Iceberg! Have we reached a tipping point in autism numbers and assessment referrals?

Sorry. I really am. I'm back at the autism research blogging yet again, twice in a week. I know some people will be unhappy about that (I can hear the Twitterer cries already: 'keep yer bloody mouth shut!') but hopefully some won't be so unhappy. But writing this on a nice sunny March Sunday evening with a rerun of Titanic playing on the telly, I'm gonna talk about whether or not we've just hit the iceberg when it comes to US autism (estimated) prevalence (and those from elsewhere) and the huge backlog of autism referrals that's been making news here in Blighty aka dear old England. I'll also come clean and mention that I actually do like the film Titanic. There I said it. 

I appreciate that my use of the word 'iceberg' in the context of this blog is not likely to sit well with some people. How dare I talk about icebergs in the context of autism prevalence and such like? Well, I dare because right now there's a lot of people who are genuinely concerned that more than ever we might have started to head into and indeed, already started to scrape past, an iceberg that's been on the horizon for a number of years. And in the current climate of post-pandemic financial and resource pressures, we haven't exactly got the strongest of hulls in this societal ship in which we're all passengers on. 

So, last week we had the estimated autism prevalence figures for 8-year olds in the United States from the CDC (see here). Actually we had another set of (estimated) figures relating to 4-year olds too (see here). The headline figure: well, words like 'all-time high' have been used to cover the 1 in 36 8-year olds estimated to have autism or an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). As for 4-year olds, and as per other reports (see here), 1 in 47 4-year olds was the headline figure, a leap from previous reports for this age group (1 in 59 in 2018). Both sets of figures chart the estimated numbers of cases of childhood autism and illustrate the ever upward trend that we've been seeing over the past few decades in the US and beyond.

Most press coverage of the CDC data have not sugar-coated it. Yes, there's been talk about how racial disparities in screening and assessment have been reduced in the recent figures and that's a good thing. There's also talk about the (subtly) declining male:female ratio which again, represents good progress in detection and identification. But then the conversations move to the need to provide suitable services. Y'know things like education, social and health services, and this is where the tone gets a little more serious as per the realisation that there's probably not enough suitable or appropriate services for everyone, and what services there currently are, are probably going to become even more scarce as more people need them. As an aside it's interesting too that this time around, some discussions on the new CDC figures have basically poo-pooed the whole 'it's all better awareness' arguments: "This is not just a phenomenon of becoming more sensitive to subtly impaired kids" according to one very senior person intricately involved in the CDC process of autism counting. Progress indeed given the amount of times that argument has been used, fairly unscientifically, in the past.

On this side of the Pond, I think we're starting to really see that process of 'lack of suitable services' playing out in real time. We - the UK we - are still waiting for a truly national autism prevalence initiative but we have some good counting processes in place in relation to countries of the UK like Northern Ireland and their forward-thinking in collecting and publishing school-aged autism prevalence data (see here). Northern Ireland is, I think, due to report in a few weeks time but the last time around the prevalence of autism in school-aged children came it at 1 in 21 children (see here) or 4.7% of school-aged children with autism in 2021/2022. I also happened to stumble on some other, more England-based data recently (see here) that mentioned that "2.84% of 10-14-year olds were diagnosed (1 in 35)." Obviously, one has to be a little careful with that last statistic. What this means is that the latest CDC figures for the US are not an isolated incident. They're more likely part of a global trend where the old 1% prevalence figure is completely out of sight in the rear view mirror.

As to that 'lack of suitable services'? Loads of examples to pick from. Take for example the recent BBC news report (see here) on twins, yes twins, both diagnosed with autism (and dare I say autism heading more towards 'profound'), both with EHCPs (education and healthcare plans) yet one twin offered a place at a specialised setting, the other not. The reason: the specialised setting is 'over-subscribed'. Twins. There's loads more other examples like this. Such examples complemented (if that's the right word) by multiple reports of plans to build more and more specialised schools with seemingly little realisation that said schools take a while to be built and then also need to be suitably staffed, which leads us down another potential rabbit hole. Another aside: we have some of the best teaching cupboards (yes, you heard right) in the world here in England (see here).

