Background: Co-occurring psychiatric disorders in adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and/ or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) contribute to the burden of the healthcare and possibly to the delay of diagnosis. Aim of the study was to clinically assess the prevalence and compare lifetime co-occurring psychopathology in a sample of newly diagnosed ADHD and/or ASD adults and discuss the diagnostic challenges they pose. Methods: The lifetime prevalence rates of ten of the most frequently co-occurring psychiatric diagnoses was registered in 336 adults of normal intelligence who underwent a thorough clinical evaluation for the diagnosis of ADHD and/or ASD for the first time in their lives. Four study groups were formed: the ADHD (n = 151), the ASD (n = 58), the ADHD+ASD (n = 28) and the nonADHD/nonASD (NN) (n = 88) group. Results: At least one co-occurring psychopathology was found in 72.8% of the ADHD group, in 50% of the ASD group, in 72.4% of the ADHD+ASD group and in 76.1% of the NN group (p = 0.004). In all groups the most frequent psychiatric disorder was depressive disorder. The only significant difference regarding the patterns of psychiatric cooccurrence between the ADHD and the nonADHD groups (ASD and NN groups) was found for SUD (p = 0.001). Also, the proportion of subjects with Bipolar Disorder was significantly greater in the NN group as compared to those with ASD (p = 0.025). Conclusions: Our results support the high prevalence of co-occurring psychiatric disorders in adults with ADHD and/or ASD with the ASD group presenting the lowest rate. The most marked difference between the ADHD and the nonADHD groups was found for SUD. Moreover, our findings highlight the need for a thorough clinical assessment of all referred patients both in the presence and absence of ADHD and/or ASD.

This study assessed the co-occurrence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in newly diagnosed adults of normal intelligence and the contribution of trait-based dimensions deriving from the Barkley Adult ADHD Rating Scale-IV (BAARS-IV), the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ), and the Empathy Quotient (EQ) to the differentiation of patients with ADHD, ASD, and ADHD/ASD. A total of 16.1% of patients with ADHD received a co-occurring ASD diagnosis, while 33.3% of patients with ASD received an ADHD diagnosis. Subjects with ADHD or ADHD/ASD had higher scores in all ADHD traits compared to ASD subjects. Compared to the ADHD group, the ASD group had AQ scores that were significantly greater, except for attention to detail. ADHD/ASD co-occurrence significantly increased the score of attention to detail. The total EQ score was greater in the ADHD group. In the stepwise logistic regression analyses, past hyperactivity, current inattention and impulsivity, attention switching, communication, imagination, and total EQ score discriminated ADHD patients from ASD patients. Attention to detail, imagination, and total EQ score discriminated ADHD cases from ADHD/ASD cases, while past hyperactivity and current impulsivity discriminated ASD subjects from ADHD/ASD subjects. Our findings highlight the importance of particular trait-based dimensions when discriminating adults with ADHD, ASD, and co-occurring ADHD/ASD.

Background Several theories in autism posit that common aspects of the autism phenotype may be manifestations of an underlying differentiation in predictive abilities. The present study investigates this hypothesis in the context of strategic decision making in autistic participants compared to a control group. Method Autistic individuals (43 adults, 35 male) and a comparison group (42 adults, 35 male) of age and gender matched individuals, played a modified version of the prisoner’s dilemma (PD) task where they were asked, if capable, to predict their opponents’ move. The predictive performance of the two groups was assessed. Results Overall, participants in the autism group had a significantly lower number of correct predictions. Moreover, autistic participants stated, significantly more frequently than the comparison group, that they were unable to make a prediction. When attempting a prediction however, the success ratio did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions These findings indicate that there is a difference in prediction performance between the two groups. Although our task design does not allow us to identify whether this difference is due to difficulty to form a prediction or a reluctance in registering one, these findings could justify a role for prediction in strategic decision making during the PD task.