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.
February 6, 2026
Acid-suppressive medications, including proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 (H2) receptor antagonists, are often prescribed during pregnancy to treat heartburn and gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Research shows changes in the gut microbiome can negatively affect neurodevelopment. Since acid-suppressive medications alter gut microbiota, maternal use during pregnancy may impact offspring’s neurodevelopment. Because PPIs and H2 receptor antagonists readily cross the placental barrier, they could potentially influence fetal neurodevelopment.
The link between prenatal exposure to acid-suppressive medications and major neuropsychiatric disorders is not well understood. With the use of these medications during pregnancy rising, it is important to assess their impact on children's long-term neurodevelopment. This study examined whether maternal use of acid-suppressive drugs is associated with increased risk of neuropsychiatric disorders in children, using a large, nationwide birth cohort from South Korea.
South Korea operates a single-payer health insurance system, providing coverage for over 97% of its citizens. The National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) maintains a comprehensive database with sociodemographic details, medical diagnoses, procedures, prescriptions, health examinations, and vital statistics for all insured individuals.
A Korean research team analyzed data from over three million mother-child pairs (2010–2017) to assess the risks of prenatal exposure to acid-suppressing medications. They applied propensity scoring to adjust for maternal age, number of children, medical history, and outpatient visits before pregnancy, to minimize confounding factors. That narrowed the cohort to just over 800,000 pairs, with half in the exposed group.
With these adjustments, prenatal exposure to acid-suppressing medications was associated with 14% greater likelihood of being subsequently diagnosed with ADHD.
Yet, when 151,737 exposed births were compared to the same number of sibling controls, no association was found between prenatal exposure and subsequent ADHD, which suggests unaccounted familial and genetic factors influenced the preceding results.
The Take-Away:
Evidence of these medications negatively affecting pregnancies is mixed, mostly observational, and generally reassuring when these medications are used appropriately. Untreated GERD and gastritis, however, have known risks and associations with the development of various cancers. With no evidence of an association with ADHD (or for that matter any other neuropsychiatric disorder), there is no current evidence-based reason for expectant mothers to discontinue use of acid-suppressing medications.
Acid-Suppressive Medications and Risk of Neuropsychiatric Disorders in Children,” JAMA (2026), https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2025.23956.
Xu YS, Chen ZR, Bian Y, Gao Y, Xin L, Wang LW. Association Between Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Extraesophageal Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2025 Dec 4;17(23):3881. doi: 10.3390/cancers17233881. PMID: 41375082; PMCID: PMC12691378.
With the growth of the Internet, we are flooded with information about attention deficit hyperactivity disorder from many sources, most of which aim to provide useful and compelling "facts" about the disorder. But, for the cautious reader, separating fact from opinion can be difficult when writers have not spelled out how they have come to decide that the information they present is factual.
My blog has several guidelines to reassure readers that the information they read about ADHD is up-to-date and dependable. They are as follows:
Nearly all the information presented is based on peer-reviewed publications in the scientific literature about ADHD. "Peer-reviewed" means that other scientists read the article and made suggestions for changes and approved that it was of sufficient quality for publication. I say "nearly all" because in some cases I've used books or other information published by colleagues who have a reputation for high-quality science.
When expressing certainty about putative facts, I am guided by the principles of evidence-based medicine, which recognizes that the degree to which we can be certain about the truth of scientific statements depends on several features of the scientific papers used to justify the statements, such as the number of studies available and the quality of the individual studies. For example, compare these two types of studies. One study gives drug X to 10 ADHD patients and reported that 7 improved. Another gave drug Y to 100 patients and a placebo to 100 other patients and used statistics to show that the rate of improvement was significantly greater in the drug-treated group. The second study is much better and much larger, so we should be more confident in its conclusions. The rules of evidence are fairly complex and can be viewed at the Oxford Center for Evidenced Based Medicine (OCEBM;http://www.cebm.net/).
The evidenced-based approach incorporates two types of information: a) the quality of the evidence and b) the magnitude of the treatment effect. The OCEBM levels of evidence quality are defined as follows (higher numbers are better:
Non-randomized, controlled studies. In these studies, the treatment group is compared to a group that receives a placebo treatment, which is a fake treatment not expected to work.
