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.
June 3, 2026
The Background:
ADHD and epilepsy are the two most common neurological disorders in children and adolescents. Additionally, they appear as co-diagnoses more often than chance would predict. Roughly a quarter of children with epilepsy also have ADHD, and children with ADHD face a 2.5-times greater risk of developing epilepsy than their peers.
Clinicians have long suspected that carrying both diagnoses compounds cognitive difficulties, but no rigorous quantitative review has mapped out exactly how much, or in what ways. This new meta-analysis now fills that gap.
The Study:
The team pooled data from peer-reviewed studies that included children and adolescents diagnosed with both conditions alongside at least one comparison group: children with neither condition, children with epilepsy alone, or children with ADHD alone. To capture the breadth of thinking skills, they constructed a general intelligence factor drawing on six cognitive domains:
The Results:
Across eleven studies (995 participants), children and adolescents with both conditions scored moderately lower on general intelligence than those with epilepsy alone. The same pattern held across all six cognitive domains. Seven studies (785 participants) comparing the dual-diagnosis group with those who had ADHD alone found an equally consistent moderate deficit, replicated in every domain.
The clearest signal emerged when researchers compared children and adolescents carrying both diagnoses to typically-developing peers. Seven studies covering 427 individuals revealed a substantially larger gap in general intelligence, with the effects of the two conditions appearing to be roughly additive, meaning the combined burden was approximately equal to the sum of each condition's individual impact. This pattern held across five of the six domains.
The Interpretation:
The results come with meaningful caveats. Variability across individual studies was moderate in the first two comparisons and high in the third, reflecting real differences in how studies were designed, which populations they sampled, and how they measured cognition. While there was no sign of publication bias in the first group, it was not assessed in two of the three analyses.
The authors describe “a widespread profile of cognitive dysfunction” in children and adolescents with both epilepsy and ADHD, while underscoring that the substantial variability between studies warrants caution in drawing overly precise conclusions. The findings nonetheless carry practical weight: children managing both conditions may need more intensive cognitive screening and support than current clinical practice routinely provides.
Steven Wickens, Persephone Gummersall, and Trevor Brown, “Cognitive functioning in children with both epilepsy and ADHD: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Brain and Development 48 (2026) 104533, published online, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.braindev.2026.104533.
The Background:
Down syndrome (DS) is a genetic disorder resulting from an extra copy of chromosome 21. It is associated with intellectual disability.
Three to five thousand children are born with Down syndrome each year. They have higher risks for conditions like hypothyroidism, sleep apnea, epilepsy, sensory issues, infections, and autoimmune diseases. Research on ADHD in patients with Down syndrome has been inconclusive.
The Study:
The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a household survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics at the CDC.
Due to the low prevalence of Down syndrome, a Chinese research team used NHIS records from 1997 to 2018 to analyze data from 214,300 children aged 3 to 17, to obtain a sufficiently large and nationally representative sample to investigate any potential association with ADHD.
DS and ADHD were identified by asking, “Has a doctor or health professional ever diagnosed your child with Down syndrome, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)?”
After adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, plus family highest education level, family income-to-poverty ratio, and geographic region, children and adolescents with Down syndrome had 70% greater odds of also having ADHD than children and adolescents without Down syndrome. There were no significant differences between males and females.
The Take-Away:
The team concluded, “in a nationwide population-based study of U.S. children, we found that a Down syndrome diagnosis was associated with a higher prevalence of ASD and ADHD. Our findings highlight the necessity of conducting early and routine screenings for ASD and ADHD in children with Down syndrome within clinical settings to improve the effectiveness of interventions.”
Noting that the degree of comorbidity (co-occurrence) between epilepsy and ADHD “has never been quantified based on a systematic review with meta-analysis,” a Chinese study team based at Wuhan university has just reported findings based on doing just that.
Their systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature yielded 17 studies examining the prevalence of epilepsy among persons with ADHD, and 49 studies measuring the prevalence of ADHD among persons with epilepsy.
According to the Apple dictionary app, epilepsy is “a neurological disorder marked by sudden recurrent episodes of sensory disturbance, loss of consciousness, or convulsions, associated with abnormal electrical activity in the brain.” Its lifetime prevalence in the general population is about 0.76%, or about one in every 130 persons.
Meta-analysis of 17 studies with a combined total of over 900,000 participants spread over twelve countries on five continents yielded an epilepsy prevalence estimate of 3.4% among individuals with ADHD, or well over four times the prevalence in the general population. There was no sign of publication bias, but variability (heterogeneity) among studies was extremely high.