And if you think things are critical when it comes to resources for those lucky enough to already have a diagnosis, spare a thought for the thousands and thousands of people - predominantly school-aged children - who are waiting just to get on a waiting list for autism assessment (see here). In England alone there's about 140,000 people waiting at the time of writing (see here), again predominantly school-aged children. And now another reality: one particular part of England has recently decided that the huge numbers of people, again predominately children, wanting an autism assessment will be 'triaged' to filter out 'the most needy' (see here). That's triage as in what's normally seen on the battlefield when care is rationed according to those most in need. So children now have to be 'in crisis' before they're put on a list for a referral for autism assessment. We've hit the iceberg, haven't we? 

I don't really know what else to say about all this. Yes, it's great that everyone is getting better at recognising autism. Yes, it's great that more people are being detected and referred for an assessment. We can pat ourselves on the back for that. Unfortunately, as a society we've had our collective heads buried in the sand about what rising numbers of need actually means. And now, it's having real-world implications for many people and their loved ones. 

How many lifeboats did you say we have?

-----

Maenner MJ, Warren Z, Williams AR, Amoakohene E, Bakian AV, Bilder DA, Durkin MS, Fitzgerald RT, Furnier SM, Hughes MM, Ladd-Acosta CM, McArthur D, Pas ET, Salinas A, Vehorn A, Williams S, Esler A, Grzybowski A, Hall-Lande J, Nguyen RHN, Pierce K, Zahorodny W, Hudson A, Hallas L, Mancilla KC, Patrick M, Shenouda J, Sidwell K, DiRienzo M, Gutierrez J, Spivey MH, Lopez M, Pettygrove S, Schwenk YD, Washington A, Shaw KA. Prevalence and Characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years - Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2020. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2023 Mar 24;72(2):1-14. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss7202a1. PMID: 36952288.

Shaw KA, Bilder DA, McArthur D, Williams AR, Amoakohene E, Bakian AV, Durkin MS, Fitzgerald RT, Furnier SM, Hughes MM, Pas ET, Salinas A, Warren Z, Williams S, Esler A, Grzybowski A, Ladd-Acosta CM, Patrick M, Zahorodny W, Green KK, Hall-Lande J, Lopez M, Mancilla KC, Nguyen RHN, Pierce K, Schwenk YD, Shenouda J, Sidwell K, Vehorn A, DiRienzo M, Gutierrez J, Hallas L, Hudson A, Spivey MH, Pettygrove S, Washington A, Maenner MJ. Early Identification of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 4 Years - Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2020. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2023 Mar 24;72(1):1-15. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss7201a1. PMID: 36952289.

The ICD-11 diagnostic criteria for autism: criteria that actually gets it right?

I'd love to say that this post represents me getting back into autism research blogging but alas, I'm not sure I'd be able to stick to any sort of routine or plan. Work, family, karate, so many Star Wars spin-offs to watch, you know what it's like. Suffice to say that something important brought me back to making this entry: the ICD-11 criteria for autism (see here). 

So why blog about it? Well simply because I reckon that this latest version of one of the major ways that autism or autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is diagnosed is basically as good as we've ever got at defining autism and the various nuances around an autism diagnosis. 

Why? Lots of reasons, and I would invite as many people as possible to survey the criteria which is free for all to read. For me, it's as follows:

1. Autism, the catch-all diagnosis, is now not just singular autism, it's more. Much more. The criteria still consists of the timeless social communication issues (social affect as it was once called) and "persistent restricted, repetitive, and inflexible patterns of behaviour, interests, or activities." It's still talks about early onset (although the 'before 3 years of age' bit is long gone as in previous versions). Importantly it still talks about symptoms resulting in "significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning." This last point is often not as well remembered as it should be, particularly in certain social media circles. But more than all that we now have separate diagnostic sub-codings for things like the presence of intellectual (learning) disability and functional language impairment in a sort of pick-and-mix matrices combination. The DSM-5 also tried this with their 'levels of support' or, dare I say it 'severity levels' (see here). Allied to all that is another sub-coding: loss of previously acquired skills. Y'know, all those reports of regression or plateau in skills that parents and caregivers talked about? They've been taken seriously and at last, now feature as part of the diagnostic work-up. Minus any 'I told you so' sentiments, we've already published on this a few years back (see here). The road has been long. Wow.

