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.
Methylphenidate is known as the gold-standard treatment for ADHD, increasing dopamine concentrations and helping to focus. However, these psychostimulants may be less well-tolerated in adults. Adverse effects include decreased appetite, nausea, racing heartbeat, restlessness, nervousness, and insomnia.
Neurofeedback is a non-pharmaceutical treatment that combines cognitive behavioral therapy techniques like conditioning and positive reinforcement with electroencephalography (EEG) feedback. Electrodes are placed on specific brain areas, guiding patients to regulate their brainwave activity.
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) uses electromagnetism to induce an electric field by passing a magnetic field through the scalp. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), on the other hand, directly applies an electric current through the scalp. Both repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and tDCS primarily target the outermost layers of neurons, as they are non-invasive methods. Nevertheless, both techniques are believed to affect deeper layers through interconnected neuronal networks.
A French research team conducted a systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature to perform a meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of these experimental treatment techniques.
Eight studies – four using rTMS and another four using tDCS – met the inclusion criteria. Studies had to be randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and had to involve multiple sessions of treatment. Participants had to be adults previously diagnosed with ADHD.
Outcomes were measured through self-rated scales, neuropsychological tests, and electrophysiological pre-post evaluations.
Separate meta-analyses of the four tDCS RCTs combining 154 participants and of the four rTMS RCTs encompassing 149 participants likewise reported no significant improvements. In all cases variation in outcomes between studies was moderate, and there were no signs of publication bias.
Meta-analysis of all eight studies with a combined total of 421 participants reported no significant improvements over controls. Narrowing down to studies that used sham controls likewise produced no significant improvements. So, despite the title of this study, these neuromechanistic treatments do not appear to be the future of treatment for adult ADHD.
Margaux Courrèges, Marie Hoareau, Carole Levenes, and Hassan Rahioui, “Comparative efficacy of neurofeedback, tDCS, and TMS: The future of therapy for adults with ADHD. A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Affective Disorders (2025), 388: 119585, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.119585.
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 ..."
.png)
The U.S. government released a sweeping document titled The MAHA Report: Making Our Children Healthy Again, developed by the President’s “Make America Healthy Again” Commission. Chaired by public figures and physicians with ties to the current administration, the report presents a broad diagnosis of what it calls a national health crisis among children. It cites rising rates of obesity, diabetes, allergies, mental illness, neurodevelopmental disorders, and chronic disease as signs of a generation at risk.
The report's overarching goal is to shift U.S. health policy away from reactive, pharmaceutical-based care and toward prevention, resilience, and long-term well-being. It emphasizes reforming the food system, reducing environmental chemical exposure, addressing lifestyle factors like physical inactivity and screen overuse, and rethinking what it calls the “overmedicalization” of American children.
While some of the report’s arguments are steeped in political rhetoric and controversial claims—particularly around vaccines and mental health diagnoses—others are rooted in well-established public health science. This blog aims to highlight where the MAHA Report gets the science right, especially as it relates to childhood health and ADHD.
Although the MAHA Report contains several debatable assertions, it also outlines six key public health priorities that are well-supported by decades of research. If implemented thoughtfully, these recommendations might make a meaningful difference in the health of American children:
Reduce Ultra-Processed Food (UPF) Consumption
UPFs now make up nearly 70% of children’s daily calories. These foods are high in added sugars, refined starches, unhealthy fats, and chemical additives, but low in nutrients. Studies—including a 2019 NIH-controlled feeding study—show that UPFs promote weight gain, overeating, and metabolic dysfunction. What can help: Tax incentives for fresh food retailers, improved school meals, front-of-pack labeling, and food industry regulation.
Promote Physical Activity and Limiting Sedentary Time
Most American children don’t get the recommended 60 minutes of physical activity per day. This contributes to obesity, cardiovascular risk, and even mental health issues. Physical activity is known to improve attention, mood, sleep, and self-regulation. What can help: Mandatory daily PE, school recess policies, walkable community infrastructure, and screen-time education.
