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.
ADHD is the most prevalent neurodevelopmental disorder. Nearly 1% of pregnant women in the Nordic countries and more than 1% in the United States are prescribed ADHD medications, ranking these among the most commonly used medications during pregnancy. However, the safety of exposing a fetus to ADHD medications is still uncertain, prompting many expectant mothers to stop using them out of fear for their unborn child’s well-being.
The Study:
A European research team conducted a comprehensive nationwide study on the safety of ADHD medications during pregnancy using populations from Sweden and Denmark. The Swedish population was studied first, followed by inclusion of a separate study of the Danish population. Results were then combined through meta-analysis. Nordic countries, with their single-payer national health insurance systems and national population registers, facilitate the tracking of residents’ health from birth to death, thus providing robust data for such studies.
The team accounted for various potential confounders, including maternal age, year of delivery, whether the mother was a first-time parent, self-reported smoking during pregnancy, and any psychiatric history. They also considered psychiatric inpatient or outpatient treatment received within two years before pregnancy, as well as the dispensing of other psychotropic medications during pregnancy, including antidepressants, antipsychotics, antiseizure medications, and anti-anxiety medications. Additionally, they examined the highest level of maternal education and civil status at delivery (married or cohabiting compared to single, divorced, or widowed).
Out of 861,650 Swedish children, 2,257 were exposed to ADHD medications during pregnancy. Another 3,917 were born to mothers who discontinued ADHD medications before pregnancy.
Children exposed to ADHD medications had lower rates of ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, and overall neurodevelopmental disorders; however, none of these differences were significant.
Limiting the analysis to siblings to control for family environmental influences and genetics likewise found no significant differences.
A meta-analysis combining the Swedish results with a separately conducted nationwide population study in neighboring Denmark similarly found no significant differences between children exposed to ADHD medications during pregnancy and children born to mothers who discontinued ADHD medications before pregnancy.
Conclusion:
The team concluded, “Overall, our study provides reassuring evidence that continuing ADHD medication during pregnancy does not increase the risk of long-term NDDs [neurodevelopmental disorders] in offspring."
Kathrine Bang Madsen, Henrik Larsson, Charlotte Skoglund, Xiaoqin Liu, Trine Munk-Olsen, Veerle Bergink, Jeffrey H. Newcorn, Samuele Cortese, Paul Lichtenstein, Ralf Kuja-Halkola, Zheng Chang, Brian D’Onofrio, Per Hove Thomsen, Kari Klungsøyr, Isabell Brikell, and Miguel Garcia-Argibay, “In utero exposure to methylphenidate, amphetamines and atomoxetine and offspring neurodevelopmental disorders – a population-based cohort study and meta-analysis,” Molecular Psychiatry (2025), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-025-02968-4.
A recent CNN report, http://tinyurl.com/yannlfd6, highlighted a paper published in Pediatrics, which reported that pregnant women who use acetaminophen during pregnancy put their unborn child at two-fold increased risk for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In that study, acetaminophen use during pregnancy was common; nearly half of women surveyed used the painkiller during pregnancy. Other studies have reported similar associations of acetaminophen, also known as paracetamol with ADHD or with other problems in childhood (e.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5300094/, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4177119/, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24566677, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24163279). Given these prior findings, it seems unlikely that the new report is a chance finding. But does it make any biological sense? One answer to that question came from an epigenetic study. Such studies figure out if assaults from the environment change the genetic code. One epigenetic study found that prenatal exposure changes the fetal genome via a process called methylation. Such genomic changes could increase the risk for ADHD (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5540511/). Because all of these studies are observational studies, one cannot assert with certainty that there is a causal link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy.
The observed association could be due to some unmeasured third factor. Although the researchers did a respectable job ruling out some third factors, we must acknowledge some uncertainty in the finding. That said, what should pregnant women do if they need acetaminophen. I suggest you bring this information to your physician and ask if there is a suitable alternative.
Many media outlets have reported on a study suggesting that mothers who use acetaminophen during pregnancy may put their unborn child at risk for ADHD. Given that acetaminophen is used in many over-the-counter painkillers, correctly reporting such information is crucial. As usual, rather than relying on one study, looking at the big picture using all available studies is best. Because it is not possible to examine this issue with a randomized trial, we must rely on naturalistic studies.
