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.
September 13, 2024
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.”
Heidi Taipale, Jakob Bergström, Katalin Gèmes, Antti Tanskanen, Lisa Ekselius, Ellenor Mittendorfer-Rutz, and Magnus Helgesson, “Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Medications and Work Disability and Mental Health Outcomes,” JAMA Network Open (2024), 7(3):e242859, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.2859.
Cortese S, Adamo N, Del Giovane C, et al., “Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for attention- deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis,” Lancet Psychiatry (2018) 5(9):727-738, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30269-4.
With the growth of the Internet, we are flooded with information about attention deficit hyperactivity disorder from many sources, most of which aim to provide useful and compelling "facts" about the disorder. But, for the cautious reader, separating fact from opinion can be difficult when writers have not spelled out how they have come to decide that the information they present is factual.
My blog has several guidelines to reassure readers that the information they read about ADHD is up-to-date and dependable. They are as follows:
Nearly all the information presented is based on peer-reviewed publications in the scientific literature about ADHD. "Peer-reviewed" means that other scientists read the article and made suggestions for changes and approved that it was of sufficient quality for publication. I say "nearly all" because in some cases I've used books or other information published by colleagues who have a reputation for high-quality science.
When expressing certainty about putative facts, I am guided by the principles of evidence-based medicine, which recognizes that the degree to which we can be certain about the truth of scientific statements depends on several features of the scientific papers used to justify the statements, such as the number of studies available and the quality of the individual studies. For example, compare these two types of studies. One study gives drug X to 10 ADHD patients and reported that 7 improved. Another gave drug Y to 100 patients and a placebo to 100 other patients and used statistics to show that the rate of improvement was significantly greater in the drug-treated group. The second study is much better and much larger, so we should be more confident in its conclusions. The rules of evidence are fairly complex and can be viewed at the Oxford Center for Evidenced Based Medicine (OCEBM;http://www.cebm.net/).
The evidenced-based approach incorporates two types of information: a) the quality of the evidence and b) the magnitude of the treatment effect. The OCEBM levels of evidence quality are defined as follows (higher numbers are better:
Non-randomized, controlled studies. In these studies, the treatment group is compared to a group that receives a placebo treatment, which is a fake treatment not expected to work.
It is possible to have high-quality evidence proving that a treatment works but the treatment might not work very well. So it is important to consider the magnitude of the treatment effect, also called the "effect size" by statisticians. For ADHD, it is easiest to think about ranking treatments on a ten-point scale. The stimulant medications have a quality rating of 5 and also have the strongest magnitude of effect, about 9 or 10.Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation 'works' with a quality rating of 5, but the score for the magnitude of the effect is only 2, so it doesn't work very well. We have to take into account patient or parent preferences, comorbid conditions, prior response to treatment, and other issues when choosing a treatment for a specific patient, but we can only use an evidence-based approach when deciding which treatments are well-supported as helpful for a disorder.
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 ..."
Raising children is not easy. I should know.
As a clinical psychologist, I've helped parents learn the skills they need to be better parents. And my experience raising three children confirmed my clinical experience.
Parenting is a tough job under the best of circumstances, but it is even harder if the parent has ADHD.
For example, an effective parent establishes rules and enforces them systematically. This requires attention to detail, self-control, and good organizational skills. Given these requirements, it is easy to see how ADHD symptoms interfere with parenting. These observations have led some of my colleagues to test the theory that treating ADHD adults with medication would improve their parenting skills. I know about two studies that tested this idea.
In 2008, Dr. Chronis-Toscano and colleagues published a study using a sustained-release form of methylphenidate for mothers with ADHD. As expected, the medication decreased their symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. The medication also reduced the mother's use of inconsistent discipline and corporal punishment and improved their monitoring and supervision of their children.
In a 2014 study, Waxmonsky and colleagues observed ADHD adults and their children in a laboratory setting once when the adults were off medication and once when they were on medication. They used the same sustained-release form of amphetamine for all the patients. As expected, the medications reduced ADHD symptoms in the parents. This laboratory study is especially informative because the researchers made objective ratings of parent-child interactions, rather than relying on the parents' reports of those interactions. Twenty parents completed the study. The medication led to less negative talk and commands and more praise by parents. It also reduced negative and inappropriate behaviors in their children.
Both studies suggest that treating ADHD adults with medication will improve their parenting skills. That is good news. But they also found that not all parenting behaviors improved. That makes sense. Parenting is a skill that must be learned. Because ADHD interferes with learning, parents with the disorder need time to learn these skills. Medication can eliminate some of the worst behaviors, but doctors should also provide adjunct behavioral or cognitive-behavioral therapies that could help ADHD parents learn parenting skills and achieve their full potential as parents.