Addressing Sleep Deprivation
Teens today sleep less than they did a decade ago, in part due to screen use and early school start times. Sleep loss is linked to depression, suicide risk, poor academic performance, and metabolic problems. What can help: Later school start times, family education about sleep hygiene, and limits on evening screen exposure.
Improving Maternal and Early Childhood Nutrition
The report indirectly supports actions that are backed by strong evidence: encouraging breastfeeding, supporting maternal whole-food diets, and improving infant nutrition. These are known to reduce chronic disease risk later in life.
ADHD is one of the most discussed neurodevelopmental disorders in the MAHA Report, but many of its claims about ADHD are misleading, oversimplified, or inconsistent with decades of scientific evidence, much of which is described in the International Consensus Statement on ADHD, and other references given below.
This is true. Diagnosis rates have risen over the past two decades, due in part to better recognition, broadened diagnostic criteria, and changes in healthcare access. Diagnosis rates in some parts of the country are too high, but we don’t know why. That should be addressed and investigated. MAHA attributes increasing diagnoses to ‘overmedicalization’. That is a hypothesis worth testing but not a conclusion we can draw from available data.
These have been associated with ADHD but have not been documented as causes. ADHD is highly heritable, with genetic factors accounting for 70–80% of the risk. Unlike genetic studies, environmental risk studies are compromised by confounding variables. There are good reasons to address these issues but doing so is unlikely to reduce diagnostic rates of ADHD.
❌ Inaccurate: ADHD medications don’t work long-term.
The report criticizes stimulant use but fails to note that ADHD medications are among the most effective psychiatric treatments, especially when consistently used. They cite the MTA study’s long term outcome study of kids assigned to medication vs. placebo as showing medications don’t work in the long term. But that comparison is flawed because during the follow-up period, many kids on medication stopped taking them and many on placebo started taking medications. Many studies document that medications for ADHD protect against many real-world outcomes such as accidental injuries, substance abuse and even premature death.
Despite the issues discussed above, the MAHA Report can indirectly help children and adults with ADHD by pushing for systemic changes that reduce ultra-processed food consumption, increase physical activity, and motivate better sleep practices.
In other words, you don’t need to reject the diagnosis of ADHD to support broader changes in how we feed, educate, and care for children. A more supportive, less toxic environment benefits everyone—including those with ADHD.
ADHD is associated with impaired executive functioning. Executive functions are a set of mental skills that include working memory, flexible thinking, and self-control. These are skills we use every day to learn, work, and manage daily life. Trouble with executive function can make it hard to focus, follow directions, and handle emotions.
A Chinese study team searched for studies on non-pharmacological treatments of children and adolescents with ADHD aged 5 to 18 years intended to improve their executive functioning.
An initial methodological weakness was the decision to combine studies using formal ADHD diagnoses based on professional psychiatric manuals (DSM 3/4/5 and ICD 10/11) and studies relying on other methods such as parent reports.
This lack of rigor in identifying ADHD is surprising given that the team used studies that directly measured executive functioning through neurocognitive tasks, excluding those that relied on parent- or teacher-reported questionnaires.
67 studies involving 74 training interventions met the criteria. Meta-analysis of all these studies, encompassing a total of 3,101 participants, suggested medium-to-large effect size improvements in executive functioning. There was evidence of publication bias, but trim-and-fill adjustment increased the estimated effect size to large.
Nevertheless, there were further methodological shortcomings:
In this case, subgroup analysis mostly failed to explain the heterogeneity, with a single exception. Meta-analysis of the 16 studies with 744 participants that explored executive function-specific curriculum found small-to-medium effect size improvements, with no heterogeneity.
Unfortunately, the team did not perform a separate publication bias analysis on this subgroup, just as it failed to do so on any of the other subgroups.
By far the strongest evidence of benefit came from meta-analysis of the 17 studies with 558 participants evaluating physical exercise. Here the outcome pointed to very large effect size improvements in executive functioning. Yet once again, heterogeneity was extremely high. Breaking this down further between aerobic exercise and cognitively engaged physical exercise made no difference. Both types had the same very high effect size, with very wide heterogeneity. Again, there was no separate evaluation of publication bias on this group.
