Cookie Preferences
By clicking, you agree to store cookies on your device to enhance navigation, analyze usage, and support marketing. More Info
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
January 2, 2026
Today, most treatment guidelines recommend starting ADHD treatment with stimulant medications. These medicines often work quickly and can be very effective, but they do not help every child, and they can have bothersome side effects, such as appetite loss, sleep problems, or mood changes. Families also worry about long-term effects, the possibility of misuse or abuse, as well as the recent nationwide stimulant shortages. Non-stimulant medications are available, but they are usually used only after stimulants have not been effective.
This stimulant-first approach means that many patients who would respond well to a non-stimulant will end up on a stimulant medication anyway. This study addresses this issue by testing two different ways of starting medication treatment for school-age children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We want to know whether beginning with a non-stimulant medicine can work as well as the “stimulant-first” approach, which is currently used by most prescribers.
From this study, we hope to learn:
Our goal is to give families and clinicians clear, practical evidence to support a truly shared decision: “Given this specific child, should we start with a stimulant or a non-stimulant?”
Who will be in the study?
We will enroll about 1,000 children and adolescents, ages 6 to 16, who:
We will include children with common co-occurring conditions (such as anxiety, depression, learning or developmental disorders) so that the results reflect the “real-world” children seen in clinics, not just highly selected research volunteers.
How will the treatments be assigned?
This is a randomized comparative effectiveness trial, which means:
Parents and clinicians will know which type of medicine the child is taking, as in usual care. However, the experts who rate how much each child has improved using our main outcome measure will not be told which treatment strategy the child received. This helps keep their ratings unbiased.
What will participants be asked to do?
Each family will be followed for 12 months. We will collect information at:
At these times:
We will also track:
Data will be entered into a secure, HIPAA-compliant research database. Study staff at each site will work closely with families to make participation as convenient as possible, including offering flexible visit schedules and electronic options for completing forms when feasible.
How will we analyze the results?
Using standard statistical methods, we will:
All analyses will follow the “intention-to-treat” principle, meaning we compare children based on the strategy they were originally assigned to, even if their medication is later changed. This mirrors real-world decision-making: once you choose a starting strategy, what tends to happen over time?
Why is this study necessary now?
This study addresses a critical, timely gap in ADHD care:
In short, this study is needed now to move ADHD medication decisions beyond “one-size-fits-all.” By rigorously comparing stimulant-first and non-stimulant-first strategies in real-world settings, and by focusing on what matters most to children and families overall functioning, side effects, and long-term well-being, we aim to give patients, parents, and clinicians the information they need to choose the best starting treatment for each child.
This project was conceived by Professor Stephen V. Faraone, PhD (SUNY Upstate Medical University, Department of Psychiatry, Syracuse, NY) and Professor Jeffrey H. Newcorn, MD (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Department of Psychiatry, New York, NY). It will be conducted at nine sites across the USA.
A Chinese research team performed two types of meta-analyses to compare the risk of suicide for ADHD patients taking ADHD medication as opposed to those not taking medication.
The first type of meta-analysis combined six large population studies with a total of over 4.7 million participants. These were located on three continents - Europe, Asia, and North America - and more specifically Sweden, England, Taiwan, and the United States.
The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be about a quarter less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p = 0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). There were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications produced divergent outcomes. A meta-analysis of four population studies covering almost 900,000 individuals found stimulant medications to be associated with a 28 percent reduced risk of suicide. On the other hand, a meta-analysis of three studies with over 62,000 individuals found no significant difference in suicide risk for non-stimulant medications. The benefit, therefore, seems limited to stimulant medication.
The second type of meta-analysis combined three within-individual studies with over 3.9 million persons in the United States, China, and Sweden. The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be almost a third less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were again barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p =0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). Once again, there were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced the sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications once again produced divergent outcomes. Meta-analysis of the same three studies found a 25 percent reduced risk of suicide among those taking stimulant medications. But as in the population studies, a meta-analysis of two studies with over 3.9 million persons found no reduction in risk among those taking non-stimulant medications.
A further meta-analysis of two studies with 3.9 million persons found no reduction in suicide risk among persons taking ADHD medications for 90 days or less, "revealing the importance of duration and adherence to medication in all individuals prescribed stimulants for ADHD."
