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.

-----

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.

----------

Following ADHD long-term: "a persistence rate of 27.8%"

Studies such as the one published by Michel Lecendreux and colleagues [1] always catch my attention. Research that follows a group of people over a period of years makes for interesting reading; not least because one gets a flavour for what *could* happen when such findings are applied to a larger population.

The Lecendreux findings focused on a few important issues pertinent to a diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) specifically related to (a) the persistence of ADHD, and (b) the idea that signs and symptoms of ADHD not meeting the thresholds for a diagnosis of ADHD might be rather important. Indeed, that they may merit "a subthreshold diagnostic category" of their own.

So, based on a starting participant sample of just over a thousand families including a child in the "6-12 years age range", interviews were conducted covering various aspects of ADHD and beyond: "symptoms of ADHD, conduct disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder as well as family living situation, school performance, sleep disturbance, eating habits, use of supplemental iron, and history of ADHD treatment." Approaching half of the original sample (492 / 1012) were followed up some 9 years later where "the persistence of ADHD and its impairments and the emergence of new conditions were assessed."

Results: "At follow-up, 16.7% of the children diagnosed with ADHD at baseline met full criteria for ADHD and 11.1% met criteria for subthreshold ADHD, yielding a persistence rate of 27.8%." Diagnosis of ADHD was, by the way, based on DSM-5 criteria (see here). That figure of 27.8% in terms of ADHD persistence from childhood to early adulthood is potentially an important one. It tells us that for a majority of children diagnosed with ADHD in childhood, their symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity will reduce to such a degree that they are no longer considered clinically significant or at least not reaching thresholds for a diagnosis of ADHD. Whether such a reduction in symptoms is through processes such as maturation or the timely implementation of intervention/management strategies needs quite a bit more work. Whether also ADHD potentially 'morphs' into something else as people age also needs further exploration (see here).

Another important detail was also mentioned by Lecendreux et al: "Among children not diagnosed with ADHD at baseline, 1.1% met criteria for ADHD at follow-up." Such a figure is important in relation to the concept of adult-onset ADHD [2] and the question of whether ADHD is a diagnosis with foundations always rooted in infancy. The Lecendreux findings suggest that for some people, this might not be the case and opens the door to possible talk about acquired ADHD for examples. This also sounds very familiar (see here).

Insofar as the issue of a possible 'subthreshold diagnostic category' for ADHD, I find myself agreeing with the "dimensional conceptualization" mentioned by the authors. Several other conditions / states / diagnoses have recognised 'lite versions' of the label. In autism for example, one might see this as social communication disorder (SCD) or mention of the broader autism phenotype (BAP). I'm even minded to place the label known as pathological demand avoidance (PDA) in a similar bracket given recent opinions (see here). Such chatter about 'lite' does not and should not downplay the effects of such sub-threshold labels. It merely acknowledges that there may be a wider spectrum of issues / difficulties experienced outside of the receipt of a core diagnosis.

So it should perhaps be the same with ADHD too, given what is beginning to emerge on the long-term 'effects' that a diagnosis of ADHD and subthreshold ADHD might bring (see here and see here).

----------

[1] Lecendreux M. et al. A 9-Year Follow-Up of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in a Population Sample. J Clin Psychiatry. 2019 May 7;80(3). pii: 18m12642.

[2] Cooper M. et al. Investigating late-onset ADHD: a population cohort investigation. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2018 Oct;59(10):1105-1113.

----------

"Ruminative thinking is the autistic dimension more strongly associated with suicidality"

The quote titling this post - "Ruminative thinking is the autistic dimension more strongly associated with suicidality" - comes from the findings published by Liliana Dell'Osso and colleagues [1] and provides something of an extension of previous work from authors on this paper (see here).

The important topic under investigation by Dell'Osso et al was suicidality; something that crops up time and time again in connection to the autism spectrum (see here). No, such a topic doesn't make for great PR 'about autism'. But if you want to talk about research/clinical priorities when it comes to the autism spectrum, I can't think of many topics that would be more pressing...

The hypothesis: those with subthreshold autistic traits (AT) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) "will both show a higher prevalence of suicidal ideation and behaviors" when compared with asymptomatic controls. Further: "to clarify if AT do actually imply a risk factor for suicidality similar to full-blown ASD, hypothesizing that suicidal thoughts and behaviors will not differ between subjects with subthreshold autism and full-blown ASD." Similar sentiments have been previously expressed in other research results (see here and see here and see here).

I won't bore you with all the details of the hows-and-whys of Dell'Osso study (it is open-access) but do want to focus in on a few important observations made. First authors reported that they "found no differences in suicidality scores between ASD and AT groups, while both showed a higher score than HC [healthy controls]." I might add that 'HC' is a term used by the authors and wouldn't be my choice for describing a control group. This finding is important not just for autism but potentially for lots of other labels that manifest autistic traits (see here and see here) on the basis that autistic traits are not necessarily exclusive to a diagnosis of autism.

