Print
Email
Share

Study: Autism treatment works in kids as young as 18 months

by Associated Press

KING5.com

Posted on November 30, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Updated Monday, Nov 30 at 9:36 AM

 

CHICAGO - The first rigorous study of behavior treatment in autistic children as young as 18 months found two years of therapy can vastly improve symptoms, often resulting in a milder diagnosis.

The study was small -- just 48 children evaluated at the University of Washington -- but the results were so encouraging it has been expanded to several other sites, said Geraldine Dawson, chief science officer of the advocacy group Autism Speaks. Dawson, a former University of Washington professor, led the research team.

Early autism treatment has been getting more attention, but it remains controversial because there's scant rigorous evidence showing it really works. The study is thus "a landmark of great import," said Tony Charman, an autism education specialist at the Institute of Education in London.

There's also a growing emphasis on diagnosing autism at the earliest possible age, and the study shows that can pay off with early, effective treatment, said Laura Schreibman, an autism researcher at the University of California at San Diego.

The National Institute of Mental Health funded the study, which was published online Monday in Pediatrics.

Children aged 18 months to 30 months were randomly assigned to receive behavior treatment called the Early Start Denver model from therapists and parents, or they were referred to others for less comprehensive care.

The therapy is similar to other types of autism behavior treatment. It focused on social interaction and communication -- which are both difficult for many autistic children. For example, therapists or parents would repeatedly hold a toy near a child's face to encourage the child to have eye contact -- a common problem in autism. Or they'd reward children when they used words to ask for toys.

Children in the specialized group had four hours of therapist-led treatment five days a week, plus at least five hours weekly from parents.

After two years, IQ increased an average of almost 18 points in the specialized group, versus seven points in the others. Language skills also improved more in the specialized group. Almost 30 percent in the specialized group were re-diagnosed with a less severe form of autism after two years, versus 5 percent of the others. No children were considered "cured."

Ashton Faller of Everett, Wash., got specialized treatment, starting at age 2.

"He had no verbal speech whatsoever, no eye contact, he was very withdrawn," recalled his mother, Lisa Faller.

Within two years, Ashton had made "amazing" gains, she said. Now almost 6, he's in a normal kindergarten class, and though he still has mild delays in social skills, people have a hard time believing he is autistic, Faller said.

The treatment is expensive; participants didn't pay, but it can cost $50,000 a year, Dawson said. Some states require insurers to cover such costs, and Autism Speaks is working to expand those laws.

Print
Email
Share

To add a comment, please register or login.

1000 characters remaining

Submit

We welcome your comments on this story's topic. Off-topic comments, personal attacks, and inappropriate language may be flagged and removed, and comment privileges blocked, per our Terms of Service. Thanks for keeping the comments space respectful.

Privacy Policy

You have indicated this comment should be removed.

Close

The comment has been submitted for review. Thank you .

Comments: Displaying 1 - 1 of 1

tobegolden said on December 1, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Is "rigorous" research either necessary or ethical? Remember, a substantial number of children who needed and deserved treatment were denied its life-improving benefits because they were randomly assigned to the placebo group. Why can't the outcome of the novel treatment be compared with the current outcome for the condition? If 5% of the children improved over the last five years, and now with treatment 30% improve, isn't that proof enough? I am retired. I obtained my doctorate from Oregon Health and Sciences University. I no longer depend upon grant monies. If I did depend upon research grants, I could not dare offer this opinion. In my opinion, a researcher's true obligation is to the subjects that have volunteered for his study. A researcher's primary obligation is not to the study itself or to the advancement of knowledge. A researcher MUST obtain the needed information while keeping each subject's best interests in mind.

32915894
Flag this comment

Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?

Register Now

Member Benefits

Link your account to your Twitter or Facebook account for easier login!

Link your account to your Facebook profile Link your account to your Twitter profile

Check box to receive Free Special Offers

* - Indicates required field

Check box to receive Free Special Offers

Connecting to

You may need to allow pop up window for this step of registration

Just one more step:

Please take a moment to review the available e-mail newsletters has to offer. Place a checkbox next to the newsletters you wish to subscribe to.

Welcome.

Thank you for becoming a member of KING5.com. You now have full access to the best local coverage and late breaking news from KING5.com. Soon you will be redirected to the page you were seeking, and a confirmation email will be delivered to you.

You will need to respond to the confirmation e-mail for your account to be activated.

KING5.com is dedicated to bringing you exceptional news and outstanding information services, all while personalizing it to your liking. We're sure you'll enjoy being a KING5.com member! If you need assistance, please contact us.