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.
May 23, 2025
The United Kingdom has a National Health Service (NHS) that encompasses virtually its entire population, with free access. The NHS records facilitate conducting nationwide studies.
The Study
Using electronic health records from 794 primary care practices (roughly one in ten UK practices), largely representative of the UK population, a research team used mortality data to explore the life expectancy of adults diagnosed with ADHD compared with adults not diagnosed with ADHD.
For each adult diagnosed with ADHD, the team sampled ten controls matched by age, sex, and primary care practice. They identified 30,039 individuals with an ADHD diagnosis in their electronic health records and matched them with 300,390 without an ADHD diagnosis.
The team also gathered data on socioeconomic deprivation, diabetes, elevated cholesterol, hardening of the coronary arteries, high blood pressure, chronic respiratory disease, epilepsy, anxiety, depression, severe mental illness, self-harm/suicide, autism, intellectual disability, personality disorder, current smoking, and potentially harmful alcohol use. All these conditions examined at baseline were more common among participants with ADHD than comparison participants.
Both men and women with ADHD were about twice as likely to die during follow-up as Those without ADHD. A diagnosis of ADHD was associated with a 6.8-year reduction of life expectancy in males and an 8.6-year reduction of life expectancy in females.
Conclusion
The authors wrote, “We believe that this is unlikely to be because of ADHD itself and likely caused by modifiable factors such as smoking, unmet mental and physical health support, and unmet treatment needs. The findings illustrate an important inequity that demands urgent attention.”
They also noted, “…we did not adjust for socioeconomic status (SES), as we believe that SES is best understood as part of the causal pathway between ADHD and premature mortality (i.e. SES is a mediator).” These results confirm other studies which also document that those with ADHD have a decreased life expectancy, primarily due to accidents and suicide.
Elizabeth O’Nions, Céline El Baou, Amber John, Dan Lewer, Will Mandy, Douglas G.J. McKechnie, Irene Petersen, and Josh Stott, “Life expectancy and years of life lost for adults with diagnosed ADHD in the UK: matched cohort study,” The British Journal of Psychiatry (2025), https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2024.199.
Researchers from the Swedish Department of Global Public Health, the Swedish Transport Agency, and the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute collaborated in a nationwide population study of motor vehicle crashes among the elderly, defined as 65 and older.
They availed themselves of the country's all-encompassing national registers to identify the anonymized records of all such drivers from 2011 through 2016. That enabled them to compare crash records of those with known driving-impairing conditions with matched drivers who had no record of such conditions.
They looked only at road traffic crashes that resulted in injury to the driver or a passenger. For anyone with multiple crash records, they only looked at the first.
This was a case-control study, with two controls matched to each case wherever possible. For every case of a 65 or older driver involved in an injurious crash, the team randomly matched two individual controls by sex, birth year, municipality of residence, and other medical conditions. Place of residence was used to distinguish residents of large cities, who would tend to drive less frequently and in denser traffic, from those in small towns and rural areas. To minimize controls that never drive, only those with a driver's license and car were considered.
Of the thirteen medical conditions examined, elderly drivers with "ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, and similar conditions" had by far the highest odds of being in crashes that resulted in injury "at almost three times the rate of those without those conditions."
But note carefully the serious limitations in the data:
Taiwan has a single-payer healthcare system that covers virtually every inhabitant (99.5%). That makes it relatively easy to track healthcare issues using its comprehensive National Health Insurance Research Database.
This database maintains a subset, the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database (LHID), consisting of a million persons, with no significant differences in sex, age, or healthcare use from the parent database.
A Taiwanese research team used the LHID to identify 114,486 individuals diagnosed with ADHD from 1997 to 2013. It then compared their motor vehicle (including motorcycles, which are extremely common in Taiwan) crash patterns with 338,261 normally developing controls from the same database.
Adjusting for sex, age, and psychiatric comorbidities, persons with ADHD were about a fifth (19%)more likely to be in traffic crashes. Breaking it down further by sex, women with ADHD were no more likely to be in crashes, but men with ADHD were about a quarter (24%) more likely than their healthy counterparts.
