November 21, 2025

Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Autism, and ADHD: New Research Examines the Connection

Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD)—a pattern of chronic irritability, anger, arguing, or defiance—is one of the most challenging behavioral conditions families and clinicians face. 

A new study involving 2,400 children ages 3–17 offers one of the clearest pictures yet. Using parent-reported data from the Pediatric Behavior Scale, researchers compared how often ODD appears in Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), ADHD-Combined presentation (ADHD-C), ADHD-Inattentive presentation (ADHD-I), and those with both ASD and ADHD.

Results

ADHD-Combined + ODD: The Highest-Risk Group

Children with ADHD-Combined presentation show both hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattention.  They had the highest ODD rates of any single diagnosis: 53% of kids with ADHD-Combined met criteria for ODD.

But when autism was added to ADHD-Combined, the prevalence jumped to 62%. This group also had the highest overall ODD scores, suggesting more severe or more impairing symptoms. 

This synergy matters: while autism alone increases ODD risk, the presence of ADHD-Combined is what pushes prevalence into the majority range. Other groups showed lower, but still significant, rates of ODD:

  • Autism + ADHD-Inattentive: 28%
  • Autism Only: 24%
  • ADHD-Inattentive Only: 14%

These findings echo what clinicians often see: children with inattentive ADHD, while struggling significantly with attention and learning, tend to show fewer behavioral conflict patterns than those with hyperactive/impulsive symptoms.

It is important to note that ODD is considered to have two main components. Across all diagnostic groups, ODD consistently broke down into these two components: either Irritable/Angry (emotion-based) or Oppositional/Defiant (behavior-based). But the balance between these components differed depending on diagnosis. Notably, Autism + ADHD-Combined showed higher levels of the irritable/angry component than ADHD-Combined alone. The oppositional/defiant component did not differ much between groups. This suggests that autism elevates the emotional side of ODD more than the behavioral side, which is important for clinicians to note before tailoring interventions.

Understanding ADHD , ASD, & Comorbidity:

The study notes that autism, ADHD, and ODD often cluster together, with 55–90% comorbidity in some combinations.

As the authors explain, The high co-occurrence of ADHD-Combined in autism (80% in our study) largely explains the high prevalence of ODD in autism.” 

Clinical Implications: Why This Study Matters

The researchers point to a straightforward recommendation: clinicians shouldn’t evaluate these conditions in isolation. A child referred for autism concerns might also be struggling with ADHD. A child referred for ADHD might have undiagnosed ODD. And ignoring one disorder can undermine treatment for the others.

Evidence-based interventions (behavioral therapy, parent training, school supports, and/or medication) can reduce symptoms across all three diagnoses while improving long-term outcomes, including overall quality of life.

Mayes SD, Pardej SK, Waschbusch DA. Oppositional Defiant Disorder in Autism and ADHD. J Autism Dev Disord. 2025 Nov;55(11):4092-4105. doi: 10.1007/s10803-024-06437-9. Epub 2024 Jul 27. PMID: 39066970.

Related posts

U.S. Nationwide Study Finds Down Syndrome Associated with 70% Greater Odds of ADHD

The Background:

Down syndrome (DS) is a genetic disorder resulting from an extra copy of chromosome 21. It is associated with intellectual disability. 

Three to five thousand children are born with Down syndrome each year. They have higher risks for conditions like hypothyroidism, sleep apnea, epilepsy, sensory issues, infections, and autoimmune diseases. Research on ADHD in patients with Down syndrome has been inconclusive. 

The Study:

The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a household survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics at the CDC. 

Due to the low prevalence of Down syndrome, a Chinese research team used NHIS records from 1997 to 2018 to analyze data from 214,300 children aged 3 to 17, to obtain a sufficiently large and nationally representative sample to investigate any potential association with ADHD. 

DS and ADHD were identified by asking, “Has a doctor or health professional ever diagnosed your child with Down syndrome, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)?” 

After adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, plus family highest education level, family income-to-poverty ratio, and geographic region, children and adolescents with Down syndrome had 70% greater odds of also having ADHD than children and adolescents without Down syndrome. There were no significant differences between males and females. 

