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.
September 13, 2024
A meta-analysis of short-term, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials (Cortese et al. 2018), looking at both efficacy and safety, supported prescribing stimulants – methylphenidate use in children and adolescents and amphetamine use in adults – as first-choice medications.
However, these were short-term studies, and they focused on relieving ADHD symptoms. What about longer-term outcomes, especially looking more broadly at functional impairment and overall quality of life?
Sweden has a single-payer health insurance system that encompasses virtually every resident and is linked to national registers that enable researchers to conduct nationwide population studies.
A joint Finnish-Swedish research team used Sweden’s registers to study outcomes for all individuals of working age, 16 to 65 years old, living in Sweden who had received a diagnosis of ADHD from 2006 through 2021. The resulting study cohort encompassed 221,714 persons with ADHD.
The team adjusted for the following confounding variables: Genetics, baseline severity of symptoms, baseline comorbidities, temporal order of treatments (which medication was used as first, second, third, and so forth, including also nonuse of ADHD medications), time since cohort entry, and time-varying use of psychotropic drugs, including antidepressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics, mood stabilizers (carbamazepine, valproic acid, and lamotrigine), lithium, antipsychotics, and drugs for addictive disorders.
With these adjustments, they discovered that amphetamine treatment was associated with a roughly 25% reduction in psychiatric hospitalization relative to unmedicated ADHD. Lisdexamphetamine was associated with a roughly 20% reduction, dexamphetamine with a 12% reduction, and methylphenidate with a 7% reduction. All four medications are stimulants.
None of the non-stimulant medications – atomoxetine, guanfacine, clonidine – had any significant effect on psychiatric hospitalization. Nor did modafinil a drug that is not FDA approved for ADHD but is sometimes used when other drugs fail.
Amphetamine was also associated with the greatest reduction in suicide attempts or deaths, with a roughly 40% decline relative to unmedicated ADHD. Dexamphetamine was associated with a roughly 30% decline and lisdexamphetamine with a roughly 25% decline. The stimulant methylphenidate was only associated with an 8% reduction, and modafinil had no significant effect.
Surprisingly, non-stimulant medications were associated with significant increases in suicide attempts or deaths: 20% for atomoxetine, 65% for guanfacine, and almost double for clonidine.
Amphetamine and lisdexamphetamine also reduced the risk of nonpsychiatric hospitalization by more than a third compared to unmedicated ADHD. Dexamphetamine was associated with a risk reduction of more than 25%, methylphenidate with 20% lesser risk.
The non-stimulant atomoxetine was associated with a roughly 15% reduction in risk of nonpsychiatric hospitalization. But neither guanfacine nor clonidine had any significant effect.
Turning to work disability, atomoxetine was the only ADHD medication associated with a reduction – a roughly 10% improvement. All other medications had no significant effect.
The team concluded, “In this cohort study of adolescents and adults with ADHD, the use of medications for ADHD, especially lisdexamphetamine and other stimulants, was associated with decreased risk of psychiatric hospitalizations, suicidal behavior, and nonpsychiatric hospitalizations during periods when they were used compared with periods when ADHD medication was not used. Non-stimulant atomoxetine use was associated with decreased risk of work disability.”
Heidi Taipale, Jakob Bergström, Katalin Gèmes, Antti Tanskanen, Lisa Ekselius, Ellenor Mittendorfer-Rutz, and Magnus Helgesson, “Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Medications and Work Disability and Mental Health Outcomes,” JAMA Network Open (2024), 7(3):e242859, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.2859.
Cortese S, Adamo N, Del Giovane C, et al., “Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for attention- deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis,” Lancet Psychiatry (2018) 5(9):727-738, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30269-4.
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 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.
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.
Today, most treatment guidelines recommend starting ADHD treatment with stimulant medications. These medicines often work quickly and can be very effective, but they do not help every child, and they can have bothersome side effects, such as appetite loss, sleep problems, or mood changes. Families also worry about long-term effects, the possibility of misuse or abuse, as well as the recent nationwide stimulant shortages. Non-stimulant medications are available, but they are usually used only after stimulants have not been effective.
