July 16, 2021
There has been much interest in omega-3 Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) as treatments for ADHD. Humans are unable to synthesize the omega-3 PUFA alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)and the omega-6 PUFA linoleic acid (LA), and must therefore obtain these through food, which is why they are known as essential fatty acids. Because cells in the brain need omega-3 PUFAs, they have been studied as a treatment for ADHD by many researchers. Several meta-analyses are available.
A 2014 meta-analysis by Elizabeth Haw key and Joel Niggcombined nine studies involving 586 participants. It found mean blood levels of omega-3 PUFAs in persons with ADHD to be lower than in controls. The standardized mean difference (SMD) effect size was medium (SMD = .42, 95% CI = .26-.59), with less than a one in one thousand probability of such a result being obtained by chance alone. Adjusting for publication bias reduced the effect size slightly to .36 with a 95% CI of .21-.51, in the small-to-medium range. The authors then examined whether omega-3 supplementation could help alleviate ADHD symptoms. Combining 16 studies with 1,408 participants, they found improvements, but this time with a small effect size (SMD = .26, 95% CI =.15-.37), again with less than a one in a thousand probability of such a result being observed by chance. Adjusting for publication bias reduced the effect size to .16 with a 95% CI of .03-.28. For comparison, the SMD for stimulants is about 0.9.
Another meta-analysis conducted in the same year by BasantPuri and Julian Martins combined 18 PUFA supplementation studies involving1,640 participants. They also found a small effect size for reduced ADHD symptoms (SMD = .19, 95% CI = .09-.30, p<.001). Adjusting for publication bias further reduced the effect size to a paltry and statistically insignificant level (SMD = .12, 95% CI = -.01-.25). It should be noted that while16 of the studies involved omega-3 supplementation, two involved only omega-6supplementation. Yet the results for the latter did not differ noticeably from the former. When the authors limited the analysis to the 11 studies specifically including both the omega-6GLAand the omega-3 EPA, the effect size for reducing inattention symptoms was a bit higher(SMD = .31, 95% CI = .16-.46, p<.0001). But the results were not significantly different from those for the studies without the GLA+ALA combination (.012; 95% CI: .161-.137; p=.875). Publication bias was not addressed, and the hunt for a highly specific subset with positive results may have produced a false-positive finding. The authors conceded, "Weaknesses of this study include the following: although the pooled effect was statistically significant, only two studies showed a significant effect by themselves; the funnel plot showed evidence of publication bias; there was evidence of reporting bias; few studies were formally registered; study methodological quality was variable, and the placebo used across studies varied."
A 2016 meta-analysis by Laura Lachance et al. tried looking for differences in the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 PUFAs, and more specifically, AA to EPA, in the blood of persons with ADHD versus normally developing persons. Pooling five studies with485 participants, it found the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio to be significantly higher in persons with ADHD, and pooling three studies with 279 participants, it likewise found the AA to EPA ratio significantly higher.
A 2017 meta-analysis by Jane Pei-Chen Chang et al. Reexamined comparative levels of omega-3 PUFAs in ADHD patients versus normally developing controls. Combining six studies with 396 participants, ADHD patients had lower levels in blood and mouth tissue, with a medium effect size (SMD =.38) that was not statistically significant (p=.14). Omega-6 levels were indistinguishable (SMD =.03) in the two groups. AA (SMD = .18, p=.33) and EPA (SMD = .25, p=.17) levels were slightly lower, but once again statistically not significant. DHA levels were lower as well, this time with a medium effect size (SMD = .56), but at the outer margin of significance (p=.05). Only by dropping one study were the authors able to claim significance for EPA, AA, and omega-3 differences.
Chang et al. also performed a meta-analysis of supplementation studies. Combining seven studies with 534 participants, they found a small to medium reduction in ADHD symptoms with omega-3 supplementation(SMD = .38, 95% CI = .2-.56, p<.0001). Corrections for publication bias were not reported. The authors also reported large reductions in both omission errors (SMD = 1.09, 95% CI = .43-.1.75, p<.001) and commission errors (SMD =2.14, 95% CI = 1.24-3.03, p<.00001) on a neuropsychological test of attention. But the former involved only 3 studies with 214 participants, and the latter only two studies with 85 participants.
Also in 2017, Pelsser et al. published a systematic review that identified only two meta-analyses of double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of PUFA supplementation. One of those, a 2012meta-analysis by Gillies et al., found no statistically significant declines in either parent-rated ADHD symptoms (five trials, 413 participants, SMD = -.17,95% CI = -.38-.03) or teacher-rated ADHD symptoms (four trials, 324participants, SMD = .05, 95% CI = -.18-.27). The other, a 2013 meta-analysis by Sonuga-Barke et al., found only a slight and barely statistically significant reduction in symptoms (11 trials, 827 participants, SMD = .16, 95% CI =.01-.31). Pelsser et al. concluded, "Considering the small average ESs [effect sizes] PUFA supplementation is unlikely to provide a tangible contribution to ADHD treatment."
