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.
January 8, 2026
Stimulant medications have long been considered the default first-line treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Clinical guidelines, prescribing practices, and public narratives all reinforce the idea that stimulants should be tried first, with non-stimulants reserved for cases where stimulants fail or are poorly tolerated.
I recently partnered with leading ADHD researcher Jeffrey Newcorn for a Nature Mental Health commentary on the subject. We argue that this hierarchy deserves reexamination. It is important to note that our position is not anti-stimulant. Rather, we call into question whether the evidence truly supports treating non-stimulants as secondary options, and we propose that both classes should be considered equal first-line treatments.
Stimulants have earned their reputation as the go-to drug of choice for ADHD. They are among the most effective medications in psychiatry, reliably reducing core ADHD symptoms and improving daily functioning when properly titrated and monitored. However, when stimulant and non-stimulant medications are compared more closely, the gap between them appears smaller than commonly assumed.
Meta-analyses often report slightly higher average response rates for stimulants, but head-to-head trials where patients are directly randomized to one medication versus another frequently find no statistically significant differences in symptom improvement or tolerability. Network meta-analyses similarly show that while some stimulant formulations have modest advantages, these differences are small and inconsistent, particularly in adults.
When translated into clinical terms, the advantage of stimulants becomes even more modest. Based on existing data, approximately eight patients would need to be treated with a stimulant rather than a non-stimulant for one additional person to experience a meaningful benefit. This corresponds to only a 56% probability that a given patient will respond better to a stimulant than to a non-stimulant. This difference is not what we would refer to as “clinically significant.”
One reason non-stimulants may appear less effective is the way efficacy is typically reported. Most comparisons rely on standardized mean differences, a method of averages that may mask heterogeneity of treatment effects. In reality, ADHD medications do not work uniformly across patients.
For example, evidence suggests that response to some non-stimulants, such as atomoxetine, is bimodal: this means that many patients respond extremely well, while others respond poorly, with few in between. When this happens, average effect sizes can obscure the fact that a substantial subgroup benefits just as much as they would from a stimulant. In other words, non-stimulants are not necessarily less effective across the board, but that they are simply different in who they help.
In our commentary, we also highlight structural issues in ADHD research. Stimulant trials are particularly vulnerable to unblinding, as their immediate and observable physiological effects can reveal treatment assignment, potentially inflating perceived efficacy. Non-stimulants, with slower onset and subtler effects, are less prone to this bias.
Additionally, many randomized trials exclude patients with common psychiatric comorbidities such as anxiety, depression, or substance-use disorders. Using co-diagnoses as exclusion criteria for clinical trials on ADHD medications is nonviable when considering the large number of ADHD patients who also have other diagnoses. Real-world data suggest that a large proportion of individuals with ADHD would not qualify for typical trials, limiting how well results generalize to everyday clinical practice.
Standard evaluations of medication tolerability focus on side effects experienced by patients, but this narrow lens misses broader societal consequences. Stimulants are Schedule II controlled substances, which introduces logistical barriers, regulatory burdens, supply vulnerabilities, and administrative strain for both patients and clinicians.
When used as directed, stimulant medications do not increase risk of substance-use disorders (and, in fact, tend to reduce these rates); however, as ADHD awareness has spread and stimulants are more widely prescribed, non-medical use of prescription stimulants has become more widespread, particularly among adolescents and young adults. Non-stimulants do not carry these risks.
Non-stimulants are not without drawbacks themselves, however. They typically take longer to work and have higher non-response rates, making them less suitable in situations where rapid results are essential. These limitations, however, do not justify relegating them to second-line status across the board.
This is a call for abandoning a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, future guidelines should present stimulant and non-stimulant medications as equally valid starting points, clearly outlining trade-offs related to onset, efficacy, misuse risk, and practical burden.
The evidence already supports this shift. The remaining challenge is aligning clinical practice and policy with what the data, and patient-centered care, are increasingly telling us.
Faraone, S.V., Newcorn, J.H. Rethinking the role of non-stimulants in ADHD treatment. Nat. Mental Health (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-025-00564-7
A new large-scale study has shed light on which treatments for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults are most effective and best tolerated.
Researchers analyzed 113 randomized controlled trials involving nearly 15,000 adults diagnosed with ADHD. These studies included medications (like stimulants and atomoxetine), psychological therapies (such as cognitive behavioral therapy), and newer approaches like neurostimulation.
The Findings
Stimulant medications (lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate) as well as selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) (atomoxetine) were the only treatments that consistently reduced core ADHD symptoms—both from the perspective of patients and clinicians. It may be worth noting that atomoxetine, while effective, was less well tolerated, with more people dropping out due to side effects.
