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.
October 24, 2025
Background:
Despite recommendations for combined pharmacological and behavioral treatment in childhood ADHD, caregivers may avoid these options due to concerns about side effects or the stigma that still surrounds stimulant medications. Alternatives like psychosocial interventions and environmental changes are limited by questionable effectiveness for many patients. Increasingly, patients and caregivers are seeking other therapies, such as neuromodulation – particularly transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).
tDCS seeks to enhance neurocognitive function by modulating cognitive control circuits with low-intensity scalp currents. There is also evidence that tDCS can induce neuroplasticity. However, results for ADHD symptom improvement in children and adolescents are inconsistent.
The Method:
To examine the evidence more rigorously, a Taiwanese research team conducted a systematic search focusing exclusively on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested tDCS in children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. They included only studies that used sham-tDCS as a control condition – an essential design feature that prevents participants from knowing whether they received the active treatment, thereby controlling for placebo effects.
The Results:
Meta-analysis of five studies combining 141 participants found no improvement in ADHD symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS. That held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex. There was no sign of publication bias, nor of variation (heterogeneity) in outcomes among the RCTs.
Meta-analysis of six studies totaling 171 participants likewise found no improvement in inattention symptoms, hyperactivity symptoms, or impulsivity symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS. Again, this held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, and there was no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity.
Most of the RCTs also performed follow-ups roughly a month after treatment, on the theory that induced neuroplasticity could lead to later improvements.
Meta-analysis of four RCTs combining 118 participants found no significant improvement in ADHD symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS at follow-up. This held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, with no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity.
Meta-analysis of five studies totaling 148 participants likewise found no improvement in inattention symptoms or hyperactivity symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS at follow-up. AS before, this was true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, with no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity.
The only positive results came from meta-analysis of the same five studies, which reported a medium effect size improvement in impulsivity symptoms at follow-up. Closer examination showed no improvement from stimulation of the right prefrontal cortex, but a large effect size improvement from stimulation of the left prefrontal cortex.
Interpretation:
It is important to note that the one positive result was from three RCTs combining only 90 children and adolescents, a small sample size. Moreover, when only one of sixteen combinations yields a positive outcome, that begins to look like p-hacking for a positive result.
In research, scientists use something called a “p-value” to determine if their findings are real or just due to chance. A p-value below 0.05 (or 5%) is considered “statistically significant,” meaning there's less than a 5% chance the result happened by pure luck.
When testing twenty outcomes by this standard, one would expect one to test positive by chance even if there is no underlying association. In this case, one in 16 comes awfully close to that.
To be sure, the research team straightforwardly reported all sixteen outcomes, but offered an arguably over-positive spin in their conclusion: “Our study only showed tDCS-associated impulsivity improvement in children/adolescents with ADHD during follow-ups and anode placement on the left PFC. ... our findings based on a limited number of available trials warrant further verification from large-scale clinical investigations.”
Chun-Bin Tunga, Shun-Chin Liang, Cheuk-Kwan Sun, Yu-Shian Cheng, and Kuo-Chuan Hung, “Behavioral outcomes after tDCS treatment during immediate post-intervention and follow-up periods in children and adolescents diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis on randomized sham-controlled trials,” Journal of Psychiatric Research 191 (2025) 8-14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2025.09.008.
Centanafadine, which is currently under investigation as a treatment for ADHD, will be the first triple reuptake inhibitor for the disorder if it is approved by the FDA. It improves norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin levels. This new medication is not a stimulant, but due to the dopamine component, it has a stimulant-like effect in patients. In adults, two phase 3 trials and a year-long extension have shown sustained benefits and a tolerable safety profile, laying the groundwork for pediatric research.
Based on this study, improvement was already noticeable after the first week and held steady through week 6. The lower dose (164.4 mg) didn’t separate from placebo, reminding us that getting the dose right will be critical. The effect size was smaller than what is seen for stimulants but 50% of patients had excellent outcomes as indicated by reductions in the ADHD-RS of 50% or more.
Side effect patterns look familiar to anyone who prescribes ADHD medications; loss of appetite, nausea and headaches topped the list. About half of teens on the higher dose reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, compared with a quarter of those on placebo. Severe reactions were rare but did include isolated liver enzyme spikes, rash, and a few reports of aggression or somnolence. For everyday practice, that translates to routine growth checks, a look at baseline liver function, and clear guidance to families about reporting rashes or mood changes promptly.