The worldwide prevalence of ADHD in children, on the other hand, is about 7.2%, affecting roughly one in fourteen.
Meta-analysis of 49 studies with a combined total of 172,206 persons from 16 countries on five continents reported an ADHD prevalence of just over 22% among persons with epilepsy. However, heterogeneity among studies was extremely high, and there was very strong evidence of publication bias.
Using the trim-and-fill correction for publication bias yielded a reduced estimate of 16%, which is still over twice the prevalence in the general population.
Furthermore, the authors noted, “Given that the large sample studies in this study are basically population-based studies and the small sample studies are hospital-based studies, there is also the possibility of Berkson’s bias. Specifically, patients with comorbidities are more likely to need help or seek medical advice. This possibility would yield a higher comorbidity rate in hospital-based studies.”
And that is exactly what emerged from subgroup analysis. The prevalence of ADHD in epilepsy among the hospital-based studies was 27.1%, over twice the 13.2% prevalence reported from the 13 population-based studies. The largest population-based study, a U.S. study with over 114,000 participants, yielded a prevalence of only 3.5%.
The authors cautioned that the very high degree of heterogeneity between studies indicates “it is inappropriate to consider the summary effect as representative of the real effect.”
A working group of the International League Against Epilepsy(ILAE), consisting of twenty experts spanning the globe (U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Japan, India, South Africa, Kenya, Brazil), recently published "consensus paper" summarizing and evaluating what is currently known about comorbid epilepsy with ADHD, and best practices.
ADHD is two to five times more prevalent among children with epilepsy. The authors suggest that ADHD is underdiagnosed in children with epilepsy because its symptoms are often attributed either to epilepsy itself or to the effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs).
The working group did a systematic search of the English-language research literature. It then reached a consensus on practice recommendations, graded on the strength of the evidence.
Three recommendations were graded A, indicating they are well-established by evidence:
· Children with epilepsy with comorbid intellectual and developmental disabilities are at increased risk of ADHD.
· There is no increased risk of ADHD in boys with epilepsy compared to girls with epilepsy.
· The anticonvulsant valproate can exacerbate attentional issues in children with childhood absence epilepsy (absence seizures look like staring spells during which the child is not aware or responsive). Moreover, a single high-quality population-based study indicates that valproate use during pregnancy is associated with inattentiveness and hyperactivity in offspring.
Four more were graded B, meaning they are probably useful/predictive:
· Poor seizure control is associated with an increased risk of ADHD.
· Data support the ability of the Strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) to predict ADHD diagnosis in children with epilepsy: "Borderline or abnormal SDQ total scores are highly correlated with the presence of a validated psychiatric diagnosis (93.6%), of which ADHD is the most common (31.7%)." The SDQ can therefore be useful as a screening tool.
· Evidence supports the efficacy of methylphenidate in children with epilepsy and comorbid ADHD.
· Methylphenidate is tolerated in children with epilepsy.
At the C level of being possibly useful, there is limited evidence that supports that atomoxetine is tolerated in children with ADHD and epilepsy and that the combined use of drugs for ADHD and epilepsy (polytherapy) is more likely to be associated with behavioral problems than monotherapy. In the latter instance, "Studies are needed to elucidate whether the polytherapy itself has resulted in the behavioral problems, or the combination of polytherapy and the underlying brain problem reflects difficult-to-control epilepsy, which, in turn, has resulted in the prescription of polytherapy."
All other recommendations were graded U (for Unproven), "Data inadequate or conflicting; treatment, test or predictor unproven." These included three where the evidence is ambiguous or insufficient:
· Evidence is conflicted on the impact of early seizure onset on the development of ADHD in children with epilepsy.
· Tolerability for amphetamine in children with epilepsy is not defined.
· Limited evidence exists for the efficacy of atomoxetine and amphetamines in children with epilepsy and ADHD.
There were also nine U-graded recommendations based solely on expert opinion. Most notable among these:
· Screening of children with epilepsy for ADHD beginning at age 6.
· Reevaluation of attention function after any change in antiepileptic drug.
· Screening should not be done within 48 hours following a seizure.
· ADHD should be distinguished from childhood absence epilepsy based on history and an EEG with hyperventilation.
· Multidisciplinary involvement in transition and adult ADHD clinics is essential as many patients experience challenges with housing, employment, relationships, and psychosocial wellbeing.
.png)
Language is powerful. The words we choose not only reflect our understanding of the world but also actively shape it. Recently, this truth has been at the center of a growing debate in the mental health field regarding how we talk about ADHD.
