NIH Public Access

Author Manuscript
J Dev Behav Pediatr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 June 1.
Published in final edited form as:
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2010 June ; 31(5): 369–375. doi:10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181e121ed.

Conditioned Placebo Dose Reduction: A new treatment in ADHD?

Adrian D. Sandler, MD,

Olson Huff Center, Mission Children’fs Hospital, Asheville NC
Corrine E. Glesne, PhD, and
Olson Huff Center, Mission Children’fs Hospital, Asheville NC
James W. Bodfish, PhD
Departments of Psychiatry & Pediatrics, Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Abstract
Objective—This study examined if pairing a placebo with stimulant medication produces a placebo
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

response that allows children with ADHD to be maintained on a lower dose of stimulant medication.
Primary aim was to determine the efficacy, side effects and acceptability of a novel conditioned
placebo dose reduction (CPDR) procedure.
Method—Participants included 99 children ages 6 to 12 years with ADHD. After an initial double-
blind dose finding to identify optimal dose of mixed amphetamine salts (MAS), subjects were
randomly assigned to one of three treatments of eight weeks duration: (a) CPDR condition (50%
Reduced Dose/Placebo– RD/P) or (b) a dose reduction only condition (Reduced Dose - RD) or (c)
a no reduction condition (Full Dose–FD). The innovative CPDR procedure involved daily pairing
of MAS dose with a visually distinctive placebo capsule administered in open label, with full
disclosure of placebo use to subjects and parents.
Results—70 children completed the study. There were no differences in subject retention among
the three groups. Most subjects in the RD/P group remained stable during the treatment phase,
whereas most in the RD group deteriorated. There was no difference in control of ADHD symptoms
between the RD/P group and the FD group, and both RD/P and FD groups showed better ADHD
control than the RD group. Treatment emergent side effects were lowest in the RD/P group.
Conclusion—Pairing placebos with stimulant medication elicits a placebo response that allows
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

children with ADHD to be effectively treated on 50% of their optimal stimulant dose.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent neurobehavioral

disorder in children, with prevalence estimates of 3–12%. Despite clear evidence of the
beneficial effects of stimulant therapy in the treatment of ADHD,1,2 there continue to be

Correspondence: Adrian D. Sandler, MD, Medical Director, Olson Huff Center, 11 Vanderbilt Park Drive, Asheville NC 28803. Tel
(828) 213-1780, FAX (828) 213-1785. [email protected].
Authors Contributions and Signatures
I declare that I participated in the design and implementation of the study. I had full access to all the data in the study and I had final
responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. I am the primary author of the manuscript and I have seen and approved the final
version. I have no conflicts of interest to report.
Adrian Sandler
I declare that I participated in the design and implementation of the study. I have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript.
I have no conflicts of interest to report.
Corrine Glesne
I declare that I participated in the design of the study and data analysis. I contributed to the manuscript and I have seen and approved the
final version. I have no conflicts of interest to report.
James Bodfish
 Sandler et al. Page 2

widespread concerns about over-utilization of stimulant therapy.3,4 Treatment-emergent side

effects are common 5,6 and their long-term significance is not fully known.4 Many parents
worry about short- and long-term side effects associated with stimulant therapy, and these
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

attitudinal factors contribute to non-adherence, premature stimulant discontinuation, and

consequently increasing morbidity. For these reasons, parents and professionals are united in
the desire to treat children with the lowest effective doses. 1,7

Strong placebo effects have been shown in clinical trials of treatments for several psychiatric
disorders, including depression, anxiety disorders and autism.8,9 Placebo response rates in
depression appear to be even higher in pediatric samples than in adult samples.10 Similarly,
high placebo response rates have been found in children with ADHD.4,11 Previous clinical
trials of stimulants show 30% of children with ADHD are clinical responders to placebo in
double-blind trials.2,11,12

