Chunbo Li

OBJECTIVE: To update the prevalence of eating disorders in the general population before 2021 and to analyze the distribution characteristics at different times and in different regions and sexes, as well as the diagnostic criteria. METHODS: Based on the method from a previous report by the authors, studies were identified from the following databases: PubMed/Medline, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Knowledge, Ovid and the 4 most important Chinese databases. Articles in English and Chinese before 2021 were retrieved. The data retrieved at this time were pooled with the data from a previous report for analyses. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were identified, which included 18 studies supplemented in this retrieval. The pooled lifetime and 12-month prevalence of eating disorders were 0.91% (95% CI, 0.48-1.71) and 0.43% (95% CI, 0.18-0.78), respectively. The pooled lifetime and 12-month prevalence of the subgroup EDs (any), which covers all types of eating disorders, were 1.69% and 0.72%, respectively. The lifetime prevalence of AN, BN and BED was 0.16% (95% CI, 0.06-0.31), 0.63% (95% CI, 0.33-1.02) and 1.53% (95% CI, 1.00-2.17), respectively. The lifetime prevalence of EDs in Western countries was 1.89%, and was high at 2.58% in females. Prevalence studies using DSM-5 criteria were scarce. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of eating disorders might be underestimated thus far. Not all types of EDs were included in a majority of epidemiological surveys, and the prevalence rates of the new types of EDs were significantly higher. Eating disorders were especially common in Western countries and in females. New diagnostic criteria should be used to comprehensively assess all types of eating disorders. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1, systematic review and meta-analysis.

China's population has rapidly aged over the recent decades of social and economic development as neurodegenerative disorders have proliferated, especially Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADRD). AD's incidence rate, morbidity, and mortality have steadily increased to make it presently the fifth leading cause of death among urban and rural residents in China and magnify the resulting financial burdens on individuals, families and society. The 'Healthy China Action' plan of 2019-2030 promotes the transition from disease treatment to health maintenance for this expanding population with ADRD. This report describes related epidemiological trends, evaluates the economic burden of the disease, outlines current clinical diagnosis and treatment status and delineates existing available public health resources. More specifically, it examines the public health impact of ADRD, including prevalence, mortality, costs, usage of care, and the overall effect on caregivers and society. In addition, this special report presents technical guidance and supports for the prevention and treatment of AD, provides expertise to guide relevant governmental healthcare policy development and suggests an information platform for international exchange and cooperation.

BACKGROUND: Long-term drug treatment of schizophrenia with typical antipsychotics has limitations: 25 to 33% of patients have illnesses that are treatment-resistant. Clozapine is an antipsychotic drug, which is claimed to have superior efficacy and to cause fewer motor adverse effects than typical drugs for people with treatment-resistant illnesses. Clozapine carries a significant risk of serious blood disorders, which necessitates mandatory weekly blood monitoring at least during the first months of treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of clozapine compared with typical antipsychotic drugs in people with schizophrenia. SEARCH STRATEGY: For the current update of this review (March 2006) we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register. SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis, based on a fixed-effect model. We calculated numbers needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH) where appropriate. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) again based on a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We have included 42 trials (3950 participants) in this review. Twenty-eight of the included studies are less than 13 weeks in duration, and, overall, trials were at significant risk of bias. We found no significant difference in the effects of clozapine and typical neuroleptic drugs for broad outcomes such as mortality, ability to work or suitability for discharge at the end of the study. Clinical improvements were seen more frequently in those taking clozapine (n=1119, 14 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.7 to 0.8, NNT 6 CI 5 to 8). Also, participants given clozapine had fewer relapses than those on typical antipsychotic drugs (n=1303, RR 0.62 CI 0.5 to 0.8, NNT 21 CI 15 to 49). BPRS scores showed a greater reduction of symptoms in clozapine-treated patients, (n=1145, 16 RCTs, WMD -4.22 CI -5.4 to -3.1), although the data were heterogeneous (Chi(2) 0.0001, I(2) 66%). Short-term data from the SANS negative symptom scores favoured clozapine (n=196, 5 RCTs, WMD -5.92 CI -7.8 to -4.1). We found clozapine to be more acceptable in long-term treatment than conventional antipsychotic drugs (n=982, 16 RCTs, RR 0.60 CI 0.5 to 0.7, NNT 15 CI 12 to 20). Blood problems occurred more frequently in participants receiving clozapine (3.2%) compared with those given typical antipsychotics (0%) (n=1031, 13 RCTs, RR 7.09 CI 2.0 to 25.6). Clozapine participants experienced more drowsiness, hypersalivation, or temperature increase, than those given conventional neuroleptics. However, clozapine patients experienced fewer motor adverse effects (n=1433, 18 RCTs, RR 0.58 CI 0.5 to 0.7, NNT 5 CI 4 to 6).The clinical effects of clozapine were more pronounced in participants resistant to typical neuroleptics in terms of clinical improvement (n=370, 4 RCTs, RR 0.71 CI 0.6 to 0.8, NNT 4 CI 3 to 6) and symptom reduction. Thirty-four per cent of treatment-resistant participants had a clinical improvement with clozapine treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Clozapine may be more effective in reducing symptoms of schizophrenia, producing clinically meaningful improvements and postponing relapse, than typical antipsychotic drugs - but data are weak and prone to bias. Participants were more satisfied with clozapine treatment than with typical neuroleptic treatment. The clinical effect of clozapine, however, is, at least in the short term, not reflected in measures of global functioning such as ability to leave the hospital and maintain an occupation. The short-term benefits of clozapine have to be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. Within the context of trials, the potentially dangerous white blood cell decline seems to be more frequent in children and adolescents and in the elderly than in young adults or people of middle-age.The existing trials have largely neglected to assess the views of participants and their families on clozapine. More community-based long-term randomised trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of clozapine on global and social functioning as trials in special groups such as people with learning disabilities.