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 8, 2026
Stimulant medications have long been considered the default first-line treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Clinical guidelines, prescribing practices, and public narratives all reinforce the idea that stimulants should be tried first, with non-stimulants reserved for cases where stimulants fail or are poorly tolerated.
I recently partnered with leading ADHD researcher Jeffrey Newcorn for a Nature Mental Health commentary on the subject. We argue that this hierarchy deserves reexamination. It is important to note that our position is not anti-stimulant. Rather, we call into question whether the evidence truly supports treating non-stimulants as secondary options, and we propose that both classes should be considered equal first-line treatments.
Stimulants have earned their reputation as the go-to drug of choice for ADHD. They are among the most effective medications in psychiatry, reliably reducing core ADHD symptoms and improving daily functioning when properly titrated and monitored. However, when stimulant and non-stimulant medications are compared more closely, the gap between them appears smaller than commonly assumed.
Meta-analyses often report slightly higher average response rates for stimulants, but head-to-head trials where patients are directly randomized to one medication versus another frequently find no statistically significant differences in symptom improvement or tolerability. Network meta-analyses similarly show that while some stimulant formulations have modest advantages, these differences are small and inconsistent, particularly in adults.
When translated into clinical terms, the advantage of stimulants becomes even more modest. Based on existing data, approximately eight patients would need to be treated with a stimulant rather than a non-stimulant for one additional person to experience a meaningful benefit. This corresponds to only a 56% probability that a given patient will respond better to a stimulant than to a non-stimulant. This difference is not what we would refer to as “clinically significant.”
One reason non-stimulants may appear less effective is the way efficacy is typically reported. Most comparisons rely on standardized mean differences, a method of averages that may mask heterogeneity of treatment effects. In reality, ADHD medications do not work uniformly across patients.
For example, evidence suggests that response to some non-stimulants, such as atomoxetine, is bimodal: this means that many patients respond extremely well, while others respond poorly, with few in between. When this happens, average effect sizes can obscure the fact that a substantial subgroup benefits just as much as they would from a stimulant. In other words, non-stimulants are not necessarily less effective across the board, but that they are simply different in who they help.
In our commentary, we also highlight structural issues in ADHD research. Stimulant trials are particularly vulnerable to unblinding, as their immediate and observable physiological effects can reveal treatment assignment, potentially inflating perceived efficacy. Non-stimulants, with slower onset and subtler effects, are less prone to this bias.
Additionally, many randomized trials exclude patients with common psychiatric comorbidities such as anxiety, depression, or substance-use disorders. Using co-diagnoses as exclusion criteria for clinical trials on ADHD medications is nonviable when considering the large number of ADHD patients who also have other diagnoses. Real-world data suggest that a large proportion of individuals with ADHD would not qualify for typical trials, limiting how well results generalize to everyday clinical practice.
Standard evaluations of medication tolerability focus on side effects experienced by patients, but this narrow lens misses broader societal consequences. Stimulants are Schedule II controlled substances, which introduces logistical barriers, regulatory burdens, supply vulnerabilities, and administrative strain for both patients and clinicians.
When used as directed, stimulant medications do not increase risk of substance-use disorders (and, in fact, tend to reduce these rates); however, as ADHD awareness has spread and stimulants are more widely prescribed, non-medical use of prescription stimulants has become more widespread, particularly among adolescents and young adults. Non-stimulants do not carry these risks.
Non-stimulants are not without drawbacks themselves, however. They typically take longer to work and have higher non-response rates, making them less suitable in situations where rapid results are essential. These limitations, however, do not justify relegating them to second-line status across the board.
This is a call for abandoning a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, future guidelines should present stimulant and non-stimulant medications as equally valid starting points, clearly outlining trade-offs related to onset, efficacy, misuse risk, and practical burden.
The evidence already supports this shift. The remaining challenge is aligning clinical practice and policy with what the data, and patient-centered care, are increasingly telling us.
Faraone, S.V., Newcorn, J.H. Rethinking the role of non-stimulants in ADHD treatment. Nat. Mental Health (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-025-00564-7
A new large-scale study has shed light on which treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults are most effective and best tolerated.
