Secretin is an ineffective treatment for pervasive developmental disabilities: a review of 15 double-blind randomized controlled trials.
Secretin is a dead end—15 blind trials show zero benefit for kids with autism.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Sturmey (2005) looked at every double-blind trial of secretin for autism or other developmental disabilities. The team found 15 separate studies where neither parents nor testers knew who got the real drug or the salt-water shot.
All trials used the same gut hormone, secretin, injected once or twice. Kids ranged from preschool to school age and had autism or related delays.
What they found
Across all 15 trials, secretin never beat the placebo. Language, play, and problem behavior stayed the same whether the child got the drug or the shot.
No study showed a lasting gain. Any tiny blips vanished by the next week. The review calls the treatment ineffective.
How this fits with other research
Carey et al. (2002) is one of the 15 trials inside this review. Their single study also found no benefit, so the review simply repeats that null result.
Konstantareas et al. (1999) tested a different supplement, DMG, with the same double-blind setup and the same null outcome. The pattern is clear: simple dietary shots or pills rarely help autism.
Tonnsen et al. (2016) later used the same double-blind challenge method on gluten-free/casein-free snacks and again saw zero effect. The secretin story fits a wider line of rigorously tested but ineffective fad treatments.
Why it matters
Families still ask about secretin because internet groups praise it. You can now show them 15 solid trials say it does nothing. Save your clinical hours for teaching skills, not chasing miracle shots. When parents bring up the next “miracle” hormone, point to this review as the template for demanding RCT proof before you write the referral.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add the Peter (2005) citation to your parent handout titled “What Has Been Tested and Failed” and hand it out before any secretin discussion starts.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In 1998, Horvath et al. [Horvath, K., Stefanatos, G., Sokolski, K. N., Wachtel, R., Nabors, L., & Tildon, J. T. (1998). Improved social and language skills after secretin administration in patients with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of the Association of the Academy of Minority Physicians, 9, 9-15] reported an uncontrolled trial of secretin with three participants with autism, which apparently resulted in significant behavioral improvement. Subsequently, secretin was widely used. Sandler et al. [Sandler, A. D., Sutton, K. A., SeWeese, J., Girardi, M. A., Sheppard, V., & Bodfish, J. W. (1999). Lack of benefit of a single dose of synthetic human secretin in the treatment of autism and pervasive and developmental disorder. The New England Journal of Medicine, 341, 1801-1806] reported the first double-blind trial of secretin with negative results. This article is a review of 15 double-blind trials of secretin. Almost none of the studies reported any significant effects and none concluded that secretin was effective. Transient effects of secretin, including both minor benefits and behavioral deterioration were reported, probably due to multiple statistical tests. Four papers reported data on differential responding in sub-groups of participants, including those with gastrointestinal symptoms. These effects were not replicable. At this time there is no robust evidence that secretin is an effective treatment for pervasive developmental disorders.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2005 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2004.09.002