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.
Background:
Sleep is more than simple rest. When discussing sleep, we tend to focus on the quantity rather than the quality, how many hours of sleep we get versus the quality or depth of sleep. Duration is an important part of the picture, but understanding the stages of sleep and how certain mental health disorders affect those stages is a crucial part of the discussion.
Sleep is an active mental process where the brain goes through distinct phases of complex electrical rhythms. These phases can be broken down into non-rapid eye movement (NREM) and rapid eye movement (REM). The non-rapid eye movement phase consists of three stages of the four stages of sleep, referred to as N1, N2(light sleep), and N3(deep sleep). N4 is the REM phase, during which time vivid dreaming typically occurs.
Two of the most important measurable brain rhythms occur during non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep. These electrical rhythms are referred to as slow waves and sleep spindles. Slow waves reflect deep, restorative sleep, while spindles are brief bursts of brain activity that support memory and learning.
The Study:
A new research review has compiled data on how these sleep oscillations differ across psychiatric conditions. The findings suggest that subtle changes in nightly brain rhythms may hold important clues about a range of disorders, from ADHD to schizophrenia.
The Results:
People with ADHD showed increased slow-spindle activity, meaning those brief bursts of NREM activity were more frequent or stronger than in people without ADHD. Why this happens isn’t fully understood, but it may reflect differences in how the ADHD brain organizes information during sleep. Evidence for slow-wave abnormalities was mixed, suggesting that deep sleep disruption is not a consistent hallmark of ADHD.
Among individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), results were less consistent. However, some studies pointed to lower “spindle chirp” (the subtle shift in spindle frequency over time) and reduced slow-wave amplitude. Lower amplitude suggests that the brain’s deep-sleep signals may be weaker or less synchronized. Researchers are still working to understand how these patterns relate to sensory processing, learning differences, or daytime behavior.
People with depression tended to show reduced slow-wave activity and fewer or weaker sleep spindles, but this pattern appeared most strongly in patients taking antidepressant medications. Since antidepressants can influence sleep architecture, researchers are careful not to overinterpret the changes. Nevertheless, these changes raise interesting questions about how both depression and its treatments shape the sleeping brain.
In post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the trend moved in the opposite direction. Patients showed higher spindle frequency and activity, and these changes were linked to symptom severity which suggests that the brain may be “overactive” during sleep in ways that relate to hyperarousal or intrusive memories. This strengthens the idea that sleep physiology plays a role in how traumatic memories are processed.
The clearest and most reliable findings emerged in psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia. Across multiple studies, individuals showed: Lower spindle density (fewer spindles overall), reduced spindle amplitude and duration, correlations with symptom severity, and cognitive deficits.
Lower slow-wave activity also appeared, especially in the early phases of illness. These results echo earlier research suggesting that sleep spindles, which are generated by thalamocortical circuits, might offer a window into the neural disruptions that underlie psychosis.
The Take-Away:
The review concludes with a key message: While sleep disturbances are clearly present across psychiatric conditions, the field needs larger, better-standardized, and more longitudinal studies. With more consistent methods and longer follow-ups, researchers may be able to determine whether these oscillations can serve as reliable biomarkers or future treatment targets.
For now, the take-home message is that the effects of these mental health disorders on sleep are real and measurable.
Mayeli A, Sanguineti C, Ferrarelli F. Recent Evidence of Non-Rapid Eye Movement Sleep Oscillation Abnormalities in Psychiatric Disorders. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2025 Dec;27(12):765-781. doi: 10.1007/s11920-024-01544-x. Epub 2024 Oct 14. PMID: 39400693.
Sleep disorders are one of the most commonly self-reported comorbidities of adults with ADHD, affecting 50 to 70 percent of them. A team of British researchers set out to see whether this association could be further confirmed with objective sleep measures, using cognitive function tests and electroencephalography (EEG).
Measured as theta/beta ratio, EEG slowing is a widely used indicator in ADHD research. While it occurs normally in non-ADHD adults at the conclusion of a day, during the day it signals excessive sleepiness, whether from obstructive sleep apnea or from neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental disorders. Coffee reverses EEG slowing, as do ADHD stimulant medications.
