) and mitogen-activated kinase 1 (MAPK1), in a rat model of MIA. Similarly, aripiprazole has been demonstrated to inhibit expression of IL-6 and TNF-α in cultured primary human peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy adult donors.”

We then described emerging treatments for ASD which have been repurposed from nonpsychiatric fields of medicine including metabolic disease, infectious disease, gastroenterology, neurology, and regenerative medicine, all with immune modulatory potential. Although immune modulatory treatments are not currently the standard of care for ASD, remain experimental, and require further research to demonstrate clear safety, tolerability, and efficacy, the early positive results described above warrant further research in the context of IRB-approved clinical trials. Future research is needed to determine whether immune modulatory treatments will affect underlying pathophysiological processes affecting both the behavioral symptoms and the common immune-mediated medical co-morbidities of ASD. Identification of neuroimaging or inflammatory biomarkers that respond to immune modulatory treatment and correlate with treatment response would further support the hypothesis of an immune-mediated subtype of ASD and aid in measuring response to immune modulatory treatments. In addition, it will be important to determine if particular immune modulating treatments are best tolerated and most effective when administered at specific developmental time points across the lifespan of individuals with ASD.


Here are the drugs they listed:-

1.     Metabolic disease

Spironolactone
Pioglitazone
Pentoxifylline

Spironolactone is a cheap potassium sparing diuretic. It has secondary effects that include reducing the level of male hormones and some inflammatory cytokines.

Pioglitazone is drug for type 2 diabetes that improves insulin sensitivity.  It reduces certain inflammatory cytokines making it both an autism therapy and indeed a suggested Covid-19 therapy.

Pentoxifylline is a non-selective phosphodiesterase (PDEinhibitor, used to treat muscle pain.  PDE inhibitors are very interesting drugs with a great therapeutic potential for the treatment of immune-mediated and inflammatory diseases.  Roflumilast and Ibudilast are PDE4 inhibitors that also may improve some autism.  The limiting side effect can be nausea/vomiting, which can happen with non-selective PDE4 inhibitors.

I did try Spironolactone once; it did not seem to have any effect.  It is a good match for bumetanide because it increases potassium levels.

I do think that Pioglitazone has a helpful effect and there will be another post on that.

PDE inhibitors are used by readers of this blog. Maja is a fan of Pentoxifylline, without any side effects. Roflumilast at a low dose is supposed to raise IQ, but still makes some people want to vomit. The Japanese drug Ibudilast works for some, but nausea is listed as a possible side effect.


2.     Infectious disease

Minocycline
Vancomycin
Suramin

Minocycline is an antibiotic that crosses in to the brain.  It is known to stabilize activated microglia, the brain’s immune cells.  It is also known that tetracycline antibiotics are immunomodulatory.

Vancomycin is an antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections, if taken orally it does not go beyond the gut.  It will reduce the level of certain harmful bacteria including Clostridium difficile.

Suramin is an anti-parasite drug that Dr Naviaux is repurposing for autism, based on his theory of cell danger response.
  

3.     Neurology

Valproic acid

Valproic acid is an anti-epileptic drug.  It also has immunomodulatory and HDAC effects, these effects can both cause autism when taken by a pregnant mother and also improve autism in some people.

Valproic acid can have side effects. Low dose valproic acid seems to work for some people. 


4.     Gastroenterology

Fecal microbiota transplant (FMT)

FMT is currently used to treat recurrent Clostridium difficile infection and may also be of benefit for other GI conditions including IBD, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and functional GI disorders.

Altered gut bacteria (dysbiosis) is a feature of some autism which then impairs brain function.  Reversing the dysbiosis with FMT improves brain function.  


5.     Oncology

Lenalidomide
Romidepsin
  
Lenalidomide is an expensive anti-cancer drug that also has immunomodulatory effects.

Romidepsin is a potent HDAC inhibitor, making it a useful cancer therapy.  HDAC inhibitors are potential autism drugs, but only if given early enough not to miss the critical periods of brain development. 


