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.
August 26, 2024
Most previous studies of suicide and self-harm risk among persons with ADHD have focused on adolescents and adults. They’ve also tended to be cross-sectional, analyzing data from a population at a specific point in time.
An Australian study team took a different approach, conducting a before-and-after study through the birth cohort of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC), comprising 5,107 children who have been followed up every two years since birth.
The diagnosis of ADHD was based on parents reporting that their child had received a diagnosis of ADHD at or before age ten.
Suicide and self-harm were defined as children’s self-report at age 14 of any thought or attempt of suicide and self-harm respectively over the past year.
The team adjusted for the following confounders: socioeconomic status, birth weight, ADHD medication history, maternal education level, maternal age at birth, experience in bullying victimization at age 12, and depression score based on Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ).
Of the 5,107 participants, 3,696 had all the valid data required for analysis and were included in the final cohort. Of these, 3.6% were diagnosed with ADHD by age 10.
With a diagnosis of ADHD at age 10 and all other factors held constant:
Both depression and exposure to bullying were statistically significant mediators for the relationship. Nevertheless, depression and exposure to bullying each accounted for well under 10% of the overall effect.
Neither socioeconomic status nor maternal factors had any significant mediating effect on outcomes.
The authors concluded, “This study provides compelling evidence that children diagnosed with ADHD at the age of 10 years face significantly elevated risks of experiencing suicidal thoughts, planning, or attempts, as well as self-harm, by the age of 14 years, which underscores the critical importance of recognizing and addressing these heightened risks in children with ADHD.”
Ping-I Lin, Weng Tong Wu, Enoch Kordjo Azasu, and Tsz Ying Wong, “Pathway from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder to suicide/self-harm,” Psychiatry Research (2024), 337:115936, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2024.115936.
In the general population, most mothers experience mood disturbances right after childbirth, commonly known as postpartum blues, baby blues, or maternity blues. Yet only about one in six develop symptoms with a duration and magnitude that require treatment for depressive disorder, and one in ten for anxiety disorder.
To what extent does ADHD contribute to the risk of such disorders following childbirth? A Swedish study team used the country’s single-payer health insurance database and other national registers to conduct the first nationwide population study to explore this question.
They used the medical birth register to identify all 420,513 women above 15 years of age who gave birth to their first child, and all 352,534 who gave birth to their second child, between 2005 and 2013. They excluded miscarriages. They then looked for diagnoses of depression and/or anxiety disorders up to a year following childbirth.
In the study population, 3,515 mothers had been diagnosed with ADHD, and the other 769,532 had no such diagnosis.
Following childbirth, depression disorders were five times more prevalent among mothers with ADHD than among their non-ADHD peers. Excluding individuals with a prior history of depression made little difference, lowering the prevalence ratio to just under 5. Among women under 25, the prevalence ratio was still above 3, while for those 25 and older it was above 6.
Similarly, anxiety disorders were over five times more prevalent among mothers with ADHD than among their non-ADHD peers. Once again, excluding individuals with a prior history of depression made little difference, lowering the prevalence ratio to just under 5. Among women under 25, the prevalence ratio was still above 3, while for those 25 and older it was above 6.
The team cautioned, “There is a potential risk of surveillance bias as women diagnosed with ADHD are more likely to have repeated visits to psychiatric care and might have an enhanced likelihood of also being diagnosed with depression and anxiety disorders postpartum, compared to women without ADHD.”
Nevertheless, they concluded, “ADHD is an important risk factor for both depression and anxiety disorders in the postpartum period and should be considered in the post- pregnancy maternal care, regardless of sociodemographic factors and the presence of other psychiatric disorders. Parental education prior to conception, psychological surveillance during, and social support after childbirth should be provided to women diagnosed with ADHD.”
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.
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 ..."
.png)
Language is powerful. The words we choose not only reflect our understanding of the world but also actively shape it. Recently, this truth has been at the center of a growing debate in the mental health field regarding how we talk about ADHD.
In a recent paper published in The Lancet Psychiatry titled “The Power of Words: Respectful Language in ADHD Research,” French and colleagues advocated for a shift toward "neurodiversity-affirmative language”. Rooted in the social model of disability, their proposal encourages researchers to abandon traditional medical terminology, e.g., words like disorder and deficit, in favor of more neutral terms such as condition and challenge.