Researchers analyzed 113 randomized controlled trials involving nearly 15,000 adults diagnosed with ADHD. These studies included medications (like stimulants and atomoxetine), psychological therapies (such as cognitive behavioral therapy), and newer approaches like neurostimulation.
The Findings
Stimulant medications (lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate) as well as selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) (atomoxetine) were the only treatments that consistently reduced core ADHD symptoms—both from the perspective of patients and clinicians. It may be worth noting that atomoxetine, while effective, was less well tolerated, with more people dropping out due to side effects.
Psychological therapies such as CBT, mindfulness, and psychoeducation showed some benefits, but mainly according to clinician ratings—not necessarily from the patients themselves. Neurostimulation techniques like transcranial direct current stimulation also showed some improvements, but only in limited contexts and with small sample sizes.
Conclusion
So, what does this mean for people navigating ADHD in adulthood? Stimulant medications remain the most effective treatment for managing ADHD symptoms day-to-day but nonstimulant medication are not far behind, which is good given the problems we’ve had with stimulant shortages. This study also supports structured psychotherapy as a viable treatment option, especially when used in conjunction with medication.
The study emphasizes the importance of ongoing, long-term research and the need for treatment plans that are tailored to the individual ADHD patient– Managing adult ADHD effectively calls for flexible, patient-centered care.
-----
Struggling with side effects or not seeing improvement in your day-to-day life? Dive into a step-by-step journey that starts with the basics of screening and diagnosis, detailing the clinical criteria healthcare professionals use so you can be certain you receive an accurate evaluation. This isn’t just another ADHD guide—it’s your toolkit for getting the care you deserve. This is the kind of care that doesn’t just patch up symptoms but helps you unlock your potential and build the life you want. Whether you’ve just been diagnosed or you’ve been living with ADHD for years, this booklet is here to empower you to take control of your healthcare journey.
Proceeds from the sale of this book are used to support www.ADHDevidence.org.
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 ..."
Older adults are at greater risk for cardiovascular disease. Psychostimulants may contribute to that risk through side effects, such as elevation of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate.
On the other hand, smoking, substance abuse, obesity, and chronic sleep loss - all of which are associated with ADHD - are known to increase cardiovascular risk, and stimulant medications are an effective treatment for ADHD.
So how does this all shake out? A Dutch team of researchers sets out to explore this. Using electronic health records, they compared all 139 patients 55 years and older at PsyQ outpatient clinic, Program Adult ADHD, in The Hague. Because a principal aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of medication on cardiovascular functioning after first medication use, the 26 patients who had previously been prescribed ADHD medication were excluded from the study, leaving a sample size of 113.
The ages of participants ranged from 55 from 79, with a mean of 61. Slightly over half were women. At the outset, 13 percent had elevated systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure, 2 percent had an irregular heart rate, 15 percent had an abnormal electrocardiogram, and 29 percent had some combination of these (a "cardiovascular risk profile"), and 21 percent used antihypertensive medication.
Three out of four participants had at least e comorbid disorder. The most common are sleep disorders, affecting a quarter of participants, and unipolar mood disorders (depressive or more rarely manic episodes, but not both), also affecting a quarter of participants.
Twenty-four patients did not initiate pharmacological treatment. Of the 89 who received ADHD medication, 58 (65%) reported positive effects, and five experienced no effect. Thirty-eight (43%) discontinued ADHD medication while at the clinic due to lack of effect or to side effects. The most commonly reported positive effects were enhanced concentration, more overview, less restlessness, more stable mood, and having more energy. The principal reasons for discontinuing medication were anxiety/depression, cardiovascular complaints, and lack of effect.
Methylphenidate raised heart rate and lowered weight, but had no significant effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Moreover, there was no significant correlation between methylphenidate dosage and any of these variables, nor between methylphenidate users taking hypertensive medication and those not taking such medication. There was no significant difference in systolic or diastolic blood pressure and heart rate before and after the use of methylphenidate among patients with the cardiovascular risk profiles.
Systolic blood pressure rose in ten out of 64 patients, with two experiencing an increase of at least 20 mmHg. It descended in five patients, with three having a decrease of at least 20 mmHg. Diastolic blood pressure rose by at least 10 mmHg in four patients, while dropping at least 10 mmHg in five others.