6.     Pulmonology

N-acetylcysteine

Many people with autism respond well to NAC. You do need a lot of it, because it has a short half-life.


7.     Nutritional medicine and dietary supplements

Omega-3 fatty acids
Vitamin D
Flavonoids

Nutritional supplements can get very expensive.  In hot climates, like Egypt, some dark skinned people cover up and then lack vitamin D.  A lack of vitamin D will make autism worse.

Some people with mild brain disorders do seem to benefit from some omega-3 therapies.

Flavonoids are very good for general health, but seem to lack potency for treating brain disorders.  Quercetin and luteolin do have some benefits. 


8.     Rheumatology

Celecoxib
Corticosteroids
Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG)


Celecoxib is a common NSAID that is particularly well tolerated (it affects COX-2 and only marginally COX-1, hence its reduced GI side effects).

NSAIDS are used by many people with autism.

Steroids do improve some people’s autism, but are unsuitable for long term use.  A short course of steroids reduces Covid-19 deaths – a very cost effective therapy.

IVIG is extremely expensive, but it does provide a benefit in some cases. IVIG is used quite often to treat autism in the US, but rarely elsewhere other than for PANS/PANDAS that might occur with autism.


9.     Regenerative medicine

Stem cell therapy

I was surprised they gave stem cell therapy a mention. I think it is still early days for stem cell therapy.


Conclusion

I have observed the ongoing Covid-19 situation with interest and in particular what use has been made of the scientific literature.

There are all sorts of interesting snippets of data. You do not want to be deficient in Zinc or vitamin D, having high cholesterol will make it easier for the virus to enter your cells.  Potassium levels may plummet and blood becomes sticky, so may form dangerous clots. A long list of drugs may be at least partially effective, meaning they speed up recovery and reduce death rates. Polytherapy, meaning taking multiple drugs, is likely to be the best choice for Covid-19.

Potential side effects of some drugs have been grossly exaggerated, as with drugs repurposed for autism.  Even in published research, people cheat and falsify the data. In the case of hydroxychloroquine, the falsified papers were quickly retracted.

The media twist the facts, to suit their narrative, as with autism.  This happens even with Covid-19. Anti-Trump media (CNN, BBC etc) is automatically anti-hydroxychloroquine, and ignores all the published research and the results achieved in countries that widely use it (small countries like China and India). 

Shutting down entire economies when only 5-10% of the population have been infected and hopefully got some immunity, does not look so smart if you are then going to reopen and let young people loose.  They will inevitably catch the virus and then infect everyone else. Permanent lockdown restrictions, if followed by everyone, until a vaccine which everyone actually agreed to take, makes sense and living with the virus makes sense, but anything in between is not going to work. After 3 months without any broad lockdown, and allowing young people to socialize, most people would have had the virus and then those people choosing to shield could safely reemerge. The death rate with the current optimal, inexpensive treatment, as used in India or South Africa is very low, in people who are not frail to start with. Time to make a choice.  Poor people in poor countries cannot afford to keep going into lockdown, they need to eat.

What hope is there for treating a highly heterogeneous condition like autism, if it is not approached entirely rationally and without preconceptions and preconditions?  In a pandemic we see that science does not drive policy and translating science into therapy is highly variable.  The science is there for those who choose to read it.

I frequently see comments from parents who have seen some of the research showing that autism has an inflammatory/auto-immune component.  They ask why this has not been followed up on in the research.  It has been followed up on.  It just has not been acted upon.

Why has it not been acted on?

This missing stage is called “translation”.  Why don’t doctors translate scientific findings into therapy for their patients?

What is common sense to some, is “experimental” to others. “Experimental” is frowned upon in modern medicine, but innovation requires experimentation.

Many people’s severe autism is unique and experimental polytherapy/polypharmacy is their only hope.

The cookie cutter approach is not going to work for autism. 

Thankfully, for many common diseases the cookie cutter approach works just fine.

