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.
December 18, 2024
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental condition that persists into adulthood for most individuals, affecting 60% to 90% of those diagnosed as children. However, understanding ADHD in older adults, particularly those over 50, remains limited. With the U.S. population aged 65+ projected to nearly double by 2050, this oversight has critical implications for healthcare.
A recent analysis of 20 studies (sample size: over 20 million) highlights ADHD prevalence in the elderly as 2.18% when community scales are used but only 0.23% when clinical diagnoses are reviewed in medical records. This discrepancy points to underdiagnosis and the need for clinician education. Furthermore, treatment rates are alarmingly low, with just 0.09% of elderly individuals receiving ADHD medications.
Current diagnostic criteria, still rooted in studies of youth, inadequately address age-specific symptoms. Barkley and Murphy’s screening tool is one step forward, but its moderate reliability signals the need for refinement. Diagnostic challenges grow more complex as clinicians must differentiate ADHD from cognitive changes due to aging, medical conditions, or psychiatric disorders like depression or dementia. The concurrent presence of conditions further complicates assessments and treatments.
Treatment hesitancy also hampers care. Concerns about cardiovascular risks, interactions with other medications, and lack of familiarity with ADHD medication dosing in older adults fuel clinician caution. While psychostimulants are generally safe when carefully managed, misconceptions about abuse and addiction persist, creating unnecessary barriers.
Addressing ADHD in older adults requires dedicated clinician training to overcome biases, refine diagnostic tools, and balance medical risks with the significant quality-of-life benefits ADHD treatment offers. With more research, improved clinical protocols, and better education, older adults with ADHD can receive accurate diagnoses and effective treatment. This will help them maintain cognitive function and independence, significantly enhancing their lives.
Goodman, D. W., Cortese, S., & Faraone, S. V. (2024). Why is ADHD so difficult to diagnose in older adults? Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 24(10), 941–944. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737175.2024.2385932
The current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) requires evidence of symptom onset before age 12 to make a diagnosis of ADHD in adults.
A recently published clinical review questions the appropriateness of this criterion in older adults 50 years old and above. It sets forth several reasons:
On the other hand, the reason for the early onset criterion is to avoid any confusion with early neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's or Lewy body dementia, which have overlapping symptoms.
The authors suggest a possible fix:
It is unethical, the authors suggest, to deny care to older, presently undiagnosed adults, given the demonstrated poor outcomes associated with untreated ADHD.
The CDC recently reported that ADHD medication use in women ages 15 to 44 increased from 0.9 percent to 4 percent from 2003 to 2015. The most commonly used medications were formulations of amphetamine or methylphenidate.
This increase in treatment for ADHD suggests that educational programs such as adhdinadults.com have been effective in teaching clinicians how to identify and treat the disorder. The 4 percent rate reported by the CDC is encouraging because it is close to what Ron Kessler and colleagues reported as the prevalence of adult ADHD in the population. CDC correctly points out that little is known about the effects of ADHD medications on pregnancies. Thus, caution is warranted.
Oei et al.'s review of amphetamines concluded: "There is little evidence of amphetamine-induced neurotoxicity and long-term neurodevelopmental impact, as data is scarce and difficult to extricate from the influence of other factors associated with children living in households where one or more parent uses drugs in terms of poverty and neglect. ... We suggest that exposed children may be at risk of ongoing developmental and behavioral impediment, and recommend that efforts be made to improve early detection of perinatal exposure and to increase the provision of early intervention services for affected children and their families"
Bolea-Alamanac et al.'s review of methylphenidate effects concluded: "There is a paucity of data regarding the use of methylphenidate in pregnancy and further studies are required. Although the default medical position is to interrupt any non-essential pharmacological treatment during pregnancy and lactation, in ADHD this may present a significant risk. Doctors need to evaluate each case carefully before interrupting treatment." These words of caution should be heeded by clinicians caring for women of reproductive age.
Older adults are at greater risk for cardiovascular disease. Psychostimulants may contribute to that risk through side effects, such as elevation of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate.
On the other hand, smoking, substance abuse, obesity, and chronic sleep loss - all of which are associated with ADHD - are known to increase cardiovascular risk, and stimulant medications are an effective treatment for ADHD.