The authors concluded, "exposure to non-stimulants is not associated with a higher risk of suicide attempts. However, a lower risk of suicide attempts was observed for stimulant drugs. However, the results must be interpreted with caution due to the evidence of heterogeneity ..."
Noting that “the association between adult ADHD and dementia risk remains a topic of interest because of inconsistent results,” an Israeli study team tracked 109,218 members of a nonprofit Israeli health maintenance organization born between 1933 and 1952 who entered the cohort on January 1, 2003, without an ADHD or dementia diagnosis and were followed up to February 28, 2020.
Israeli law forbids nonprofit HMOs from turning anyone away based on demographic factors, health conditions, or medication needs, thereby limiting sample selection bias.
The estimated prevalence of dementia in this HMO, as diagnosed by geriatricians, neurologists, or psychiatrists, is 6.6%. This closely matches estimates in Western Europe (6.9%) and the United States (6.5%).
The team considered, and adjusted for, numerous covariates: age, sex, socioeconomic status, smoking, depression, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, traumatic brain injury, migraine, mild cognitive impairment, psychostimulants.
With these adjustments, individuals diagnosed with ADHD were almost three times as likely to be subsequently diagnosed with dementia as those without ADHD. Men with ADHD were two and a half times more likely to be diagnosed with dementia, whereas women with ADHD were over three times more likely, than non-ADHD peers.
More concerning still, persons with ADHD were 5.5 times more likely to be subsequently diagnosed with early onset dementia, as opposed to 2.4 times more likely to be diagnosed with late onset dementia.
On the other hand, the team found no significant difference in rates of dementia between individuals with ADHD who were being treated with stimulant medications and individuals without ADHD. Those with untreated ADHD had three times the rate of dementia. The team nevertheless cautioned, “Due to the underdiagnosis of dementia as well as bidirectional misdiagnosis, this association requires further study before causal inference is plausible.”
Conclusions and Relevance:
This study reinforces existing evidence that adult ADHD is associated with an increased risk of dementia. Notably, the increased risk was not observed in individuals receiving psychostimulant medication, however the mechanism behind this association is not clear.
These findings underscore the importance of reliable ADHD assessment and management in adulthood. They also highlight the need for further study into the link between stimulant medications and the decreased risk of dementia.
...
Struggling to get the care you need to manage your ADHD? Support The ADHD Evidence Project and get this step-by-step guide to getting the treatment you deserve: https://bit.ly/41gIQE9
Parents and teachers often ask: Does ADHD medication actually improve grades and school performance? The answer is: yes, but with important limitations. Medications are very effective at reducing inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity but their impact on long-term academic outcomes like grades and test scores is not as consistent.
In the Classroom
The medications for ADHD consistently: Improve attention, reduce classroom disruptions, increase time spent on-task and help children complete more schoolwork and homework. Medication can help children with ADHD access learning by improving the conditions for paying attention and persisting with work.
Does Medication Improve Test Scores and Grades?
This is where the picture gets more complicated. Medications have stronger effect on how much work is completed but a weaker effect on accuracy. Many studies show that children on medication attempt more problems in reading, math, and spelling, but the number of correct answers doesn’t always improve as much. Some studies find small but significant improvements in national exam scores and higher education entrance tests during periods when children with ADHD are medicated.
Grades improve, as well, but modestly. Large registry studies in Sweden show that students who consistently take medication earn higher grades than those who don’t. However, these gains usually do not close the achievement gap with peers who do not have ADHD.
Keep in mind that small improvements for a group as a whole mean that some children are benefiting greatly from medication and others not at all. We have no way of predicting which children will improve and which do not.
Medication Alone Isn’t Enough
Academic success depends on more than just reducing inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity. Skills like organization, planning, studying, and managing long-term projects are also critical. Medication cannot teach these skills.
So, in addition to medication, the patient's treatment program should include educational support (tutoring, structured study skills programs), behavioral interventions (parent training, classroom management strategies), and accommodations at school (extra time, reduced distractions, organizational aids) Parents should discuss with their prescriber which of these methods would be appropriate.
Conclusions
ADHD medication is a powerful tool for reducing symptoms and supporting learning. It improves test scores and grades for some children, especially when taken consistently. But it is not a magic bullet for academic success. The best results come when medication is combined with educational and behavioral supports that help children build the skills they need to thrive in school and beyond.