Meta-analyses of thirteen studies of neurofeedback combining 444 participants, and fifteen studies of cognitive training encompassing 727 participants, both pointed to just-short-of-large effect size improvements in executive function. Meta-analysis of twelve studies of game-based training with 598 participants indicated medium effect size gains. But again, in all three subgroups there was great variation between studies, and no analysis of publication bias.
While these meta-analyses are suggestive of efficacy, especially for physical exercise interventions, their methodological shortcomings mean we will have to await more rigorous meta-analyses to draw any more settled conclusions. Moreover, these meta-analyses did not evaluate the adequacy of the control groups used in the trials, which is a big shortcoming given prior work showing that the effect of non-pharmacologic treatments are very weak or non-existent when adequate controls are used.
Antidepressants are the primary drug treatment for depressive disorders, which affect 15–20% of pregnant women. They are among the most widely prescribed medications worldwide, and their use has increased in recent decades. Understanding their reproductive safety is critical to support informed, evidence-based prescribing during pregnancy.
A new meta-analysis sheds important light on one of the most debated concerns: whether children born to mothers who took antidepressants during pregnancy face a higher risk of ADHD.
The Study:
Pooling 14 studies covering more than 14 million participants, the analysis found that prenatal antidepressant exposure was associated with a 35% higher rate of ADHD in offspring compared to no exposure. A separate look at SSRIs (the most widely prescribed class of antidepressants, including Prozac and Zoloft) across 11 studies and over four million pregnancies found an even higher apparent risk (44%) after correcting for publication bias. On the surface, these are striking numbers.
Both associations came with an important caveat: enormous variation between individual studies, a statistical red flag suggesting the results may not reflect a true underlying effect. More tellingly, the apparent risk evaporated entirely when researchers applied a more rigorous method — comparing siblings within the same family, where one child was exposed to antidepressants in the womb, and another was not.
This sibling-comparison design is particularly powerful because it automatically controls for factors that run in families: shared genes, household environment, parenting, and socioeconomic conditions. When those influences are held constant, the link between antidepressant exposure and ADHD disappears. The same pattern held for SSRIs specifically.
Two other antidepressant classes, SNRIs (serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) and tricyclics, showed no significant association in any analysis.
“Confounding by Indication”:
The probable driver of the initial association is what researchers call confounding by indication. The very condition being treated (depression) is itself a risk factor for ADHD in offspring, independently of any medication. Mothers with more severe depression are also more likely to be prescribed antidepressants, meaning the drug and the underlying illness are difficult to disentangle in standard analyses. Sibling studies cut through this problem cleanly.
The Take-Away:
The authors concluded that the association between antidepressants and ADHD risk was non-significant across all analyses designed to account for these confounding factors. This doesn’t mean antidepressants are without any reproductive considerations, but it does suggest that ADHD risk, at least, is driven by heritable and family-level factors rather than medication exposure itself.
For clinicians and patients weighing the risks of treating or not treating depression during pregnancy, this distinction matters considerably.
Executive functions are the mental processes that allow us to plan, adapt, and follow through. This encompasses working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, goal-directed planning, and problem-solving. In people with ADHD, weaknesses in these areas compound the disorder's core symptoms, making it substantially harder to manage complex, real-world demands.
Background:
Medication remains the frontline clinical response. Stimulant medications can meaningfully reduce both executive function deficits and ADHD symptoms, and are often combined with behavioral or psychological therapies for better overall outcomes.
Medication, however, is not entirely without risk of side effects. These risks have spurred interest in new, non-pharmacological alternatives that target the same neural pathways. One of these new therapies is Computerized Cognitive Remediation Therapy (CCRT). This therapy uses digital programs delivered via computer, tablet, or smartphone that train attention, memory, and inhibitory control through structured cognitive exercises. A key feature of many CCRT platforms is adaptive difficulty: tasks adjust in real time to match the child’s current ability, keeping training both challenging and engaging.