Second: "the ASD group reported significantly higher MOODS-SR total score and MOODS-SR depressive component score than the AT group, and the AT group in turn scored significantly higher than the HC." I don't think anyone should be really surprised by the finding that the symptoms of mood disorders such as depression seem to be 'over-represented' alongside a diagnosis of autism given other data on this issue (see here). Indeed, one might even say that depression could, for some autistic people, be considered a core issue over and above just being described as a comorbidity (see here).

Finally I head back to the title of this post, and how something like ruminative thinking - "a pattern of repetitive thinking, usually associated to and exacerbating anxiety and depression, often affecting problem-solving and the processing of negative feelings and leading to social isolation" - might be a particular dimension *associated* with suicidality in the context of autism or the presentation of subthreshold autistic traits. I've talked a few times about rumination in the context of autism on this blog (see here and see here). Rumination has also been talked about in the context of autism and suicide before too (see here). If research continues to point to rumination as something important, one might potentially envisage the development of interventions that could ameliorate such an issue and possibly onward *affect* the risk of something like suicidality?

I don't want anyone to get the impression that the Dell'Osso findings have *solved* the issue of suicidality in the context of autism because they haven't. As I've said many times before on this blog, suicide is a very, very complicated and deeply personal issue (see here) with no one-size-fits-all answer to the questions it raises. As part of a larger picture however, the Dell'Osso results are however important. If their application in a clinical context saves even one life, I would consider that to be infinitely worthwhile.

If anyone needs someone to talk to, there are people who will listen (see here and see here)...

----------

[1] Dell'Osso L. et al. Mood symptoms and suicidality across the autism spectrum. Comprehensive Psychiatry. 2019. April 3.

----------

Estimated autism prevalence in Northern Ireland: 3.3% for 2018-2019

The BBC news headline reading "Autistic children in NI schools trebles in a decade" provides the blogging fodder today.

NI refers to Northern Ireland, and the news report relates to the publication of further findings from the Department of Health in NI [1] on the topic of autism prevalence among school-aged children.

I've covered the NI 'autism in school children' figures for quite a few years on this blog (see here and see here). The stats have gone from 2.3% in 2015/2016 to 2.5% in 2016/2017 to 2.9% in 2017/2018 to the most recent figures of 3.3% in 2018/2019. The report and news coverage focus on how that recent 3.3% figure compared with 1.2% back in 2008/2009. That's quite a shift in the space of just a decade.

A few details are worthy of further mention. First, Northern Ireland seems to be taking a bit of a lead in collecting information about rates of autism in school-aged children (see here). Indeed, many of the 'home countries' making up the United Kingdom (UK) are starting to ask the questions that England, unfortunately, is seemingly not yet asking (see here).

Second, we are told that: "The increase in prevalence of children with autism can be attributed to an annual average increase in the number of children identified with autism of 12% between 2009/10 and 2018/19, against a background of a relatively static school population." This means that the rates of autism in school-aged children are not simply increasing because the school population as a whole is increasing. Indeed, with other not-so-long-ago chatter about long waiting lists for assessment in places like Northern Ireland (see here), one could argue that the current figures are an under-estimate.

Third, with regards to the sex ratio (boys:girls), the 2018/2019 figures suggest that "5.1% of males were identified with autism compared to 1.5% of females." The same figures a decade ago (2008/2009) were 1.9% and 0.4% respectively. I don't however necessarily agree with the: "Autism could therefore be considered to be an extreme of the normal male profile" sentiments expressed by the author to account for this difference but...

Fourth, the rate of the increase across the decade (2008/2009 compared with 2018/2019) was present in every school year. The author focuses in on the fact that nearly 4% of those in Year 6 (the end of primary school) were "identified with autism". He also mentions that most identification of autism in school is occurring when children are aged between 5 and 10 years old. Primary school, it seems, is an important time for the identification of autism.

Fifth: something approaching grading a child for autism 'severity' is also discussed. I know 'severity' is still a contentious issue (someone actually suggested 'severe autism' should be replaced by 'profound autism' which sounds rather sensible). Special educational need (SEN) assessment is a process via which a child's needs are graded. More details about this process applied to Northern Ireland can be found here. SEN stage 4 and SEN stage 5 indicate that a child requires support from school but also that "the education authority shares responsibility with the school." Nearly two-thirds of children identified with autism were at SEN stage 5. This was however down from previous years with the main 'growth' being among those who were gauged at SEN stage 2 and stage 3. The authors caution that such figures are only a snapshot (children can move up and down the SEN stages for example).

Whichever way you cut it, the recent figures out of Northern Ireland show the increasing trend for autism in school-aged children (see here). We can add such figures to those which have recently come out of the United States (see here and see here), Canada (see here) and various other parts of the world. We can quibble about the old 'better awareness' arguments and even diagnostic switching as being primary causes of the increase. I personally do not believe that such explanations even come close to the final reasons for the increase in cases that have been noted and continue to be seen (see here). What I do know is that further finance and resources are required to meet the often complex needs of these children and young adults to allow them to reach their potential.

And minus any emotive language (i.e. tsunami), let's remember that children turn to adults, and many of these children will require on-going help and support into their later years. The question is: are we prepared?