Study participants were either on stable treatment with ADHD medication (stimulant or non-stimulant medication), or on no medication. Participants had to refrain from taking any stimulant medications for at least 48 hours prior to taking the tests. Persons with IQ below 80 or with recurrent depression or undergoing a depressive episode were excluded.
The team administered a cognitive function test, The Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART). Observers rated on-task sleepiness using videos from the cognitive testing sessions. They wired participants for EEG monitoring.
Observer-rated sleepiness was found to be moderately higher in the ADHD group than in controls. Although sleep quality was slightly lower in the sleepy group than in the ADHD group, and symptom severity slightly greater in the ADHD group than the sleepy group, neither difference was statistically significant, indicating extensive overlap.
Omission errors in the SART were strongly correlated with sleepiness level, and the strength of this correlation was independent of ADHD symptom severity. EEG slowing in all regions of the brain was more than 50 percent higher in the ADHD group than in the control group and was highest in the frontal cortex.
Treating the sleepy group as a third group, EEG slowing was highest for the ADHD group, followed closely by the sleepy group, and more distantly by the neurotypical group. The gaps between the ADHD and sleepy groups on the one hand, and the neurotypical group on the other, were both large and statistically significant, whereas the gap between the ADHD and sleepy groups was not. EEG slowing was both a significant predictor of ADHD and of ADHD symptom severity.
The authors concluded, These findings indicate that the cognitive performance deficits routinely attributed to ADHD are largely due to on-task sleepiness and not exclusively due to ADHD symptom severity. We would like to propose a simple working hypothesis that daytime sleepiness plays a major role in cognitive functioning of adults with ADHD. As adults with ADHD are more severely sleep deprived compared to neurotypical control subjects and are more vulnerable to sleep deprivation, in various neurocognitive tasks they should manifest larger sleepiness-related reductions in cognitive performance. One clear testable prediction of the working hypothesis would be that carefully controlling for sleepiness, time of day and/or individual circadian rhythms, would result in substantial reduction in the neurocognitive deficits in replications of classic ADHD studies.
A team of Spanish researchers performed a systematic search of the medical literature and found 28 studies that could be included in a series of meta-analyses of specific measures of sleep impairment. Except for a single meta-analysis with eight studies and 1,713 participants, however, all involved just three to five studies apiece, with anywhere from 121 to just over a thousand participants.
The team examined three sorts of measures:
· Subjective measures, based on self-reporting by ADHD patients.
· Polysomnography is an objective sleep study in which the subject is wired up and studied by technicians in a lab, usually overnight, monitoring multiple body functions, such as brain activity, eye movements, muscle activation, and heart rhythm.
· Actigraphy, a non-invasive objective means of monitoring sleep. The subject wears an actimetry monitor, which is usually worn like a wristwatch on the non-dominant arm. Because it is minimally intrusive, the subject may wear it for a week or more while engaging in normal activities.
In the subjective measures, adults with ADHD generally reported substantially higher sleep impairments than non-ADHD controls. In the largest meta-analysis, covering eight studies and 1,713 participants, adults with ADHD reported moderately longer latency times for falling asleep than controls. In meta-analyses of five studies with between 834 and 1,130 participants, they also reported moderately poorer sleep quality, more frequent night awakenings, being moderately less rested upon awakening in the morning, and moderate-to-strongly greater daytime sleepiness. There was no significant difference in perceived sleep duration.
Polysomnography measures, on the other hand, failed to confirm these subjective impressions. No significant differences were found between adults with ADHD and controls for the initial latency period until onset of sleep, sleep efficiency, waking after the onset of sleep, total sleep time, stage one or stage two sleep, slow-wave sleep, REM (rapid eye movement) sleep, and latency period until REM sleep.
As mentioned above, polysomnography is conducted in lab settings, and therefore inevitably diverges from normal patterns of behavior. Actigraphy helps bridge that gap, by monitoring normal behavior, though with more limited types and precision of data analysis.
And indeed, a meta-analysis of four studies with 222 participants confirmed self-reports that sleep efficiency was moderate to strongly lower in adults with ADHD and that the latency period until the onset of sleep was markedly longer. On the other hand, it found no significant difference in true sleep.