There are no previous studies of open-label placebo in children. Brown (1994) proposed the
ethical use of open-label placebo as treatment for mild depression in adults.13 That paper
included some discussion about the extent to which placebo treatment may be ineffective if
both clinician and patient know the placebo is pharmacologically inactive. Only one published
study has examined the impact of patient’s knowledge of the placebo’s true nature, suggesting
that such knowledge did not preclude the possibility of beneficial response.14
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Several studies have suggested that placebo effects may in part represent conditioning
phenomena and that learning processes may influence the response to placebo.15–17 In classical
(Pavlovian) conditioning, biologically neutral events associated with the administration of
pharmacologic agents can become conditioned stimuli capable of producing responses similar
to those produced by the active drugs. In behavioral terms, the pharmacological effect of a drug
is the unconditioned stimulus. The environmental or behavioral stimuli that are associated with
the administration of the drug the bottle, the distinctive taste and appearance of the pill– are
the conditioned stimuli. Repeated association of conditioned and unconditioned stimuli
eventually enables the conditioned stimuli to elicit a physiological or behavioral response that
is similar to the drug response.

The purpose of this proof-of-concept study was to determine if pairing a placebo with stimulant
medication produces a placebo response that allows children with ADHD to be treated
effectively with a lower dose of stimulant medication. Primary aim was to determine the
efficacy, side effects and acceptability of a novel conditioned placebo dose reduction (CPDR)
treatment. We hypothesized that (1) stimulant dose reduction plus CPDR will produce a
significantly smaller exacerbation of ADHD symptoms than will stimulant dose reduction, and
(2) that stimulant dose reduction plus CPDR treatment will produce a reduction in stimulant-
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

related side effects.

METHODS
Sample
The Olson Huff Center is a regional hospital-based multidisciplinary evaluation and treatment
center serving children with developmental and behavioral problems in Asheville, NC. The
most prevalent diagnosis among children seen is ADHD. The prevalence of common comorbid
conditions such as anxiety disorders, depression, and specific learning disability among
children with ADHD seen at the Huff Center is similar to general child psychiatric clinics.

Our estimated sample size projection (N = 80) was based on a power analysis and on our
previous pilot study.18 Children with a diagnosis of ADHD were recruited by screening the
records of current Huff Center patients. Parents were contacted to describe the study and those

J Dev Behav Pediatr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 June 1.

 Sandler et al. Page 3

who expressed interest came with their child to an enrollment visit that included detailed
description of the study, informed consent for parents, and child assent. Children who were
enrolled following screening, recruitment, and informed consent/assent then proceeded to the
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

diagnostic assessment phase of the study to confirm their ADHD diagnosis, comorbid
conditions, and eligibility based on formal assessment of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The
research protocol was aproved by Mission Hospitals’ Institutional Review Board.

Inclusion criteria were: (1) between ages 6 and 12 years (grades KG-6), (2) diagnosed ADHD,
(3) in residence with same primary caregivers for the last 6 months or longer. Exclusion criteria
were: (1) major neurological or medical illness, e.g., epilepsy, cerebral palsy (2) suspected
mental retardation or IQ below 80, (3) diagnosis of psychosis, bipolar disorder or autism
spectrum disorder (4) history of intolerance to several stimulant medications, and (5) current
use of psychotropic medications other than stimulants.

The diagnosis of ADHD was validated for each child using medical examination and the
Diagnostic Interview Schedules for Children (DISC) Predictive Scales– parent report version
(version 3.0) prior to each child’s entry into the study. Medical examination included careful
review of records, history, physical and neurological examination, consistent with recent
published clinical guidelines.19 The Vanderbilt Parent and Teacher Rating Scales (described
below) were obtained to assist in the diagnostic process and to quantify severity of ADHD
symptoms and impairment at the time of the diagnostic assessment. Also, the DISC (described
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

below) was used to identify the presence of comorbid conditions (e.g. oppositional defiant
disorder, conduct disorder, depression, anxiety disorders), that were included in post-hoc
analyses of child factors related to treatment response.

