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

Currently, there are no effective pharmacologic treatments for the core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). There is, nevertheless, potential for progress. For example, recent evidence suggests that the excitatory (E) glutamate and inhibitory (I) GABA systems may be altered in ASD. However, no prior studies of ASD have examined the ‘responsivity’ of the E–I system to pharmacologic challenge; or whether E–I modulation alters abnormalities in functional connectivity of brain regions implicated in the disorder. Therefore, we used magnetic resonance spectroscopy ([1H]MRS) to measure prefrontal E–I flux in response to the glutamate and GABA acting drug riluzole in adult men with and without ASD. We compared the change in prefrontal ‘Inhibitory Index’—the GABA fraction within the pool of glutamate plus GABA metabolites—post riluzole challenge; and the impact of riluzole on differences in resting-state functional connectivity. Despite no baseline differences in E–I balance, there was a significant group difference in response to pharmacologic challenge. Riluzole increased the prefrontal cortex inhibitory index in ASD but decreased it in controls. There was also a significant group difference in prefrontal functional connectivity at baseline, which was abolished by riluzole within the ASD group. Our results also show, for we believe the first time in ASD, that E–I flux can be ‘shifted’ with a pharmacologic challenge, but that responsivity is significantly different from controls. Further, our initial evidence suggests that abnormalities in functional connectivity can be ‘normalised’ by targeting E–I, even in adults.

There is increasing interest in the use of cannabis and its major non-intoxicating component cannabidiol (CBD) as a treatment for mental health and neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, before launching large-scale clinical trials, a better understanding of the effects of CBD on brain would be desirable. Preclinical evidence suggests that one aspect of the polypharmacy of CBD is that it modulates brain excitatory glutamate and inhibitory γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) levels, including in brain regions linked to ASD, such as the basal ganglia (BG) and the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC). However, differences in glutamate and GABA pathways in ASD mean that the response to CBD in people with and without ASD may be not be the same. To test whether CBD ‘shifts’ glutamate and GABA levels; and to examine potential differences in this response in ASD, we used magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) to measure glutamate (Glx = glutamate + glutamine) and GABA+ (GABA + macromolecules) levels in 34 healthy men (17 neurotypicals, 17 ASD). Data acquisition commenced 2 h (peak plasma levels) after a single oral dose of 600 mg CBD or placebo. Test sessions were at least 13 days apart. Across groups, CBD increased subcortical, but decreased cortical, Glx. Across regions, CBD increased GABA+ in controls, but decreased GABA+ in ASD; the group difference in change in GABA + in the DMPFC was significant. Thus, CBD modulates glutamate-GABA systems, but prefrontal-GABA systems respond differently in ASD. Our results do not speak to the efficacy of CBD. Future studies should examine the effects of chronic administration on brain and behaviour, and whether acute brain changes predict longer-term response.

Background: The potential benefits of cannabis and its major non-intoxicating component cannabidiol (CBD) are attracting attention, including as a potential treatment in neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, the neural action of CBD, and its relevance to ASD, remains unclear. We and others have previously shown that response to drug challenge can be measured using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), but that pharmacological responsivity is atypical in ASD. Aims: We hypothesized that there would be a (different) fMRI response to CBD in ASD. Methods: To test this, task-free fMRI was acquired in 34 healthy men (half with ASD) following oral administration of 600 mg CBD or matched placebo (random order; double-blind administration). The ‘fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations’ (fALFF) was measured across the whole brain, and, where CBD significantly altered fALFF, we tested if functional connectivity (FC) of those regions was also affected by CBD. Results: CBD significantly increased fALFF in the cerebellar vermis and the right fusiform gyrus. However, post-hoc within-group analyses revealed that this effect was primarily driven by the ASD group, with no significant change in controls. Within the ASD group only, CBD also significantly altered vermal FC with several of its subcortical (striatal) and cortical targets, but did not affect fusiform FC with other regions in either group. Conclusion: Our results suggest that, especially in ASD, CBD alters regional fALFF and FC in/between regions consistently implicated in ASD. Future studies should examine if this affects the complex behaviours these regions modulate.