The authors concluded "that the use of a low dose of ADHD-medication is well tolerated and does not cause clinically significant cardiovascular changes among older adults with ADHD, even among those with an increased cardiovascular risk profile. Furthermore, our older patients experienced significant and clinically relevant improvement of their ADHD symptoms using stimulants, comparable with what is found among the younger age group," and that "the use of methylphenidate may be a relatively safe and effective treatment for older adults with ADHD, under the condition that all somatic complaints and especially cardiovascular parameters are monitored before and during pharmacological treatment."
Yet they cautioned that "due to the observational nature of the study and the lack of a control group, no firm conclusions can be drawn as to the effectiveness of the stimulants used. ... Important factors that were not systematically reported were the presence of other risk factors, such as smoking, substance (ab)use, aspirin use, and level of physical activity. In addition, the response to medication was not systematically measured"
The Background:
Management of ADHD relies on both medications and non-medication approaches. Clinical guidelines often recommend medication as the first-line treatment for adults, while non-medication interventions are often preferred for children. Medicines fall into two main groups: stimulants (for example, methylphenidate and amphetamines), which have strong and well-established evidence and are generally considered first choice, and non-stimulants (such as atomoxetine), which are typically used when stimulants are contraindicated, not tolerated, or ineffective.
How many people with ADHD receive medication is an important indicator of care quality and can be tracked at the national level. Untreated ADHD can affect many areas of life, from physical health, to school and work performance, to relationships emotional well-being. ADHD is associated with poorer quality of life, higher risk of accidents, substance use issues, criminal behavior, educational underachievement, and even increased premature mortality. The condition also places a substantial burden on families and caregivers, so understanding treatment rates matters for individuals and society.
Most epidemiological research has measured how common diagnosed ADHD is, but the share of those diagnosed who actually receive medication can vary a lot. That variation reflects differences in how ADHD is diagnosed, how easy it is to get treatment, what clinical guidelines recommend, and cultural attitudes toward using medication.
The Study:
This paper presents the first comprehensive meta-analysis to estimate how common pharmacological treatment is among children, adolescents, and adults with clinically confirmed ADHD. The analysis included only register-based population studies where diagnoses were confirmed by a qualified healthcare professional. Twelve studies meeting these criteria from Europe (the UK, Sweden, Denmark), Asia (Taiwan, South Korea), and North America (Canada, the United States) were used. Notably, these are all high-income areas, and thus unrepresentative of populations in lower-income countries.
The pooled estimate showed that about 73 percent of diagnosed individuals in prosperous parts of the world with well-developed health care systems were receiving medication, but there was very high variation between studies.
The Results:
The authors conclude there is substantial global variation in ADHD medication use. Overall, a relatively high proportion of people diagnosed with ADHD are treated with medication, which may reflect improved recognition and access to care. The large differences between studies probably reflect differing health systems, diagnostic rules, treatment definitions, study populations, and reporting practices, and they underline the need for more standardized definitions and reporting to make comparisons more meaningful.
There is also a need for information from lower-income regions, but that is complicated by an absence of register-based population studies in countries with more limited health care access.
.png)
The Background:
Because impulsivity is a core feature of ADHD, researchers have suggested it may raise the likelihood that someone will use psychoactive substances (including alcohol) and go on to develop a substance use disorder (SUD). When ADHD and SUD occur together in adolescents, treating one disorder alone usually has little or no positive effect on the other; current guidance therefore recommends treating both conditions at the same time using evidence-based approaches for each.
Given how much ADHD can worsen outcomes for people with primary SUDs, it is important to identify ADHD in people who are being treated for substance problems.
The Study:
A recent systematic meta-review found that, by current official criteria, ADHD affects about 7.2% of children and adolescents and about 2.6% of adults (Chaulagain et al., 2023). When adult ADHD is defined without the requirement that symptoms began by age 11, roughly 6.8% of adults meet criteria. A large body of research links ADHD to higher rates of medical problems, poorer quality of life, greater risk of suicide, more accidental injuries, worse educational outcomes, and increased involvement with the criminal justice system.