The researchers noted that the study had certain limitations, including limited generalizability to adolescents beyond North America, the exclusion of teacher ratings on the ADHD-RS-5 scale and the study’s short duration. They added that future studies should explore long-term treatment outcomes and efficacy compared with other ADHD treatments, as well as its effect on treating ADHD with comorbid conditions.
First, speed. Centanafadine separated from placebo within a week. In this regard, it might be closer to stimulants than to the multi-week ramp-up we expect from current non-stimulants. Second, it offers another option when stimulants are contraindicated or poorly tolerated, or when they raise diversion concerns. Its mechanism also makes it intriguing for patients who need both norepinephrine and dopamine coverage but prefer to avoid schedule II drugs. Because it also improves serotonergic transmission, it may be useful for some of ADHD’s comorbidities (see our new article for evidence about serotonin’s role in these disorders).
Keep in mind that centanafadine for ADHD is still investigational, so participation in clinical trials remains the only access route.
ADHD is hypothesized to arise from 1) poor inhibitory control resulting from impaired executive functions which are associated with reduced activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and increased activation of some subcortical regions; and 2)hyperarousal to environmental stimuli, hampering the ability of the executive functioning system, particularly the medial frontal cortex, orbital and ventromedial prefrontal areas, and subcortical regions such as the caudate nucleus, amygdala, nucleus accumbens, and thalamus, to control the respective stimuli.
These brain anomalies, rendered visible through magnetic resonance imaging, have led researchers to try new means of treatment to directly address the deficits. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that uses a weak electrical current to stimulate specific regions of the brain.
Efficacy:
A team of researchers from Europe and ran performed a systematic search of the literature and identified fourteen studies exploring the safety and efficacy of tDCS. Three of these studies examined the effects on ADHD symptoms. They found a large effect size for the inattention subscale and a medium effect size for the hyperactivity/impulsivity. Yet, as the authors cautioned, "a definite conclusion concerning the clinical efficacy of tDCS based on the results of these three studies is not possible."
The remaining studies investigated the effects on specific neuropsychological and cognitive deficits in ADHD:
The fact that heterogeneity in the methodology of these studies made meta-analysis impossible means these results, while promising, cannot be seen as in any way definitive.
Safety:
Ten studies examined childhood ADHD. Three found no adverse effects either during or after tDCS. One study reported a feeling of "shock" in a few patients during tDCS. Several more reported skin tingling and itching during tDCS. Several also reported mild headaches.
The four studies of adults with ADHD reported no major adverse events. One study reported a single incident of acute mood change, sadness, diminished motivation, and tension five hours after stimulation. Another reported mild instances of skin tingling and burning sensations.
To address side effects such as tingling and itching, the authors suggested reducing the intensity of the electrical current and increasing the duration. They also suggested placing electrodes at least 6 cm apart to reduce current shunting through the ski. For children, they recommended the use of smaller electrodes for better focus in smaller brains.
The authors concluded, "The findings of this systematic review suggest at least a partial improvement of symptoms and cognitive deficits in ADHD by tDCS. They further suggest that stimulation parameters such as polarity and site are relevant to the efficacy of tDCS in ADHD. Compared to cathodal stimulation, Anodal tDCS seems to have a superior effect on both the clinical symptoms and cognitive deficits. However, the routine clinical application of this method as an efficient therapeutic intervention cannot yet be recommended based on these studies ..."
Noting that "despite a lack of solid evidence for their use, rTMS [repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation]and tDCS [transcranial direct current stimulation] are already offered clinically and commercially in ADHD," and that a recent meta-analysis of ten tDCS studies found small but significant improvements in outcomes, but had several methodological shortcomings and did not include two studies reporting mostly null effects, a team of British neurologists performed a meta-analysis of all twelve sham-controlled, non-open-label, studies found in a comprehensive search of the peer-reviewed literature.
Ten of the twelve randomized-controlled trials used anodal stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, while the other two used anodal stimulation of the right inferior frontal cortex.
The trials explored several measures of cognition. The research team carried out a meta-analysis of all twelve trials, with a total of 232 participants, and found no significant improvement in attention scores from CDC, relative to sham stimulation. A second meta-analysis, of eleven trials with a total of 220 participants, assessed the efficacy of tDCS on improving inhibition scores, and again found no significant effect. A third meta-analysis, encompassing eight trials with a total of 124 participants, evaluated the efficacy of tDCS on improving processing speed scores, once again finding no significant effect.
The latter two meta-analyses approached the border of significance, prompting the authors to speculate that larger sample sizes could bring the results just over the threshold of significance. Even so, effect sizes would be small.