2. Alongside the core clinical features are quite a few other headings covering other types of behaviour that one may see accompanying autism. Anxiety, seizures and here's one: self-injurious behaviours (SIB). No it doesn't make for great reading (SIB can be absolutely devastating to the person concerned and their family) but at last, acknowledgement that it's an issue for some. There's also talk about other comorbidities / multi-morbidities (that's comorbidity not co-occurrence) to look out for. Some psychiatric, some behavioural and some somatic. Get ready for another 'I told you so' moment (see here). 

3. Standby for something really important included in the ICD-11 criteria: a list of some 18 other conditions where autistic signs and symptoms can significantly present is also provided. This is new. The list ranges from things like ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder) to schizophrenia to personality disorder(s). Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) aka dyspraxia is also in there and acknowledges something that even the great Leo Kanner talked about. This will help clinicians (yes, the people who conduct formal autism assessments) no end. It means that they should also be on the look out for various other conditions when they make their assessments (indeed, if any of those listed overlapping conditions are also present in clinic, it might mean looking for autism too). I'll also, at this point, add in the almost forgotten issue of social (pragmatic) communication disorder (SCD) from the DSM-5 too. I'm also interested in that list of overlapping conditions because they seem to becoming more and more important to autism. Take schizophrenia for example. Did you know that an estimated 1 in 10 people with autism might be at risk of transitioning over to schizophrenia over a 10 year period according to this study from 'big data Taiwan'? And more recently we've seen research all about ADHD 'transitioning' into ASD as a primary diagnosis (see here); prodromal period anyone? Oh, and I should also mention that the word 'encephalitis' figures in those boundary conditions. I'd like to think this would trigger a lot more discussion and study on how immune system / inflammatory conditions *might* play a role in at least some autism. I say this on the back of our recent-ish review of autoimmune encephalitis and autism (see here) and my continuing interest in such things.

So there you have it citizens (hat-tip to the late great Christopher Plummer!), the ICD-11 diagnostic criteria for autism. Obviously we'll have to see where it all goes, but certainly, as the criteria beds in, diagnostic reports will get more and more detailed which has to be a boon for things like EHCPs (Education, Health and Care Plans) and getting things right for people (particularly children) when diagnosed. As for research, well, that will benefit too, given the more detailed diagnostic starting point other than just 'autism vs. non-autistic controls'. I reckon we're going to be seeing more and more objective biological markers in the coming years. One more thing: you've no doubt heard about the term 'profound autism'? Well, it looks like ICD-11, like DSM-5, is going to forward this concept a lot more in times to come. 

Peace be with you.

-----

Hsu TW, Chu CS, Tsai SJ, Hsu JW, Huang KL, Cheng CM, Su TP, Chen TJ, Bai YM, Liang CS, Chen MH. Diagnostic progression to schizophrenia: A nationwide cohort study of 11 170 adolescents and young adults with autism spectrum disorder. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2022 Dec;76(12):644-651. doi: 10.1111/pcn.13468. Epub 2022 Sep 27. PMID: 36057134.

Kopp S, Asztély KS, Landberg S, Waern M, Bergman S, Gillberg C. Girls With Social and/or Attention Deficit Re-Examined in Young Adulthood: Prospective Study of Diagnostic Stability, Daily Life Functioning and Social Situation. J Atten Disord. 2023 Mar 13:10870547231158751. doi: 10.1177/10870547231158751. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36915033.

Sala R, Amet L, Blagojevic-Stokic N, Shattock P, Whiteley P. Bridging the Gap Between Physical Health and Autism Spectrum Disorder. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020 Jun 30;16:1605-1618. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S251394. PMID: 32636630; PMCID: PMC7335278.

Whiteley P, Carr K, Shattock P. Is Autism Inborn And Lifelong For Everyone? Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2019 Oct 7;15:2885-2891. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S221901. PMID: 31632036; PMCID: PMC6789180.

Whiteley P, Marlow B, Kapoor RR, Blagojevic-Stokic N, Sala R. Autoimmune Encephalitis and Autism Spectrum Disorder. Front Psychiatry. 2021 Dec 17;12:775017. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.775017. PMID: 34975576; PMCID: PMC8718789.