The present study is the first meta-analysis to estimate how common clinically diagnosed ADHD is among adults (age 18+) who are in treatment for psychoactive substance use disorders, and to provide those estimates by sex and by the specific substance used.
The authors included only studies of adults treated for a SUD (including alcohol). Eighty-four studies met the criteria, representing more than 34,000 people. Across all studies, the pooled prevalence of clinically diagnosed ADHD was 22%.
To put that in context, 22% is about eight times higher than the 2.6% adult prevalence using the stricter official definition, and about three times higher than the 6.8% rate when the childhood-onset requirement is relaxed. By substance, the prevalence was similar for alcohol (24%) and opioids (22%), with no significant difference between males and females. Prevalence among people treated for cocaine use was somewhat lower overall (18%), driven largely by lower rates among women, for whom the rate was no higher than in the general population. Estimates were higher for people using benzodiazepines and cannabis, but those figures are based on a very small number of users (256 and 249 people, respectively) and are therefore less certain.
The Results:
The authors conclude: “These findings underscore the need for early identification and treatment of ADHD as most substance use disorders develop in adolescence and young adulthood. While in treatment for ADHD, appropriate screening and management of substance use is possible.”
The Background:
Stimulant medications (like methylphenidate and amphetamines) and non-stimulants (like atomoxetine and guanfacine) remain the first-line treatments for ADHD, but their long-term use is often constrained by parental concerns, side effects (reduced appetite, sleep disruption, cardiovascular effects), and the fact that roughly 30% of children respond only partially or not at all. These medications tend to help with attention and behavior, but they do less to address emotional regulation or broader physical health, leaving some parents to seek other safe, complementary treatments.
Nutritional approaches, including omega-3 fatty acids, are one such avenue. Oily fish is the natural source, but clinical trials typically rely on supplements instead, since they allow for precise dosing, avoid the heavy-metal exposure that can come with high fish intake, and sidestep the problem of inconsistent dietary habits. Two omega-3s stand out as particularly relevant: DHA, which supports brain structure and cell-to-cell communication, and EPA, which helps reduce brain inflammation and improve blood flow. Both influence the dopamine and serotonin systems implicated in ADHD.
The Study:
Previous meta-analyses have generally found only modest overall benefits with mixed results. This mixed-results pattern may reflect the fact that children who had low omega-3 levels to begin with stand to benefit more than those whose levels are already adequate. This meta-analysis set out to test that idea directly, asking whether a child's baseline omega-3 status predicts how well they respond to supplementation.
To be included, studies had to be randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving children diagnosed with ADHD who did not have major coexisting medical conditions. Trials that used broad multinutrient interventions, where the effect of omega-3s specifically couldn't be isolated, were excluded.
The resulting analysis of seven RCTs covering 654 children found small overall improvements in ADHD symptoms with omega-3 supplementation, consistent with earlier meta-analyses. There was little variation across studies, but a clear signal of publication bias, which the authors did not attempt to statistically correct for.
Among four RCTs involving 369 children with low baseline omega-3 levels, supplementation produced a moderate improvement in ADHD symptoms, with consistent results across studies. By contrast, the six RCTs covering 559 children with normal or high baseline omega-3 levels showed no improvement at all, again with consistent results across studies.
The Results:
The authors concluded: this systematic review and meta-analysis offers preliminary evidence that children’s response to long-chain omega-3 supplementation for ADHD may depend on their starting omega-3 nutritional status. Larger effects emerged in the subgroups defined by individual studies as having low baseline levels, while normal, high, or unstratified groups showed little evidence of benefit. In other words, there may be a benefit to children with ADHD taking omega-3 supplements, but only if they are already deficient.
Even still, a sensitivity analysis limited to ADHD symptom-rating scales found only a numerically higher effect in the low-baseline group. This means that these results, though positive, are not considered statistically significant.
The Take-Away:
Given that the evidence rests on just seven trials, that “low baseline” was defined differently across studies (using different biological markers and thresholds), and that several subgroup comparisons were not planned in advance, the authors caution that these findings should be treated as hypothesis-generating rather than conclusive.
_logo%201.svg)