It is also possible that the trials focused on regions of the brain suboptimal for this objective, and thus the authors "cannot rule out the possibility that stimulation of other prefrontal regions (such as the right hemispheric inferior frontal cortex or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex or parietal regions), multiple session tDCS or tDCS in combination with cognitive training could improve clinically or cognitive functions in ADHD."
As to concerns about safety, on the other hand, "stimulation was well-tolerated overall."
The authors concluded that based on current evidence, tDCS of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex cannot yet be recommended as an alternative Neurotherapy for ADHD.
ADHD is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders in children, yet anyone familiar with this disorder, from clinicians and researchers to parents and patients, knows how differently it can manifest from one individual to the next. One person diagnosed with ADHD may primarily struggle with focus and staying on-task; another may find it nearly impossible to regulate their impulses or even start tasks; a third may frequently find themselves frozen with overwhelm and subject to emotional reactivity…
These are not just variations in severity; they may reflect genuinely different patterns of brain organization.
Our current diagnostic system groups all of these presentations under a single label (ADHD), with three behavioral subtypes (Hyperactive, Inattentive, and Combined) defined by symptom checklists. This framework has real clinical value of course, but it was built from behavioral observation rather than neurobiology, and may leave room for substantial heterogeneity to remain unexplained. In a new study, published in JAMA Psychiatry, researchers asked whether it’s possible to identify distinct neurobiologically subgroups within ADHD by analyzing patterns of brain structure, and whether those subgroups would map onto meaningful clinical differences.
How the Brain Was Analyzed
Researchers analyzed structural MRI scans from 446 children with ADHD and 708 typically-developing children across multiple research sites. From each scan, they constructed a morphometric similarity network; that is, a map of how different brain regions resemble one another in their structural properties. These networks reflect underlying biological organization, including shared patterns of cellular architecture and gene expression across brain regions.
From each individual's network, the research team calculated three properties that capture how each brain region functions within the broader network: how many connections it has, how efficiently it communicates with other regions, and how well it bridges different functional communities in the brain. Regions that score highly on these measures are sometimes called "hubs" and they play particularly influential roles in how information is integrated across the brain.
Rather than comparing the ADHD group to controls as a whole and looking for average differences, they used a normative modeling approach. This works similarly to a growth chart in pediatric medicine: instead of asking whether a child is above or below the group average, it asks how much a given child deviates from the expected range for their age and sex. This allows for individual variation across the ADHD group rather than flattening it into a single average profile.
The team then applied a data-driven clustering algorithm to these individual deviation profiles, allowing the data to reveal whether subgroups of children with ADHD shared similar patterns of brain network atypicality, without using any clinical symptom information to guide the clustering.
The Results:
Three stable, reproducible subtypes emerged from this analysis.
The first subtype was characterized by the most widespread differences from the normative range, particularly in regions connecting the medial prefrontal cortex to the pallidum (a deep brain structure involved in motivation and emotional regulation). Children in this group had the highest levels of both inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity, and over a four-year follow-up period showed more persistent difficulties with emotional self-regulation than the other groups. They also had a higher rate of mood disorder comorbidity during follow-up, though this difference did not reach statistical significance given the sample size. The brain deviation patterns of this subtype showed correspondence with the spatial distributions of several neurotransmitter systems, including serotonin, dopamine, and acetylcholine, all of which have been previously implicated in ADHD pathophysiology.
The second subtype showed alterations concentrated in the anterior cingulate cortex and pallidum, a circuit involved in action control and response selection. This subtype had a predominantly hyperactive/impulsive profile, and its brain deviation patterns were associated with glutamate and cannabinoid receptor distributions.
The third subtype showed more focal differences in the superior frontal gyrus, a region involved in sustained attention. This subtype had a predominantly inattentive profile, with brain patterns linked to a specific serotonin receptor subtype.
A particularly important observation was that these brain-derived groupings aligned with clinically meaningful symptom differences, even though no symptom information was used in the clustering process. The fact that an analysis of brain structure alone arrived at groupings that correspond to recognizable clinical patterns is meaningful evidence that these subtypes reflect genuine neurobiological differences rather than statistical noise.
Replication in an Independent Sample
Scientific findings are only as trustworthy as their ability to replicate. The research team tested this clustering model in an entirely independent cohort of 554 children with ADHD from the Healthy Brain Network, a large, publicly available dataset collected under different conditions. The three subtypes were successfully identified in this new sample, with strong correlations between the brain deviation patterns observed in the original and validation cohorts. Differences in hyperactivity/impulsivity across subtypes were consistent with the discovery cohort, providing meaningful external validation of the approach.
