How Quickly Does Strattera Show Results vs Adderall?
When it comes to treating anxiety and depression, finding the right medication is essential for effective symptom management. Two commonly prescribed options are SSRIs that help balance serotonin levels in the brain. While both medications are widely used, the choice often depends on individual response and side effect tolerance. Many patients compare Lexapro vs Zoloft to understand which might offer better relief with fewer adverse effects. Factors like age, medical history, and co-existing conditions play a crucial role in determining the ideal treatment. Always consult a healthcare provider to decide which option is best for your mental health journey.
Strattera is a non-stimulant medication that belongs to a class of drugs known as selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). Unlike stimulants, it does not directly increase dopamine activity in the brain. Instead, Strattera boosts levels of norepinephrine, a neurotransmitter that plays a role in attention, emotion, and impulse control. Because of this indirect mechanism, it generally takes longer for Strattera to start working.
Most patients do not feel immediate effects from Strattera. It usually takes about 1 to 2 weeks to begin noticing subtle improvements, with full therapeutic benefits often not experienced until 4 to 6 weeks after starting the medication. For some individuals, especially children, noticeable improvements in attention and behavior may not occur until after several dosage adjustments. Patience and consistent monitoring are key when initiating Strattera.
Adderall, on the other hand, is a stimulant composed of mixed amphetamine salts. It works primarily by increasing the levels of dopamine and norepinephrine in the brain. These neurotransmitters are crucial for regulating attention, alertness, and behavior. Because Adderall directly stimulates these pathways, it usually has a rapid onset of action.
Most patients feel the effects of Adderall within 30 to 60 minutes of taking a dose. The peak effect is typically seen in 2 to 3 hours, especially with immediate-release versions. Extended-release formulations, like Adderall XR, are designed to last longer, usually 8 to 12 hours, but the initial benefits are still noticeable quickly. This makes Adderall a preferred option for those who need fast relief from ADHD symptoms.
The most significant difference between Strattera and Adderall lies in how quickly they begin to work. Adderall provides immediate symptom relief, often within the first day of dosing. This fast action can be particularly helpful for school-aged children or adults with demanding schedules who need quick and predictable symptom control.
Strattera, by contrast, is more of a long-term management option. It's not meant for immediate symptom relief but for gradual improvement over weeks. This makes it better suited for individuals who may not tolerate stimulants well or those who have coexisting conditions like anxiety, which can be worsened by stimulant medications.
Clinical studies support these real-world experiences. Research shows that stimulant medications like Adderall are 70-80% effective in reducing core ADHD symptoms with rapid onset. In contrast, Strattera demonstrates effectiveness in about 60-70% of cases, but it takes several weeks to reach optimal benefit.
A study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry found that while Adderall began working within the first day, Strattera took an average of 4 weeks to produce clinically meaningful results. This delay can be a drawback for patients looking for fast improvement but is acceptable for those prioritizing non-stimulant options due to side effect concerns.
Speed of onset is not the only factor in choosing between Strattera and Adderall. The side effect profiles differ significantly. Adderall, while fast-acting, can cause side effects such as insomnia, appetite suppression, increased heart rate, and anxiety. It also carries a potential for misuse and dependence due to its stimulant nature.
Strattera is generally less likely to be abused and is not classified as a controlled substance. It can, however, cause fatigue, nausea, dizziness, mood swings, and increased suicidal thoughts in rare cases, particularly in young people. Because of its slower onset, patients may feel discouraged if they don't experience quick benefits, but those who stick with the medication often report steady improvement without the highs and lows associated with stimulants.
The choice between Strattera and Adderall ultimately depends on individual patient needs, medical history, and treatment goals. Those who need immediate symptom control for school, work, or home life may find Adderall more effective in the short term. However, individuals who have a history of stimulant sensitivity, substance use concerns, or coexisting anxiety disorders may benefit more from Strattera's slower but steadier action.
In some cases, doctors may even recommend starting with Strattera and adding a short-acting stimulant during the early phase to bridge the gap until Strattera becomes fully effective. Others may switch medications entirely if the chosen one does not yield the desired results within a reasonable time.
