An expert review of the aetiology, assessment, and treatment of autism spectrum disorder, and recommendations for diagnosis, management and service provision was coordinated by the British Association for Psychopharmacology, and evidence graded. The aetiology of autism spectrum disorder involves genetic and environmental contributions, and implicates a number of brain systems, in particular the gamma-aminobutyric acid, serotonergic and glutamatergic systems. The presentation of autism spectrum disorder varies widely and co-occurring health problems (in particular epilepsy, sleep disorders, anxiety, depression, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and irritability) are common. We did not recommend the routine use of any pharmacological treatment for the core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder. In children, melatonin may be useful to treat sleep problems, dopamine blockers for irritability, and methylphenidate, atomoxetine and guanfacine for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The evidence for use of medication in adults is limited and recommendations are largely based on extrapolations from studies in children and patients without autism spectrum disorder. We discuss the conditions for considering and evaluating a trial of medication treatment, when non-pharmacological interventions should be considered, and make recommendations on service delivery. Finally, we identify key gaps and limitations in the current evidence base and make recommendations for future research and the design of clinical trials.

No abstract

BackgroundMany adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) remain undiagnosed. Specialist assessment clinics enable the detection of these cases, but such services are often overstretched. It has been proposed that unnecessary referrals to these services could be reduced by prioritizing individuals who score highly on the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ), a self-report questionnaire measure of autistic traits. However, the ability of the AQ to predict who will go on to receive a diagnosis of ASD in adults is unclear.MethodWe studied 476 adults, seen consecutively at a national ASD diagnostic referral service for suspected ASD. We tested AQ scores as predictors of ASD diagnosis made by expert clinicians according to International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 criteria, informed by the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic (ADOS-G) and Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) assessments.ResultsOf the participants, 73% received a clinical diagnosis of ASD. Self-report AQ scores did not significantly predict receipt of a diagnosis. While AQ scores provided high sensitivity of 0.77 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72–0.82] and positive predictive value of 0.76 (95% CI 0.70–0.80), the specificity of 0.29 (95% CI 0.20–0.38) and negative predictive value of 0.36 (95% CI 0.22–0.40) were low. Thus, 64% of those who scored below the AQ cut-off were ‘false negatives’ who did in fact have ASD. Co-morbidity data revealed that generalized anxiety disorder may ‘mimic’ ASD and inflate AQ scores, leading to false positives.ConclusionsThe AQ's utility for screening referrals was limited in this sample. Recommendations supporting the AQ's role in the assessment of adult ASD, e.g. UK NICE guidelines, may need to be reconsidered.

Little is known about the symptom profile of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in individuals who have autism spectrum disorders (ASD). It is also unknown whether self-report questionnaires are useful in measuring OCD in ASD. We sought to describe the symptom profiles of adults with ASD, OCD, and ASD + OCD using the Obsessive Compulsive Inventory-Revised (OCI-R), and to assess the utility of the OCI-R as a screening measure in a high-functioning adult ASD sample. Individuals with ASD (n = 171), OCD (n = 108), ASD + OCD (n = 54) and control participants (n = 92) completed the OCI-R. Individuals with ASD + OCD reported significantly higher levels of obsessive-compulsive symptoms than those with ASD alone. OCD symptoms were not significantly correlated with core ASD repetitive behaviors as measured on the ADI-R or ADOS-G. The OCI-R showed good psychometric properties and corresponded well with clinician diagnosis of OCD. Receiver operating characteristic analysis suggested cut-offs for OCI-R Total and Checking scores that discriminated well between ASD + versus -OCD, and fairly well between ASD-alone and OCD-alone. OCD manifests separately from ASD and is characterized by a different profile of repetitive thoughts and behaviors. The OCI-R appears to be useful as a screening tool in the ASD adult population.

BackgroundWhile Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) often persists into adulthood, little is known about the needs and service use among adolescents and young adults with ADHD. The present study followed-up a cohort diagnosed with ADHD as children and assessed their: 1) needs, 2) correlates of contact with clinical services, and 3) experiences of transition from child to adult health services.MethodsNinety one young people aged 14–24 were recruited from the UK subset of the International Multi-Centre ADHD Genetics (IMAGE) Project. Affected young people and parents conducted face-to-face interviews and self-completion questionnaires including a modified version of the Client Services Receipt Inventory, The Barkley’s ADHD rating scale, The Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised, and the Zarit Burden Interview. Changes in key need characteristics (e.g. ADHD symptoms and impairments) over a 3-year period were examined using fixed effect models. Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) were used to explore how key characteristics (such as ADHD symptoms) were associated with contact with clinical services across the three years.ResultsAt baseline 62 % met diagnostic criteria for ADHD and presented with a range of ADHD related impairments, psychiatric comorbidities, and significant caregiver burden. While ADHD symptoms and related impairments lessened significantly over the three years, psychiatric comorbidities and caregiver burden remained stable. The strongest correlate of contact with clinical services was age (OR 0.65 95 % CI 0.49–0.84) with the odds of reported contact with clinical services decreasing by 35 % for each year increase in age at baseline and by 25 % for each year increase in age over time. Only 9 % of the sample had experienced a transfer to adult services, with the majority reporting unmet needs in healthcare transition.ConclusionsDespite continuing needs, few were in contact with adult health services or had received sufficient help with transition between child and adult health services. The main determinant of health service use for adolescents and young adults with ADHD is age – not needs. Service models should address the needs of ADHD individuals who are no longer children.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1509-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.