Ninety nine subjects were enrolled, and 70 completed the study. All subject met DSM-IV
criteria for ADHD. Sample demographics are included in Table 1. The sample was
representative of the pediatric clinic population from which it was drawn. Most of the children
were white, and 68% were male. Average parent educational level was high school graduation.
As in most clinical samples of children with ADHD, the sample had a high prevalence of other
mental health symptoms based on DISC, including oppositional behavior, depressed mood and
anxiety.

Procedures
First, a one-month dose finding procedure (randomized, double-blind, crossover design than
included washout, placebo, low dose, and high dose conditions of one week each) determined
the most effective dose of stimulant medication for each participant. ADHD symptoms and
medication side effects were measured three times each week using the IOWA Conners parent
and teacher rating scales and the Pittsburgh Side Effects Rating Scale (PSERS). Low dose was
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

0.3 mg/kg/day extended-release mixed amphetamine salts (MAS-XR) and high dose was 0.6
mg/kg/day MAS-XR. The order of treatment conditions was randomized. For the entire group,
parent-reported ADHD symptom severity (IOWA-P) was lowest during the high dose week
relative to the low dose week and the placebo week (F (2, 172) = 3.06, p = .001). There were
no significant differences between the three dose conditions (high, low, placebo) on parent-
reported severity of side effects (p > .05); there was a trend for higher reported severity of side
effects at high dose conditions. Optimal dose (lowest ADHD symptoms rating and lowest side
effects rating) was determined for each participant; for 65% of the participants optimal response
was during the high dose week, for 26% of the participants optimal response was during the
low dose week, for 3% of the participants optimal response was during the placebo week, and
6% of the participants showed an equivocal pattern of response across the weeks. Six children
who experienced treatment-limiting side effects at both doses or who were unable to complete
the dose finding phase successfully were excluded from further participation in the study and
referred for clinic management.

J Dev Behav Pediatr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 June 1.

 Sandler et al. Page 4

Next, 93 subjects who completed the dose finding procedure were randomly assigned to one
of three open-label groups (see table 1). The groups did not differ significantly in terms of
demographic factors (age, gender, maternal education level) or clinical factors (parent or
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

teacher rated severity of ADHD symptoms) at the baseline point prior to randomization for the
dose reduction phase (all p’s > 0.05). Twenty three subjects (24.7% of the 93 subjects
randomized) did not complete the study (9/31 [29%] in FD group, 6/29 [21%] in RD group,
and 8/33 [24%] in RD/P group), with no differences in % of subjects who did not complete
among the three groups.

We attempted to interview each of the 29 non-completer’s parents to determine the reasons for
withdrawal. Most responded, and some gave more than one reason. Their responses can be
grouped into 4 main categories:
• Satisfaction with current ADHD treatment, not wanting to change (8 provided this
reason)
• Behavioral or school problems during the washout week and/or placebo week of Dose
Finding (3 provided this reason)
• Emergent side effects and/or perceived lack of effectiveness of Adderall (9 provided
this reason)
• Other reason, no reason given or lost to follow-up (12 subjects)
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

The control group (n=22) took their full, most effective dose of medication for two months
(Full Dose group– FD). The comparison group (n=23) took their most effective dose for one
month and then took 50% of that dose for the second month (Reduced Dose group– RD). The
experimental group (n=25) had the conditioned placebo dose reduction (CPDR) procedure.
They took their most effective dose for the first month plus an additional visually distinctive
capsule—the placebo—and then took 50% of that dose for the second month along with the
placebo (Reduced Dose plus Placebo group– RD/P). Parent rating scales were obtained three
times each week and teacher rating scales twice each week to monitor ADHD symptoms and
side effects.