----------

[1] Waugh I. The Prevalence of Autism (including Asperger Syndrome) in School Age Children in Northern Ireland 2019. Northern Ireland Department of Health. 2019. May 10.

----------

a "family history of mental and neurological disorders is associated with autism risk"

There's a couple of ways that one could interpret the findings reported by Sherlly Xie and colleagues [1] who concluded that: "family history of mental and neurological disorders is associated with autism risk, and the familial component of autism etiology may differ by presence or absence of co-occurring intellectual disability."

You could 'use' such findings to imply that autism is much more likely expected as and when one or other parent presents with something like "ADHD [attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder], ID [intellectual disability], other childhood disorders, alcohol misuse, drug misuse, NAPD [non-affective psychotic disorder], bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety disorders, OCD [obsessive-compulsive disorder], stress-related disorders, other neurotic disorders, eating disorder, or personality disorder." Indeed, when I tweeted the Xie paper out, I got one (joking) reply saying something along the lines of 'my kids didn't stand a chance' in light of the familial connection being made.

The other way that one could approach the Xie findings is to look at them as part of a bigger picture, where familial genetic, epigenetic and perhaps even non-genetic influences might overlap across an array of different labels. Further, the possibility that if one was able to get to the source(s) of such shared 'risk', one might potentially be able to positively affect a whole range of labels and diagnoses and perhaps mitigate some of their more quality-of-life sapping characteristics associated with them.

I'm an optimist and take the Xie findings with option number 2 in mind. I say that on the basis that whilst some people talk about the 'positives' of something like ADHD or bipolar disorder (perhaps in the context of the movement known as 'neurodiversity') I'm very much more influenced by the peer-reviewed research talking about the heightened risks that come with such diagnoses. Risks that can very much influence important facets of quality of life and sometimes in some pretty extreme ways (see here and see here for examples).

Anyhow, back to the Xie findings and yet another population-based cohort study with participant numbers totalling about half a million. With those sorts of numbers, you probably won't be surprised to hear that this was a study yet again (see here) utilising some of those marvellous Scandinavian registries; this time in Sweden. 'Index people' comprised births where among other things, their medical and other records could be "linked to both biological parents" and beyond (i.e. "Through the eligible index persons, we ascertained their first- to fourth-degree relatives who had resided in Sweden for at least 2 years"). Researchers trawled the records looking for one or more of those psychiatric and/or neurological diagnoses and looked to see if there was an connection to the index cases where autism was diagnosed.

Results: "Having a first-degree relative with ASD [autism spectrum disorder] without ID was associated with a 9-fold increase in odds of ASD without ID in index persons compared with those with unaffected first-degree relatives." Nothing particularly novel about those findings in light of other independent studies reaching similar conclusions (see here and see here).

Then: "Having a first-degree relative with ADHD, ID, other childhood disorders, alcohol misuse, drug misuse, NAPD, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety disorders, OCD, stress-related disorders, other neurotic disorders, eating disorder, or personality disorder was associated with 1.5- to 4.7-fold increases in odds of the index person having ASD without ID compared with those with first-degree relatives without each of these conditions." Again, alongside other independent results, we are told that: "These associations diminished for more distant family relations."

When it came to autism with intellectual (learning) disability, authors reported some equally important connections: "Having a first-degree relative with ASD with ID was associated with a 14.2-fold increase in odds of the same outcome in index persons compared with those with unaffected first-degree relatives." They also observed some similar connections with regards to first degree relatives (defined as fathers, mothers, and full siblings) with one or more of those psychiatric disorder and the risk of autism and ID as that seen in the risk of autism without ID. In short, the familial presence of various psychiatric and/or neurological diagnoses seemed to up the risk of autism (with or without learning disability).

Oh, and lest I forget, another important detail was mentioned in the Xie paper: "The prevalence of ASD with and without ID was 0.4% and 1.5%, respectively."

I don't think anyone should be particularly surprised by the Xie findings, but that doesn't mean that they aren't important. They're important for the implementation of screening programmes for potentially 'at-risk' populations when it comes to the early diagnosis of autism, bearing in mind that autism can seemingly come about for lots and lots of different reasons (see here and see here) and early diagnosis might not necessarily be relevant to everyone (see here). The findings are also important for future research looking at what 'common mechanisms' might be at work. And, as I've said, they're important because of what it might eventually mean when it comes to intervening in various diagnoses with some potentially shared biology.

Just before I go, there is another angle to mention as a consequence of the Xie results. An angle that I've talked about quite a bit on this blog in two parts: (i) 'autism genes are probably not just genes for autism' (see here) and (ii) 'autistic traits are not just confined to a diagnosis of autism' (see here and see here). It strikes me that the Xie findings provide some quite strong support for both these points...

----------

[1] Xie S. et al. Family History of Mental and Neurological Disorders and Risk of Autism. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(3):e190154.

----------

Why the words "every one of us hovers somewhere along the autistic spectrum" are so dangerous

The Guardian, Friday 26th April 2019

Today I offer another post based on a newspaper report, as Greta Thunberg and her autism diagnosis continue to generate debate (see here).