My colleague, Dr. Michael Miller, and I read this with great interest. We completely agree that revising language is essential to good science and that, both as researchers and as human beings, we are ethically bound to speak respectfully. However, we felt compelled to write a response. In our new paper, we argue that while language must evolve, it must do so scientifically.
The Two Prerequisites for Language Change
If we are going to fundamentally shift our scientific lexicon, two requirements must be met:
Currently, the proposal by French and colleagues meets neither requirement. While they claim consensus is accumulating that certain terms are disrespectful, they provide zero empirical evidence that this view is shared by the community of individuals living with ADHD. Even proponents of patient-centered language admit there is surprisingly little data supporting specific language changes.
More alarmingly, the recommended changes severely dilute the scientific accuracy of our field. Let’s look at two examples.
Why a "Deficit" is Not Just a “Challenge"
French and colleagues suggest replacing the term deficit with challenge. On the surface, challenge sounds softer and more affirming. But scientifically, these words are not interchangeable.
For decades, the term deficit has been defined by a specific performance metric that falls substantially below an expected level. It is a measurable reality. A challenge, on the other hand, refers to a new or difficult task that tests someone's ability.
Every single human being is "challenged" by complex neuropsychological tests, but only some individuals who face that challenge demonstrate scientifically significant deficits. If we relabel measurable deficits as universal challenges, we sacrifice the exactness required to communicate scientific findings and accurately measure the effects of life-changing treatments.
ADHD is a Disorder, Not Just a "Condition"
Another proposal is to replace the word disorder with condition.
In mainstream psychiatry, a disorder is a clinically significant disturbance that causes distress or disability. The word purposefully separates natural human variation from the suffering (pathos) that gives pathology its meaning.
Condition is a completely neutral term. Pregnancy is a condition. Being tall is a condition. Calling ADHD a condition distances the diagnosis from the profound suffering it can cause.
French et al. argue against framing ADHD as a disorder because it exists on a spectrum without a clear cutoff, its manifestation is context-dependent, and its definition evolves. But if we apply that logic across all of medicine, the concept of disease unravels:
The Real-World Danger of Imprecise Language
This is not merely an academic debate over semantics. The language we use has real-world implications. In the United States and across the globe, our healthcare, educational, and legal systems run on precise medical language. Terms like impairment, dysfunction, and disorder are legally and administratively required to justify support services, workplace accommodations, specialized educational therapies, and medications. The language of pathology in diagnostic manuals regulates the flow of these resources.
If we reclassify ADHD as a neutral condition characterized only by challenges, we risk erecting massive bureaucratic barriers. Imprecise language could easily be used by institutions or insurance companies to deny vital care to the people who need it most.
The Need for Lexical Discipline
Attempting to characterize a clinical disorder entirely through its strengths happens in a scientific vacuum. We cannot ignore the vast body of rigorous evidence confirming that ADHD meets the long-standing criteria used by mental health science to identify clinical disorders.
As professionals, our respect for the ADHD community demands a commitment to language that is clear, correct, and evidence-based. To build genuine consensus about how we talk about ADHD, we need meaningful, collaborative dialogue that integrates compelling empirical data and rigorous theory.
This standard of "lexical discipline" is not just a technical preference. It is a vital mechanism through which science and the mental health professions uphold their duty to society.
For many ADHD patients, getting properly diagnosed and starting meds is only half the battle. The next step is figuring out the exact right dose. Historically, clinical guidelines have provided scant guidance on this critical step. This lack of direction can inadvertently foster two extremes in clinical practice: therapeutic inertia (settling for a subtherapeutic dose that leaves symptoms undertreated) or uncritical escalation (driving doses higher and higher beyond licensed limits without meaningful benefit).
To clear up this pharmacological gray area, an international team of researchers published the first comprehensive dose-effect network meta-analysis of ADHD medications in The Lancet Psychiatry. By pulling together a massive vault of clinical trial data, they mapped out exactly how efficacy and tolerability shift as doses increase.
Traditional meta-analyses evaluate head-to-head, pairwise data, comparing one drug at a specific dose directly against a placebo. However, this study utilized an advanced Bayesian hierarchical network model using restricted cubic splines.
This mathematical framework allowed the researchers to combine both direct trial data and indirect evidence simultaneously across 113 double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In total, the study evaluated data from 14,138 children/adolescents and 11,016 adults. By standardizing various formulations into basic equivalents (e.g., converting amphetamines to dextroamphetamine equivalents), they created a clear, unified map of dose ranges.