Do the authors of today’s paper, Dr McDougle and Dr Thom, actually prescribe to their young patients many of the drugs that they have written about?  I doubt it and therein lies the problem.  

Time for that wizard, perhaps? 

A few years ago I did add the following tag line, under the big Epiphany at the top of the page. 

An Alternative Reality for Classic Autism - Based on Today's Science

You can choose a different Autism reality, if you do not like your current one.  I am glad I did. I didn't even need a wizard.  

There are many immuno-modulatory therapies for autism that the Massachusetts doctor duo did not mention, but it is good that they made a start.








Friday, 10 July 2015

Clinical Investigation vs Off-Label Treatment for Autism



Antonio Hardan, the psychiatrist at the Stanford School of Medicine, has published another paper.  Hardan is interesting, he is a clinician rather than a rocket scientist, but he gets involved in a very wide variety of clinical trials, usually of existing drugs that might be effective in autism.

In his latest paper, this time about Glutamatergic Dysfunction in Autism, he highlights the problems with clinical trials:-

·        Heterogeneity of autism

·        Subjective rating scales rather than biological measures.

In other words there is no single autism and there is no good way to reliably measure the efficacy of any drug tested on it.  Consider what that really means.








  
Hardan really should know about this, just look at the clinical trials he has been involved in:-







So why bother with Clinical Trials?

This may sound like a very unscientific question, but perhaps it is not.  A couple of years ago Roche pulled the plug on Arbaclofen, because it “failed” in its autism clinical trial.  Many parents thought it worked.  Now the Simons Foundation has acquired the rights to the drug and is restarting trials.  How many other trial drugs were prematurely brushed aside?

Many years ago the hormone secretin was put forward as a therapy for autism, particularly for people with GI problems.  Several expensive clinical trials later, it was determined to be ineffective.  But some people continued to rave about it.  Where they all deluded?

The very expensive IVIG therapy has also been put forward as a wonder therapy for autism.  The critics highlight that in studies 90% of people do not benefit and therefore the therapy has little value.  But what if you are in 10% that do respond very well?


Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment of children with autism.


Abstract

Since autism has been associated with immunologic abnormalities suggesting an autoimmune cause of autistic symptoms in a subset of patients, this study was undertaken to investigate whether intravenous immunoglobulin (i.v.Ig) would improve autistic symptoms. Ten autistic children with immunologic abnormalities, demonstrated on blood tests, were enrolled in this study. Their ages ranged from 4 to 17 years, with two girls and eight boys. Eight children (1 female and 7 male) historically had undergone autistic regression. Intravenous immunoglobulin, 200 to 400 mg/kg, was administered every 6 weeks for an intended treatment program of four infusions. In five children, there was no detectable change in behavior during the treatment program. In four children, there was a mild improvement noted in attention span and hyperactivity. In none of these children did the parents feel that the improvement was sufficient to warrant further continuation of the infusions beyond the termination of the program. Only in one child was there a very significant improvement, with almost total amelioration of autistic symptoms over the time period of the four infusions. Once the treatment program was completed, this child gradually deteriorated over a 5-month time period and fully reverted to his previous autistic state. In this treatment program, five children had no response to intravenous immunoglobulin. In the four children who showed mild improvements, those improvements may simply have been due to nonspecific effects of physician intervention and parental expectation (ie, placebo effect). However, in one child there was a very significant amelioration of autistic symptoms. There were no distinguishing historic or laboratory features in this child who improved. Given a positive response rate of only 10% in this study, along with the high economic costs of the immunologic evaluations and the intravenous immunoglobulin treatments, the use of intravenous immunoglobulin to treat autistic children should be undertaken only with great caution, and only under formal research protocols.


Just in this blog, which is amateur and not intended as a rigorous scientific review, we have seen numerous “rare” conditions that lead to “autism” that are actually treatable.

If you add up all these “rare” conditions you get a sizeable proportion of all the autism, diagnosed in those under four years old (i.e. more severe autism).


