Based on the results and methodologies of published studies, this review concludes that NF for pediatric ADHD can be currently considered as "probably efficacious."

Objective Although combination pharmacotherapy is common in child/adolescent psychiatry, there has been little research evaluating it. We tested the value of adding risperidone to concurrent psychostimulant and parent training (PT) in behavior management for children with severe aggression Method We randomized 168 children age 6–12 years (mean 8.89 ±2.01) with severe physical aggression to a 9-week trial of PT, stimulant, and placebo (Basic treatment; n=84) or PT, stimulant, and risperidone (Augmented treatment; n=84). All had diagnoses of attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and either oppositional defiant (n= 124) or conduct disorder (n= 44). Children received psychostimulant (usually OROS methylphenidate) for 3 weeks, titrated for optimal effect, while parents received PT. If there was room for improvement at the end of Week 3, either placebo or risperidone was added. Assessments included parent ratings on the Nisonger Child Behavior Rating Form (NCBRF; Disruptive-Total subscale = Primary outcome) and Antisocial Behavior Scale (ABS); blinded clinicians rated change on the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale. Results Compared to Basic treatment (PT + stimulant[STIM][44.8±14.6 mg/day] + placebo [1.88±0.72]), Augmented treatment (PT + STIM[46.1±16.8 mg/day] + risperidone[1.65±0.75]) showed statistically significant improvement on the NCBRF Disruptive–Total subscale (treatment-by-time interaction p= 0.0016), the NCBRF Social Competence subscale (p= 0.0049), and ABS Reactive Aggression (p= 0.01). CGI scores were substantially improved for both groups but did not discriminate between treatments (CGI-I ≤ 2, 70% for Basic treatment vs. 79% for Augmented treatment). Prolactin elevations and gastrointestinal upset occurred more with Augmented; other adverse events differed modestly from Basic treatment; weight gain within the Augmented treatment group was minor. Conclusions Risperidone provided moderate but variable improvement in aggressive and other seriously disruptive child behavior when added to PT and optimized stimulant treatment. Clinical trial registration information—Treatment of Severe Childhood Aggression (The TOSCA Study); http://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT00796302.

Objective Impairments associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and noncompliance are prevalent in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, ADHD response to stimulants is well below rates in typically developing children, with frequent side effects. Group studies of treatments for noncompliance are rare in ASD. We examined individual and combined-effectiveness of atomoxetine (ATX) and parent training (PT) for ADHD symptoms and noncompliance. Method In a 3-site, 10-week, double-blind, 2×2 trial of ATX and PT, 128 children (ages 5–14) with ASD and ADHD symptoms were randomized to ATX, ATX+PT, placebo+PT, or placebo. ATX was adjusted to optimal dose (capped at 1.8 mg/kg/day) over 6 weeks and maintained for 4 additional weeks. Nine PT sessions were provided. Primary outcome measures were the parent-rated DSM ADHD symptoms on the Swanson, Nolan and Pelham (SNAP) scale and Home Situations Questionnaire (HSQ). Results On the SNAP, ATX, ATX+PT and placebo+PT were each superior to placebo (effect sizes 0.57–0.98), with p-values of 0.0005, 0.0004 and 0.025, respectively. For noncompliance, ATX and ATX+PT were superior to placebo (effect sizes 0.47–0.64; p values of .03 and .0028, respectively). ATX was associated with decreased appetite but otherwise well-tolerated. Conclusion Both ATX and PT resulted in significant improvement on ADHD symptoms while ATX (both alone and combined with PT) was associated with significant decreases on measures of noncompliance. ATX appears to have a better side effects profile than psychostimulants in the population with ASD.

The effect of artificial food colors (AFCs) on child behavior has been studied for more than 35 years, with accumulating evidence from imperfect studies. This article summarizes the history of this controversial topic and testimony to the 2011 Food and Drug Administration Food Advisory Committee convened to evaluate the current status of evidence regarding attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Features of ADHD relevant to understanding the AFC literature are explained: ADHD is a quantitative diagnosis, like hypertension, and some individuals near the threshold may be pushed over it by a small symptom increment. The chronicity and pervasiveness make caregiver ratings the most valid measure, albeit subjective. Flaws in many studies include nonstandardized diagnosis, questionable sample selection, imperfect blinding, and nonstandardized outcome measures. Recent data suggest a small but significant deleterious effect of AFCs on children's behavior that is not confined to those with diagnosable ADHD. AFCs appear to be more of a public health problem than an ADHD problem. AFCs are not a major cause of ADHD per se, but seem to affect children regardless of whether or not they have ADHD, and they may have an aggregated effect on classroom climate if most children in the class suffer a small behavioral decrement with additive or synergistic effects. Possible biological mechanisms with published evidence include the effects on nutrient levels, genetic vulnerability, and changes in electroencephalographic beta-band power. A table clarifying the Food and Drug Administration and international naming systems for AFCs, with cross-referencing, is provided.

Background/Objectives Preparing for a definitive randomized clinical trial (RCT) of neurofeedback for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), this pilot trial explored feasibility of a double-blind, sham-controlled design and adherence/palatability/relative effect of 2 vs. 3 treatments/week. Method Unmedicated 6-12 year-olds with DSM-IV ADHD were randomized to active NF vs. sham NF and to 2X vs. 3X/week treatment frequency. Frequency switch was allowed after treatment 24. Results In two school years 39 participants were recruited; 34 (87%) completed all 40 treatments. Child/parent guesses about assigned treatment were no better than chance. At treatment 24, 38% chose 2X/wk; 62% chose 3X/wk. Both active NF and sham yielded large pre-post improvement on parent ratings, but NF no more than sham. Conclusions Blinding appears to work and sham does not prevent recruitment/retention. Treatment frequency of 3X/wk seems preferred over 2X/wk and was as effective. A large double-blind RCT is feasible and necessary to test specific NF effectiveness.