This time around the report (letter) in question (see here) titled "Autism and Asperger’s are useless diagnostic labels" is the focus, and, in my opinion, quite a dangerous quote included in the text: "... every one of us hovers somewhere along the autistic spectrum."

Why is it so dangerous to imply that the general population is just a (hovering) footstep away from autism spectrum you might ask? Well, I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea that the behaviours noted in autism aren't something that's just magically present in those diagnosed. Such behaviours can be seen in various other states or conditions and/or across various different times of life and maturation. The thing that makes the presentation of such behaviours so distinct and worthy of a diagnosis of autism is the frequency and intensity of such behaviours and importantly, the way they significantly impinge on functioning and daily life. In that respect, yes, autistic behaviours are part of the complex and intricate tapestry of life. But the (sustained) frequency and impact of such behaviours distinguish autism from not-autism.

In such a context then, the idea that everyone hovers along the autism spectrum is a misnomer. It conflates the 'autistic behaviours are part of the complex and intricate tapestry of life' idea with the important reasons why an autism diagnosis is given. This is dangerous because it has the potential to belittle a diagnosis of autism and what it means to those in receipt of such a diagnosis; often a diagnosis that as taken months/years to finally receive. Indeed some people have suggested that the claim that 'everyone is on the autism spectrum' is an "absolute sin"...

It's also dangerous because such thinking opens the door to other things like the self-diagnosis of autism. I've talked about self-diagnosis quite a bit on this blog (see here and see here) and how, self-realisation is often an important (nay, crucial) step to getting an autism diagnosis for many. When however such self-realisation turns to self-identification and/or self-diagnosis on the basis of various 'are you autistic?' screens available on the Internet and beyond (see here), the side-stepping of formal assessments can lead to problems. Problems that can include potentially missing important conditions/states that seemingly overlap with autism or the presentation of autistic traits (see here and see here) as well as also skewing some important narratives from those who have been formally diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder and their experiences.

I know some people disagree with such a position. Some people think that the diagnostic criteria for autism are too stringent, too medically focused, or access to formal assessment/diagnostic services is too restricted and costly. I don't disagree that we need to do more to 'fill a gap' and ensure that those who might fulfil the diagnostic criteria (including the "significantly impinge on functioning and daily life" bit) should have access to the relevant professional assessment services. But that doesn't mean that anyone and everyone can or should just publicly label themselves as autistic in the meantime.

And finally, as we're learning from the evolution of the neurodiversity movement, autism is still very much to be seen as a disability (see here). So another possible implication of the "every one of us hovers somewhere along the autistic spectrum" sentiment is that we are all somehow 'disabled' by our hovering along the autism spectrum. This is frankly a ridiculous suggestion and, continuing the theme of how dangerous such a sentiment is, could have some really serious consequences for the provision of resources and services for those who are genuinely disabled by facets of their autism. Words matter.

----------

"the first nationwide population-based study to investigate the risk of CFS in patients with IBD"

The quote titling this post - "the first nationwide population-based study to investigate the risk of CFS [chronic fatigue syndrome] in patients with IBD [inflammatory bowel disease]" - comes from the research published by Shin-Yi Tsai and colleagues [1].

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) covers quite a bit of diagnostic ground, but typically refers to ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD). There are many similarities between the conditions, but also some important differences too (see here). Both conditions manifest in the bowel (inflammation) and have pathological effects; both also typically show functional bowel symptoms too.

Utilising that fabulous (but sadly now defunct) research resource that was the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) in Taiwan, researchers set out to "evaluate the subsequent risk of CFS in patients with IBD" on the basis of "possible common pathophysiology between IBD and CFS" among other things. One of those 'pathophysiological' mechanisms quite prominently featuring in the Tsai article is "a similarity to the impaired intestinal mucosa of IBD." Interesting (see here).

So, from a starting population of a million people (or medical insurance records of a million people), authors whittled the figures down to the thousands in two groups: an IBD group (n=2163) and a non-IBD group (n=8652). All were "newly diagnosed" with IBD apparently; and none had a previous diagnosis of CFS "before the index date." Then: "Both groups were followed from the index date until the diagnosis of CFS, withdrawal from the NHI program, or December 31, 2011" with said CFS diagnosis following the Fukuda/CDC criteria.

Results: before heading into the CFS frequency figures according to group, there was another important observation made, potentially pertinent to a gut-brain connection: "The prevalence of depression, anxiety, [and] sleep disorder... was higher in the IBD group than in the non-IBD group." Indeed, the increased frequency of sleep disorder in the IBD group *might* have some important 'connection' with another diagnosis where sleep and 'gut issues' has been mentioned (see here and see here). And I might as well also mention depression and anxiety in that context too (see here).

Continuing: "After adjustment for age, and comorbidities, the risk of CFS was higher in the IBD group than in the non-IBD group (adjusted HR, 2.25; confidence interval [CI], 1.70–2.99)." There was also a possible sex-linked relationship too: "we identified male sex, advanced age, absence of comorbidities, and CD as the predictors of increased CFS risk." There's a pretty little diagram to accompany the Tsai findings (see here) outlining what *could* be going on with regards to IBD and CFS. Terms like 'bacterial translocation' and 'immunoinflammatory pathways' are used, in line with some other research in this area [2]. There's no mention of any psychobabble 'biopsychosocial' or the like in the Tsai paper which is always a good thing.