-----

Neurodiversity 2.0: Judy Singer setting the record straight

I know I've kinda let this blog slip a little in recent months but work is work and blogging is blogging. Anyhow, I'm back with a short post to bring to your attention a rather important 'revision' presented by Judy Singer on her blog titled: NeuroDiversity 2.0 (see here).
I'm not going to rehash everything that Judy talks about in her post because it's all done exceptionally well in her blogpost. Neurodiversity is the term that has kinda turned into a movement (even a political movement) which has found something of a voice particularly on social media. As a critical voice to neurodiversity (see here) I would say that the concept of neurodiversity has been pushed way beyond it's original meaning and intention and well outside the scientific remit of the description (no, no-one is 'neurotypical' or NT). In her blogpost, Judy aims to clarify some important points about her description of neurodiversity and, as with all good ideas, adapts and modifies them as knowledge has increased. 

Some important things are mentioned by Judy which are worthy of note:

• "Neurodiversity is NOT a Psycho-Medical diagnosis for individuals." She goes on to say that "if Worker A has identified themselves with a specific syndrome, e.g. Autism, in which case call them "autistic". But they are no more neurodiverse than anyone else on the planet." In other words, neurodiverse or neurodivergent are not replacements for autism or autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and they don't magically bestow some differing neurological feature(s) or advantage(s). And just before you ask, "undiagnosed neurodiversity issues" (see here) is basically psychobabble BS and a good example of how neurodiversity has gone well beyond it's remit.
• "Neurodiversity is a term that refers to an obvious and indisputable feature of Earth's biosphere." Basically, everyone is neurodiverse. With all the millions of differing biological processes that everyone encounters and undergoes, every second of every day, neurodiversity is the property of populations not individuals.
• "It is not a synonym for "Neurological Disorder"." I might be repeating myself here but whether diagnosed or 'self-diagnosed' (another inherently problematic issue) with anything remotely related to behaviour and/or the brain, identifying as 'neurodiverse' says nothing about a person and their presentation. 
• "Neurodiversity is a positive principle, but it is NOT a moral principle." As the property of a population, neurodiversity says just that: everyone is different, and we should be proud of our individual differences. I know sometimes people don't like to be seen as different (group membership is a powerful thing), but everyone has strengths and everyone has weaknesses at an individual level. Yes, there are things that society can do to ensure that more strengths are seen as strengths, but that's a different topic altogether.

I'm not expecting Judy's revisions to be immediately and universally accepted by everyone. There are some really ingrained views and opinions about neurodiversity out there, and to some degree, people have already adapted the term to fit their experience and/or agenda. I am hopeful however that we can move on from identity politics (of which neurodiversity has certainly been a focal point) and start to move forward on this. Moving forward means reclaiming labels like autism and ADHD and various other labels that have often got missed from the whole neurodiversity thing (e.g. schizophrenia and psychosis) and moving away from the idea that there is something universally and inherently 'different' about the minds of those with such labels. Science has yet to pinpoint anything that universally distinguishes those diagnosed with autism from those not diagnosed with autism outside of the diagnostic features (similar to every other diagnostic label with a behavioural element to it). If and when it does, then we can start talking about possible neurodivergence, but until then it's all hot air and bluster. 

Bravo Judy for the revision and clarification.

----------

Autism diagnosis, numbers and politics

It's been a while since I lasted posted on this blog. Apologies to those who've enjoyed my musings but time has been in short supply these past few weeks. But I'm here now...

Today I want to bring to your attention a couple of papers and news items that have caught my eye in the past few weeks. The first is the paper by Eya-Mist Rødgaard and colleagues [1] which garnered quite a bit of media attention (see here). The crux of the Rødgaard findings were that "differences between individuals with autism and those without autism have decreased over time, which may be associated with changes in diagnostic practices." It was a meta-analysis paper and so kinda reiterated what had already been discussed in the peer-reviewed science literature before, in that the autism of today might not necessarily the same as the autism of yesteryear (see here).