It is possible to have high-quality evidence proving that a treatment works but the treatment might not work very well. So it is important to consider the magnitude of the treatment effect, also called the "effect size" by statisticians. For ADHD, it is easiest to think about ranking treatments on a ten-point scale. The stimulant medications have a quality rating of 5 and also have the strongest magnitude of effect, about 9 or 10.Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation 'works' with a quality rating of 5, but the score for the magnitude of the effect is only 2, so it doesn't work very well. We have to take into account patient or parent preferences, comorbid conditions, prior response to treatment, and other issues when choosing a treatment for a specific patient, but we can only use an evidence-based approach when deciding which treatments are well-supported as helpful for a disorder.
A recent CNN report, http://tinyurl.com/yannlfd6, highlighted a paper published in Pediatrics, which reported that pregnant women who use acetaminophen during pregnancy put their unborn child at two-fold increased risk for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In that study, acetaminophen use during pregnancy was common; nearly half of women surveyed used the painkiller during pregnancy. Other studies have reported similar associations of acetaminophen, also known as paracetamol with ADHD or with other problems in childhood (e.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5300094/, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4177119/, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24566677, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24163279). Given these prior findings, it seems unlikely that the new report is a chance finding. But does it make any biological sense? One answer to that question came from an epigenetic study. Such studies figure out if assaults from the environment change the genetic code. One epigenetic study found that prenatal exposure changes the fetal genome via a process called methylation. Such genomic changes could increase the risk for ADHD (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5540511/). Because all of these studies are observational studies, one cannot assert with certainty that there is a causal link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy.
The observed association could be due to some unmeasured third factor. Although the researchers did a respectable job ruling out some third factors, we must acknowledge some uncertainty in the finding. That said, what should pregnant women do if they need acetaminophen. I suggest you bring this information to your physician and ask if there is a suitable alternative.
Antipsychotic medications are used to treat a variety of psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, sleeping problems, major depression, and severe anxiety.
Untreated maternal mental illness is associated with poor health outcomes for both mothers and their offspring. On the other hand, one must guard against any potential direct harms of medications on development – including neurological development – of the fetus.
Because prenatal use of antipsychotics is infrequent, previous observational studies have suffered from small sample sizes that have not enabled precise and reliable assessment of risk. The clinical decision about whether to continue antipsychotic treatment in patients who become pregnant has therefore remained inconclusive.
In search of more reliable guidance, an international study team conducted a systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature to perform the first meta-analysis on this topic.
They evaluated study quality and only included studies rated “good” or better.
Identification of ADHD was determined by clinical diagnosis.
Meta-analysis of four studies encompassing over eight million participants found a slight association. Children exposed to maternal antipsychotics during pregnancy were 11% more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD subsequently.
But even in observational studies with millions of participants, such associations – especially when slight to begin with – could be due to unmeasured confounders.
The team therefore compared children with gestational exposure to siblings from the same mother who were not exposed, to address shared genetic and social factors at the family level.
Meta-analysis of two population-based sibling-matched studies with a combined total of over 4.6 million participants in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Hong Kong found no significant association between gestational exposure to antipsychotic medications and subsequent diagnosis of ADHD.
The team concluded, “Our systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies indicates that the heightened risks of ADHD and ASD observed in children gestationally exposed to antipsychotics appear to be attributable to maternal characteristics, rather than having a causal relation to the antipsychotic itself.”
Executive functions (EFs) are the cognitive control systems that allow people to pursue goals, make decisions, and adapt to changing circumstances. Researchers generally break them into three overlapping capacities: working memory (holding and manipulating information in mind), inhibitory control (suppressing impulses and filtering out distractions), and cognitive flexibility (switching between tasks or mental frameworks). Strong EFs in childhood predict academic achievement, social competence, and long-term mental health; weaknesses in these areas that go unaddressed can persist into adulthood, undermining school performance, career prospects, and well-being.
The Background:
Interest in training these skills has grown rapidly, but most research has been conducted in Western settings. China presents a distinctive context. Collectivist values make group-based programs culturally natural, and parental investment in academic outcomes is high. Both of these factors should, in theory, work in an intervention’s favor. At the same time, tightly scheduled school days (sessions typically capped at 30 minutes or less) constrain what is actually deliverable. A growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have tested EF interventions with Chinese children, but until now, no one has pulled that evidence together systematically.