What else is there to say? Well authors go on to mention about the possibility of "intrinsic defects in IBD patients that precipitates CFS" which could have some quite profound implications for at least some cases of CFS. They added that future work might want to have a look at what certain immunotherapies indicated for some IBDs * might* mean for CFS and it's potential *treatment* too. We'll have to wait and see.

----------

[1] Tsai S-Y. et al. Increased risk of chronic fatigue syndrome in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based retrospective cohort study. Journal of Translational Medicine. 2019; 17:55.

----------

"If you want to support Greta Thunberg, don’t do it by defending her autism – stand up for her beliefs instead"

The quote titling this post - "If you want to support Greta Thunberg, don’t do it by defending her autism – stand up for her beliefs instead" - comes from a recent newspaper report by James Sinclair on the noble actions of the 16-year old Greta Thunberg, the current poster person for student activism.

Many people will have heard of Greta and her school strike for climate which snowballed into an international movement demanding action on global warming and climate change. She's subsequently been named as "one of the 100 most influential people of 2019" and could even be in the running for a Nobel prize later this year (2019). Not many teenagers can add those sorts of credentials to their CV...

Alongside the important message that Greta has spread, the revelation that she has a diagnosis of autism - Asperger syndrome - has not escaped media and indeed, social media attention. Her autism diagnosis (Asperger syndrome is now pretty much defunct as a clinical diagnosis) has, in many ways, been placed front-and-centre of her story, but not always in the politest of terms.

The Sinclair feature on Greta caught my eye for several different reasons. Diagnosed himself with autism, Sinclair approaches an important part of the Greta Thunberg story: how autism is not necessarily relevant to the important climate change message that is being promulgated. Indeed, some stand-out quotes from his article are worthwhile circulating widely: "This is why many including myself struggle with sharing our diagnosis with people, as once we do everything is viewed through a person’s past experiences and expectations of autism" and "It suggests that autism is still perceived as something we must all scramble to protect at a moment’s notice."

Why is this relevant? Well, potentially for lots of different reasons, some of which have kinda been picked up in a recent paper by Lily Cresswell & Eilidh Cage [1] which was blogging fodder (see here) not so long ago. The message then - albeit a message derived from a small participant number - was that autism is not necessarily the 'identity' that some would like it to be represented as. For example, as reported in the Cresswell/Cage result: "less than half of participants mentioned autism in their identity descriptions", inferring that many young people potentially see themselves and their achievements/struggles as so much more than due to the receipt of a clinical diagnosis. And one can perhaps see that the continual pressure to make autism a part of any successful narrative, whilst noble in intent, seemingly does little for either the individual and their personal accomplishments nor the masses, on the basis of the significant heterogeneity of autism and how autism for some means things like early mortality (see here) and lots and lots more besides. It perhaps should also be noted that depression has also been mentioned by Greta too: "After learning about climate change when she was 8, Greta later developed depression when she was 11, which she links partly to the issue" but this point doesn't seem to have been widely picked up on even bearing in mind that autism / autistic traits and depression have some important links (see here for example).

I appreciate that my ramblings about autism not necessarily being an identity for all nor not always relevant to a person's socio-political messages aren't likely to be received well by everyone. That's fine. I'll end however with comments from Greta herself and her views of autism and other labels "not being a gift." The caveat she makes to that point being that with appropriate adjustments, support and resources, there are things that can make life easier for those on the autism spectrum and beyond. Bearing in mind that is, the need for 'personalisation' of such supports and a move away from any 'one-size-fits-all' philosophy.

And whilst I'm on the topic of Greta Thunberg, it seems as though her autism diagnosis is now being dragged into the 'autism wars' too (see here). Yet another example of her important climate message seemingly being overshadowed...

----------

[1] Cresswell L. & Cage E. ‘Who Am I?’: An Exploratory Study of the Relationships Between Identity, Acculturation and Mental Health in Autistic Adolescents. J Autism Dev Disord. 2019. April 19.

----------

"less than half of participants mentioned autism in their identity descriptions"

One important point to make about the findings reported by Lily Cresswell & Eilidh Cage [1] is the participant number. It was small; including only 24 young people "recruited through mainstream secondary schools in London, UK" who were diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and who were asked to participate in a study examining "the relationships between identity, acculturation and mental health in autistic adolescents." Small participant numbers means one has to be quite careful about making sweeping generalisations.

If that study aim - identity, acculturation and mental health - sounds a little bit like psychobabble to you, the long-and-short of it was to look-see whether there was a possible link between how young autistic people / people with autism see themselves ("the way a person understands and views him or herself, and is often viewed by others") and their self-reported mental health; also including the concept of 'autistic culture' into the research mix.

