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.
For years, a persistent concern has shadowed the treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Does the medication eventually stop working? Patients often report that their symptoms seem to return despite consistent use, leading to "dose escalation" or "medication holidays." A new systematic review from Sam Cortese’s team published in CNS Drugs finally puts these concerns to the test by synthesizing decades of empirical research.
Before diving into the findings, you must understand two often-confused phenomena:
The review analyzed 17 studies covering over 10,000 individuals, and the results provide a much-needed reality check for the clinical community.
The researchers found preliminary evidence that acute tolerance (tachyphylaxis) can occur within a 24-hour window.
The most important finding is that tolerance does not commonly develop to the therapeutic effects of ADHD medication in the long term. In one landmark study following children for up to 10 years, only 2.7% of participants lost their response to methylphenidate without a clear external explanation. Doses, when adjusted for natural body growth, remained remarkably stable over years of treatment.
Consistent with the lack of therapeutic tolerance, the body does not become tolerant to the physical side effects of stimulants. Increases in heart rate and blood pressure typically persist for as long as the medication is taken. This underscores why clinicians must continue monitoring cardiovascular health throughout the entire duration of treatment.
If it’s Not Tolerance, What Is It?
If "tolerance" isn't real, why do some patients feel their medication is failing? The review suggests clinicians look at these alternative explanations:
Why This Matters
These results provide clinicians the confidence to tell patients that their medication is unlikely to "wear out" permanently. Rather than immediately increasing a dose when symptoms flare, the first step should be a "clinical deep dive" into the patient's lifestyle, stress levels, and adherence.
For researchers, the review highlights a major gap: most existing studies are small, dated, or of low quality. There is a dire need for robust, longitudinal studies that track both the brain's response and the patient's environment over several years.
For people with ADHD, while your body might get "used to" the initial "buzz" of a stimulant within hours, its ability to help you focus and manage your life remains remarkably durable over the years.
Smith, C., Walker, H., Parlatini, V., & Cortese, S. (2026). Tolerance and tachyphylaxis to medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A systematic review of empirical studies. CNS Drugs. . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-025-01263-8
Noting that “the association between adult ADHD and dementia risk remains a topic of interest because of inconsistent results,” an Israeli study team tracked 109,218 members of a nonprofit Israeli health maintenance organization born between 1933 and 1952 who entered the cohort on January 1, 2003, without an ADHD or dementia diagnosis and were followed up to February 28, 2020.
Israeli law forbids nonprofit HMOs from turning anyone away based on demographic factors, health conditions, or medication needs, thereby limiting sample selection bias.
The estimated prevalence of dementia in this HMO, as diagnosed by geriatricians, neurologists, or psychiatrists, is 6.6%. This closely matches estimates in Western Europe (6.9%) and the United States (6.5%).
The team considered, and adjusted for, numerous covariates: age, sex, socioeconomic status, smoking, depression, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, traumatic brain injury, migraine, mild cognitive impairment, psychostimulants.
With these adjustments, individuals diagnosed with ADHD were almost three times as likely to be subsequently diagnosed with dementia as those without ADHD. Men with ADHD were two and a half times more likely to be diagnosed with dementia, whereas women with ADHD were over three times more likely, than non-ADHD peers.
More concerning still, persons with ADHD were 5.5 times more likely to be subsequently diagnosed with early onset dementia, as opposed to 2.4 times more likely to be diagnosed with late onset dementia.
On the other hand, the team found no significant difference in rates of dementia between individuals with ADHD who were being treated with stimulant medications and individuals without ADHD. Those with untreated ADHD had three times the rate of dementia. The team nevertheless cautioned, “Due to the underdiagnosis of dementia as well as bidirectional misdiagnosis, this association requires further study before causal inference is plausible.”
Conclusions and Relevance:
This study reinforces existing evidence that adult ADHD is associated with an increased risk of dementia. Notably, the increased risk was not observed in individuals receiving psychostimulant medication, however the mechanism behind this association is not clear.
These findings underscore the importance of reliable ADHD assessment and management in adulthood. They also highlight the need for further study into the link between stimulant medications and the decreased risk of dementia.
...
Struggling to get the care you need to manage your ADHD? Support The ADHD Evidence Project and get this step-by-step guide to getting the treatment you deserve: https://bit.ly/41gIQE9
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 ..."
Raising children is not easy. I should know.
As a clinical psychologist, I've helped parents learn the skills they need to be better parents. And my experience raising three children confirmed my clinical experience.
Parenting is a tough job under the best of circumstances, but it is even harder if the parent has ADHD.
For example, an effective parent establishes rules and enforces them systematically. This requires attention to detail, self-control, and good organizational skills. Given these requirements, it is easy to see how ADHD symptoms interfere with parenting. These observations have led some of my colleagues to test the theory that treating ADHD adults with medication would improve their parenting skills. I know about two studies that tested this idea.
In 2008, Dr. Chronis-Toscano and colleagues published a study using a sustained-release form of methylphenidate for mothers with ADHD. As expected, the medication decreased their symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. The medication also reduced the mother's use of inconsistent discipline and corporal punishment and improved their monitoring and supervision of their children.
In a 2014 study, Waxmonsky and colleagues observed ADHD adults and their children in a laboratory setting once when the adults were off medication and once when they were on medication. They used the same sustained-release form of amphetamine for all the patients. As expected, the medications reduced ADHD symptoms in the parents. This laboratory study is especially informative because the researchers made objective ratings of parent-child interactions, rather than relying on the parents' reports of those interactions. Twenty parents completed the study. The medication led to less negative talk and commands and more praise by parents. It also reduced negative and inappropriate behaviors in their children.
Both studies suggest that treating ADHD adults with medication will improve their parenting skills. That is good news. But they also found that not all parenting behaviors improved. That makes sense. Parenting is a skill that must be learned. Because ADHD interferes with learning, parents with the disorder need time to learn these skills. Medication can eliminate some of the worst behaviors, but doctors should also provide adjunct behavioral or cognitive-behavioral therapies that could help ADHD parents learn parenting skills and achieve their full potential as parents.
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)