Second up is another recent paper from Benjamin Zablotsky and colleagues [2] (a name mentioned a few times on this blog) indicating that the only way is up when it comes to diagnoses of developmental disabilities such as autism. I noted that some interpretations of the Zablotsky results headed down the old 'better awareness' and 'not a true rise' routes (see here) despite the quite astounding increase in cases from "1 in 91 children in 2009 to 1 in 40 in 2017." In any other label / condition / disorder, such a rise would probably provoke some important questioning about why the increase and what factors could be associated with it (including the Rødgaard explanation). Needless to say that children become adults, and quite a lot of those 1 in 40 children are going to require more Government planning and money to ensure that they live good, healthy and productive lives as both children and adults. And just in case you think such a rise is a United States issue only, take a look at the stats for Northern Ireland in recent years (see here and see here) and tell me that there isn't a true rise there either.

Finally a few interesting lay articles have been published in recent weeks which deserve highlighting and debating. The first from neuroscientist and science writer Mo Costandi ruffled some feathers in his critique of the concept of neurodiversity. The by-line to the article said it all: "The movement has good intentions, but it favours the high-functioning and overlooks those who struggle with severe autism." The second article from Steve Silberman tackles a slightly different, but nonetheless related issue, on how "Greta Thunberg became a climate activist not in spite of her autism, but because of it." Both articles, whilst sharing some differences, stress how the label of autism covers a wide, wide variety of presentations and outcome. They also serve to highlight how there is seemingly no way that one can possibly advocate for the entire autism spectrum as some sort of singular label / condition / disability based on the different wants, needs and desires of such a diverse population. The sooner we start to take the plural 'autisms' more seriously, the better for everyone...

To close, no two brains are the same as seen in this 'cool' graphic. In the coming weeks, I'll be talking about a few papers that should be appearing in the peer-reviewed domain that I've been involved in authoring that stress such an important point.

----------

[1] Rødgaard EM. et al. Temporal Changes in Effect Sizes of Studies Comparing Individuals With and Without Autism: A Meta-analysis [published online ahead of print, 2019 Aug 21]. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;e191956.

[2] Zablotsky B. et al. Prevalence and Trends of Developmental Disabilities among Children in the United States: 2009–2017. Pediatrics. 2019. September.

----------

The things people say about neurodiversity...

"Being neurodiverse means that your brain is wired differently and thinks differently about things."

That was one of the memorable quotes that was included in a piece on the BBC Newsround website recently highlighting an arts project designed "to raise awareness and celebrate a range of conditions under the umbrella term of Neurodiversity, including autism and dyslexia." More information about neurodiversity by the way, can be seen here. The page has seemingly since been altered for whatever reason...

Whilst noble in intent, the inclusion of evidence-free phrases about 'being wired differently' were included in the original text. Even more worryingly was the suggestion that: "The idea behind Neurodiversity is that conditions - such as autism - should be seen not as disabilities, but as perfectly normal differences between people." Autism shouldn't be seen as a disability eh? I'm sure that lots and lots of autistic people and their families and loved ones may disagree with such a contravention to how autism is actually diagnosed (on the basis that: "symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning").

Such a piece did not go unnoticed, with even the person credited with coming up with the term neurodiversity calling it out and posting a reminder to everyone about what was intended by her original description of the term. She's of course right to point out that everyone is neurodiverse, and how associated terms like neurotypical (NT), that still keep cropping up in the peer-reviewed science literature, are about as evidence-free as one could possibly get (see here).

The inclusion of other phrases citing 'famous people' who should also be considered neurodiverse adds to the fluffiness of the original news piece. That being said, at least there wasn't an attempt to rewrite history as has kinda been suggested on other occasions (see here) nor were the words 'everyone hovers somewhere along the autistic spectrum' used (see here) so one should be thankful for that.

I get that such news pieces want to encourage people to think differently about those with autism, ADHD and various other labels. I get that role models are important to young people whether diagnosed or not with this, that and t'other. But I do expect more from valued news channels such as the BBC. I expect them to be evidence-based. Even Newsround (which served me well in my younger years) should be evidence-based given the audience that it's aimed at. And to perpetuate a myth that autism is not a disability is, in my view, only going to further contribute to the wide-ranging inequalities that many people on the autism spectrum face day in, day out whether their disability is 'hidden' or not.