The researchers also looked at prevalence statistics. Whereas the prevalence of sleep-onset insomnia in the general population has been reported in the range of 13 to 15 percent, a meta-analysis of four studies with 466 participants found fully two-thirds of adults with ADHD reporting insomnia, a greater than four-to-one ratio. Similarly, a meta-analysis of three studies with 458 participants found one-third reporting daytime sleepiness, which is twice the rate reported in the general population.
There was no sign of publication bias in any of these results. The authors cautioned, however, about the small number of studies involved, stating this "compromises the generalizability of the findings." Also, some studies included patients undergoing pharmacological treatment for ADHD, "increasing the risk of confounding results."
Moreover, "Sleep onset latency and sleep efficiency were not significantly impaired in the polysomnography, which was incongruent with the actigraphy results. This may be due to a difference in the evaluation context. Whereas polysomnography is considered the gold-standard measure to objectively assess sleep architecture, actigraphy shows a more ecological approach, with the evaluation being conducted in a more naturalistic context for a longer period. However, actigraphy has more environmental influence, which can compromise the data recorded and the interpretation of the results, whereas, in polysomnography, multiple variables can be controlled in the laboratory setting to increase the internal validity of the results. On the contrary, polysomnography studies can produce artifacts due to the unusual circumstances in the setting, so results may need to be interpreted with caution."
The authors concluded, "The results found in the present study show the relevance of addressing sleep concerns in adult populations diagnosed with neurodevelopmental conditions."
We are only beginning to explore how ADHD affects sleep in adults. A team of European researchers recently published the first meta-analysis on the subject, drawing on thirteen studies with 1,439 participants. They examined both subjective evaluations from sleep questionnaires and objective measurements from actigraphy and polysomnography. However, due to differences among the studies, only two to seven could be combined for any single topic, generally with considerably fewer participants (88 to 873).
Several patterns emerged. Looking at results from sleep questionnaires, they found that adults with ADHD were far more likely to report general sleep problems (very large SMD effect size 1.55). Getting more specific, they were also more likely to report frequent night awakenings(medium effect size 0.56), taking longer to get to sleep (medium-to-large effect size 0.67), lower sleep quality (medium-to-large effect size 0.69), lower sleep efficiency (medium effect size 0.55), and feeling sleepy during the daytime(large effect size 0.75).
There was little to no sign of publication bias, though considerable heterogeneity on all but night awakenings and sleep quality.
Actigraphy readings confirmed some subjective reports. On average, adults with ADHD took longer to get to sleep (large effect size 0.80) and had lower sleep efficiency (medium-to-large effect size 0.68). They also spent more time awake (small-to-medium effect size 0.40). There was little to no sign of publication bias and there was little heterogeneity among studies.
None of the polysomnography measurements, however, found any significant differences between adults with and without ADHD. All effect sizes were small (under 0.20), and none came close to being statistically significant.
There were four instances where measurement criteria overlapped those from actigraphy and self-reporting, with varying degrees of agreement and divergence. There was no significant difference in total sleep time, matching findings from both the questionnaires and actigraphy. On percent time spent awake, polysomnography found little to no effect size with no statistical significance, whereas actigraphy found a small-to-medium effect size that did not quite reach significance, and self-reporting came up with a medium effect size that was statistically significant. Sleep onset latency and sleep efficiency, for which questionnaires and actigraphy found medium-to-large effects, the polysomnography measurements found little to none, with no statistical significance.
Polysomnography found no significant differences in stage 1-sleep, stage 2-sleep, slow-wave sleep, and REM sleep. Except for slow-wave sleep, there was no sign of publication bias. Heterogeneity was generally minimal.
One problem with the extant literature is that many studies did not take medication status into account.
The authors concluded, "future studies should be conducted in medicatio- naïve samples of adults with and without ADHD matched for comorbid psychiatric disorders and other relevant demographic variables."
In summary, these findings provide robust evidence that ADHD adults report a variety of sleep problems. In contrast, objective demonstrations of sleep abnormalities have not been consistently demonstrated. More work in medication-naïve samples is needed to confirm these conclusions.
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)