Understanding the onset of action between Strattera and Adderall is crucial for setting realistic expectations. While Adderall offers quick relief, it comes with a higher risk of side effects and dependency. Strattera requires patience, but it can be a safer long-term solution for some individuals. Consulting with a healthcare provider can help determine the best approach based on personal health history, lifestyle, and treatment response.
TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Cake Recall Update as FDA Sets Highest Concern Level for Multiple Products
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A recall of numerous cake products due to potential salmonella contamination has been issued the highest risk warning by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). King Cheesecake Company, Inc., based in Texas, issued a voluntary recall for six products on July 18 as pecans contained with the cakes may have been contaminated. The FDA later issued a Class I risk classification for the recall on August 7. Newsweek contacted King Cheesecake Company, Inc. for comment by email outside of regular working hours. Stock image. King Cheesecake Company, Inc. issued a voluntary recall for six products on July 18 due to potential salmonella contamination. Stock image. King Cheesecake Company, Inc. issued a voluntary recall for six products on July 18 due to potential salmonella contamination. Silas Stein/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Why It Matters A Class I risk classification represents "a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or exposure to, a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death," according to the FDA. Salmonella bacteria can cause gastrointestinal illness and fever called salmonellosis. Symptoms typically develop 12 to 72 hours after infection, and usually last between four and seven days. Typical symptoms include diarrhea, fever and abdominal cramps. People experiencing more severe infections may also suffer high fever, aches, headaches, lethargy, rashes and blood in their urine. Infections can become fatal on rare occasions, with about 450 people dying each year from salmonellosis, according to the FDA. The infection is particularly dangerous for young children, frail or elderly people, and those with weakened immune systems. What To Know The products affected by the recall include the following: Assorted Layer Cake Italian Layer Cake Carrot Layer Cake Tres Leches Cheesecake Hummingbird Layer Cake Chocolate Tres Leches Cheesecake The products were manufactured between June 20 and July 14. They were distributed to Alabama, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Illinois. What People Are Saying The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's guidance on salmonella: "In some people, the illness may be so severe that the patient is hospitalized. Salmonella infection may spread from the intestines to the bloodstream and then to other parts of the body." The FDA, on its website: "Children younger than five, the elderly, and people with weakened immune systems are more likely to have severe salmonellosis infections. "Wash the inside walls and shelves of the refrigerator, cutting boards and countertops, and utensils that may have contacted contaminated foods; then sanitize them with a solution of one tablespoon of chlorine bleach to one gallon of hot water; dry with a clean cloth or paper towel that has not been previously used. "People with pets should take special care to avoid cross-contamination when preparing their pet's food. Be sure to pick up and thoroughly wash food dishes as soon as pets are done eating, and prevent children, the elderly, and any other people with weak immune systems from handling or being exposed to the food or pets that have eaten potentially contaminated food." What Happens Next The recall is listed as ongoing, according to the FDA. Consumers who purchased the affected products should not consume them.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
A former FDA chief's ‘brilliant' move to test the agency's commitment to making America healthy
The former head of the US Food and Drug Administration is testing the Trump administration's commitment to 'Make America Healthy Again' with a challenge to crack down on some of the key ingredients in ultraprocessed foods. In a petition filed Wednesday, the former FDA commissioner, Dr. David Kessler, argued that the agency has the authority to declare that certain sweeteners, refined flours and other additives are not 'generally recognized as safe.' Removing that designation, known as GRAS, would force makers of ultraprocessed foods to remove products from the market and reformulate recipes — or try to prove that those ingredients are not harmful. It would be a sweeping change to the food industry and a significant shift in the Trump administration's MAHA strategy. So far, US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has relied on popular food brands to volunteer to remove artificial dyes and other additives from their products. 'Kessler has given the FDA a way to define the vast majority of ultra-processed foods. In doing so, he has handed RFK Jr a huge gift on the path to regulating these products. It's just what MAHA has asked for. I hope they take it seriously,' Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, said in an email. Kessler proposed that companies have 12 months to submit a petition to keep those food additives in their products and then go on to prove they are safe. 