What This Does and Doesn't Mean
It is important to be clear about what these findings do and do not imply. This study does not establish that these three subtypes are categorically distinct biological entities with sharp boundaries. They probably represent distinguishable regions along an underlying continuum of neurobiological variation. The neurochemical associations reported are exploratory and spatial in nature; they describe correspondences between brain deviation maps and neurotransmitter receptor density maps derived from separate imaging studies, and do not directly establish that any particular neurotransmitter system is altered in each subtype, nor do they currently inform treatment decisions.
The samples were not entirely medication-naive, and the strict comorbidity exclusion criteria may limit how well these findings generalize to typical clinical populations where comorbidities are the rule rather than the exception. All data came from research sites in the United States and China, and broader generalizability remains to be established.
What the study does demonstrate is that structured neurobiological heterogeneity exists within the ADHD diagnosis, that it can be reliably detected using brain imaging and data-driven methods, and that it aligns with meaningful clinical differences. The subtype defined by the most extensive brain network differences and the most severe, persistent clinical profile may be of particular importance, representing a group that could benefit most from early identification and targeted support.
The longer-term goal of this line of research is to move toward a more biologically grounded understanding of ADHD that complements existing diagnostic approaches and that may ultimately help guide more individualized treatment decisions. That goal, for now, remains a research ambition rather than a clinical reality, but this study takes a meaningful step in that direction.
Managing high blood pressure requires more than just getting a prescription; it means taking medication consistently, day after day, often for years. For people with ADHD, that kind of routine can be genuinely difficult. In our new study, published in BMC Medicine, we set out to understand just how much ADHD affects whether people stick with their blood pressure medication, and whether ADHD treatment itself might make a difference.
Why This Question Matters
Hypertension affects nearly a third of adults worldwide and is one of the leading drivers of heart disease and stroke. At the same time, ADHD, long thought of as a childhood disorder, affects around 2.5% of adults and is increasingly recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular problems, including high blood pressure. Yet no large-scale study had ever examined whether having ADHD affects how well people follow through with their blood pressure treatment. We wanted to fill that gap.
What We Did
We analyzed health records from over 12 million adults across seven countries, Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the UK, and the US, who had started antihypertensive (blood pressure-lowering) medication between 2010 and 2020. About 320,000 of them had ADHD. We tracked two things: whether they stopped their blood pressure medication entirely within five years, and whether they were taking it consistently enough (covering at least 80% of days) over one, two, and five years of follow-up.
What We Found
Across nearly all countries, adults with ADHD were more likely to stop their blood pressure medication and less likely to take it consistently. Overall, those with ADHD had about a 14% higher rate of discontinuing treatment within five years, and were 45% more likely to have poor adherence in the first year, a gap that widened to 64% by the five-year mark. These patterns were most pronounced in middle-aged and older adults.
Interestingly, young adults with ADHD were actually slightly less likely to discontinue treatment than their peers without ADHD, a finding we think may reflect the fact that younger people with ADHD are often more actively engaged with healthcare systems, especially given the cardiovascular monitoring that comes with ADHD medication use.
Perhaps the most encouraging finding was this: among people with ADHD who were also taking ADHD medication, adherence to blood pressure treatment was substantially better. Those on ADHD medication were about 38% less likely to have poor adherence at one year, and nearly 50% less likely at five years. While we can't establish causation from this type of study, one plausible explanation is that treating ADHD, reducing inattention and impulsivity, makes it easier to maintain the routines that consistent medication use requires. It's also possible that people on ADHD medication simply have more regular contact with healthcare providers, which keeps other health problems better monitored and managed.
What This Means in Practice
The core ADHD symptoms of inattention and poor organization are precisely the traits that make long-term medication adherence difficult. Add in the complexity of managing multiple disorders and medications, and it's easy to see why people with ADHD face extra challenges. Our findings suggest that clinicians treating adults with ADHD for cardiovascular disorders should be aware of these challenges and consider tailored support strategies, things like regular follow-up appointments, patient education, and tools that help with routine and organization.
There's also a broader message here about the potential ripple effects of treating ADHD well. Supporting someone in managing their ADHD may not just improve their attention and daily functioning; it may also help them take better care of their physical health, including disorders as serious as hypertension.
Future research should explore which specific support strategies are most effective, and whether these findings hold in lower- and middle-income countries where the data don't yet exist.
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.
_logo%201.svg)
