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.
October 24, 2025
Background:
Despite recommendations for combined pharmacological and behavioral treatment in childhood ADHD, caregivers may avoid these options due to concerns about side effects or the stigma that still surrounds stimulant medications. Alternatives like psychosocial interventions and environmental changes are limited by questionable effectiveness for many patients. Increasingly, patients and caregivers are seeking other therapies, such as neuromodulation – particularly transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).
tDCS seeks to enhance neurocognitive function by modulating cognitive control circuits with low-intensity scalp currents. There is also evidence that tDCS can induce neuroplasticity. However, results for ADHD symptom improvement in children and adolescents are inconsistent.
The Method:
To examine the evidence more rigorously, a Taiwanese research team conducted a systematic search focusing exclusively on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested tDCS in children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. They included only studies that used sham-tDCS as a control condition – an essential design feature that prevents participants from knowing whether they received the active treatment, thereby controlling for placebo effects.
The Results:
Meta-analysis of five studies combining 141 participants found no improvement in ADHD symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS. That held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex. There was no sign of publication bias, nor of variation (heterogeneity) in outcomes among the RCTs.
Meta-analysis of six studies totaling 171 participants likewise found no improvement in inattention symptoms, hyperactivity symptoms, or impulsivity symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS. Again, this held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, and there was no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity.
Most of the RCTs also performed follow-ups roughly a month after treatment, on the theory that induced neuroplasticity could lead to later improvements.
Meta-analysis of four RCTs combining 118 participants found no significant improvement in ADHD symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS at follow-up. This held true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, with no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity.
Meta-analysis of five studies totaling 148 participants likewise found no improvement in inattention symptoms or hyperactivity symptoms for tDCS over sham-TDCS at follow-up. AS before, this was true for both the right and left prefrontal cortex, with no sign of either publication bias or heterogeneity.
The only positive results came from meta-analysis of the same five studies, which reported a medium effect size improvement in impulsivity symptoms at follow-up. Closer examination showed no improvement from stimulation of the right prefrontal cortex, but a large effect size improvement from stimulation of the left prefrontal cortex.
Interpretation:
It is important to note that the one positive result was from three RCTs combining only 90 children and adolescents, a small sample size. Moreover, when only one of sixteen combinations yields a positive outcome, that begins to look like p-hacking for a positive result.
In research, scientists use something called a “p-value” to determine if their findings are real or just due to chance. A p-value below 0.05 (or 5%) is considered “statistically significant,” meaning there's less than a 5% chance the result happened by pure luck.
When testing twenty outcomes by this standard, one would expect one to test positive by chance even if there is no underlying association. In this case, one in 16 comes awfully close to that.
To be sure, the research team straightforwardly reported all sixteen outcomes, but offered an arguably over-positive spin in their conclusion: “Our study only showed tDCS-associated impulsivity improvement in children/adolescents with ADHD during follow-ups and anode placement on the left PFC. ... our findings based on a limited number of available trials warrant further verification from large-scale clinical investigations.”
Chun-Bin Tunga, Shun-Chin Liang, Cheuk-Kwan Sun, Yu-Shian Cheng, and Kuo-Chuan Hung, “Behavioral outcomes after tDCS treatment during immediate post-intervention and follow-up periods in children and adolescents diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis on randomized sham-controlled trials,” Journal of Psychiatric Research 191 (2025) 8-14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2025.09.008.
Centanafadine, which is currently under investigation as a treatment for ADHD, will be the first triple reuptake inhibitor for the disorder if it is approved by the FDA. It improves norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin levels. This new medication is not a stimulant, but due to the dopamine component, it has a stimulant-like effect in patients. In adults, two phase 3 trials and a year-long extension have shown sustained benefits and a tolerable safety profile, laying the groundwork for pediatric research.
