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.
January 17, 2025
Exposure to heavy metals like lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and manganese is known to harm developing nervous systems. However, past studies on whether heavy metals specifically increase the risk of ADHD have shown mixed results.
A research team from China (Gu et al., 2024) reviewed medical studies and conducted meta-analyses to better understand this issue.
The team included studies on children and teens, focusing on cohort studies, case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. They only used articles written in English and required validated biomonitoring (like blood tests) to measure heavy metal exposure. ADHD diagnoses had to come from clinical evaluations.
To be included, studies had to report effect sizes such as odds ratios and relative risks with confidence intervals. The team focused on comparisons between groups with high, low, or no exposure, which made it harder to analyze dose-response relationships.
They also evaluated the quality of each study. All cohort studies were rated high-quality. Of the 15 case-control studies, 6 were high-quality, and 9 were moderate-quality. Among cross-sectional studies, only 2 were high-quality, and the rest were moderate-quality.
There was no evidence linking ADHD to other heavy metals like arsenic, mercury, cadmium, or manganese. Both meta-analyses suggest that lead exposure is associated with the risk for ADHD. However, because these studies cannot rule out other explanations, one cannot conclude that lead exposure causes ADHD. For example, other work shows that people with ADHD are likely to have lower incomes than those without ADHD.
Qianfei Gu, Jiayu Liu, Xuanzhi Zhang, Anyan Huang, Xinle Yu, Kusheng Wu, and Yanhong Huang, “Association between heavy metals exposure and risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (2024), https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-024-02546-z.
Victoria Rosenauer, Magdalena Isabell Schwarz, Thomas Vlasak, and Alfred Barth, “Childhood lead exposure increases the risk of attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder: A meta-analysis,” Science of the Total Environment (2024), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175574.
A large international research team has just released a detailed analysis of studies looking at the connection between parents' mental health conditions and their children's mental health, particularly focusing on ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). This analysis, called a meta-analysis, involved carefully examining previous studies on the subject. By September 2022, they had found 211 studies, involving more than 23 million people, that could be combined for their analysis.
Most of the studies focused on mental disorders other than ADHD. However, when they specifically looked at ADHD, they found five studies with over 6.7 million participants. These studies showed that children of parents with ADHD were more than eight times as likely to have ADHD compared to children whose parents did not have ADHD. The likelihood of this result happening by chance was extremely low, meaning the connection between parental ADHD and child ADHD is strong.
The researchers wanted to figure out how common ADHD is among children of parents both with and without ADHD. To do this, they first analyzed 65 studies with about 2.9 million participants, focusing on children whose parents did not have ADHD. They found that around 3% of these children had ADHD.
Next, they analyzed five studies with over 44,000 cases where the parents did have ADHD. In this group, they found that 32% of the children also had ADHD, meaning about one in three. This is a significant difference—children of parents with ADHD are about ten times more likely to have the condition than children whose parents who do not have ADHD.
The researchers also wanted to see if other mental health issues in parents, besides ADHD, were linked to ADHD in their children. They analyzed four studies involving 1.5 million participants and found that if a parent had any mental health disorder (like anxiety, depression, or substance use issues), the child’s chances of having ADHD increased by 80%. However, this is far less than the 840% increase seen in children whose parents specifically had ADHD. In other words, ADHD is much more likely to be passed down in families compared to other mental disorders.
The study had a lot of strengths, mainly due to the large number of participants involved, which helps make the findings more reliable. However, there were also some limitations:
Despite these limitations, the research team concluded that their analysis provides strong evidence that children of parents with ADHD or other serious mental health disorders are at a higher risk of developing mental disorders themselves. While more research is needed to fill in the gaps, the findings suggest that it would be wise to carefully monitor the mental health of children whose parents have these conditions to provide support and early intervention if needed
Stimulant medications like methylphenidate and amphetamines are well-established treatments for reducing ADHD symptoms, making a notable difference in focus and behavior. Given that caffeine is also a stimulant, researchers have wondered whether it might offer similar benefits for managing ADHD symptoms. A recent meta-analysis conducted by a Brazilian research team sought to explore this question.
The researchers faced an immediate challenge: there is surprisingly little research directly investigating caffeine's effects on ADHD symptoms. After a thorough review of peer-reviewed literature, they identified only four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suitable for their analysis, encompassing a combined total of just 152 participants.
The limited number of studies—and participants—meant that the meta-analysis was not as robust as the research team might have hoped. However, they proceeded to examine the available data to determine whether caffeine showed any measurable benefit over a placebo.
The results of the meta-analysis showed a slight decrease in ADHD symptoms among those who consumed caffeine compared to those given a placebo. However, this reduction was not statistically significant. The small sample size likely played a role in this outcome, making the study underpowered. Even if future studies with larger groups of participants were to show statistical significance, the observed effect size would likely remain too small to be clinically meaningful.
Interestingly, the four trials included in the meta-analysis showed very little variation in their findings. Each study slightly favored caffeine over placebo, but none came close to achieving statistical significance.
Ultimately, the researchers concluded that “overall, the totality of the evidence suggests no significant benefit of caffeine over placebo in the treatment of children with ADHD.” The findings indicate that while caffeine might produce a slight reduction in symptoms, it is not an effective alternative to established ADHD treatments like methylphenidate or amphetamines.
This study highlights the importance of relying on proven medications for ADHD management rather than seeking alternatives that lack substantial evidence. While caffeine might offer a slight stimulant effect, it falls short of delivering the therapeutic benefits needed for those with ADHD to manage their symptoms effectively. For clinicians, parents, and individuals with ADHD, these results underscore the value of evidence-based treatments in improving quality of life and daily functioning.
A team of U.S. endocrinologists recently published the results of a meta-analysis examining a possible association between bisphenol A(BPA) and childhood ADHD. BPA is used in a variety of consumer products, including plastic bottles for food and drink, epoxy resins used to line cans of food, dental sealants, and the thermal receipts issued by stores.
A review of the literature found 29 rodent studies, but only three with humans. The human studies were too different from each other to be suitable for meta-analysis. One found no association between prenatal exposure and ADHD. A second found prenatal BPA exposure to be associated with teacher-reported hyperactivity in 4-year-old boys, but not girls. The third found is to be associated with hyperactivity scores in 3-year-old girls.
As the authors note, "Often, there is little human data available, particularly in the environmental toxicology/health fields, due to the time and expense of conducting epidemiological studies and the ethical barriers for human-controlled trials that involve human exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals. Thus, it is important to have methods for using animal data to inform human health hazard conclusions; indeed, animal models are traditionally used to study human health."
Twelve of the mice and rat studies, with a total of 709 rodents, were suitable for meta-analysis.
Overall these pointed to a tiny SMD effect size of 0.09, but it was not significant, with the odds of such a result being obtained by chance being almost one in four (p = 0.237). But when results from the 356 males and353 females were looked at separately, a significant sex difference emerged. There was essentially no effect on female rodents, with an effect size of -0.07and a 95% confidence interval of -0.27 to 0.14, widely spanning the zero mark, rendering the result statistically non-significant. Among male rodents, however, there was a small but statistically significant effect size (0.24), with a 95%confidence interval from 0.04 to 0.45. The odds of obtaining this outcome by chance were only one in 50 (p = .02).
This result must be viewed with caution, as rodent physiology often differs substantially from that of humans. The authors, therefore, conclude, "early BPA exposure is associated with a presumed hazard of hyperactivity in humans. Our conclusion is based on 'moderate' levels of evidence for the human and 'high' levels of evidence for animal literature."
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)