In a recent paper published in The Lancet Psychiatry titled “The Power of Words: Respectful Language in ADHD Research,” French and colleagues advocated for a shift toward "neurodiversity-affirmative language”. Rooted in the social model of disability, their proposal encourages researchers to abandon traditional medical terminology, e.g., words like disorder and deficit, in favor of more neutral terms such as condition and challenge.
My colleague, Dr. Michael Miller, and I read this with great interest. We completely agree that revising language is essential to good science and that, both as researchers and as human beings, we are ethically bound to speak respectfully. However, we felt compelled to write a response. In our new paper, we argue that while language must evolve, it must do so scientifically.
The Two Prerequisites for Language Change
If we are going to fundamentally shift our scientific lexicon, two requirements must be met:
Currently, the proposal by French and colleagues meets neither requirement. While they claim consensus is accumulating that certain terms are disrespectful, they provide zero empirical evidence that this view is shared by the community of individuals living with ADHD. Even proponents of patient-centered language admit there is surprisingly little data supporting specific language changes.
More alarmingly, the recommended changes severely dilute the scientific accuracy of our field. Let’s look at two examples.
Why a "Deficit" is Not Just a “Challenge"
French and colleagues suggest replacing the term deficit with challenge. On the surface, challenge sounds softer and more affirming. But scientifically, these words are not interchangeable.
For decades, the term deficit has been defined by a specific performance metric that falls substantially below an expected level. It is a measurable reality. A challenge, on the other hand, refers to a new or difficult task that tests someone's ability.
Every single human being is "challenged" by complex neuropsychological tests, but only some individuals who face that challenge demonstrate scientifically significant deficits. If we relabel measurable deficits as universal challenges, we sacrifice the exactness required to communicate scientific findings and accurately measure the effects of life-changing treatments.
ADHD is a Disorder, Not Just a "Condition"
Another proposal is to replace the word disorder with condition.
In mainstream psychiatry, a disorder is a clinically significant disturbance that causes distress or disability. The word purposefully separates natural human variation from the suffering (pathos) that gives pathology its meaning.
Condition is a completely neutral term. Pregnancy is a condition. Being tall is a condition. Calling ADHD a condition distances the diagnosis from the profound suffering it can cause.
French et al. argue against framing ADHD as a disorder because it exists on a spectrum without a clear cutoff, its manifestation is context-dependent, and its definition evolves. But if we apply that logic across all of medicine, the concept of disease unravels:
The Real-World Danger of Imprecise Language
This is not merely an academic debate over semantics. The language we use has real-world implications. In the United States and across the globe, our healthcare, educational, and legal systems run on precise medical language. Terms like impairment, dysfunction, and disorder are legally and administratively required to justify support services, workplace accommodations, specialized educational therapies, and medications. The language of pathology in diagnostic manuals regulates the flow of these resources.
If we reclassify ADHD as a neutral condition characterized only by challenges, we risk erecting massive bureaucratic barriers. Imprecise language could easily be used by institutions or insurance companies to deny vital care to the people who need it most.
The Need for Lexical Discipline
Attempting to characterize a clinical disorder entirely through its strengths happens in a scientific vacuum. We cannot ignore the vast body of rigorous evidence confirming that ADHD meets the long-standing criteria used by mental health science to identify clinical disorders.
As professionals, our respect for the ADHD community demands a commitment to language that is clear, correct, and evidence-based. To build genuine consensus about how we talk about ADHD, we need meaningful, collaborative dialogue that integrates compelling empirical data and rigorous theory.
This standard of "lexical discipline" is not just a technical preference. It is a vital mechanism through which science and the mental health professions uphold their duty to society.
For many ADHD patients, getting properly diagnosed and starting meds is only half the battle. The next step is figuring out the exact right dose. Historically, clinical guidelines have provided scant guidance on this critical step. This lack of direction can inadvertently foster two extremes in clinical practice: therapeutic inertia (settling for a subtherapeutic dose that leaves symptoms undertreated) or uncritical escalation (driving doses higher and higher beyond licensed limits without meaningful benefit).
To clear up this pharmacological gray area, an international team of researchers published the first comprehensive dose-effect network meta-analysis of ADHD medications in The Lancet Psychiatry. By pulling together a massive vault of clinical trial data, they mapped out exactly how efficacy and tolerability shift as doses increase.
Traditional meta-analyses evaluate head-to-head, pairwise data, comparing one drug at a specific dose directly against a placebo. However, this study utilized an advanced Bayesian hierarchical network model using restricted cubic splines.