Open-Label Placebo and Developmental Scripts

A deliberate effort to condition a response to placebo was made by pairing placebo with
stimulant medication, based on methods described by Suchman and Ader.20 It is important to
note that the CPDR procedure used an ethical “open label” (not blind) method of treatment
delivery. Placebos were administered with full disclosure, i.e., children and parents were told
explicitly at the beginning of the study that the inert capsule was a placebo that contained no
active pharmaceutical ingredients. Also, they were told the study was designed to determine
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

if the procedure was effective. In keeping with a proof of concept study, we were neutral
regarding the likelihood of success. Positive expectancy was maintained, however, by referring
to the placebo both as a placebo and as a Dose Extender. If either the child or parent raised
questions about possible mechanisms of placebo effects, we briefly discussed possibilities of
mind-body interactions, expectancy and conditioning (described as “a kind of learning”).
During the discussion, prompts were given to solicit questions from parents regarding the
placebo, and parents’ questions were noted in order to infer their understanding of and attitudes
towards placebo use. Children randomized to the RD/P group had an additional discussion of
the placebo with the study physician, during which the green and white placebo capsule was
shown to the children and explained. To standardize the discussion about the placebo, scripts
were developed and pilot tested on children of different ages. The scripts were developmental,
i.e., there were different scripts for children of ages 6–7 years, 8–9 years, and 10–12 years.
Further details of the qualitative aspects of this research are included elsewhere.21

J Dev Behav Pediatr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 June 1.

 Sandler et al. Page 5

Measures
Responses to the medications were determined through quantitative analysis of several
measures completed by parents (IOWA Conners-Parent Version, Pittsburgh Side Effects
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Rating Scale) three times each week and measures completed by the child’s teacher (IOWA
Conners-Parent Version, Pittsburgh Side Effects Rating Scale) twice each week. The parent-
completed measures were not blind and were therefore subject to bias. In addition, an objective
measure of attention was obtained on each subject at baseline, at week 4 and at week 8 using
a computer task (Conners Continuous Performance Test II).

Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children–parent version (DISC)—The DISC is

a standardized, structured clinical interview to identify psychiatric disorders in children.
Parents were used as informants. The DISC screens for DSM-IV based diagnosis of childhood
disorders.

Inattention/Overactivity With Aggression (IOWA) Conners Rating scale (parent

& teacher versions)—The IOWA Conners scale is a standardized rating scale widely used
in treatment studies of ADHD. The overall score for both the Parent and Teacher versions were
used as the outcome measure.

NICHQ Vanderbilt Parent and Teacher Assessment Scales—These rating scales

have been validated in studies of ADHD. The scale includes all DSM-IV ADHD items and a
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

measure of overall impairment. In addition, the Vanderbilt scales include factors of conduct
problems, anxiety and depression, making them especially helpful as part of the diagnostic
assessment of study subjects.

Pittsburgh Side Effects Rating Scale (PSERS)—The PSERS is a standardized parent-

completed stimulant side effect rating scale used in drug treatment research with children with
ADHD. The PSERS measures the presence/absence and severity of 13 potential side effects
(tics, tongue movements, skin picking, anxious, sleepy, headache, stomach ache, irritable, cries
easily, appetite loss, tremor, nausea, difficulty sleeping).

Conners Continuous Performance Test (CPT)—The CPT is a standard measure of

sustained attention performance used in drug treatment studies for children with ADHD. The
Conners CPT is a computerized task in which letters are presented on a computer screen, and
the subjected is instructed to respond (pressing the space bar) quickly after a letter is presented,
unless the letter is an “X”. There are normative data as young as 6 years of age. The primary
outcome measures include a series of age-based scores that are related to reaction times,
omission errors, commission errors, and variability.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

RESULTS
ADHD symptom severity (IOWA)
For parent-reported symptom severity (IOWA-P) the RD group showed a pattern of increased
symptom severity over time relative to the FD and RD/P groups who showed little change in
symptom severity over time (F (14, 166) = 2.89, p = 0.0004). The RD group differed from the
other groups at the first through fourth weeks after dose reduction (weeks 5, 6, 7 and 8) (all
p’s < .01). The effect size (d) at week 8 for the comparison of the RD/P and the RD groups
was 1.27, and for the comparison of the FD and the RD groups was 1.10. The RD/P group
showed a pattern of symptom severity over time similar to the FD group at all weeks (all p’s
> .10). For teacher-reported severity (IOWA-T), there were no significant differences between
the three groups at any time point (all p’s > .10).