The Take-Away:

The team concluded, “in a nationwide population-based study of U.S. children, we found that a Down syndrome diagnosis was associated with a higher prevalence of ASD and ADHD. Our findings highlight the necessity of conducting early and routine screenings for ASD and ADHD in children with Down syndrome within clinical settings to improve the effectiveness of interventions.” 

June 27, 2025

NEW STUDY: The Cumulative Impact of ADHD, ASD, and Intellectual Disabilities

Neurodevelopmental conditions often coexist, creating a complex web of challenges for affected individuals. A recent study by Hollingdale et al. delves into the cumulative effects of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and intellectual disability (ID) on young people’s behavioral and socio-emotional well-being, as well as their overall functioning as rated by clinicians.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 2768 young individuals aged 3-17 years, with a mean age of approximately 11.5 years. Diagnostic information along with caregiver-rated behavioral and socio-emotional data, and clinician-rated functioning scores, were collected from electronic patient records at the point of initial diagnosis.

The study aimed to understand whether the number of neurodevelopmental conditions—ranging from one to three—correlates with more pronounced behavioral and socio-emotional issues, and lower levels of clinician-rated functioning. The behavioral and socio-emotional aspects were assessed using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, while the Children's Global Assessment Scale was used to evaluate clinician-rated functioning.

The findings revealed that young people with multiple neurodevelopmental conditions tend to exhibit higher levels of inattention and hyperactivity, greater peer-related problems, reduced prosocial behaviors, and poorer overall functioning. Interestingly, this cumulative impact was more evident in males compared to females, with females only showing significant cumulative effects in clinician-rated functioning.

This research underscores the importance of recognizing the compounded difficulties faced by young people with multiple neurodevelopmental conditions. It highlights the need for tailored interventions that address the unique and overlapping challenges presented by ADHD, ASD, and ID. For practitioners, understanding these cumulative effects is crucial for developing effective treatment plans that can better support the holistic development and well-being of these young individuals.

In conclusion, the presence of multiple neurodevelopmental conditions can significantly affect various domains of a young person’s life, with notable differences between males and females. This study provides a critical insight into the intricate nature of these conditions and calls for a more nuanced approach in both research and clinical practice.

June 18, 2024

Identifying Autistic-Like Symptoms in Children with ADHD

NEWS TUESDAY: Identifying Autistic-Like Symptoms in Children with ADHD

A recent study investigated the presence of autistic-like symptoms in children diagnosed with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Given the overlapping social difficulties in both ADHD and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), distinguishing between the two disorders can be challenging. This study aims to pinpoint specific patterns of autistic symptoms in children with ADHD, comparing them to those with ASD using the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, 2nd edition (ADOS-2).

The research involved 43 school-age children divided into two groups:

  • ADHD Group (25 children): Initially referred for ASD symptoms but later diagnosed with ADHD.
  • ASD Group (18 children): Children diagnosed with ASD.

Researchers used ADOS-2 to evaluate differences in communication deficits, social interaction challenges, and repetitive behaviors between the two groups. The study also compared IQ, age, ADOS-2 domain scores, and externalizing/internalizing problems.

Key Findings:

  • Significant differences were found between the ADHD and ASD groups in ADOS-2 domain scores, including Social Affect, Restricted and Repetitive Behavior, and Total Score.
  • On an individual item level, children with ADHD displayed similar atypical behaviors as those with ASD in social-communication areas such as "Pointing" and "Gestures".
  • Both groups showed comparable frequencies in behaviors like "Stereotyped/idiosyncratic words or phrases", "Mannerisms", and "Repetitive interests and behaviors".

The study highlights the importance of identifying transdiagnostic domains that overlap between ADHD and ASD. The transdiagnostic domain refers to a set of symptoms or behaviors that are common across multiple diagnostic categories rather than being specific to just one. Identifying these domains in mental health practice and in psychological research is crucial to understanding, properly diagnosing, and treating conditions with overlapping features. This understanding could pave the way for tailored treatments addressing the specific needs of children with ADHD, particularly those exhibiting autistic-like symptoms.