So how does this all shake out? A Dutch team of researchers sets out to explore this. Using electronic health records, they compared all 139 patients 55 years and older at PsyQ outpatient clinic, Program Adult ADHD, in The Hague. Because a principal aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of medication on cardiovascular functioning after first medication use, the 26 patients who had previously been prescribed ADHD medication were excluded from the study, leaving a sample size of 113.
The ages of participants ranged from 55 from 79, with a mean of 61. Slightly over half were women. At the outset, 13 percent had elevated systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure, 2 percent had an irregular heart rate, 15 percent had an abnormal electrocardiogram, and 29 percent had some combination of these (a "cardiovascular risk profile"), and 21 percent used antihypertensive medication.
Three out of four participants had at least e comorbid disorder. The most common are sleep disorders, affecting a quarter of participants, and unipolar mood disorders (depressive or more rarely manic episodes, but not both), also affecting a quarter of participants.
Twenty-four patients did not initiate pharmacological treatment. Of the 89 who received ADHD medication, 58 (65%) reported positive effects, and five experienced no effect. Thirty-eight (43%) discontinued ADHD medication while at the clinic due to lack of effect or to side effects. The most commonly reported positive effects were enhanced concentration, more overview, less restlessness, more stable mood, and having more energy. The principal reasons for discontinuing medication were anxiety/depression, cardiovascular complaints, and lack of effect.
Methylphenidate raised heart rate and lowered weight, but had no significant effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Moreover, there was no significant correlation between methylphenidate dosage and any of these variables, nor between methylphenidate users taking hypertensive medication and those not taking such medication. There was no significant difference in systolic or diastolic blood pressure and heart rate before and after the use of methylphenidate among patients with the cardiovascular risk profiles.
Systolic blood pressure rose in ten out of 64 patients, with two experiencing an increase of at least 20 mmHg. It descended in five patients, with three having a decrease of at least 20 mmHg. Diastolic blood pressure rose by at least 10 mmHg in four patients, while dropping at least 10 mmHg in five others.
The authors concluded "that the use of a low dose of ADHD-medication is well tolerated and does not cause clinically significant cardiovascular changes among older adults with ADHD, even among those with an increased cardiovascular risk profile. Furthermore, our older patients experienced significant and clinically relevant improvement of their ADHD symptoms using stimulants, comparable with what is found among the younger age group," and that "the use of methylphenidate may be a relatively safe and effective treatment for older adults with ADHD, under the condition that all somatic complaints and especially cardiovascular parameters are monitored before and during pharmacological treatment."
Yet they cautioned that "due to the observational nature of the study and the lack of a control group, no firm conclusions can be drawn as to the effectiveness of the stimulants used. ... Important factors that were not systematically reported were the presence of other risk factors, such as smoking, substance (ab)use, aspirin use, and level of physical activity. In addition, the response to medication was not systematically measured"
Stimulant medications, such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamines (Adderall), are among the most widely prescribed drugs in the world. In the United States alone, prescription rates have climbed more than 50% over the past decade, driven largely by growing awareness of ADHD in both children and adults. Yet stimulants also have a long history of non-medical use, and concerns about their psychological risks persist among patients, families, and clinicians alike.
Two major studies now offer the clearest picture yet of what that risk actually looks like, and who it may affect.
The Background:
Before turning to the research, it helps to understand the landscape. A notable share of stimulant users misuse their medication: roughly one in four takes it in ways other than prescribed, and about one in eleven meets criteria for Prescription Stimulant Use Disorder (PSUD). Counterintuitively, most people with PSUD aren’t obtaining drugs illicitly — they’re misusing their own prescriptions.
This distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic use turns out to be critical when evaluating psychosis risk.
The Study:
A comprehensive meta-analysis by Jangra and colleagues pooled data across more than a dozen studies to compare psychotic outcomes in people using stimulants therapeutically versus non-therapeutically. The contrast was striking.
Among therapeutic users (more than 220,000 individuals taking stimulants at prescribed doses under medical supervision), psychotic episodes occurred in roughly one in five hundred people. When symptoms did appear, they typically emerged after prolonged treatment or in individuals with pre-existing psychiatric vulnerabilities, and they usually resolved when the medication was stopped.