J Dev Behav Pediatr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 June 1.

 Sandler et al. Page 6

Continuous performance test (CPT)

There was a marginally significant decrease in overall attentional performance (CPT T score)
from baseline to post-test (week 8) for the FD group relative to the RD group and the RD/P
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

group (F(2, 60) = 2.59, p = .08). The RD/P group showed a pattern of maintained attentional
performance (i.e. no change in performance from baseline to post-test at week 8) (p > .10).

Side effects (PSERS)

For parent reported medication side effects (PSERS) the RD group showed a pattern of
increased reported side effect severity over time relative to the FD and RD/P (F(14, 252) =
2.67, p = .006). The RD group differed from the other groups at the second and third weeks
after dose reduction (weeks 6,7). The effect size (d) at week 7 for the comparison of the RD/
P and the RD groups was 1.03, and for the comparison of the FD and the RD groups was 0.99.
The RD group showed an average increase in reported side effect severity from week 1 to week
7 (p < .001) and the RD/P group showed an average decrease in reported side effect severity
over this time period (p < .01).

Based on a comparison of week 1 and week 8 (% change) parent IOWA ratings, most subjects
in the RD/P group remained stable during the treatment phase. ADHD symptoms showed a
25% or greater improvement in 36% of subjects in the RD/P group and in 20% of subjects in
the FD group during the course of treatment. In contrast, most in the RD group deteriorated
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

(none showed 25% or greater improvement).

CONCLUSIONS
As expected, reducing the dose by 50 % in the RD group led to clinically significant
deterioration in ADHD control. In contrast, children with RD/P group maintained effective
ADHD symptom control based on parent IOWA ratings during the four-week period after dose
reduction. Control of ADHD symptoms was no different in this group than in the FD group.
Parents and children were generally accepting of the treatment. The majority of parents reported
treatment benefits and expressed supportive attitudes towards the CPDR treatment.21 A
majority of the children found the placebo to be useful. An additional provocative finding is
that disclosing the true nature of the placebo did not appear to negate the placebo’s
effectiveness.

Although poor ADHD control during washout and Dose Finding contributed to
discontinuation, treatment acceptability related to the placebo dose reduction was not cited as
a reason for discontinuation. Only one subject discontinued because the child did not wish to
swallow an additional placebo. Our published data on the qualitative aspects of the study show
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

that the placebo dose reduction treatment had a high level of acceptability to children and their
parents.21

A comparison of retention of subjects in recent ADHD clinical trials shows that our rate of
attrition (approximately 25%) is similar or lower than most. For example, in a recent trial of
extended-release guanfacine, 113 of 324 (35%) did not complete the study.22

Unlike parents, teachers were blind to treatment status of subjects. Teacher ratings failed to
show improvement in ADHD symptom control. This may indicate that parent responses were
biased by expectancy. However, we had much more difficulty obtaining responses from
teachers, limiting our ability to detect real differences. Our results are consistent with Pliszka
et al,23 who reported larger placebo effect on parents’ ratings than on teachers’ ratings.

We hypothesized that CPDR would lead to decreased stimulant-related side effects. We found
this to be partially true, in that the side effect rate remained low during dose reduction in the

J Dev Behav Pediatr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 June 1.

 Sandler et al. Page 7

RD/P group. In contrast, side effects increased significantly in the RD group. This was a
surprising finding, best explained by the global deterioration in these children as their ADHD
became poorly controlled. Indeed, some of the items of the PSERS (sad, tearful; stomach ache;
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

tired, sleepy) may be more indicative of uncontrolled ADHD itself than stimulant side effects.