The Study:
Despite this promise, the evidence base in younger populations has been limited. This meta-analysis pooled results from randomized controlled trials enrolling participants under 18 who either carried an ADHD diagnosis or scored above the threshold on a validated rating scale. Comparators included no treatment (waitlist), placebo (pharmacological or psychological), or treatment as usual. The primary outcomes (overall executive function and clinical symptom severity) were assessed via questionnaires and neuropsychological testing. Studies including participants with comorbid autism, tic disorders, epilepsy, or other psychiatric conditions were excluded.
The findings were informative, but overall results were mixed. CCRT produced a small but statistically meaningful reduction in inattention symptoms across 13 studies (885 participants), with consistent results across individual trials and no evidence of publication bias. However, it had no detectable effect on hyperactivity and impulsivity (12 studies, 833 participants) or on total ADHD symptom burden (10 studies, 731 participants).
The picture was more encouraging for executive function. Nine studies (500 participants) showed small overall improvements, with specific gains in working memory (454 participants), inhibitory control (428 participants), and planning (6 studies, 335 participants). Emotional control showed no significant change (5 studies, 265 participants), nor did cognitive flexibility (4 studies, 189 participants).
The Take-Away:
Taken together, these results are modest rather than transformative, but context matters. CCRT is low-cost, digitally scalable, and carries negligible side effects. For a population where medication often comes with a significant burden of adverse reactions, even small, reliable improvements in executive function represent a meaningful clinical option.
The evidence positions CCRT not as a replacement for established treatments, but as a practical and well-tolerated addition to the therapeutic toolkit for children and adolescents with ADHD.
Methylphenidate is an effective treatment for ADHD in adults who also have bipolar disorder (BD), but it carries a potential risk of triggering manic episodes. Current guidelines therefore recommend using it only alongside mood-stabilizing medication. A new study using French nationwide claims data sought to test and extend those recommendations with greater statistical power than previous research.
The study built on findings by Viktorin et al. (2017), who observed that adults with BD not taking mood stabilizers had more than a sixfold higher risk of manic events (defined as hospitalization for mania or a new antimanic prescription) within six months of starting methylphenidate. Patients on mood-stabilizing treatment, by contrast, showed nearly half the baseline risk in the first three months. Those findings were limited, however, by small event counts (fewer than 61 manic episodes) and an effect that did not persist beyond the initial three-month window.
To build on this, researchers drew on the French National Health Data System (which is a claims database covering more than 60 million people) spanning 2008 to 2024. The final sample included 6,022 adults with BD (56% women) who had started methylphenidate. Using a self-controlled design, the study compared each patient's rate of manic events in the six months before their first methylphenidate prescription with the rate in the six months after, effectively eliminating stable individual differences as a confound.
Patients were classified as receiving continuous mood-stabilizing treatment if they had been dispensed at least two courses of specific antipsychotics (aripiprazole, olanzapine, or quetiapine) or mood stabilizers (lithium or valproate) in the nine months before starting methylphenidate, including at least one dispensation in the final six months of that window.
The results largely confirmed the earlier findings. Among the 2,745 patients not on mood stabilizers, the rate of inpatient mania diagnosis was 5.1 times higher in the first three months after starting methylphenidate, though this elevation fell to a non-significant level over the subsequent three months. Patients receiving continuous mood-stabilizing treatment showed no statistically significant change in mania risk across the full six-month post-initiation period. A formulation-specific pattern also emerged: patients without mood-stabilizing treatment had a 2.5-fold higher risk associated with extended-release methylphenidate, while no significant risk increase was seen with the immediate-release formulation or in treated patients regardless of formulation.
The authors conclude that methylphenidate at doses below 30 mg does not appear to elevate manic relapse risk when prescribed alongside mood stabilizers. The elevated risk seen in untreated patients, particularly with extended-release formulations, must be interpreted cautiously, given limited statistical power and the likelihood that it partly reflects the natural fluctuation of manic relapse over time. The authors flag this as an inherent limitation of self-controlled survival analyses when studying drug-induced mania, where temporal trends in the underlying condition can be difficult to disentangle from treatment effects.
_logo%201.svg)