Background:
While ADHD is generally linked to negative childhood outcomes, individual variability exists. Researchers have found that factors like cognition, emotion, parenting, and social interactions can help some adversity-exposed children develop better than expected. This variability has driven extensive resilience research, which now views resilience not as a single trait, but as a combination of biological, psychological, social, and ecological processes supporting adaptation.
The Study:
This meta-analysis sought to address several key research gaps. First, while many potential resilience factors have been identified, no previous meta-analysis has quantitatively synthesized evidence focused specifically on children with ADHD. Second, relatively little research has clarified how particular resilience factors relate to specific developmental outcomes. Third, there is currently no integrated conceptual model of resilience processes tailored to children and adolescents with ADHD.
To keep the analysis focused and clinically relevant, the authors examined psychosocial and ecological resilience factors only. Biological factors (such as genetics or cardiovascular health) and non-modifiable demographic characteristics (such as age and sex) were excluded, as they do not readily inform interventions. The analysis also focused strictly on outcomes for children and adolescents with ADHD, excluding adult outcomes and those reported for parents or teachers. Only studies based on clinical ADHD diagnoses were included.
In total, 28 studies involving more than 11,600 participants met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen studies were rated as high quality and 13 as fair quality; none were rated low quality. However, the evidence base was relatively thin for many analyses. Of the 50 components examined, only one included five studies, six included four studies, ten included three studies, and most (33) were based on just two studies. While some components involved large samples, most did not, meaning the findings should be viewed as suggestive rather than definitive.
Results:
Unsurprisingly, academic skills and cognitive functioning – specifically including working memory and intelligence – were strongly associated with better educational outcomes for children and adolescents with ADHD. In contrast, social skills and proactive attitudes or behaviors showed no significant link to educational attainment.
Well-being outcomes showed a different pattern. Proactive attitudes and behaviors, cognitive functioning, and parental resources were associated with small-to-moderate improvements in well-being. Emotional regulation and positive parenting or attachment, however, were not significantly related to well-being in this analysis.
For relationship outcomes, peer relationships – especially close friendships – stood out as particularly important, showing strong associations with better relational functioning. Social skills and positive parenting or attachment were linked to moderate improvements, although positive parenting alone had no significant effect. This suggests that the observed benefit likely stemmed from parental warmth and secure parent–child attachment rather than parenting practices in isolation. Parental resources (such as parental social support) and school-based support (including student–teacher relationships) showed no significant association with relationship outcomes.
The study also examined behavioral symptoms. Externalizing symptoms refer to outward-directed behaviors that affect others or the environment, such as aggression, defiance, impulsivity, hyperactivity, and rule-breaking. Peer relationships were linked to a modest reduction in these behaviors, while positive relationships with adults were associated with a strong reduction. In contrast, disciplinary parenting – particularly harsh punishment – was strongly associated with increased externalizing symptoms.
Internalizing symptoms involve inward-directed distress, such as anxiety, depression, withdrawal, excessive worry, and unexplained physical complaints. Here again, positive relationships with adults were important, showing a moderate association with fewer internalizing symptoms. Emotional regulation was also linked to small-to-moderate improvements.
Conclusion:
Overall, the findings highlight that resilience factors tend to be closely tied to specific outcomes rather than broadly protective across domains. For example, emotional regulation was associated with lower levels of both internalizing and externalizing symptoms but showed no significant link to well-being, educational achievement, or relationship quality. This suggests that emotional regulation may play a particularly important role in protecting mental health in children with ADHD, rather than driving broader developmental gains – consistent with evidence that emotional dysregulation is a core difficulty in ADHD.
Similarly, academic skills, social competence, and prosocial behaviors were linked mainly to their most closely related outcomes. Cognitive functioning was associated with both educational and well-being outcomes, but its impact was much stronger in education and more modest for well-being. Together, these context-specific patterns underscore the importance of designing interventions that target particular resilience factors with strategies tailored to specific developmental goals, rather than assuming that any single factor will promote resilience across all areas of life.
Key takeaway: resilience is individual and resilience isn’t one trait; different types of support help different individuals, in different areas.
Background:
Traditional measures of obesity, like body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference, have been linked to ADHD risk — but they aren’t great at capturing where fat is actually stored in the body. A newer index called relative fat mass (RFM), which combines height and waist circumference, does a better job of estimating overall body fat and predicting metabolic risks like heart disease and metabolic syndrome. Because those conditions share some underlying biological mechanisms with ADHD, researchers wondered whether RFM might also help explain the relationship between obesity and ADHD — particularly in children.