Since the database also tracks pharmaceutical prescriptions, the team also looked into the effect of methylphenidate (MPH), the medication that is the first-line treatment for ADHD under Taiwanese guidelines, and the only approved stimulant. Atomoxetine, a non-stimulant, is used where MPH is either ineffective or not indicated for any other reason and is only used in 4% of all cases.
Of the 114,486 persons diagnosed with ADHD, 89,826 used MPH, and 24,660 did not.
Compared with persons with ADHD who were not on methylphenidate, those with ADHD who were on MPH for 180 days (roughly half a year) or less had 77% fewer accidents, and those on MPH for over 180 days had 93% fewer accidents. This strong dose-response relationship is suggestive of a causal relationship, with MPH perhaps reducing impulsive behavior, particularly among young men with ADHD.
The team also conducted within-person analyses, comparing times when persons with ADHD were taking MPH with periods when they were not. These showed no effect within 30 days of use, rising to a 65%reduction in crashes within 60 to 90 days of use, which was barely outside the 95% confidence interval (p = .07), very likely because of "the extremely low incidence of transport accidence (i.e. 0.6%)enlarged the confidence interval."
The authors concluded, "All registration medical claim data came from the nationally-representative sample of NHI, minimizing the selection and recall bias. By excluding transport accidents before ADHD diagnosis, we have precluded the reverse association between ADHD and road traffic accidents as much as possible. The advantage of the between-subjects comparison was that we were able to examine the MPH effect in different dose groups. However, confounding by indication cannot be eliminated. For example, those with a severe degree of ADHD symptoms, an exhibition of risky behaviors, or comorbid with other psychiatric illnesses were more likely to be prescribed medication. Hence, we also performed within-subject comparisons to adjust for time-invariant factors."
Transport safety thus offers another compelling reason to treat ADHD symptoms. Methylphenidate in particular seems to be especially effective in reducing traffic fatalities and injuries.
Suicide is one of the most feared outcomes of any psychiatric condition. Although its association with depression is well known, a small but growing research literature shows that ADHD is also a risk factor for suicidality. Suicide is difficult to study. Because it is relatively rare, large samples of patients are needed to make definitive statements.
Studies of suicide and ADHD must also consider the possibility that medications might elevate that risk. For example, the FDA placed a black box warning on atomoxetine because that ADHD medication had been shown to increase suicidal risk in youth. A recent study of 37,936 patients with ADHD now provides much insight into these issues (Chen, Q., Sjolander, A., Runeson, B., D'Onofrio, B. M., Lichtenstein, P. & Larsson, H. (2014). Drug treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and suicidal behavior: a register-based study. BMJ 348, g3769.). In Sweden, such large studies are possible because researchers have computerized medical registers that describe the disorders and treatments of all people in Sweden. Among 37,936 patients with ADHD, 7019 suicide attempts or completed suicides occurred during 150,721 person-years of follow-up. This indicates that, in any given year, the risk for a suicidal event is about 5%. For ADHD patients, the risk for a suicide event is about 30% greater than for non-ADHD patients. Among the ADHD patients who attempted or completed suicide, the risk was increased for those who had also been diagnosed with a mood disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse, or borderline personality. This is not surprising; the most serious and complicated cases of ADHD are those that have the greatest risk for suicidal events. The effects of the medication were less clear. The risk for suicide events was greater for ADHD patients who had been treated with non-stimulant medication compared with those who had not been treated with non-stimulant medication. A similar comparison showed no effect of stimulant medications. This first analysis suffers from the fact that the probability of receiving medication increases with the severity of the disorder. To address this problem, the researchers limited the analyses to ADHD patients who had some medication treatment and then compared suicidal risk between periods of medication treatment and periods of no medication treatment. This analysis found no increased risk for suicide from non-stimulant medications and, more importantly, found that for patients treated with stimulants, the risk for suicide was lower when they were taking stimulant medications. This protective effect of stimulant medication provides further evidence of the long-term effects of stimulant medications, which have also been shown to lower the risks for traffic accidents, criminality, smoking, and other substance use disorders.
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)
