February 23, 2022
China is the outstanding economic growth story of the early twenty-first century. According to the World Bank, China has "experienced the fastest sustained expansion by a major economy in history, and has lifted more than 800 million people out of poverty."
That expansion has been accompanied by major investments in medical research, and medical treatment capability, especially in the major urban centers that have spearheaded the boom. Life expectancy has risen from 71 in 2000 to 77 in 2019, nearing the U.S. level of 79.
Yet when it comes to pharmaceutical treatment of ADHD, China is an outlier, as revealed by a new study exploring the data in the two main medical insurance programs for its urban population.
The Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance (UEBMI) covers both employers and employees in public and private workplaces, while the Urban Residents Basic Medical Insurance (BMI) covers the unemployed. As of 2014, these programs cover over 97% of urban residents. The China Health Insurance Research Association (CHIRA) database is a random sampling database from the UEBMI and UBMI databases.
The study population consisted of residents of the 63 cities in the CHIRA database from 2013 through 2017. Prescription prevalence was calculated by dividing the total number of patients prescribed ADHD medications in the CH IRA database by the urban population of the included cities, which was two hundred million as of 2017.
Other studies have found the prevalence of ADHD among Chinese children and adolescents to be about 6.5%, comparable to North American and European countries. Yet, the prescription prevalence of ADHD medications was 0.036% among those aged 0-14 years in 2017 in China. In other words, only about one in every two hundred youths with ADHD were being prescribed pharmaceutical treatments.
For further context, among other economically prosperous countries in Asia, Australia, North America, and Europe, the lowest prescription prevalence of ADHD medications is 0.27% in France, which is still over seven times higher than the Chinese level.
Among Chinese urban dwellers from 15 through 64 years of age, ADHD prescription prevalence in 2017 dropped by a further order of magnitude (over tenfold) to 0.003%, and among those 65 and older, to a scant 0.001%.
The Chinese study team suggested several likely contributing factors:
Lu Xu, XiaozhenLv, Huali Wang, Qingjing Liu, Shuzhe Zhou, Shuangqing Gao, Xin Yu, Siwei Deng, Shengfeng Wang, Zheng Chang, and Siyan Zhan, "Trends in Psychotropic Medication Prescriptions in Urban China From 2013 to2017: National Population-Based Study," Frontiers in Psychiatry(2021), vol.12, Article 727453, published online,https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.727453.
Macrotrends, "China Life Expectancy 1950-2021," https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/life-expectancy.
World Bank, China Overview, March 28, 2017, http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview.
A meta-analysis of short-term, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (Cortese et al. 2018), looking at both efficacy and safety, supported prescribing stimulants – methylphenidate use in children and adolescents and amphetamine use in adults – as first-choice medications.
However, these were short-term studies, and they focused on relieving ADHD symptoms. What about longer-term outcomes, especially looking more broadly at functional impairment and overall quality of life?
Sweden has a single-payer health insurance system that encompasses virtually every resident and is linked to national registers that enable researchers to conduct nationwide population studies.
A joint Finnish-Swedish research team used Sweden’s registers to study outcomes for all individuals of working age, 16 to 65 years old, living in Sweden who had received a diagnosis of ADHD from 2006 through 2021. The resulting study cohort encompassed 221,714 persons with ADHD.
The team adjusted for the following confounding variables: Genetics, baseline severity of symptoms, baseline comorbidities, temporal order of treatments (which medication was used as first, second, third, and so forth, including also nonuse of ADHD medications), time since cohort entry, and time-varying use of psychotropic drugs, including antidepressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics, mood stabilizers (carbamazepine, valproic acid, and lamotrigine), lithium, antipsychotics, and drugs for addictive disorders.
With these adjustments, they discovered that amphetamine treatment was associated with a roughly 25% reduction in psychiatric hospitalization relative to unmedicated ADHD. Lisdexamphetamine was associated with a roughly 20% reduction, dexamphetamine with a 12% reduction, and methylphenidate with a 7% reduction. All four medications are stimulants.
None of the non-stimulant medications – atomoxetine, guanfacine, clonidine – had any significant effect on psychiatric hospitalization. Nor did modafinil a drug that is not FDA approved for ADHD but is sometimes used when other drugs fail.