If you or someone you know has ADHD, you may be familiar with the challenge of staying on medication. Stimulants like methylphenidate (Ritalin) are the most common and effective treatment for ADHD, but a surprisingly large number of people stop taking them within the first year. In our new study, published in Translational Psychiatry, we sought to determine whether a person's genetic makeup plays a role in the development of the disorder.
What We Did
We analyzed data from over 18,000 people with ADHD in Denmark, all of whom had started stimulant medication. We tracked whether they stopped treatment within the first year, defined as going more than six months without filling a prescription. Nearly 4 in 10 (39%) had discontinued by that point. We then looked at their genetic data to see whether DNA differences could help explain who was more likely to stop.
What We Found
The short answer is: genetics does play a role, but it's modest. No single gene had a dramatic effect. Instead, we found that a collection of small genetic influences—distributed across the genome—contributed to the likelihood of stopping treatment early.
One of the most consistent findings was that people with a higher genetic predisposition for psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia, depression, or general mental health difficulties were more likely to discontinue their medication. This was true across all age groups. Interestingly, having a higher genetic risk for ADHD itself was not associated with stopping treatment, suggesting that the genetics of having ADHD and the genetics of staying on medication are quite different things.
We also found that the genetic picture looks different depending on age. In children under 16, body weight genetics (BMI) played a surprising role, children with a genetic tendency toward higher weight were actually less likely to stop, possibly because stimulant-related appetite suppression is less of a problem for them. In older adolescents and adults, higher genetic potential for educational attainment and IQ was linked to staying on treatment, possibly reflecting better access to information and healthcare support.
On the rare variant side, we found a tentative signal that people who stopped treatment had fewer disruptive variants in genes involved in dopamine, the brain chemical that stimulants work on. This might mean that those who continue on medication genuinely have more disruption in their dopamine system and benefit more from stimulant treatment.
What This Means
Our findings suggest that stopping ADHD medication early isn't simply a matter of willpower or forgetting to take a pill. Biology matters. A person's broader genetic vulnerabilities, particularly for other psychiatric disorders, may make it harder to stay on treatment, perhaps because of side effects, poor response, or the complexity of managing multiple mental health challenges at once.
We're still far from being able to use genetics to predict who will stop their medication, the effects we found are real but small, and much of the variation in treatment persistence remains unexplained. But this work is a step toward understanding the biological foundations of treatment challenges in ADHD, and hopefully toward more personalized approaches to care in the future.
Larger studies and research that can distinguish why people stop (side effects versus poor response versus practical barriers), will be the next steps.
ADHD affects both individuals and society in many ways. Children and adolescents with ADHD often struggle with focusing, controlling impulses, and staying organized, which leads to problems with schoolwork, learning, and taking tests. These challenges can cause academic failure and make it harder for them to stay in school.
ADHD symptoms often continue into adulthood, affecting jobs, relationships, and increasing risks for substance abuse and legal problems.
Families of children and adolescents with ADHD face extra stress, with parents more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and relationship difficulties. The economic impact is also large, with billions spent each year on medical care, special education, lost productivity, and other related costs.
Current treatments for ADHD mostly include medication, behavioral therapy, and educational support. While medications like stimulants can help control ADHD symptoms in the short term, they often cause side effects such as loss of appetite, trouble sleeping, slowed growth, cardiovascular risks, and potential substance dependence. These issues can make it hard for children and adolescents to stay on their medication, and about a third either don’t respond well or can’t tolerate the side effects. Once medication is stopped, the benefits fade quickly and do not lead to lasting improvements in executive functions (thinking skills).
Behavioral therapy and parent training can help with behavior problems, but have limited effects on core mental skills like planning and self-control. These approaches also tend to be expensive, require a lot of support from parents and teachers, and are hard to use widely in schools and communities that lack resources.
Recently, exercise interventions have attracted growing interest as a non-pharmacological option. They provide several benefits: no drug-related side effects, easy accessibility, low cost, simple implementation in schools and communities, and enhanced physical and mental health.
Previous meta-analyses examining how exercise interventions affect children and adolescents with ADHD have used traditional univariate models, which treat each study as if it only offers one independent effect size. In contrast, this study used multilevel meta-analysis — a more advanced statistical method modelling both between-study and within-study effects. This approach results in more accurate estimates and more dependable conclusions.
Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with usual care, no intervention, or waitlist controls, involving children and adolescents aged 5–18 diagnosed with ADHD by internationally recognized diagnostic criteria, and reporting inhibitory control outcomes.
Eleven studies combining 512 children and adolescents met these inclusion standards.
The analysis between experimental and control groups indicated that the exercise intervention group had significantly improved inhibitory control performance compared to the control group, with a medium-to-large effect size. There was very little variation (heterogeneity) in outcome between the studies, and no sign of publication bias.
Within-group analyses showed that experimental groups had significant improvements after the intervention compared to baseline, with large effect sizes and moderate heterogeneity.
By comparison, analyzing control groups over the same period revealed no significant differences, indicating that inhibitory control abilities in these groups remained largely unchanged throughout the observation period. There was little heterogeneity.
Nevertheless, only one of the studies was rated low risk of bias, nine had some concerns, and two were rated high risk of bias. The greatest shortcomings were a lack of blinding and preregistration.
The study authors therefore concluded that the overall evidence quality of this meta-analysis is low, limiting confidence in the results. While exercise interventions seem to improve inhibitory control abilities in children and adolescents with ADHD, significant methodological limitations create uncertainty about the effect size. These require more rigorous future studies to clarify these effects. Despite these caveats, they noted that all included studies reported statistically significant, consistent benefits from exercise interventions, offering preliminary support for their use as an adjunctive approach.
Takeaway
This study lands in the same conversation as the adult ADHD exercise meta-analysis, and together they start to form a coherent picture: exercise appears to support attention and impulse control across the lifespan for people with ADHD, not just in one age group. The honest caveat is that the research quality in this field is still catching up to the enthusiasm — most studies have design weaknesses that limit confidence in the exact size of the effect. But the consistency of findings across studies, age groups, and now two separate meta-analyses is hard to dismiss.
A new study in the respected journal PLOS One analyzes data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) to examine trends in the incidence, prevalence, and disability-adjusted life-years associated with ADHD among adolescents and young adults aged 10 to 24 years between 1990 and 2021.
The GBD 2021, released by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (U.S.), is a comprehensive global analysis of 371 diseases, injuries, and risk factors – such as ADHD – across 204 countries from 1990 to 2021. Its open-source data are publicly available.
First, a distinction. Incidence measures the number of new cases of a disease that develop in a specific population each year. Prevalence measures the total number of existing cases – both new and pre-existing – in a population each year.
The estimated global incidence of ADHD declined marginally from 12.61 per 100,000 population in 1990 to 11.89 per 100,000 population in 2021, representing an average annual decrease of 0.6% in age-standardized incidence. The rates observed were comparable between males and females.
Regional trends varied: Western Europe had the highest rise in ADHD incidence (0.5% annually), while North Africa and the Middle East saw the largest drop (0.7% annually). Overall, a higher Socio-Demographic Index (SDI) is linked to a greater incidence, although it is far from a perfect fit. Nationally, showed the highest increase in ADHD incidence (1.15% annually), while Qatar showed the largest decrease with an annualized reduction of 1.77%.
The estimated global prevalence of ADHD declined marginally from 2.38% in 1990 to 2.17% in 2021. Again, the decline was similar for males and females, and across all age groups (10-14, 15-19, 20-24). Higher SDI was associated with higher prevalence, but inconsistently.
Disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) combine years lost from early death and years lived with disability to measure disease burden. Globally, the age-standardized DALYs rate for ADHD decreased slightly from 30.3 per 100,000 population to 26.6 per 100,000 population, for an average annual decline of 0.6%. The decline occurred across age groups and was similar between males and females.
The authors concluded that ADHD rates and related health burdens have generally declined over the past quarter century, though recent patterns are less consistent due to factors like socioeconomic changes and evolving diagnostic standards. Continued research is needed to improve the accuracy and accessibility of ADHD diagnosis and treatment to further reduce its global impact.
Take-Away:
The broader takeaway is one of cautious reassurance. Despite rising public awareness and diagnosis rates in many Western countries, the global picture over 25 years shows a gentle decline in ADHD burden among young people as opposed to a crisis of escalating proportions as social media may make one think. That said, the variation between regions suggests that access to diagnosis, cultural factors, and reporting standards are shaping the numbers as much as underlying biology. Progress is real but uneven, and the work of improving equitable access to diagnosis and care is far from finished.
_logo%201.svg)