Based on this study, improvement was already noticeable after the first week and held steady through week 6. The lower dose (164.4 mg) didn’t separate from placebo, reminding us that getting the dose right will be critical. The effect size was smaller than what is seen for stimulants but 50% of patients had excellent outcomes as indicated by reductions in the ADHD-RS of 50% or more.
Side effect patterns look familiar to anyone who prescribes ADHD medications; loss of appetite, nausea and headaches topped the list. About half of teens on the higher dose reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, compared with a quarter of those on placebo. Severe reactions were rare but did include isolated liver enzyme spikes, rash, and a few reports of aggression or somnolence. For everyday practice, that translates to routine growth checks, a look at baseline liver function, and clear guidance to families about reporting rashes or mood changes promptly.
The researchers noted that the study had certain limitations, including limited generalizability to adolescents beyond North America, the exclusion of teacher ratings on the ADHD-RS-5 scale and the study’s short duration. They added that future studies should explore long-term treatment outcomes and efficacy compared with other ADHD treatments, as well as its effect on treating ADHD with comorbid conditions.
First, speed. Centanafadine separated from placebo within a week. In this regard, it might be closer to stimulants than to the multi-week ramp-up we expect from current non-stimulants. Second, it offers another option when stimulants are contraindicated or poorly tolerated, or when they raise diversion concerns. Its mechanism also makes it intriguing for patients who need both norepinephrine and dopamine coverage but prefer to avoid schedule II drugs. Because it also improves serotonergic transmission, it may be useful for some of ADHD’s comorbidities (see our new article for evidence about serotonin’s role in these disorders).
Keep in mind that centanafadine for ADHD is still investigational, so participation in clinical trials remains the only access route.
ADHD is hypothesized to arise from 1) poor inhibitory control resulting from impaired executive functions which are associated with reduced activation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and increased activation of some subcortical regions; and 2)hyperarousal to environmental stimuli, hampering the ability of the executive functioning system, particularly the medial frontal cortex, orbital and ventromedial prefrontal areas, and subcortical regions such as the caudate nucleus, amygdala, nucleus accumbens, and thalamus, to control the respective stimuli.
These brain anomalies, rendered visible through magnetic resonance imaging, have led researchers to try new means of treatment to directly address the deficits. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that uses a weak electrical current to stimulate specific regions of the brain.
Efficacy:
A team of researchers from Europe and ran performed a systematic search of the literature and identified fourteen studies exploring the safety and efficacy of tDCS. Three of these studies examined the effects on ADHD symptoms. They found a large effect size for the inattention subscale and a medium effect size for the hyperactivity/impulsivity. Yet, as the authors cautioned, "a definite conclusion concerning the clinical efficacy of tDCS based on the results of these three studies is not possible."
The remaining studies investigated the effects on specific neuropsychological and cognitive deficits in ADHD:
The fact that heterogeneity in the methodology of these studies made meta-analysis impossible means these results, while promising, cannot be seen as in any way definitive.
Safety:
Ten studies examined childhood ADHD. Three found no adverse effects either during or after tDCS. One study reported a feeling of "shock" in a few patients during tDCS. Several more reported skin tingling and itching during tDCS. Several also reported mild headaches.
The four studies of adults with ADHD reported no major adverse events. One study reported a single incident of acute mood change, sadness, diminished motivation, and tension five hours after stimulation. Another reported mild instances of skin tingling and burning sensations.
To address side effects such as tingling and itching, the authors suggested reducing the intensity of the electrical current and increasing the duration. They also suggested placing electrodes at least 6 cm apart to reduce current shunting through the ski. For children, they recommended the use of smaller electrodes for better focus in smaller brains.
The authors concluded, "The findings of this systematic review suggest at least a partial improvement of symptoms and cognitive deficits in ADHD by tDCS. They further suggest that stimulation parameters such as polarity and site are relevant to the efficacy of tDCS in ADHD. Compared to cathodal stimulation, Anodal tDCS seems to have a superior effect on both the clinical symptoms and cognitive deficits. However, the routine clinical application of this method as an efficient therapeutic intervention cannot yet be recommended based on these studies ..."