Placebo effects in ADHD clinical trials are usually measured as changes in rating scales of
behavior. The effects on objective measures of behavior are not well established. For this
reason, we were eager to determine if CPDR would allow children with ADHD to maintain
their performance on a CPT. We found that CPT performance in the three groups were not
significantly different at baseline or at post-test. There was a trend for the children in the FD
group to show deterioration in CPT performance. This was unexpected, but may reflect the
fact that research visits were in the mid-afternoon so as not to interfere with school, and subjects
were likely to have done their CPTs at a time when they were “coming off” their dose of
stimulant. Rebound effects, irritability and poor CPT performance would be more likely to
occur in subjects on higher doses of stimulant medication. It is also possible that the higher
doses of stimulant needed for behavioral control impaired cognitive performance.

Research in placebo effects suggests several mechanisms.9 Recent evidence implicates

neurochemical and neurophysiological changes due to placebo.24, 25 Positive expectancy –the
expectation of treatment benefit leading to behavioral change– has been shown to contribute
to stimulant effects,26 although studies using balanced placebo designs have shown a lack of
expectancy effects among boys with ADHD treated with stimulants.27, 28 Participation in
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

clinical research may itself be therapeutic.29 Changes in caregiver behavior may be an

important participation effect that is especially relevant to treatment of children with
developmental disorders.30

Our study does not help to answer important questions about mechanisms of placebo effects.
We recognized that establishing both potential conditioned effects (by pairing the placebo with
100% stimulant dose) and potential expectancy effects (describing the placebo as a “dose
extender”) negated the possibility that we can determine which of these mechanisms
contributed to the resultant effects of the CPDR procedure. However, the primary purpose of
this study was proof of a novel treatment concept and preliminary evidence of efficacy. Since
a demonstration of efficacy must precede examination of mechanism, we designed our
procedure accordingly.

One might consider whether merely a discussion with the parent about the potential benefits
of a reduced dosage of the medication would have accomplished the same thing as the use of
a placebo. Clinical experience suggests otherwise. Efforts to decrease doses of stimulants very
often lead to symptom relapse, even when the parent wants to have the child on a low dose.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Moreover, the RD group did poorly, with marked deterioration in ADHD control, despite their
parents’ desire to have their children treated with lower doses of stimulant. This suggests that
the addition of the open-label placebo was a critical element in the effectiveness of the
conditioned placebo dose reduction treatment.

As progress is made in understanding mechanisms of placebo effects, we should remain open

to ethical innovative uses of placebo effects that complement established therapeutic
approaches. Children with ADHD may be a group of patients who could benefit greatly from
such novel treatments.

Acknowledgments
The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, Grant number R21 MH068146.

Role of the Funding Source

J Dev Behav Pediatr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 June 1.

 Sandler et al. Page 8

The NIMH funded this study and had no involvement in any aspects of the study or this paper.

References
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

1. American Academy of Pediatrics. Clinical practice guideline: treatment of the school-aged child with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics 2001;108:1033–1044. [PubMed: 11581465]
2. MTA Cooperative Group. Moderators and mediators of treatment response for children with attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder: the multimodal treatment study of children with ADHD. Arch Gen
Psychiatry 1999;56:1088–1096. [PubMed: 10591284]
3. Safer DJ, Zito JM, Fine EM. Increased methylphenidate usage for attention deficit disorder in the
1990s. Pediatrics 1996;98:1084–1088. [PubMed: 8951257]
4. Whalen, CK.; Henker, B. Stimulant pharmacotherapy for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders: an
analysis of progress, problems, and prospects. In: Fisher, S.; Greenberg, RP., editors. From Placebo
to Panacea: Putting psychiatric drugs to the test. New York, NY: Wiley; 1997. p. 323-356.
5. Zametkin AJ, Ernst M. Problems in the management of ADHD. New Engl J Med 1999;340:40–42.
[PubMed: 9878644]
6. Barkley RA, McMurray MB, Edelbrock CS, Robbins K. Side effects of methylphenidate in children
with ADHD: a systemic, placebo-controlled evaluation. Pediatrics 1990;86:184–192. [PubMed:
2196520]
7. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Practice parameter for the use of stimulant
medications in the treatment of children, adolescents and adults. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry
2002;41:26S–49S. [PubMed: 11833633]
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