This mathematical framework allowed the researchers to combine both direct trial data and indirect evidence simultaneously across 113 double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In total, the study evaluated data from 14,138 children/adolescents and 11,016 adults. By standardizing various formulations into basic equivalents (e.g., converting amphetamines to dextroamphetamine equivalents), they created a clear, unified map of dose ranges.
The study yielded distinct dose-response curves depending on the patient's age and the specific medication class. Rather than a linear trend in which "more medicine equals more benefit," most treatments reach a clear statistical plateau or ceiling.
For Children and Adolescents (under 18)
In the pediatric population, medications hit clear peak efficacy boundaries:
For both amphetamines and guanfacine, escalating the dosage past these points resulted in U-shaped curves, meaning further dose hikes yielded diminishing group-level symptom reduction.
For Adults (18 and older)
Adult profiles showed slightly different trajectories:
The ultimate goal of this landmark analysis is to guide shared decision-making between clinicians, patients, and families. The results send a dual message to the medical community:
A medication's true efficacy hinges on its tolerability, typically measured by how often patients discontinue treatment due to severe side effects. For amphetamines, this dropout risk scales linearly with dosage, notably exceeding placebo in children above 25 mg/day and becoming prominent in adults past 50 mg/day. In contrast, methylphenidate shows no clear dose-dependent dropout risk in pediatric patients, whereas adults face a steep risk curve: increasing the dose from 60 mg/day to 90 mg/day raises the dropout risk from 7.3% to 10.0% for only modest symptom relief. Finally, youth taking guanfacine experience a sharp climb in discontinuation risks, reaching a 9.8% median risk at 4 mg/day before data limitations obscure further trends.
The authors strongly emphasize that these findings represent group averages. Because individual metabolism, genetics, and comorbidities vary widely, some specific patients may legitimately require and tolerate higher off-label doses. However, if an unusually high dose is needed, the study suggests it should prompt a careful clinical pause, either to reassess for co-occurring conditions (like anxiety, autism, or sleep disorders) or to manage realistic expectations regarding what the medication can achieve.
The persistent shortage of ADHD medications has been more than a simple annoyance for patients at the pharmacy; the inconsistent availability of these medications has had deep impacts on the daily lives of those struggling without them. While public discourse has pointed fingers at over-prescribing or at restrictive DEA quotas, a recent economic evaluation in JAMA Health Forum suggests we’ve been looking in the wrong direction for an answer to what is causing this.
The reality of the shortage is less about increased demand and more about a fragile, globalized supply chain that snapped at a critical link.
Debunking the "Quota Myth":
The prevailing narrative suggested that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was stifling production by refusing to raise quotas. However, the data tells a different story. In 2022, manufacturers collectively met only about 70% of their allotted production quotas.
So we know that the problem wasn't that this DEA quota ceiling was too low. In fact, most manufacturers couldn't even reach it. Even when accounting for exports and domestic retail, production remained significantly below the legal limit. Even if the DEA had doubled its quotas, these medications still likely wouldn't have magically appeared on pharmacy shelves.
The most striking finding in the study is the correlation between the shortage and a sharp decline in the import of raw Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). For the past decade, Germany has accounted for over 85% of US amphetamine imports. In 2022, these imports dropped by approximately 36.7%. When the API doesn't arrive at the factory, production for medium and small manufacturers grinds to a halt. Unlike larger pharmaceutical giants, these smaller players often lack the inventory cushion or flexibility to quickly pivot to a new supplier.
When the primary supply of amphetamine-based stimulants (like Adderall) faltered, it triggered a secondary crisis. Patients and clinicians, seeking alternatives, shifted toward lisdexamfetamine (Vyvanse) and methylphenidate (Ritalin/Concerta).
If we view this shortage purely through a regulatory or clinical lens, we miss the underlying cause of the crisis. The pharmaceutical industry has become a victim of its reliance on "just-in-time manufacturing” and highly concentrated sourcing. Because over 30% of APIs for the US market are produced in just one or two facilities globally, the system isn't just inefficient; it’s brittle. We are, in a sense, trapped in a system that prioritizes cost-reduction over the resilience required for public health.
The researchers suggest several policy shifts to prevent a repeat of this supply chain failure:
The ADHD medication shortage wasn't a failure of clinical oversight or a sudden surge in "TikTok-driven diagnoses”, as many have suggested. It was a failure of logistics. It reminds us that the path from a lab in Germany to a patient's hand in the US is far more precarious than we realized.
_logo%201.svg)