OK, first things first: autistic culture. From what I read, it kinda sits somewhere around the idea of 'neurodiversity' (see here) with culture defined as "a system of meanings through which people organise and make sense of their lives." The addition of the word 'autistic' to culture therefore means "building a culture around the ways of speaking, thinking, and acting that come naturally to autistic people." The authors liken autistic culture to deaf culture "with both being supportive communities focused on the distinctive issues and experiences related to being autistic or deaf." Noble intentions on both counts.

Study participants were given the Twenty Statements Task (TST) - "a measure used to assess how individuals define themselves using their own words" - and the Autism Identity Scale (AIS) which "looks at whether an individual aligns more to an autistic or non-autistic culture." Responses to these instruments and to the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) were captured and analysed.

Results: I should point out that the AIS used in this study is not exactly what one would call a 'mainstream' instrument. Indeed, the reference for it's development and use comes from a doctoral thesis which, as far as I can see, is the only reference at the present time. The authors talk about responses on the AIS being use to rank participants into one of four groups: "Marginalised (alignment to non-autistic culture)... Bicultural (alignment to both cultures)... Assimilated (alignment to neither culture)... and Separated (alignment to autistic culture)." I'm not altogether sure but I think some of those groupings and their descriptions mentioned by Cresswell/Cage might not be exactly the same as that talked about in the thesis from Jarrett (see page 20 of the thesis). The AIS by the way, purports to measure both "autistic (AIS1) and non-autistic (AIS2) acculturation."

Cresswell/Cage observed that: "Average scores on the AIS2 were higher than the AIS1, indicating autistic adolescents typically felt more aligned to non-autistic, than autistic, culture." Minus any sweeping generalisations, this meant that participants as a group were typically more inclined towards statements like "I feel that I fit in with other people who do not have autism" and "I would prefer my education to be at a school with and without people with autism" over and above "Being autistic is an important part of who I am" and "I would prefer my closest friend(s) to have autism." Again, I reiterate that no sweeping generalisations are to be made from such findings on the basis of such a small participant group. Also added to those alignment findings, researchers observed some potentially important connections to SDQ scores used as a proxy for self-reported mental health and wellbeing. Specifically that the "lowest scores [on the SDQ] were found in those who aligned themselves only non-to autistic culture (assimilated; n = 7)." This *could* be translated to mean that self-reported mental health and wellbeing was marginally better for those who identified with a specific culture and, in particular, non-autistic culture.

I kinda get the impression that the results garnered during this study weren't exactly what the authors were expecting. Indeed, as I've mentioned before on this blog, there is 'slant' towards the whole neurodiversity angle in other research from some of the authors of this study (see here and see here) which would have probably benefited from different results being observed on this most recent research occasion. Credit is therefore due to the authors for publishing their findings. The inclusion of phrases such as: "These findings suggest autistic adolescents should be encouraged to explore autistic culture and supported in constructing their identity" included in the paper poses a bit of a quandary because that's not entirely what the resultant data implied. I've seen similar things particularly where neurodiversity has been mentioned in the context of autism before (see here). Indeed when we are also told that "less than half of participants mentioned autism in their identity descriptions", one interpretation is that many participants see/saw themselves as so much more than the sum of a clinical diagnosis they've received at some point. I daresay others will have alternative explanations for such findings.

More study is required on this topic. More study around the issue of 'belonging' in the context of autism, and the potential 'positives' that belonging brings (see here), is something that stands out from the Cresswell/Cage findings. Insofar as the concept of autistic culture, well, we'll have to see. Much like the term 'autistic community' (see here) used on more than one occasion, the inference is that there's some universal 'one-size-fits-all' ethos that everyone on the autism spectrum should be adhering too. The reality however, is some much more varied and complicated, bearing in mind the oft-used phrase: if you've met one autistic person, you've met one person with autism (or words to that effect). Yes, people should be proud of themselves. Everyone should have a sense of self-worth, achievement and that word again, belonging. But as per the small scale results from Cresswell/Cage, that pride and identity does not necessarily have to mean aligning oneself according to the receipt of a clinical diagnosis...

----------

[1] Cresswell L. & Cage E. ‘Who Am I?’: An Exploratory Study of the Relationships Between Identity, Acculturation and Mental Health in Autistic Adolescents. J Autism Dev Disord. 2019. April 19.

----------

"Autism prevalence in China is comparable to Western prevalence" But is it really?

I was intrigued by the findings reported by Xiang Sun and colleagues [1] whose paper is the source material for the quote heading this brief post: "Autism prevalence in China is comparable to Western prevalence."

Intrigued because the idea that the prevalence of autism - in school-aged children - hovers around 1 in 100 (1%) in the Western world is still being banded around, even when data is being produced suggesting that rates are actually increasing well beyond the 1% mark in recent times (see here and see here).

Don't get me wrong, I am impressed with the Sun paper and the significant efforts and work that went into their study to look at "autism prevalence (mainstream and special schools) in Jilin City, and mainstream school autism prevalence in Jiamusi and Shenzhen cities" in China. Impressed because of the numbers involved, the 3-stage process undertaken (screening, clinical assessment, research diagnostic assessment) as part of the study and also because the data adds to a growing volume of other studies looking at autism in China (see here and see here for examples) and nearby areas (see here).