'It's a very appropriate, worthy step to shift the burden of proof where it belongs and have the industry meet that burden, or stop using the substances.' said Michael Taylor, a former FDA food regulator and current co-chair of the nonprofit STOP Foodborne Illness. 'It's using the GRAS tool to really drive a serious safety conversation.' HHS did not respond to a request for comment. Federal health officials announced last month that they are looking for input on how to define ultraprocessed foods, a first step in eventually setting up new regulations, which could take months to years to establish. Kessler's petition could put pressure on that ultimately lengthy timeline; the agency is required to respond to the request within 180 days. Kessler, a physician who served as FDA commissioner under presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush, and advised President Joe Biden during the Covid-19 pandemic, oversaw the agency when it began requiring nutrition labels on food products. He also spearheaded efforts for FDA to regulate tobacco in the 1990s and sees parallels to that fight. 'What was key in tobacco was finding the regulatory hook,' Kessler told CNN. 'It was about asking the right legal question that would frame the issue.' That has been the tricky part of setting up any regulatory standards for sugary and starchy foods, he said. The term ultra processed foods has resonated with the public, he said, but 'it's going to be hard to define, legally, what's in it.' But there is a pressing need to do that, he argues. The FDA allowed these ingredients under GRAS regulations four decades ago, and rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease have climbed in the years since, he wrote in his petition. The argument echoes Kennedy's own case for MAHA reforms to food policy. The petition focuses on refined flours and starches — which the body breaks down into sugars — that are subjected to food extrusion technology, including wheat, corn, tapioca, oat and potato flour. It also references refined sugars, including corn syrup, corn solids, dextrose, xylose, maltose, and high-fructose corn syrups. Finally, the petition targets any manufactured sugars, flours and starches that contain additives commonly used in today's ultraprocessed foods. Tackling the issue of too much sugar is a key to better health, experts CNN spoke with agree, but they say the real genius of Kessler's petition is his focus on additives. 'The food industry uses the emulsifiers, the stabilizers, the gels and the rest to make inexpensive, high volume, industrially processed foods,' said Christopher Gardner, director of nutrition studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center. 'If you take those tools away from industry it's not that foods will taste bad and icky,' Gardner said. 'They won't be as addictive, as flavorful, as tasty — and industry has made these foods as manipulatively flavorful and manipulatively tasty. That's the problem.' Several food and nutrition experts heralded Kessler's petition as a bold move that would, if enacted by FDA, reshape the food industry. 'This is an important proposal that is based on the true meaning of GRAS, which would exclude the majority of foods on our grocery shelves,' said leading nutrition researcher Dr. Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. The GRAS standard, created in 1958, was originally intended to narrowly apply to commonly used ingredients in the nation's food supply, such as oil, vinegar and baking soda. Manufacturers that used those products could rely on existing research to show their safety but are supposed to file GRAS petitions for newer ingredients like refined sugars. FDA updated its system in the late 1990s — amid a backlog of petitions for new additives — allowing companies to voluntarily notify the agency that they had determined their ingredients were generally safe. A 2022 analysis conducted by the Environmental Working Group found that nearly 99% of new chemicals used in food or food packaging since 2000 were green-lit for use not by the FDA but by the food and chemical industry. During that period, food manufacturers asked the FDA's permission to introduce a new substance only 10 times, according to the analysis. Barry Popkin, the W. R. Kenan, Jr. Distinguished Professor at the Gillings School of Global Public Health in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, called Kessler's petition 'a brilliant move.' 'Knowing the FDA like he does - he's put industry in a real bind,' Popkin said. 'They have to show that without a reasonable doubt that carbohydrates, along with additives, are healthy, and do not hurt health. And that's next to impossible. 'It's the strongest play a citizen can do to affect our food supply that I've ever seen.' But Kessler's proposed changes are likely to meet significant pushback from major food brands. Michael Taylor was FDA's deputy commissioner for foods in 2015 when the agency revoked the GRAS status of partially hydrogenated oils, or trans fats, citing extensive research about their links to risks of heart disease and stroke. The agency gave companies three years to comply and remove those oils from their products. But at that time, 'the handwriting was on the wall' for industry and many companies had already stopped using those trans fats, Taylor said. 'Obviously the substances that [Kessler] is describing, it's a lot of … highly processed, fine carbohydrates, and a lot of products.' The petition lands as Trump administration officials, led by Kennedy, prepare to release their second MAHA report. While the MAHA Commission's first dispatch in June singled out potential drivers of chronic illnesses in children — including ingredients in ultraprocessed foods — its second installment is expected to lay out proposed policy changes. The report is due by Tuesday.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Experts reveal the hidden health side effects of lash serums