Putting all of this together, there are indications that individuals with ADHD may have lower levels of omega-3 PUFAs, and that omega-3 supplementation may slightly reduce symptoms of ADHD, but the evidence remains inconclusive, with at best small effect sizes. It is possible, but not yet demonstrated, that omega-3 PUFAs might produce good outcomes in a small subset of patients.
Jane Pei-Chen Chang, Kuan-Pin Su, Valeria Mondelli, and carmine M Pariante, "Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids in Youths with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials and Biological Studies," Neuropsychopharmacology (2017),43(3): 534-545.
Donna Gillies, John KH Sinn, Sagar S Lad, Matthew J Leach, MelissaJ Ross, "Polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents," Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2012), DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007986.pub2.
Elizabeth Hawkey and Joel T. Negg, "Omega-3 fatty acid and ADHD: Blood level analysis and meta-analytic extension of supplementation trials," Clinical Psychology Review(2014), 34(6), 496-505.
Laura LaChance, Kwame McKenzie, Valerie H. Taylor, and Simone N. Vigod, "Omega-6 to Omega-3 Fatty Acid Ratio in Patients with ADHD: AMeta-Analysis," Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and AdolescentPsychiatry (2016), 25(2), 87-96.
Lidy M. Pelsser, Klaas Frankena, Jan Toorman, Rob Rodrigues Pereira, "Diet and ADHD, Reviewing the Evidence: A Systematic Review of meta-Analyses of Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trials Evaluating the Efficacy of Diet Interventions on the Behavior of Children with ADHD," PLOS ONE (January 25, 2017), 1-25.
Basant K. Puri and Julian G. Martins, "Which polyunsaturated fatty acids are active in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder receiving PUFA supplementation? A fatty acid validated meta-regression analysis of randomized controlled trials," Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes and Essential Fatty Acids (2014), 90, 179-189.
Edmund J.S. Sonuga-Barke et al., "NonpharmacologicalInterventions for ADHD: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of RandomizedControlled Trials of Dietary and Psychological Treatments," American Journal of Psychiatry (2013),170:275-289.
.png)
This New York Times article, “5 Takeaways from New Research about ADHD”, earns a poor grade for accuracy. Let’s break down their (often misleading and frequently inaccurate) claims about ADHD.
The Claim: A.D.H.D. is hard to define/ No ADHD Biomarkers exist
The Reality: The claim that ADHD is hard to define “because scientists haven’t found a single biological marker” is misleading at best. While it is true that no biomarker exists, decades of rigorous research using structured clinical interviews and standardized rating scales show that ADHD is reliably diagnosed. Decades of validation research consistently show that ADHD is indeed a biologically-based disorder. One does not need a biomarker to draw that conclusion and recent research about ADHD has not changed that conclusion.
Additionally, research has in fact confirmed that genetics do play a role in the development of ADHD and several genes associated with ADHD have been identified.
The Claim: The efficacy of medication wanes over time
The Reality: The article’s statement that medications like Adderall or Ritalin only provide short-term benefits that fade over time is wrong. It relies almost entirely on one study—the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA). In the MTA study, the relative advantage of medication over behavioral treatments diminished after 36 months. This was largely because many patients who had not initially been given medication stopped taking it and many who had only been treated with behavior therapy suddenly began taking medication. The MTA shows that patients frequently switched treatments. It does not overturn other data documenting that these medications are highly effective. Moreover, many longitudinal studies clearly demonstrate sustained benefits of ADHD medications in reducing core symptoms, psychiatric comorbidity, substance abuse, and serious negative outcomes, including accidents, and school dropout rates. A study of nearly 150,000 people with ADHD in Sweden concluded “Among individuals diagnosed with ADHD, medication initiation was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality, particularly for death due to unnatural causes”. The NY Times’ claim that medications lose their beneficial effects over time ignores compelling evidence to the contrary.
The Claim: Medications don’t help children with ADHD learn
The Reality: ADHD medications are proven to reliably improve attention, increase time spent on tasks, and reduce disruptive behavior, all critical factors directly linked to better academic performance.The article’s assertion that ADHD medications improve only classroom behavior and do not actually help students learn also oversimplifies and misunderstands the research evidence. While medication alone might not boost IQ or cognitive ability in a direct sense, extensive research confirms significant objective improvements in academic productivity and educational success—contrary to the claim made in the article that the medication’s effect is merely emotional or perceptual, rather than genuinely educational.
For example, a study of students with ADHD who were using medication intermittingly concluded “Individuals with ADHD had higher scores on the higher education entrance tests during periods they were taking ADHD medication vs non-medicated periods. These findings suggest that ADHD medications may help ameliorate educationally relevant outcomes in individuals with ADHD.”
The Claim: Changing a child’s environment can change his or her symptoms.
The Reality: The Times article asserts that ADHD symptoms are influenced by environmental fluctuations and thus might not have their roots in neurobiology. We have known for many years that the symptoms of ADHD fluctuate with environmental demands. The interpretation of this given by the NY Times is misleading because it confuses symptom variability with underlying causes. Many disorders with well-established biological origins are sensitive to environmental factors, yet their biology remains undisputed.