Psychological therapies such as CBT, mindfulness, and psychoeducation showed some benefits, but mainly according to clinician ratings—not necessarily from the patients themselves. Neurostimulation techniques like transcranial direct current stimulation also showed some improvements, but only in limited contexts and with small sample sizes.
Conclusion
So, what does this mean for people navigating ADHD in adulthood? Stimulant medications remain the most effective treatment for managing ADHD symptoms day-to-day but nonstimulant medication are not far behind, which is good given the problems we’ve had with stimulant shortages. This study also supports structured psychotherapy as a viable treatment option, especially when used in conjunction with medication.
The study emphasizes the importance of ongoing, long-term research and the need for treatment plans that are tailored to the individual ADHD patient– Managing adult ADHD effectively calls for flexible, patient-centered care.
-----
Struggling with side effects or not seeing improvement in your day-to-day life? Dive into a step-by-step journey that starts with the basics of screening and diagnosis, detailing the clinical criteria healthcare professionals use so you can be certain you receive an accurate evaluation. This isn’t just another ADHD guide—it’s your toolkit for getting the care you deserve. This is the kind of care that doesn’t just patch up symptoms but helps you unlock your potential and build the life you want. Whether you’ve just been diagnosed or you’ve been living with ADHD for years, this booklet is here to empower you to take control of your healthcare journey.
Proceeds from the sale of this book are used to support www.ADHDevidence.org.
A Chinese research team performed two types of meta-analyses to compare the risk of suicide for ADHD patients taking ADHD medication as opposed to those not taking medication.
The first type of meta-analysis combined six large population studies with a total of over 4.7 million participants. These were located on three continents - Europe, Asia, and North America - and more specifically Sweden, England, Taiwan, and the United States.
The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be about a quarter less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p = 0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). There were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications produced divergent outcomes. A meta-analysis of four population studies covering almost 900,000 individuals found stimulant medications to be associated with a 28 percent reduced risk of suicide. On the other hand, a meta-analysis of three studies with over 62,000 individuals found no significant difference in suicide risk for non-stimulant medications. The benefit, therefore, seems limited to stimulant medication.
The second type of meta-analysis combined three within-individual studies with over 3.9 million persons in the United States, China, and Sweden. The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be almost a third less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were again barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p =0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). Once again, there were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced the sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications once again produced divergent outcomes. Meta-analysis of the same three studies found a 25 percent reduced risk of suicide among those taking stimulant medications. But as in the population studies, a meta-analysis of two studies with over 3.9 million persons found no reduction in risk among those taking non-stimulant medications.
A further meta-analysis of two studies with 3.9 million persons found no reduction in suicide risk among persons taking ADHD medications for 90 days or less, "revealing the importance of duration and adherence to medication in all individuals prescribed stimulants for ADHD."
The authors concluded, "exposure to non-stimulants is not associated with a higher risk of suicide attempts. However, a lower risk of suicide attempts was observed for stimulant drugs. However, the results must be interpreted with caution due to the evidence of heterogeneity ..."
Older adults are at greater risk for cardiovascular disease. Psychostimulants may contribute to that risk through side effects, such as elevation of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate.
On the other hand, smoking, substance abuse, obesity, and chronic sleep loss - all of which are associated with ADHD - are known to increase cardiovascular risk, and stimulant medications are an effective treatment for ADHD.
So how does this all shake out? A Dutch team of researchers sets out to explore this. Using electronic health records, they compared all 139 patients 55 years and older at PsyQ outpatient clinic, Program Adult ADHD, in The Hague. Because a principal aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of medication on cardiovascular functioning after first medication use, the 26 patients who had previously been prescribed ADHD medication were excluded from the study, leaving a sample size of 113.
The ages of participants ranged from 55 from 79, with a mean of 61. Slightly over half were women. At the outset, 13 percent had elevated systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure, 2 percent had an irregular heart rate, 15 percent had an abnormal electrocardiogram, and 29 percent had some combination of these (a "cardiovascular risk profile"), and 21 percent used antihypertensive medication.
Three out of four participants had at least e comorbid disorder. The most common are sleep disorders, affecting a quarter of participants, and unipolar mood disorders (depressive or more rarely manic episodes, but not both), also affecting a quarter of participants.
Twenty-four patients did not initiate pharmacological treatment. Of the 89 who received ADHD medication, 58 (65%) reported positive effects, and five experienced no effect. Thirty-eight (43%) discontinued ADHD medication while at the clinic due to lack of effect or to side effects. The most commonly reported positive effects were enhanced concentration, more overview, less restlessness, more stable mood, and having more energy. The principal reasons for discontinuing medication were anxiety/depression, cardiovascular complaints, and lack of effect.