July 9, 2024

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) to Fund Landmark ADHD Medication Study

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:

  • Is starting with a non-stimulant medication “good enough” compared with starting with a stimulant?
    In other words, when we look at overall improvement in a child’s daily life, not just ADHD symptoms, does a non-stimulant-first approach perform similarly to a stimulant-first approach?
  • Which children do better with which approach?
    Children with ADHD are very different from one another. Some have anxiety, depression, learning problems, or autism spectrum conditions. We want to know whether certain groups of children benefit more from starting with stimulants, and others from starting with non-stimulants.
  • How do the two strategies compare for side effects, treatment satisfaction, and staying on medication?
    We will compare how often children stop or switch medications because of side effects or lack of benefit, and how satisfied children, parents, and clinicians are with care under each strategy.
  • What are the longer-term outcomes over a year?
    We are interested not only in short-term symptom relief, but also in how children are doing months later in school, at home, with friends, and emotionally.

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:

  • Have ADHD and are starting or restarting medication treatment, and
  • Are being treated in everyday pediatric and mental health clinics at large children’s hospitals and health systems across the United States.

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:

  • Each child will be randomly assigned (like flipping a coin) to one of two strategies:


    1. Stimulant-first strategy – the clinician starts treatment with a stimulant medication.
    2. Non-stimulant-first strategy – the clinician starts treatment with a non-stimulant medication.
  • Within the assigned class, the clinician and family still choose the specific medicine and dose, and can adjust treatment as they normally would. This keeps the study as close as possible to real-world practice.
  • The randomization is 1:1, so about half the participants will start with stimulants and half with non-stimulants.

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:

  • Baseline (before or just as medication is started)
  • Early follow-up (about weeks 3 and 6)
  • Later follow-up (about 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months)

At these times:

  • Parents will complete questionnaires about ADHD symptoms, behavior, emotions, and daily functioning at home and in the community.
  • Teachers will complete brief forms about the child’s behavior and performance at school.
  • Children and teens (when old enough) will complete age-appropriate questionnaires about their own mood, behavior, and quality of life.
  • A specially trained clinical rater, using all available information but blinded to treatment strategy, will give a global rating of how much the child has improved overall, not just in ADHD symptoms.

We will also track:

  • Medication changes (stopping, switching, or adding medicines)
  • Reasons for any changes (side effects, lack of benefit, or other reasons)
  • Any serious side effects or safety concerns

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:

  • Compare the overall improvement of children in the stimulant-first group versus the non-stimulant-first group after 12 months.
  • Look at differences in side effects, discontinuation rates, and treatment satisfaction between the two strategies.
  • Examine which child characteristics (such as age, sex, co-occurring conditions, and baseline severity) are linked to better results with one strategy versus the other.
  • Analyze long-term outcomes, including functioning at home, school, and with peers, and emotional well-being.

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:

  • Guidelines are ahead of the evidence.
    Existing guidelines almost always recommend stimulants as the first-line medication, yet careful reviews of the evidence show that direct comparisons of stimulant-first versus non-stimulant-first strategies are limited. We do not have strong data to say that starting with stimulants is clearly superior for all children.
  • Real-world children are more complex than those in past trials.
    Most prior medication trials have excluded children with multiple conditions, serious family stressors, or other complexities that are very common in everyday practice. Our pragmatic, multi-site design will include these children and thus produce findings that are directly relevant to front-line clinicians and families.
  • Families and clinicians are asking for alternatives.
    Parents often express worries about stimulant side effects, long-term use, and stigma. Clinicians would like clearer guidance about when a non-stimulant is a reasonable first choice. At the same time, stimulant shortages and concerns about misuse and diversion have exposed the risks of relying almost entirely on one class of medications.
  • The timing is right to influence practice and policy.
    Our team includes parents, youth advocates, frontline clinicians, and national networks that link major children’s hospitals. These partners have helped shape the study from the beginning and will help interpret and share the results. This means that if starting with non-stimulants is found to be similarly effective and safer or more acceptable for some children, practice patterns and guidelines can change rapidly.

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.