That question is complicated by the fact that ADHD doesn't look the same in boys and girls. Boys tend to display more hyperactive and impulsive behavior, making their ADHD easier to spot. Girls more often show inattention, which is quieter and frequently goes undiagnosed.
The Study:
A new study set out to test whether RFM is associated with ADHD in children, and whether that association differs between sexes. Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) collected between 1999 and 2004, the researchers narrowed a large initial pool of over 31,000 participants down to 5,089 children and adolescents aged 6 to 14 who had complete data on height, waist circumference, ADHD screening, and other relevant variables.
After adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, Poverty-Income Ratio, maternal age at delivery, maternal smoking during pregnancy, health insurance coverage, and birth weight, the results revealed a striking split along sex lines.
In boys, higher RFM was associated with lower odds of ADHD. Compared to boys in the lowest fat-mass quartile, those in the second quartile had about 10% lower odds of ADHD, rising to over 30% lower in the third quartile and nearly 40% lower in the highest. In girls, the pattern reversed entirely. While girls in the second quartile showed similar odds to those with the lowest RFM, girls in the third and fourth quartiles had 60% to 70% greater odds of ADHD.
Conclusion & Why This Matters:
In recent years, the relationship between obesity and ADHD has become an increasingly important focus in pediatric neurodevelopmental research. Studies have reported higher rates of ADHD symptoms among children and adolescents with obesity compared with their non-obese peers, and difficulties with peer relationships have also been linked to increased obesity risk (Sönmez et al., 2019). From a neurobiological standpoint, both conditions may involve shared underlying mechanisms, particularly dysfunction in dopaminergic pathways.
The authors concluded that higher body fat levels appear to lower ADHD risk in boys while raising it in girls. This finding highlights why sex-specific analysis matters in ADHD research. The underlying biological reasons for this divergence, however, remain an open question and open the door for future research.
While ADHD is a developmental disorder, shaped by biology and genetics, growing evidence shows that it is also influenced by the social and environmental conditions in which children grow up. Research on the social determinants of health emphasizes that development is shaped not only by biology but also by factors such as family income, access to healthcare, neighborhood safety, and material stability. These factors can affect both how developmental challenges appear and whether they are recognized and diagnosed.
Children facing socioeconomic disadvantage consistently show higher risks of developmental and behavioral difficulties. Chronic stress linked to poverty – including financial strain, food insecurity, and limited access to resources – has been associated with problems in attention, emotional regulation, and daily functioning. Children from lower-income families also tend to experience more severe ADHD symptoms and face greater barriers to ongoing care.
Neighborhood conditions matter as well. Unsafe environments can limit opportunities for play and social interaction while increasing caregiver stress, all of which may influence children’s behavior and development. Material hardships, such as food insecurity, can further undermine stability at home.
The Study:
The study analyzed six years of data from the National Survey of Children’s Health (2018–2023), covering more than 205,000 U.S. children aged 3 to 17. After accounting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, region, family structure, survey year, and other social factors, the researchers found a strong income gradient in ADHD prevalence. Compared with children in households earning at least four times the federal poverty level, those in households earning two to four times that level had 28 percent higher odds of ADHD. Odds rose to 70 percent higher in households earning one to two times the poverty level, and more than doubled among children living below the poverty line.
Parental education showed a similar pattern. Compared with children whose parents had completed college, ADHD odds were 20 percent higher among those whose parents had some college education, 40 percent higher among those whose parents had only a high school education, and 80 percent higher among those whose parents had not finished high school.
Children living in unsafe neighborhoods had nearly twice the odds of ADHD compared with those in safe neighborhoods, and food insecurity was also linked to almost double the odds.
By contrast, race and ethnicity alone were associated with much smaller differences. Compared with non-Hispanic White children, children in non-Hispanic Black households had an 18 percent higher likelihood of ADHD, while children in Hispanic households had a 25 percent lower likelihood. No substantial differences were observed for children from other or multiracial households.
Conclusion and Takeaway:
The study team concluded, “Children living in lower-income households, experiencing food insecurity, and residing in unsafe neighborhoods consistently showed higher prevalence and higher adjusted odds of both conditions. … Overall, these findings reinforce the need to view neurodevelopmental disorders within a broader social and structural framework.”
It should be noted that this study is not aiming to name social factors as direct causes of ADHD. Rather, it points to socioeconomic disparities as contributing to the way ADHD develops and how it is treated. This type of research, as well as acknowledging barriers to care, is crucial for clinicians, counselors, teachers, etc., to consider when working with youth with ADHD.
_logo%201.svg)