Amphetamine was also associated with the greatest reduction in suicide attempts or deaths, with a roughly 40% decline relative to unmedicated ADHD. Dexamphetamine was associated with a roughly 30% decline and lisdexamphetamine with a roughly 25% decline. The stimulant methylphenidate was only associated with an 8% reduction, and modafinil had no significant effect.
Surprisingly, non-stimulant medications were associated with significant increases in suicide attempts or deaths: 20% for atomoxetine, 65% for guanfacine, and almost double for clonidine.
Amphetamine and lisdexamphetamine also reduced the risk of nonpsychiatric hospitalization by more than a third compared to unmedicated ADHD. Dexamphetamine was associated with a risk reduction of more than 25%, methylphenidate with 20% lesser risk.
The non-stimulant atomoxetine was associated with a roughly 15% reduction in risk of nonpsychiatric hospitalization. But neither guanfacine nor clonidine had any significant effect.
Turning to work disability, atomoxetine was the only ADHD medication associated with a reduction – a roughly 10% improvement. All other medications had no significant effect.
The team concluded, “In this cohort study of adolescents and adults with ADHD, the use of medications for ADHD, especially lisdexamphetamine and other stimulants, was associated with decreased risk of psychiatric hospitalizations, suicidal behavior, and nonpsychiatric hospitalizations during periods when they were used compared with periods when ADHD medication was not used. Non-stimulant atomoxetine use was associated with decreased risk of work disability.”
Noting that “Oxidative stress disrupts the structure and function of neurons in the prefrontal lobe of the brain,” and “Structural and functional impairments in the prefrontal cortex have been shown to be highly correlated with behavioral and emotional problems of ADHD,” a Chinese team at Dalian University set out to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of antioxidant therapy in children and adolescents with ADHD.
The team’s systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature identified a total of 48 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies involving 12 antioxidant agents (resveratrol, pycnogenol, omega-3, omega-6, quercetin, phosphatidylserine, almond, vitamin D, zinc, folic acid, ginkgo biloba, Acetyl-L-carnitine) that met criteria for inclusion:
Treatment efficacy was measured through ADHD symptom scores using Conners’ parent rating scale (CPRS), Conners’ teacher rating scale (CTRS), ADHD rating scale-parent (ADHD RS-Parent), and ADHD rating scale-teacher (ADHD RS-Teacher), as well as secondary outcome indicators such as the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI) and Continuous Performance Test (CPT), relative to controls.
None of the antioxidant therapies were significantly better than placebo.
One limitation is that no effort was made to assess publication bias.
These results indicate that antioxidants should not be used for treating ADHD.
A 2021 consensus statement by an international group of scientists and clinicians (Bauer et al.) recommended that pregnant individuals “forego [acetaminophen] unless its use is medically indicated,” due to the potential risk of developmental disorders such as autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
A mostly Swedish research team, collaborating with a U.S. researcher, nevertheless noted that previous studies have been limited by:
Sweden has a single-payer health insurance system that includes virtually its entire population, and national registers that enable tracking the health history of mothers and their children, including their children’s siblings.
The team used the Swedish registers to identify the roughly two-and-a-half million children born in Sweden from mid-1995 through 2019. They were also able to identify all siblings to be able to control for otherwise unmeasured familial and genetic confounding.
Almost 186,000 of these children were exposed to acetaminophen during pregnancy.
After adjusting for available known confounders, including (but not limited to) child sex and birthdate, mother’s age and medical history, use of any other painkillers, use of any psychoactive medications, country of birth, residential region, smoking status, highest household education, and disposable income, children exposed to acetaminophen during pregnancy were 7% more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD subsequently than those who were not exposed.
However, roughly the same results were found for other painkillers, including aspirin, non-aspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and antimigraine medication. High doses of acetaminophen did not produce any stronger association with subsequent ADHD than low dosage.
Moreover, when confining results to siblings – 8,526 children who were exposed versus 87,679 who were unexposed – the association between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and subsequent offspring ADHD vanished altogether (and, again, at every dose level). The associations similarly vanished with every other painkiller medication.
The Swedish team concluded, “Acetaminophen use during pregnancy was not associated with children’s risk of autism, ADHD, or intellectual disability in sibling control analyses. This suggests that associations observed in models without sibling control may have been attributable to confounding.”
_logo%201.svg)