The Study:
A new network meta-analysis did exactly that. The researchers screened RCTs involving Chinese children aged 3–12, including both typically developing children and those showing subclinical signs of ADHD or autism spectrum disorder (ASD), for instance, siblings of children with an ASD diagnosis. Children who already carried a formal neurodevelopmental diagnosis were excluded. Fifty-two trials covering nearly 3,000 children met the inclusion criteria. Interventions fell into four categories:
The headline finding is that three of the four intervention types produced statistically significant improvements across all three EF domains. The exception was the hybrid physical-cognitive program, which did not reach significance for inhibitory control. Positive results across the board might sound encouraging until you look at the actual effect sizes.
The Results:
The actual effects were negligible. Every significant result fell well below what methodologists define as a “small” effect (a standardized mean difference, or SMD, of 0.2). The largest effect size in the entire analysis was an SMD of 0.097 (less than half that threshold). The authors summarize the interventions’ effects as “modest,” but that is generous phrasing for numbers that, in practical terms, amount to very little. The analysis also showed signs of publication bias, meaning that studies with null or negative results may not have been published, potentially inflating even these modest figures.
The Take-Away:
It is important to note that these results don’t necessarily mean that this is the last word on EF training. The results apply specifically to Chinese children working within the time constraints of Chinese school schedules, and they exclude children with diagnosed ADHD, a population for whom cognitive interventions sometimes show larger effects. Generalizing beyond those boundaries is unwarranted.
What the findings do suggest is that structured EF programs, as currently implemented in Chinese educational settings, are not delivering meaningful real-world benefits. Statistical significance, it is worth remembering, is not the same as practical significance, and the gap between the two is sharp here.
.png)
Language is powerful. The words we choose not only reflect our understanding of the world but also actively shape it. Recently, this truth has been at the center of a growing debate in the mental health field regarding how we talk about ADHD.
In a recent paper published in The Lancet Psychiatry titled “The Power of Words: Respectful Language in ADHD Research,” French and colleagues advocated for a shift toward "neurodiversity-affirmative language”. Rooted in the social model of disability, their proposal encourages researchers to abandon traditional medical terminology, e.g., words like disorder and deficit, in favor of more neutral terms such as condition and challenge.
My colleague, Dr. Michael Miller, and I read this with great interest. We completely agree that revising language is essential to good science and that, both as researchers and as human beings, we are ethically bound to speak respectfully. However, we felt compelled to write a response. In our new paper, we argue that while language must evolve, it must do so scientifically.
The Two Prerequisites for Language Change
If we are going to fundamentally shift our scientific lexicon, two requirements must be met:
Currently, the proposal by French and colleagues meets neither requirement. While they claim consensus is accumulating that certain terms are disrespectful, they provide zero empirical evidence that this view is shared by the community of individuals living with ADHD. Even proponents of patient-centered language admit there is surprisingly little data supporting specific language changes.
More alarmingly, the recommended changes severely dilute the scientific accuracy of our field. Let’s look at two examples.
Why a "Deficit" is Not Just a “Challenge"
French and colleagues suggest replacing the term deficit with challenge. On the surface, challenge sounds softer and more affirming. But scientifically, these words are not interchangeable.
For decades, the term deficit has been defined by a specific performance metric that falls substantially below an expected level. It is a measurable reality. A challenge, on the other hand, refers to a new or difficult task that tests someone's ability.
Every single human being is "challenged" by complex neuropsychological tests, but only some individuals who face that challenge demonstrate scientifically significant deficits. If we relabel measurable deficits as universal challenges, we sacrifice the exactness required to communicate scientific findings and accurately measure the effects of life-changing treatments.
ADHD is a Disorder, Not Just a "Condition"
Another proposal is to replace the word disorder with condition.
In mainstream psychiatry, a disorder is a clinically significant disturbance that causes distress or disability. The word purposefully separates natural human variation from the suffering (pathos) that gives pathology its meaning.
Condition is a completely neutral term. Pregnancy is a condition. Being tall is a condition. Calling ADHD a condition distances the diagnosis from the profound suffering it can cause.