8. Khan A, Kolts RL, Rapaport MH, Krishnan KRR, Brodhead AE, Brown WA. Magnitude of placebo
response and drug-placebo differences across psychiatric disorders. Psychol Med 2005;35:743–749.
[PubMed: 15918351]
9. Sandler AD. Placebo effects in developmental disabilities: implications for research and practice. Ment
Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2005;11:164–170. [PubMed: 15977316]
10. Birmaher B, Brent DA. Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and
adolescents with depressive disorders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatr 2007;46:1503–1526.
11. Swanson, JM.; McBurnett, K.; Christian, DL.; Wigal, T. Stimulant medications and the treatment of
children with ADHD. In: Ollendick, TH.; Prinz, RJ., editors. Advances in Clinical Child Psychology.
New York: Plenum Press; 1995. p. 265-322.
12. Schachar RJ, Tannock R, Cunningham C, Corkum PV. Behavioral, situational, and temporal effects
of treatment of ADHD with methylphenidate. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1997;36:754–
763. [PubMed: 9183129]
13. Brown WA. Placebo as a treatment for depression. Neuropsychopharmacology 1994;10:287–288.
14. Park LC, Covi L. Nonblind placebo trial: an exploration of neurotic patients’ responses to placebo
when its inert content is disclosed. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1965;12:336–345.
15. Wickramasekera I. A conditioned response model of the placebo. Biofeedback and Self-Regulation
1980;5:5–18. [PubMed: 7370359]
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

16. Ader R. The placebo effect: if it’s all in your head, does that mean you only think you feel better?
Advances in Mind-Body Medicine 2000;16:7–11. [PubMed: 10713997]
17. Ader R. Much ado about nothing. Advances in Mind-Body Medicine 2001;17:293–295. [PubMed:
11931053]
18. Sandler AD, Bodfish JW. Open-label use of placebos in the treatment of ADHD: A pilot study. Child
Care Health Dev 2008;34:104–110. [PubMed: 18171451]
19. American Academy of Pediatrics. Clinical practice guideline: Diagnosis and evaluation of the child
with ADHD. Pediatrics 2000;105:1158–1170. [PubMed: 10836893]
20. Suchman A, Ader R. Classic conditioning and placebo effects in crossover studies. Clin Pharmacol
Ther 1992;52:372–377. [PubMed: 1424409]
21. Sandler AD, Glesne CE, Geller G. Children’s and parents’ perspectives on open-label use of placebos
in the treatment of ADHD. Child Care Health Dev 2008;34:111–120. [PubMed: 18171452]

J Dev Behav Pediatr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 June 1.

 Sandler et al. Page 9

22. Sallee FR, McGough J, Wigal T, et al. Guanfacine extended release in children and adolescents with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a placebo-controlled trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc
Psychiatry 2009;48:155–165. [PubMed: 19106767]
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