This stimulant-first approach means that many patients who would respond well to a non-stimulant will end up on a stimulant medication anyway. This study addresses this issue by testing two different ways of starting medication treatment for school-age children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We want to know whether beginning with a non-stimulant medicine can work as well as the “stimulant-first” approach, which is currently used by most prescribers.
From this study, we hope to learn:
Our goal is to give families and clinicians clear, practical evidence to support a truly shared decision: “Given this specific child, should we start with a stimulant or a non-stimulant?”
Who will be in the study?
We will enroll about 1,000 children and adolescents, ages 6 to 16, who:
We will include children with common co-occurring conditions (such as anxiety, depression, learning or developmental disorders) so that the results reflect the “real-world” children seen in clinics, not just highly selected research volunteers.
How will the treatments be assigned?
This is a randomized comparative effectiveness trial, which means:
Parents and clinicians will know which type of medicine the child is taking, as in usual care. However, the experts who rate how much each child has improved using our main outcome measure will not be told which treatment strategy the child received. This helps keep their ratings unbiased.
What will participants be asked to do?
Each family will be followed for 12 months. We will collect information at:
At these times:
We will also track:
Data will be entered into a secure, HIPAA-compliant research database. Study staff at each site will work closely with families to make participation as convenient as possible, including offering flexible visit schedules and electronic options for completing forms when feasible.
How will we analyze the results?
Using standard statistical methods, we will:
All analyses will follow the “intention-to-treat” principle, meaning we compare children based on the strategy they were originally assigned to, even if their medication is later changed. This mirrors real-world decision-making: once you choose a starting strategy, what tends to happen over time?
Why is this study necessary now?
This study addresses a critical, timely gap in ADHD care:
In short, this study is needed now to move ADHD medication decisions beyond “one-size-fits-all.” By rigorously comparing stimulant-first and non-stimulant-first strategies in real-world settings, and by focusing on what matters most to children and families overall functioning, side effects, and long-term well-being, we aim to give patients, parents, and clinicians the information they need to choose the best starting treatment for each child.
This project was conceived by Professor Stephen V. Faraone, PhD (SUNY Upstate Medical University, Department of Psychiatry, Syracuse, NY) and Professor Jeffrey H. Newcorn, MD (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Department of Psychiatry, New York, NY). It will be conducted at nine sites across the USA.
EBI-ADHD:
If you live with ADHD, treat ADHD, or write about ADHD, you’ve probably run into the same problem: there’s a ton of research on treatments, but it’s scattered across hundreds of papers that don’t talk to each other. The EBI-ADHD website fixes that.
EBI-ADHD (Evidence-Based Interventions for ADHD) is a free, interactive platform that pulls together the best available research on how ADHD treatments work and how safe they are. It’s built for clinicians, people with ADHD and their families, and guideline developers who need clear, comparable information rather than a pile of PDFs. EBI-ADHD Database The site is powered by 200+ meta-analyses covering 50,000+ participants and more than 30 different interventions. These include medications, psychological therapies, brain-stimulation approaches, and lifestyle or “complementary” options.
The heart of the site is an interactive dashboard. You can:
The dashboard then shows an evidence matrix: a table where each cell is a specific treatment–outcome–time-point combination. Each cell tells you two things at a glance:
Clicking a cell opens more detail: effect sizes, the underlying meta-analysis, and how the certainty rating was decided.
EBI-ADHD is not just a curated list of papers. It’s built on a formal umbrella review of ADHD interventions, published in The BMJ in 2025. That review re-analyzed 221 meta-analyses using a standardized statistical pipeline and rating system.
The platform was co-created with 100+ clinicians and 100+ people with lived ADHD experience from around 30 countries and follows the broader U-REACH framework for turning complex evidence into accessible digital tools.
Why it Matters
ADHD is one of the most studied conditions in mental health, yet decisions in everyday practice are still often driven by habit, marketing, or selective reading of the literature. EBI-ADHD offers something different: a transparent, continuously updated map of what we actually know about ADHD treatments and how sure we are about it.
In short, it’s a tool to move conversations about ADHD care from “I heard this works” to “Here’s what the best current evidence shows, and let’s decide together what matters most for you.”
_logo%201.svg)