I'm not going to bore you with any more of my musings on this paper and issue. Suffice to say that the 1% statistic is old and increasingly out of touch with the current reality of autism in many, many different nations...

----------

[1] Sun X. et al. Autism prevalence in China is comparable to Western prevalence. Molecular Autism. 2019; 10: 7.

----------

DSM-IV vs DSM-5 criteria for autism continued

It's another 'DSM-5 autism' post (see here) from me today as the findings reported by W. Jason Peters & Johnny Matson [1] caught my attention on a topic that has been and remains pretty important: what happened to the rates of diagnosed autism when clinicians switched from the DSM-IV to DSM-5?

DSM-IV and DSM-5 represent versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, one of two manuals containing standardised criteria for diagnosing various behavioural and psychiatric labels. Autism is included in the DSM (and has been for a while). As with various other labels, the refinements to the diagnosis of autism that came with the introduction of the DSM-5 have the been the source of some speculation as to the potential impact on the rates of diagnosed autism.

The data produced so far have been a little bit mixed as to whether more, less or the same number of people would reach diagnostic cut-off points under DSM-5 compared with the application of the DSM-IV criteria (see here and see here) but perhaps with a slight inclination towards DSM-5 being more restrictive (also including a separate catch-all category called social (pragmatic) communication disorder (SCD) (see here)).

And so it was with the Peters/Matson findings, as we are told that: "Fewer individuals met criteria according to DSM-5" based on their cohort of infants and toddlers. The caveat? Well: "individuals with higher levels of symptoms were more likely to meet criteria for both versions [DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5] as compared to either alone" which kinda stands to reason. Indeed other papers recently published [2] pretty much said the same. The conclusion: "results suggest that there are meaningful differences in how DSM criteria may apply to individuals with an ASD [autism spectrum disorder]."

And, since I'm on the topic of what the DSM-5 did or did not do to autism diagnoses, a timely systematic review and meta-analysis from Kulage and colleagues [3] also adds something to the conversation: "Findings suggest smaller decreases in ASD diagnoses compared to earlier reviews."

End of line.

----------

[1] Peters WJ. & Matson JL. Comparing Rates of Diagnosis Using DSM-IV-TR Versus DSM-5 Criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder. J Autism Dev Disord. 2019. Feb 27.

[2] Wiggins LD. et al. DSM-5 criteria for autism spectrum disorder maximizes diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in preschool children. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2019 Mar 8.

[3] Kulage KM. et al. How has DSM-5 Affected Autism Diagnosis? A 5-Year Follow-Up Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis. J Autism Dev Disord. 2019 Mar 9.

----------

Nicotine exposure and offspring ADHD (yet again)

The study findings reported by Andre Sourander and colleagues [1] talking about "an association with and a dose-response relationship between nicotine exposure during pregnancy and offspring ADHD [attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder]" continue an important research theme (see here and see here).

What was different about the Sourander results compared with some of the other studies in this area was their focus on the measurement of cotinine levels - cotinine being a biomarker for exposure to tobacco smoke - in mums-to-be as "measured by using quantitative immunoassays from maternal serum specimens collected during the first and second trimesters of pregnancy and archived in the national biobank." Indeed, such a biological marker measurement protocol mimics other research from members of this authorship group when looking at maternal nicotine exposure and offspring risk of schizophrenia for example (see here).

Based on the analyses of samples from over a thousand participants born in the late 1990s and diagnosed with ADHD compared with samples from a similar number of non-ADHD control participants, researchers came to their possible *link* observation. They mention how the relationship between maternal cotinine levels and offspring ADHD diagnosis was statistically significant even when other important, potentially confounding, variables were taken into account. When categorising their maternal cotinine results into bands approximating light to heavy nicotine exposure and the possibility of a link with offspring ADHD diagnosis, researchers also reported something that looked like a dose-response relationship. Ergo, a biomarker of nicotine exposure during pregnancy *looked* to be potentially linked to offspring risk of ADHD.

Although important work, my first thought when reading this research was about how these results are 'set' within the context that historically, smoking rates or tobacco exposure rates during pregnancy were so much larger decades ago than they are now (see here), but ADHD is seemingly showing only quite a recent rise in numbers (see here). Although no expert on pregnancy tobacco consumption during the 20th century, I'm assuming that all those adverts about smoking being 'healthy' in the 1940s and beyond (see here) probably meant that quite a few women smoked during their pregnancy in the belief that it was 'healthy'. At the very least, it probably meant that they were exposed to a lot more second-hand tobacco smoke as a result of smoking being allowed in various public places and also more likely to be observed in the home environment. Surely then we would have seen an explosion of ADHD diagnoses at that point in time if the link was so simple? That is, assuming that the tobacco of today is the same as the tobacco of yesteryear.

I'm also intrigued that within the various potentially confounding variables which Sourander and colleagues adjusted for - "maternal socioeconomic status, maternal age, maternal psychopathology, paternal age, paternal psychopathology, and child’s birth weight for gestational age" - there's another variable that could exert an effect on ADHD risk: relative age (see here and see here). Relative age refers to the observation that the youngest children in the school classroom compared to their older classmates, are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD. It strikes me that alongside something like tobacco or nicotine exposure, so age and other effects could be important.

