Reevaluating ADHD and its First-Line Treatment: Insights from DSM-5-TR and Modern Approaches.

IF 2 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Yaakov Ophir
{"title":"Reevaluating ADHD and its First-Line Treatment: Insights from DSM-5-TR and Modern Approaches.","authors":"Yaakov Ophir","doi":"10.36131/cnfioritieditore20240507","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) a \"brain disorder\"? Should it be managed regularly with stimulant drugs? This article critically examines the evolving biomedical discourse surrounding these questions through a close inspection of the latest edition of the influential psychiatric manual - the DSM-5-TR - as well as additional authoritative sources (e.g., previous DSM editions, consensus statements, FDA communications). The DSM-5-TR acknowledges that \"<i>no biological marker is diagnostic for ADHD</i>\" and that \"<i>meta-analyses of all neuroimaging studies do not show differences between individuals with ADHD and control subjects</i>.\" The authors of the DSM-5-TR, therefore, conclude that \"<i>until these issues are resolved, no form of neuroimaging can be used for diagnosis of ADHD</i>.\" These statements, along with biases in the neuroimaging literature and additional empirical evidence presented in the article, challenge popular myths about the neurobiological basis of ADHD. Similarly, common beliefs about the first-line treatment of ADHD with stimulant drugs are being increasingly questioned today. For instance, the DSM-5-TR's section on <i>Stimulant-Related Disorders</i> introduces a new diagnostic entity named: <i>Stimulant-Induced Mild Neurocognitive Disorder</i>. This addition aligns with a recent FDA Drug Safety Communication for \"<i>all prescription stimulants</i>,\" which highlights longstanding concerns regarding the safety of medications prescribed to millions of diagnosed individuals, primarily children. The FDA now mandates that \"<i>the Boxed Warning, FDA's most prominent warning, will describe the risks of misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose</i>,\" emphasizing that such \"<i>misuse and abuse of prescription stimulants can result in overdose and death</i>.\" In light of these challenges to the biomedical discourse, this article offers a neurodiversity-oriented alternative. Using evolutionary principles and historical context, it argues that most cases of ADHD fall under the DSM's socio-philosophical category of \"<i>conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society</i>\" (similar to homosexuality, which was removed from the DSM in 1973), and are therefore \"<i>not mental disorders</i>\".</p>","PeriodicalId":46700,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropsychiatry","volume":"21 5","pages":"436-443"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11555658/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropsychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36131/cnfioritieditore20240507","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) a "brain disorder"? Should it be managed regularly with stimulant drugs? This article critically examines the evolving biomedical discourse surrounding these questions through a close inspection of the latest edition of the influential psychiatric manual - the DSM-5-TR - as well as additional authoritative sources (e.g., previous DSM editions, consensus statements, FDA communications). The DSM-5-TR acknowledges that "no biological marker is diagnostic for ADHD" and that "meta-analyses of all neuroimaging studies do not show differences between individuals with ADHD and control subjects." The authors of the DSM-5-TR, therefore, conclude that "until these issues are resolved, no form of neuroimaging can be used for diagnosis of ADHD." These statements, along with biases in the neuroimaging literature and additional empirical evidence presented in the article, challenge popular myths about the neurobiological basis of ADHD. Similarly, common beliefs about the first-line treatment of ADHD with stimulant drugs are being increasingly questioned today. For instance, the DSM-5-TR's section on Stimulant-Related Disorders introduces a new diagnostic entity named: Stimulant-Induced Mild Neurocognitive Disorder. This addition aligns with a recent FDA Drug Safety Communication for "all prescription stimulants," which highlights longstanding concerns regarding the safety of medications prescribed to millions of diagnosed individuals, primarily children. The FDA now mandates that "the Boxed Warning, FDA's most prominent warning, will describe the risks of misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose," emphasizing that such "misuse and abuse of prescription stimulants can result in overdose and death." In light of these challenges to the biomedical discourse, this article offers a neurodiversity-oriented alternative. Using evolutionary principles and historical context, it argues that most cases of ADHD fall under the DSM's socio-philosophical category of "conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society" (similar to homosexuality, which was removed from the DSM in 1973), and are therefore "not mental disorders".

重新评估多动症及其一线治疗:DSM-5-TR 和现代方法的启示》。
注意力缺陷多动障碍 (ADHD) 是一种 "脑部疾病 "吗?是否应该定期使用兴奋剂来控制?本文通过仔细研究具有影响力的最新版精神医学手册--《DSM-5-TR》--以及其他权威资料来源(如以前的《DSM》版本、共识声明、美国食品和药物管理局的通报),批判性地探讨了围绕这些问题不断演变的生物医学论述。DSM-5-TR 承认,"没有任何生物标志物可以诊断多动症","所有神经影像学研究的荟萃分析并未显示多动症患者与对照组之间存在差异"。因此,DSM-5-TR 的作者得出结论,"在这些问题得到解决之前,任何形式的神经影像学都不能用于诊断多动症"。这些声明,加上神经影像学文献中的偏见以及文章中提出的其他经验证据,对有关多动症神经生物学基础的流行神话提出了挑战。同样,关于用兴奋剂药物一线治疗多动症的普遍观点如今也受到越来越多的质疑。例如,DSM-5-TR 的 "兴奋剂相关障碍 "部分引入了一个新的诊断实体,名为 "兴奋剂诱发的精神障碍":兴奋剂诱发的轻度神经认知障碍。这一新增内容与美国食品及药物管理局最近针对 "所有处方兴奋剂 "发布的 "药物安全通报 "相吻合,该通报强调了长期以来人们对为数百万已确诊患者(主要是儿童)开具的药物安全性的担忧。FDA 现在规定,"FDA 最醒目的警告--盒装警告--将描述误用、滥用、成瘾和用药过量的风险",强调这种 "处方兴奋剂的误用和滥用可能导致用药过量和死亡"。鉴于这些对生物医学论述的挑战,本文提出了一种以神经多样性为导向的替代方案。文章利用进化原理和历史背景,认为大多数多动症病例属于《疾病分类》的社会哲学范畴,即 "主要是个人与社会之间的冲突"(类似于 1973 年从《疾病分类》中删除的同性恋),因此 "不属于精神障碍"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Neuropsychiatry
Clinical Neuropsychiatry CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
11.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信