Among non-therapeutic users (over 8,000 participants across twelve studies, many using methamphetamine or high-dose amphetamines), nearly one in three experienced psychotic symptoms. These episodes tended to be more severe, involving persecutory delusions and hallucinations, with faster onset and a greater likelihood of recurrence or persistence.
The biology underlying this difference is well understood. When stimulants are taken orally at guideline-recommended doses, they produce moderate, gradual changes in neurotransmitter activity central to attention and executive functions. The brain tolerates these changes relatively well. Non-therapeutic use, by contrast, often involves much higher doses that are frequently delivered through non-oral routes such as injection or smoking. This produces a rapid, excessive surge in dopamine activity, which is precisely the neurochemical pattern associated with psychotic symptoms.
The takeaway here is not that therapeutic stimulant use is risk-free, but that risk is strongly modulated by dose, route of administration, and individual psychiatric history. Clinicians are advised to monitor patients with pre-existing mood or psychotic disorders, particularly carefully.
A Nationwide Study Focuses on Methylphenidate Specifically:
Where the meta-analysis cast a wide net, a large-scale population study by Healy and colleagues drilled into a specific and clinically pressing question: does methylphenidate (the most commonly prescribed ADHD medication, also known as Ritalin) increase the risk of developing a psychotic disorder?
To find out, the researchers analyzed Finland's national health insurance database, tracking nearly 700,000 individuals diagnosed with ADHD. Finland's single-payer system made this kind of comprehensive, long-term tracking possible in a way that fragmented healthcare systems rarely allow.
Critically, the team adjusted for a range of confounding factors that have clouded previous research, including sex, parental education, parental history of psychosis, and the number of psychiatric visits and diagnoses prior to the ADHD diagnosis itself (a proxy for illness severity). After these adjustments, they found no significant difference in the risk of schizophrenia or non-affective psychosis between patients treated with methylphenidate and those who remained unmedicated. This held true even among patients with four or more years of continuous methylphenidate use.
The Take-Away:
When considered together, these studies offer meaningful reassurance without encouraging complacency.
For patients and families weighing ADHD treatment, the evidence suggests that methylphenidate used as prescribed does not increase psychosis risk, even over years of use. The rare cases of stimulant-associated psychosis in therapeutic settings are typically linked to high doses, pre-existing vulnerabilities, or both, and tend to resolve with discontinuation.
For clinicians, the findings reinforce the importance of baseline psychiatric assessment before initiating stimulant therapy, ongoing monitoring in patients with mood or psychotic disorder histories, and clear patient education about the risks of dose escalation or non-oral use.
The picture that emerges is one of a meaningful distinction between a medication used carefully within its therapeutic window and a drug misused outside of it. This distinction matters enormously when communicating risk to patients, policymakers, and the public.
ADHD is commonly treated with medication, but these treatments frequently cause side effects such as reduced appetite and disrupted sleep. Psychological and behavioral therapies exist as alternatives, but they tend to be expensive, hard to scale, and generally do little to address the motor difficulties that many children with ADHD experience — things like clumsy movement, poor handwriting, or difficulty with coordination.
Physical exercise has attracted attention as a more accessible option. But research findings have been mixed, partly because studies vary so widely in how exercise is delivered and what outcomes they measure. This meta-analysis, drawing on 21 studies involving 850 children and adolescents aged 5–20 with a clinical ADHD diagnosis, tries to cut through that noise.
Two types of motor skills
The researchers separated motor skills into two broad categories:
The Data:
Gross motor skills (16 studies, 613 participants)
Overall, exercise produced medium-to-large improvements in gross motor skills. The strongest gains were in:
No significant gains were found in balance or flexibility.
Fine motor skills (13 studies, 553 participants):
Exercise also produced medium-to-large improvements in fine motor skills, specifically:
The Results: What Kind of Exercise Works Best?
Two factors stood out consistently across both gross and fine motor skills: session length and frequency.
The type of exercise mattered; structured programs with clear motor-skill components (rather than unstructured physical activity) yielded stronger results.
These results are not without caveats, however. The authors urge caution in interpreting these findings. A few key limitations include:
The Bottom Line
This meta-analysis provides tentative moderate evidence that structured physical exercise can meaningfully support motor skill development in children and adolescents with ADHD — particularly when sessions run longer than 45 minutes and occur at least three times a week. The benefits appear most robust for object control, locomotion, handwriting, and manual dexterity.