French et al. argue against framing ADHD as a disorder because it exists on a spectrum without a clear cutoff, its manifestation is context-dependent, and its definition evolves. But if we apply that logic across all of medicine, the concept of disease unravels:
The Real-World Danger of Imprecise Language
This is not merely an academic debate over semantics. The language we use has real-world implications. In the United States and across the globe, our healthcare, educational, and legal systems run on precise medical language. Terms like impairment, dysfunction, and disorder are legally and administratively required to justify support services, workplace accommodations, specialized educational therapies, and medications. The language of pathology in diagnostic manuals regulates the flow of these resources.
If we reclassify ADHD as a neutral condition characterized only by challenges, we risk erecting massive bureaucratic barriers. Imprecise language could easily be used by institutions or insurance companies to deny vital care to the people who need it most.
The Need for Lexical Discipline
Attempting to characterize a clinical disorder entirely through its strengths happens in a scientific vacuum. We cannot ignore the vast body of rigorous evidence confirming that ADHD meets the long-standing criteria used by mental health science to identify clinical disorders.
As professionals, our respect for the ADHD community demands a commitment to language that is clear, correct, and evidence-based. To build genuine consensus about how we talk about ADHD, we need meaningful, collaborative dialogue that integrates compelling empirical data and rigorous theory.
This standard of "lexical discipline" is not just a technical preference. It is a vital mechanism through which science and the mental health professions uphold their duty to society.
For many ADHD patients, getting properly diagnosed and starting meds is only half the battle. The next step is figuring out the exact right dose. Historically, clinical guidelines have provided scant guidance on this critical step. This lack of direction can inadvertently foster two extremes in clinical practice: therapeutic inertia (settling for a subtherapeutic dose that leaves symptoms undertreated) or uncritical escalation (driving doses higher and higher beyond licensed limits without meaningful benefit).
To clear up this pharmacological gray area, an international team of researchers published the first comprehensive dose-effect network meta-analysis of ADHD medications in The Lancet Psychiatry. By pulling together a massive vault of clinical trial data, they mapped out exactly how efficacy and tolerability shift as doses increase.
Traditional meta-analyses evaluate head-to-head, pairwise data, comparing one drug at a specific dose directly against a placebo. However, this study utilized an advanced Bayesian hierarchical network model using restricted cubic splines.
This mathematical framework allowed the researchers to combine both direct trial data and indirect evidence simultaneously across 113 double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In total, the study evaluated data from 14,138 children/adolescents and 11,016 adults. By standardizing various formulations into basic equivalents (e.g., converting amphetamines to dextroamphetamine equivalents), they created a clear, unified map of dose ranges.
The study yielded distinct dose-response curves depending on the patient's age and the specific medication class. Rather than a linear trend in which "more medicine equals more benefit," most treatments reach a clear statistical plateau or ceiling.
For Children and Adolescents (under 18)
In the pediatric population, medications hit clear peak efficacy boundaries:
For both amphetamines and guanfacine, escalating the dosage past these points resulted in U-shaped curves, meaning further dose hikes yielded diminishing group-level symptom reduction.
For Adults (18 and older)
Adult profiles showed slightly different trajectories:
The ultimate goal of this landmark analysis is to guide shared decision-making between clinicians, patients, and families. The results send a dual message to the medical community:
A medication's true efficacy hinges on its tolerability, typically measured by how often patients discontinue treatment due to severe side effects. For amphetamines, this dropout risk scales linearly with dosage, notably exceeding placebo in children above 25 mg/day and becoming prominent in adults past 50 mg/day. In contrast, methylphenidate shows no clear dose-dependent dropout risk in pediatric patients, whereas adults face a steep risk curve: increasing the dose from 60 mg/day to 90 mg/day raises the dropout risk from 7.3% to 10.0% for only modest symptom relief. Finally, youth taking guanfacine experience a sharp climb in discontinuation risks, reaching a 9.8% median risk at 4 mg/day before data limitations obscure further trends.
The authors strongly emphasize that these findings represent group averages. Because individual metabolism, genetics, and comorbidities vary widely, some specific patients may legitimately require and tolerate higher off-label doses. However, if an unusually high dose is needed, the study suggests it should prompt a careful clinical pause, either to reassess for co-occurring conditions (like anxiety, autism, or sleep disorders) or to manage realistic expectations regarding what the medication can achieve.
_logo%201.svg)