Methylphenidate raised heart rate and lowered weight, but had no significant effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Moreover, there was no significant correlation between methylphenidate dosage and any of these variables, nor between methylphenidate users taking hypertensive medication and those not taking such medication. There was no significant difference in systolic or diastolic blood pressure and heart rate before and after the use of methylphenidate among patients with the cardiovascular risk profiles.
Systolic blood pressure rose in ten out of 64 patients, with two experiencing an increase of at least 20 mmHg. It descended in five patients, with three having a decrease of at least 20 mmHg. Diastolic blood pressure rose by at least 10 mmHg in four patients, while dropping at least 10 mmHg in five others.
The authors concluded "that the use of a low dose of ADHD-medication is well tolerated and does not cause clinically significant cardiovascular changes among older adults with ADHD, even among those with an increased cardiovascular risk profile. Furthermore, our older patients experienced significant and clinically relevant improvement of their ADHD symptoms using stimulants, comparable with what is found among the younger age group," and that "the use of methylphenidate may be a relatively safe and effective treatment for older adults with ADHD, under the condition that all somatic complaints and especially cardiovascular parameters are monitored before and during pharmacological treatment."
Yet they cautioned that "due to the observational nature of the study and the lack of a control group, no firm conclusions can be drawn as to the effectiveness of the stimulants used. ... Important factors that were not systematically reported were the presence of other risk factors, such as smoking, substance (ab)use, aspirin use, and level of physical activity. In addition, the response to medication was not systematically measured"
Background:
There are currently few long-term treatment options for adult ADHD. Psychostimulants can help reduce symptoms, but their benefits rely on availability, continued use, and are not easily tolerated by some. Cognitive-behavioral therapies have also proven to be helpful, but access is limited because they must be provided by trained specialists. These challenges highlight the need to explore alternative interventions that could provide cognitive and behavioral improvements with fewer side effects.
Exercise has shown potential as a nonclinical intervention for ADHD. Previous research indicates that physical activity can increase cortical volume, enhance brain activation, and boost connectivity in cognitive regions, as well as raise dopamine and norepinephrine levels – effects similar to psychostimulants. Research in children and teens with ADHD has found that both regular exercise programs and even single workout sessions can improve executive functions (mental skills like planning and self-control) and reduce core ADHD symptoms. But whether exercise helps adults with ADHD has remained an open question.
Study:
A Chinese sports medicine research team set out to answer this by reviewing all available peer-reviewed studies on exercise and adult ADHD. They found so few studies on regular exercise programs – only four total, and three of those were small pilot studies just testing whether the approach was feasible – that they couldn’t draw firm conclusions about long-term exercise interventions.
However, they were able to analyze four moderate-to-high-quality studies involving 152 adults with ADHD that tested single exercise sessions. The combined results showed moderate improvements in inhibitory control (the ability to resist impulses and stay focused). Adults not taking medication showed large improvements.
When they looked at four studies involving 170 adults, they found small but consistent improvements in core ADHD symptoms after single exercise sessions. There was little to no variation (heterogeneity) in individual study outcomes, and no sign of publication bias.
Results:
The team concluded, “Overall, these findings offer preliminary evidence on the potential role of exercise as a helpful strategy in the management of adult ADHD,” but cautioned that more well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the efficacy of both acute and chronic exercise interventions for adult ADHD, with particular emphasis placed on determining the best “prescription” for exercise – what type, how intense, and how often.
They also noted that most existing research has focused narrowly on attention and impulse control, while other important mental abilities like working memory and mental flexibility remain largely unexplored.
Take-Away:
The takeaway here is practical and accessible: you don't need a long-term fitness program to get a cognitive bump from exercise if you have ADHD. Even a single session appears to help — particularly with impulse control. While the research base is still thin and we don't yet know the ideal exercise "prescription," the risk-benefit calculation is hard to argue with. For adults with ADHD who can't access medication or therapy, or who simply want an additional tool, breaking a sweat may be worth building into the routine.
Background:
Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) means intentionally hurting yourself without trying to end your life. Common examples include cutting, scratching, or burning yourself. This behavior is most common in teenagers, affecting 13-20% of adolescents. It’s also called self-harm or deliberate self-injury.
Young people who struggle with managing emotions, act impulsively, or have mental health conditions like depression are more likely to self-harm.
Because ADHD involves impulsivity and often occurs alongside emotional difficulties, researchers have suspected a link between ADHD and self-injury. However, previous studies have tended to be small, unrepresentative, and inconsistent, making it hard to draw clear conclusions.
The Study:
Researchers combined results from 14 different studies involving nearly 30,000 people to get a clearer picture. They looked at children, teenagers, and adults with ADHD from various settings—including hospitals, community programs, and general population studies.
To be included, studies had to confirm ADHD diagnosis through professional evaluation or validated testing methods.