Clinical Investigations

If you accept that the initial autism diagnosis really tells very little, then you are left, like Hardan, testing all sorts of clever ideas on a trial group of kids who may have one to several, of thousands of discrete dysfunctions (CNVs etc.).

Then if you get a 10% response rate, you are doing great.

If you target something like oxidative stress, that is caused by hundreds of those thousands of discrete dysfunctions (CNVs etc.), then your odds of success shoot up.  This was the case in Hardan’s trial of N-acetyl cysteine.

Hardan is now going to trial oxytocin on kids with autism, but this idea has already been well and truly “trashed” by highly respected mainstream doctors.  They do this because they think autism is something easy to define and measure like high blood pressure.  If it is therapeutic in 10% of cases, that is great.


Quacks, Off-label and Clinical Investigations

I think it is great that Hardan can try all these drugs at Stanford and nobody even thinks of calling him a quack.  The same applies to a small number of inquisitive doctors at Johns Hopkins and Boston Children’s Hospital.

It would be interesting to know how Hardan treats his patients with ASD, who are not enrolled in a clinical trial.  Does he prescribe off-label? 

It is clear that most doctors in developed countries will run a mile/kilometer at the idea of treating somebody off label.  They fear being struck off/sued/ridiculed.

We had the UK pediatrician commenting on this blog that Baclofen was effective in 70+% of her/his patients with anxiety plus Asperger’s, but did not feel happy to continue prescribing it without some supporting evidence from elsewhere.  The fact that it was safe and effective was not enough.

Many of the tiny number of off-label doctors really do look like quacks to me, so I can understand the concern of mainstream doctors not to want to be associated with them.

What is the, scientifically well-briefed, parent supposed to do? (if self-treating is not an option)

I think there should be a way where you can enroll your child in a “clinical investigation”, where you accept that all the treatments are experimental and therefore have a higher level of risk than normal.  You waive your right to sue the doctor, or the hospital.  You can opt out of up to 10% of the therapies, based on valid concern.  For example, you might think IVIG is not safe.

You then enter a program in which all your child’s data can be used for research purposes.  So you agree to have to have EEGs, scans, genetic testing, spinal tap/lumbar puncture, blood tests, urine tests, hair tests etc.

The child is completely profiled and material is stored for possible further analysis later.

All known tests are then carried out, even obscure things like biotin deficiency, creatine deficiency and those amino acids we saw that triggered rare autism.

Then you go through all of the therapies known to be effective in some people.  So it includes memantine, IVIG,  donepezil, bumetanide, oxytocin, propranolol, baclofen, arbaclofen, even Zyrtec, NAC, D-Cycloserine, carnosine, carnitine, pancreatic enzymes, probiotic bacteria  etc.

The whole process would take a year.  If you treated 1,000 children you would then have a wealth of data.

You might have individually rare disorders totaling 15% of cases and then several clusters where the same drugs were effective in sizeable groups of children.  Then you would be able to look back in the data for the biomarkers of each cluster.

Then you would write a smartphone app for doctors to treat autism.  They would input the various biomarkers requested and out would come the suggested drug therapy recommendation(s).  So it would be a “guided off-label” approach where the doctor knows that the recommendations are “scientifically supported” but may not be perfect.


We just need the Simons Foundation to sponsor it! 


If you think it might be too expensive, just remember that at the recent international autism conference in Utah, there were 2,000 scientists and researchers in attendance. What exactly have they achieved, in practical terms, in the last 10 years and are likely to achieve in the next 10 years?

It does seem that some view success as diagnosing ever more people with "autism", so that they can receive "services", when they really should be diagnosing specific biological dysfunctions.

It is not an easy task, but you do not need 2,000 researchers.  You just need 20 pragmatic people to review the data and make a decision tree showing how to choose the 5 drugs most likely to help a particular person, based on their specific biomarkers.  

I guess that would leave 1,980 people with not much to do.