Longer, darker lashes are having a moment. For those avoiding the risk or expense of lash extensions, serums can seem like a safer, more affordable option. But not all lash serums are created equal – and some come with hidden side-effects. The key difference lies in the ingredients. Some lash serums use conditioning agents like peptides or plant oils, while others contain powerful pharmaceutical ingredients originally developed for treating eye disease. In 2001, a new medication called bimatoprost was approved to treat glaucoma and ocular hypertension – two conditions involving pressure buildup inside the eye that can damage the optic nerve and cause vision loss. Unlike earlier treatments, bimatoprost worked well for patients who hadn't responded to other drugs, had fewer systemic side effects (effects on the whole body rather than just the eye) and required less frequent dosing than some other glaucoma drops. But doctors soon noticed something unexpected: their patients' eyelashes were growing longer, thicker and darker. Researchers still don't fully understand how bimatoprost stimulates lash growth, but it appears to extend the anagen phase – the active growth phase – of the lash life cycle. In 2008, the same drug (now marketed as Latisse) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the federal agency responsible for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of drugs and medical devices, to treat eyelash hypotrichosis, a condition where eyelashes are sparse or missing. It was initially prescribed for people who had lost their lashes due to chemotherapy, alopecia areata (an autoimmune disorder causing hair loss), or trichotillomania (a compulsive hair-pulling condition). Extensive research shows that bimatoprost is effective at making lashes longer, thicker and darker, with noticeable results after 16 weeks of daily use. But the results are temporary: once you stop using it, your lashes return to their natural growth cycle. Side-effects Bimatoprost belongs to a class of medications called prostaglandin analogues (PGAs), which have been widely used in eye care since the 1990s. Because of this, its side effects are well documented. When used for lash growth, bimatoprost can cause burning, redness, dryness and eye irritation. These usually go away when the product is stopped. But there are also more serious cosmetic changes to be aware of, including darkening of the skin on the eyelid, fat loss around the eyes, creating a hollow, sunken look, permanent iris darkening (the coloured part of the eye), unwanted hair growth where the serum spreads and, in rare cases, drooping of the upper eyelid, which may require surgery to correct. In the UK, bimatoprost remains a prescription-only medication. However, the boom in over-the-counter lash serums sold online and in shops has made similar products more accessible – and potentially more confusing. A recent investigation by the UK government found that almost one in four lash serums sold in the UK contain PGAs such as isopropyl cloprostenate. This chemical is not as well studied as bimatoprost, but case reports suggest it can cause skin darkening, dryness and hollowing of the eye area, sometimes after just a few weeks of use. In the US, the FDA issued warnings over a decade ago stating that any cosmetic product containing these ingredients and making growth claims should be treated as a drug, not a cosmetic. Consumers may be unaware they're using a pharmaceutical-mimicking ingredient. Sweden banned PGAs in lash serums in 2013. Canada prohibits them in all cosmetic products. Even if a product claims to be 'PGA-free,' check the ingredients list: anything ending in '-prost' is a red flag. 'Natural' or peptide-based alternatives Some lash serums use peptides, which may help strengthen lashes by boosting keratin or supporting follicle health. These are often combined with conditioning agents to reduce breakage. While seen as a gentler alternative to PGAs, most studies on peptides focus on scalp hair, not eyelashes, so evidence for lash growth is limited. Other serums rely on castor oil or plant-based extracts, but their effectiveness is largely anecdotal and not supported by robust science. There is no guaranteed, side-effect-free way to make lashes grow dramatically longer. Prescription lash serums like bimatoprost are proven to work – but they come with potential risks, especially with long-term use. Over-the-counter products may seem safer, but many contain hidden prostaglandin analogues buried deep in the ingredients list with similar side effects. Peptide and oil-based serums are less risky, but there's little strong evidence that they work. Our eyes are delicate and, unlike beauty trends, they're not replaceable. If you're thinking about enhancing your lashes, read the label, do your research and speak to an eye care professional. The price of longer lashes shouldn't be your eye health. Alison Ng is a Lecturer in Optometry and Vision Sciences at Cardiff University Byki Huntjens is an Honorary Senior Research Fellow in Optometry in the School of Health & Medical Sciences, City St George's at the University of London. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