One registry study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24566677)reported that fetal exposure to acetaminophen predicted an increased risk of ADHD with a risk ratio of 1.37. The risk was dose-dependent, in the sense that it increased with increased maternal use of acetaminophen. Of particular note, the authors made sure that their results were not accounted for by potential confounds (e.g., maternal fever, inflammation, and infection). Similar results were reported by another group (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25251831), which also showed that the risk for ADHD was not predicted by maternal use of aspirin, antacids, or antibiotics. But that study only found an increased risk at age 7 (risk ratio = 2.0) not at age 11. In a Spanish study, (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27353198), children exposed prenatally to acetaminophen were more likely to show symptoms of hyperactivity and impulsivity later in life. The risk ratio was small (1.1) but it increased with the frequency of prenatal acetaminophen use by their mothers.
We can draw a few conclusions from these studies. There does seem to be aweak, yet real, the association between maternal use of acetaminophen while pregnant and subsequent ADHD or ADHD symptoms in the exposed child. The association is weak in several ways: there are not many studies, they are all naturalistic, and the risk ratios are small. So mothers that have used acetaminophen during pregnancy and have an ADHD child should not conclude that their acetaminophen usecausedtheir child's ADHD. On the other hand, pregnant women who are considering the use of acetaminophen for fever or pain should discuss other options with their physician. As with many medical decisions, one must balance competing for risks to make an informed decision.
Find more evidence-based blogs at www.adhdinaduls.com.
Roughly one in thirty adult women have ADHD. Research results indicate that psychostimulants (methylphenidate and amphetamines) offer the most effective course of treatment in most instances. But during pregnancy, such treatment also exposes the fetus to these drugs. Several studies have set out to determine whether such exposure is harmful.
The largest comparison was 5,571 infants exposed to amphetamines and 2,072 exposed to methylphenidate with unexposed infants. It found no increased risks for adverse outcomes due to amphetamine or methylphenidate exposures. Another study studied 3,331 infants exposed to amphetamines, 1,515 exposed to methylphenidate, and 453 to atomoxetine. Comparing these infants to unexposed infants, it found a slightly increased risk of preeclampsia, with an adjusted risk ratio of 1.29 (95% CI 1.11-1.49), but no statistically significant effect for placental abruption, small gestational age, and preterm birth. When assessing the two stimulants, amphetamine, and methylphenidate, together, it found a small increased risk of preterm birth, with an adjusted risk ratio of 1.3 (95% CI 1.10-1.55). There was a statistically significant effect for preeclampsia, placental abruption, or small gestational age. Atomoxetine use was free of any indication of increased risk.
Another study involving 1,591 infants exposed to ADHD medication (mostly methylphenidate) during pregnancy, reported increased risks associated with exposure. The adjusted odds ratio for admission to a neonatal intensive care unit was 1.5 (95% CI 1.3-1.7), and for the central nervous system, disorders were 1.9 (95% CI 1.1-3.1). There was no increased risk for congenital malformations or perinatal death.
Six studies focused on methylphenidate exposure. Two, with a combined total of 402 exposed infants, found no increased risk for malformations. Another, with 208 exposed infants, found a slightly greater risk of cardiovascular malformations, but it was not statistically significant. A fourth, with 186 exposed infants, found no increased risk of malformations but did find a higher rate of miscarriage, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.98(95% CI 1.23-3.20). A fifth, with 480 exposed infants, also found a higher rate of miscarriage, with an odds ratio of 2.07 (95% CI 1.51-2.84). But although the sixth, with 382 exposed infants, likewise found an increased risk of miscarriage (adjusted relative risk 1.55 with 95% CI1.03-2.06), it also found an identical risk for women with ADHD who were not on medication during their pregnancies (adjusted relative risk 1.56with 95% CI 1.11-2.20). That finding suggests that all women with ADHD have a higher risk of miscarriage, and that methylphenidate exposure is not the causal factor.