Noting that "despite a lack of solid evidence for their use, rTMS [repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation]and tDCS [transcranial direct current stimulation] are already offered clinically and commercially in ADHD," and that a recent meta-analysis of ten tDCS studies found small but significant improvements in outcomes, but had several methodological shortcomings and did not include two studies reporting mostly null effects, a team of British neurologists performed a meta-analysis of all twelve sham-controlled, non-open-label, studies found in a comprehensive search of the peer-reviewed literature.
Ten of the twelve randomized-controlled trials used anodal stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, while the other two used anodal stimulation of the right inferior frontal cortex.
The trials explored several measures of cognition. The research team carried out a meta-analysis of all twelve trials, with a total of 232 participants, and found no significant improvement in attention scores from CDC, relative to sham stimulation. A second meta-analysis, of eleven trials with a total of 220 participants, assessed the efficacy of tDCS on improving inhibition scores, and again found no significant effect. A third meta-analysis, encompassing eight trials with a total of 124 participants, evaluated the efficacy of tDCS on improving processing speed scores, once again finding no significant effect.
The latter two meta-analyses approached the border of significance, prompting the authors to speculate that larger sample sizes could bring the results just over the threshold of significance. Even so, effect sizes would be small.
It is also possible that the trials focused on regions of the brain suboptimal for this objective, and thus the authors "cannot rule out the possibility that stimulation of other prefrontal regions (such as the right hemispheric inferior frontal cortex or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex or parietal regions), multiple session tDCS or tDCS in combination with cognitive training could improve clinically or cognitive functions in ADHD."
As to concerns about safety, on the other hand, "stimulation was well-tolerated overall."
The authors concluded that based on current evidence, tDCS of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex cannot yet be recommended as an alternative Neurotherapy for ADHD.
The Background:
Motor vehicle crashes remain one of the most significant public health challenges in the United States. In 2022 alone, nearly 44,000 people died on American roads, and more than 2.6 million crash-related injuries required emergency care. Most people are familiar with the usual suspects: drunk driving, speeding, and distracted driving from phones. These risks are well-documented and the focus of ongoing public safety campaigns.
But a serious risk factor has been flying under the radar: untreated ADHD. Despite receiving little attention from the public, policymakers, or transportation safety agencies, it may belong in the same conversation as these better-known dangers.
ADHD is not currently recognized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as a driving risk factor; yet inattention and impulsivity, two of its defining features, are consistently cited as common contributors to crashes. Beyond these core symptoms, adults with ADHD may also experience emotional dysregulation, which can further impair driving behavior.
The Research:
Prior studies on ADHD and crash risk have produced estimates ranging from a 5% to a 70% increase. This massive heterogeneity has made it difficult to draw firm conclusions. This new meta-analysis set out to offer some clarity on these numbers.
Researchers focused specifically on adults aged 18 to 65 with a formal ADHD diagnosis who were not receiving treatment, comparing them to controls without ADHD. Four studies met these criteria, collectively covering more than 2.75 million people.
The Results:
The findings were striking: untreated ADHD was associated with a 93% increase in crash risk (95% confidence interval: 88%–99%). There was no evidence of publication bias. Although there was meaningful variation across studies, most of it stemmed from the smallest study (just 36 participants) which reported an outlier estimate of a 16-fold increase.
To put the 93% figure in context: a separate meta-analysis found that alcohol use is associated with a 150% increase in crash risk. Another way to understand just how significant this risk really is, untreated ADHD raises crash risk by more than half as much as alcohol does.
The analysis also found a dose-response relationship between ADHD symptom severity and crash risk: each incremental increase in symptom severity corresponded to a 5–6% higher crash risk. At the highest severity levels, crash risk approached that associated with alcohol use. This gradient reinforces that we're not looking at a binary distinction between “has ADHD” and “doesn’t” — the worse the symptoms, the greater the danger on the road.