January 2, 2026

Evidence-Based Interventions for ADHD

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: 

  1. Choose an age group: children (6–17), adolescents (13–17), or adults (18+). 
  1. Choose a time frame: results at 12, 26, or 52 weeks. 
  1. Choose whether to explore by intervention (e.g., methylphenidate, CBT, mindfulness, diet, neurofeedback) or by outcome (e.g., ADHD symptoms, functioning, adverse events), depending on what’s available. EBI-ADHD Database 

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: 

  1. How big the effect is, compared to placebo or another control (large benefit, small benefit, no effect, small negative impact, large negative impact). 
  1. How confident we can be in that result (high, moderate, low, or very low certainty).  

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.” 

Meta-analysis Finds Tenuous Links Between ADHD and Thyroid Hormone Dysregulation

The Background:

Meta-analyses have previously suggested a link between maternal thyroid dysfunction and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) in children, though some studies report no significant difference. Overweight and obesity are more common in children and adolescents with NDDs. Hypothyroidism is often associated with obesity, which may result from reduced energy expenditure or disrupted hormone signaling affecting growth and appetite. These hormone-related parameters could potentially serve as biomarkers for NDDs; however, research findings on these indicators vary. 

The Study:

A Chinese research group recently released a meta-analysis examining the relationship between neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) and hormone levels – including thyroid, growth, and appetite hormones – in children and adolescents.  

The analysis included peer-reviewed studies that compared hormone levels – such as thyroid hormones (FT3, FT4, TT3, TT4, TSH, TPO-Ab, or TG-Ab), growth hormones (IGF-1 or IGFBP-3), and appetite-related hormones (leptin, ghrelin, or adiponectin) – in children and adolescents with NDDs like ADHD, against matched healthy controls. To be included, NDD cases had to be first-diagnosis and medication-free, or have stopped medication before testing. Hormone measurements needed to come from blood, urine, or cerebrospinal fluid samples, and all studies were required to provide both means and standard deviations for these measurements. 

Meta-analysis of nine studies encompassing over 5,700 participants reported a medium effect size increase in free triiodothyronine (FT3) in children and adolescents with ADHD relative to healthy controls. There was no indication of publication bias, but variation between individual study outcomes (heterogeneity) was very high. Further analysis showed FT3 was only significantly elevated in the predominantly inattentive form of ADHD (three studies), again with medium effect size, but not in the hyperactive/impulsive and combined forms

Meta-analysis of two studies combining more than 4,800 participants found a small effect size increase in thyroid peroxidase antibody (TPO-Ab) in children and adolescents with ADHD relative to healthy controls. In this case, the two studies had consistent results. Because only two studies were involved, there was no way to evaluate publication bias. 

The remaining thyroid hormone meta-analyses, involving 6 to 18 studies and over 5,000 participants in each instance, found no significant differences in levels between children and adolescents with ADHD and healthy controls

Meta-analyses of six studies with 317 participants and two studies with 192 participants found no significant differences in growth hormone levels between children and adolescents with ADHD and healthy controls. 

Finally, meta-analyses of nine studies with 333 participants, five studies with 311 participants, and three studies with 143 participants found no significant differences in appetite-related hormone levels between children and adolescents with ADHD and healthy controls. 

The Conclusion:

The team concluded that FT3 and TPO-Ab might be useful biomarkers for predicting ADHD in youth. However, since FT3 was only linked to inattentive ADHD, and TPO-Ab’s evidence came from just two studies with small effects, this conclusion may overstate the meta-analysis results. 

Our Take-Away:

Overall, this meta-analysis found only limited evidence that hormone differences are linked to ADHD. One thyroid hormone (FT3) was higher in children with ADHD—mainly in the inattentive presentation—but the findings varied widely across studies. Another marker, TPO-Ab, showed a small increase, but this came from only two studies, making the result less certain. For all other thyroid, growth, and appetite-related hormones, the researchers found no meaningful differences between children with ADHD and those without. While FT3 and TPO-Ab may be worth exploring in future research, the current evidence is not strong enough to consider them reliable biomarkers.

 

December 15, 2025