The study yielded distinct dose-response curves depending on the patient's age and the specific medication class. Rather than a linear trend in which "more medicine equals more benefit," most treatments reach a clear statistical plateau or ceiling.
For Children and Adolescents (under 18)
In the pediatric population, medications hit clear peak efficacy boundaries:
For both amphetamines and guanfacine, escalating the dosage past these points resulted in U-shaped curves, meaning further dose hikes yielded diminishing group-level symptom reduction.
For Adults (18 and older)
Adult profiles showed slightly different trajectories:
The ultimate goal of this landmark analysis is to guide shared decision-making between clinicians, patients, and families. The results send a dual message to the medical community:
A medication's true efficacy hinges on its tolerability, typically measured by how often patients discontinue treatment due to severe side effects. For amphetamines, this dropout risk scales linearly with dosage, notably exceeding placebo in children above 25 mg/day and becoming prominent in adults past 50 mg/day. In contrast, methylphenidate shows no clear dose-dependent dropout risk in pediatric patients, whereas adults face a steep risk curve: increasing the dose from 60 mg/day to 90 mg/day raises the dropout risk from 7.3% to 10.0% for only modest symptom relief. Finally, youth taking guanfacine experience a sharp climb in discontinuation risks, reaching a 9.8% median risk at 4 mg/day before data limitations obscure further trends.
The authors strongly emphasize that these findings represent group averages. Because individual metabolism, genetics, and comorbidities vary widely, some specific patients may legitimately require and tolerate higher off-label doses. However, if an unusually high dose is needed, the study suggests it should prompt a careful clinical pause, either to reassess for co-occurring conditions (like anxiety, autism, or sleep disorders) or to manage realistic expectations regarding what the medication can achieve.
The persistent shortage of ADHD medications has been more than a simple annoyance for patients at the pharmacy; the inconsistent availability of these medications has had deep impacts on the daily lives of those struggling without them. While public discourse has pointed fingers at over-prescribing or at restrictive DEA quotas, a recent economic evaluation in JAMA Health Forum suggests we’ve been looking in the wrong direction for an answer to what is causing this.
The reality of the shortage is less about increased demand and more about a fragile, globalized supply chain that snapped at a critical link.
Debunking the "Quota Myth":
The prevailing narrative suggested that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was stifling production by refusing to raise quotas. However, the data tells a different story. In 2022, manufacturers collectively met only about 70% of their allotted production quotas.
So we know that the problem wasn't that this DEA quota ceiling was too low. In fact, most manufacturers couldn't even reach it. Even when accounting for exports and domestic retail, production remained significantly below the legal limit. Even if the DEA had doubled its quotas, these medications still likely wouldn't have magically appeared on pharmacy shelves.
The most striking finding in the study is the correlation between the shortage and a sharp decline in the import of raw Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). For the past decade, Germany has accounted for over 85% of US amphetamine imports. In 2022, these imports dropped by approximately 36.7%. When the API doesn't arrive at the factory, production for medium and small manufacturers grinds to a halt. Unlike larger pharmaceutical giants, these smaller players often lack the inventory cushion or flexibility to quickly pivot to a new supplier.
When the primary supply of amphetamine-based stimulants (like Adderall) faltered, it triggered a secondary crisis. Patients and clinicians, seeking alternatives, shifted toward lisdexamfetamine (Vyvanse) and methylphenidate (Ritalin/Concerta).
If we view this shortage purely through a regulatory or clinical lens, we miss the underlying cause of the crisis. The pharmaceutical industry has become a victim of its reliance on "just-in-time manufacturing” and highly concentrated sourcing. Because over 30% of APIs for the US market are produced in just one or two facilities globally, the system isn't just inefficient; it’s brittle. We are, in a sense, trapped in a system that prioritizes cost-reduction over the resilience required for public health.
The researchers suggest several policy shifts to prevent a repeat of this supply chain failure:
The ADHD medication shortage wasn't a failure of clinical oversight or a sudden surge in "TikTok-driven diagnoses”, as many have suggested. It was a failure of logistics. It reminds us that the path from a lab in Germany to a patient's hand in the US is far more precarious than we realized.
_logo%201.svg)