Key findings
Conclusion:
The researchers concluded that roughly one in four people with ADHD have engaged in non-suicidal self-harm. The findings suggest that ADHD and self-harm share overlapping vulnerabilities.
Overall, this meta-analysis strengthens evidence that people with ADHD face a significantly elevated risk of non-suicidal self-injury, likely reflecting overlapping challenges with impulsivity, emotional regulation, and co-occurring mental health conditions. Importantly, this does not mean self-harm is inevitable in ADHD. It does, however, highlight the need for early screening, supportive environments, and targeted mental-health care to help reduce risk and support healthier coping strategies.
Background:
While ADHD is generally linked to negative childhood outcomes, individual variability exists. Researchers have found that factors like cognition, emotion, parenting, and social interactions can help some adversity-exposed children develop better than expected. This variability has driven extensive resilience research, which now views resilience not as a single trait, but as a combination of biological, psychological, social, and ecological processes supporting adaptation.
The Study:
This meta-analysis sought to address several key research gaps. First, while many potential resilience factors have been identified, no previous meta-analysis has quantitatively synthesized evidence focused specifically on children with ADHD. Second, relatively little research has clarified how particular resilience factors relate to specific developmental outcomes. Third, there is currently no integrated conceptual model of resilience processes tailored to children and adolescents with ADHD.
To keep the analysis focused and clinically relevant, the authors examined psychosocial and ecological resilience factors only. Biological factors (such as genetics or cardiovascular health) and non-modifiable demographic characteristics (such as age and sex) were excluded, as they do not readily inform interventions. The analysis also focused strictly on outcomes for children and adolescents with ADHD, excluding adult outcomes and those reported for parents or teachers. Only studies based on clinical ADHD diagnoses were included.
In total, 28 studies involving more than 11,600 participants met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen studies were rated as high quality and 13 as fair quality; none were rated low quality. However, the evidence base was relatively thin for many analyses. Of the 50 components examined, only one included five studies, six included four studies, ten included three studies, and most (33) were based on just two studies. While some components involved large samples, most did not, meaning the findings should be viewed as suggestive rather than definitive.
Results:
Unsurprisingly, academic skills and cognitive functioning – specifically including working memory and intelligence – were strongly associated with better educational outcomes for children and adolescents with ADHD. In contrast, social skills and proactive attitudes or behaviors showed no significant link to educational attainment.
Well-being outcomes showed a different pattern. Proactive attitudes and behaviors, cognitive functioning, and parental resources were associated with small-to-moderate improvements in well-being. Emotional regulation and positive parenting or attachment, however, were not significantly related to well-being in this analysis.
For relationship outcomes, peer relationships – especially close friendships – stood out as particularly important, showing strong associations with better relational functioning. Social skills and positive parenting or attachment were linked to moderate improvements, although positive parenting alone had no significant effect. This suggests that the observed benefit likely stemmed from parental warmth and secure parent–child attachment rather than parenting practices in isolation. Parental resources (such as parental social support) and school-based support (including student–teacher relationships) showed no significant association with relationship outcomes.
The study also examined behavioral symptoms. Externalizing symptoms refer to outward-directed behaviors that affect others or the environment, such as aggression, defiance, impulsivity, hyperactivity, and rule-breaking. Peer relationships were linked to a modest reduction in these behaviors, while positive relationships with adults were associated with a strong reduction. In contrast, disciplinary parenting – particularly harsh punishment – was strongly associated with increased externalizing symptoms.
Internalizing symptoms involve inward-directed distress, such as anxiety, depression, withdrawal, excessive worry, and unexplained physical complaints. Here again, positive relationships with adults were important, showing a moderate association with fewer internalizing symptoms. Emotional regulation was also linked to small-to-moderate improvements.
Conclusion:
Overall, the findings highlight that resilience factors tend to be closely tied to specific outcomes rather than broadly protective across domains. For example, emotional regulation was associated with lower levels of both internalizing and externalizing symptoms but showed no significant link to well-being, educational achievement, or relationship quality. This suggests that emotional regulation may play a particularly important role in protecting mental health in children with ADHD, rather than driving broader developmental gains – consistent with evidence that emotional dysregulation is a core difficulty in ADHD.
Similarly, academic skills, social competence, and prosocial behaviors were linked mainly to their most closely related outcomes. Cognitive functioning was associated with both educational and well-being outcomes, but its impact was much stronger in education and more modest for well-being. Together, these context-specific patterns underscore the importance of designing interventions that target particular resilience factors with strategies tailored to specific developmental goals, rather than assuming that any single factor will promote resilience across all areas of life.
Key takeaway: resilience is individual and resilience isn’t one trait; different types of support help different individuals, in different areas.
_logo%201.svg)