The Takeaway:
These findings have practical implications for patients, families, clinicians, and policymakers alike. Untreated ADHD is not a minor footnote in the driving safety literature; rather, it is a substantial, measurable, and potentially modifiable risk factor. The question of whether and how it should be factored into licensing policy, clinical practice, and public health messaging deserves serious attention.
As populations grow, more children are growing up surrounded by traffic noise and polluted air. In most cities, these two factors tend to go hand-in-hand; yet, most previous research has examined these exposures separately. Many reviews focused on a single pollutant (such as fine particulate matter, PM2.5), or on a single developmental window, such as pregnancy or early childhood. Few have asked how noise and air pollution compare as risk factors, or how prenatal and postnatal exposures differ in their effects.
A new meta-analysis set out to address those gaps. It examined evidence on both environmental noise and several major air pollutants in relation to ADHD, compared exposures before versus after birth, and pooled data across countries and regions. Eligible studies involved children and adolescents under 18, used objective measures of environmental exposure, and assessed ADHD using either clinical diagnosis or standardized rating scales.
Noise
Nine studies, combining data from over 100,000 children and adolescents (all in European countries and Canada) found that high noise exposure was associated with 3% greater odds of ADHD. Prenatal noise exposure showed no effect; childhood exposure alone drove the association, at 4% greater odds. This is a negligible effect size that could easily reflect unmeasured confounding factors rather than a true causal relationship.
Nitrogen dioxide
Thirteen studies covering nearly one million children and adolescents in Europe, Canada, China, and South Korea found that nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) exposure was associated with 11% greater odds of ADHD. As with noise, prenatal exposure showed no independent effect. When the analysis was restricted to the five studies that used clinical diagnoses alone — generally considered the most reliable measure — the estimated odds rose to between 20% and 80% higher. The wide range reflects substantial variation across studies.
Pollutants with no significant effect
Four studies (97,500 participants) examining nitric oxide (NO), three studies (over 63,000 participants) on ozone, and three studies (over 28,000 participants) on sulfur dioxide found no significant associations with ADHD.
Particulate matter
The strongest associations emerged for particulate matter. Twelve studies involving nearly 160,000 participants in China, the US, Canada, and Europe found that exposure to fine particles (PM2.5, 2.5 microns in diameter) was associated with 30% greater odds of ADHD. Ten studies covering more than a quarter of a million participants in India, China, South Korea, and Europe found that coarser particles (PM10, 10 microns) were associated with 50% greater odds. In both cases, prenatal exposure showed no association, which is consistent with the fact that fetuses do not breathe air through developed lungs. When restricted to clinically diagnosed ADHD, PM2.5 was associated with roughly 50% greater odds, and PM10 with more than double the odds.
The Results
Across all exposures examined, particulate matter showed the clearest and strongest associations with ADHD, followed by nitrogen dioxide. Noise reached statistical significance but at a trivially small effect size. Nitric oxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide showed no significant associations.
The authors found no evidence of publication bias which strengthens confidence in the overall pattern. However, there was marked heterogeneity across individual studies: results varied considerably, which urges caution in treating any single estimate as definitive. These are associations, not proven causal relationships, and the possibility that unmeasured factors explain part of the signal cannot be ruled out.
The Background:
Over the past two decades, diagnostic rates for adult ADHD have roughly doubled, and stimulant prescriptions in the United States skyrocketed by more than 50% between 2012 and 2023, particularly among girls and women. While these medications help many individuals manage their symptoms, a landmark 2026 article published in European Neuropsychopharmacology tackles an important question that is rarely discussed: When should doctors and patients consider stopping them?
The Discussion:
To answer this, the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) gathered a task force of 45 international experts spanning 12 countries. Through a rigorous evaluation process, they reached an overwhelming agreement on a framework for "deprescribing", the planned, supervised reduction or cessation of a medication. Here are the core insights from these ground-breaking guidelines and what they mean for adults navigating long-term ADHD treatment.
