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"
While ADHD is a developmental disorder, shaped by biology and genetics, growing evidence shows that it is also influenced by the social and environmental conditions in which children grow up. Research on the social determinants of health emphasizes that development is shaped not only by biology but also by factors such as family income, access to healthcare, neighborhood safety, and material stability. These factors can affect both how developmental challenges appear and whether they are recognized and diagnosed.
Children facing socioeconomic disadvantage consistently show higher risks of developmental and behavioral difficulties. Chronic stress linked to poverty – including financial strain, food insecurity, and limited access to resources – has been associated with problems in attention, emotional regulation, and daily functioning. Children from lower-income families also tend to experience more severe ADHD symptoms and face greater barriers to ongoing care.
Neighborhood conditions matter as well. Unsafe environments can limit opportunities for play and social interaction while increasing caregiver stress, all of which may influence children’s behavior and development. Material hardships, such as food insecurity, can further undermine stability at home.
The Study:
The study analyzed six years of data from the National Survey of Children’s Health (2018–2023), covering more than 205,000 U.S. children aged 3 to 17. After accounting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, region, family structure, survey year, and other social factors, the researchers found a strong income gradient in ADHD prevalence. Compared with children in households earning at least four times the federal poverty level, those in households earning two to four times that level had 28 percent higher odds of ADHD. Odds rose to 70 percent higher in households earning one to two times the poverty level, and more than doubled among children living below the poverty line.
Parental education showed a similar pattern. Compared with children whose parents had completed college, ADHD odds were 20 percent higher among those whose parents had some college education, 40 percent higher among those whose parents had only a high school education, and 80 percent higher among those whose parents had not finished high school.
Children living in unsafe neighborhoods had nearly twice the odds of ADHD compared with those in safe neighborhoods, and food insecurity was also linked to almost double the odds.
By contrast, race and ethnicity alone were associated with much smaller differences. Compared with non-Hispanic White children, children in non-Hispanic Black households had an 18 percent higher likelihood of ADHD, while children in Hispanic households had a 25 percent lower likelihood. No substantial differences were observed for children from other or multiracial households.
Conclusion and Takeaway:
The study team concluded, “Children living in lower-income households, experiencing food insecurity, and residing in unsafe neighborhoods consistently showed higher prevalence and higher adjusted odds of both conditions. … Overall, these findings reinforce the need to view neurodevelopmental disorders within a broader social and structural framework.”
It should be noted that this study is not aiming to name social factors as direct causes of ADHD. Rather, it points to socioeconomic disparities as contributing to the way ADHD develops and how it is treated. This type of research, as well as acknowledging barriers to care, is crucial for clinicians, counselors, teachers, etc., to consider when working with youth with ADHD.
Counting umbilical cord vessels is standard in prenatal ultrasounds and confirmed at birth. Single umbilical artery (SUA) occurs in about 1 in 200 cases, with roughly 10% associated with anomalies, including central nervous system defects. Isolated SUA (iSUA) means one artery is missing without other structural issues.
Research on SUA, especially isolated iSUA, and childhood neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) is limited and inconclusive. iSUA is linked to preterm birth and small-for-gestational age (SGA), both of which are NDD risk factors.
This Norwegian nationwide population study aimed to assess NDD risk in children with iSUA at birth, the influence of sex, and how preterm birth and SGA mediate this relationship.
The nation’s universal single-payer health insurance and comprehensive population registries made it possible to analyze all 858,397 single births occurring from 1999 to 2013, with follow-up continuing through 2019. Among these cases, 3,532 involved iSUA.
After adjusting for confounders such as parental age, education, and maternal health factors, no overall link was found between iSUA and later ADHD diagnosis. However, females with iSUA had about a 40% higher risk of subsequent ADHD compared to those without iSUA, even after adjustment.
The authors concluded, “The present study indicates that iSUA is weakly associated with ID [intellectual disability] and ADHD, and these associations are influenced by sex. This association is mediated negligibly through preterm birth and SGA. The associations were not clinically significant, and the absence of associations of iSUA with other NDD is reassuring. This finding can be useful in the counseling of expectant parents of fetuses diagnosed with iSUA.”
Refractive errors, such as myopia (nearsightedness), hyperopia (farsightedness), and astigmatism (distorted vision due to irregular curvature of the eye or lens), are common worldwide. These conditions affect 12%, 5%, and 15% of children, and rise significantly in adults to 26.5%, 31%, and 40%. Additionally, strabismus (misalignment of the eyes) and amblyopia (reduced vision in one eye from uneven image formation, often linked to strabismus) occur globally at rates of 2% and 1.4%, respectively.
Visual impairment can affect children’s concentration in school, and studies suggest a link between eye disorders and ADHD.
To investigate this relationship, two researchers – one based in the US and the other in Israel –carried out a nationwide retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records of all insured individuals aged 5 to 30 who were part of Maccabi Health Services, Israel’s second largest health maintenance organization, between 2010 and 2022.
Of over 1.6 million insured members (2010–2020), inclusion/exclusion criteria and propensity score matching for age and sex were applied, along with a one-year wash-out period between the first eye diagnosis and ADHD diagnosis. In total, 221,707 cases were matched with controls without eye disorders at a 1:2 ratio, resulting in a cohort of 665,121 participants.
Overall, those with any previous eye diagnosis were 40% more likely to have a subsequent ADHD diagnosis. This was slightly higher for females (45%) than for males (35%). It was also slightly higher for children and adolescents (42%) than for adults (37%).
More specifically:
The authors concluded that eye disorders are associated with ADHD. They noted these associations were more marked in females and children and adolescents, although, as noted above, those differences were small. They recommended that primary care providers and neurologists consider risk stratification for early screening, and that ophthalmologists refer high-risk patients for ADHD evaluation.
_logo%201.svg)