That said, the evidence base still has real gaps. The authors call for better-designed, fully randomized controlled trials with consistent methods, standardized ways of measuring exercise intensity, and greater inclusion of children and adolescents who are not on medication — all of which would help clarify when, how, and for whom exercise works best.
Treatment guidelines for childhood ADHD recommend medications as the first-line treatment for most youth with ADHD. Still, concerns about side effects and long-term outcomes have increased interest in non-pharmacological approaches. Researchers at Saudi Arabian Armed Forces hospitals recently conducted a network meta-analysis comparing several interventions, including mindfulness-based therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, behavioral parent training, neurofeedback, yoga, virtual reality programs, and digital working memory training.
Although the authors aimed to “provide a rigorous methodological approach to combine evidence from multiple treatment comparisons,” the study illustrates several pitfalls that arise when network meta-analysis is applied to a thin and heterogeneous evidence base.
What Network Meta-analysis Can and Cannot Do:
Network meta-analysis extends conventional meta-analysis by combining:
When the evidence network is large and well-connected, this approach can provide useful estimates of comparative effectiveness among many treatments.
This method is not always best, however, as many networks are sparse. This is especially true in areas such as complementary or behavioral therapies. In sparse networks, estimates rely heavily on indirect comparisons, and single studies can exert disproportionate influence over the results.
Conventional meta-analysis focuses on heterogeneity, meaning differences in results across studies within the same comparison.
Network meta-analysis must additionally evaluate consistency, whether the direct and indirect evidence agree.
However, when comparisons are supported by only one or two studies and the network is weakly connected, statistical tests for heterogeneity and consistency have very little power. In practice, this means the analysis often cannot detect problems even if they are present.
Sparse networks also make publication bias difficult to evaluate. This concern is particularly relevant in fields dominated by small trials and emerging therapies.
Why Such Treatment Rankings Are Appealing, but Potentially Problematic:
Many network meta-analyses summarize results using SUCRA, which estimates the probability that each treatment ranks best.
SUCRA, or Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking, is a key statistical metric in network meta-analyses. It is used to rank treatments by efficacy or safety. This is achieved by summarizing the probabilities of a treatment's rank into a single percentage, where a higher SUCRA value indicates a superior treatment. Ultimately, SUCRA helps pinpoint the most effective intervention among the ones compared.
Again, in well-supported networks, SUCRA can provide a useful summary of comparative effectiveness. But in sparse networks, rankings can create an illusion of precision, because treatments supported by a single small study may appear highly ranked simply due to random variation.
What Did this New Network Meta-analysis Study?
The study includes 16 trials with a total of 806 participants. But the structure of the evidence network is far weaker than this headline number suggests.
Based on the underlying studies:
This produces a very thin network, in which several interventions rely entirely on single studies.
Another challenge is that the included trials measure different outcomes. Some evaluate ADHD symptom severity, while others measure parental stress.
When studies use different outcome scales, meta-analysis typically relies on standardized measures such as the standardized mean difference to allow comparisons across studies. However, the analysis reports only mean-average differences, making it difficult to interpret the relative effect sizes.
Study Issues (including Limited Evidence and Risk of Bias):
The intervention supported by the largest number of studies (family mindfulness-based therapy) was one of the two approaches reported as producing statistically significant results. The other was BrainFit, which is supported by only a single previous trial.
Despite this limited evidence base, the study ranks interventions using SUCRA:
Notably, none of the runner-up interventions demonstrated statistically significant efficacy.
The authors acknowledge methodological limitations in the included studies:
“Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) exhibited notable concerns, as blinding for active treatment was not applicable in most studies.”
Such limitations are common in behavioral intervention trials, but they further increase uncertainty in already small evidence networks.
Conclusions:
The study ultimately concludes:
“This network meta-analysis supports MBT and BPT as effective non-pharmacological treatments for ADHD.”
However, the evidence underlying these claims is limited. Some analyses rely on very small numbers of studies and participants, and the network structure depends heavily on indirect comparisons.
Network meta-analysis can be a powerful tool when applied to a large, consistent, and well-connected body of evidence. When the evidence base is sparse, however, the resulting rankings and comparisons may appear statistically sophisticated while resting on a fragile evidentiary foundation.
_logo%201.svg)