Summing up, while some studies have shown increased adverse effects among infants exposed to maternal ADHD medications, most have not. There are indications that higher rates of miscarriage are associated with maternal ADHD rather than fetal exposure to psychostimulant medications. One study did find a small increased risk of central nervous system disorders and admission to a neonatal intensive care unit. But, again, we do not know whether that was due to exposure to psychostimulant medication or associated with maternal ADHD. If there is a risk, it appears to be a small one.
The question then becomes how to balance that as yet uncertain risk against the disadvantage of discontinuing the effective psychostimulant medication. As the authors of this review conclude. It [ADHD] is associated with significant psychiatric comorbidities for women, including depression, anxiety, substance use disorders, driving safety impairment, and occupational impairment. The gold standard treatment includes behavioral therapy and stimulant medication, namely methylphenidate and amphetamine derivatives. Psychostimulant use during pregnancy continues to increase and has been associated with a small increased relative risk of a range of obstetric concerns. However, the absolute increases in risks are small, and many of the best studies to date are confounded by other medication use and medical comorbidities.
Thus, women with moderate-to-severe ADHD should not necessarily be counseled to suspend their ADHD treatment based on these findings. They advise that when functional impairment from ADHD is moderate to severe, the benefits of stimulant medications may outweigh the small known and unknown risks of medication exposure, and that "If a decision is made to take ADHD medication, women should be informed of the known risks and benefits of the medication use in pregnancy, and take the lowest therapeutic dose possible."
Executive functions (EFs) are the cognitive control systems that allow people to pursue goals, make decisions, and adapt to changing circumstances. Researchers generally break them into three overlapping capacities: working memory (holding and manipulating information in mind), inhibitory control (suppressing impulses and filtering out distractions), and cognitive flexibility (switching between tasks or mental frameworks). Strong EFs in childhood predict academic achievement, social competence, and long-term mental health; weaknesses in these areas that go unaddressed can persist into adulthood, undermining school performance, career prospects, and well-being.
The Background:
Interest in training these skills has grown rapidly, but most research has been conducted in Western settings. China presents a distinctive context. Collectivist values make group-based programs culturally natural, and parental investment in academic outcomes is high. Both of these factors should, in theory, work in an intervention’s favor. At the same time, tightly scheduled school days (sessions typically capped at 30 minutes or less) constrain what is actually deliverable. A growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have tested EF interventions with Chinese children, but until now, no one has pulled that evidence together systematically.
The Study:
A new network meta-analysis did exactly that. The researchers screened RCTs involving Chinese children aged 3–12, including both typically developing children and those showing subclinical signs of ADHD or autism spectrum disorder (ASD), for instance, siblings of children with an ASD diagnosis. Children who already carried a formal neurodevelopmental diagnosis were excluded. Fifty-two trials covering nearly 3,000 children met the inclusion criteria. Interventions fell into four categories:
The headline finding is that three of the four intervention types produced statistically significant improvements across all three EF domains. The exception was the hybrid physical-cognitive program, which did not reach significance for inhibitory control. Positive results across the board might sound encouraging until you look at the actual effect sizes.
The Results:
The actual effects were negligible. Every significant result fell well below what methodologists define as a “small” effect (a standardized mean difference, or SMD, of 0.2). The largest effect size in the entire analysis was an SMD of 0.097 (less than half that threshold). The authors summarize the interventions’ effects as “modest,” but that is generous phrasing for numbers that, in practical terms, amount to very little. The analysis also showed signs of publication bias, meaning that studies with null or negative results may not have been published, potentially inflating even these modest figures.
The Take-Away:
It is important to note that these results don’t necessarily mean that this is the last word on EF training. The results apply specifically to Chinese children working within the time constraints of Chinese school schedules, and they exclude children with diagnosed ADHD, a population for whom cognitive interventions sometimes show larger effects. Generalizing beyond those boundaries is unwarranted.
What the findings do suggest is that structured EF programs, as currently implemented in Chinese educational settings, are not delivering meaningful real-world benefits. Statistical significance, it is worth remembering, is not the same as practical significance, and the gap between the two is sharp here.
.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.
_logo%201.svg)