For example, hypertension is unquestionably a biologically based condition involving genetic and physiological factors. However, it is also well-known that environmental stressors, dietary
habits, and lifestyle factors can significantly worsen or improve hypertension. Similarly, asthma is biologically rooted in inflammation and airway hyper-reactivity, but environmental triggers such as allergens, pollution, or even emotional stress clearly impact symptom severity. Just as these environmental influences on hypertension or asthma do not negate their biological basis, the responsiveness of ADHD symptoms to environmental fluctuations (e.g., improvements in classroom structure, supportive home life) does not imply that ADHD lacks neurobiological roots. Rather, it underscores that ADHD, like many medical conditions, emerges from the interplay between underlying biological vulnerabilities and environmental influences.
Claim: There is no clear dividing line between those who have A.D.H.D. and those who don’t.
The Reality: This is absolutely and resoundingly false. The article’s suggestion that ADHD diagnosis is arbitrary because ADHD symptoms exist on a continuum rather than as a clear-cut, binary condition is misleading. Although it is true that ADHD symptoms—like inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity—do vary continuously across the population, the existence of this continuum does not make the diagnosis arbitrary or invalidate the disorder’s biological basis. Many well-established medical conditions show the same pattern. For instance, hypertension (high blood pressure) and hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol) both involve measures that are continuously distributed. Blood pressure and cholesterol levels exist along a continuum, yet clear diagnostic thresholds have been carefully established through decades of clinical research. Their continuous distribution does not lead clinicians to question whether these conditions have biological origins or whether diagnosing an individual with hypertension or hypercholesterolemia is arbitrary. Rather, it underscores that clinical decisions and diagnostic thresholds are established using evidence about what levels lead to meaningful impairment or increased risk of negative health outcomes. Similarly, the diagnosis of ADHD has been meticulously defined and refined over many decades using extensive empirical research, structured clinical interviews, and validated rating scales. The diagnostic criteria developed by experts carefully delineate the point at which symptoms become severe enough to cause significant impairment in an individual’s daily functioning. Far from being arbitrary, these thresholds reflect robust scientific evidence that individuals meeting these criteria face increased risks for the serious impairments in life including accidents, suicide and premature death.
The existence of milder forms of ADHD does not undermine the validity of the diagnosis; rather, it emphasizes the clinical reality that people experience varying degrees of symptom severity.
Moreover, acknowledging variability in severity has always been a core principle in medicine. Clinicians routinely adjust treatments to meet individual patient needs. Not everyone diagnosed with hypertension receives identical medication regimens, nor does everyone with elevated cholesterol get prescribed the same intervention. Similarly, people with ADHD receive personalized treatment plans tailored to the severity of their symptoms, their specific impairments, and their individual circumstances. This personalization is not evidence of arbitrariness; it is precisely how evidence-based medicine is practiced. In sum, the continuous nature of ADHD symptoms is fully compatible with a biologically-based diagnosis that has substantial evidence for validity, and acknowledging symptom variability does not render diagnosis arbitrary or diminish its clinical importance.
In sum, readers seeking a balanced, evidence-based understanding of ADHD deserve clearer, more careful reporting. By overstating diagnostic uncertainty, selectively interpreting research about medication efficacy, and inaccurately portraying the educational benefits of medication, this article presents an overly simplistic, misleading picture of ADHD.
Recent research suggests that inflammation may play a role in ADHD. Inflammation, marked by elevated proteins and cytokines, affects brain development and structure. Evidence suggests it plays a role in the development of ADHD, making the study of inflammatory markers crucial.
The platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) is a cost-effective test for predicting outcomes of chronic inflammation and neuroimmune diseases. Studies show PLR may be an important inflammatory marker in the pathophysiology of ADHD in children.
The Study:
A Chinese study team used the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database maintained by the National Center for Health Statistics of the United States to investigate the association between PLR and ADHD in children aged 6–14.
The team identified ADHD through prescriptions of ADHD medications.
After exclusions for missing information, the study encompassed 1,455 children.
The authors adjusted for the following potential confounders: sex, age, race, poverty-to-income ratio, maternal age at childbirth, smoking during pregnancy, asthma, health insurance status, dietary inflammatory index, monocyte count, segmented neutrophil count, eosinophil count, and basophil count.
They also split the PLR results into quartiles, with the first quartile having the lowest readings.
Prescriptions of ADHD medications were twice as frequent among children in the second quartile as they were among children in the first quartile. They were four times as frequent among children in the third quartile than among children in the first quartile.
Conclusion:
The team concluded, “These findings further support the potential role of inflammation in the onset and development of ADHD, providing preliminary evidence for PLR as a potential biomarker for ADHD and suggesting its possible use in identifying high-risk populations. However, considering the limitations of this study, future research should be designed as larger-scale, prospective, multi-center randomized controlled trials to validate these findings and further explore the relationship between inflammatory mechanisms and ADHD.”
In other words, this study suggests that while high PLR values may serve as a potential biomarker for ADHD, particularly in specific high-risk groups, further research is needed to confirm these findings and fully understand the role of inflammation in ADHD development. Larger, more robust studies will be crucial to validating PLR as a reliable tool for identifying at-risk populations.
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."
_logo%201.svg)