I'm not trying to poo-poo the link that Sourander and various other research teams have independently observed. I'm also not trying to downplay the harms that tobacco (nicotine) exposure can have for the unborn child. I merely suggest that with typically falling rates of (reported) tobacco exposure during pregnancy in many countries (see here) and increasing levels of childhood (and adulthood) ADHD being reported, there must be other factors at work in any such relationship (see here for example).

----------

[1] Sourander A. et al. Prenatal Cotinine Levels and ADHD Among Offspring. Pediatrics. 2019. Feb 25.

----------

Was Asperger really 'non-complicit' in Nazi-era Vienna?

The paper published by Dean Falk [1] was bound to happen. Her analysis of "newly translated and chronologically-ordered information" regarding Hans Asperger - the man who gave his name to Asperger syndrome - represents a push-back against some pretty overwhelming information [2] suggesting that Asperger was not necessarily the 'saviour' that many had once believed (see here).

For those who might not know the background to this story, the article written by John Donvan & Caren Zucker [3] back in 2016 provides an excellent overview. It charts how the man who defined the (now defunct) label of Asperger syndrome worked in some pretty dark times. The depiction of Asperger during the years of Nazi occupation for many years was one of "a cautious yet brave and canny saboteur of the Nazi project to exterminate intellectually disabled children." Donvan & Zucker note that "an overwhelmingly positive narrative of Asperger as a man of moral rectitude came into focus in the new millennium, elevating him almost to the status of hero."

But as far back as the 1990s, not everyone was convinced by this narrative. Indeed, as Asperger syndrome made it's [fairly brief] entry into one version of the DSM, one of the diagnostic 'bibles' used to diagnose autism and a whole host of other behavioural and/or psychiatric conditions, questions were already being asked and not just by one person. It took however another 20 years or so before a historian, Herwig Czech, did some real 'digging' and presented the results of his research. Czech's conclusions were summarised by Donvan & Zucker: "Asperger took care during the war to safeguard his career and to burnish “his Nazi credibility.” Asperger, it would appear, did what was necessary."

The Falk paper talks about 'newly translated' information but really doesn't provide much more data than that which was already unearthed by Czech and other researchers/writers. We're told that various on-line translation services were used to translate several documents; specifically looking at "cultural contexts, Asperger's sustained campaign on behalf of disabled children, and his attitude toward patients."

I've read the full-text of the Falk paper and have to say that I really can't see how it substantially changes some key points. One primary issue is that Asperger seemed to have referred a child - Herta Schreiber - "from the University of Vienna Children’s Clinic to Am Spiegelgrund, where they [children] were murdered between 1940 and 1945." Spiegelgrund was a facility "which superficially resembled a hospital, but which functioned in reality as a killing center for severely disabled children." One might quibble about some of the translations and what was meant by them in terms of intent, but for Herta, such a referral apparently signed by Asperger, was her death sentence: "On 2 September, a day after her third birthday, Herta died of pneumonia, the most common cause of death at Spiegelgrund, which was routinely induced by the administration of barbiturates over a longer period of time." Did Asperger know about what really went on at Spiegelgrund? Certainly other doctors who Asperger worked with seemed to know what was going on there including some of his colleagues and direct superiors. Surely also, given the very consistent number of deaths from 'pneumonia' - many only a matter of weeks after children were referred to Spiegelgrund - most doctors would be questioning what was going on there if they didn't already know. And then we have the post-war picture, and how little was seemingly said about children like Herta by Asperger after the true nature of facilities like Spiegelgrund came to light...

We can never truly know what went on during those dark years. We rely on incomplete records that have been meticulously pieced together to provide a picture; albeit an incomplete picture. Asperger died in 1980 so he is not around to answer the points raised and defend himself. But never forget that Herta was a child. She was 3 years old when she was murdered. On the basis of that important fact alone, and the apparent referral made by Asperger to the place of her death, I find the Falk paper mentioning the word 'non-complicit' to be distasteful and disrespectful to her memory. I similarly find the campaign to restore the 'hero status' of Asperger distasteful and disrespectful to her memory and many others who were considered less than human by such a disgusting regime. To quote from the Donvan & Zucker piece once more: "Czech spoke for only 20 minutes or so that day at the Vienna City Hall. Then he stopped to take audience questions. In that pause, Dr. Arnold Pollak, the director of the clinic where Asperger had worked for much of his career, leapt to his feet, clearly agitated. Turning to the room, he asked that everyone present stand and observe a moment of silence in tribute to the many children whose long-forgotten murders Herwig Czech had returned to memory. The entire audience rose and joined in wordless tribute."

----------

[1] Falk D. Non-complicit: Revisiting Hans Asperger's Career in Nazi-era Vienna. J Autism Dev Disord. 2019 Mar 18.

[2] Czech H. Hans Asperger, National Socialism, and “race hygiene” in Nazi-era Vienna. Molecular Autism. 2018; 9: 29.

[3] Donvan J. Zucker C. The Doctor and the Nazis. Tablet. 2016. Jan 19.

----------