23. Pliszka SR, Browne RG, Olvera RL, Wynne SK. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of Adderall
and methylphenidate in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child
Adolesc Psychiatry 2000;39:619–626. [PubMed: 10802980]
24. Mayberg HS, Silva JA, Brannan SK, et al. The functional neuroanatomy of the placebo effect. Am J
Psychiatry 2002;159:728–737. [PubMed: 11986125]
25. Hunter AM, Leuchter AF, Morgan ML, Cook IA. Changes in brain function (quantitative EEG
concordance) during placebo lead-in and treatment outcomes in clinical trials for major depression.
Am J Psychiatry 2006;163:1426–1432. [PubMed: 16877657]
26. Volkow N, Wang G, Ma Y, et al. Expectation enhances the regional brain metabolic and the
reinforcing effects of stimulants in cocaine abusers. Neurosci 2003;23:11461–11468.
27. Pelham WE, Hoza B, Pillow DR, et al. Effects of methylphenidate and expectancy on children with
ADHD: behavior, academic performance, and attributions in a summer treatment program and
regular classroom settings. J Consult Clin Psychol 2002;70:320–335. [PubMed: 11952190]
28. Waschbusch DA, Pelham WE, Waxmonsky J, Johnston C. Are there placebo effects in the medication
treatment of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder? J Dev Behav Pediatr
2009;30:158–168. [PubMed: 19363369]
29. Horwitz RI, Horwitz SM. Adherence to treatment and health outcomes. Arch Intern Med
1993;153:1863–1868. [PubMed: 8250647]
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

30. Sandler AD, Bodfish JW. Placebo effects in autism: lessons from secretin. J Dev Behav Pediatr
2000;21:347–350. [PubMed: 11064962]
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

J Dev Behav Pediatr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 June 1.

 Sandler et al. Page 10
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Mean (and 95% confidence interval) parent-reported severity of ADHD symptoms (IOWA-P)
for each group over the 8 week treatment period. Green represents the Reduced Dose (RD)
group; red represents the Full Dose (FD) group; blue represents the Reduced Dose plus Placebo
(RD/P) group. Note that for the RD and RD/P groups, dose reduction was begun between week
4 and week 5.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

J Dev Behav Pediatr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 June 1.

 Sandler et al. Page 11
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Figure 2.
Mean (and 95% confidence interval) parent-reported severity of side effects (PSERS) for each
group over the 8 week treatment period. Green represents the Reduced Dose (RD) group; red
represents the Full Dose (FD) group; blue represents the Reduced Dose plus Placebo (RD/P)
group. Note that for the RD and RD/P groups, dose reduction was begun between week 4 and
week 5.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

J Dev Behav Pediatr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 June 1.

 Sandler et al. Page 12

TABLE 1
Subject Disposition, and Demographic and Clinical Description for the Three Groups at Baseline
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Subjects assessed as eligible 137

Withdrew before starting study 38
Subjects entering Dose Finding 99
Withdrew during Dose Finding 6
Subjects completing Dose Finding 93
Randomized 93
Completed 70

Full Dose (FD) (n = 31) Reduced Dose (RD) (n = 29) Reduced Dose/Placebo (RD/P) (n = 33)

Age, years
 Mean (SD) 9.6 (1.8) 9.7 (1.9) 9.6 (1.8)
Sex, boys, n (%) 21 (68) 20 (69) 22 (67)
Race, white, n (%) 29 (94) 27 (93) 31 (94)
Primary diagnosis
 ADHD-C, n (%) 20 (63) 18 (62) 21 (64)
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

 ADHD-I, n (%) 11 (37) 11 (38) 12 (36)

Comorbid diagnosis*
 ODD, n (%) 12 (39) 13 (45) 11 (33)
 CD, n (%) 3 (10) 2 (7) 3 (9)
 DEPR, n (%) 12 (39) 10 (34) 13 (39)
 GAD, n (%) 7 (23) 5 (17) 7 (21)
Discontinued, n 9 6 8
Completed, n 22 23 25

Note: p > .05 for all comparisons. ADHD-C = ADHD (combined type); ADHD-I = ADHD (inattentive type); ODD = oppositional defiant disorder;
CD = conduct disorder; DEPR = depression; GAD = generalized anxiety disorder
*
denotes likelihood of comorbid diagnosis based on screening with DISC– Parent Version
NIH-PA Author Manuscript

J Dev Behav Pediatr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 June 1.