----------

Edentulousness (no natural teeth) and intellectual (learning) disability

Edentulousness: "The property of being edentulous; lack of teeth."

I was brought to talk about edentulousness on this blog as a result of the findings reported by Kinnear and colleagues [1] and their observations suggesting that: "Adults with IDs [intellectual disability] have a high prevalence of edentulousness."

Based on data from an "adult cohort with IDs residing in Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Scotland", researchers compared rates of edentulousness in their 560 adults with ID with (asymptomatic) population data (n=2547) on this issue. The results were pretty worrying as "rates of edentulousness were consistently higher in the ID cohort" across various different age ranges: "9% vs. 1% aged 25-34 years; 22% vs. 2% aged 35-44 years; 39% vs. 7% aged 45-54 years; 41% vs. 18% aged 55-64 years; and 76% vs. 34% aged 65-74 years." Researchers also concluded that edentulousness was quite a bit more likely in those described as having "severe IDs".

When it came to other factors outside of ID severity that might be related to edentulousness, a few issues were observed such as "taking antipsychotics" and "living in the most deprived neighbourhoods." Other variables such as the presence of a diagnosis of autism and "problem behaviours" were are told, did not reach the thresholds for 'sufficient evidence'.

Why is all this important you might ask? Well, for lots of reasons, not least that the Kinnear results potentially highlight the important (continuing) issue of health inequality in relation to learning (intellectual) disability (see here). Indeed, one of my first thoughts when I read the Kinnear results is that quite a few of those news reports about people with learning disabilities that have been seen down the years, show people missing teeth. I can't help thinking what such pictures do for a person and their self-esteem. Even worse, such findings further highlight how for some people with ID, the state of edentulousness is literally forced on them (see here) with little or no regard for the views of them or indeed their loved ones.

Such findings do suggest that organisations need to try harder when it comes to improving the oral health of those with ID. I'm minded to suggest that those people who have a history of poor diet, those who are prone to pica (eating non-edible objects), those who have bruxism (teeth grinding) and/or those who have a history of persistent vomiting should perhaps be afforded particular dental attention. The link with antipsychotic use? Well, I also think more needs to be done in this area. There is already some data on medicines affecting oral hygiene [2] among which antipsychotics seem to have a place. The hows-and-whys need a little more understanding outside of the suggestion of xerostomia (dry mouth). Despite also the lack of any significant link between 'problem behaviours' and edentulousness identified by Kinnear, I'd still like to see whether certain 'challenging behaviours' might be contributory to such a state (see here) and perhaps one reason why antipsychotics were prescribed in the first place?

----------

[1] Kinnear D. et al. Prevalence of factors associated with edentulousness (no natural teeth) in adults with intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2019 May 6.

----------

"Suicidal spectrum behaviors" and ADHD meta-analysed

"Awareness of the association between ADHD [attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder] and SSBs [suicidal spectrum behaviors] should contribute to more effectively prevent SSBs."

That was the conclusion reached in the study published by Mathilde Septier and colleagues [1] and the results of their "first meta-analysis on the association between ADHD and SSBs taking possible confounders into account." Their systematic review and meta-analysis was preregistered (see here) so we knew it would be coming.

Starting with nearly 3000 references, the available data was whittled down to just over 50 studies. The data were analysed and boiled down to reveal "a significant association between ADHD and suicidal attempts..., suicidal ideations..., suicidal plans..., and completed suicide."

What's more to say? Well such results although stark are not completely unexpected given what has already been discussed on this blog on this topic (see here and see here and see here). They serve to confirm that a diagnosis of ADHD (or even the presentation of subclinical ADHD symptoms?) should really set in motion some preferential screening for suicidal spectrum behaviours and appropriate support offered as and when detected. Minus any sweeping generalisations, such results also invite further inquiry into how certain intervention options indicated for ADHD *might* also affect risk of suicidality in the context of ADHD (see here).

If you need someone to talk to, there are organisations out there...

----------

[1] Septier M. et al. Association between suicidal spectrum behaviors and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019 May 23. pii: S0149-7634(18)30941-2.

----------