When the Treatment Isn’t Yielding Benefits
One of the most straightforward reasons to consider stopping a stimulant is if it simply isn’t doing its job. The task force agreed that if a patient does not experience an optimal response, measured by actual symptom reduction, improved daily functioning, and a better quality of life, even after trying a high, optimized dose, it may be time to step back and look at alternative options.
Sometimes, the issue goes back to the initial evaluation. The criteria for diagnosing ADHD have expanded over the years, and brief psychiatric evaluations can occasionally lead to diagnostic inaccuracies. If a thorough reevaluation reveals that the original ADHD diagnosis was incorrect, the expert consensus is clear: stimulant deprescribing is appropriate unless another stimulant-responsive condition is evident. Furthermore, if a patient develops a persistent tolerance to the drug that cannot be resolved by safe dose adjustments, a temporary taper or drug holiday may be recommended.
When the Risks to Health Outweigh the Rewards
Our bodies and health needs naturally shift over time, meaning a medication that worked safely years ago might pose a threat to your health today. The experts concluded that deprescribing should be heavily considered if stimulants exacerbate a concurrent medical or psychiatric illness. For example, although rare, stimulants can unintentionally trigger mania or psychosis in adults with unstable or unrecognized comorbid bipolar disorder.
Physical health developments are equally critical. If an adult develops a newly arising or unstable cardiovascular condition, such as a cardiac arrhythmia, ischemia, or cardiomyopathy, the risk-benefit balance changes dramatically. Additionally, if severe side effects occur that cannot be managed by reducing the dosage, or if dangerous new drug-drug interactions emerge, stopping the medication under medical supervision protects the patient's long-term well-being.
Addressing Misuse and the Complex Role of Cannabis
Because stimulant medications target brain reward and wakefulness circuitry, they can foster a propensity for misuse. Studies indicate that more than 1 in 5 adults prescribed stimulants have misused them, and 1 in 6 have diverted their medication to others. The task force emphasizes that deprescribing is warranted if a patient persistently takes doses higher than prescribed against medical advice, uses the medication purely for unauthorized performance enhancement, or has an untreated, coexisting substance use disorder.
And what about cannabis? This topic sparked the most debate among the experts, falling just short of an official consensus with 71% agreement that regular cannabis use alone shouldn't automatically trigger a stimulant stoppage. Recognizing the complexity, such as how chronic cannabis use can overlap with ADHD executive function deficits, the task force proposed a structured monitoring approach instead of an immediate cutoff. Clinicians are encouraged to track the patient every 1 to 3 months using standardized symptom tools and random urine drug screens to verify whether cannabis use is actively neutralizing the stimulant's therapeutic benefits.
The Path Forward: Safe Tapering and Lifestyle Support
If you and your doctor decide that stopping a stimulant is the right path, it shouldn’t happen overnight. The task force strongly recommends that medications be gradually tapered off at a rate tailored to the individual to minimize potential disruptions and distinguish between transient withdrawal and a true return of ADHD symptoms.
Crucially, stopping a medication doesn't mean stopping treatment. The experts highlight that the success of any deprescribing plan is significantly enhanced when patients focus on optimizing modifiable lifestyle factors. Prioritizing sleep hygiene, staying physically active, and implementing structured behavioral strategies can support executive functioning and help sustain your cognitive gains even as the medication is reduced or eliminated.
The Takeaway:
The decision to continue or stop an ADHD medication is a deeply personal one that requires balancing real-world efficacy, safety, and individual health changes. These new consensus recommendations provide an essential roadmap to help adults navigate their long-term mental health journeys safely and effectively.
Are you or a loved one currently evaluating your long-term relationship with ADHD medication? Consider scheduling a check-in with your healthcare provider to discuss whether your current treatment plan still perfectly matches your health needs today.
_logo%201.svg)
